Where do you think cinema goes from here? (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

So, yes, you need the pandemic to end but you need some sort of exclusivity for what a theater is showing. If you give people the choice of watch at home or go to the cinema...now you have greatly cut into the crowd that will go to the cinema.

When the dust settles, the theatrical window is going to be 45 days.

That is what Paramount used on A Quiet Place Part II, which was still in the top five when it was released digitally. That is what Universal used for F9. That is what Disney is using for Free Guy opening this week. And that is what Warner Bros. committed to recently in agreements with Regal and AMC for their films beginning in 2022.

However, I don't think a window matters nearly as much as the trades (especially Deadline) like to think that it does. I wouldn't mind seeing Free Guy at some point, but I'm going out less often now than I did before COVID. If Free Guy had been released back then, I probably would have gone to see it. Now, going to the movies is a much more physically uncomfortable experience. I don't really like wearing a mask for an extended period of time, but I also know that I live in an area with high transmission of the virus and lots of people refusing to get shots. Therefore, I'm not going to go out without a mask. Under these circumstances, I'll wait until later it is available at home for a normal rental cost. I don't feel the need to see it right away.

As I said in my earlier post last night, I know lots of friends who wait for movies to stream, even before the pandemic. They don't care about being among the first to see it.

Do simultaneous streaming releases take some people out of the potential box office and turn them into home viewers? Sure. But it also might be showing the movie to people who otherwise wouldn't go out to the theater. Those people might have paid to rent the film later and now the rental is occurring earlier. If someone was going to rent Black Widow later in the year for about $6 but they decide to pay for it on Disney+, Disney gets $30 now. That's still a net increase in revenue to Disney.

Or, in the case of the HBO Max titles which are bundled into their subscription price, all you're really doing is moving up access to what they would have anyway. HBO has television and streaming rights to new WB theatrical features after they complete their theatrical run regardless of what they are doing this year. Yes, they're available on HBO Max for 31 days during the theatrical release, but we know those films were always going to be on HBO at some point regardless. We've already seen the first releases from this arrangement (Wonder Woman 1984, The Little Things, Tom and Jerry, Judas and the Black Messiah) cycle back onto HBO Max because WB sends all of their films to HBO after the theatrical run anyway. Maybe some of the people who are watching on HBO Max during the first month now would not have watched until it hit HBO Max later, if the option to do it simultaneously with the theatrical release was unavailable.

The theatrical release only attracts an audience if you have people who want to go to the theater. If they don't want to see the film there, they won't go. Lots of people don't mind waiting until movies are available elsewhere.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I agree that 45 days is going to become the industry norm, even post-COVID. That caps what a movie can make theatrically, both directly (45 days of shows = x dollars) and indirectly (potential viewers know that in 7 weeks it'll be at home, further diminishing interest and probably preventing any WOM victories in the future). These theatrical revenue ceilings will be felt in the decision-space to even make a film or how much to budget it. It will affect the artform substantially, tightening the boundaries of what movies can be. Streaming was already going to do that anyway, but the extent now will be different.

I agree that limitations are often an artists' best friend, but rarely a beancounters'. Filmmaking has long stood between those two pillars, pushing and pulling between them. This, in the short run, will favor the accountant over the artist. But not forever, and maybe not always negatively.

 

[benbess]

As some have mentioned, quite a bit of Hollywood has been built around the billion-dollar blockbuster, which justified production budgets of $200 million and more. Now that those days are in the rearview mirror for an unknown length of time it's probably going to be difficult for even the biggest players to get new movies that are that expensive into production. There may be an attempt to figure out how to make a big movie with half the money that was spent just a couple of years ago.

 

[Jake Lipson]

There may be an attempt to figure out how to make a big movie with half the money that was spent just a couple of years ago.

You can do that with the right movie and the right filmmaker. Matthew Vaughn's Stardust is one of my favorite examples of this. It looks like it cost $100 million or more to make. It actually cost $70 million. Of course, the box office results didn't work out in their favor ($38 million domestically and $98 million in international markets), but the movie was really good and did a lot with a (relatively) smaller budget for that level of movie.

Taika Waititi comes from the world of really small movies with things like What We Do in the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople and he has transitioned nicely to making big blockbusters with Thor. But I think Love and Thunder has wrapped filming, so whatever huge budget that film was originally conceived at has probably already been spent in large enough part that they can't really reconfigure it. But he might be able to take his budget-conscious experience into his Star Wars and Flash Gordon movies currently in development.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it’s interesting to note that AMC recently held an investor conference call and their strategy going forward matches some of my predictions and seems smart.

They’re always on the lookout to acquire new theaters but the conditions have to be right: they’re going for smart growth with manageable real estate costs rather than just taking every lease they can.

They’re looking to reduce showtimes in different markets for times/days that historically haven’t done well in those areas. A major metropolitan city isn’t likely to lose a popular midnight showtime, of course. But they’re cutting down on, say, 11am showings on Mondays or 10pm showings on Tuesdays in the suburbs where those auditoriums frequently aren’t selling enough tickets to even cover the overhead of the hourly employees staffing those showings.

They’re continuing the effort to remove dated, less comfortable seating and are replacing those seats with recliners and other premium options.

When possible, they are continuing to convert more auditions to premium formats like IMAX, Dolby Cinema and AMC Prime.

They are also raising prices on admissions, amenities and concessions.

I think these are all smart movies. There’s no point at having showtimes that people never attend. The amount of tickets sold for the overwhelming majority of shows justifies reducing overall capacity. Concentrating on making a better experience for those who like to attend is a better strategy than always being available for those who will never attend. And raising the prices incrementally will probably help more than it will hurt.

 

[Jake Lipson]

And raising the prices incrementally will probably help more than it will hurt.

People are already out of the habit of going to the movies thanks to COVID. I don't think raising prices makes sense when your primary goal should be to entice people back to the movies.

I wouldn't expect them to lower prices, either. I understand that this has been a bad time for the industry as a whole. But raising prices seems to me to be counterintuitive to bringing customers back. They're hoping that the customers who show up and pay more will offset the losses from people who aren't going to show up, but I'm not sure that's going to work.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We’re talking an average of a fifty cent increase nationwide - I think moviegoing can support that.

 

[TravisR]

I think it’s interesting to note that AMC recently held an investor conference call and their strategy going forward matches some of my predictions and seems smart.

But they’re cutting down on, say, 11am showings on Mondays or 10pm showings on Tuesdays in the suburbs where those auditoriums frequently aren’t selling enough tickets to even cover the overhead of the hourly employees staffing those showings.
...
I think these are all smart movies.

It is a smart move but, when I have free time, it's usually during the day so I'm getting screwed.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It is a smart move but, when I have free time, it's usually during the day so I'm getting screwed.

I hear ya.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It is a smart move but, when I have free time, it's usually during the day so I'm getting screwed.

Do you have other options where you live besides AMC?

AMC screwed me a few years ago and I haven't been back since. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate that story again because I've told it around the board multiple times. But maybe some other theater near you will still have daytime shows.

 

[TravisR]

Do you have other options where you live besides AMC?

Yeah, there's a not-so-great independent theater near me that's open during the day but the AMC is the closest, best, and "my" theater so I wanna go there. That being said, when I've really wanted to see a movie this summer, I have made the time but I do miss the weekday matinee (especially since the variant started increasing has made me want to be in a more empty theater).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Apparently the BREAK EVEN number for the new Bond picture is $900 million. This is due to the cost of the picture and then the cost of all the delays of the picture and that number could rise because they could delay again and they need to do a new promotional blitz to get people excited it is coming.

They are considering delaying it again looking for a better release date because anything coming the rest of this year is not making money back and certainly not making a billion dollars. Honestly, the losses on the picture could be record setting. Also, this is just a rumor, but it is possible that Craig's final Bond is designed to introduce the next super agent, a young woman, who is the real star of this story. I do not know if that is true but if it is that will be divisive as all hell and probably would hurt box office in a good time.

I don't know what I would say here, pull off the bandage and put it out or hold on and hope for a much brighter 2022 (which with vaccination avoidance still in full swing, does not look promising).

 

[TravisR]

Apparently the BREAK EVEN number for the new Bond picture is $900 million. This is due to the cost of the picture and then the cost of all the delays of the picture and that number could rise because they could delay again and they need to do a new promotional blitz to get people excited it is coming.

They are considering delaying it again looking for a better release date because anything coming the rest of this year is not making money back and certainly not making a billion dollars. Honestly, the losses on the picture could be record setting. Also, this is just a rumor, but it is possible that Craig's final Bond is designed to introduce the next super agent, a young woman, who is the real star of this story. I do not know if that is true but if it is that will be divisive as all hell and probably would hurt box office in a good time.

I don't know what I would say here, pull off the bandage and put it out or hold on and hope for a much brighter 2022 (which with vaccination avoidance still in full swing, does not look promising).

Somehow, they didn't realize that Skyfall was a fluke and James Bond movies don't usually earn a billion dollars. The pandemic is only going to make the box office worse for No Time To Die but even if it had come out prior to the pandemic, it wouldn't have made that kind of money.

 

[jcroy]

Apparently the BREAK EVEN number for the new Bond picture is $900 million. This is due to the cost of the picture and then the cost of all the delays of the picture and that number could rise because they could delay again and they need to do a new promotional blitz to get people excited it is coming.

If I had to guess, a huge cost is paying the accumulating interest on the bank loans that MGM took out to finance the production + marketing of this current James Bond movie ?

