There's a segment of movie fans who hardcore laud, herald, cherish, the "theatrical experience." Meaning, sitting in a theater. They always have lots of reasons they love that. Fine. Enjoy sitting...
There's a segment of movie fans who hardcore laud, herald, cherish, the "theatrical experience." Meaning, sitting in a theater. They always have lots of reasons they love that. Fine. Enjoy sitting in the theater.
Some people don't enjoy sitting in the theater. They have reasons too.
Is one side wrong? I hope not, since it's a personal choice and involves personal tastes and personal preferences.
The industry needs to figure itself out. They've upended the traditional economics of moviemaking in a number of ways, and have the temerity to be shocked when people embraced some of those changes. Which include things like streaming, quality at-home equipment that allows for a quality at-home viewing experience, and so on.
Are we going to have Studio Hit Squads who rush out in black vans with zip ties to pressgang someone watching a movie from their couch into a theater instead? I hope not.
The "easy" answer is to bring back exclusivity. Which is just a fancy word for "no, not yours, can't have." It's also the lazy answer, since it completely ignores any other possible reason why someone might have stopped going to the theater. So forcing people back doesn't address the issues, the problems, that caused them to alter their habits.
But investigating that would take actual effort, require real work to figure out. Easier, lazier, to just say "fuck you, theater only."
There used to be 100% theatrical exclusivity. The only place a movie showed was at the theater. They didn't even used to reach TV, not even years later. That is clearly not the case anymore. Today's consumers seem unlikely to accept a reality where they can only watch their movies if they have to pay $20 each time, along with heading out to a theater.
So, if exclusivity is the only card the industry is going to try to play, we're down to "how much." How much exclusivity is the magic number? A lot of the theater proponents feel four or six weeks is much, much too short. Okay. I don't agree, but okay. I would say a year is absolutely out of the question. I feel most movie consumers would feel somewhere between six and nine months is much, much too long.
Is the industry "better" if we have to go back to waiting six months to watch at home? I don't think so, but then again I prefer to watch at home since I can't rely on a quality, controlled, pleasant theatrical experience.
A long exclusivity period just pushes more people out of their comfort zones. Some will just give up and find other hobbies to focus on, which reduces the total market. After all, it is not a guarantee that enforcing long ironclad exclusivity means 100% of the at-home viewers will just give up and go back to the theater. Some might, sure.
Some won't though. Some might just latch onto one of the many other entertainment options they have available these days and no longer be a core customer of movies.
So where's the line? 6 weeks is too short, but 6 months is probably about the longest you can stretch it before you start seeing a notable fraction of the upset at-home folks giving up on movies.
Pirate downloads are getting better, just as one cautionary tale. Used to be, a pirate copy of a just released theater-only film was a fuzzy, muddy, impossible to hear thing you squinted at while guessing at what was happening. This year I've started finding torrent copies of theater releases that are perfectly watchable. Like 75 to 80% as good as a disc or digital stream would be.
There are consumers who'll pirate a film before they'll go to the theater. A consumer who would be willing to pay for a stream or digital download or disc, but if told that's not an option, will just fire up their VPN and check Torrent. So it is definitely not the case that studios and theaters have an ironclad position if they decide to force onerous exclusivity periods.
There are a lot of things that make up the theatrical experience. Some people don't like some of those things. And, to date, little or nothing is being done to address those things. To remove them as noes and change them to yesses for those potential movie consumers. Looking into why increasingly large percentages of movie consumers are saying no to the theater is the best way to address "industry fears."
Or, they can just be lazy and next year or so we'll have a whole new round of articles. Ones with headlines like "Why hasn't the box office rebounded in the wake of forced exclusivity? Are people giving up on film?"
There's a difference between loving movies and loving theaters. Not all movie lovers love theaters anymore, and the sooner their reasons for not liking theaters get addressed the more likely it is the industry will get to enjoy a healthier, more profitable theatrical segment.
The issue with having movies exclusive to theaters for a long time is marketing. Studios will blow their load marketing a film when it is first released in theaters. However, back in the...
The issue with having movies exclusive to theaters for a long time is marketing. Studios will blow their load marketing a film when it is first released in theaters. However, back in the pre-streaming days when a film would be released to home video, the studios would typically do a second round of marketing to get people to rent the VHS/buy the DVD, which would also be expensive.
The shortened window between a movie's theatrical and home video release means that the studios can draft off of a single blast of marketing for both and call it a day.
