Harold and Kumar - 2004

We like to call movies "art" and they are. However, they are art for the sake of profit. Listen to Damon. That movie was a passion project, but it had to gross $100MM to turn a profit after accounting to print/advertising and exhibition fees. This isn't someone holed up in a room with paint, pen, or typewriter trying to make rent. Maybe it starts that way, but these things end up being massive 8 and 9 figure projects that employ hundreds of people.

The money people are always going to hedge their bets. Whether that's by using a milquetoast IP or making sure it ticks the right boxes to avoid whatever cultural rip tide happens to be going at the moment. I think that's Vaughn's larger point. The money people are afraid for their own jobs because originality or thumbing your nose at culture makes you an easy scapegoat unless things go exactly right and you become a hit.

I've actually never been a fan of his past stand up routines i've seen. I just tuned in to the new one for a bit to check it out and actually found it better than his past stuff. He's still not in my top comedians, for sure.

I think that's why more independent companies making movies is a good thing. We need to actively remove barriers to entry and stigma away from new indie studios coming up.

Superbad is often brought up as a now classic raunchy comedy, but that was a passion project from Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg that they had been writing since they were kids. It took them years of growing some Hollywood cred before given the green light to make the movie. I definitely understand those hurdles from a simple business perspective of Hollywood.

Where I start to see possible interference of DEI is when there is a possibility of a small project being greenlit. Are they simply greenlighting the project that sounds the funniest or best? Or are they greenlighting the small project that checks all the boxes? If Superbad hadn't been made yet, and the powers that be had the opportunity to make it or Booksmart in 2024, which do you think they would greenlight? I know it's a huge hypothetical, and that Booksmart probably would have never existed without Superbad, but it is still a thought experiment to consider. Booksmart was fine, and I actually didn't find it too woke at all, but it is nowhere near the hilarity of Superbad.

What makes a great comedy movie? Script? Acting (timing and physicality)? Subject matter?

Seems like most great comedy movies are about men chasing something (lost youth, girls, end of virginity, sports greatness).

TCTTS said:

---

It's not even that IP guarantees success. It doesn't. It's that if it bombs an exec can wash his or her hands hands clean and say, "This project I greenlit was based on IP, and the 'rules' therefor dictate that it has a built-in audience, so that audience not showing up wasn't my fault, it was the marketing team, the writer, etc. But I did my job because I followed the IP 'rule.'"

---

Basically this. They see it as risk mitigation because an audience theoretically already exists. It's like asking about social media followers in casting because they want someone with a presence that gives them free advertising and a built in audience. It might preclude someone who's great for the part, but if they can get someone with a high five or six figure following they can say they took the safer bet and can't be responsible.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

Some things that I believe relate to this. What shared experiences do people have growing up anymore? Everybody is so tied to their screen that it's hard to create some sort of connection to experiences that translate to the big screen.

Also, if there is something shared, it immediately gets memed until saturated and no longer funny before somebody could produce a movie to even make fun of it. The life cycle of something being funny now is measured in hours to days whereas growing up a funny movie/show could produce decades of quotes/references that were funny.

Also, a lot of the hilarious comedies have people placing themselves in uncomfortable situations to create tension. The tension is what sets up the potential energies for the comedy but we're no longer tolerant of that in society anymore. Our connectivity allows us to not tolerate any sort of difference in thought or beliefs.

The amount of original content creation has skyrocketed through social media where funny concepts are immediately filtered out and get wordwide views whereas something that's well written, directed and acted might be obsolete before it could even hit the theaters.

---

I think there's a great comedy out there waiting to be made a out becoming a YouTuber/TikTocker. I believe that's a modern "shared experience.". Even though most people haven't made a TikTok, we've all seen them and seen the idiots that make them.

EclipseAg said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

You can tell by watching great comedies from prior to 2010 and ask how many of them could have been produced now or how many scenes would have been cut.

---

Hollywood's fear of being called out for inappropriate comedy isn't helped by articles like this one, explaining why some 40-year-old comedy classic -- released before the journalist was born -- is now "problematic."

https://screenrant.com/sixteen-candles-john-huges-not-aged-well-why/

---

Funnily enough there was a thread about that exact movie and topic on this board.
https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3420713/1#discussion

Cliff.Booth said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

You can tell by watching great comedies from prior to 2010 and ask how many of them could have been produced now or how many scenes would have been cut.

---

Hollywood's fear of being called out for inappropriate comedy isn't helped by articles like this one, explaining why some 40-year-old comedy classic -- released before the journalist was born -- is now "problematic."

https://screenrant.com/sixteen-candles-john-huges-not-aged-well-why/

---

Exactly. Studios bending over backward to humorless Karens who find almost everything problematic has left us in this rut. Until more creatives say **** you, it's comedy, laugh or don't watch, we'll continue to have very little comedy or the same 3 jokes being told ad nauseum.

---

That just seems like laziness to me, but if people were really getting canned for taking risks and failing, I get it.

It also explains why most movies in the last decade have been unmemorable and mid, obviously with exceptions here and there.

Quote:

---

Yes, I think "woke" has obviously been a factor, but as I've said many times before, I think the death of R-rated comedies, same as most terrible Hollywood decisions, has been due far more to risk-averse execs scared of losing their jobs

---

Dont those go hand-in-hand though? The risk they're usually avoiding has to do with getting canceled/fired/boycotted, etc.

Seems like those go together, and you've heard a lot of prominent Hollywood comedians saying this very thing (cant be edgy because the woke crowd goes after you).

Rudyjax said:

---

I think they're both right, but Damon is closer to the bullseye.

---

I have a question about this. TCTTS, maybe you can educate me a bit...

So previously they'd make money in the theatres, and then again on DVD rentals. I think we all knew that. I remember reading back in Blockbuster's heyday, that 60% of the revenue came from rentals.

While I understand streaming has replaced DVDs...where did the revenue go? If an movie goes to the theatre, and then gets released to streaming for rental (or licensed to a streaming service), don't they have the same opportunity to make rental revenue (just distributed via streaming instead of DVD)?

Someone's making that money for the content on streaming. Why not the producers? Damon seems to suggest it's completely gone.

I'm curious why the delivery method cut off the revenue stream...

I don't see how streaming could produce more $. I could be wrong here or an anomaly, but my family rented quite often in the 90s. When you look at what we spent per content hour - streaming can't even come close to touching that. I'd bet my parents spent $5/week in the early 90s. $5 in 1995 is around $30 today... Think about how much content you can consume today for $30. I can see how the revenue stream isn't anywhere close to the same.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

I think they're both right, but Damon is closer to the bullseye.

---

I have a question about this. TCTTS, maybe you can educate me a bit...

So previously they'd make money in the theatres, and then again on DVD rentals. I think we all knew that. I remember reading back in Blockbuster's heyday, that 60% of the revenue came from rentals.

While I understand streaming has replaced DVDs...where did the revenue go? If an movie goes to the theatre, and then gets released to streaming for rental (or licensed to a streaming service), don't they have the same opportunity to make rental revenue (just distributed via streaming instead of DVD)?

Someone's making that money for the content on streaming. Why not the producers? Damon seems to suggest it's completely gone.

I'm curious why the delivery method cut off the revenue stream...

---

I'm not TCTTS but here's how i understand it. Back in the VHS and DVD days they'd make money off of rentals AND sales. Yes you can rent and buy movies and shows digitally but the amount of people who do that is a small fraction of what that used to be. Most people who watch stuff through streaming watch it through a subscription based streaming app.

Now there are two ways for studios to make money through a streaming app. The first is the studio is owned by a company that has their own streaming app. I don't know what funny accounting is done internally between the studio production division and the streaming division but essentially the studio division gives the movie away for free to the streaming app since the parent company that owns the rights to the movie and they can put it on the app in hopes that having relatively new movie releases will cause enough people to pay for this app's subscription and in theory be profitable. Now they have the ability to see how much each movie was streamed but I don't think the app is paying their studio division per stream.

The other way is for the studio/parent company to sell the streaming rights of a movie to a 3rd party streaming app, like how sony does with their movies and Netflix. The studios seem to make a nice profit doing that as all the financial risk now falls on Netflix or other streaming app. But it seems the amount they can negotiate for streaming rights is a much smaller than what the take home pay was with physical sales and rentals. The movie needs to either have a established IP or was a decent success at the theater to demand any worthwhile streaming rights payment as Netflix, Prime, and Apple have the ability to create their own content too. The studios are no longer the gatekeepers of the content as these tech companies have the bandwidth to produce their own movies and large budget shows for their own apps and can still afford to do so at losses to gain market share/subscribers while their other divisions make crazy money.

I think there's like 275 Million paying netflix subscribers. It's publicly traded, so you can go and look at their financial disclosures.

Their revenue in 2023 was $33.7 Billion, but their operating income was $6.9 Billion. The net income after taxed was $5.4 Billion. Through six months in 2024, those numbers are $18.9 Billion, $5.23 Billion, and $4.48 Billion, so they are going to smoke their 2023 numbers. Probably why it's trading at 629 a share and up lik 50% over the past year.

Anyway, Netflix is making money, and that's after spending something like $17 Billion on content (both licensing old shows and producing new content).

AgGrad99 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

I think they're both right, but Damon is closer to the bullseye.

---

I have a question about this. TCTTS, maybe you can educate me a bit...

So previously they'd make money in the theatres, and then again on DVD rentals. I think we all knew that. I remember reading back in Blockbuster's heyday, that 60% of the revenue came from rentals.

While I understand streaming has replaced DVDs...where did the revenue go? If an movie goes to the theatre, and then gets released to streaming for rental (or licensed to a streaming service), don't they have the same opportunity to make rental revenue (just distributed via streaming instead of DVD)?

Someone's making that money for the content on streaming. Why not the producers? Damon seems to suggest it's completely gone.

I'm curious why the delivery method cut off the revenue stream...

---

I admittedly don't know but I suspect it's similar to what happened to music. People used to buy albums/cassettes/CDs. Now they just stream whatever they want to listen to. While there is some money via streaming, it's nowhere near the money made when people were buying the physical products.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

The Collective said:

---

I don't see how streaming could produce more $. I could be wrong here or an anomaly, but my family rented quite often in the 90s. When you look at what we spent per content hour - streaming can't even come close to touching that. I'd bet my parents spent $5/week in the early 90s. $5 in 1995 is around $30 today... Think about how much content you can consume today for $30. I can see how the revenue stream isn't anywhere close to the same.

---

Your inflation numbers are quite a bit off there. 5 dollars in 1995 is like 10 dollars today.

---

A $10,000 car from 1995 would be $60,000 now. Surely you can understand that a little more easily.

So I guess my follow up question would be 'why'? Why do it that way? if you own the IP, you have control.

Like many networks have done, why not create your own (free) app, and let people rent movies a la carte (or buy them), and maintain control and revenue?

Or, allow streaming apps like Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc....become the new Blockbuster, and share in the rental revenue.

It seems like they shot themselves in the foot, the way they've structured it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

So I guess my follow up question would be 'why'? Why do it that way? if you own the IP, you have control.

Like many networks have done, why not create your own (free) app, and let people rent movies a la carte (or buy them), and maintain control and revenue?

Or, allow streaming apps like Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc....become the new Blockbuster, and share in the rental revenue.

It seems like they shot themselves in the foot, the way they've structured it.

---

There is so much more content now when compared to the blockbuster days. I would guess some blockbuster movies could only release on their own platform but we're talking a handful of movies.

I'm not convinced there is more content. Way more places to go for content (which I'd argue sucks for the consumer), but is there more overall (or at least....more that people care about consuming)?

But let's assume there is...it doesnt all have to be treated the same. Just like in the past, you had theatre releases, where some movies stayed for a couple months. You had some that left after 2 weeks. You had some that went straight to DVD, and some that were made for TV content (and even then you had network vs cable tv content).

I'm assuming there is a lot I dont understand, but I dont know why the studios allow it the way they do now.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I'm not convinced there is more content. Way more places to go for content (which I'd argue sucks for the consumer), but is there more overall (or at least....more that people care about consuming)?

---

Kramer touched on this when he fired Raquel Welch from "Scarsdale Surprise".

'carnivals....'

AgGrad99 said:

---

So I guess my follow up question would be 'why'? Why do it that way? if you own the IP, you have control.

Like many networks have done, why not create your own (free) app, and let people rent movies a la carte (or buy them), and maintain control and revenue?

Or, allow streaming apps like Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc....become the new Blockbuster, and share in the rental revenue.

It seems like they shot themselves in the foot, the way they've structured it.

---

I'll again reference music. Simply put, I think people's expectations of what music should cost changed drastically after the invention of Napster, etc. Once consumer preference changes, it's really hard to buck that.

Similarly, movies, etc. are now bearing the brunt of altered expectations created by the cheap prices streaming services used to get off the ground. As a result, a substantial number of consumers think you should be able to have a huge library to choose from for a couple bucks a month. Convincing people to pay $4.99 (or whatever) to rent a single movie for a single viewing is going to be tough sledding except for movies people really want to see. By offering so much for so little for so long, the entertainment industry has cut the legs out from under themselves, as the consumer now has no desire to go back to a la carte pricing.

Quad Dog said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Matt Damon said something very similar on the same show. Looking for it but can't seem to find it.

Basically, no one wants to take a risk.

---

Damon talked about how the loss of DVD sales have killed mid budget movies. IMO this has probably hurt R-Rated comedies more than the influence of IP. You'd think the revenue of streaming would have replaced the revenue of DVD sales. But we just had a big strike to prove that revenue stream is making it into the pockets of studios and not writers.

Matt Damon on mid-budget movies via Hot Ones
pic.twitter.com/YBvWWo7dCc

— Film Daze (@filmdaze) September 19, 2022

---

It seems like there should be two buckets there - 1) the revenue from your flick streaming on whatever platform; and 2) purchases of the movie outright via Apple/Amazon/whatever.

I probably have over 100 movies I've purchased through Apple since the DVD died off. Wouldn't that second bucket help offset the DVD sales even if it didn't fully replicate it? Purchasing of movies didn't just stop with the demise of DVDs.

Quote:

---

Similarly, movies, etc. are now bearing the brunt of altered expectations created by the cheap prices streaming services used to get off the ground. As a result, a substantial number of consumers think you should be able to have a huge library to choose from for a couple bucks a month. Convincing people to pay $4.99 (or whatever) to rent a single movie for a single viewing is going to be tough sledding except for movies people really want to see.

---

Sure.

But if your only option to see a movie you want to see, is to rent it for $5...people will do that, like they have since it's been an option. People pay more than that for a coffee everyday. I dont think it'll keep them from watching movies they are interested in.

Or, if you can make more licensing it to a service like Prime, or Netflix...that's still an option.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Similarly, movies, etc. are now bearing the brunt of altered expectations created by the cheap prices streaming services used to get off the ground. As a result, a substantial number of consumers think you should be able to have a huge library to choose from for a couple bucks a month. Convincing people to pay $4.99 (or whatever) to rent a single movie for a single viewing is going to be tough sledding except for movies people really want to see.

---

Sure.

But if your only option to see a movie you want to see, is to rent it for $5...people will do that, like they have since it's been an option. People pay more than that for a coffee everyday. I dont think it'll keep them from watching movies they are interested in.

Or, if you can make more licensing it to a service like Prime, or Netflix...that's still an option.

---

But I highly doubt anyone will ever hold the line like that (only way to watch it forever is to pay $5). There has always been a downstream cheaper option after the initial release and that will continue to be the case. That used to be waiting to rent at Blockbuster, waiting for it to come on HBO (or even TV), etc. Now, it's waiting until it is available for streaming for free. I think more and more people will wait for that second option (absent movies they are REALLY gung ho to see) because of their pricing expectations now.

Just to use an personal example, I grew up outside of Dallas and was 8-12 years old when the Von Erichs were in their prime. Iron Claw was tailor made for me. And it was available both in the theatre and for rent on streaming services. However, I still waited until it hit Max for free. Partly because I have now been conditioned to think paying $X for a single viewing of a single movie is over priced.

I'm not saying there's not some market for what you propose. There is. I am saying I think the number of consumers who will be willing to pay $5 or more for a single rental is nowhere near what that it used to be because we are no longer conditioned to that model of pricing.