Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Barry Diller believes the movie business is dead.
Collapse
X
-
I can't say that I disagree. Although I am not young anymore. The quote from the article - "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." makes sense to me. I watched "Tenet" the other night and it just seemed like a bunch of scenes put together, like a music band that was created by the recording studio. But it looked very good.Last edited by Bassman2003; 07-08-2021, 07:07 PM.
-
Originally posted by Bassman2003 View PostI can't that I disagree. Although I am not young anymore. The quote from the article - "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." makes sense to me. I watched "Tenet" the other night and it just seemed like a bunch of scenes put together, like a music band that was created by the recording studio. But it looked very good.
"These streaming services have been making something that they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so."
For Diller, this is about seismic change and nostalgia, but it is also about semantics. The definition of "movie," he said, "is in such transition that it doesn't mean anything right now.
"There used to be a whole run-up," Diller said, remembering how much time, energy and money studios invested in distribution and publicity campaigns.
The goal, he said, was to generate sustained excitement and enthusiasm for new movies. "That's finished," he said.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bassman2003 View PostThat is probably more of an example of how out of touch I might be since I had never heard of it until my wife suggested we watch it So the run up did not reach me. How would one action movie save theatrical cinema anyway?
Comment
-
True, there is always a motivation. I do see some truth in his opinions though. My hope is that budgets actually go down due to this shift and allow more types of projects to be made. This cycle of mega spendy productions that need a sure thing mega hit to earn it back has decreased the circle size to almost a few types of movies. I see "Game of Thrones" as an example of the decline of a cinema focused world. The production level was very high and was immensely popular. The series went on for ten years and nobody seem to care it was not in a theater. All for the (monthly) cost of, or in some cases below one movie ticket.
Comment
-
I don't know if the movie business is finally dead or not, but journalism sure appears to be on it's last gasps now. That article is so poorly written. That's the best quotes the writer could get from Diller? The article mostly consists of one-sentence paragraphs that seem to arranged in random order. Pathetic. I used to expect more from NPR.
Comment
-
The coldest of cold takes...
I wonder if news agencies are contractually obligated to write drivel like this every time another aging movie exec/director/critic complains about the "death of cinema" or some variation.
Yes, streaming services (like Amazon in particular) have goals that aren't exactly aligned with "make great films." But if you're using those services as metrics of where cinema is today you're really limiting the scope of your inquiry. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, but articles and statements like this do nothing to advance any sort of real dialogue or discourse.
Comment
-
And this, my dvxuser friends, is where we find ourselves (at least here in the states) with nearly any "discourse". Nothing advances, it just provokes and get clicks for advertisers.
Originally posted by drboffa View PostThe coldest of cold takes...
I wonder if news agencies are contractually obligated to write drivel like this every time another aging movie exec/director/critic complains about the "death of cinema" or some variation.
Yes, streaming services (like Amazon in particular) have goals that aren't exactly aligned with "make great films." But if you're using those services as metrics of where cinema is today you're really limiting the scope of your inquiry. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, but articles and statements like this do nothing to advance any sort of real dialogue or discourse.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bassman2003 View PostTrue, there is always a motivation. I do see some truth in his opinions though. My hope is that budgets actually go down due to this shift and allow more types of projects to be made. This cycle of mega spendy productions that need a sure thing mega hit to earn it back has decreased the circle size to almost a few types of movies. I see "Game of Thrones" as an example of the decline of a cinema focused world. The production level was very high and was immensely popular. The series went on for ten years and nobody seem to care it was not in a theater. All for the (monthly) cost of, or in some cases below one movie ticket.
As lots of dvxusers have pointed out, great movies are still being made (eg Mank). But I agree that the move to streaming bodes ill for the health and future of the feature film format and its position in the cultural landscape. I mean, look at the collapse of Oscar ratings.
Comment
-
The "modern" distribution system had two parts, pre- and post-Jaws. Pre was a crawl out. There were still premiers in LA and/or New York but a typical film opened only in major US cities, where it sold enough tickets to finance advertising in smaller towns across the USA. The success of Jaws made the first weekend gross a hot topic. The sad thing is that movie theaters updated to digital and now those pristine digital screens are void of audiences.
BTW, looking at the BO totals - only F9 (not Grumman F9 Cougar) is over $100M in the US ($140M) so far. Black Widow did $80M on its opening weekend. And things will get worse for the theaters as the Europeans catch on to the streamers.
https://rm.coe.int/trends-in-the-vod...ion/1680a1511a
Comment
Comment