MovieChat Forums > The Gray Man (2022) Discussion > So... was it worth for Netflix to spend ...

So... was it worth for Netflix to spend 200 millions on? Did they gain millions of new subscribers?


Who am I kidding. Of course not. This movie came and went unnoticed despite lame attempt to promote it and make stars to give interviews and even tour countries.

If this movie would come out in theaters then it would make some 18 millions on opening and 55 overall. Huge flop.

I can watch it for free and honestly I dont even bother. Because I dont care about what is happening. Some two random dudes run around for no reason. Do I suppose to root for any of them to win?

And I cant stand Chris Evans because he is obnoxious in real life. Gosling often drowns in playing the same role of typical depressing boring lifeless guy. Anna De Armas’s 15 minutes of fame should have been over long time ago, the moment she stopped dating Affleck. But they cast her in lots of roles during that time so we would have to see her jumping there and there in supporting roles.




reply

Yeah. Also the title doesn't exactly sound interesting

reply

Netflix spent $270 million on Stranger Things season 4 and they’ve still lost nearly 1 million subscribers but they’ve still got over 200 million subscribers worldwide so yeah they’ve bled a bit but they’re still sitting on the biggest goldmine of streaming services for now.

Sucks that you won’t give the film a chance for some really petty reasons, I thought it was a great action thriller and one of the best films distributed by Netflix that I’ve seen.

reply

Its not petty reasons. I just dont care what is happening when I see trailer.

I dont care to see how Evans will try to catch Gosling and things will blow up while he will do it.

reply

I mean saying "Chris Evans is obnoxious in real life" is kind of petty especially when it's based on what? All the interviews with him you've hate watched on YouTube? Nice.

Guessing you haven't watched Knives Out as both Chris Evans and Ana De Armas are great in that film. And yeah Gosling can play stoic characters very well and he plays another in this film, pretty solid casting choice if you ask me.

"I dont care to see how Evans will try to catch Gosling and things will blow up while he will do it."

Sounds like action thriller films just aren't for you then and you should probably stop watching that genre and watch something that you do care about.

reply

Chris Evans is obnoxiously woke in his interviews. For that people dont like him. Hr is fake and full of himself.

He was fine in Knives Out as surprising villain even tho I dont like that film. Here he looks annoying in trailers.

Ana De Armas was not good in Knives Out. She was just there. Hollywood tried to make her happen by casting her everywhere. But she cant carry a movie on her shoulders. All her roles are supporting next to big stars that carry movies. She is another Jessica Alba, Eva Mandes, Jennifer Garner, Jessica Biel and many others. They go onto "where are they now" the moment Hollywood stops trying to make them happen.

reply

Well it's number 1 on Netflix in 91 countries so yeah I'd say it was worth it for Netflix. I'd rather they spent $200 million on this than Michael Bay or Zack Snyder films or multiple shows that they cancel after one season.

For me Ana De Armas has now been in a few good films which is more than I can say for those other actresses you named. Ana has been in Blade Runner 2049, Knives Out, The Gray Man and she was praised for her small role in No Time to Die. Whether she keeps appearing in films I like I have no idea but me and you seem to have very different tastes if you didn't like Knives Out either.

reply

No, it wasn't worth it. Netflix needs to stop with these big budget action movies and make smaller budget character driven dramas or comedies. This movie doesn't look like it cost $200 million. It's not good at all.

reply

Netflix should have just buy A24.

reply

[No, it wasn't worth it. Netflix needs to stop with these big budget action movies and make smaller budget character driven dramas or comedies. This movie doesn't look like it cost $200 million. It's not good at all.]

Exactly. Good comment

reply

...keep subscribers?

reply

This.

Op doesn’t understand how streaming services work.

reply

Who hurt you?

reply

That isn't really how it works. Netflix brings in more than $3 billion from subscriptions each month, so they don't need to add new subscribers to cover the cost of a $200 million film. The goal is retain the subscribers they have, and add some new ones if possible. They could make 15 $200 million films every month and still break even.

Big event films like this one, and shows like Stranger Things, are what they offer to keep current subscribers in place.

It may or may not work in the long run. They have lost subscribers as other streaming services have appeared, and may lose more in the coming months. However, with 214 million people paying between $10 and $20 each month, they have a healthy subscriber base, and plenty of money with which to create theater-quality films.

reply

Its all looks good on paper with counting money. But they have just started losing subscribers and closed lots of shows and will stop doing those expensive movies.

Their goal is to keep people subscribing, so those people must watch and rewatch what ever is on their library. Gray Man is no the movie people will keep rewatching over and over. Its too boring for that. They will watch it once and forget about its existence. For those money Netflix could have shot 5 cheaper movies.

reply

Since posting above I've watched The Gray Man, and it's anything but boring. It's like a James Bond move, only better, and certainly a film with high rewatch value. Not that rewatching is a key to Netflix succeeding. Just like a traditional movie studio, they need to continue creating new films and shows, to keep their current subscribers happy, and possibly add new ones.

You're right, they could have produced 5 films budgeted a $40 million apiece, but would any have made the splash The Gray Man did? Probably not, unless the captured lightning in a bottle and created one of the unicorns that is the inexpensive indie film that blows up, like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, and so forth. Instead, they created a theater-quality blockbuster for viewers to watch at home, and I think moving forward they will continue to do so, while mixing in smaller, cheaper indie films.

Netflix, and streaming as a whole, is still in its infancy in comparison to the established movie studios. One assumes that they will continue to build on their success, and release an entire slate of films each year in the same way that, say, Disney or Warner Brothers do. In years to come, I can imagine Netflix releasing four blockbuster (couchbuster?) films each year, at about $200 million per film, along with maybe a dozen smaller indie films in the $40 million per film budget range you mentioned, along with the 100s of series they put out annually. I read that they spend about $18 billion per year on original programming. Tack on one Stranger Things-esque $300 million mega-show, and all told and we're in the ballpark of $1.6 billion per year spent on films and shows. That's about half of what they make from subscriptions in a month.

They absolutely have the budget for this, even without adding subscribers, as long as they keep their current subscribers happy, and/or replace lost each lost subscriber with a new one.

reply

It honestly didn't even feel or look like a 200m movie.

The John Wick trilogy cost 150m to make. That's all three in total.

This film wasn't "hot garbage" but it was definitely so unnecessarily expensive to make.

Heck even Extraction, an actual good Netflix action film had basically a third of this film's budget

reply