Distribution

This is pretty cool Pat Alexander. It's also encouraging to know that you don't need hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a film.

The title of this post — “insane deal” — is a little odd. Is it insane to ask for an MG? No just smart. It doesn’t hurt to ask, especially if you have multiple suitors. Too few people realize they can negotiate.

Kenneth George, yes, usually we run 6 episodes per season running between 30m to 40m each. Portugal is linked always with Spain, because we are Sisters countries, for example: Our Netflix is the same that Spain, every big streamer looks to Spain and Portugal as one market, so that makes distribution potentially bigger. I think it’s a good market to take a look at!

You are right Geoff Hall , we must look to all potentials ahead :))

I am happy you found it useful Debbie Elicksen :)) Thank you. Portugal and Spain are always linked together because they functions as one market and they have a great potential. It’s good for all of us to learn more about other countries/markets and go globals. Opportunities are bigger like this. Thank you my friend.

Sandra Correia, what a crucial subject to emphasize on! Distribution is of subjects for "collective" strategic pursuits, discussions and agendas.

There's a lot to contemplate on for 2025 and beyond !

There is Eon C. Rambally and we'll keep an eye on it!

Kenneth George I'm only wondering what took them so long.

Debbie Elicksen The thing is, neither Netflix nor Amazon has publicly made a move for any major theater chain, and there are valid arguments both for and against such a deal — all depending on their long-term strategic priorities.

Be there or be square. :) (It's a Canadian term for see you there.)

I just loved the trailer and they hammered it home for 3 months in theatre trailer previews before release. I'll hAve to check out the celeb campaign in retrospect and agree with you on the need for multiple angles... wondering what NEON's budget was in total for marketing...

I've seen the promo posts for Together and Weapons on social media, Ashley Renée Smith!. They're both creative campaigns. The Weapons posts are mysterious, and some of the posters look like kids drew them.

Randall Scott White I couldn't find any specific reporting on their marketing budget, but for the horror release Longlegs (also under $10M budget), Neon stayed under $10M in marketing costs, focusing on lean, digital-first tactics without traditional TV ads. Neon’s larger prestige titles like Anora and even Parasite saw campaigns stretching upwards of $18–20M, significantly more than production budgets in some cases. So while Together’s exact spend remains undisclosed, we can reasonably assume Neon stuck to their efficient style: smart, targeted online marketing rather than a huge global push.

No truer words were ever said: "be very intentional about the film you’re releasing and its marketing campaign."

Hi, Don Zorbas. I haven't marketed a short film, but I watch a lot of short films on YouTube and Vimeo. I watch shorts because of the thumbnails a lot of times.

What are you looking at as goals for your short film? How short (or long) is it? Is it a film that will sustain a viewer's attention until the end? Short films are tough to market. There's no real monetary value in them because a consumer will be very aware of how they are spending their money. You can watch a feature length feature for a dollar or less so where is the revenue coming from. If you wish for the film to show the skill of your team, hopefully investors will be impressed enough to decide that your team can create a profitable feature film. You really don't need to market it. Just get it out there and start to create a fan base and use that fan base to create opportunity to make deal to produce a feature film.

You might want to get a sales agent. This is one I've worked with: https://www.sndfilms.com/

Maurice Vaughan Vimeo doesn’t really have great deals for indie producers. However, I was interested to see that in the UK, the BBC iPlayer has the biggest audience and in second place is YouTube. You primarily need to know where your audience hangs out.

Debbie Elicksen marketing, positioning, and knowing how to frame your project can absolutely be the difference-maker.

The quote from Busan hits hard, especially the point about the balance between established names and new voices. That’s where bold, smart marketing comes in. Whether it’s leaning into social media strategy, building community around your project early, or creating something experiential that stands out, visibility now often starts before the first frame is shot.

Debbie Elicksen

That's good news! Let's get some more movies made that'll bring folks to the movies! And get your friends off the couch and lead them to a theater, remind them how great it is.

