Paramount Pictures to focus on streaming for the forseeable future... (1 Viewer)

[DVBRD]

Paramount Bets Big on Streaming as Disney Goes All In on Theaters

The iconic studio is diverting resources away from big studio releases in favor of creating more content for its streaming service, Paramount+.

gizmodo.com

The end of an era?

 

[benbess]

Wow.

I do have Paramount+, but I rarely watch it.

I did like the Paramount release Snake Eyes, but it was a flop.

Why ‘Snake Eyes’ Missed Its Mark at the Box Office — and What It Means for the ‘G.I. Joe’ Franchise

'Snake Eyes,' a G.I. Joe spinoff, fell flat at the box office, exposing the difficulty of creating film franchises based on toys.

variety.com

Another casualty of the Disney/MCU/Star Wars empire?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Paramount has had issues for a long, long time unfortunately. The decision to split the studio from the CBS holdings and the subsequent management were a disaster. The reunification is a step in the right direction, but I think they are smart to look beyond theatrical and linear cable and to prioritize steaming. Doesn’t mean they won’t have movies for theaters, doesn’t mean they won’t have new shows on broadcast or cable, but direct to consumer is the future if not present of the industry and it would be foolish to ignore that.

I also think they’ve been wise in selling some of their theatrical endeavors to other buyers when it became clear there was no pathway to profitability. The Irishman to Netflix and Scorsese’s follow-up (forgot the title) to Apple+ are good examples. Each of those films had budgets in the $200 million price range, which would put a theatrical break-even point at close to $700 million each. As much as I love Scorsese, there was no pathway for The Irishman to gross $700 million theatrically. And with Paramount already a smaller studio these days, that’s not the kind of loss they can easily absorb. They had released the first two Cloverfield films theatrically, and sold the third one to Netflix - they felt the third one wasn’t as good, couldn’t be fixed while staying within a budget, and sold it off for a small profit rather than risking losing money on it.

I think they’ve actually made some smart moves in recent years just to stop the bleeding, which is a vital first step.

 

[Malcolm R]

Paramount hasn't been much of a player in recent years when it comes to major theatrical pictures, so I'm not sure it means much to the box office/theaters. Their market share for the past 10 years has been less than 10%, and a couple of those years barely cleared 5%. Their only major franchises recently seem to be Mission: Impossible and A Quiet Place.

Transformers seems to be done, Terminator films keep bombing, and they've already taken Star Trek to streaming.

 

[MatthewA]

I hate to say it, but Tom Cruise seems to be keeping them alive.

 

[jcroy]

I hate to say it, but Tom Cruise seems to be keeping them alive.

What would be really amusing is if Tom Cruise is egotistical enough to start his own streaming service.

 

[TravisR]

Tom Cruise still shoots all of the movies he's in on film. There's no chance that every Paramount movie with him won't be going to a theater.

 

[Jake Lipson]

There is no doubt that Paramount is going to keep Top Gun and Mission: Impossible as theatrical releases because they know those are as close as they can get to guaranteed hits. A Quiet Place Part II also did really well for them this year. I don't see them abandoning that model for proven franchise titles. If they were just going to dump Top Gun on streaming, they could do that in November instead of delaying it yet again to open next May. They want a robust theatrical total for it.

However, it sounds like everything else that isn't a surefire tentpole could go streaming first. Considering Paramount's fortunes in recent times pre-pandemic, I can understand why they would make that bet. Rocketman (a film that I loved, by the way) was their biggest grosser of 2019. It had a final gross of $192 million worldwide. Meanwhile, there were nine (!) billion dollar films that year from Disney, Sony and WB. As a point of comparison, Paramount's previous billion dollar franchise, Transformers, got a spinoff in Bumblebee. It opened in December 2018 to the best reviews the series has ever had but grossed $465 million worldwide. This is by far the lowest gross they've ever had.

Paramount has also had the opposite approach from Warner Bros. or Disney in rolling out their streaming platform. Disney understood that making their films exclusive to Disney+ in the streaming subscription space is an important way to make their platform a must-have. That's why Disney isn't leasing films to Netflix anymore. If you want their library, you've got to subscribe to their platform. Warner Bros. was willing to take a loss on several films this year in order to promote HBO Max with the day-and-date strategy because they view the gains from the streaming service as important. By contrast, Paramount has been taking large checks from other companies to put their completed films on other streaming services while their own has struggled. Yes, Amazon paid $100 million (or something like that) for Coming 2 America, which made the film instantly profitable for Paramount because I'm sure they didn't spend that much to make it. But by taking that check, they gave away what could have been an extremely buzz worthy launch title for Paramount+. The chance to take Amazon's money was deemed more important than the opportunity to use a well-known property like that to draw subscribers to Paramount+. Same deal for Without Remorse and The Tomorrow War.

Last year, Paramount chose to delay the United States release of the latest SpongueBob movie until 2021 to launch with Paramount+, even though it was coming out in Canada much earlier than that. They did launch it in the United States on Paramount+, but it was also made available for individual purchase or rental from digital stores like iTunes and Vudu at the same time. So there was no period of exclusivity where you had to go to Paramount+ to get it. A Quiet Place Part II went to Paramount+ 45 days after theatrical, but also went to digital stores at the same time. Now, of course these films would have ended up for digital sale eventually anyway, but Paramount didn't give themselves a window first. If I want to watch one of these movies and I can just get it immediately from somewhere else, then what exactly is my incentive to sign up for Paramount+?

I do have Paramount+, but I rarely watch it.

Then why do you pay for it? This is a serious question. I'm not trying to be judgmental in regards to how you spend your money because that is your business. But it seems like you could let it go if you're not using it, so I'm just curious as to your thinking about it.

 

[MatthewA]

What would be really amusing is if Tom Cruise is egotistical enough to start his own streaming service.

That would be a very … risky business!







I'll let myself out.

 

[benbess]

....Then why do you pay for it? This is a serious question. I'm not trying to be judgmental in regards to how you spend your money because that is your business. But it seems like you could let it go if you're not using it, so I'm just curious as to your thinking about it.

Well, I'm a big Star Trek fan, and although I feel mixed to negative about the new shows, we're still slowly watching them. I would binge them if watching on my own, but these shows have been picked by my family as some of the few shows that the whole family watches together. One of our family members has migraines, however, which are made worse by loud sounds and flashing lights. Since the new Trek shows often have loud sounds and flashing lights, we sometimes go for a month or more between watching episodes.

As of now, all of the older Trek shows are still available on Netflix and Amazon Prime, but starting Oct. 1st they will only be available with Paramount +. I think Twilight Zone is also only available with P+, along with several other CBS shows.

 

[Malcolm R]

That would be a very … risky business!







I'll let myself out.

I think you're ... losin' it!

 

[Malcolm R]

By contrast, Paramount has been taking large checks from other companies to put their completed films on other streaming services while their own has struggled. Yes, Amazon paid $100 million (or something like that) for Coming 2 America, which made the film instantly profitable for Paramount because I'm sure they didn't spend that much to make it. But by taking that check, they gave away what could have been an extremely buzz worthy launch title for Paramount+. The chance to take Amazon's money was deemed more important than the opportunity to use a well-known property like that to draw subscribers to Paramount+. Same deal for Without Remorse and The Tomorrow War.

Good points. All were turned into pretty big buzzworthy events by Amazon.

The only thing I can think of is if perhaps they needed the immediate cash to pay off the producers? Otherwise it seems foolish to sell off your big flashy titles to your competitor.

 

[Alan_H]

I think you're ... losin' it!

Wow, you're really (Jack) reaching with that one!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Good points. All were turned into pretty big buzzworthy events by Amazon.

The only thing I can think of is if perhaps they needed the immediate cash to pay off the producers? Otherwise it seems foolish to sell off your big flashy titles to your competitor.

I think the liquidity was a big factor - having multiple $100+ million movies on the shelf at a time when there’s no clear indicator of when a normal environment would resume, along with no guarantee those films would have been hits in the first place, while in a position where any one of those films ranking would seriously harm the studio, and I think they made a rational if unflashy choice.

But I am wondering if some of the reason for Jim G’s ouster was his willingness to part with those titles rather than rolling them into Paramount+. While those moves made the most sense for the health of the movie studio as a stand alone entity, they may not have been the best move for the entirety of Viacom. On the other hand, Amazon paid something like $200 million for the film which was the break even cost. Would that singular film have, on its own, provided $200 million worth of value to P+? I tend to doubt it. And a $200 million movie needs to gross at least $600 million at the box office to break even and that doesn’t seem likely. I still think they made the best decision out of a pile of less than perfect options.

 

[Malcolm R]

On the other hand, Amazon paid something like $200 million for the film which was the break even cost. Would that singular film have, on its own, provided $200 million worth of value to P+?

Possibly not, as P+ is a relative newcomer to streaming. At the same time, Amazon must have thought whatever they paid was well worth it, and would benefit their service (which it seems to have done as the press has been pretty good, both regarding the projects as available exclusively on Prime and the viewing numbers that have been reported). Both The Tomorrow War and Without Remorse remain in the Prime Top 10 weeks after their debuts.

 

[DVBRD]

The way I see it, is that ViacomCBS is slimming down for a potential merger. They'll first sell individual assets, like the studio lot, then sell everything else.

Shame, isn't it? First Fox is gone, so too will Paramount (at least as it once was).

 

[jcroy]

The way I see it, is that ViacomCBS is slimming down for a potential merger. They'll first sell individual assets, like the studio lot, then sell everything else.

Shame, isn't it? First Fox is gone, so too will Paramount (at least as it once was).

Who would buy up such a "mutilated" corpse?

Apple ?
Netflix ?
Amazon ?
Facebook ?
IBM ?

????

 

[DVBRD]

Who would buy up such a "mutilated" corpse?

Apple ?
Netflix ?
Amazon ?
Facebook ?
IBM ?

????

I've heard some stock market analysts say that ViacomCBS is ripe for takeover. I don't know if this slimming down has anything to do with it. Maybe by focusing heavily on streaming, it would give them a greater advantage?

 

[MatthewA]

Amazon is not going to buy it after they just bought MGM and with it its debts.

 

[Osato]

Amazon is not going to buy it after they just bought MGM and with it its debts.

Agreed. Plus that deal has not been approved by the fed.

I think paramount will have a hard time continuing to survive on its own.