Mainstream America doesn’t want to stream intelligent movies

There's truth to what he says about the different experience of seeing a film in a cinema or at home on the sofa with your balls hanging out of your underwear. In the former, for the trouble and cost to see it, you will pay attention to the film. In the latter, you put down your mobile and tell your partner, "no, don't pause the TV, just going for a piss and a look at what's in the kitchen."

Ask someone what was their favorite film seen in s cinema in 2023 and they could probably tell you and give a decent synopsis. As what their favorite film or short series was on streaming TV and they will probably fall back to something they say in the last month or so.

More than the focus, though, a couple decades of superheroes, lowbrow comedies, action films, and endless remakes have erased any memory or taste for "independent films", "small films", "unusual films."

I think audiences are simply out if the habit of seeing anything of any quality or complexity or nuance. Here in DL, I've seen posters complain of films that were even 90 minutes long (who has time for that?). They've gotten so stupid that they must know exactly what they are going to watch so that the watching doesn't tax them.

When independent films were a significant aspect of the entertainment scene, I think it helped raise all ships. That's gone.

I prefer watching movies at home because movie theaters are generally disgusting and people tend to be annoying.

I can;t stand the half-hour of commercials before movies begin in theaters. That's why I stream them.

On New Year’s Eve l my husband and I tried to watch a movie that was silly and stupid. We didn’t want to watch a highbrow film that night. We don’t have that many platforms, and couldn’t find what we wanted, so we gave up.

His penis is serious.

It's almost universally agreed that straight to streaming is where prestige films go to die, but Hollywood likes a big checkwriter

Whoa. Had no idea how hung Dafoe is. Makes sense, though.

I saw Willem Dafoe walk onto the stage naked in a La Mama production of "The Emperor Jones" in Manhattan in the early 90s and he was so enormously hung the entire theater audience gasped.

OP, it's the other way around. Something like Maestro was probably seen by way more people on Netflix than it would have as a theatrical release. Same with May December

These films were never going to be box office smashes, Netflix did them a favor

Right.

They both flopped on Netflix,

With marquee names, strong reviews, and Oscar attention, people can make the commitment to see it in a theater. When they know it’s on Netflix, it isn’t a priority to watch it, and more importantly, get lost in it. They’re switching channels or texting throughout.

The point is there is a sophisticated audience out there willing to go the theaters to see ‘English Patient’ type movies. This is proven. Streaming services kill that previously established revenue model for artsy movie theaters and also reach broad audiences on their platforms including middle American Karens that are outraged by films like ‘May Decemeber’.

The American public love shit and it’s getting worse all of the time

People who actually enjoy/appreciate movies as an art form are willing to go see them in a theater. The streaming-only couch pig people who prefer to have cascades of shit funneled into their SSRI zombie eyes are not going to tend to be interested in anything that demands above-normal firing of synapses.

Dial it down, dear. You sound like an angry lunatic.

Fucking hell, R13. You sound like a prissy Midwesterner freshly landed in New York City, in 1981.

And if you want to play at being in the cultural elite, it's "sofa."

I'm laughing at the idea that Maestro or May December were ever going to be box office smashes. Those films are the definition of "niche"

^^People said the same thing about "Oppenheimer."

R11 The success of Society of the Snow made me happy. It outperformed overrated movies with well known actors such as Maestro and May December. Society of the Snow has unknown actors and in a foreign language. I smile when overrated shit tanks.

Mainstream America is mostly brain dead and only follows what’s being put on the radio.

And you and your radio are certainly not Mainstream., sure.

R17, Christopher Nolan is a superstar director who can draw viewers based on his name alone. Sorry, but you can't say the same for Bradley Cooper or Todd Haynes. Also, Oppenheimer benefitted from the Barbenheimer hype. No one's talking about May December or Maestro. There's no hype.

Well, you'e given reasons for "Oppenheimer's success. But "Oppenheimer" was nevertheless as a project the definition of niche, and was quite a gamble.

I don't like movies that require complete attention in order to understand them. I like to multitask, so I'm doing something else while watching movies and TV shows. I also don't like movies that require you to see what's happening in order to understand. I don't want to keep my eyes glued to the screen.

Theaters need to push ticket prices way down but I don't know what they can do to compensate. Maybe rethink the concessions side of it - health is in and people who want junk food will just sneak it in. An arcade room with the right machines could work, if you have street fighter then you'll have a good couple dozen people throwing quarters in it from open to close if not organized play events happening naturally bringing in a lot of repeat concessions buyers. Maybe a mix of higher end rooms that aren't iMax but have superior seats or amenities included. I don't see any messaging coming from the industry either, there's no commercial on TV or youtube that's all about how the picture and sound quality in a theater blows away the experience of watching a movie at home. Maybe think about eating bigger losses at matinee for a while to get people used to going there again. The smaller theaters that are still thriving are doing so because they screen things people really want to see - larger chain theaters could learn from that and dedicate some rooms to showing movies that aren't new for themed nights, special events, cult classics, whatever. The small theaters are packed here for classic horror movies, rocky horror, beloved anime films, etc. I don't think it has to be like this.

The window between a theatrical release and streaming platform release is also too short now. No one will see a lower budget movie in the theater when they know it will be streaming in a matter of weeks (ex “The Holdovers” now on Peacock). There used to be a longer window, at least six months, before a theatrical release reached pay TV or DVD release.

Wait…I thought May December did well. Wasn’t everyone talking about it? I want to see it but I do not have Netflix

R13, have you been to a movie with the general population? With those that eat out of popcorn buckets the size of a half-barrel with one hand, and scroll on their phone with the other hand? Or take little ones to a movie because they’re too cheap to get a babysitter?