Personally, I think the studios should give more time for a theatrically released movie to gain some "word of mouth" buzz. I watched Furiosa a few days ago, after it had been declared a bomb, and thought that the movie was great. I'd advise everyone who is curious about it to watch it in a theater while they still can, but the fence sitters already know it is just a matter of weeks before it is released on VOD and will wait to learn that it was actually a really quality film.
As a somewhat former lover of going to theaters, I have about a billion thoughts on ways the movie industry can help save itself. I too am someone who has waited to just watch a recent release at home now since the amount of time I'll have to wait is maybe a month, and I have a 70" hi-def TV at home. Some movies are great in that intimate, home video experience, but there are other movies that definitely benefit from being in viewed with a crowd.
I think it will come down to money. Filmmakers can charge way more for a ticket than they do for streaming. If everyone's waiting to stream, they'll lose money. Right now companies are fine losing...
I think it will come down to money. Filmmakers can charge way more for a ticket than they do for streaming. If everyone's waiting to stream, they'll lose money. Right now companies are fine losing money to carve out their share of the neo-cable, hoping to make it back later. Unlike theaters, there's little economic motivation to make blockbusters for streaming. You just gotta be like Netflix and churn out enough passable stuff to keep people subscribed. Who cares about advertising at that point? I think long-term, once they've maxed out sign-ups, if these companies are going to keep making big, expensive movies, they're going to have to make them exclusive to theaters for a long time (or with a large surcharge) to recoup their investments.
I think you've nailed it on the head. We may soon see the collapse of the blockbuster movie, at least in the way that it existed before. We had reached a point where it seems like every single...
I think you've nailed it on the head.
We may soon see the collapse of the blockbuster movie, at least in the way that it existed before. We had reached a point where it seems like every single weekend of every year had some opening for a high budget film. (With the possible exception of some smaller weekends that were "dumping grounds" of films not expected to do well.) If moviegoers decide that they're only going to go to theaters for a few big tentpole movies, the market will have to shrink to accommodate.
Can theaters survive that? I have no idea. I certainly hope they do. I enjoy the theater experience. But I certainly only seek it out a few times a year.
If everything gets produced just for streaming platforms like Netflix, Max, and all of the rest, I think we are going to see a massive shrinking of overall studio budgets. Ideally, that would be more quality and less quantity, but I'm skeptical. All things being equal, I think studios would prefer to make more low-budget movies than fewer high budget movies. It's less risky. And they don't have any way to guarantee that the product is going to be well received. No matter how much they would prefer to treat creative endeavors as if they were factory-produced widgets.
I will say that this isn't all bad. Movies use to stick around and theaters a lot longer back in the day. Star Wars had weeks (months?) to find its massive audience. Perhaps we will see a return to those kinds of expectations as far as theaters go?
Exactly, I love film but I don't love theatres anymore. Here are a few reasons that I place at least some of the blame on "capitalist oligarchy" society: Too much entertainment, too little time I...
Exactly, I love film but I don't love theatres anymore. Here are a few reasons that I place at least some of the blame on "capitalist oligarchy" society:
Too much entertainment, too little time
I work too many hours and I'm too tired to go out when I'm finally off work. I'll just fire up any number of free 10 minutes entertainment options at my disposal and fall asleep.
Financial displacement
I loved loved loved going to the movies with my friends but I can no longer afford to live in the same city as them. Also, I live 1.75 hrs from either of the two theatres closest to me.
I can't hear the dialog
Until there's on screen captions, I'm really honestly better off at home.
To many options, too little money
Similar to number 1, but specifically about how many streaming things already demand my money. If I've already paid good money for a streaming service and I haven't already exhausted their catalog first, I'm Wasting Money™ and my mom would come back from heaven to wag her finger at me. (Actually that would be awesome. Hi mom!)
Well, a falling sky for the industry or film lovers? Mostly the industry it seems to me. Films and theaters aren't dying or about to disappear. Their market share might dwindle but that isn't...
Well, a falling sky for the industry or film lovers? Mostly the industry it seems to me. Films and theaters aren't dying or about to disappear. Their market share might dwindle but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for consumers in the long run.
