https://archive.is/mHa9U Not a single word spent to hint at what's occupying American minds instead of wallets, especially over the last month. They're making money streaming, even mubi, they're...
The same companies refuse to disclose digital revenue, however.
Not a single word spent to hint at what's occupying American minds instead of wallets, especially over the last month. They're making money streaming, even mubi, they're cannibalizing theatre profits to line their own steaming services whose prices are hiked every year, and they still want audiences to pay to stroke their ego about having a theatrical hit.
I went to the theater once this year. You know what the trailers were before that one movie? Sequel after sequel after sequel. And not a single one looked worth spending money to go see. I don't...
I went to the theater once this year. You know what the trailers were before that one movie? Sequel after sequel after sequel. And not a single one looked worth spending money to go see.
I don't care whether a movie is "event worthy" I just want a good looking movie! And I haven't been getting that. I've been seeing sequels and sequels and sequels. Very few new or original movies. I'm not saying they didn't happen at all, but there wasn't enough to really drive theater visits IMO.
Audiences keep rejecting original films even when they have good reception. There’s a few exception to this rule (like with Sinners and Weapons) but by and large most non-IP films flop. To a...
Audiences keep rejecting original films even when they have good reception. There’s a few exception to this rule (like with Sinners and Weapons) but by and large most non-IP films flop. To a certain extent a lot of major releases even with IP flop
Do they actually flop, or does hollywood have unrealistic expectations that every film will be a billion-dollar box office and thus will throw 100m or more at random things, and then focus-group...
Do they actually flop, or does hollywood have unrealistic expectations that every film will be a billion-dollar box office and thus will throw 100m or more at random things, and then focus-group the bejesus out of the film to try for mass appeal, making it boring in the process?
The answer is really simple: As home setups improved, with better accessibility than ever to the massive backlog, people are more discerning about spending more money than ever to go to theaters.
The mentaility that only existing IPs make it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as a function of primarily making sequels and remakes. As with many things, there is only so much you can sequel and rerelease before people get burned out.
Looking at the top 10 grossing films from 1995 to 2025, counting sequels per 10 years. Generally counting remakes of US movies, but not US adaptations of foreign. Also not counting first big-screen adaptations from TV shows. Nor movies that are part of a continuous existing non-movie IP (ala LOTR or Harry Potter). Superhero movies are hard just due to the sheer vastness of sourcce materials, so generally not counting Iron Man or The Avengers, but am counting Iron Man 2 and Avengers 25 (joke).
1995-2004: 29/100
2005-2014: 40/100 (Netflix debuted streaming 2007ish) This is when Marvel craze started kicking in, so the lines are getting blurrier.
2015-2024: 64/100
Sequels, remakes, and continuing series (like Bond) have always been a thing, but the phenomenon of trying to squeeze blood from every single 80's and 90's IP is a very new thing. Pretty sure I never saw any movie in 1995 that was a 2nd installment to a one-off that was made in 1965.
It also just used to be easier and cheaper. When I was a teenager/early 20-something, my buddy and I would hang out at the mall all the time. Frequently, we'd go see a movie, just because. It was...
It also just used to be easier and cheaper. When I was a teenager/early 20-something, my buddy and I would hang out at the mall all the time. Frequently, we'd go see a movie, just because. It was cheap and it filled some time and we could talk about it afterwards.
These days, malls aren't much of a thing. The one mall that seems to be popular around here (amongst everyone, including teens) doesn't have a theater. And the price? $22 after taxes and convenience fees. Now, I can't recall what we'd pay back in the early 2000's, but research tells me $6 was the average in 2003 and adjusted for inflation, that's $10 today.
But not only all those things, because now I also have to find childcare for my kids and we're probably going to want to go out to eat too and that ends-up all adding up. Not to mention, just the asspain of finding childcare that doesn't flake or has other plans or you don't want to overuse because they're family.
Yeah, we'll just stay home. I've got popcorn I can make in minutes on my Induction cooktop, I've got a (not amazing) 55" TV, good quality speakers I've refoamed and access to virtually anything I can think of, coupled with a huge backlog of movies that sound interesting and much more so than Marvel Slop 8. Plus, I can drink as much as I want, if I want to and I can go straight to bed afterwards and not have to drive home with a bunch of speeding lunatics on the road.
This is the reason why I started investing in live theatre. The shows are more interesting overall and even when they are “bad” they are bad in interesting ways.
This is the reason why I started investing in live theatre. The shows are more interesting overall and even when they are “bad” they are bad in interesting ways.
Ya, this is true also. I personally have not been impressed by a movie in a while. I watched Weapons when it came to streaming and it was...OK. I wouldn't have wanted to spend the movie theater...
Ya, this is true also.
I personally have not been impressed by a movie in a while. I watched Weapons when it came to streaming and it was...OK. I wouldn't have wanted to spend the movie theater ticket price to go see it.
Maybe it's just me but it feels like movies just aren't what they used to be. They've gotten formulaic and predictable and I am just not enjoying them as much.
I can't put my finger on precisely what could fix it, but I just know that my appetite for movies has plummeted. I've been getting back into reading and enjoying books a lot more lately.
Question, not knowing anything about Weapons: Could you name anything about the film that really distinguished it from the sea of other films in that genre? Because that's what I've noticed: So...
I can't put my finger on precisely what could fix it,
Question, not knowing anything about Weapons:
Could you name anything about the film that really distinguished it from the sea of other films in that genre? Because that's what I've noticed: So many things, even new IPs, are made (or at the very least, heavily edited) to have the broadest possible mass appeal. Which means less originality, "safer" jokes, and less experimentation with the medium.
Does not help that the public domain is defacto dead.
If they'd gut the budgets down to 20-50 million apiece, they'd have few genuine flops. Wasteful spending (and usually double the budget in marketing) is what has destroyed it all - well, that and...
If they'd gut the budgets down to 20-50 million apiece, they'd have few genuine flops.
Wasteful spending (and usually double the budget in marketing) is what has destroyed it all - well, that and the lack of any writing above the level of a pre-school. Cinema is now a bloated, union-laden, nepotistic industry that is so choked on its own legacy bullshit that it's suffocating.
They keep beating dead horse franchises (guaranteed losers) rather than making dozens of smaller productions for the price of that one tent pole property. Time was you made every movie cheap as you could in the hopes that one of them would run away at the box office and fund the next fifty films. Now they think they know which ones will run away to a billion ahead of time - that's pure arrogance.
That's alright, though. Hollywood is in its final death throes and it is never coming back, good riddance. Cheaper productions can increasingly be done by anyone anywhere with no need to cater to California's bullshit unions, institutions, or politics. Good cinema will live on, the tiny region of the world that has had film in monopolistic chains for decades will not.
Doesn't look so good for the theaters, though. Hollywood hasn't got the writing talent or the acting chops to fill every seat in them every single weekend like they once did. In fact, that's been the case for so long that at least two younger generations of people don't know why they would ever bother going to a theater in the first place. Once that habit's broken, it's broken. Took decades to instill it the first time around. Good luck bringing that back.
I'm still waiting for dinner theaters to become more common, and for my theater ticket stub to get me a rebate on the blu-ray. I can only assume no one is genuinely serious about solving this problem. :P
I have just returned from the first movie I've been on in theatre this year. No surprises, it was Back to the future as I wasn't around when it hit cinemas back in the day. Being there, I checked...
I have just returned from the first movie I've been on in theatre this year. No surprises, it was Back to the future as I wasn't around when it hit cinemas back in the day.
Being there, I checked what other movies are screening and none catched my interest. I think it comes to less than one interesting movie for me per year. I was on Ferrari and Dune part 2, which are also a bit dated today... Nothing for me to go watch in between.
As the article noted, dramas and comedies are just as well suited for the small screen as the theatrical experience. The small screen is better (for us) - spouse is partially deaf, and we subtitle...
As the article noted, dramas and comedies are just as well suited for the small screen as the theatrical experience.
The small screen is better (for us) - spouse is partially deaf, and we subtitle everything in part because movie audio has gotten so bad, whether in the theatre or at home.
I'd also argue that big name actors are overhyped and the contributions of their performances to the quality of dramas or comedies don't often justify the budget. I'll freely admit that there aren't many Hollywood stars that I think act well enough to watch on spec. I'm not going to see a movie because it features Julia Roberts or Jennifer Laurence or Dwayne Johnson or Robert Pattinson. [I'm sure the marquee US actors have dedicated fans and I'm probably an outlier.]
Most of the really great actors were British-trained, and the paucity of good writing for female roles limits the scope for women. There are still dramatic and comedic releases that don't pass the Bechdel Test. Not a perfect measure, I know. But I firmly believe it's hard to make an interesting drama or comedy if you systematically suppress the voices of half the population and cast for physicality rather than acting talent.
It's just gotten worse with the decline of risk tolerance at the big studios. The same old big names often Botox-ed to rigidity, the targeting of young audiences with shallower storylines and action blitzes, and the tame subject matter of most prestige indie movies make me disinclined to visit the theater.
https://archive.is/mHa9U
Not a single word spent to hint at what's occupying American minds instead of wallets, especially over the last month. They're making money streaming, even mubi, they're cannibalizing theatre profits to line their own steaming services whose prices are hiked every year, and they still want audiences to pay to stroke their ego about having a theatrical hit.
I went to the theater once this year. You know what the trailers were before that one movie? Sequel after sequel after sequel. And not a single one looked worth spending money to go see.
I don't care whether a movie is "event worthy" I just want a good looking movie! And I haven't been getting that. I've been seeing sequels and sequels and sequels. Very few new or original movies. I'm not saying they didn't happen at all, but there wasn't enough to really drive theater visits IMO.
Audiences keep rejecting original films even when they have good reception. There’s a few exception to this rule (like with Sinners and Weapons) but by and large most non-IP films flop. To a certain extent a lot of major releases even with IP flop
Do they actually flop, or does hollywood have unrealistic expectations that every film will be a billion-dollar box office and thus will throw 100m or more at random things, and then focus-group the bejesus out of the film to try for mass appeal, making it boring in the process?
The answer is really simple: As home setups improved, with better accessibility than ever to the massive backlog, people are more discerning about spending more money than ever to go to theaters.
The mentaility that only existing IPs make it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as a function of primarily making sequels and remakes. As with many things, there is only so much you can sequel and rerelease before people get burned out.
Looking at the top 10 grossing films from 1995 to 2025, counting sequels per 10 years. Generally counting remakes of US movies, but not US adaptations of foreign. Also not counting first big-screen adaptations from TV shows. Nor movies that are part of a continuous existing non-movie IP (ala LOTR or Harry Potter). Superhero movies are hard just due to the sheer vastness of sourcce materials, so generally not counting Iron Man or The Avengers, but am counting Iron Man 2 and Avengers 25 (joke).
1995-2004: 29/100
2005-2014: 40/100 (Netflix debuted streaming 2007ish) This is when Marvel craze started kicking in, so the lines are getting blurrier.
2015-2024: 64/100
Sequels, remakes, and continuing series (like Bond) have always been a thing, but the phenomenon of trying to squeeze blood from every single 80's and 90's IP is a very new thing. Pretty sure I never saw any movie in 1995 that was a 2nd installment to a one-off that was made in 1965.
It also just used to be easier and cheaper. When I was a teenager/early 20-something, my buddy and I would hang out at the mall all the time. Frequently, we'd go see a movie, just because. It was cheap and it filled some time and we could talk about it afterwards.
These days, malls aren't much of a thing. The one mall that seems to be popular around here (amongst everyone, including teens) doesn't have a theater. And the price? $22 after taxes and convenience fees. Now, I can't recall what we'd pay back in the early 2000's, but research tells me $6 was the average in 2003 and adjusted for inflation, that's $10 today.
But not only all those things, because now I also have to find childcare for my kids and we're probably going to want to go out to eat too and that ends-up all adding up. Not to mention, just the asspain of finding childcare that doesn't flake or has other plans or you don't want to overuse because they're family.
Yeah, we'll just stay home. I've got popcorn I can make in minutes on my Induction cooktop, I've got a (not amazing) 55" TV, good quality speakers I've refoamed and access to virtually anything I can think of, coupled with a huge backlog of movies that sound interesting and much more so than Marvel Slop 8. Plus, I can drink as much as I want, if I want to and I can go straight to bed afterwards and not have to drive home with a bunch of speeding lunatics on the road.
This is the reason why I started investing in live theatre. The shows are more interesting overall and even when they are “bad” they are bad in interesting ways.
Ya, this is true also.
I personally have not been impressed by a movie in a while. I watched Weapons when it came to streaming and it was...OK. I wouldn't have wanted to spend the movie theater ticket price to go see it.
Maybe it's just me but it feels like movies just aren't what they used to be. They've gotten formulaic and predictable and I am just not enjoying them as much.
I can't put my finger on precisely what could fix it, but I just know that my appetite for movies has plummeted. I've been getting back into reading and enjoying books a lot more lately.
Question, not knowing anything about Weapons:
Could you name anything about the film that really distinguished it from the sea of other films in that genre? Because that's what I've noticed: So many things, even new IPs, are made (or at the very least, heavily edited) to have the broadest possible mass appeal. Which means less originality, "safer" jokes, and less experimentation with the medium.
Does not help that the public domain is defacto dead.
If they'd gut the budgets down to 20-50 million apiece, they'd have few genuine flops.
Wasteful spending (and usually double the budget in marketing) is what has destroyed it all - well, that and the lack of any writing above the level of a pre-school. Cinema is now a bloated, union-laden, nepotistic industry that is so choked on its own legacy bullshit that it's suffocating.
They keep beating dead horse franchises (guaranteed losers) rather than making dozens of smaller productions for the price of that one tent pole property. Time was you made every movie cheap as you could in the hopes that one of them would run away at the box office and fund the next fifty films. Now they think they know which ones will run away to a billion ahead of time - that's pure arrogance.
That's alright, though. Hollywood is in its final death throes and it is never coming back, good riddance. Cheaper productions can increasingly be done by anyone anywhere with no need to cater to California's bullshit unions, institutions, or politics. Good cinema will live on, the tiny region of the world that has had film in monopolistic chains for decades will not.
Doesn't look so good for the theaters, though. Hollywood hasn't got the writing talent or the acting chops to fill every seat in them every single weekend like they once did. In fact, that's been the case for so long that at least two younger generations of people don't know why they would ever bother going to a theater in the first place. Once that habit's broken, it's broken. Took decades to instill it the first time around. Good luck bringing that back.
I'm still waiting for dinner theaters to become more common, and for my theater ticket stub to get me a rebate on the blu-ray. I can only assume no one is genuinely serious about solving this problem. :P
I have just returned from the first movie I've been on in theatre this year. No surprises, it was Back to the future as I wasn't around when it hit cinemas back in the day.
Being there, I checked what other movies are screening and none catched my interest. I think it comes to less than one interesting movie for me per year. I was on Ferrari and Dune part 2, which are also a bit dated today... Nothing for me to go watch in between.
As the article noted, dramas and comedies are just as well suited for the small screen as the theatrical experience.
The small screen is better (for us) - spouse is partially deaf, and we subtitle everything in part because movie audio has gotten so bad, whether in the theatre or at home.
I'd also argue that big name actors are overhyped and the contributions of their performances to the quality of dramas or comedies don't often justify the budget. I'll freely admit that there aren't many Hollywood stars that I think act well enough to watch on spec. I'm not going to see a movie because it features Julia Roberts or Jennifer Laurence or Dwayne Johnson or Robert Pattinson. [I'm sure the marquee US actors have dedicated fans and I'm probably an outlier.]
Most of the really great actors were British-trained, and the paucity of good writing for female roles limits the scope for women. There are still dramatic and comedic releases that don't pass the Bechdel Test. Not a perfect measure, I know. But I firmly believe it's hard to make an interesting drama or comedy if you systematically suppress the voices of half the population and cast for physicality rather than acting talent.
It's just gotten worse with the decline of risk tolerance at the big studios. The same old big names often Botox-ed to rigidity, the targeting of young audiences with shallower storylines and action blitzes, and the tame subject matter of most prestige indie movies make me disinclined to visit the theater.