Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[Teelie]

What do you mean by this?

As far as I can tell this is a smart business decision on disney's part. They have leverage in these negotiations and are beholden to investors to meet growth projections. Disney and Star Wars shouldnt be responsible for subsidizing theater chains for periods of low attendance. Movie Theaters just arent a sustainable business, they continue to lose intrinsic value as competition increases and tech improves/cheapens. The only reason they are even in business now is because distributors are probably afraid of another anti-trust lawsuit if they launch their direct to home vod services for first run. Theater chains need to offer something unique to the consumer otherwise they will eventually be a thing of the past.

jmc summed it up. Disney is taking more than half the revenue from the ticket sales. If they squeeze the theaters dry then the theaters go bust. Then what will they do? Theater chains were already suffering from studio strong-arming tactics. Now Disney is the strongest of them and putting ridiculous demands on them. There are fewer studios to compete to keep this kind of tactic from occuring which apparently it has been more frequently.

Short term thinking like this is going to hurt them long term. All this ******** excuse about investors and making money and how theaters need to innovate to stay in business... they do but there is only so much innovation to be made and I really doubt VOD services are going to cover the costs of a movie like Star Wars does compared to the money they rake in on theater tickets even with them in decline. So once theaters are a thing of the past then so are some of the studios who will not be able to afford to make these giant movies. That leaves the like of Disney, Fox and a few others who can ride out a very rocky and fast transition to VOD services.

 

[terry78]

Disney always had a game plan to eventually move their **** to streaming. They know what they're doing, lol.

 

[jmc]

They are unlikely to get the same money releasing Star Wars movies on a streaming service as they are in a theatre. One person with a subscription can invite 10 friends over who don’t have a subscription to watch, now times that by a hell of a lot. Suddenly that streaming service isn’t looking so profitable now for them. Disney and theatre owners need each other, but if Disney push too hard they will revolt.

 

[-JKR-]

Actually, it seems like Hollywood studios are on the right path once again. They've discovered the potential of low-budget, mid-budget and low-range big budget movies again, just look at movies such as Baby Driver, It, Logan, Get Out, Split and many more.
I hope this trend persists, as I've been enjoying this theatrical year more than I've enjoyed any other year this decade. Lots of great movies, and movies which are already iconic and I'm sure will stand the test of time.
And in all this, Disney is probably the studio I care the least about right now. They're making billions, but creatively speaking, their one-trick pony approach to making ONLY huge, safe, brand-driven four-quadrant tentpoles just doesn't really appeal to me.
Something's moving in Hollywood. Maybe the execs have finally understood that the audience will flock into theaters even when it's not a 200 million dollar spectacle. Maybe we'll get back to a more varied output from even the major studios. I really hope so.

 

[dw4000]

They are unlikely to get the same money releasing Star Wars movies on a streaming service as they are in a theatre. One person with a subscription can invite 10 friends over who don’t have a subscription to watch, now times that by a hell of a lot. Suddenly that streaming service isn’t looking so profitable now for them. Disney and theatre owners need each other, but if Disney push too hard they will revolt.

They wont do subscription based, it will be rental vod like they have been proposing for years.

 

[2kt09]

Actually, it seems like Hollywood studios are on the right path once again. They've discovered the potential of low-budget, mid-budget and low-range big budget movies again, just look at movies such as Baby Driver, It, Logan, Get Out, Split and many more.
I hope this trend persists, as I've been enjoying this theatrical year more than I've enjoyed any other year this decade. Lots of great movies, and movies which are already iconic and I'm sure will stand the test of time.
And in all this, Disney is probably the studio I care the least about right now. They're making billions, but creatively speaking, their one-trick pony approach to making ONLY huge, safe, brand-driven four-quadrant tentpoles just doesn't really appeal to me.
Something's moving in Hollywood. Maybe the execs have finally understood that the audience will flock into theaters even when it's not a 200 million dollar spectacle. Maybe we'll get back to a more varied output from even the major studios. I really hope so.

I really hope it continues. Don't think I know of a more stacked year with such a pool of directors and refreshing flicks.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There are franchise movies and non-franchise movies.

Disney is doing everything right when it comes to franchise movies. But they're not stopping anyone from doing non-franchise movies unless you think they should purposely be less successful with franchise films to help random non-franchise films.

 

[dw4000]

Theater income isnt zero sum. People come to the theater when they are interested in a film. Its not a constant stream that is divided up between franchise and non. The fact is that the GA only turns up for franchises in general because that is what they are interested in. Studios didnt randomly decide to only produce risky 250 mil films based on strong IP. Its just the demands of the audience have changed over time, for good or bad because of star wars, marvel, ect. For other studios the tentpoles subsidize the indy/oscarbait passion projects.

 

[-JKR-]

Theater income isnt zero sum. People come to the theater when they are interested in a film. Its not a constant stream that is divided up between franchise and non. The fact is that the GA only turns up for franchises in general because that is what they are interested in. Studios didnt randomly decide to only produce risky 250 mil films based on strong IP. Its just the demands of the audience have changed over time, for good or bad because of star wars, marvel, ect. For other studios the tentpoles subsidize the indy/oscarbait passion projects.

Not really. Often it's a matter of studios looking at last weekend's hit and going "I want something like THAT." And often that backfires, and you get tons of uninteresting 250-million-dollar tentpoles.

But every now and then studios are willing to take some risks (which, financially speaking, are smaller risks) and it pays off. The John Wick movies, Deadpool, It, Split, Get Out, Baby Driver, Logan, Don't Breathe and many more are proof that audiences are NOT only interested in watching the same ol', same ol' "IP tentpoles," and keen to watch a variety of movies, even when they're R-rated, and not aimed at a four-quadrant audience.