My 2 cents is simply that budgets and expected ROI have gotten too big. They wanna make billions, so they bet hundreds of millions and that bet hurts more when it fails. A movie like Poor Things showed that people will go see something original and such a movie can make a modest profit from a modest budget. The theatrical experience still has value but not to as many as before, and it is clearly not something they can rely on being consistent year to year. Last year was good, but the industry is stupid if they think they can just have a year like that every year. Audiences respond to good movies but that is not always something that is easily planned and there won't be an Oppenheimer or Barbie every year. The industry needs to adapt to the unpredictabilty of things.
I stopped going to the cinema because it's become too expensive and because I get too easily bothered by other people's noise - in the past though, I toughed it out because I wasn't going to wait...
Their market share might dwindle but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for consumers in the long run.
I stopped going to the cinema because it's become too expensive and because I get too easily bothered by other people's noise - in the past though, I toughed it out because I wasn't going to wait 6+ months for the DVD/Blu-ray release. Now though, you're completely right that it's never been better because some movies are already out on digital releases (🏴☠️) after 1 month, and most is out after just 2 months. That's no time at all to wait and absolutely worth not having to go through the trouble+hiked prices of cinemas where tickets are 125 kr ($20) as the cheapest which is just dumb
Sorry if I keep posting repetitive stuff, but like I said the industry is kind of in a panic. I was once again listening to The Town with Matt Belloni and the change of tone from when The Fall Guy...
Sorry if I keep posting repetitive stuff, but like I said the industry is kind of in a panic.
I was once again listening to The Town with Matt Belloni and the change of tone from when The Fall Guy bombed to when Furiosa bombed was notable. It went from “well it was the movie” to “theaters and the film industry are dying.”
They also had a similar debate that is presented in this article. On what studios should do, do they widen their slate and make more movies or do they make even less movies and no longer greenlight iffy movies like Furiosa. Exhibitors obviously want studios to make more theatrical releases, and they heavily believe in momentum of steady releases every weekend keeping audience interest in moviegoing alive. This is a theory I presented as well, and have credited this momentum to the recovery the theatrical market experienced from 2021 to 2023.
But, there’s definitely a doomer mood coaxing everything right now. And it’s not just the movie industry, it’s basically every single entertainment industry that’s struggling to compete in a market where people are just satisfied to scroll through their phone.
I still do believe that theatrical is essential, if you look at the movies that do the best on streaming they are the ones that go to theaters first. So I don’t really see a bright future in Hollywood without theatrical. And I would say most of the industry would agree with that sentiment, which is why filmmakers constantly push for their films to have theatrical releases even when they sell to streamers. Richard Linklater really promoted the idea of people watching Hit Man in theaters despite selling it to Netflix (which wouldn’t have been a problem except theatrical distributors like Focus and Searchlight chose not to pick it up despite knowing they had holes to plug in their schedules).
Is theatrical release important on its own merit, or are the ones that get released on the big screen just the ones that the studios have the most confidence in, and as they're better movies they...
Is theatrical release important on its own merit, or are the ones that get released on the big screen just the ones that the studios have the most confidence in, and as they're better movies they then do better regardless of platform?
I find this all pretty over dramatic. My friend circle seems to span several uhh..breakpoints...of film awareness, and neither Fall Guy nor Furiosa were "OH GOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS". I loathe...
I find this all pretty over dramatic. My friend circle seems to span several uhh..breakpoints...of film awareness, and neither Fall Guy nor Furiosa were "OH GOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS". I loathe the avatar films for being boring as sin, but am damn sure if one dropped out of the blue (heh) tomorrow it'd do decently.
It's so weird to me to see anyone even putting this stuff in the same category? Bullet Train is one of my favorite comedies to recently come out, but I watched it on streaming and had looooooooow expectations for it. Knowing this, I still felt that I'd probably do the same for The Fall Guy because it just doesn't strike me as something that I NEED to see in theaters. It just doesn't strike me as a summer blockbuster.
Furiosa i've already discussed (and will be seeing in a few hours), but again looking at this summer it feels a lot easier to say "some fun movies have come out but nothing that's going to make waves" instead of "THE END IS NIGH! REPENT CGI USERS!" or whatever the film industry is worried about.
I just don't see anything that should have expected the kind of turnout something like a Spiderman/Nolan film/whatever would've generated. This just reeks to me of the usual excuses trying to blame the customer or the industry when you just don't read the market right . I'm glad Furiosa got made, I NEVER would've bet money it'd be half as big as Fury Road, and it seems like they did.
So, basically they're relying on nothing but sequels and rehashed properties to carry summer, and they're going to blame labor when that doesn't draw crowds. That sounds like the four or five...