I would love to appreciate some movies in a theater the way they’re meant to be seen. But I’ve given up. People suck.

R27…

…have you ever considered going to the movies when it’s not busy?

…you know that you can look at your phone now and see how crowded the theatre is from the comfort of your home right?

R15 = Paul Fussell

May December was my favorite film from last year. I saw it at a special screening in a theater.

If you think you'll like it, you will.

[quote] I don't like movies that require complete attention in order to understand them. I like to multitask, so I'm doing something else while watching movies and TV shows. I also don't like movies that require you to see what's happening in order to understand. I don't want to keep my eyes glued to the screen.

I, too, like to multi-task and listen to YouTube videos more than watch them.

This sounds ridiculous, though. Does there ever come a time when you stop doing everything else, relax, and watch and listen to something? I'm not talking about bathroom breaks and eating a snack. You can do those things while you watch a movie or a show.

R2, have you been to a movie theater lately? I go about once a week to either my local Regal, AMC or indie and have never encountered what you describe.

With assigned seating and as r38 said, you can see from home how crowded a film is, going to the movies can be a rewarding experience.

And r3, since you may get your tickets in advance, you can enter the auditorium 15 minutes after posted showtime and skip the "commercials" i.e., trailers for upcoming releases.

Dataloungers are still burned by their last experience going to the movies, standing three hours in a line to go see "The Exorcist"

May December was fantastic. I'm a fan of Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore separately and together, and it totally exceeded my expectations.

I saw it in the theater and am glad I did—and I'm glad I could rewatch it again on streaming a few weeks later to appreciate some things I missed.

I dunno, I think the short cinema-to-streaming window can help film fans appreciate and recommend good movies more.

I’m not opposed to short cinema windows, but Netflix films often have very limited releases as the major chains don’t want to work with them.

R32, I'm always baffled by people who get so incensed by commercials that play in front of movies. With the assigned seating that every major chain has now, they're completely avoidable. It's not 1998 anymore. You don't have to show up a half hour early in order to get seats.

Some people just like to arrive early, use the bathroom, get a snack, get settled in.

The loooong, LOUD string of commercials right before a movie is annoying. I won't say you're literally a captive audience, but they're definitely taking advantage of a situation by blasting you with all of those commercial.s

I live in Cincinnati and was surprised that "May December" - a big name movie with big name stars and clear Oscar intentions- did not open in any cinemas in a metropolis of 1.5m. To me, going to the theatre is the prime X3 way to see movies. I always hope that one day I'm going to find my soul mate- some nice thoughtful guy who also will also be excited to see a complex film full of ideas and emotions.

This evening I went to see "Occupied City" the new 4-1/2 hour Steve McQueen documentary/essay about the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in WWII. I was the only person in the theatre. **sigh**

Unless I’m incorrect Netflix limits awards-qualifying screenings to the two theaters they own, the Paris in New York and the Egyptian in Los Angeles.

Great, great actor, and he's right.

It’s not as if Netflix will take underperforming movies out back and destroy them. They will be available in the future.

Everyone is crying poor; perhaps an art movie isn’t a priority right now.

Also, some of us treat arty films like porn - we have to be in the mood and we’ll hoard until such time presents itself.

Did anyone here ever see him Off-Broadway?

For a few years I would watch every Academy Award nominated movie before the show so I could place bets on the winners.

This was like 2011-2014 maybe?

Fucking BORING.

There was one movie everyone was raving about with this old couple and the wife had dementia in an apartment and it took like 2 and a half hours for the husband to finally snap and smother her with the pillow and end it. I forget what it was called.

As a millennial they’re genuinely disconnected from a lot of the nominated movies.

Someone mentioned “The English Patient” here and that movie is as boring as reading the book!

I want ENTERTAINMENT! I want to be entertained. Hollywood got too boring and political.

Movies like “The Favorite”, “Jojo Rabbit”, “Joker”, “1917” are great examples of millennial entertainment.

We grew up in lived in a time of video games, the internet, in the era of “Jackass”, edgy hip-hop being the common mainstream music, and really great TV shows like “Breaking Bad” and especially “Game of Thrones”. “Game of Thrones” proved you can have a costume / fantasy / historically inspired drama and be raunchy and gory and funny.

STUFFY is a great word to describe a lot of Oscar dramas, especially over the last 20 years.

People who are in their late 20’s, 30’s, and early 40’s have way different standards of what is quality entertainment.

[quote]Mainstream America doesn’t want to stream intelligent movies

Well, duh.

I’ll never forget!

I remember when Chris Rock was hosting an Oscar show in the early 2000’s and he did this segment about what white people loved this year vs what black people loved this year.

It was “Sideways” vs “White Chicks”. All the black people didn’t see “Sideways” but they LOVED “White Chicks”. And the audience laughed and blah blah blah.

In 2024, 20 years later, one movie is a cult classic that is like the only movie Gen Z can sit through and one movie probably has not even been watched by 1 person in 15 years. “Sideways” has been totally forgotten.

And I’m not saying “White Chicks” should have ever have been nominated. But I was probably 16-17 during that time and that segment started to expose the disconnect from the public.

This whole award show was designed to sell movie tickets. I feel like we’re now at a point where it can’t sell movie tickets to these stuffy movies anymore.

[quote]Unless I’m incorrect Netflix limits awards-qualifying screenings to the two theaters they own, the Paris in New York and the Egyptian in Los Angeles.

That's incorrect, because I caught May December at IFC Center.

[quote]These films were never going to be box office smashes, Netflix did them a favor

It's a bit of a deal with the devil, because, while more people saw May December than would have seen it had it not been distributed by Netflix, the discourse around the movie was often bone-chillingly stupid. Normally, the audience for a film would be art house fans who deliberately made a choice to go see it, instead of people just scrolling the app and just being like, "Oh, a new Natalie Portman movie!"

[quote]There was one movie everyone was raving about with this old couple and the wife had dementia in an apartment and it took like 2 and a half hours for the husband to finally snap and smother her with the pillow and end it. I forget what it was called.

"Amour" by Michael Haneke. Not my favorite of his, but still a beautiful movie.

"Society of the Snow" is doing exceptionally well, even in the US and while it's not per se an arthouse film it's gotten a ton of critical aclaim and is a foreign language film. But that might be the exception to the rule and the story will always generate interest and morbid curiosity

[quote]We grew up in lived in a time of video games, the internet, in the era of “Jackass”, edgy hip-hop being the common mainstream music ... People who are in their late 20’s, 30’s, and early 40’s have way different standards of what is quality entertainment.

Yes, that's what Dafoe is saying. They want stupid.

Most people have either no taste (they need to be directed via an award win or box-office performance) or they have baby tastes (superhero crap and reboots/sequels or bland plot-driven mashups). The annoying thing is nowadays they think they deserve to be congratulated and validated for this.

Movie theaters don't make their money off selling tickets. They make most of their profits at the concessions stands. I have noticed that many local theaters are becoming more elaborate in what they offer. You can get alcohol in some, and food, a limited menu of burgers, fries, pizza, chicken tenders, tacos, quesadillas, and salads.

I agree with R9 that more people see movies like May/December and Maestro on Netflix than in a theater.

I saw Maestro in the theater precisely because I didn't think it was a good fit for streaming.

Personally, I like going to the movie theater. I understand why some people would not. When I lived in NYC - long time ago - it was a brutal experience on a Friday or Saturday night. Literally every seat is sold out and it becomes a free for all.

But most theaters are not like that.

I rarely go to the movies in the late afternoon/evening if I can help it. It is a mess. I like the early shows, they are empty and people are there to watch the movie. Lately, I have been surprised how empty the movie theaters are, even for the "important" movies.

I have a Landmark Theatre in my building and I have Tuesdays off. Which happens to be bargain day there. I go 3-4 times a month and it’s like having a private screening room. There’s nothing like seeing a great film on the big screen. And they serve wine-always a plus. I hit the AMC theatres near me occasionally but only for the rare blockbuster and only during the week.

R38 - What did you think of "Occupied City?”

I went with two other friends - we all work in post-production, and we unanimously decided to leave at the intermission; and I haven’t walked out on a movie in decades.

It’s an interesting idea, but for us the film had no apparent organizing structure or arc, or even a clear point of view. For example Covid lockdown pops up and then goes away and then reappears randomly, with no discernible timeline or narrative rational. The film just became an endless slog of the same thing over and over - with no sense it was going to say much of anything else in the second half. We all agreed the concept would work much better as a photographic-essay type book, which it apparently had been originally.

We all like interesting, challenging films so went in with high expectations. Happy to hear if your experience was more rewarding.

[quote]I have noticed that many local theaters are becoming more elaborate in what they offer. You can get alcohol in some, and food, a limited menu of burgers, fries, pizza, chicken tenders, tacos, quesadillas, and salads.

Someone sat one seat away from me and consumed some kind of burger with what smelled like chili, then fries and ketchup. GTFOH, bitch. I don't want to smell your food unless I'm eating too. Thankfully, this was in the pre-reserved seat era, and I was able to switch seats.

I've only been back twice since then: once for West Side Story, and recently for Maestro, only because I wanted to see and hear Mahler 2 in the theater. In general, the theatergoing experience is just too obnoxious nowadays. I can't imagine going again.

Well, I let my balls hang out at the cinema, R1, so I get the best of both worlds.

Millennial and gen z don’t like to leave their schlubby homes.

I like streaming, but I also like the ritual of “going to a movie”. I stream both high brow and low brow, but only go to theaters for blockbusters that I want to experience on the big screen, although that’s been limited as of late. That being said, in the winter, when it’s dark, dreary, and snowy and everyone is hacking and expelling germs, I’m staying home.

R46, White Chicks has stood the test of time. It's still funny today.

Maestro is just the type of movie that is begging for an Oscar. You can smell the desperation even before you've seen the movie, just like with A Star is Born

It's the truth. We Americans are at the forefront of a lot of things: technological advancement, medicinal advancement etc.

However, Americans have always had very poor taste in the arts. Music, movies, even books (50 Shades of Gray and other such garbage).

The most popular in entertainment is almost always garbage with very few exceptions. Americans simply have very little taste, sophistication and discernment when it comes to the arts.

[quote] Americans simply have very little taste, sophistication and discernment when it comes to the arts.

You do realize that Europeans and Asians love our garbage right?

Here's the Netflix Top 10 in France if you don't believe me.

Re: “Occupied City”- I see what you mean by slog of endless stories leading (maybe) nowhere. For me, I think I was thinking about the question of how do we live with the past? Can we truly learn to change? What is the most meaningful way to remember if, as human beings, we must live absolutely in the present moment and prepare for the future?