It's just that studios had stopped caring about such movies, would not release/market them (well or at all), or wouldn't invest in the quality of such productions, resulting in endless Underworld and Resident Evil sequels and clones and dumb horror movies.


And no, there aren't franchise movies and non-franchise movies. There are just movies. Many kinds of movies. The landscape had gotten pretty sad and stale lately, with a huge divide between the big tentpoles and Oscar bait movies. The audience needs to be educated into wanting to see different kinds of movies again. And this year it worked like magic.

And also, people are talking about how this may be a weak Oscar year, when honestly, I find it to be one of the most exciting, where several left-field choices could pop up among the nominees, instead of the usual "look how classy I am, so deep, so Oscar-worthy, and maybe period" movies. A dark satire such as I, Tonya being a possible contender? Maybe even something like Get Out? Blade Runner 2049? Wonderful! I hope so!

The Silence of the Lambs being released in February 1991 and killing it the next year at the Oscars? That's what I'd love to get back to. Let's mix this **** up!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Audiences don't have money for the experimental.

Nostalgia and edgy horror are their drug of choice and when they pay their last dollars for a fix they want to know they're getting the good s**t.

 

[-JKR-]

Audiences don't have money for the experimental.

Nostalgia and edgy horror are their drug of choice and when they pay their last dollars for a fix they want to know they're getting the good s**t.

Baby Driver says otherwise. Audiences are sometimes smarter and more receptive than you'd think (other times they're not). It's all about how the stuff is being sold to them.

Giving in to something like what you've just said would be a true creative implosion for the major studios. What's HUGE right now was a big risk once. Always remember that.

 

[MbJ]

They are unlikely to get the same money releasing Star Wars movies on a streaming service as they are in a theatre. One person with a subscription can invite 10 friends over who don’t have a subscription to watch, now times that by a hell of a lot. Suddenly that streaming service isn’t looking so profitable now for them. Disney and theatre owners need each other, but if Disney push too hard they will revolt.

The way things are rapidly headed I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the situation does become largely streaming in a few decades. There will need to be recalibration from all parties involved, but streaming culture is here to stay. And as people are getting increasingly fed up with ticket prices and the general crappy environment of most theaters, the idea of being able to watch a big blockbuster at home is going to seem more and more appealing.

 

[jmc]

The way things are rapidly headed I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the situation does become largely streaming in a few decades. There will need to be recalibration from all parties involved, but streaming culture is here to stay. And as people are getting increasingly fed up with ticket prices and the general crappy environment of most theaters, the idea of being able to watch a big blockbuster at home is going to seem more and more appealing.

No doubt streaming is the future for certain stories, but for films like Star Wars it's hard to imagine people wouldn't want a theatre going experience. Most of us have large TV's these days, but is that the way we want to first watch Episode 9? I could be wrong though, peoples tastes have evolved over the last 10 years, so maybe it's not so far fetched.

 

[terry78]

I feel like the people that want to see it in a theatre setting are the hardcore fans and maybe the younger ones that like that social environment. Joe Average in the suburbs will watch it on his ****ing iPhone X if he can.

 

[Teelie]

More Disney Dickishness.

The crux of the story is this:

"The Los Angeles Times has been 'put on pause' by Disney, barring its reporters and critics from seeing its movies," Whipp wrote. "Disney didn't like the Times' recent two-part story detailing Disneyland's business ties with the city of Anaheim."

The charge doesn't just come from one writer, either. "Walt Disney Co. studios declined to offer the Times advance screenings, citing what it called unfair coverage of its business ties with Anaheim," said a statement on the LA Times website.

Again, I say that Disney imparticular has too much power and it will only be a detriment to the future of theaters specifically and movies in general.

 

[chamber-music]

Netflix are financing and distributing lots of types of movies the major studios won't make and are willing to give filmmakers lots of freedom.

The Netflix logo got booed at the Canne film festival when it came on screen. Some of those cinephile types are elitist *****es that think streaming companies like Netflix are 'killing' the movie industry'.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I feel like the people that want to see it in a theatre setting are the hardcore fans and maybe the younger ones that like that social environment. Joe Average in the suburbs will watch it on his ****ing iPhone X if he can.

I remember the genuine shock and confusion when Daisy Ridley watched the first TFA trailer for the first time on her tiny smart phone screen.

Lmao.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

More Disney Dickishness.

The crux of the story is this:
Again, I say that Disney imparticular has too much power and it will only be a detriment to the future of theaters specifically and movies in general.

Disney indeed has too much power. But that's what happens when the other studios are constantly tripping over their own feet. I'm not sure what can be done about that. Sony, for example, being completely incompetent just gives Disney more power without Disney doing anything.

 

[jmc]

More bullying moves by Disney. Yep, the mouse has become too big for its own good. Not sure what can be done. What are the laws like over there regarding this type of corporate behaviour.

 

[jmc]

Washington Post and AV Club are apparently boycotting Disney screenings for the their blacklisting the LA Times who published an unfavourable story of them.

 

[terry78]

Sound theory, but it won't work. Too many ****ing things are under Disney's banner.

 

[jmc]

Apparently it did. They back tracked.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's weird to me that they will do that over that Anaheim article, but embargo violations...nothing.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Aren't embargo violations usually, "hey I shouldn't say this but the movie is awesome".

 

[TheVileOne]

No. I've seen major outlets blatantly ignore or outright violate review publishing embargoes.