Box office observers agree that the ecosystem is incredibly fragile but hang on to the hope that moviegoing will pick up in the coming weeks when all-audience tentpoles Inside Out 2, Despicable Me 4 and Deadpool & Wolverine come out, followed by Beetlejuice Beetlejuice in early September.
So, basically they're relying on nothing but sequels and rehashed properties to carry summer, and they're going to blame labor when that doesn't draw crowds. That sounds like the four or five bloated, soulless corporations that run Hollywood we all know and love.
I'm going to argue this, though I fully confess I don't know how true it is or not. The biggest issue for me... is TIME. I fully confess that Marvel conditioned me to expect a movie to be AT LEAST...
I'm going to argue this, though I fully confess I don't know how true it is or not.
The biggest issue for me... is TIME. I fully confess that Marvel conditioned me to expect a movie to be AT LEAST 2 hours long. To put it simply, I ain't got that time to sit in a theater uninterrupted for 2 hours. 90 minutes is doable, and between 90 and 120 minutes (about 110 minutes) is the sweet spot for me. I will say that there are movies which need the extra time... but once you go past the 120 minute mark, I start glancing at my watch.
Basically for me, movies cost too much in time and actual money for me to go to the theater. I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime, which have a Pause button. So I can pause, get up and stretch, go do something else for a few minutes, and then resume watching. Which is another issue: fewer movies are being made which can even capture my attention for up to 120 minutes.
I'd be happy to watch 2 hour and up to a half hour films in cinemas if theaters didn't demand on putting at least a half hour of ads before the movie. Fifteen minutes of movie previews before a...
I'd be happy to watch 2 hour and up to a half hour films in cinemas if theaters didn't demand on putting at least a half hour of ads before the movie. Fifteen minutes of movie previews before a film is fine, but when they are making me watch fifteen more minutes of ads, telling me how AMC is bringing back the magic of cinema while I'm already in a fucking AMC theater, it feels lame as fuck. The same when they are advertising their "RPX theater screening" when I already bought a ticket for the RPX showing. Just show me the fucking movie already.
I think studios use film length in part to justify ticket prices. I don't understand why movie tickets prices are fixed regardless of movie type. Character driven RomCom with few VFX and a small...
I think studios use film length in part to justify ticket prices. I don't understand why movie tickets prices are fixed regardless of movie type. Character driven RomCom with few VFX and a small cast is priced the same as some VFX laden big budget movie with an enormous cast. The price for concerts depends on the act and venue. Seeing Springsteen in a huge arena is priced differently than seeing my local punk band in a club. Same holds true for other live performances, my local high school production of Annie Oakley is priced differently than the traveling Hamilton production.
Have they done much of the suggestions since the last freakout, I wonder? I thought we were supposed to have more "event" oriented movies (e.g. there's a reason to adhere to a time, place, and...
Have they done much of the suggestions since the last freakout, I wonder? I thought we were supposed to have more "event" oriented movies (e.g. there's a reason to adhere to a time, place, and location to watch what will probably be a mediocre film-- like a director interview). I am curious also if theatre chains are not economical enough, such that studios should own their own theatres to better control the pricing.
I don't mind seeing movies in person. But barring a special request from a friend, the only places I'd go to see movies are either the park (which sometimes has movie events) or the $5 indie, weird, tiny movie theater where I can watch random things Google or ChatGPT could never guess at. Everything else just doesn't feel worth the money; there are other things I could watch that are just as enjoyable and essentially free. If I'm bored, well, I shouldn't watch so much TV. Perhaps movies were more of a ritual for people 10 years ago, and now lack ritualistic value.
There's a segment of movie fans who hardcore laud, herald, cherish, the "theatrical experience." Meaning, sitting in a theater. They always have lots of reasons they love that. Fine. Enjoy sitting in the theater.
Some people don't enjoy sitting in the theater. They have reasons too.
Is one side wrong? I hope not, since it's a personal choice and involves personal tastes and personal preferences.
The industry needs to figure itself out. They've upended the traditional economics of moviemaking in a number of ways, and have the temerity to be shocked when people embraced some of those changes. Which include things like streaming, quality at-home equipment that allows for a quality at-home viewing experience, and so on.
Are we going to have Studio Hit Squads who rush out in black vans with zip ties to pressgang someone watching a movie from their couch into a theater instead? I hope not.
