A Star Wars Story: Solo by Got Haggis? - Page 3 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page A Star Wars Story: Solo
Page 3 of 14
Thread Tools
Falhawk
VeteranXX
Old
41 - 05-26-2018, 12:34
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellsfury View Post
Until Kathleen Kennedy fires him, because reasons...
because Logan was good?
 
Falhawk is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Data
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
42 - 05-26-2018, 16:51
Reply With Quote
I thought it was better than Last Jedi. Fewer diversity hires making ****ty, pointless choices to form a plot that looked like it had been the backstop at a redneck's backyard shooting range for the last 5 decades.

I didn't care for the casting choice for Han. He doesn't look or sound anything like Harrison Ford. At least Donald Glover made an attempt to recreate the Lando character we knew from 30 years ago. Props for that.

8/10

was the best part, as I expected.
 
Data is offline
 
JustinCase
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
43 - 05-26-2018, 19:09
Reply With Quote
Saw it

Eh
 
JustinCase is offline
 
Captain Tele
Veteran³
Immigrant
Old
44 - 05-26-2018, 19:11
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinCase View Post
Saw it

Eh
 
Captain Tele is offline
 
DeadlyRabbit
VeteranXV
Old
45 - 05-26-2018, 22:13
Reply With Quote
Took my girl to see it just for something to do today, I felt the actor playing Han Solo wasn't very good, his lack of acting ability really stands out when he is with Emilia Clarke who is vastly better.

The movie did have a few good moments but overall it wasn't very good, it felt flat. Although my opinion might be messed up a bit by seeing Infinity Wars and Deadpool 2 last weekend.
 
DeadlyRabbit is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranXV
Old
46 - 05-27-2018, 00:33
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool View Post
Movie pass is a great idea but terrible execution. A movie a day that movie pass still pays full price on? Did they not anticipate that early adopters would go see a movie a day?
They were clearly hoping for a gym membership usage model. Buy it and be too lazy to use it.

Do they get a piece of concession revenue for Movie Pass goers? That's the only way their model would possibly make sense.
 
phaytal is offline
 
Last edited by phaytal; 05-27-2018 at 00:40..
Pagy
VeteranXX
Old
47 - 05-27-2018, 00:37
Reply With Quote
so far so bad
c'mon I hope this tanks hard
 
Pagy is online now
 
Fool
Whiny BitchX
Contributor
Old
48 - 05-27-2018, 00:52
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal View Post
They were clearly hoping for a gym membership usage model. Buy it and be too lazy to use it.

Do they get a piece of concession revenue for Movie Pass goers? That's the only way their model would possibly make sense.
I don't believe so. I think their pitch was based on eventually getting discounted ticket prices due to increased concession sales for the theater. Like, you didn't have to buy a ticket, so you're more likely to buy popcorn, and there would be more people seeing films that they wouldn't ordinarily go to see. An unfilled seat is a guaranteed concession loss, so to speak.

When I heard they had to reimburse the theaters for the full ticket price, I thought that was insane. For every person that goes to see a movie a day, there need to be 30 who don't see any movie that month just to break even. I guess they're playing a game of chicken with the theaters, do we run out of money before they give us discounted ticket prices for our service?
 
Fool is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranXV
Old
49 - 05-27-2018, 01:12
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool View Post
I don't believe so. I think their pitch was based on eventually getting discounted ticket prices due to increased concession sales for the theater. Like, you didn't have to buy a ticket, so you're more likely to buy popcorn, and there would be more people seeing films that they wouldn't ordinarily go to see. An unfilled seat is a guaranteed concession loss, so to speak.

When I heard they had to reimburse the theaters for the full ticket price, I thought that was insane. For every person that goes to see a movie a day, there need to be 30 who don't see any movie that month just to break even. I guess they're playing a game of chicken with the theaters, do we run out of money before they give us discounted ticket prices for our service?
Pretty much. If MP didn't negotiate a piece of concession revenue it's a blatently failed model.
 
phaytal is offline
 
LGBR
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
50 - 05-27-2018, 01:22
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atreides View Post
Me either. Way too soon for this to hit theaters, the smoke from the dumpster fire that was TLJ can still be seen.
Meanwhile, Infinity War came out while Black Panther was still in theaters and is the number one opening in history.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...at-box-office/
 
LGBR is offline
 
Fool
Whiny BitchX
Contributor
Old
51 - 05-27-2018, 01:25
Reply With Quote
It's probably too late for them, but the one movie a week model would probably be ideal. There are plenty of months in the year where there's nothing but **** movies anyway. Do I go see Fifty Shades Freed or The Emoji Movie this week? Tweak your prices for the Summer and holiday seasons, give a yearly subscription discount, and work a theater discount for matinees and non-opening week showings (not counting against your 4 movies a month).

I feel like they have a good idea that someone else is gonna come along and snake from them.
 
