Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tmssmt t1_j9uvp01 wrote

The same place RomComs went

Theater tickets are more expensive, people reserve the movie theater for movies that need to be experienced in theaters.

Streaming services could probably make some of these less expensive movies...but at the same time are they going to draw anyone in and make them subscribe? If a show isnt retaining subscribers or obtaining new subs, its a cost with now return for a service.

If streaming services ever evolve into 'heres a service for rom coms, heres a service for family content, heres a service for action' then maybe thered be a place for them...

13

puttinonthefoil t1_j9v59jx wrote

I think the success of films like 80 for Brady and The Lost City proves this is a completely wrong line of logic.

Just because the studios have convinced themselves it's true, doesn't mean it is.

People only go see spectacle movies in theaters because there aren't many choices to be made on that front anymore.

4

tmssmt t1_j9v5qrh wrote

80 for Brady had a budget of 28 million and this far has made 34 million.

How much was spent on marketing? Not sure.

If it has profited, it has done razor thin margins.

3

puttinonthefoil t1_j9v77u7 wrote

They made less money because they chose to sell all the tickets at a discount. The BO for that film is artificially under-inflated.

https://deadline.com/2023/02/box-office-knock-at-the-cabin-80-for-brady-1235248828/

2

tmssmt t1_j9v7ce9 wrote

Ok and if tickets cost more would they have sold as many?

2

puttinonthefoil t1_j9v7gr2 wrote

Given that both my mother and mother in law saw it separately and learned that fact at the theater box office...probably? I haven't seen it as a big part of the marketing push.

1