The "easy" answer is to bring back exclusivity. Which is just a fancy word for "no, not yours, can't have." It's also the lazy answer, since it completely ignores any other possible reason why someone might have stopped going to the theater. So forcing people back doesn't address the issues, the problems, that caused them to alter their habits.
But investigating that would take actual effort, require real work to figure out. Easier, lazier, to just say "fuck you, theater only."
There used to be 100% theatrical exclusivity. The only place a movie showed was at the theater. They didn't even used to reach TV, not even years later. That is clearly not the case anymore. Today's consumers seem unlikely to accept a reality where they can only watch their movies if they have to pay $20 each time, along with heading out to a theater.
So, if exclusivity is the only card the industry is going to try to play, we're down to "how much." How much exclusivity is the magic number? A lot of the theater proponents feel four or six weeks is much, much too short. Okay. I don't agree, but okay. I would say a year is absolutely out of the question. I feel most movie consumers would feel somewhere between six and nine months is much, much too long.
Is the industry "better" if we have to go back to waiting six months to watch at home? I don't think so, but then again I prefer to watch at home since I can't rely on a quality, controlled, pleasant theatrical experience.
A long exclusivity period just pushes more people out of their comfort zones. Some will just give up and find other hobbies to focus on, which reduces the total market. After all, it is not a guarantee that enforcing long ironclad exclusivity means 100% of the at-home viewers will just give up and go back to the theater. Some might, sure.
Some won't though. Some might just latch onto one of the many other entertainment options they have available these days and no longer be a core customer of movies.
So where's the line? 6 weeks is too short, but 6 months is probably about the longest you can stretch it before you start seeing a notable fraction of the upset at-home folks giving up on movies.
Pirate downloads are getting better, just as one cautionary tale. Used to be, a pirate copy of a just released theater-only film was a fuzzy, muddy, impossible to hear thing you squinted at while guessing at what was happening. This year I've started finding torrent copies of theater releases that are perfectly watchable. Like 75 to 80% as good as a disc or digital stream would be.
There are consumers who'll pirate a film before they'll go to the theater. A consumer who would be willing to pay for a stream or digital download or disc, but if told that's not an option, will just fire up their VPN and check Torrent. So it is definitely not the case that studios and theaters have an ironclad position if they decide to force onerous exclusivity periods.
There are a lot of things that make up the theatrical experience. Some people don't like some of those things. And, to date, little or nothing is being done to address those things. To remove them as noes and change them to yesses for those potential movie consumers. Looking into why increasingly large percentages of movie consumers are saying no to the theater is the best way to address "industry fears."
Or, they can just be lazy and next year or so we'll have a whole new round of articles. Ones with headlines like "Why hasn't the box office rebounded in the wake of forced exclusivity? Are people giving up on film?"
There's a difference between loving movies and loving theaters. Not all movie lovers love theaters anymore, and the sooner their reasons for not liking theaters get addressed the more likely it is the industry will get to enjoy a healthier, more profitable theatrical segment.
The issue with having movies exclusive to theaters for a long time is marketing. Studios will blow their load marketing a film when it is first released in theaters. However, back in the pre-streaming days when a film would be released to home video, the studios would typically do a second round of marketing to get people to rent the VHS/buy the DVD, which would also be expensive.
The shortened window between a movie's theatrical and home video release means that the studios can draft off of a single blast of marketing for both and call it a day.
Personally, I think the studios should give more time for a theatrically released movie to gain some "word of mouth" buzz. I watched Furiosa a few days ago, after it had been declared a bomb, and thought that the movie was great. I'd advise everyone who is curious about it to watch it in a theater while they still can, but the fence sitters already know it is just a matter of weeks before it is released on VOD and will wait to learn that it was actually a really quality film.
As a somewhat former lover of going to theaters, I have about a billion thoughts on ways the movie industry can help save itself. I too am someone who has waited to just watch a recent release at home now since the amount of time I'll have to wait is maybe a month, and I have a 70" hi-def TV at home. Some movies are great in that intimate, home video experience, but there are other movies that definitely benefit from being in viewed with a crowd.
I think it will come down to money. Filmmakers can charge way more for a ticket than they do for streaming. If everyone's waiting to stream, they'll lose money. Right now companies are fine losing money to carve out their share of the neo-cable, hoping to make it back later. Unlike theaters, there's little economic motivation to make blockbusters for streaming. You just gotta be like Netflix and churn out enough passable stuff to keep people subscribed. Who cares about advertising at that point? I think long-term, once they've maxed out sign-ups, if these companies are going to keep making big, expensive movies, they're going to have to make them exclusive to theaters for a long time (or with a large surcharge) to recoup their investments.
I think you've nailed it on the head.
We may soon see the collapse of the blockbuster movie, at least in the way that it existed before. We had reached a point where it seems like every single weekend of every year had some opening for a high budget film. (With the possible exception of some smaller weekends that were "dumping grounds" of films not expected to do well.) If moviegoers decide that they're only going to go to theaters for a few big tentpole movies, the market will have to shrink to accommodate.
Can theaters survive that? I have no idea. I certainly hope they do. I enjoy the theater experience. But I certainly only seek it out a few times a year.
If everything gets produced just for streaming platforms like Netflix, Max, and all of the rest, I think we are going to see a massive shrinking of overall studio budgets. Ideally, that would be more quality and less quantity, but I'm skeptical. All things being equal, I think studios would prefer to make more low-budget movies than fewer high budget movies. It's less risky. And they don't have any way to guarantee that the product is going to be well received. No matter how much they would prefer to treat creative endeavors as if they were factory-produced widgets.
I will say that this isn't all bad. Movies use to stick around and theaters a lot longer back in the day. Star Wars had weeks (months?) to find its massive audience. Perhaps we will see a return to those kinds of expectations as far as theaters go?
Exactly, I love film but I don't love theatres anymore. Here are a few reasons that I place at least some of the blame on "capitalist oligarchy" society:
I work too many hours and I'm too tired to go out when I'm finally off work. I'll just fire up any number of free 10 minutes entertainment options at my disposal and fall asleep.
I loved loved loved going to the movies with my friends but I can no longer afford to live in the same city as them. Also, I live 1.75 hrs from either of the two theatres closest to me.
Until there's on screen captions, I'm really honestly better off at home.
Similar to number 1, but specifically about how many streaming things already demand my money. If I've already paid good money for a streaming service and I haven't already exhausted their catalog first, I'm Wasting Money™ and my mom would come back from heaven to wag her finger at me. (Actually that would be awesome. Hi mom!)
Well, a falling sky for the industry or film lovers? Mostly the industry it seems to me. Films and theaters aren't dying or about to disappear. Their market share might dwindle but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for consumers in the long run.
My 2 cents is simply that budgets and expected ROI have gotten too big. They wanna make billions, so they bet hundreds of millions and that bet hurts more when it fails. A movie like Poor Things showed that people will go see something original and such a movie can make a modest profit from a modest budget. The theatrical experience still has value but not to as many as before, and it is clearly not something they can rely on being consistent year to year. Last year was good, but the industry is stupid if they think they can just have a year like that every year. Audiences respond to good movies but that is not always something that is easily planned and there won't be an Oppenheimer or Barbie every year. The industry needs to adapt to the unpredictabilty of things.
I stopped going to the cinema because it's become too expensive and because I get too easily bothered by other people's noise - in the past though, I toughed it out because I wasn't going to wait 6+ months for the DVD/Blu-ray release. Now though, you're completely right that it's never been better because some movies are already out on digital releases (🏴☠️) after 1 month, and most is out after just 2 months. That's no time at all to wait and absolutely worth not having to go through the trouble+hiked prices of cinemas where tickets are 125 kr ($20) as the cheapest which is just dumb
Sorry if I keep posting repetitive stuff, but like I said the industry is kind of in a panic.
I was once again listening to The Town with Matt Belloni and the change of tone from when The Fall Guy bombed to when Furiosa bombed was notable. It went from “well it was the movie” to “theaters and the film industry are dying.”
They also had a similar debate that is presented in this article. On what studios should do, do they widen their slate and make more movies or do they make even less movies and no longer greenlight iffy movies like Furiosa. Exhibitors obviously want studios to make more theatrical releases, and they heavily believe in momentum of steady releases every weekend keeping audience interest in moviegoing alive. This is a theory I presented as well, and have credited this momentum to the recovery the theatrical market experienced from 2021 to 2023.
But, there’s definitely a doomer mood coaxing everything right now. And it’s not just the movie industry, it’s basically every single entertainment industry that’s struggling to compete in a market where people are just satisfied to scroll through their phone.