Fool is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranXV
Old
52 - 05-27-2018, 01:44
Reply With Quote
Completely agree. One a week, or say, a defined contract length at the base rate. At least then it would help them monetize the slow months.
 
phaytal is offline
 
Last edited by phaytal; 05-27-2018 at 01:56..
1teaminlondon
VeteranX
Old
53 - 05-27-2018, 03:38
Reply With Quote
it's a horizontal business model. they are willingly burning through piles of green cash to maximize their user base and cast as wide a net as possible. this is a fairly common business model in tech where companies lose money in order to build a consumer base from which they gain leverage in their industry

uber does it, amazon did it, netflix owned it. when they initially announced in october, wallstreet recognized this and their stock price reflected the intial success of their entry into the market. for an idea of how they would eventually profit, moviepass needed the leverage to threaten theater operators into cutting them deals or risk moviepass cutting their theaters out of their service and losing them business. amc has told them, more or less, to **** off. they also wanted to go to studios and say, we control X% of moviegoing consumers on our platform, pay us to advertise. we can google-fu analytics based on what they've seen and provide you with specifically targeted demographics. in addition, for some dumbass reason, they've even tried producing their own content. they've invested in a movie that is about to release

on some level, assembling a massive cash warchest and betting it on an all you can watch type theater subscription service isn't suicide. it's extremely expensive and cash adverse but it's a model proven to work. uber burns through cash like no other and has posted god knows how many quarters of negative cash flow. investors still believe in their long-term viability. moviepass - not so much. a confluence of factors has dropped their stock price since their october splash by 98%. one, obviously, is people abusing the system for profit. recently they've taken steps to battle that but it might be too little, too late. second, they haven't been able to sustain or build on their initial success and achieve the massive user base that would provide the kind of leverage they need. third, the fact they are publically traded and have to openly disclose their insane cash flows has caught them in a death spiral where investors continue to pull out due to their lack of cash, hampering their ability to sell stock and get loans.

basically they're in a race for their life to reach some magic number of market saturation where chains like AMC are forced into coming to the negotiation table and can't just tell them to **** off. they've been losing the race, and by most accounts its by a lot
 
1teaminlondon is offline
 
Last edited by 1teaminlondon; 05-27-2018 at 03:49..
Fool
Whiny BitchX
Contributor
Old
54 - 05-27-2018, 10:22
Reply With Quote
I almost wonder if it'd be better to use a package system instead of a subscription. $50 for 10 movies, $100 for 25 movies, etc. but with an expiration date of a year after purchase. Buying a larger package would grant a discounted price per movie, but if you don't go, you lose them.
 
Fool is offline
 
DeadlyRabbit
VeteranXV
Old
55 - 05-27-2018, 11:43
Reply With Quote
We go for the VIP theaters, with tickets and some food and drinks I am at least $100 CDN to see a movie with my girl. Doubt theaters want to make that much cheaper.
 
DeadlyRabbit is offline
 
1teaminlondon
VeteranX
Old
56 - 05-27-2018, 12:00
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool View Post
I almost wonder if it'd be better to use a package system instead of a subscription. $50 for 10 movies, $100 for 25 movies, etc. but with an expiration date of a year after purchase. Buying a larger package would grant a discounted price per movie, but if you don't go, you lose them.
it might seem that way, but moviepass isn't in the business of selling movie tickets. they want to be the middleman between the movie goer and theaters the same way amazon marketplace is a middleman between sellers and buyers or uber is a middleman between drivers and riders. they don't want to sell anything, they just want a tax-like cut of the whole industry (more precise to call it a % of the dominant market share). increasing the price of moviepass or selling literally anything will result in the opposite of their intended goal and decrease their userbase. free = largest user base possible. moving away from free = decreasing your user base

ideally they would offer moviepass for free. they just dont have the billions in the bank, technology to prevent abuse, and massive redwood-sized balls to do that. if they did they would control say 95 % of all movie goers. if they shut off a theater from their service that operator would see a 95% decrease in attendance. the theater would have to then bend their knee to moviepass and do whatever they asked
 
1teaminlondon is offline
 
Last edited by 1teaminlondon; 05-27-2018 at 12:06..
Snake{TS}
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
57 - 05-27-2018, 23:33
Reply With Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOanp1EZZQc
 
Snake{TS} is offline
 
Last edited by Snake{TS}; 05-27-2018 at 23:39..
Pagy
VeteranXX
Old
58 - 05-27-2018, 23:52
Reply With Quote
big congratulations to that thunder**** kathleen kennedy on her impressive opening weekend

10th all time

on memorial day weekend




current estimates behind 2003's bruce almighty roflmao
 
Pagy is online now
 
bowl of blood
Veteran++
Contributor
Old
59 - 05-28-2018, 00:11
Reply With Quote
holy christ you people think emilia clarke is a good actress???
 
bowl of blood is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranXV
Old
60 - 05-28-2018, 00:53
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1teaminlondon View Post
wall of text describing customer acquisition in tech
I understand that model very well. The problem with Movie Pass' version is the casual movie goer isn't going to drop on it, and the savvy movie goer is going to exploit the **** out of it by seeing movies in blocks, cancelling their subscription between seasons and in down months.

Thinking they can hold theaters hostage is laughable.

Now if they monetized a percentage of concession sales for their users, that makes sense. Selling memberships in lengths like a year instead of a month, makes sense.

But allowing subscribers to come and go as they please is seriously retarded when you're talking about a product that does not need help selling.
 
phaytal is offline
 
Last edited by phaytal; 05-28-2018 at 00:57..
Page 3 of 14
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page A Star Wars Story: Solo

Social Website Bullshit


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:03.