- Forum Clout
- 31,335
Take a look at The Irishman. Starring Robert DeNiro and Jim Norton. It cost $200million to make and some reports are over $250million. It made $8million in theaters. Assuming Netflix took half of that they still need $196million in revenue alone generated by this film just to pay for it without any profit whatsoever. Does anyone actually think that the film generated $200million in subscriptions for Netflix by itself?Can you expand on "lots of things"? Is that the industry terminology? Can you boil it down for a Long Island bartender? And don't use other fancy jargon like "a buncha stuff" or "this and that".
Does anyone really believe that the film will get them $200million in DVD, Bluray, and Netflix subscriptions combined? How can they possibly sink $250million into a film then keep its streaming numbers secret when they send out residual checks? How is anyone supposed to be able to calculate the income generated by a project like this? Nielsen actually tried to figure out viewing numbers for The Irishman and they said that Netflix inflated its numbers by over 50%. Howie Math.
They just did another film called The Gray Man that cost $200million and did a whopping total of $450K in theaters. That one film costs more than an entire season of House of the Dragon, the biggest show out right now which does an absolute killing in DVD and Bluray sales as well. Money laundering? Cooked books? Netflix's business model makes absolutely no sense compared to actually established companies like HBO or Disney where they have income streams from cable, theaters, DVD, and Bluray. And Disney is literally burning through cash trying to keep its streaming service afloat. And HBO could not afford to pay to keep Westworld streaming as the residuals were too expensive.
Go clean up tables five and six and the bar countertop.