To be honest, I can see all films in the future going straight to home release. I feel like a lot of people just don't have the time or money to go to the cinema much anymore, and with so many more films being made they're likely to want to watch more than one or two. Plus, it's just more convenient to watch films at home, since you can pause it to go to the toilet or get more snacks/drinks or whatever. And if you're watching with multiple people, you only have to buy/rent the films once instead of buying multiple tickets.
Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
Meh, I'm just less inclined towards a theater experience. I make my own popcorn, watch what I want, pause what I want, and stop the film if I want. I don't need a big screen, I despise 4k or whatever gimmick is being sold, and will just as easily watch VHS as a DVD or streaming.
In short, I prefer choices to the theaters. So, I can see home release appealing for that reason. Though, that argument has been made since VHS was invented so nothing new under the sun, etc, etc.
Yeah, the trick is to convince the older generation. But that's not easy, because more often than not, they simply don't want the hassle of using a streaming service. Thankfully I have a roku device, otherwise we probably wouldn't be streaming in this household. My parents don't like personally handling streaming services, which they personally find confusing. They're perfectly content just using cable and a DVR.
I'm happy with Paramount Plus and Hulu. I had HBO, but when it went to Max, i never switched and then a payment bounced and it just went away lmao.
I probably still torrent older shows more than any of them.
I probably still torrent older shows more than any of them.
I'll be honest, as I get older, the theatre is starting to lose its appeal. Mostly because my bladder doesn't respond too well to the theatre's lack of a pause button.
Same with mine. Eventually, the cable generation will die, sports will be mostly on streaming or OTA, and then the media companies will panic. Of course, then the older execs will retire leaving the younger generation with the bag.
That's because customers had streaming options like Netflix, Paramount+, Disney+, et al. But as those alternatives die out themselves, customers would have to take some sort of bundled service because it would be the only game left -- provided, of course, that the studios don't go the David Zaslav model and just burn the industry down in favor of the hyper-juggernatu/micro-budget niche model.
This will never sustain a healthy entertainment ecosystem. A-la-carte is a recipe for an ecosystem where the only things that get produced are either juggernauts or micro-budget niche films. It will never sustain mid-budget/middling-audience programs like Star Trek.
You want mid-tier stuff? Then everyone's gotta subsidize it a bit.
Microbudget will survive under a-la-carte, because the costs will be low enough that ROI will be sustainable.
Mid-tier stuff won't be economically sustainable under a-la-carte. It can't be done well on a microbduget, but it won't be popular enough to get as large of a budget as the material requires without people who aren't fans to subsidize it. Most people will just support the hyper-popular, stuff, your Stranger Things type shows, and mid-tier stuff like Star Trek will die out.
We'll see soon enough, the Streaming Wars is starting to leave bodies in the wake.
People are going to get tired of "Streaming" and "Cord Cut" as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_la_carte_pay_television
American Media Conglomorates are fighting "Tooth & Nail" against the A La Carte model.
But other countries already have it, it's only a matter of time before it rolls out world wide where people pay for ONLY what they want to watch.
There's no reason for a "Non-Sports" watching house-hold to ever pay for any sports channels or streams.
Same with those who watch any who don't watch the big Franchises.
I have faith that big Franchises like Star Trek & Star Wars will do just fine in that new world.
Entirely anecdotal, but I've made a 40yo co-worker into a Trekkie.
And ever been on Tumblr? Thousands of queer young Trekkies on there who loved Discovery and disliked Picard season 3 intensely.
It's a shame Paramount might be burying it's award winning deliberate attempt to assimilate kids into Trekdom.
40 years old is a kid?
A number of 40 year olds do act like children.
The theater we frequent also has bowling, arcade games, a decently stocked bar, stepped-up food service, kids' party accomodations, etc. Since we tend to do the early "matinee" show on weekends there aren't many people anyway, but when we're on our way out there are significantly more folks there.
I don't see streaming going away any time soon, and I'll go ahead and predict that the theater chains that can adapt will survive.
At least I hope so, as I've just retired and it's an easy and relatively cheap day out.
I don't see streaming going away any time soon, and I'll go ahead and predict that the theater chains that can adapt will survive.
At least I hope so, as I've just retired and it's an easy and relatively cheap day out.
I agree with you that big franchises like Star Wars, Marvel, etc will do just fine.
But the thing to remember is that Star Trek is not a big franchise on that scale. Star Trek has never been able to reliably cultivate an audience on the scale of your Star Warses and your Marvels. Star Trek has always been a mid-tier property in terms of audience; it's been relatively steady over its lifespan, but it's never been on the scale of something like Stranger Things. It's a mid-tier property, and I am particularly concerned about the survival of mid-tier properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises
While Star Wars is bigger in total Revenue: $51.8 billion
Star Trek is doing fine in total Revenue: $10.7 billion
If you're not even breaking the $1 Billion dollar mark, then your franchise should be worried.
1) That means Star Wars is five times bigger than Star Trek in spite of having had 11 fewer years to make money than Star Trek. In other words, they're not in the same league.
2) Highest-grossing in this context doesn't just mean TV revenue and box office -- it includes retail and home video sales. That's fine, but retail and home video is not what keeps a TV show afloat. TV shows are kept afloat as a function of audience size leading to revenue. Also, this is, again, lifetime grosses, not measuring current audience sizes.
When I say Star Trek is a mid-tier franchise, I'm talking about current audience size, not gross sales of every single Star Trek product out there since 1966. You're comparing apples to oranges.