I thought keeping the setting completely in the present day was interesting- I kept trying to see what had -intentionally or not- survived or maybe with purpose been demolished, or been kept with a different purpose. And everything about architectural styles and public spaces. Visually it was so amazing. I loved the sequence driving the city at night with the camera going sideways and upside down.

I’m really into looking at old things and trying to connect with them as a person who lives in today’s world. At the beginning you will remember what happened to “The Night Watch” by Rembrandt. Think about the experiences, connections and responsibilities between Rembrandt, the Holocaust and us right now, here and today.

Anyway back to Willem Defoe's point

Part of the reason people aren't flocking to movies like "Poor Things" (may do $25ish domestic) is because of what "Poor Things" represents

"Poor Things" represents a film ecosystem in which the year begins on September 1 and ends on December 31. The three-headed beast of Venice/Telluride/Toronto determines that the majority of "prestige" product debuts in Venice or Telluride (Toronto seems to be falling out of favor) the first week of September. Studios love Venice because everyone gets a standing ovation, nobody boos (like at Cannes).

To the prestige labels and streamers, Venice has become a kind of "sorting hat" where anything "quality" is gauged for enthusiasm, which is usually favorable, and then unleashed between October and December to fight amongst themselves for eyeballs at multiplexes. For a long time this worked, and people got in the habit of going to the theatre in the fall and holiday season to see "quality films."

And then COVID happened.

COVID destroyed this ecosystem. Netflix jumped into the void filled by the absence of theatergoing and said, "We'll bring these quality films to you." The Irishman, Marriage Story, Mank, Mudbound, The Power of the Dog, Maestro, Don't Look Up, All Quiet on the Western Front, all these movies which probably wouldn't fare too well at cineplexes suddenly were available to stream when the weather got chilly.

A good portion of the "prestige" audience, which, naturally, veered older, liked this idea. That audience was lost forever.

Secondly, the KIND of prestige films Netflix was greenlighting would not be greenlit anywhere else. This created a more esoteric catalogue of product which had very limited appeal. Maestro took so long to get made because no one would make it. Even Steven Spielberg wouldn't tackle it himself. But Netflix was green lighting them just on the basis of having famous people attached to it.

This has created, for filmgoers, a confusing glut of films released within the space of three months, both in theaters and online, with an increased reputation for not being entertaining. For just being "polished" and "pedigreed."

For example, "Poor Things", which, as I said is not doing too well, is being marketed like this. What does the title or poster tell you about the story? Emma Stone is a human pasta-maker? Where are the "things" in the title? What am I being sold?

Jump back several years ago, how is this poster different?

Well you see a woman and a fish person, like from the old horror movie Creature from the Black Lagoon which most people have never seen but simply know through pop culture osmosis. So they know that movie is about a terrifying fish person who covets a human woman. Except this poster shows us something else, the fish person isn't terrorizing the woman, he's rescuing her. Or they're passionately hugging underwater. This makes me curious to know what happened, to venture out of the house to solve the answer to the question the poster asks, "How did we end up here?"

Poor Things, by contrast, just says, "Here. Emma Stone. Take it or leave it."

Prestige has lost the ability to market a movie.* They simple want you to see it because they, and the star, thinks its important. This is a recipe for disaster, and the past two years of big prestige flops (Tar, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Fablemans, Nightmare Alley) point to a complete failure of not just imagination, but passion for the creativity of film.

*The sole exception to this is A24.

R67/R68: I think you are trolling a little bit but your depressing point is- more than ever, people lack imagination, don’t want to take a chance on anything slightly different, want to know every fucking thing that happens in a movie except for the ending, which of course MUST be a happy ending or at least an ending that assures me in 18 months there will be a sequel promising me the exact same fucking thing I just watched!

More Batman please!

“Poor Things” had a horrible trailer.

The end.

It should have had a trailer like A24.

It’s a weird movie and got a very bland trailer treatment

R69

No

My point is,

You are only going to get people out of the house to watch a movie if you tell them what the movie is about and give them a reason to care about the story you are asking them to sacrifice a couple of hours to watch.

Why is this A24 movie starring a washed up and surgery disfigured Zac Efron doing better than Poor Things? Well okay, these guys are brothers and they're wrestlers, and there's some kind of championship that they win, how did they get there? Are Zac Efron's personal struggles mirrored in the struggle that this wrestler has? I want to know more.

Hey look it's Brendan Fraser, I haven't seen him in a while! But he's a great big fat person in this movie. And the movie is called The Whale. That's a cruel nickname to give a great big fat person. Does Brendan Fraser looks sad because people call him the The Whale? I'm somewhat invested now. I want to know more.

Oh it's Elvis and Priscilla. I know them. They look so beautiful here. But the movie is called Priscilla. So it must be about her. I saw "Elvis." Maybe this will tell me something that "Elvis" didn't tell because it didn't want to be unflattering. I'm curious.

Now let's look at some key art for Netflix prestige films.

Well, here are Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore. I know they both have Oscars. I don't remember what Julianne won her Oscar for, but I loved Black Swan. So what is this movie about? They're just looking at me. The title says May/December. Are they lesbians in a May/December relationship? But they don't seem like happy lesbians. Maybe they're not lesbians. I have no clue what this movie is about. I'll watch it for two minutes and if I'm not hooked I'll switch to Emily in Paris and play Wordl.

Here's Bradley Cooper. My he has big cuff links. Carey Mulligan looks like she's playing his wife. They're dressed like old photos of my grandparents. They're looking at something. Okay. Is the movie about the thing they're looking at? What does Maestro mean? Are they looking at an orchestra conductor? Classical music is so boring. My grandparents were boring. This doesn't seem like a fun way to spend an evening. I'll put it on while I do laundry and if I am not HOOKED, then I am going straight to Emily in Paris.

It’s just that most people are so stupid they don’t want to watch anything different or that requires thinking. It’s weird with globalization and the internet people seem even less interested in broadening their horizons than they used to be. When I was a teenager I’d seek out foreign and strange films.

Who the fuck bases their viewing on a poster? Trailers and reviews are the main ways. Where would they even see these posters if not at a theatre where they, apparently, aren’t going?

[quote]Who the fuck bases their viewing on a poster? Trailers and reviews are the main ways. Where would they even see these posters if not at a theatre where they, apparently, aren’t going?

Almost all decisions on Netflix viewing are based on glimpsing the pictures on the landing page.

[quote]Where would they even see these posters if not at a theatre where they, apparently, aren’t going?

The Netflix landing page.

R71 -R75 : I hate it but you are making me laugh.

Do you have any insight on, say, how a shitty straight-to-streaming Liam Neeson thriller might make perfect sense to finance compared to "May December" which you say will probably lose money if it doesn't win any of the major Oscar awards?

r79 international presales.

movies that Liam Neeson and Aaron Eckhart churn out, which can be easily understood by foreigners with barely glimpsing the subtitles. They make the movie by selling it in foreign territories where they know exactly what they're going to get, and that finances the film.

Here's the thing with May/December

There was absolutely no need to market this thing as "prestige." This would have been the perfect thing for Netflix to have put on in the beginning of summer when Hollywood was delivering piles of dreck, something titillating couples could watch on the couch together. But because of the ecosystem they built, Netflix overpays for this, because they want awards for "devil's candy" reasons, so after buying it at Cannes, they sit on it for SIX MONTHS. Then they release it December 1! Because's that the world they created. Buy celebrity film, put celebrity film on service in November or December, put big picture of celebrity's face on the key art, wait for awards.

Now, if they film DOESN'T get Oscar nominations (probably not), it's seen as a failure. The film exists in the service of its ability to earn an Oscar nomination and its ability to put another celebrity face on Netflix's marketing. They don't care if nobody watches it. They just want the celebrity association. This goes back to what Andy Warhol said, that a bottle of Coca Cola becomes interesting as soon as Elizabeth Taylor is photographed drinking it. Netflix becomes interesting as long as celebrities keep popping up on the landing page. Apple pays insane amounts of money for all sorts of celebrity garbage. Why? Go into an Apple Store. Look at the screens on the walls. It's all celebrities.

The first big hit for Miramax was the movie about the Profumo Affair. It was called, simply enough, "Scandal", had no major stars and the poster looked like this. This was the film which established Miramax.

What's the difference between this and the May/December key art? One is a beautiful woman making a coy little hand gesture, beckoning you. Come watch. You'll have a good time. The other looks like a skincare ad. "Look as blemish-free as Natalie and Julianne!" Because at Netflix, the concept of "prestige film" makes no correlation between the actual act of watching a film and being entertained.

LOL @ a skincare ad, R80. Seriously thanks for your contributions to this thread though.

Most of these prestige or 'important' films aren't entertaining and most aren't even very good. Will anybody remember May/December by next year? Maestro?

This is the way it has always been. There are mainstream movies meant for the four quadrant audience, and then there are more arthouse films that are made knowing they are going to have a more niche audience. Typically those movies had smaller theatrical releases in indie theaters in the cosmopolitan cities. Not every movie is broadly appealing and meant for a wide audience, there are some movies they are more divisive, they make more artistic choices instead of made the conventional studio way.

R9 is correct. More people have seen May/December and Maestro because they are on Netflix then would have every watched them if they only did the arthouse theater run in major cities.

They don’t understand me either. I love it go grocery shopping France, I’m a celebrity, go shopping in Florida, I look like Billy’s teacher.

But this isn't how it's always been. Look at Oscar winning movies from the 50s/60s/70s/80s - even 90s - many were huge hits with audiences. I think it's only been in the 2000s where there has been such a divergent shift in what's being nominated vs what people want to watch.

[quote] Someone sat one seat away from me and consumed some kind of burger with what smelled like chili, then fries and ketchup. GTFOH, bitch. I don't want to smell your food unless I'm eating too.

If chili and fries are on the menu, then why is that offensive? If you go to a restaurant and the table next to you orders something different from what you ordered, how is that offensive?

[quote]If chili and fries are on the menu, then why is that offensive? If you go to a restaurant and the table next to you orders something different from what you ordered, how is that offensive?

If the armrests if your cinema seat were dripping greasy from hot chicken wings, and Hot Chicken Wings were on the menu... Not everyone goes to the cinema to chow down on stinky, greasy food.

In a restaurant, the only reason to be there is to eat and you have the expectation of smelling other foods than those that you order. A cinema is only secondarily a place to eat food, and only in some cinemas.

I wasn't the one who complained about stinky foods hothead, but he was right.

R83, Weinstein turned “artsy” movies like “The Full Monty”, “Enchanted April”, “Chocolat”, “Shakespeare in Love”, and “The Crying Game” into must-see profitable movies at the global box office with the right, educated audiences. Today, those films flounder on streaming platforms with unsophisticated audiences more apt to select a “Freaky Friday” remake with ditzy D-list Jennifer Garner as the hammy lead. Streaming platforms killed the business model that made must-see films important to see in theaters for sophisticated audiences. Now, there is no way to filter out the good (“May December”) from the bad (“Pain Hustlers”) on streaming services.

He is right. The days when people were willing to watch unsettling or saddening movies that don’t pander to their beliefs (think Midnight Cowboy)) are over.

I don't think today's arthouse movies or Oscar bait are as good as something like Midnight Cowboy.

R88 is correct although Full Monty was Searchlight

Which brings me to r85's point, which is very astute

[quote]I think it's only been in the 2000s where there has been such a divergent shift in what's being nominated vs what people want to watch.

In 2001, Disney shuttered Hollywood Pictures, which had released The Joy Luck Club, Quiz Show, Nixon, Mr. Holland's Opus, and The Sixth Sense

In 2005, Disney released the Weinsteins and but Miramax on ice (until its sale in 2009). Mirmax had released The Crying Game, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Bullets Over Broadway, The English Patient, Good Will Hunting, Shakespeare in Love... you get the picture

In 2009, Disney kneecapped Touchstone Pictures, which essentially became Dreamworks. Prior to that Touchstone had released or co-released The Color of Money, Good Morning Vietnam, Dead Poet's Society, Pretty Woman, Ed Wood, The Insider, and The Royal Tenenbaums.

Under the Dreamworks deal, it released The Help, War Horse, Lincoln and Bridge of Spies. After the deal expired Touchstone was disbanded.

Disney's stated goal in all of this was that they did not wish to make "general entertainment." They wanted "branded entertainment."

In 2019, Disney acquired 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox was one of the "Big Five" studios of the Golden Age of Hollywood and had released some of the most significant films in motion picture history. 20th Century, now divorced from the Fox, was an odd acquisition for a company that no longer wished to make "general entertainment." Were they going to keep up the tradition of the studio that released Gentleman's Agreement, All About Eve, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Norma Rae, Working Girl, Titanic, and The Devil Wears Prada?

20th Century Studios currently has a mere four films scheduled for release this year. One is a prequel to The Omen, another is a sequel to the remake of Planet of the Apes, the third is a sequel to Alien, and the fourth is a film called The Amateur starring Rami Malek, which could potentially be the last non-branded film ever released with the searchlights and Alfred Newman fanfare. Disney's goal in acquiring Fox seems largely for the desire for the three remaining Avatar sequels.

Disney is the most significant cause of the elimination of "general entertainment", or, as we used to call it in the old days, "entertainment", from movie theaters since Kirk Kerkorian dismantled Metro Goldwyn Mayer to open a casino.

Oh and I forgot the best part!

Disney's mere act of acquiring 20th Century Fox with approval from the Justice Department paved the way for this:

The worst ever I started to watch was “Tropic Thunder”. Beginning with the trash “ads”. This is frat boy low humor in the Adam Sandler tradition.

R91 you are making my evening! Thank you!

What are your thoughts about the financing, positioning, and ultimately the overall performance of the new movie "All of Us Strangers" (which I realize just opened within the last week or two)? I tried to google how much it cost but couldn't find anything easily. It has a younger indie director with arthouse cred and a bit of a track record, and it has the white-hot young actor who will be the lead in the Gladiator sequel soon. I did see it made an average of $58,000 on only four screens during its opening weekend. Is that a lot?

Here is the movie poster. What I see is: "Did you like Brokeback? This is just like Brokeback!" The main guy looks like he might be in some pre-ejaculatory erotic bliss, and our Paul is separated from him from him in space but is looking at him longingly. Definitely if you like gay, you will want to see this movie! And at the bottom- the picture-perfect smiling family who is OBVIOUSLY being betrayed by the main guy's sexuality. It's a sexy gay movie, but probably not too gay sexy if you're a straight woman. (I haven't seen this movie yet, but I did see the trailer at the theater.)

I bounce around the streaming services, and Netflix is always the last one I want to return to. It started out with quite a stock of impressive shows (Unbelievable, Babylon Berlin, The Queen's Gambit, etc), but every time I go back it's like nothing interesting has happened since last year. It's the bottom-of-the-barrel service, IMO.

The All of Us Strangers poster is probably the most significant failure I have seen in the marketing of a well-received gay film.

They had this shot. This is the movie (which I have not seen because it’s barely playing in my state). Everything you need to know about the movie is in this shot. They just needed to put the title at the top of this shot. An intern could have designed the poster in four minutes.

Instead, the poster they created looks like a movie about addiction. They look like junkies. Like they just shot up.

So this Paul Giamatti move, The Holdovers, shows up on Peacock, as it is a Comcast release, and it has some nominations for something, and I watched it.

It was oddly gripping. Like a Dead Poets Society, only with Dead Historians.

We are all damaged, and it takes a long time to heal.

Re: the decline of “general entertainment” in the 2000s

I want to make one very important notation

Brad Grey, Paramount CEO from 2005 until 2017, single-handedly destroyed Paramount Pictures. A lost decade from what was the Tiffany studio of the 1970s and 80s. Paramount is probably going to be forced into a merger with something after Skydance acquires National Amusements. Lionsgate or Sony. Netflix may even buy it.

R89 I don’t buy this at all.

I think younger generations of audiences are the opposite.

The original ending of “Fatal Attraction” would have been accepted and worked today over the ending they used.

I think younger generations can accept unhappy endings.

Chocolat was such a stupid movie it angered me. Fuck Harvey Weinstein.

That's why Adam Sandler does so well with Netflix

R91- can you give some insights on this? Last night I went to see "American Fiction" and was a little surprised that the first studio logos on the screen at the beginning were Metro Goldwyn Mayer- An Amazon Company (a new digitalized moving gewgaw version of the roaring lion) and Orion, which I think also was marked as being now owned by Amazon.