Jack Binder The PwC report is somewhat speculative at best. While it predicts that global box office revenues may approach pre-pandemic levels by 2030, we don’t know how much of the current landscape in the streaming space is accurately accounted for in their projections. The growth of platforms like Netflix and Amazon, along with potential new entrants into the streaming market, suggests that these services could become even more aggressive in the feature film space. This would create direct competition for traditional theaters.

The pandemic definitely accelerated behavioral shifts both for consumers and producers. While it initially pushed films to streaming platforms, once this model proved somewhat equally profitable, it became harder to ignore the advantages of streaming over traditional moviegoing. Theaters might take longer to fully recover (if at all) to pre-pandemic levels because everything about technology—be it streaming, home viewing setups, or the rise of new formats (e.g., VR or AR)—points toward increased competition for the cinema experience, not less. By 2030, streaming could very well be the dominant mode for film distribution, and theaters will have to evolve or risk becoming niche experiences for a specific audience.

Kenneth George Thank you for your reply to the post, much appreciated and good to hear your thoughts. I'll personally go with PwC analysts based upon professional, entertainment industry, financial analysts' research and evaluations. PwC (Price Waterhouse Coopers) is one of the top analysts in the industry. Feel free to include sources which you are citing in your evaluation and feel free to read the entire PwC report to learn about their assumptions. By 2030 the robots could have taken over and yes anyone can guess what the industry looks like then. Based upon their data and expertise, this is their current projection for annual, domestic box office revenue. I for one agree that theater going will hold and grow as entertainment value (as Amazon MGM does, Apple (F1), etc.) but tend to rely on experts' data-driven analytics.

So, I do not know much about these facts, so I let chatgpt do a prediction:

Reasons PwC Projects Box Office Sales Will Be Slightly Better in 2025 than in 2024

1. Delayed Blockbusters Finally Hitting Screens

Due to the 2023 strikes, many big releases were pushed into 2025, including Mission: Impossible 8, Avatar 3, and various MCU entries. These delayed tentpoles should spike revenue.

2. Back to Full Production Pace

Studios are now operating at full capacity again post-strike, leading to a healthier theatrical release calendar in 2025.

3. Global Market Stability

China, India, and other international markets have regained theatrical consistency post-pandemic, adding significantly to global revenue.

4. Eventization of Theatrical Releases

Studios are now treating theatrical premieres more like “live events,” creating a sense of urgency (Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour is a case study many are trying to replicate).

5. Higher Premium Format Usage

More films are being shot or remastered for IMAX/Dolby Cinema, boosting average ticket prices.

6. Family and Genre Films Making a Comeback

More variety in theatrical offerings (e.g., horror, animation, faith-based, and YA adaptations) are drawing in niche but reliable audiences.

7. Studios Rebalancing Streaming vs. Theatrical

There’s renewed focus on making the theatrical window count, as studios realize streaming alone doesn’t recoup blockbuster budgets.

8. Better Marketing and Cross-Promotion

Studios are using social platforms, influencers, and brand partnerships more effectively to drive traffic to theaters.

Why This Bump Won’t Last – Reasons for a Possible Drop-Off After 2025

1. Weak 2026 Release Pipeline (Again)

Many projects greenlit post-strikes won’t be ready until late 2026 or 2027, creating a potential content gap in 2026.

2. Franchise Fatigue Deepening

Superhero and sequel burnout continues. Even tentpole brands (like Star Wars, MCU, Fantastic Beasts) are struggling to recapture past magic.

3. Streaming Still Erodes Theatrical Habits

Viewer expectations have changed. Many audiences are trained to "wait 30 days" rather than rush to theaters.

4 Shrinking Exclusive Windows

Short theatrical runs mean less urgency. If a movie is on VOD or streaming a month later, many opt to skip theaters.

5. High Costs for Moviegoers

Tickets + concessions + parking = an expensive night out. In times of economic stress, fewer people prioritize moviegoing.

6. Theater Closures & Consolidation

Continued shuttering of small and mid-sized theaters reduces access and choice, especially outside urban centers.

7. Changing Demographics

Younger generations (Gen Z and Alpha) are more interested in gaming, short-form content, and social media than theatrical cinema.

