CaptainExplosion said:
Soundwave said:
Kinda, sorta.
Marketing costs are generally covered by post-theaterical release windows (TV rights, video on demand, and ultimately streaming), or should be, if you've overspent on marketing that way you're kinda screwed. In Mario's case (and as with many big budget blockbusters) there's also money from merchandising to take into account.
It kind of sucks for Hollywood that the DVD market went to shit, that was for a long time actually a bigger money maker for studios than even box office take and a reliable way for them to earn their money back. When you look at how much money the DVD/Blu-Ray market made for movies, it's almost kind of crazy that Hollywood studios did not stand firm and refuse to support streaming services, because if they could have maintained the DVD/Blu-Ray setup they would been making way more money.
I'm just looking at DVD/Blu-Ray sales for like The Dark Knight (2008) ... 19.2 million copies sold in the US market alone, at lets say a $10 profit margin per unit for the studio, that's $192 million in profit on a film like that just from the US market alone, then probably add another $150 million in sales from global market ... you're making like $350 million just from the DVD/BR sales, which would more than cover all production and marketing expenses.
While I get the convenience factor for people, if Hollywood studios had to do it again, I think they would stand steadfast in not giving films to Netflix. They could have maintained the home video control, even if it became a setup where people purchased movies digitally ($3.99 to rent, $14.99-$24.99 to buy) only.
|
Another reason to support BluRay releases!!
|
Unfortunately that ship has sailed probably, Blu-Ray buyers are a niche.
The play for the movie studios in the long term likely was always to just offer movies digitally but control all the profit, instead they let Netflix change the entire equation using their own content to devalue their own bottom line (lol).
If they had set up a system around 2010 where say you could pay $24.99 for first run movies (that eventually get discounted to $14.99) and you had a system where like $12/month allowed you to "rent" 3-4 movies a month ($3/rental for older films, $4/for new releases), that could've been a decent system that made them a lot of money while still being better for the consumer than the standard "Blockbuster Video for rentals + buying physical media" media of the 2000s.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 April 2023
