5 ms·

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD sales to recoup costs even if theater releases didn’t get you as much money as you expected. With the safety net gone, studios don’t want to take the risk. They make big budget movies with massive marketing budgets that rely on known IP and established fan bases to guarantee income. This also ensures that the story itself is average because you want an average fan to like it. I think calculus somewhere has changed that is allowing these small/mid sized movies to be made again.

lazypenguin 5mo ago
It’s because nobody has made Steam for Movies. Let me have a movie collection that I can buy movies $1-$5 per movie and never lose it and I promise you I will buy a lot more movies. Just like people buy hundreds of steam games
- mrkpdl 5mo ago
  The iTunes movie store launched 20 years ago. It’s far from perfect but it is essentially steam for movies. Sadly it’s been de-emphasised over time. But it is still there and was pretty good for a while.
  - righthand 5mo ago
    The iTunes movie store is not friendly outside of the Apple ecosystem. Making the entire idea not really affordable since you need a expensive electronic device to utilize it sanely. Might as well find another way to get to it at that point.
    - extra88 5mo ago
      MSRP of an Apple TV device is $129. The iPhone's market share in the U.S. is already over 60%. But neither matters because the Apple TV app is available on basically everything and can be used to buy movies. https://support.apple.com/en-us/119890 https://support.apple.com/en-us/119890
      - righthand 5mo ago
        But if you use the app you’re only streaming from Apple servers. That Apple server copy can be revoked at any time. And 60% is not 100%, my point stands you need an expensive device just to purchase and watch it. Probably multiple expensive devices if you want to actually watch it on your TV. When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable?
        arusahni 5mo ago
        A "Steam for Movies" service (as expressed in an ancestor comment) is basically that, though. One doesn't own their Steam games.
        lmm 5mo ago
        But you can run Steam on Linux. You don't have to worry about whether they're going to discontinue the cheap Steam Box you were relying on. And they have built up credibility from decades of not pulling the rug, in a way that Apple hasn't and probably can't.
        redwall_hp 5mo ago
        Apple has been running the iTunes Store without "pulling the rug" for about as many years as Steam has existed. Hell, they ditched DRM on music in that time period too and will sell you lossless ALAC as well as MP4 audio. (They obviously weren't able to talk Hollywood into that.) Steam is DRM that ensures the capability to pull rugs.
        lmm 5mo ago
        > Apple has been running the iTunes Store without "pulling the rug" for about as many years as Steam has existed. Maybe. It's not been a very prominent line of business for them, and even then I can recall a couple of significant dramas over that time - didn't they merge two different kinds of libraries and cause confusion? The unremovable U2 album is also a cause for concern, not because an extra album is bad but because it implies they see the contents of your library as up to them rather than you. Most of all, they went out of their way to break music being sold by Real for iPods, which hardly suggests a company committed to interoperability and open platforms. > Hell, they ditched DRM on music in that time period too and will sell you lossless ALAC as well as MP4 audio. (They obviously weren't able to talk Hollywood into that.) Steam is DRM that ensures the capability to pull rugs. Not "obvious" at all, and precisely the point at issue. I'm happy to buy music from Apple, but movies require another level of trust that they haven't reached yet. I will grudgingly, cautiously buy games from Steam when they're not available on itch/GoG, and maybe that's unfair, but Apple have never sent me the message that they want or care about me (a non-Apple hardware user) as a customer of their movies.
    - e40 5mo ago
      It’s not even friendly inside the Apple ecosystem.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- 1123581321 5mo ago
  You can buy at several places that interop with each other—iTunes and Amazon are the two biggest. They don’t have literally every movie, but they have most that most people want to watch. https://moviesanywhere.com/participants https://moviesanywhere.com/participants Cost ranges from $5-30. Fewer dirt cheap sales than Steam, but the standard price point at launch is lower, in exchange. (Having to explain “buying movies” makes me feel old!)
  - im3w1l 5mo ago
    Unlike with steam, things can appear disappear from your iTunes library if you move countries. At least music can.
    - 1123581321 5mo ago
      Same issue with movies, true.
- whyenot 5mo ago
  As someone already mentioned. Steam for movies already exists (iTunes, also Amazon’s offering). The problem seems to be that hardly anyone wants to actually own a movie anymore. There are places where the ownership model seems to still be thriving (books), but for video and audio, ownership (vs. streaming or renting) is largely dead.
  - Steltek 5mo ago
    No, streaming services like iTunes and Amazon are absolutely not "Steam for movies". Those services take active steps to restrict access to my purchased content. I can't watch my Amazon purchases in HD because I run Linux. I get downgraded garbage 480p instead. I can't watch any of this while on an airplane because I'm not allowed to download it. And I don't own any Apple hardware so iTunes is a bit of a nonstarter. In contrast, Steam lets me play offline and bends over backwards to get games to run (e.g. Proton and many other compatibility tools). And my Steam Deck doesn't earn me any extra special privileges over anything else.
- simonbw 5mo ago
  People are saying that you can buy movies online, but I think they're missing the key point of putting lots of movies on massive discounts and promoting the movies that are currently discounted. Like sure you can buy basically any movie on Amazon or Apple's store or wherever, but I know that wherever I go, it's going to cost $4 to rent a movie, except every once in a while when it's on sale and I get it for $3, and buying it is going to be some higher amount that is almost certainly not worth it. When steam has sales, I might browse and buy quite a few games that I'm not gonna play right away. Or I buy things in bundles because it just seems like such a good deal. If movies were usually $10 to buy, but the Amazon store had a very visible section of movies that were $5 or less, but for a limited time, I'd be way more likely to buy multiple movies that I'm not intending to watch right now.
  - 1123581321 5mo ago
    Games industry has an oversupply problem that is the root cause of flash sales. I thought about mentioning that in my answer.
  - slg 5mo ago
    I just opened the Apple TV app on my phone and "$4.99 Essential Movies" is listed prominently just under the top charts and new releases. I'm not trying to be rude, but this whole thread has people just speculating on stuff with limited self-awareness. The reason you aren't building a big film library is probably because you aren't that passionate about films, it isn't because no one is providing you a list of cheap movies. It's all there already, you just had to open the app.
    - simonbw 5mo ago
      You might be right. I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms.
      - slg 5mo ago
        >I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms. Yes, I think it's just people today have more options for entertainment. There are lots of people in this thread trying to rationalize their declining interest in movies as the failing of someone else with "there's no Steam for movies", "they don't make good original movies anymore", or "they don't hire talented people anymore" but that stuff is all happening and has been for a while. People just found other stuff to do with their time so they aren't seeking movies out as much anymore, but it's all out there if you put in a little effort to find it.
- HeWhoLurksLate 5mo ago
  Steam had John Wick on it at one point
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- perching_aix 5mo ago
  That description befits GOG a lot more than Steam. You can absolutely lose you Steam games, both practically and legally. Practically because of DRM, and legally because you only recieve a non-transferable, revocable license.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
anamax 5mo ago
> Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. DVDs and even video tape are relatively recent. Hollywood was a lot less risk averse before DVDs and video tape. Heck, Hollywood was less risk averse before TV became mainstream.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  When Hollywood didnt have to compete so much for spectacle with television and could afford to have a cheaper B movie on every roll as a value add.
- redwall_hp 5mo ago
  There was a lot more competition in the industry back then, before decades of consolidation. And less entertainment options competing for customers' attention.
- freejazz 5mo ago
  >DVDs and even video tape are relatively recent. Yeah and it was a different business model before then with a lot more people going to theatres
hangsi 5mo ago
