6 ms·

> [...] it will not end until the movie business gives consumers what they want: a cheap global service to watch anything anytime. I would happily pay somethin

> [...] it will not end until the movie business gives consumers what they want: a cheap global service to watch anything anytime. I would happily pay something like $30 or even $50 per month if I would get access to everything anytime. But then again that's probably because right now I pay around $15 per service that only give me ~5% of the total content each.

dannyw 6y ago
Movies and TV shows cost more to make than songs. $39 a month, sure.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Let me do a back of envelope calculation. This source [1] claims that the average production cost of a Hollywood movie has risen to $40 million. This is based on 5713 movies produced between 1999-2020, which is about 285 movies/year. Let's double that for fun and figure out what happens if you hit 500 million subscribers worldwide. 600 movies *40m/movie /500m subscribers = $48 /subscriber every year. So presumably, only $4 dollars a month is more than enough to cover the cost of producing all Hollywood movies - ignore of course, all other sources of revenue such as cinema tickets and product placement etc. Is marketing and distribution online really 9x the cost of producing the movie itself? [1] https://stephenfollows.com/how-has-the-cost-of-making-a-movie-changed-over-the-past-twenty-years/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-has-the-cost-of-making-a-movi...
  - lukeramsden 6y ago
    But how else are movie executives supposed to afford cocaine? Jokes aside, this is a very interesting calculation - it seems the issue with a system like this would be the monopoly and centralization, as the numbers themselves stack up quite ok.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    But that would just be (not quite) breaking even. Major Hollywood films often make 3x or more their budget in profit. And marketing costs are huge and for some reason not included in the film budget. In 2020, people are consuming "movies" and "television" like they're the same thing. You have to include those in the cost. Finally, if you're including worldwide subscribers, you have to include worldwide producers, not just Hollywood.
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      > Major Hollywood films often make 3x or more their budget in profit. Other movies will balance this out though by making a loss - that's the business model. The interesting thing would be the average profit margin across all films at a studio or the industry.
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        The business model is assuredly not to break even, so I contest "balance this out." There is risk involved and while some films flop the outcome has historically been significant profit.
        thejynxed 6y ago
        Well yes, because they get creative with the accounting and those movies that hit $500+ million suddenly turn zero profit come time to pay taxes while some B or C film that costs a few paltry million at most to make and shovel right onto streaming services and net them $90 mil tops are what they pay taxes on, because they made a "profit".
        toyg 6y ago
        > the outcome has historically been significant profit. Nobody is entitled to profit. Ask candlemakers.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        Nothing of the sort was suggested.

dannyw 6y ago

Movies and TV shows cost more to make than songs. $39 a month, sure.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Let me do a back of envelope calculation. This source [1] claims that the average production cost of a Hollywood movie has risen to $40 million. This is based on 5713 movies produced between 1999-2020, which is about 285 movies/year. Let's double that for fun and figure out what happens if you hit 500 million subscribers worldwide. 600 movies *40m/movie /500m subscribers = $48 /subscriber every year. So presumably, only $4 dollars a month is more than enough to cover the cost of producing all Hollywood movies - ignore of course, all other sources of revenue such as cinema tickets and product placement etc. Is marketing and distribution online really 9x the cost of producing the movie itself? [1] https://stephenfollows.com/how-has-the-cost-of-making-a-movie-changed-over-the-past-twenty-years/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-has-the-cost-of-making-a-movi...
- lukeramsden 6y ago
  But how else are movie executives supposed to afford cocaine? Jokes aside, this is a very interesting calculation - it seems the issue with a system like this would be the monopoly and centralization, as the numbers themselves stack up quite ok.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  But that would just be (not quite) breaking even. Major Hollywood films often make 3x or more their budget in profit. And marketing costs are huge and for some reason not included in the film budget. In 2020, people are consuming "movies" and "television" like they're the same thing. You have to include those in the cost. Finally, if you're including worldwide subscribers, you have to include worldwide producers, not just Hollywood.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    > Major Hollywood films often make 3x or more their budget in profit. Other movies will balance this out though by making a loss - that's the business model. The interesting thing would be the average profit margin across all films at a studio or the industry.
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      The business model is assuredly not to break even, so I contest "balance this out." There is risk involved and while some films flop the outcome has historically been significant profit.
      - thejynxed 6y ago
        Well yes, because they get creative with the accounting and those movies that hit $500+ million suddenly turn zero profit come time to pay taxes while some B or C film that costs a few paltry million at most to make and shovel right onto streaming services and net them $90 mil tops are what they pay taxes on, because they made a "profit".
      - toyg 6y ago
        > the outcome has historically been significant profit. Nobody is entitled to profit. Ask candlemakers.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        Nothing of the sort was suggested.