 

[Worth]

Somehow, they didn't realize that Skyfall was a fluke and James Bond movies don't usually earn a billion dollars. The pandemic is only going to make the box office worse for No Time To Die but even if it had come out prior to the pandemic, it wouldn't have made that kind of money.

Adjusted for inflation, four Bond films have made over a billion in today's dollars - Skyfall, Thunderball, Goldfinger, and Spectre. And Live and Let Die comes up just a few million short.

 

[benbess]

Disney vs. Scarlett Johansson: Why “a Ton of Lawsuits” May Be Next

As the Bob Chapek-led regime goes to war with a Marvel star, Hollywood stars and creatives fear the end of massive backend deals.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

“From this point on, it’s just going to be work for hire,” he says. “It’s a huge sea change for everyone. You’ll still get a huge payment up front. It’s just not going to be huge home runs any more. And with time, those fees will get smaller.” But having been offered such deals, this person says, “It doesn’t matter to me whether [my movie] is a huge hit or not. The pressure’s off.” He doesn’t want to embarrass himself, but a project just needs to be good enough to get the next deal. This may help explain why so many movies made for streamers seem to lack luster.

Blum concurs. “On a streaming movie, [if] you’re not participating in the upside or downside, I think that compromises the creative process.” Blum says he’s counting on “a ton of lawsuits” in the hope that “eventually, there will be sharing in streaming — just like there has been for 50 years in this business.”

 

[jcroy]

Sounds like Chapek and the c-level suite are hoping to set a legal precedent in their favor, even if it takes years.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If I had to guess, a huge cost is paying the accumulating interest on the bank loans that MGM took out to finance the production + marketing of this current James Bond movie ?

I have also heard that there is an insurance component to the rising cost as they have to pay some sort of insurance costs until the picture is released. So, as with any product that has to sit on a shelf it becomes more costly to the people that paid to get it on the shelf as each day passes.

I think their position is, they know they are taking a loss because $900 million is an obscene break even number, but can they maneuver at all to lessen the blow. Obviously they hoped Craig's final Bond would hit Skyfall numbers but there is no way that happens now.

 

[BarryR]

I'm not talking quality or types of films, I am talking the actual event of going out to see a picture at a cinema.

Yes, Covid hit this industry hard but it has been hit harder than others because now movies are opening in your living room the same day they open in a cinema. It looks like our botched handling of the pandemic combined with allowing people to see a movie opening day at home has now put the screws to the theater business in a big way.

So, what is your take on this?

Do you still want to be able to go to a cinema to see a film?

Do you like the idea of never going again and watching everything at home?

How do you think this will impact how and what pictures get made?

Do you think budgets for motion pictures will plummet?

Will you miss the cinema experience?

Does it bother you that everything now will be TV?

The truth is the movie industry is at a crossroads and they are trying to sort out which way to go. Chances are there will be far fewer movie theaters and so if you go you probably will have to travel further to get to one.

What do you think should or might happen?

What do you hope happens?

Maybe a bit off point, but I thought the movie going experience took a bit of a dive in the 1980s, when malls spawned all these shoe box sized theaters. And not all that well managed; twice I got a refund over bad projection or some other faulty problem.

A whole other subject today would be audiences becoming more rude or casual, such as using their smartphone as a component of viewing. My ideal has been attending special MOMA screenings in Manhattan, where the audience is dedicated and the projection flawless. But it's a train trip and subway to get there.

I haven't been to a conventional movie theater in a long time, so I'm guilty of not helping matters. I value my memories of some really great movie theater experiences.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Maybe a bit off point, but I thought the movie going experience took a bit of a dive in the 1980s, when malls spawned all these shoe box sized theaters. And not all that well managed; twice I got a refund over bad projection or some other faulty problem.

A whole other subject today would be audiences becoming more rude or casual, such as using their smartphone as a component of viewing. My ideal has been attending special MOMA screenings in Manhattan, where the audience is dedicated and the projection flawless. But it's a train trip and subway to get there.

I haven't been to a conventional movie theater in a long time, so I'm guilty of not helping matters. I value my memories of some really great movie theater experiences.

I think that is true, that there was a dive in the 1980s but to me the 1980s was a period where a lot of things took a dive. Basically during the 1980s I think many things that we enjoy as entertainment became sort of very polluted by money becoming a much bigger focus. Everything from movies to music to sports began to take a turn toward cash is king and finding ways to just make money over really being into whatever you were doing or creating. The problem just continued to grow until where we are now where even the audience no longer really talks about the quality of a picture they generally talk about the box office first.

I don't know why an audience member would give a flying crap about how much money a picture is making while they are sitting there watching it but they do now. When I went to movies in the 1970s, 1980s, and even in the 1990s nobody around me was talking about the box office numbers. The conversations were about how good or lousy the movie was.

If you wanted to make money, make sequels and show them in a box in a shopping mall. That did kind of become a thing in the 1980s.