This is from the interview on Hot Ones (released August 5, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaXma6K9mzo&t=816s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaXma6K9mzo&t=816s > Sean Evans: > I think a scenario lots of viewers can relate to is sitting on the couch on a Friday night, going through the streaming services, cycling through the movies and thinking to themselves "they're not making movies for me anymore". As somebody who's been intimately involved in movie making for 30 years, what are the macro Hollywood conditions behind that sentiment? > Matt Damon: > Well, so what happened was the DVD was a huge part of our business - of our revenue stream - and technology has just made that obsolete. And so, the movies that that we used to make: you could afford to not make all of your money when it played in the theater because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release and 6 months later you'd get a whole other chunk - it would be like reopening the movie almost. > And when that went away, that changed the type of movies that we could make. I did this movie "Behind the Candelabra" and I talked to a studio executive who explained: it was a $25 million movie. I would have to put that much into print and advertising to market it - what we call P&A - so now I'm in $50 million. I have to split everything I get with the exhibitor, the people who own the movie theaters, so I would have to make $100 million before I got into profit. The idea of making $100 million on a story about this love affair between these two people... Yeah, love everyone in the movie, but that's suddenly a massive gamble in a way that it wasn't in the 1990s when they were making all those kind of movies - the kind of movies that I loved and the kind of movies that were my bread and butter.
- dcrazy 5mo ago
  I thought Behind the Candelabra was a direct to HBO release. Edit: yes, it was direct to HBO. So maybe Damon was just using it as an example because he knew the production cost off the top of his head.
  - overfeed 5mo ago
    This would be congruent with Damon's retelling of how a studio exec walked him through how the math of a traditional theatrical release wouldn't work out for the movie.
  - 5mo ago
delfinom 5mo ago
The calculus has changed because people don't give a flying fuck about celebrities on golden thrones these days, especially since your average YouTuber is more popular. The cost of celebrities in movie spins is fucking massive. Hollywood has also completely failed to cultivate a new generation of celebrities. God, we had a few years of nothing but Pedro Pascal to the point we have memes inside memes. And the cost of production has gone way down, you don't need a specialized studio to put in CGI these days when some guys Blender can do better. So Hollywood is busy being in a downward spiral eating itself while so much room has opened for "indie" to eat their lunch and dinner.
legitster 5mo ago
I think this explanation is incomplete. There were still plenty of mid-size movies after the DVD era that still had profitable theatrical releases. The prototypical example to me is Baby Driver. Pre-Covid there was simply not enough major weekends to release a big movie. They end up competing with each other. Sure, Baby Driver made $300m on a $40m budget. But for pure profit maximization you are better off making a billion dollars on a $500m budget.
- morgoo 5mo ago
  But if you make 10 $40m movies and 2 of them make $300m you've spent less for more revenue and a lot more profit, and that's assuming the other 8 make exactly $0
  - legitster 5mo ago
    But again, there are a limited number of money-making weekends in a year, and you're competing with other movies those weekends. If you have only 4-5 good chances to make money in a year, you're going to maximize revenue over profitability.
- famouswaffles 5mo ago
  >Sure, Baby Driver made $300m on a $40m budget. But for pure profit maximization you are better off making a billion dollars on a $500m budget. Lol no you're not. $1B off a 500M production budget would be a disaster bordering on a flop. You've not taking marketing into account. You've not taking having to split earnings with theaters into account. Baby Driver is the more desired outcome 10/10.
laughing_man 5mo ago
The problem for Hollywood is it's art, and when you create an assembly line that produces safe art, it's not going to be very good. The calculus is changing because so many of those "safe" films have been bombing recently. AAA video game makers are having the same problem.
jasondigitized 5mo ago
I would like to know what the difference between DVD sales and 'rent whatever you want' from Prime is. That seems even more profitable.

lazypenguin 5mo ago

It’s because nobody has made Steam for Movies. Let me have a movie collection that I can buy movies $1-$5 per movie and never lose it and I promise you I will buy a lot more movies. Just like people buy hundreds of steam games

mrkpdl 5mo ago
The iTunes movie store launched 20 years ago. It’s far from perfect but it is essentially steam for movies. Sadly it’s been de-emphasised over time. But it is still there and was pretty good for a while.
- righthand 5mo ago
  The iTunes movie store is not friendly outside of the Apple ecosystem. Making the entire idea not really affordable since you need a expensive electronic device to utilize it sanely. Might as well find another way to get to it at that point.
  - extra88 5mo ago
    MSRP of an Apple TV device is $129. The iPhone's market share in the U.S. is already over 60%. But neither matters because the Apple TV app is available on basically everything and can be used to buy movies. https://support.apple.com/en-us/119890 https://support.apple.com/en-us/119890
    - righthand 5mo ago
      But if you use the app you’re only streaming from Apple servers. That Apple server copy can be revoked at any time. And 60% is not 100%, my point stands you need an expensive device just to purchase and watch it. Probably multiple expensive devices if you want to actually watch it on your TV. When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable?
      - arusahni 5mo ago
        A "Steam for Movies" service (as expressed in an ancestor comment) is basically that, though. One doesn't own their Steam games.
        lmm 5mo ago
        But you can run Steam on Linux. You don't have to worry about whether they're going to discontinue the cheap Steam Box you were relying on. And they have built up credibility from decades of not pulling the rug, in a way that Apple hasn't and probably can't.
        redwall_hp 5mo ago
        Apple has been running the iTunes Store without "pulling the rug" for about as many years as Steam has existed. Hell, they ditched DRM on music in that time period too and will sell you lossless ALAC as well as MP4 audio. (They obviously weren't able to talk Hollywood into that.) Steam is DRM that ensures the capability to pull rugs.
        lmm 5mo ago
        > Apple has been running the iTunes Store without "pulling the rug" for about as many years as Steam has existed. Maybe. It's not been a very prominent line of business for them, and even then I can recall a couple of significant dramas over that time - didn't they merge two different kinds of libraries and cause confusion? The unremovable U2 album is also a cause for concern, not because an extra album is bad but because it implies they see the contents of your library as up to them rather than you. Most of all, they went out of their way to break music being sold by Real for iPods, which hardly suggests a company committed to interoperability and open platforms. > Hell, they ditched DRM on music in that time period too and will sell you lossless ALAC as well as MP4 audio. (They obviously weren't able to talk Hollywood into that.) Steam is DRM that ensures the capability to pull rugs. Not "obvious" at all, and precisely the point at issue. I'm happy to buy music from Apple, but movies require another level of trust that they haven't reached yet. I will grudgingly, cautiously buy games from Steam when they're not available on itch/GoG, and maybe that's unfair, but Apple have never sent me the message that they want or care about me (a non-Apple hardware user) as a customer of their movies.
  - e40 5mo ago
    It’s not even friendly inside the Apple ecosystem.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
1123581321 5mo ago
You can buy at several places that interop with each other—iTunes and Amazon are the two biggest. They don’t have literally every movie, but they have most that most people want to watch. https://moviesanywhere.com/participants https://moviesanywhere.com/participants Cost ranges from $5-30. Fewer dirt cheap sales than Steam, but the standard price point at launch is lower, in exchange. (Having to explain “buying movies” makes me feel old!)
- im3w1l 5mo ago
  Unlike with steam, things can appear disappear from your iTunes library if you move countries. At least music can.
  - 1123581321 5mo ago
    Same issue with movies, true.
whyenot 5mo ago
As someone already mentioned. Steam for movies already exists (iTunes, also Amazon’s offering). The problem seems to be that hardly anyone wants to actually own a movie anymore. There are places where the ownership model seems to still be thriving (books), but for video and audio, ownership (vs. streaming or renting) is largely dead.
- Steltek 5mo ago
  No, streaming services like iTunes and Amazon are absolutely not "Steam for movies". Those services take active steps to restrict access to my purchased content. I can't watch my Amazon purchases in HD because I run Linux. I get downgraded garbage 480p instead. I can't watch any of this while on an airplane because I'm not allowed to download it. And I don't own any Apple hardware so iTunes is a bit of a nonstarter. In contrast, Steam lets me play offline and bends over backwards to get games to run (e.g. Proton and many other compatibility tools). And my Steam Deck doesn't earn me any extra special privileges over anything else.
simonbw 5mo ago
People are saying that you can buy movies online, but I think they're missing the key point of putting lots of movies on massive discounts and promoting the movies that are currently discounted. Like sure you can buy basically any movie on Amazon or Apple's store or wherever, but I know that wherever I go, it's going to cost $4 to rent a movie, except every once in a while when it's on sale and I get it for $3, and buying it is going to be some higher amount that is almost certainly not worth it. When steam has sales, I might browse and buy quite a few games that I'm not gonna play right away. Or I buy things in bundles because it just seems like such a good deal. If movies were usually $10 to buy, but the Amazon store had a very visible section of movies that were $5 or less, but for a limited time, I'd be way more likely to buy multiple movies that I'm not intending to watch right now.
- 1123581321 5mo ago
  Games industry has an oversupply problem that is the root cause of flash sales. I thought about mentioning that in my answer.
- slg 5mo ago
  I just opened the Apple TV app on my phone and "$4.99 Essential Movies" is listed prominently just under the top charts and new releases. I'm not trying to be rude, but this whole thread has people just speculating on stuff with limited self-awareness. The reason you aren't building a big film library is probably because you aren't that passionate about films, it isn't because no one is providing you a list of cheap movies. It's all there already, you just had to open the app.
  - simonbw 5mo ago
    You might be right. I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms.
    - slg 5mo ago
      >I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms. Yes, I think it's just people today have more options for entertainment. There are lots of people in this thread trying to rationalize their declining interest in movies as the failing of someone else with "there's no Steam for movies", "they don't make good original movies anymore", or "they don't hire talented people anymore" but that stuff is all happening and has been for a while. People just found other stuff to do with their time so they aren't seeking movies out as much anymore, but it's all out there if you put in a little effort to find it.
HeWhoLurksLate 5mo ago
Steam had John Wick on it at one point
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
perching_aix 5mo ago
That description befits GOG a lot more than Steam. You can absolutely lose you Steam games, both practically and legally. Practically because of DRM, and legally because you only recieve a non-transferable, revocable license.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

anamax 5mo ago

> Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. DVDs and even video tape are relatively recent. Hollywood was a lot less risk averse before DVDs and video tape. Heck, Hollywood was less risk averse before TV became mainstream.