I suppose this means that Amazon now owns portions of the libraries of films of MGM, and maybe all(?) of Orion for their streaming services. But what makes it better business and more profitable for Amazon to produce NEW films under these prestige studio names rather than just their own Amazon Studios? Or is this just buying rights to distribute after the film premieres at a festival like "American Fiction" at Toronto?

If Skydance buys out Sony as you mention above, how do you think this will affect Sony Classics? For decades Sony Classics has been a prestige distributor of dozens of highbrow films.

People like r89 frustrate the hell out of me

Oppenheimer, a studio film which ended with the protagonist envisioning a nuclear apocalypse ending life on Earth, made one billion dollars

“Oh they wouldn’t accept an ending like Midnight Cowboy.”

#1 how fucking old are you

#2 Midnight Cowboy was released by United Artists. United Artists was not a major studio. United Artists was founded by Charlie Chaplin and other stars so that artists, not executives, would have the authoritative voice in the making of a film. United Artists also released West Side Story, The Graduate, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Annie Hall, and Apocalypse Now. Note a trend among the endings of those?

#3 You are talking about New Hollywood. New Hollywood was a brilliant supernova which faded to black fairly quickly. Four major studio films from two major New Hollywood filmmakers, Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, The Conversation, and The Godfather, all had bleak endings. What did those films have in common? Robert Evans!

#4 Culture dictated what audiences would and wouldn’t accept, and the 1980s, an extremely conservative decade, saw, as was correctly pointed out, Paramount change the ending of Fatal Attraction so Glenn Close doesn’t get away with it. The two most significant dystopian films of the 1980s, Blade Runner and Brazil, movies which both presciently satirized the changing world under Reagan/Thatcher, unironically had their endings changed to happy endings! The theatrical versions of Blade Runner and Brazil had the exact same ending! There is a documentary The Battle of Brazil on the fight to keep the last, less than a minute final piece of footage in the original release. Terry Gilliam was unsuccessful.

Gilliam’s ending to Brazil (below) was such an important cultural commentary that Steven Spielberg used it for the ending of two films made during another very conservative era, and you get a cookie if you can tell me what those two films are.

I'm a dinosaur. I was a movie theater manager for a long time and spent years at the movies. Sometimes at work 14 hours a day. I don't go anymore. I don't want to recline and stretch out, I want to sit in a seat. Going to AMC is torture for me. I can't see any justification playing a half hour of trailers, it just aggravates people. In my day a movie theater was the only place you could see a trailer. Now you can sit in the theater and watch on your phone the same trailer playing on screen. Ridiculous. I never played more than two trailers, three if one came attached to the feature from the studio. So I will wait a little and stream them.

Hopefully I am not straining your patience R91 but what are your thoughts on the "Passages" poster? I think it is clearly telling you it is a drama about a romantic triangle but not necessarily gay at all- Maybe the Franz Rogowski guy could be protecting Adele E. from the attentions of Ben Whishaw (!!!). It's urban and tough. Having seen the movie and also knowing it was rated NC-17, was it a good decision to strip the poster of its sexy gay content?

According to wikipedia, it has only made $1.1 million at the box office, which seems like it probably lost money.

R102 the purchase of MGM by Amazon makes almost no strategic sense. It is analogous of when Disney decided they needed a movie studio theme park to compete with the announced Universal Studios Florida, and leased the MGM name from Ted Turner because, unlike Universal, the public did not associate Disney with live action film production or Hollywood history (Disney-MGM Studios was envisioned as an almost exact recreation of the Universal City tram tour; it ended up becoming an almost exact recreation of what Universal wanted their Florida park to be, “ride the movies.”)

Amazon is essentially functioning the same before the acquisition as after; they, as you pointed out, acquire a film at a festival and release it in theaters and then put it on Prime, exactly like they did before. It only has a lion at the beginning of the film now. The target however was not the American public, who, unlike Disney, no longer have any cultural memory of MGM as anything other than the leading casino operator; the target appears to be the filmmaking community. It’s window dressing so that filmmakers will be more willing to sell them their products, and see them less as a tiny cog in the gargantuan machinery of MomCorp.

A forced merger with Sony Pictures I think is Skydance’s goal with acquiring Paramount, essentially recreating exactly what happened with the airline industry after September 11 (COVID was Hollywood’s September 11) when six major carriers became three. There are other scenarios but this seems the most logical. Given that the cultural legacy of Paramount far exceeds that of Columbia and certainly that of Sony, I can see a combined company using Paramount for major theatrical releases as Columbia as their boutique name. But in such a merger, I think the function of Sony Pictures Classics as an acquirer and distributor of art house films would be eliminated. Sony Pictures Classics has been poorly run for years. If you asked someone in independent film to name four independent film distributors off the top of their head, nobody would pick Sony Pictures Classics. It is not an asset, and other companies would be able to do it better as a combined Paramount-Sony fights for its survival, lacking both the top-down corporate structure of global behemoth Disney, or the vast library of platinum intellectual property that the Universal-Warner Bros. merger will unite (Universal-Warner Bros. may own upwards of 60% of everything Hollywood ever made.)

The Passages poster merely tells you that there are three people in it.

He was in a bunch of Spiderman movies and in a Aquaman movie. He has no room to talk

R91- Ouch, your insights feel a like a cold splash of reality. You are obviously someone experienced in the film and film marketing business.

