28
votes
Imax CEO says weekend box office shows “paradigm shift” in moviegoing: Revenue jumps, company swings to profit in Q2
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Jill Goldsmith
- Published
- Jul 26 2023
- Word count
- 317 words
I think this has more to do with Nolan's Oppenheimer than it has to do with IMAX and moviegoing. I mean, James Cameron's Avatar 2 already proved people still go to physical movie theaters. (I still don't know how it hit over a billion so fast and not have any impact in culture whatsoever).
I find most businesses assume everything happens in a vacuum. Barbie and Oppenheimer are both doing well, because both appear to be well-written stories with excellent production. But, IMAX thinks that the credit goes to their film process and Mattel thinks people want stories framed around classic toys. No! People largely don’t care about framing devices or production technology, they want good stories told in a visually pleasing way. Nobody’s saying “let’s go see the new IMAX film.” They are saying “let’s go see the new Nolan film” or “let’s check out the latest Marvel movie.” It’s the stories people like, not the set dressing.
I don't think the producers at Mattel think that Barbie was successful entirely because of their IP (though they certainly do think that it was part of it - and they're not wrong about that, either). You have to keep in mind that Mattel's film production company exists soley to produce movies based on their IP, so of course they're going to make more movies based on them. They've also been these movies for a while now, many of them are fairly famous flops. They can't have done it so many times without learning something, and the success of the Barbie movie means they finally have something that they can learn what actually does work instead of avoiding things they think don't.
Businesses aren't ignorant. It is their intention to take credit for a success. The CEO of IMAX certainly has an interest to push the idea that IMAX is desired.
It’s crazy how avatar 2 made so much money and it’s so not talked about at all. Like I’d go as far as saying that anecdotally I heard more about avatar in 2018 than I did two months after avatar 2 came out
I think geeks are failing to realize that non-geeks don't overly-obsess about media like geeks do and are interpreting that as lack of interest/impact, rather than what it actually is - normal people having a healthy relationship with their media.
Star Wars fans (and LOTR fans and so on) spend years in dedicated fandom spaces, over-analyzing every scene and memeing every line to oblivion, to the point of forgetting that's not normal and regular people have zero interest in doing any of that.
Both Avatar and Avatar 2 had massive cultural impact and were both beloved by their viewers. Hence why they did so well in the box office and why Avatar 3 will do well too. It's just that after watching it and discussing it, normal people moved on, instead of going to reddit to argue with some annoying twat about some scene in a movie they watched years ago.
I think the whole "no cultural impact" idea mostly just originates from Avatar not being merchandised very successfully
My personal take away, as an outsider who never saw either Avatar movie, is that no one cares about the movies in any way when they are not actively engaging with it. It seems like they're just fun yet extremely forgettable escapes. They're not like the Titanic film that had a pasting cultural impact on what movies were like from that point forward. I'm not seeing and hearing things where people say the industry has changed because of the way that movie was filmed, stories don't seem to be told differently because of Avatar. Look at influential movies like Iron Man, or the Raimi Spider-Man, you can see the framework they laid out in cinema for the following decades. Can you see that with Avatar? It's possible I'm just missing it because I haven't seen the movies, but from what I've read in reviews and audience reactions, they were fun movies but we're so full of homages themselves that they broke no new ground other than the scope of the special effects.
Oh yeah, I totally think the first one had a huge impact on the industry, both in how movies are made and shown. Obviously the trend of doing 3D releases was cemented by it, but in my opinion, that isn't really the lasting impact. A few I'd argue for:
I guess a lot of these impacts are more "behind the scenes" kinds of things that people don't necessarily think about too much. I think a lot of the focus ends up on franchises with more consistent release schedules and merchandise, which tend to integrate themselves more strongly into people's lives (and even identities). I don't think Avatar's impacts — on the industry or culture — are any smaller, just less visible.
I don’t know how to quote but “It seems like they're just fun yet extremely forgettable escapes. ” this hits the nail right on the head. Personally didn’t like avatar 2 and found it boring and even left mid way with a friend. But the first one was the first good beautiful 3D movie and that was an experience that was worth it, even if the story and characters seem like a first draft.
You’re right that geeks do tend to relate to this sort of thing differently, but just the same, Star Wars has genuinely become a part of mainstream culture. People will make a joke about the Force and everyone immediately knows what they’re talking about. Avatar hasn’t had anything like that sort of impact. No one uses its plot points or themes or characters to make jokes or metaphorical points. I’m not saying that one is better than the other, but I do think it’s genuinely fascinating that such hugely popular films haven’t had that sort of effect.
I'm still surprised that despite Avatar being so successful at the box office, most people I've talked to about it (the first or the second) never even saw it and have 0 clue what it is about other than 1) blue people and 2) wet blue people.
The "no cultural impact" thing is very real. Nobody seems to care about Avatar and I don't say that flippantly.
To contrast, I remember when Titanic came out and it had an immediate and humongous effect on pop culture despite being an epic romance (just not typically the kind of movie you would expect that kind of impact from). I was too young for it but I get the impression Terminator 2 was the same.
I kinda don't like how this post frames enthusiasm for media as necessarily unhealthy or abnormal behavior. Everyone kind of geeks out over something.
I think they simply wanted to say that Avatar caught a more casual market compared to say, Puss and Boots 2 (since they came out around the same time).
But still, we're in a very vast world and not all communities are online. I guess it's a "if a tree falls" scenario.
I don't remember hearing anything special about the first avatar to be honest. So this seems pretty par for the course.
Really? For the first year after it came out it was one of the most talked about movies across all ages. Even 10 years later there was the odd reference to it. Even if it was mostly because of 3D novelty it was pretty well known. After the second movie there was a buzz for a bit either about how amazing the scenery was or how boring it was, and then nothing
The only thing I ever recall hearing about was in regards to it being "Dances with wolves" in space. I was in college at the time it came out.
The one I heard was Pocahontas with aliens
It's really not that hard to understand. How much time do people around you spend obsessing about amusement park rides? No many? But how many people ended up buying tickets to those rides anyway?
Same goes with a fireworks show - if it's good, it's good, people heard good things about it will try to go see it, people generally don't spend hours and days discussing these things.
That's really it, it's a cinematic experience akin to an theme park rides or a fireworks spectacle. You just gotta see it, not obsess about it.
Obsessive subculture != relevance.
People said the same about Titanic, Avatar, and now Avatar 2.
I am beginning to think that whatever internet nerds are looking for when quantifying "cultural impact" isn't the full picture.
I agree and disagree. While I typically wouldn't argue that anecdotal evidence should hold much weight on anything, against ideas like "cultural impact" I feel that anecdotal evidence is really our best measure to work with, especially in the moment.
Hindsight being what it is, and grade school culture being what it is, I remember Avatar 1 being a box office juggernaut when it hit theaters. Week after week it felt like the zeitgeist wasn't slowing, and the film kept finding new box office records to beat. Merchandise was absolutely everywhere. Every company wanted a piece of the IP to put on their product package. People were getting tattoos. With special effects like nothing anybody had seen before, and at the height of the 3D film revival, at the time it felt like movies would never be the same again.
Now fast-forward to Avatar: Way of Water, at the tail end of covid, at a time when theaters are afraid that streaming might just kill them, and frankly hitting when I'm just a more jaded adult. The movie crushes the first week of box office, and continues to hold well above water (heheheh) for several weeks after. It manages to become the 7th highest-grossing US film of all time.
And maybe it's that my circle is just much more homogeneous now as an adult than it was in grade school, but despite all the above the feeling I'm presented with about Way of Water if ever people talk about it is always the same: it was "good." Really good special effects, mediocre story, but overall distinctly unnoteworthy. A far cry from the loud zeitgeist of the first. We watched it, we said "neat," then we stopped talking about it.
Perception bias to be sure. I'm curious if anybody got a different read than mine amongst their peers, especially since I live in a bubble and I know it.
People were saying this about the first one though.
Hah maybe this is a difference in the circles we were in then. There was definitely something of an "Avatar fever" in my high school, for better or worse. People sure made the connection of it to Pocahontas, but that only continued to show how often they were talking about the movie at all. I would describe the overall feeling I got at the time as "this film may define our generation."
Obviously it didn't (right? What movie does define millennials anyway? Harry Potter? LotR?), but the excitement was sure palpable in the moment.
Titanic was memed to death though. You have the arms stretched out scene against the sunset. You had the leaving Jack to freeze when there was enough room. You had the paint me like one of your French girls scene. Then you have, of course, the iceberg lmao.
Hard disagree. Titanic had a huge cultural impact. Though I agree with @xRyo about it being weird that neither of the Avatar movies had any impact on culture. Like, even going beyond the movie not having super obsessive fans but also how, as far as I'm aware, didn't really influence anything from the way movies are made to the way people just talk (e.g. people still say "I'm the king of the world!" when at the front of a boat or Pearl Harbor trying to copy the film's success).
Avatar had a pretty huge impact on the way big budget movies are made. It was a major turning point in the digital cinema revolution. Their performance capture technology was a big deal and has gone on to be used in countless blockbusters and even video games. The real time camera tracking and visualization lead the way to modern in-camera digital VFX technologies like the LED volumes being used for shows like The Mandalorian and Star Trek.
Avatar's cultural impact is how people can't stop talking about how it had no cultural impact.
Is this one of those what we call, "Director's movies"? Maybe that explains a lot about the difference in reception
worked for Lion King 2019. Probably hit an entirely different market than the ones talking about it online. Or even by demographic. I don't have a single friend who has said they watched it.
Makes sense. TVs have gotten good enough that you need something like Imax to make it worth forking over money to go see a movie.
I remember a while back reading that the newer cinema projectors were running at 4K native resolution. I wonder if that's still the case.
The resolution isn't enough of a differentiator by itself, though. It's screen size and audio quality too. It has to be good enough to spend $15 or whatever a ticket is today per person and drive your ass over there at a specific time instead of just streaming it at home.
Once you get there, you'll hope that other moviegoers are considerate enough to not talk to use their phones during the movie, and to leave their noisy kids and babies at home. I feel like this is where the higher price of Imax can help to some degree.
This is true like 99% of the time. But I recently saw Guardians 3 in IMAX, and there’s was a single father with like five kids (I’m assuming that was the dynamic) and the oldest child couldn’t have been older than 9. It was very loud. What’s crazy to me is that even children’s tickets are close to 20 dollars. And then they ended up leaving an hour in.
Yeah, there will always be the chance of something like that happening. Nothing you can do about it, so I don't go to the movies unless it's something I reeeeeallllly want to see. Haven't been since pre-COVID.
I believe proper IMAX and Dolby Cinema are dual 4K displays.
I still prefer the cinema since it forces me to concentrate on the film. I can watch nonsense films at home just fine, but for anything else I can use the no-you-can't-alttab environment.
It helps I have literally a dozen great cinemas within casual biking, or even walking, distance.
Unless a fellow moviegoer interrupts...
Perhaps putting out good movies with interesting plots and creative cinematography are the way forward instead of garbage franchises that rehash the same plots and CGI bullshit is the way forward?
Ticket and related costs are high enough, and regular theatre quality so, SO poor that it's both cheaper and better to buy an okay 4K TV and a few streaming services, if you watch movies regularly at least.
IMAX has a high quality threshold that could probably be matched only by a ~$2000 setup: TV + sound system + Blu-ray etc., and you still have to wait for and get the actual disc—might as well splurge $31 to watch it in theatre, and call it a "paradigm shift" I guess.
Unless you already have the setup anyway. And prefer waiting over the travel and risk of encountering inconsiderate moviegoers. It's always a few uncultured people ruining everything for everyone...
I have one of those really high-end setups. It's still worth going and seeing something in IMAX or Dolby Cinema - there are absolutely no interruptions, and I've got neighbors who wouldn't appreciate me cranking the sound all the way up.
I guess my headphone > speakers philosophy creates bias here. No interruptions because I can't hear them, and the interruptions can't hear the movie.
There's something strange about watching, I don't know, Dunkirk or Top Gun: Maverick with headphones instead of a surround sound system.
Big Speaker just want to sell you more drivers ;)
Seriously though, it sounds great as long as you have sufficiently good headphones.
I think that you're really onto something there.
Cinema isn't going to die, but it must completely transform itself.
Going to the cinema can nolonger be a mere activity like going to the bowling alley. With cheap 4K TVs and streaming services in every home, it's as if everyone had their own home bowling alley.
So, going to the cinema must become an event. It has to offer something significantly better than what people have at home. It has to offer social excitement, better seats, better food, and a better screen.
TVs have gotten really affordable in the past few years. You can even get a good OLED TV for a bit over $1000 if you find a good sale.
The audio is the hard part, though. Especially because everyone wants to sell you a soundbar and they are really not that great, regardless of if they have Dolby Atmos or not. But I find that most people don't care too much for higher-end sound systems.
This is also assuming you have a good dark place to watch it, too. Curtained windows still let in some light which can detract from the experience.
Audio can eat a large chunk of the number I gave for some people. Speakers, mounts, rearrangements, all that bleh. Soundproofing occasionally. Even shitty soundbar can cost a fortune, too. Hate those things.
Personally, I'm happy to use high-end headphones, which are probably best if you watch alone or with one extra. They don't have to be exclusively for movies, after all. And it's not like TV speakers are that bad nowadays. Perfectly fine for a lot of stuff and a lot of people.
Blackout curtains. Cheap, easy, and very effective if you get the right length etc.; roller shades and regular curtains are also great; best case scenario, a big enough room with no windows.
I wouldn't compare IMAX to blu-ray. At least not proper 70mm analog IMAX. The resolving power of those 15 perf 70mm frames is far beyond even 4k blu-rays.
For sure, but 4K is generally "good enough"; you get severely diminishing results for regular viewing beyond that unless you're doing some hardcore pixel peeping or have a stonking big screen. IMAX did the latter, of course, but those setups where they not only have the film projector and a theater well suited for it are very rare these days.
Besides that I'm still reeling from seeing all the wrinkles in
This is absolutely fair, I don't see anything beyond 4k really taking off in the consumer space.
The math is different when the screen in question is 5 stories tall though.
In addition to Oppenheimer the heatwave effecting most of the country is certainly helping as people are trying to get out of the heat.