protocolture 5mo ago
When Hollywood didnt have to compete so much for spectacle with television and could afford to have a cheaper B movie on every roll as a value add.
redwall_hp 5mo ago
There was a lot more competition in the industry back then, before decades of consolidation. And less entertainment options competing for customers' attention.
freejazz 5mo ago
>DVDs and even video tape are relatively recent. Yeah and it was a different business model before then with a lot more people going to theatres

hangsi 5mo ago

This is from the interview on Hot Ones (released August 5, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaXma6K9mzo&t=816s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaXma6K9mzo&t=816s > Sean Evans: > I think a scenario lots of viewers can relate to is sitting on the couch on a Friday night, going through the streaming services, cycling through the movies and thinking to themselves "they're not making movies for me anymore". As somebody who's been intimately involved in movie making for 30 years, what are the macro Hollywood conditions behind that sentiment? > Matt Damon: > Well, so what happened was the DVD was a huge part of our business - of our revenue stream - and technology has just made that obsolete. And so, the movies that that we used to make: you could afford to not make all of your money when it played in the theater because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release and 6 months later you'd get a whole other chunk - it would be like reopening the movie almost. > And when that went away, that changed the type of movies that we could make. I did this movie "Behind the Candelabra" and I talked to a studio executive who explained: it was a $25 million movie. I would have to put that much into print and advertising to market it - what we call P&A - so now I'm in $50 million. I have to split everything I get with the exhibitor, the people who own the movie theaters, so I would have to make $100 million before I got into profit. The idea of making $100 million on a story about this love affair between these two people... Yeah, love everyone in the movie, but that's suddenly a massive gamble in a way that it wasn't in the 1990s when they were making all those kind of movies - the kind of movies that I loved and the kind of movies that were my bread and butter.

dcrazy 5mo ago
I thought Behind the Candelabra was a direct to HBO release. Edit: yes, it was direct to HBO. So maybe Damon was just using it as an example because he knew the production cost off the top of his head.
- overfeed 5mo ago
  This would be congruent with Damon's retelling of how a studio exec walked him through how the math of a traditional theatrical release wouldn't work out for the movie.
- 5mo ago

delfinom 5mo ago

The calculus has changed because people don't give a flying fuck about celebrities on golden thrones these days, especially since your average YouTuber is more popular. The cost of celebrities in movie spins is fucking massive. Hollywood has also completely failed to cultivate a new generation of celebrities. God, we had a few years of nothing but Pedro Pascal to the point we have memes inside memes. And the cost of production has gone way down, you don't need a specialized studio to put in CGI these days when some guys Blender can do better. So Hollywood is busy being in a downward spiral eating itself while so much room has opened for "indie" to eat their lunch and dinner.

legitster 5mo ago

I think this explanation is incomplete. There were still plenty of mid-size movies after the DVD era that still had profitable theatrical releases. The prototypical example to me is Baby Driver. Pre-Covid there was simply not enough major weekends to release a big movie. They end up competing with each other. Sure, Baby Driver made $300m on a $40m budget. But for pure profit maximization you are better off making a billion dollars on a $500m budget.

morgoo 5mo ago
But if you make 10 $40m movies and 2 of them make $300m you've spent less for more revenue and a lot more profit, and that's assuming the other 8 make exactly $0
- legitster 5mo ago
  But again, there are a limited number of money-making weekends in a year, and you're competing with other movies those weekends. If you have only 4-5 good chances to make money in a year, you're going to maximize revenue over profitability.
famouswaffles 5mo ago
>Sure, Baby Driver made $300m on a $40m budget. But for pure profit maximization you are better off making a billion dollars on a $500m budget. Lol no you're not. $1B off a 500M production budget would be a disaster bordering on a flop. You've not taking marketing into account. You've not taking having to split earnings with theaters into account. Baby Driver is the more desired outcome 10/10.

laughing_man 5mo ago

The problem for Hollywood is it's art, and when you create an assembly line that produces safe art, it's not going to be very good. The calculus is changing because so many of those "safe" films have been bombing recently. AAA video game makers are having the same problem.

jasondigitized 5mo ago

I would like to know what the difference between DVD sales and 'rent whatever you want' from Prime is. That seems even more profitable.