I still do believe that theatrical is essential, if you look at the movies that do the best on streaming they are the ones that go to theaters first. So I don’t really see a bright future in Hollywood without theatrical. And I would say most of the industry would agree with that sentiment, which is why filmmakers constantly push for their films to have theatrical releases even when they sell to streamers. Richard Linklater really promoted the idea of people watching Hit Man in theaters despite selling it to Netflix (which wouldn’t have been a problem except theatrical distributors like Focus and Searchlight chose not to pick it up despite knowing they had holes to plug in their schedules).
Is theatrical release important on its own merit, or are the ones that get released on the big screen just the ones that the studios have the most confidence in, and as they're better movies they then do better regardless of platform?
I find this all pretty over dramatic. My friend circle seems to span several uhh..breakpoints...of film awareness, and neither Fall Guy nor Furiosa were "OH GOD I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS". I loathe the avatar films for being boring as sin, but am damn sure if one dropped out of the blue (heh) tomorrow it'd do decently.
It's so weird to me to see anyone even putting this stuff in the same category? Bullet Train is one of my favorite comedies to recently come out, but I watched it on streaming and had looooooooow expectations for it. Knowing this, I still felt that I'd probably do the same for The Fall Guy because it just doesn't strike me as something that I NEED to see in theaters. It just doesn't strike me as a summer blockbuster.
Furiosa i've already discussed (and will be seeing in a few hours), but again looking at this summer it feels a lot easier to say "some fun movies have come out but nothing that's going to make waves" instead of "THE END IS NIGH! REPENT CGI USERS!" or whatever the film industry is worried about.
I just don't see anything that should have expected the kind of turnout something like a Spiderman/Nolan film/whatever would've generated. This just reeks to me of the usual excuses trying to blame the customer or the industry when you just don't read the market right . I'm glad Furiosa got made, I NEVER would've bet money it'd be half as big as Fury Road, and it seems like they did.
So, basically they're relying on nothing but sequels and rehashed properties to carry summer, and they're going to blame labor when that doesn't draw crowds. That sounds like the four or five bloated, soulless corporations that run Hollywood we all know and love.
I'm going to argue this, though I fully confess I don't know how true it is or not.
The biggest issue for me... is TIME. I fully confess that Marvel conditioned me to expect a movie to be AT LEAST 2 hours long. To put it simply, I ain't got that time to sit in a theater uninterrupted for 2 hours. 90 minutes is doable, and between 90 and 120 minutes (about 110 minutes) is the sweet spot for me. I will say that there are movies which need the extra time... but once you go past the 120 minute mark, I start glancing at my watch.
Basically for me, movies cost too much in time and actual money for me to go to the theater. I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime, which have a Pause button. So I can pause, get up and stretch, go do something else for a few minutes, and then resume watching. Which is another issue: fewer movies are being made which can even capture my attention for up to 120 minutes.
I'd be happy to watch 2 hour and up to a half hour films in cinemas if theaters didn't demand on putting at least a half hour of ads before the movie. Fifteen minutes of movie previews before a film is fine, but when they are making me watch fifteen more minutes of ads, telling me how AMC is bringing back the magic of cinema while I'm already in a fucking AMC theater, it feels lame as fuck. The same when they are advertising their "RPX theater screening" when I already bought a ticket for the RPX showing. Just show me the fucking movie already.
I think studios use film length in part to justify ticket prices. I don't understand why movie tickets prices are fixed regardless of movie type. Character driven RomCom with few VFX and a small cast is priced the same as some VFX laden big budget movie with an enormous cast. The price for concerts depends on the act and venue. Seeing Springsteen in a huge arena is priced differently than seeing my local punk band in a club. Same holds true for other live performances, my local high school production of Annie Oakley is priced differently than the traveling Hamilton production.
Have they done much of the suggestions since the last freakout, I wonder? I thought we were supposed to have more "event" oriented movies (e.g. there's a reason to adhere to a time, place, and location to watch what will probably be a mediocre film-- like a director interview). I am curious also if theatre chains are not economical enough, such that studios should own their own theatres to better control the pricing.
I don't mind seeing movies in person. But barring a special request from a friend, the only places I'd go to see movies are either the park (which sometimes has movie events) or the $5 indie, weird, tiny movie theater where I can watch random things Google or ChatGPT could never guess at. Everything else just doesn't feel worth the money; there are other things I could watch that are just as enjoyable and essentially free. If I'm bored, well, I shouldn't watch so much TV. Perhaps movies were more of a ritual for people 10 years ago, and now lack ritualistic value.