because Logan was good?
A Star Wars Story: Solo
- Thread starter Got Haggis?
- Start date
because Logan was good?
I thought it was better than Last Jedi. Fewer diversity hires making shitty, 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.
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.Saw it
Eh
Eh
DeadlyRabbit
Veteran XV
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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-hollywood/2018/05/26/go-woke-go-broke-solo-crash-lands-at-box-office/
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 shit 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.
I feel like they have a good idea that someone else is gonna come along and snake from them.
1teaminlondon
Veteran X
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 fuck 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 fuck off. they've been losing the race, and by most accounts its by a lot
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 fuck 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 fuck off. they've been losing the race, and by most accounts its by a lot
Last edited:
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.
DeadlyRabbit
Veteran XV
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.
1teaminlondon
Veteran X
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
Last edited:
bowl of blood
Contributor
holy christ you people think emilia clarke is a good actress???
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 shit 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.
Last edited: