|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fox Film Chief Stacey Snider Says Current Theatrical Windows Are ‘Anachronistic’
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-23-2017 12:58 AM
Yea well, the multiplex cinema is going to die anyway. The days of people needing that sort of entertainment are behind us.
- The first nail in the coffin was the cheapening of decent home entertainment, mainly DVD.
- The second nail in the coffin was the increase in ticket prices, thanks directly to the "upgrade" to digital cinema. Now the cinema is identical to the home theater.
- The third nail in the coffin was the gimmicks and remakes/reboots that cause people to be turned off about going to the cinema at all.
- The fourth nail in the coffin was upgrading home video to HD and now UHD quality.
- The fifth nail in the coffin is the availability of content online for instant access.
- The sixth and final nail in the coffin will be day and date release.
The only way to "save" the industry is to charge an exorbitant amount of money for day and date releases and most of that money goes towards keeping the cinemas alive. If they don't do it that way, if the money goes directly to the studio, then you might as well lower the coffin into the ground and forget the multiplex even exists.
I for one hope the multiplex goes away. I hope AMC goes out of business an the Wanda group gets the F out of this country. I hope the studio's loose their shirts and realize they've been greedy assholes. I hope the people who make movies, realize they've been part of the problem too. Everyone is living high off the horse and it's just crazy. Union truck drivers are paid to sleep in the cabs of their trucks and make $60/hr doing it? Top directors are being paid between half and one million dollars to make a movie? Are you crazy sir? The industry needs to collapse like the music industry did and it needs to be re-birthed.
As I've said in many threads, in a world without multiplexes, revival cinema rules. Single movie houses that play multiple movies a day that barely survive, are kind of the future. Sold out showings, going to those who really like the cinema experience. Special experience screenings as well, maybe 3D maybe 4D, maybe 7D, IDK... but they are going to stick around. In that climate, the cinema will return to what it's suppose to be, a special experience, not a lame garbage one where you're just another cow being pushed into and out of a building.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-23-2017 01:35 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
Yea well, the multiplex cinema is going to die anyway. The days of people needing that sort of entertainment are behind us.
And yet, here we are in an online forum dedicated specifically to commercial movie theaters and theatrical movie releases. Why are we still here?
quote: Tyler Purcell
The only way to "save" the industry is to charge an exorbitant amount of money for day and date releases and most of that money goes towards keeping the cinemas alive.
Why pay $30, $50 or whatever to watch a movie at home on your TV screen when all you have to do is wait 3 or 4 months to pay a couple or so dollars for the rental?
I strongly doubt day and date release will the create the sort of cash flow boom that all the executives and bean counters have been fantasizing about for years. Chances are slim to none the ploy will convince more people to a new movie immediately. Only so many people are willing to pay first run prices to see a movie. The people who prefer watching movies at home and paying the far cheaper price to do so aren't going to change their habits, even if they have the option to watch the movie on their TV screen earlier for a higher price.
The only thing the day and date release concept will do is cannibalize the theatrical customer base. Theaters can afford to lose only so many customers before getting into financial trouble. How much that customer base is shifted to the home living room depends on the pricing. I don't think the studios can charge the sorts of pricing you see for PPV events like a UFC event. It only costs around $20 or so to buy a copy of a movie when it is first released on Blu-ray. Movies aren't going to draw a big group of people to a house party like a live UFC event. But odds are strong viewers won't be watching these premium priced day and date movie releases alone in their living rooms.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I for one hope the multiplex goes away. I hope AMC goes out of business an the Wanda group gets the F out of this country. I hope the studio's loose their shirts and realize they've been greedy assholes. I hope the people who make movies, realize they've been part of the problem too. Everyone is living high off the horse and it's just crazy. Union truck drivers are paid to sleep in the cabs of their trucks and make $60/hr doing it? Top directors are being paid between half and one million dollars to make a movie? Are you crazy sir? The industry needs to collapse like the music industry did and it needs to be re-birthed.
Big question: has the music industry been "re-birthed?" That industry is far smaller than it used to be, thanks to a variety of reasons, all of which were destructive but not fatal for that industry.
If movie theaters disappear it will start a domino effect. The traditional movie industry will fail next. Then traditional cable TV will take a major hit. Peripheral losses will be felt big in the consumer electronics industry (movies sell TV sets and speaker systems). Even the music industry and fashion industry would suffer because they use movies to give their product exposure.
I think hoping for the failure of the movie industry is very foolish. If that industry collapses there will be no "re-birth." It will just be dead. We'll all just be watching fucking TV. That's all.
By the way if Wanda gets the fuck out of our country it very well might take our movie industry with it. And that's not the fault of "union truck drivers getting paid $60 per hour to sleep in their cabs." It's the fault of executives getting paid far greater sums of money to undermine and then sell out what has been an American dominated industry. The Chinese aren't just acquiring movie theater chains around the world. They're financing many "American" movies, buying production companies and building studios. They are positioning themselves for the take-over, ultimately moving the center of the movie industry from Hollywood to Hong Kong or Shanghai.
quote: Tyler Purcell
As I've said in many threads, in a world without multiplexes, revival cinema rules. Single movie houses that play multiple movies a day that barely survive, are kind of the future.
Single screen palaces are a long dead thing of the past. If people really cared about those kinds of theaters sites like the Ziegfeld in New York or the Northpark I-II in Dallas would still be open. Bargain cinemas, revival houses, independent drive-ins, etc. are all very dependent on a complex ecosystem. They all need content from the movie studios. They all needs service, parts and supplies from other businesses who specifically exist to serve commercial movie theaters. If multiplex theaters disappear they'll take that ecosystem of content distribution, service, parts and supplies with them. If any ecosystem does manage to survive if American multiplex theaters fail that ecosystem might be based in China!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!
Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-23-2017 05:57 PM
From The Atlantic:
quote:
Why Netflix Will Release Martin Scorsese's Next Film
A $100 million gangster epic starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci has become too risky a proposition for major studios.
DAVID SIMS FEB 22, 2017
Martin Scorsese’s next project, The Irishman, is as close as you can get to a box-office guarantee for the famed director. It’s a gangster film based on a best-selling book about a mob hitman who claimed to have a part in the legendary disappearance of the union boss Jimmy Hoffa. Robert De Niro is attached to play the hitman, Al Pacino will star as Hoffa, and Scorsese favorites Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel are also on board. After Scorsese branched into more esoteric territory this year with Silence, a meditative exploration of faith and Catholicism, The Irishman sounds like a highly bankable project—the kind studios love. And yet, the film is going to Netflix, which will bankroll its $100 million budget and distribute it around the world on the company’s streaming service.
Netflix’s ascension in the world of film distribution has largely been on the margins. Its insistence on releasing movies online the same day they come out in theaters has thus far stopped its projects from being shown in most major cinema chains. The fact that a Scorsese movie—and one this expensive, with a cast this stacked—is opting to go to Netflix rather than one of the major studios is an indication of something seismic. Until now, big directors have avoided the company, afraid it would doom their films to only be seen in people’s homes. But with Scorsese aboard, that could begin to change.
Anne Thompson of Indiewire, who broke the news of the Netflix deal, noted that The Irishman had long been planned as a Paramount Pictures production. Paramount distributed Scorsese’s last four movies, three of which were huge hits: Shutter Island ($294 million worldwide), Hugo ($185 million worldwide), and The Wolf of Wall Street ($392 million worldwide). Though all had big budgets, Scorsese’s brand recognition is peerless. His name, and the A-list movie stars who work with him, are usually enough to attract audiences, even if the film is a baroque, profane, sexually explicit 3-hour comedy about a sociopathic Wall Street broker.
Yet, Scorsese’s most recent effort, Silence, was a bomb. It cost some $40 million to produce and has grossed only $7 million, receiving just one Oscar nomination (Best Cinematography) after its late-December release failed to draw audiences. Paramount arguably botched its roll-out, though the studio was hampered by the crowded slate of awards films (including Arrival and Fences) and by being unsure until late in the season that Silence would even be ready for awards contention. The film itself is an undoubtedly punishing watch and probably would have benefited from opening ahead of the usual glut of prestige Christmas films.
Though Silence’s failure was very specific, it seems to have scared Paramount off. According to Thompson, an industry source put it this way: “Paramount is not in the position to take risks. This way, he can make the project he wants.” There’s no better indicator of how much the film industry is changing than the fact that a Scorsese gangster film starring De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci seems risky, and Netflix is the safe haven to make the big-budget picture of your dreams. Some of Paramount’s upcoming projects might seem, on paper, riskier, such as a sequel to Daddy’s Home featuring Mel Gibson; certainly, the chances at awards contention are miniscule. But that is the calculation executives made.
In the world of streaming media, Amazon has so far proven itself far more attractive to big-name directors, because it gives films a proper theatrical release and waits for months before moving them onto its online Prime service for viewers at home. That approach is how Amazon acquired Manchester by the Sea at last year’s Sundance film festival and got it a Best Picture nomination, and turned Love & Friendship into one of the surprise indie successes of the year. Netflix, on the other hand, only puts its films in a handful of theaters to qualify them for awards eligibility. It mostly expects viewers to watch movies at home (an approach that has, so far, gotten the company ignored by Oscar voters and beaten to big acquisitions at Sundance and other festivals).
Making The Irishman is on a whole other scale than the small indie films Netflix has worked on so far. Though Thompson reported that the deal will include a “limited Oscar-qualifying release” in theaters, this is an expensive film that will be made for television screens first and foremost. There is a chance that the appeal of Scorsese would be enough to break the embargo big theater chains have imposed on Netflix’s releases, but it’s unclear if that’s something Netflix even wants. After all, the primary purpose of these investments is to draw subscribers, not to make money in cinemas.
Scorsese is not the only big-budget director working with the company. This year, Netflix will release Bright, a $90 million sci-fi cop drama starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, set in a world where humans and Orcs co-exist. Directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad), it also sounds like the kind of film best served on a big screen. The same goes for Bong Joon-ho’s Okja; the Korean director’s follow-up to the acclaimed Snowpiercer is a “multi-lingual monster movie” that features Tilda Swinton, Steven Yeun, and Jake Gyllenhaal.
Still, it makes sense that these filmmakers would be drawn to Netflix. Ayer’s experience on Suicide Squad was one that saw Warner Bros. tinkering with different cuts up to the last minute. Bong fought with The Weinstein Company over the length of Snowpiercer, as the famously intrusive producer Harvey Weinstein tried to make it shorter and more accessible to a wider audience. Scorsese has wrestled with such intrusion for most of his career; Netflix is essentially offering him a blank check, and is the rare studio that couldn’t care less about running time. The appeal is obvious, and if other artists follow suit and migrate to streaming companies, the impact on theatergoing culture could be profound.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-23-2017 09:22 PM
In some ways it makes sense for Martin Scorsese and Netflix to make a deal like this. Scorsese can make The Irishman the way he wants to make it, with as much running time and graphic violence as he likes. The MPAA threatened past Scorsese movies like Casino with NC-17 ratings, forcing edits to gain an R-rating. Netflix has made NC-17 and "unrated" movies available to viewers. Obviously Netflix sees a $100 million Scorsese movie as a marketing tool to give its service more prestige. Most of Netflix' 2-hour original movies have been "direct to DVD" quality.
Some of the details raise some questions. Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa? They don't look alike at all and Hoffa was 62 when he vanished. Pacino will be 77 in April. Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel and Joe Pesci are all in their 70's too. I know all these actors are big names. But why not try out some younger actors more age appropriate to the story (and maybe ones not named Leonardo Di Caprio).
The other Netflix movie deals sound more iffy. I think Amazon is taking the smarter approach by using the traditional theatrical release model and then having the movies play on its Prime service. The movies will seem more like legit movies rather than glorified TV shows.
quote: David Sims, The Atlantic
The fact that a Scorsese movie—and one this expensive, with a cast this stacked—is opting to go to Netflix rather than one of the major studios is an indication of something seismic. Until now, big directors have avoided the company, afraid it would doom their films to only be seen in people’s homes. But with Scorsese aboard, that could begin to change.
That's a big over-statement. Big name Hollywood movie directors have already been dabbling in TV production for years. Even Scorsese has been doing it with shows like Boardwalk Empire and Vinyl on HBO. David Fincher has been involved with House of Cards on Netflix. Other big name directors have helmed episodes of various TV shows. Not many have directed a regular 2 hour movie made only for a streaming service like Netflix though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-23-2017 11:15 PM
A new movie on Netflix doesn't "seem like a movie," no matter how much they might try to make it so. It seems like a TV show. It SEEMS like a direct-to-video movie because that's what it is.
As for "The Irishman" being "a boxoffice sure thing"... are they kidding? An R-rated gangster movie starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci? I love all those guys but they're not exactly Chris Pratt or Tom Hanks these days. And even those two guys have had occasional trouble getting audiences in lately. And Scorsese isn't exactly guaranteed boxoffice gold either.
The studios are going to do it regardless of what anyone says. They're going to charge $50 for a new movie, then when it doesn't draw the numbers they want, they'll drop it to $25 and then $20, and they'll give some percentage of that to "the theaters" (and how they're going to come up with THAT percentage is any lawyer's wet dream). While that's happening, pirates will figure out ways around whatever "encryption" they employ, and piracy will stay the same or maybe increase.
Meanwhile the theatrical crowd won't drop like a rock, it'll drop slowly and steadily, and by the time the studios realize what they've done it'll be too late. That is, IF they ever realize it, which is doubtful.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Big question: has the music industry been "re-birthed?" That industry is far smaller than it used to be, thanks to a variety of reasons, all of which were destructive but not fatal for that industry.
Depends on what you mean by fatal. The retail end of the music industry is all but dead, and the manufacturing end of it is declining. The concert industry is where the money is these days, with "merch" being the big cash cow.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-26-2017 12:05 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
And yet, here we are in an online forum dedicated specifically to commercial movie theaters and theatrical movie releases. Why are we still here?
My comment was looking into the future, not the present or the past. As a filmmaker working in hollywood and someone who knows the distribution companies pretty well, I see a push towards the small screen like no other in the history of cinema. This is way worse then anything else we've had to encounter before.
So just because what I predict hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't start happening this year.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Why pay $30, $50 or whatever to watch a movie at home on your TV screen when all you have to do is wait 3 or 4 months to pay a couple or so dollars for the rental?
I know we've had this discussion a few times, but I know PLENTY of people who would gladly pay $50 to watch a first run movie at home, if it means they don't need to leave the house.
Furthermore, my point in mentioning this yet again, is to punctuate exactly what you said. The studio's would loose their shirts if they used the standard release model for day and date releases. So they have to come up with an entirely new model that so far, nobody has done. The $50/screening model I think works very well because it's an "option" rather then there being NO options today.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Big question: has the music industry been "re-birthed?" That industry is far smaller than it used to be, thanks to a variety of reasons, all of which were destructive but not fatal for that industry.
Very much so. In fact, the music industry is budding with new and amazing artists who 20 years ago, would get zero recognition. Thanks to the complete death of the industry and the technology boom, recording facilities charge less money, artists charge less money to record on albums and there is a plethora content. In fact, vinyl sales and record player sales are breaking records (no pun intended).
Think of it a different way. 20 years ago, the top guys were making a lot of money and everyone else was left by the wayside. Today, ANYONE can make money, maybe not enough to live in a multi-million dollar house, but if you've got a good sound and work hard, you can make a living.
This mentality is exactly what the film industry needs to embrace and it would work for them. Instead of putting all their money into huge union shows that are only there to pay for those businessmen and workers lavish lifestyle, why not make more, smaller movies? We have talked about this a lot of times and the model works very soundly. The industry has to completely collapse to make that model work though. The fat men need to leave and the rebirth needs to be by people who care, which there are plenty who do.
quote: Bobby Henderson
By the way if Wanda gets the fuck out of our country it very well might take our movie industry with it.
Good Riddance?!?!
Besides, the Chinese don't want old film archives and old buildings in Hollywood, they simply want to make money. So the history of the industry is safe in a lot of ways, it belongs to Hollywood and it will stay here no matter what China does. They already have a budding industry and offer huge tax advantages for shooting there, but nobody really does and that's not going to change.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Single screen palaces are a long dead thing of the past. If people really cared about those kinds of theaters sites like the Ziegfeld in New York or the Northpark I-II in Dallas would still be open.
I wholeheartedly disagree, there is a HUGE resurgence of "art houses" across the country.
Yes, we lost a few theaters, but generally it's only due to the land being worth more money then a movie theater can produce... ANY theater for that matter, megaplex or otherwise.
I personally can't wait for the big theaters to start closing. It's going to be the beginning of a new era and I hope to see it in my lifetime!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-26-2017 12:27 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
I know PLENTY of people who would gladly pay $50 to watch a first run movie at home, if it means they don't need to leave the house.
This reminds me of when I had an employee who told me, "We are going to be super busy tonight.....EVERYBODY is coming!" I said, "What do you mean by 'everybody?'" She said, "Well, everybody I talked to." I said, "How many is that?" She said, "Well.....three people." And we had a lousy crowd that night.
So the lesson is, "plenty" of people in one person's world may not be a model the whole industry could survive on. Even if I didn't own a movie theater I can guarantee you I would NEVER pay $50 to watch a movie in my house when I know it'll be out on video for $3 rentals in a few weeks. But I don't want to "cocoon" in my house all the time, and going out on the town for an evening is something I expect so spend some bucks on.
In short, unless you have a killer setup and a nice crowd of friends in attendance, watching a movie at home isn't worth 50 bucks. Especially when you consider repeat business. OK, so you pay $50 to watch "Rocky 9" this week....are you going to pay $50 again to watch "Spiderman XIII" next week, and "Revenge of the Jedi's Grandchildren" the week after that, and so on?
That's why that model will probably tank. If they want to make it work, they'd have to lower the price.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-26-2017 01:29 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
My comment was looking into the future, not the present or the past. As a filmmaker working in hollywood and someone who knows the distribution companies pretty well, I see a push towards the small screen like no other in the history of cinema. This is way worse then anything else we've had to encounter before.
Just like the suits are trying to totally ruin the movie theater industry the same short-sighted bean counters are threatening to ruin what some are calling the modern golden age of television. I can't believe some of the TV series concepts that are being green-lit. Just how in the hell is a Marley and Me TV series supposed to work? It's hard work just trying to stay caught up on TV series that are actually good. That situation makes it that much easier to skim past all the damned derivate ideas for TV series or movies.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I know we've had this discussion a few times, but I know PLENTY of people who would gladly pay $50 to watch a first run movie at home, if it means they don't need to leave the house.
I think you're living in an isolated market completely not typical for the rest of the nation. If you're a rich guy who has his own private screening room that looks just like a movie theater then maybe paying $50 to watch a movie one time might seem like a good deal. The vast majority of Americans have a conventional living room and TV set. There is absolutely nothing magical about paying $50 to watch a 2 hour movie on something like that, even if you make a decent paycheck.
Most Americans are very price conscious about their entertainment. If a cheaper option is available they will take it even if that means waiting a relatively short amount of time for the huge price discount.
So, while there might be a few takers for the $50 premium screening model, I predict so few people would buy that product that movie distribution people would become quickly dissatisfied with the results. They would feel the need to make changes to the pricing model to get more customers and bigger cash flow. Once the price was low enough to attract middle class customers it would create a big enough drop in movie theater ticket sales to cause disaster.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In fact, the music industry is budding with new and amazing artists who 20 years ago, would get zero recognition. Thanks to the complete death of the industry and the technology boom, recording facilities charge less money, artists charge less money to record on albums and there is a plethora content. In fact, vinyl sales and record player sales are breaking records (no pun intended).
Breaking records based specifically on what statistic exactly? Vinyl is going through a resurgence for audiophiles and hipsters only. That's all. Vinyl unit sales are nothing like what they were back in the 1970's when it was a real mainstream music distribution format. Overall music sales (CDs, downloads, etc.) are in the freaking toilet compared to unit sales 25 years ago. It's awful.
These budding new artists you mention are not getting any real recognition. All of the avenues for new artists to get real recognition are dying. Music radio became a cesspool of bland, corporate controlled content where everything sounds the same as it has for years and years. They don't allow any big breaths of stylistic fresh air to hit the airwaves. The suits put their iron fisted hold on music style after 1990, the last time the music industry had a healthy house cleaning of music style. The industry has been bland and in a state of decline ever since. Music videos are still being made, but you can only watch them online (at YouTube or Vimeo) since networks like MTV and VH1 rarely ever show music videos anymore. Retail stores that specialized in selling music on CD, cassette, vinyl, etc. have being dying off rapidly thanks to sales tax free online merchants. I think it was a lot easier to browse retail music store shelves for new stuff than look at a damned web page.
The only way for new artists to get recognition and make any money at all is by playing at live music venues. But there's only so many of those around, and quite a few of them have been closing. Gotta clear that space for more upper income gentrification via luxury condos and coffee shops.
Honestly the only good thing that has happened for the industry in recent years is technology. One can build a professional quality home recording studio and deliver pro quality content for a small fraction of what an analog-based pro recording studio cost. The days of needing a monster mixing board and huge tape machines that cost as much as a Corvette are long gone. Unfortunately not many budding artists have access to producers who know what the hell they're doing to help this new talent hone their stuff into something that will actually sell rather than sound like amateur hour.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Good Riddance?!?!
Besides, the Chinese don't want old film archives and old buildings in Hollywood, they simply want to make money. So the history of the industry is safe in a lot of ways, it belongs to Hollywood and it will stay here no matter what China does. They already have a budding industry and offer huge tax advantages for shooting there, but nobody really does and that's not going to change.
You said "Good Riddance" (regarding theaters) not me.
Movie studios have come and gone over the decades. Absolutely nothing in Hollywood is immune from going out of business.
Over the past 20 years Hollywood itself has become increasingly irrelevant when it comes to movie and TV production. So many movies and TV shows are being produced outside of Hollywood, either inside the US in places like New Mexico, Texas and Georgia or outside the US in Vancouver, Toronto, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, etc.
So it really wouldn't be all that difficult for America's movie industry to dry up and the market shift elsewhere in the world. As for all those archives that would supposedly keep the movie business centered in Hollywood, who is going to pay for the upkeep on those archives? Who is going to pay for the storage space? None of that stuff is free. Whether the assets are stored on film or on digital both are very problematic.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I wholeheartedly disagree, there is a HUGE resurgence of "art houses" across the country.
Specifically where is this resurgence taking place? What NEW art house theaters are being built? We have a thread in this forum that closely tracks theater openings and closings. There aren't any new single screen theaters or twins being built anywhere. Anything that could qualify as being an "art house" theater that is new is either an Alamo Drafthouse or ArcLight Cinema. Both of those are still multiplex concept theaters.
quote:
I personally can't wait for the big theaters to start closing. It's going to be the beginning of a new era and I hope to see it in my lifetime!
Beginning of a "new era?" That's a really optimistic spin on what would amount to all movies being reduced to mere TV shows. You think that's a good thing, but I'm absolutely sure it would be a disaster and not just for the movie industry either. The consequences would spread farther than that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-26-2017 04:09 PM
Few things to note...
One... the vast majority of people in this country have families and most of them are more then one child. The average in the US is 2.5 kids. If you add up the movie tickets for you, your mate and two children... you're looking at around $50 bux. Plus, you've gotta deal with leaving home, maybe even potentially getting a babysitter, etc. So the idea of paying $50 bux to see a first run movie, 4 months before it comes out on video, is extremely attractive to families.
Two... When I moved to California in 2002, ticket prices were $7.75. Today they're $16.00 for 2D and $20 for 3D no matter where you go. Does anyone balk at those prices? No, the theaters are still packed on any given release weekend, you can barely get seats for the big releases. So if you and some buddies pitch in together, it will cost WAY less then a group of you trying to get tickets in the same isle together, dealing with getting food, parking, meeting up, etc. It's so much easier to simply meet at someones house and watch the movie. We all do this when movies are on video, so what's the difference? None in my opinion...
Three... I don't know any rich people. Most of my friends are like me, we are super busy and can barely find the time to watch a movie. I can usually find two hours, but I can't find three or more, which is about how much it takes to deal with going to a cinema. Time is money and people will pay an exorbitant amount of money , to save time, if it was possible.
Four... Remember, the vast majority of people don't need to use this service. If only 15% of them did, that's a lot of money.
So now that subject is over... on to something else
In terms of the musicians today not getting recognition... Prior to the shake up in the industry, the only way to even get music was from a CD store. So you would have to somehow magically know the artist by listening to radio all day long. Today, artists have social media accounts and they push ads onto would be customers. We can download any music at any time from various sources. We get to fully control what we like and what we listen to through programmed internet radio. The day's of the disk jockey deciding what YOU hear, those days are long gone. Heck who even listens to the radio anymore? I only listen to NPR honestly. So today, musicians have far more exposure then they've ever had. Sure, the money isn't there anymore, but ANYONE can be a recognized artist.
Where I agree the only way to make REAL money is to play at venues, there are smaller more intimate venues all over the place that make music more entertaining. The days of the big sell-out concerts are long gone (thank god)
In terms of the discussion of movies and TV being made in other places. I think it's great honestly. It brings diversity to the big screen. There is still PLENTY of work here in Hollywood, it may not be the highest paying work, but there are more talented people in the industry then ever before. So the jobs are harder to get, unless you're willing to travel and of course have your own equipment.
The only "future" for the studio's is moving into the small screen. Lower budget productions that are well produced and can compete for space on your television screen. A lot of them are already doing it, so it's just a matter of time before that becomes the biggest revenue center.
When I mean "NEW" cinema's, I mostly refer to re-births. Cinema's that were once one thing and are now something else. Here in So Cal in the last few years we've had THREE huge awakenings. The Sunset 5 theater, which use to be a dive bomb, is now re-opened as a nice art house. Quentin's theater the New Beverly has been completely awesome, even though it's a few years old now. The Silent Movie theater is now an art house that shows a wide variety of new and older content, now called "cinefamily". The Laemmle Royal theater is a brand new all-digital theater for art films, they did a good job re-outfitting it.
New York has the Draft House and I've been told another theater is currently being converted into an art house. Sure, they're not single screens, but this new business of running older and new content simultaneously is working and I think it's the future of cinema as we know it, for better or worse. The big movie palaces like the Chinese, El Cap and Cinerama Dome, they will stick around for first run movies because those are the only things that make money. I just think the standard ol' multiplexes will go by the wayside, especially in the sub's.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-26-2017 08:57 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
One... the vast majority of people in this country have families and most of them are more then one child. The average in the US is 2.5 kids.
Actually the birth rate in the US is 1.88 children per woman (2012 Census figure). Our nation's birth rate has been dipping into regressive territory for many years. Net population growth has been coming from immigration and the higher birth rates of immigrants. Since the great recession even their birth rates have plummeted badly. High inflation in cost of health care and education are driving birth rates lower. Others factors threaten to drive birth rates even lower.
Young adults choosing not to have kids are among the fastest growing demographic groups in this nation. Another rapidly growing demographic is our elderly population, like retiring baby boomers. Hollywood does very little to cater to that demographic. They gear movies more toward teenagers and young adults. There will be fewer of those customers in the future, maybe far fewer.
quote: Tyler Purcell
If you add up the movie tickets for you, your mate and two children... you're looking at around $50 bux. Plus, you've gotta deal with leaving home, maybe even potentially getting a babysitter, etc. So the idea of paying $50 bux to see a first run movie, 4 months before it comes out on video, is extremely attractive to families.
Families with kids far more often watch movies at home, and stick with family oriented fare. For middle class families it costs a shit-ton of money to raise children and they're always looking for ways to save money. If they're going to watch a movie on TV they're not going to pay $50 to do it. They're going to wait until it costs $3.
Parents will, when they have the money to do so, pay a babysitter so they can have a date night out. It's called "getting out of the house." Movie theaters are one popular aspect of a date night. It's not much of a date night if you're stuck at home on the damned couch. If movie theaters are no longer around those couples will figure out something else to do. And they'll tell Hollywood to stick its $50 TV show rental up its ass.
quote: Tyler Purcell
When I moved to California in 2002, ticket prices were $7.75. Today they're $16.00 for 2D and $20 for 3D no matter where you go. Does anyone balk at those prices? No, the theaters are still packed on any given release weekend, you can barely get seats for the big releases.
Again, you're not living in a typical area of the country. Metro Los Angeles has a very high cost of living. One has to be paid considerably above the US median cost of living not to practically be in poverty there. So maybe people in L.A. won't balk at a $16 ticket price. I personally know lots of people who won't even pay $10 to see a first run movie. High ticket price inflation is indeed having an impact on theater ticket sales. 3D is experiencing a rapid decline in theaters primarily over price.
This past weekend I watched Get Out at a Friday night screening at a large theater in Oklahoma City's popular Bricktown district. I don't think more than 1/3 of the seats were filled. That's despite the movie's rare 100% Rotten Tomatoes score. Tickets for the huge Cine Capri house were only $11 each. The crowd in this theater trended very young and single.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of the musicians today not getting recognition... Prior to the shake up in the industry, the only way to even get music was from a CD store. So you would have to somehow magically know the artist by listening to radio all day long. Today, artists have social media accounts and they push ads onto would be customers. We can download any music at any time from various sources. We get to fully control what we like and what we listen to through programmed internet radio. The day's of the disk jockey deciding what YOU hear, those days are long gone. Heck who even listens to the radio anymore? I only listen to NPR honestly. So today, musicians have far more exposure then they've ever had. Sure, the money isn't there anymore, but ANYONE can be a recognized artist.