What do you think about the strategy and performance of the Kelly Reichardt movie "Showing Up"? This was a non-horror A24 release which as I remember came out about 6-7 months ago where I live. In today's climate for those responsible for financing this movie, I assume that the plan was to introduce it at a major festival since it is clearly a prestige arthouse project, but what was the projected outcome in terms of theater distribution and then streaming? Can this class of indie film possibly make back its cost mostly as a streaming product? I saw on Wikipedia it had a box office of $1.2m. Also, I doubt it will have any Oscar presence this year since it opened so long ago.

I would like to know more about the background in the structure and production of movies in today's environment. For example, when I go to see a new film by Pedro Almodovar, I will see maybe four or five production companies attached and possibly a governmental film financing agency. How am I to understand the flow of money from and then back to those who put in the $$$ to make it? Is there something you can point me to so I can learn? Thank you so much.

r106, I thought it was Universal/Paramount, not WB?

R3- It's been SO many years since I've been in a movie theatre.

In the olden days- The 1970's and 1980's and a handful of times in the 1990's the only commercials were attractions for upcoming movies. It's digusting that one has to now pay $20 or more to sit in a theatre and be forced to watch commercials.

[quote] You do realize that Europeans and Asians love our garbage right?

Of course. Americans always talk as if there weren’t a wider world out there, or as if Europeans were just sitting around watching “The Sorrow and the Pity” 24/7. In fact many of the most mind-numbing films made in Hollywood get greenlighted precisely because they’ll appeal to the lowbrow overseas markets.

I find the absence of retail video stores affects my enthusiasm to either get my ass to the theatre or stream at home.

The browsing kept movies alive in my head in a way, and made me want to catch up on old titles.

We had a nice second run theatre that was close to me. That closed down durng covid. I guess I did too.

Audiences are tiring of movies. It's as simple as that. Most plots have been told before in some variation. People watched movies for entertainment; the thought of sitting for 90 mins to longer for a story whose ending you already know isn't appealing. People can simply go on TikTok and watch endless reels in half that time and be sated. They can also interact if it's a live stream or leave comments/interact with others. The appeal of movies is lost/waning on younger audiences. The appreciation for movies was already declining as people were okay with watching them on tablets/phones. Watching a movie has become akin to what reading a book was to my peers when i was a kid. Covid definitely accelerated things. The studios know this. It's a huge reason behind the strikes this past summer. Yes, fair pay is warranted, but what does it mean when revenue is on a down slope. It's a cultural change. It's why we're about to see WB and Paramount sold.

It is certainly not a blockbuster, whether aesthetically of financially, but the poster for The Zone of Interest is terrific.

R109

[quote]what was the projected outcome in terms of theater distribution and then streaming?

no offense but why the fuck would you expect anyone outside A24 to have that information?

[quote] How am I to understand the flow of money from and then back to those who put in the $$$ to make it? Is there something you can point me to so I can learn?

You can literally type the exact same thing into Bing and it will tell you.

I want to marry r103, et al. You are brilliant and I want to marry you.

[quote]Audiences are tiring of movies.

You realize some idiot says this every time something in Hollywood goes wrong? This has been said since the era of the nickelodeon.

[quote] People watched movies for entertainment; the thought of sitting for 90 mins to longer for a story whose ending you already know isn't appealing. People can simply go on TikTok and watch endless reels in half that time and be sated.

You are projecting your attention deficit disorder on an entire generation. Young people still like movies. They like remakes of movies they already know. The goddamn Mean Girls musical opened to $30 million with no major stars. Millions of young people made a cultural event of a movie of a concert many had already seen featuring a woman singing songs that they already know by heart.

Get some Ritalin and maybe you'll be able to make it through the Barbie movie in one sitting.

r110 no Universal would not merge with Paramount. Nobody wants Paramount which is why they are in the trouble they are in.

Comcast is buying Warner Bros. for exactly one reason - Universal theme parks. Universal wants theme parks everywhere. They are building one in Texas. They are building one in England. They are building an attraction in Las Vegas.

Warner Bros. is in yellow and Universal is in purple. The Universal Studios Hollywood theme park is in green. If Warner Bros. is bought, Universal can expand the theme park down into the lower lot where the soundstages are because Warner Bros. as you can see, has more than enough sound stages. They will need to expand Universal Hollywood if they want to feature the new craze in the theme park industry - immersive worlds.

This is SO important that Universal is actually building a third theme park in Orlando - one that isn't even contiguous to the Universal Orlando Resort - featuring all immersive worlds (Mario Bros., Universal Monsters, How to Train Your Dragon, and a third Wizarding World themed to Paris.) Why are they doing this instead of building on top of the two existing parks?

Because significant areas of Universal Studios Florida and Islands of Adventure will need to be shut down and completely overhauled. Universal features two areas with Disney intellectual property, Marvel and The Simpsons. Those are going away. Many of Universal's E-ticket attractions are showing age and need replacing. Buying Warner Bros. gives Universal more than enough intellectual property to replenish its parks. Do you know who was even happier than Warner Bros. that Barbie made a billion and a half worldwide? Universal! Because now Universal can build a life-size Barbieland in LA on top of the lower lot, and in Orlando on top of Simpsonsland, and eliminate the biggest weak spot in Universal's demographic appeal, its lack of attractions appealing to girls! Even I want to go to life-size Barbieland!

Stupid @ R3 - have you considered showing up 20 minutes “late”?

R119, *fascinating* post. Do you have any thoughts on the DeSantis/Disney war?

Well, DeSantis lost his chance at becoming President by not understanding the true nature of power in America and going to war with a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.