Netflix original movie "Beasts of No Nation"

[Linux23]

I can't watch movies like this because of how it affect my mood, but i'm not sure if Netflix is doing the right thing by paying so much money to produce original content. I guess time will tell.

 

[Hugo Drax]

yeah, that was the only redeeming quality to the beginning of this movie.

I get why they did the beginning like that.. day in the life of these people so we're emotionally invested in the family + village.
but I found it sloooooooooooooow...

IF you found it slow. I suspect I will like it.

:biggrin:

Too many movies are made for the ADD generation.

 

[Ns1]

12 million investment + P+A

51k return.

Not sure how the numbers gonna play out here - that's a lot of $10 subs they're gonna need to pay that one off.

With that same 12 million they could have licensed hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of content.

 

[Markbnj]

12 million investment + P+A

51k return.

Not sure how the numbers gonna play out here - that's a lot of $10 subs they're gonna need to pay that one off.

With that same 12 million they could have licensed hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of content.

It's a really interesting question. I've also been wondering how they make this model work? It almost seems like they would have to move toward some tiered or per-view pricing model to justify all the production investment they're making. Can it really be worth it just to drive subs? All the same, I really don't know if the loyal customer base (myself included among them) would follow the company in that direction.

 

[Ruptga]

I can't watch movies like this because of how it affect my mood, but i'm not sure if Netflix is doing the right thing by paying so much money to produce original content. I guess time will tell.

We will see in time, but it makes sense to me. Those that don't want to see it will just keep watching the things they already watch, adding new kinds of content will basically never cost them subscribers. It's still not cheap, but it's an investment and they have cash available so why not?

 

[Brovane]

12 million investment + P+A

51k return.

Not sure how the numbers gonna play out here - that's a lot of $10 subs they're gonna need to pay that one off.

With that same 12 million they could have licensed hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of content.

The box office return isn't important. They just released it at the box office so it would be eligible for the "Academy Awards". They spent about $100 Million on two season's of "House of Cards". They have over 65+ Million subscribers world-wide.

 

[Zeze]

I didn't like the movie.

Personally becuase that whole 'child soldier' theme was covered very well in Blood Diamond (Leonardo DiCarprio, Jennifer Connelly). So by no fault of this movie, I was tired of it.

At least Blood Diamond had a clear driven plot of being captured, brainwashed to be a child soldier, journalism for Western nations (who dont' care ultimately), and the redemption of the child meeting his father again.

This movie felt aimless for the most part, it just seemed to dwell in that child soldier whereas I would've liked a better story progression. I guess the movie is more 'artsy' & atmospheric than typical Hollywood movies.

I'm a huge fan of Idris Elba. But at times, even his Afrikaan accent seemed exhausted & overdone.

Spoiler

The ending wasn't satisfying either. But on hindsight, I guess it captured well what these children go through even after being freed. The damage is too severe and they don't know what to do, even in peace.

 

[poofyhairguy]

12 million investment + P+A

51k return.

Not sure how the numbers gonna play out here - that's a lot of $10 subs they're gonna need to pay that one off.

With that same 12 million they could have licensed hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of content.

It isn't a short term investment for sure. I bet this movie itself doesn't make them a dime, it is too artsy and its not about a subject matter that many people in developed nations want to face. With that said, there is a VERY established path for raising the profile of your brand as a content producer via these sorts of critically acclaimed projects.

For example, as much as people liked Mad Men and Breaking Bad neither were HUGE ratings successes. Both shows by design only appealed to a small segment of the total audience, while having the kind of budgets to give the material justice. The payoff for Mad Men and Breaking Bad wasn't the shows themselves, it was elevating the brand of the AMC channel from being "old movies only Ted Turner cares about" to being a place to look for new critically acclaimed series. This rebranding effort finally paid off when they put out their mediocre and blatantly pandering to the lowest common denominator ratings cash cow- The Walking Dead. Without the credibility of those prior shows, The Walking Dead is just a crappy zombie TV show on a channel no one cares about. Because of those shows everyone took the Walking Dead more seriously than they would have otherwise and it was a huge success.

Netflix is probably hoping for the same sort of branding benefit. With consumers they already have a good brand, but the jump from shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards to major movies is a huge one. To make a successful major movie you HAVE TO have actors people care about, and normally those actors come with larger than Netflix can afford paychecks. But if they can convince the AAA star to do some movie at a discount because they REALLY respected what Netflix did with material like this then it was all worth it.

Netflix is making long term moves that will allow them to cut out as many middle men as possible. Just licensing more content is a dead end, as it sets poor consumer expectations (as they then ALWAYS expect recent blockbusters on Netflix) and it puts the fate of their profits with the actual entity that makes the content. Netflix needs to avoid what happened to Tivo- people still recognize the brand positively for their innovation but almost NO ONE uses a TiVo DVR anymore because the cable company packaged that magic with a subscription. Eventually what Netflix USED to do (an ondemand service for mainstream content) will be done by cable companies and ISPs and Netflix will be the next HBO. But only if they play their cards right.

 

[JEDI]

I didn't like the movie.

Personally becuase that whole 'child soldier' theme was covered very well in Blood Diamond (Leonardo DiCarprio, Jennifer Connelly). So by no fault of this movie, I was tired of it.

At least Blood Diamond had a clear driven plot of being captured, brainwashed to be a child soldier, journalism for Western nations (who dont' care ultimately), and the redemption of the child meeting his father again.

This movie felt aimless for the most part, it just seemed to dwell in that child soldier whereas I would've liked a better story progression. I guess the movie is more 'artsy' & atmospheric than typical Hollywood movies.

I'm a huge fan of Idris Elba. But at times, even his Afrikaan accent seemed exhausted & overdone.

Spoiler

The ending wasn't satisfying either. But on hindsight, I guess it captured well what these children go through even after being freed. The damage is too severe and they don't know what to do, even in peace.

ahh.. kinda like seeing Gravity (Sandra Bullock), then seeing The MArtian.

guess im lucky in that I didn't see Blood Diamond.

 

[pcslookout]

Saw it in the theaters and loved it.

 

[Ns1]

The box office return isn't important. They just released it at the box office so it would be eligible for the "Academy Awards". They spent about $100 Million on two season's of "House of Cards". They have over 65+ Million subscribers world-wide.

Your response doesn't answer the questions.

Gee you spent 100 million on 48 hours of content [a fraction of] your subscribers will watch once. Then what?

 

[JSt0rm]

I thought it was great. Netflix is pushing for a oscar and to get a oscar you need theater release. Thats the only reason for the theater release at all. In fact because of it being available online through streaming ALL of the big theater chains boycotted showing the film.

 

[deadlyapp]

I watched it this weekend and enjoyed it a lot. Very sad though. You definitely have to go into it expecting it to be more of a documentary style vs a dramatic style (ala blood diamond, etc). It reminded me a lot of how platoon portrayed the vietnam war.

 

[JSt0rm]

plus I wouldn't expect a lot of people around here to like this film for [REDACTED]

 

[Accord99]

This rebranding effort finally paid off when they put out their mediocre and blatantly pandering to the lowest common denominator ratings cash cow- The Walking Dead. Without the credibility of those prior shows, The Walking Dead is just a crappy zombie TV show on a channel no one cares about. Because of those shows everyone took the Walking Dead more seriously than they would have otherwise and it was a huge success.

While Mad Men and BB helped put AMC's name on the map, TWD's success is its own. Its series premiere already had some of the highest ratings in cable history and significantly larger than either Mad Men and BB. It also managed to grow that over the next 5 seasons to become the highest rated scripted show on TV and capable of holding its own against NFL football and the Olympics.

One could argue the only reason that BB got such great ratings in its final episodes was that some people who watched TWD caught repeats of BB and became fans.

 

[Jimzz]

I thought it was great. Netflix is pushing for a oscar and to get a oscar you need theater release. Thats the only reason for the theater release at all. In fact because of it being available online through streaming ALL of the big theater chains boycotted showing the film.

Wonder if Netflix could file a anti-competitive complaint against them. Seems they all came together to block it from theaters. I could see not as many theaters or shows but ALL the big theaters blocking it seems pretty obvious.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/04/netflix-beast-of-no-nation-boycotted-idris-elba

 

[Ns1]

Wonder if Netflix could file a anti-competitive complaint against them. Seems they all came together to block it from theaters. I could see not as many theaters or shows but ALL the big theaters blocking it seems pretty obvious.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/04/netflix-beast-of-no-nation-boycotted-idris-elba

I think the per screen average proves the theater owners right.

 

[Jimzz]

I think the per screen average proves the theater owners right.

It made over $1600 per independent theater. These are smaller and much more limited theaters. So its take was pretty good considering everything.

I live near DC and can only find 2 theaters that have it, 1 in DC the other in Maryland. And these are not very visible locations either, never heard of either till I looked for this movie.

 

[Ns1]

I guess if 160 people watching your movie is the criteria for success I can't argue with that.

 

[Brovane]

Your response doesn't answer the questions.

Gee you spent 100 million on 48 hours of content [a fraction of] your subscribers will watch once. Then what?

Since Netflix doesn't release subscriber viewing numbers we don't know what type of traffic original Netflix series drive for the company. However Netflix knows exactly what the viewing habit's of it's subscribers are. They believe by paying to create strong original contention that it continues driving it's subscribers number. The actual boxoffice numbers for "Beasts of No Nation" wasn't relevant to Netflix. For them the $12 Million they paid for the movie was money spent for acquiring good original content in their view. The release at the box-office was to hopefully allow a Academy award Nomination. Having this movie get a nomination will be a huge payoff because it will drive a lot of attention to Neflix original content which drives subscriptions.

What budget Netflix has for original content, they don't say. However they have repeatedly stated that they don't want to be just a purchaser of content. They want to create original content that someone can only get on Netflix. So far they seem perfectly willing to make that investment.

 

[JEDI]

I'm a huge fan of Idris Elba. But at times, even his Afrikaan accent seemed exhausted & overdone.

yeah, he's Engrish kept on reminding me of Jar Jar Binks

 

[poofyhairguy]

While Mad Men and BB helped put AMC's name on the map, TWD's success is its own. Its series premiere already had some of the highest ratings in cable history and significantly larger than either Mad Men and BB. It also managed to grow that over the next 5 seasons to become the highest rated scripted show on TV and capable of holding its own against NFL football and the Olympics.

One could argue the only reason that BB got such great ratings in its final episodes was that some people who watched TWD caught repeats of BB and became fans.

Breaking Bad and Mad Men gave TWD more than a lead in. Without the critical success of those shows there is very little chance a channel like AMC would have been able to get the funding or the quality of actors they got for TWD. TWD requires a MUCH larger budget than something like Mad Men, and that kind of funding only came to the network after MM and BB had been making noises at award shows for years.

I mean, it is not like TWD succeeded because of some crazy innovation. It isn't the iPhone of television. It was a big budget and actiony TV series that was based on the most popular fad of the time (zombies). Basically it was the True Blood to Mad Men's Sopranos. It doesn't win a lot of awards (it has only won makeup Emmys) but it is MUCH more accessible to the common joe than a show like Mad Men.

 

[JEDI]

Idris Elba won a SAG Award for best supporting actor for the film "Beasts of No Nation."

supporting actor?! wtf?
I would have thought he was one of the 2 main actors? (the other being the kid.)

 

[Jodell88]

No, from what I read, the main actor is the kid.

 

[SP33Demon]

yeah, he's Engrish kept on reminding me of Jar Jar Binks

A good reason why he's not in the mix for an oscar. To the chagrin of jada smith and will smith /snicker