Quad Dog said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

I think "woke" and DEI is 100% a factor in this. Is it the only factor? Probably not. But it is a glaring one and could be so simple to remove... just reject it. That's why so many of us bring it up so often. It kills creativity and the ability to push boundaries, and is so obvious when it's present that we all see it. It forces guardrails on hollywood productions that don't have to be there. Remove it, and you will still have ****ty movies and shows, but at least you have removed a huge variable to that recipe that we can hope will open the door for better products.

I do think the R-rated comedy is affected more by the woke ideology than other types of movies. If you live in a region of the country where certain "protected" classes of people are off limits, or certain words and themes cannot be used, or you require them to hire certain writers simply due to the innate physical characteristics of those writers, it directly affects the final product. It just does. To argue with that is simply gaslighting.

Great example for me of leftist unfunny vs classic comedy hilarity is Trump impersonations. Alec Baldwin playing Trump on SNL was always simply hateful and full of spite and animosity for Trump. I never found it funny and frankly couldn't even bare to watch that crap. You can tell the goal of Baldwin and the writers was to make Trump look as bad as possible.

Then you look at Shane Gillis impersonating Trump, and I can't get enough of it. If I see a new segment of it that I haven't seen yet, I have to click on it. The Kill Tony episode with him as Trump the entire time is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Why is that? Because Shane is not being venomous or trying to push some ideology. He is simply doing an outstanding impression for purely comedic purposes.

---

I actually think more diverse comedies would be a great thing and a potential solution to the problem. How many white kids in the suburbs comedy movies do we have? That type of movie is spent. Show me a R-Rated comedy movie about Indian kids or black kids in the city. At least it won't be something I haven't seen before.

---

Have you heard of Didi coming out soon? Kind of fits that bill. If you want to see more movies like that, and that you haven't seen before. Here's your chance.

I simplify this topic. If you are tired of what is coming out as far as film, then don't watch it. If you see something that is different, or looks original or "like the good ole days," then go see it, and tell your friends, bring your family. The more butts in the seats or in front of screens will feed the machine. But if you don't go see something, and don't spend the money, then "they" won't keep making those in the future, because it doesn't have an ROI.

And I'll also add, this is one of the reasons newspapers have died. Virtually everyone was quite fine with paying $0.25 for a paper. But when newspapers started putting their product on the internet for free, people quickly lost their appetite to pay that. Once price expectations are changed, it's really hard to change them back.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I understand, and maybe you're right.

But I think the studios could affect that more. If there are no other options....the consumers won't have much of a choice.

But admittedly, i understand very little of the distribution model these days. Just seems like a jumbled mess to me.

JCA1 said:

---

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.

---

And that is why concert tickets are insanely expensive these days. Artists have to make all their money on tour rather than through album sales

Faustus said:

---

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.

---

Still have a bunch of DVD's and Blue-Rays, but I've purchased maybe 1 movie in the last 15 years thru Amazon Prime.

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.

---

Ha. I just used some random internet calculator. Looks like it was wrong and I didn't even consider it logically. Fail by me.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I understand, and maybe you're right.

But I think the studios could affect that more. If there are no other options....the consumers won't have much of a choice.

But admittedly, i understand very little of the distribution model these days. Just seems like a jumbled mess to me.

---

The legacy studios could play that game of chicken with audiences. But then we go back to how things were around 10-15 years ago but it will turn out even worse for studios this time. There is a reason blockbuster died out and it wasn't because of the digital rental. It was because there was "free" legacy and new shows/movies on Netflix and Prime. Audiences' desire to see something just because it was recently in theaters is gone. Netflix broke the system. We have access to entertainment in all forms instantly at our fingertips. I'm not going to pay $5 to rent a movie when I can watch something i havent seen before in one of the streaming catalogues, watch something on YouTube, or play a video game I already have paid for unless i have a huge desire to see it. Yes I know that is less expensive than my coffee order. But it is $5 more than several other choices at my disposal.

So to tie it back to the original conversation that Vince Vaughn was asked about. I see why studios are hesitant to make 90 minute comedy feature films. The ROI on those is harder to achieve than before and its why most comedy films seem to be straight to streaming as they can afford the risk more as they are just looking to add fresh content to the library over turning a profit on an individual film.

Faustus said:

---

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.

---

that second bucket would if more people were like you. You are in the minority of movie watchers by actually buying digital copies of movies. The only movies we have bought lately are dvds of kids movies at the discount bin just so we have stuff to throw on in case the internet is out.

I understand.

But 'free' option is only an option if the owner of the content provides it to the services. Netflix can't just make anything they want available...they have to pay for the rights, and the studios have to make it available.

If the only way to get new releases is via rental, what other options will the consumer have? And I doubt the market boycotts...they'll spend the equivalent of a cup of coffee to rent a movie they've been waiting to see.

I guess I'm trying to understand why it is the way it is. If what Damon says is true, why are the studios agreeing to it this way?

AgGrad99 said:

---

I understand.

But 'free' option is only an option if the owner of the content provides it to the services. Netflix can't just make anything they want available...they have to pay for the rights, and the studios have to make it available.

If the only way to get new releases is via rental, what other options will the consumer have? And I doubt the market boycotts...they'll spend the equivalent of a cup of coffee to rent a movie they've been waiting to see.

I guess I'm trying to understand why it is the way it is. If what Damon says is true, why are the studios agreeing to it this way?

---

My guess is the studios saw upstart Netflix, etc. as just another revenue stream in the beginning. Basically, it was a chance to farm out their more dated catalog for a small return. Even if it was just for pennies, this was still better than nothing so why not? What they didn't factor in was that Netflix would take off to the point that it eventually overtook their primary business model, as well as re-framed people's perceptions of what these products should cost.

Basically, I think they originally licensed their products in the beginning because it was an additional way to pad the bottom line through a niche market that they didn't perceive as a threat, and, as a result, they didn't give much thought to what this would mean long term if it took off.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I understand.

But 'free' option is only an option if the owner of the content provides it to the services. Netflix can't just make anything they want available...they have to pay for the rights, and the studios have to make it available.

If the only way to get new releases is via rental, what other options will the consumer have? And I doubt the market boycotts...they'll spend the equivalent of a cup of coffee to rent a movie they've been waiting to see.

I guess I'm trying to understand why it is the way it is. If what Damon says is true, why are the studios agreeing to it this way?

---

You're right that netflix cant make anything they want on their app, but they clearly make enough original content and license enough foreign content to still be a hugely in-demand service and highly profitable. The desire and demand for something that comes from the 4-5 legacy film companies is probably at an all time low with the exception of established IP and we are just now seeing a dip in comic book related IP so the studios are going to need to find a different cash cow sooner than later. Just because Warner Bros puts out an original movie, why would I want to rent it when Prime just put out an original movie too. There is no guarantee the WB movie is the better movie.

But there has always been competition. You had other studious, TV series, cable tv, etc. The delivery method/options have changed, but the content is relatively the same.

We'd all watch a movie at the theatre or from Blockbuster. We'd also watch Sopranos on HBO or 90210 on Fox.

Im sure people will watch a new movie on Prime on Sunday. Then what do they watch on Monday? Maybe the new release that I missed in the theatre.

I dont see how that's changed much.

AgGrad99 said:

---

But there has always been competition. You had other studious, TV series, cable tv, etc. The delivery method/options have changed, but the content is relatively the same.

We'd all watch a movie at the theatre or from Blockbuster. We'd also watch Sopranos on HBO or 90210 on Fox.

Im sure people will watch a new movie on Prime on Sunday. Then what do they watch on Monday? Maybe the new release that I missed in the theatre.

I dont see how that's changed much.

---

Whats changed is nearly every tv show or movie from the past 40 years is on one app or another. Why am I paying for new release when I havent seen most of what has been out there. I can only speak for myself but since having kids I have nearly a 10 year long backlog of stuff i should checkout that have missed because i didnt previously have time to see it then. Our viewing habits have changed. We binge watch tv shows. There is no longer a certain night of the week when nothing is on but reruns and baseball. We have to make a conscious effort to watch a movie so it takes it being barbieheimer levels of hype for our household to cave in and rent it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

But there has always been competition. You had other studious, TV series, cable tv, etc. The delivery method/options have changed, but the content is relatively the same.

We'd all watch a movie at the theatre or from Blockbuster. We'd also watch Sopranos on HBO or 90210 on Fox.

Im sure people will watch a new movie on Prime on Sunday. Then what do they watch on Monday? Maybe the new release that I missed in the theatre.

I dont see how that's changed much.

---

I think the main change is the on demand aspect. Before, when you wanted to watch a movie, you pretty much had to rent one or hope to luck into a movie you wanted to see that was about to start on HBO. Now, you can pick one from literally hundreds of options. I think that is what cajun was getting at. If you're in the mood for a movie, you now have thousands of movies, on demand and included in one of your subscriptions for free. That is what the rental model has to compete against now. Why should I pay $X to watch this movie versus putting on a different on demand movie for free.

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

Sure. There was overlap for a time. Like any market disruptor, it takes time and there's often a period when the old and new coexist. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Blockbuster has since gone out of business and basically everyone now has a Netflix account.

And I should also add, my recollection of early "on demand" was that it was basically a rental and cost money. You were spending $5 either way. The question was whether you were willing to settle for the limited selection on On Demand in exchange for not having to get off your couch.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is not accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

I guess this goes back to "Wokeism" or me too, but one of the main attractions, for lack of a better term, was the gratuitous female nudity in a lot of the R rated movies of the day. Scenes like the shower peeping in Porky's was acceptable then, but these days is viewed as creepy and abusive - and probably rightly so. Even the GOT universe has toned that down immensely. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Belton Ag said:

---

I guess this goes back to "Wokeism" or me too, but one of the main attractions, for lack of a better term, was the gratuitous female nudity in a lot of the R rated movies of the day. Scenes like the shower peeping in Porky's was acceptable then, but these days is viewed as creepy and abusive - and probably rightly so. Even the GOT universe has toned that down immensely. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

---

There's also the fact that Porky's was one of the few ways a lot of teenage boys had access to female nudity. That's really not an issue anymore, as subscriptions to Playboy can attest.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Your argument is somewhat nonsensical. You started with "I would gladly drop my subscriptions" and then complain that you can't stop doing that because of your family. Blame your family's consumption patterns, not the market.

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Well then it sounds like there is plenty of content your family enjoys on those apps. Its just stuff YOU don't want to watch. If you cancel just one of those, thats $15 - $20. If you want to buy Dispicable Me 4 digitally right now, its $30. Renting it is $20. Now that movie is still in theaters so its on the high end. Barbie is currently $15 to buy and $4 to rent. So canceling 2 apps gets you 2 movies to own per month or 6 rental viewings. You can try that sales pitch but good luck

bonfarr said:

---

The 1980s churned out a plethora of coming of age R rated comedies like Porkys, Losin It, Class, etc. seems to me they are inexpensive to produce and the genre is wildly popular. Why hasn't an independent studio stepped up to make these types of moves considering the content void today?

---

This goes back to viewing hablits. I can see an 80s or 90s retro coming of age story pulling on the nostalgia heartstrings of Gen X and Millennials who are more likely to want to see a movie. I'm not sure if current teens care enough about movies to want to go see a coming of age film set in the present. They view content more through YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. That generation and younger is an entire different beast as far as viewing habits.

javajaws said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Your argument is somewhat nonsensical. You started with "I would gladly drop my subscriptions" and then complain that you can't stop doing that because of your family. Blame your family's consumption patterns, not the market.

---

I constantly blame them for their bad taste in entertainment but it doesn't do me any good.

Belton Ag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Maybe. But 'On Demand' and DVR was available, and movie rentals were still strong.

---

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly drop my subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, where 99% of the stuff is garbage that I will never watch, and spend that money renting movies or shows On Demand.

I might even buy the movies or shows like I did when physical media was the platform.

---

You can do that today. Nearly all movies and shows are available to buy and rent digitally through google, apple, amazon, and i'm sure others and that is accounting for pirated digital copies if that floats your boat. Nothing is stopping you.

---

What's stopping me is the approximately $100 per month I allocate to Netflix, Prime, Max, Starz and Paramount+ I spend for content I rarely watch. I realize nothing stops me from doing that now, other than my family is stuck in this paradigm where we have to have all these subscriptions and every time I talk about canceling this stuff I get pushback. My entertainment budget is finite and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Your argument is somewhat nonsensical. You started with "I would gladly drop my subscriptions" and then complain that you can't stop doing that because of your family. Blame your family's consumption patterns, not the market.

---

I constantly blame them for their bad taste in entertainment but it doesn't do me any good.

---

I know your pain. I'd be subscribed to maybe 1 or 2 apps if it was just me. Anytime bring up canceling one because I think no one is watching it I'm reminded by my wife about some reality or murder mystery show she likes on that one or some random kid show that gets watched by one of the kids randomly once every 2 months when they snap out of a youtube daze.

I think the one comedy that would have been more successful had they really pushed the boundaries was 80 For Brady. Basically do the same move but have the ladies go topless. Also, more farts and put OJ in it.

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

I recently watched Brewster's Millions. It was a fantastic 80's movie with a unique storyline. Today the only unique stories seem to be new sci-fi type movies. The Matrix (top 3 favorite of mine), Inception, ec. I know those aren't as recent.

---

While I agree with your point, that '85 movie was the 5th time Brewster's Millions was made - quite good IP. They tried again in 2015, but it didn't make it.

I miss the Golden Age when studio execs flew to New York to scout out the new season of Broadway plays for their IP.

bonfarr said:

---

The 1980s churned out a plethora of coming of age R rated comedies like Porkys, Losin It, Class, etc. seems to me they are inexpensive to produce and the genre is wildly popular. Why hasn't an independent studio stepped up to make these types of moves considering the content void today?

---

So much of the draw of these films was naked girls and a chance to see boobs. Granted, I laughed with them.

Now you have the internet and can see boobs at any time. The actors don't want to be naked.

Side note - Hot Ones is actually up for sale from Buzzfeed. They are in a bind because they need money, but are trying to sell for $40MM or something like that.

The problem is that Sean Williams is just a employee of the show. If they sell the show and he decides to go somewhere else, 95% chance the show tanks. Samir and Colin did a good breakdown on their podcast a little while back - latest was the show may go away altogether if they can't figure it out.

dude95 said:

---

Side note - Hot Ones is actually up for sale from Buzzfeed. They are in a bind because they need money, but are trying to sell for $40MM or something like that.

The problem is that Sean Williams is just an employee of the show. If they sell the show and he decides to go somewhere else, 95% chance the show tanks. Samir and Colin did a good breakdown on their podcast a little while back - latest was the show may go away altogether if they can't figure it out.

---

Sean Evans?