8. AI & Virtual Content Could Disrupt Habits

In the near future, new digital entertainment (AI-generated shows, VR, interactive games) may compete directly with film for time and money.

Jack Binder "This is important, Jack, so I have to say it with a whisper: I am an expert, Jack — of the highest order." :-)

(Alright, let’s dig in!)

I could certainly throw a bunch of sources your way, but where’s the fun in that, right? Let’s break it down: anyone claiming they can predict the next 5 years with absolute certainty is, at best, speculating. There’s no crystal ball out there that guarantees the future with 100% precision.

That said, could the film industry recover to pre-pandemic levels? In theory, sure. But let’s face it—before the pandemic, the industry was already facing significant challenges. The pandemic didn’t create them; it just accelerated the trends that were already in motion.

Here’s the thing—theaters once had a monopoly on the big screen experience. But then came the heavy hitters:

Netflix

Amazon Prime Video

Disney+

Hulu

HBO Max (now Max)

Apple TV+

Paramount+ and Peacock

Suddenly, the pie that theaters once owned started shrinking, and it’s going to continue shrinking. Streaming platforms are only getting better at delivering content, and there are always new players entering the market. That means more competition, and more pressure on traditional moviegoing.

Now, just to clarify—I’m not anti-theater. The theater experience will always have a place in our culture. But the fact remains: If theaters aren’t already asking themselves the tough questions—like, “Will there even be theaters in 10 years?”—then they’ve already missed the boat. The shift is real, and by 2030, we could see a dramatically different landscape if they fail to make the right moves or if netflix and co decides to themselves make the right moves.

It’s no coincidence that Netflix is trading at $1,158+ per share, while AMC Entertainment is languishing at around $2.85 per share, with losses expected to continue for the next 3 years. The numbers don’t lie, Jack. There's a clear signal here.

And if you need someone else to echo this perspective, check out this article citing MoffettNathanson Research on June 30: Dual Threats to U.S. Theaters Too Hard to Ignore. You can find it here: https://www.degonline.org/perspective-dual-threats-u-s-theaters-hard-ign...

The first paragraph sums it all up:

"On June 12, our firm downgraded the U.S. theater sector to 'Sell' and switched our stock recommendations for Cinemark and Regal from Neutral to Sell due to two growing threats facing exhibitors: Premium Video on Demand (PVOD) and Netflix."

Now, I’m curious—if you asked PwC whether you should buy AMC or Netflix, I’d be very interested in their recommendation. If you look at the historical prices of both stocks, something about streaming plaforms should give you goosebumps if you are currently holding traditional theater stock. Stock prices often can send a lot of signal.The netflix business model and traditional theater may be beyond the scope of the current thread.

Great share, Sam Rivera! Joe List’s approach may seem unconventional, but it’s exactly the kind of outside-the-box thinking that often cuts through the noise in today’s crowded content landscape.

Screening a comedy special in a theater and making it available on YouTube might not follow the traditional model, but it aligns perfectly with how audiences actually consume content now, seeking immediacy, accessibility, and a sense of community around an event.

For indie filmmakers and creatives, this is a powerful reminder that distribution isn’t one-size-fits-all. Sometimes the most memorable launches come from rethinking what distribution even means for your audience.

There are entire facebok groups dedicated to filmhub that are filled with a wealth of information. I'd suggest checking it out. Best wishes!

You are right Ashley Renée Smith!, I think will be good for young audiences to know Superman and I read that the message of this new film is more compassionate and that is a good thing. We need that messages in today’s world. I hope you had a great time last tonight and enjoyed. I saw your Pipocas (popcorn) ahahahah

Hahaha, I did have a great time, Sandra Correia!

There really are no great insights from the release of Superman in July. It's a worldwide known hero in a Summer release. There is no different strategy from any other blockbuster release from years past. Is it a good movie? Audiences seem to like it which means it's entertaining. That's first and foremost. There aren't any A-List stars in it. At least none that I recognize so no one went to see it because of who is in it. That won't change the current BS about A-List talent and what a crock that is. Theaters and distribution companies will get their cut so if there is anything left for the investors, I would be shocked. Of course there is no evidence that anything a distribution company did to promote this film in any way helped fill seats. They never have to justify their methods anyway.

All in all, the turnout for Superman proved nothing new. It will be used by the useless to continue to pretend how important they are in the promotion of a film when it's the subject of the film that sold it. They will still take the credit. People still need and look to filmmakers to entertain them and take them on an adventure. If you make a fun film, they will enjoy it and maybe see it a few times while it is in the theaters. If you make a lousy one, it won't attract a large audience. Sounds to me like the same old logical path all films take.

Philip Lee, I actually think the fact that there aren’t traditional A-list stars in Superman is exactly why it’s worth paying attention to. It would’ve been easy for Gunn to load the cast with blockbuster headliners, especially with an IP this massive, but instead, he cast talented up-and-comers with strong fan followings and proven chops across TV and film. Nicholas Hoult, Rachel Brosnahan, and Isabela Merced are standout actors, and their stars have been rising in the industry more and more over the last 10 years. Nathan Fillion is a long-beloved figure in geek-centric fandoms. But the really impressive casting move was David Corenswet, who has mainly been standing out in prestige streaming series over the years but hasn't had a film role of this magnitude, and absolutely knocked the role out of the park.

And in 2025, six years post-Endgame, the superhero genre doesn’t guarantee a box office smash anymore. Just look at The Flash, one of the most globally recognized superheroes, but the film is still one of the biggest box-office flops in history. So when a movie like Superman opens strong and holds strong (two weeks in and still sitting at 83% with critics and 92% with audiences on Rotten Tomatoes), that does say something about the script, the direction, the casting, the tone, the marketing, and the love Gunn poured into every frame.

There actually was a very clear moment when the tide turned for the public’s perception of this Superman film, and it was directly tied to the first full-length trailer release in December. Up until that point, a lot of people were skeptical. There were doubts about the casting, the tone, and whether audiences even wanted another Superman film. But the trailer? It hit differently. The emotional beats, the worldbuilding, the cinematography, all sparked excitement in a way that the early stills and teasers hadn’t. The week it dropped, it absolutely flooded my social media feeds, and within the first hour alone, I had five different people text me just to ask if I’d seen it yet. That kind of buzz doesn’t come out of nowhere.

I agree that story and execution will always be the foundation of a successful film. But when we see a known IP succeed where others have recently failed, it is worth discussing what made the difference this time.

Ashley Renée Smith! I don't have a problem with anything you have stated Ashley, and it's good to see audiences enjoying the hard work of so many people cast and crew. The thing is, filmmaking, first and foremost is an entertainment business filled with people that should be entertaining. Aside from the poor crew members that work unknown behind the scenes moving C-stands and sandbags for hours on end, we shouldn't be surprised that the creatives did their jobs. Marketing and advertising has always been a scam in my book with no accountability or proof as to how their materials were able to "bring in" the crowd. It's a Superman movie. Maybe audiences weren't tired of superhero movies. They were just not interested in certain subject matter of current films. Another simple fact is that there wouldn't be so many flops if the budgets were more reasonable. There are certain constants in the movie industry. Rental costs of any number of functional trailers, grip trucks and other daily equipment needs are priced accordingly. They may increase in quantity needed, but the prices are still a constant. A lot of wasted cost is being paid to egos and not ability. The concept of being paid what you're worth is a double edge sword when you consider where do the numbers come from that decide one's worth.

Fact is, making a Superman movie should be the easiest film in the world to make successful and entertaining. You couldn't find an easier assignment and if they shaved $100M off the budget (of which I'm sure would have been very easy to do) the film would have an easier time reaching its "break even" point.

I grew up when the cover price on comic books was 15 cents. No one is happier when a comic book movie is successful, but I also know it's not a daunting task either. Does the success so far for Superman herald in a new chapter for the comic book movie? No. Does it help keep in place false proof about business practices that are flawed and corrupt? Maybe. Just remember that Godzilla Minus One cost $15M and had a worldwide gross of $113M. It's all relative to who thinks who is worth what.