Nevertheless, unit sales of music are historically very low. Even established stars with major label contracts have a difficult time moving lots of CDs, digital downloads, etc. While there are more ways to listen, streaming services like Pandora, Amazon Music, etc. have their own difficult barriers for new talent to gain entry. The truth is music fans have to do considerable work to find innovative new music.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Where I agree the only way to make REAL money is to play at venues, there are smaller more intimate venues all over the place that make music more entertaining. The days of the big sell-out concerts are long gone (thank god)
Today we have organized ticket scalping operations that will siphon away all the tickets for a big name act show and then sell the tickets to fans for a much higher price. Big cities like Los Angeles have lots of intimate venues. When you get into the middle of the country the number of venues drop off precipitously. And not all of them, particularly casino concert stages, are welcoming to new talent.
quote: Tyler Purcell
When I mean "NEW" cinema's, I mostly refer to re-births. Cinema's that were once one thing and are now something else. Here in So Cal in the last few years we've had THREE huge awakenings. The Sunset 5 theater, which use to be a dive bomb, is now re-opened as a nice art house. Quentin's theater the New Beverly has been completely awesome, even though it's a few years old now. The Silent Movie theater is now an art house that shows a wide variety of new and older content, now called "cinefamily". The Laemmle Royal theater is a brand new all-digital theater for art films, they did a good job re-outfitting it.
Los Angeles and New York City are not the rest of the country. I would support an art house movie theater in my town, but I would be one of the few people doing so. I can recall watching movies like The Usual Suspects, Hoop Dreams and Dead Man Walking practically by myself in the movie theater. Unfortunately most people want the usual big studio movies, even when it's a whole lot of derivative crap.
You want the regular multiplex theater to die. Killing that means killing the entire movie theater business. The math is very simple. There is just not nearly enough art house movie theaters in huge cities to keep the infrastructure of the movie theater business alive. It is mandatory for there to be a large enough install base of theaters to justify making projectors, lamps, sound equipment and any other supply item that could go into a theater. They're not going to stay in business just to stock the freaking New Beverly and a few draft houses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-27-2017 12:10 PM
Remember, Los Angeles and New York, are the two biggest demographics for media consumption in the entire country. Trends generally are set in those two places first and then move to the rest of the country. So again, if the studio's can get 15% of their viewers from this new home-viewing model, they are raking in the dough. It's a complete win-win from their perspective because theaters are expensive. The model will work great in places like Los Angeles and New York where time is money and people HAVE money.
I maybe unusual, but I've had a decent home theater for 25 years, started back in the, laserdisc, Sony XBR, Dolby Pro Logic days. Today I have a DLP projected, 7 foot wide screen that's all THX certified and DTS/Dolby Digital decoding. It's a "decent" home theater for an apartment. Most of my friends have home theaters similar to mine, some more lavish. Point being, people who consume media, have decent viewing devices. So yes, even though I'm a struggling artist, I would have zero issues paying $50 to see a first run movie on my home theater. Think of it this way, if I called my friends and said, hey for $10 bux do you wanna see the new Star Wars movie without having to go to the cinema? They'd be at my house in 10 minutes and they'd gladly pay. Sure, it doesn't work for ALL movies, and your point earlier about kids movies is valid... but I don't see it mattering. The El Capitan theater is SOLD OUT for weeks when a new Disney movie comes out and it's ALL kids. As a teacher of High School, I can attest to kids wanting to see the newest content immediately. Parents will pay for this service because they can keep an eye on their kids as they watch it. Is this good for society? NO, but does it matter? No... the studio's want money and they will want to make this service a reality. Kids and parents will use this system, it will be very popular.
When I say cineplexes will go out of business, I'm not really referring to "all" of them, I'm referring to the vast majority of them. Big chains like AMC and such, where they've got so much invested, they simply can't stay above water. This will allow smaller theaters, who already have equipment, to be the providers of entertainment. We need to turn movie theaters back into special places, for a special experience, rather then the sterile cattle pushers they are today. It's a "night on the town" rather then a "lets go see that movie". That's the paradigm that needs to change. Charge $30 bux a seat, it won't matter, it's a "special" experience that can't be seen at home.
Right now, cinema's are no better then what can be seen at home, so why bother for them to even exist? They serve no purpose but for people who need to consume content immediately after its release. So we need to change that model somehow and normal cineplexes aren't going to do that. Bigger more whacky gimmicks are also not going to cut it. People don't care really, especially the older generation, who don't really go to the cinema anyway. So something needs to be done and I personally believe a complete death and rebirth, is the only way to do it.
Infrastructure is not a concern, it already exists. If theaters go out of business, there will even be more great used equipment for sale, so I don't see it as being a problem. Even if film projection made a small come back, support channels would open up because it would be a necessity. Remember, it's supply and demand, so if there is a demand, the supply will tick up once more. So I don't see any of this being an issue unless you're talking about NEW product, but again... there are other venues outside of multiplex theaters that use cinema projectors, so it's not like manufacturers will stop developing and making them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic