Chris Nolan Saving Movie Theaters

Batutta said:
it's the nature of the internet that makes people want information to be free, and if entertainment is a form of information, then at some point they will expect entertainment to be free as well.
Click to expand...

The melancholy tone of this Gilian Welch song says it all:

"Everything is free now
That's what they say
Everything I ever done
Gotta give it away"

After all - we don't have to print plastic discs anymore. That was the big expense, right?

Btw that blockbuster article is savagely funny and sad
 
Paul F said:
Remember this threat from AMC 2 1/2 months ago? I hope the popcorn isn't getting stale.

Streaming = No revenue sharing, no distribution hassles, lower staffing overhead. What's not to like. Maybe AMC should consider a new business plan...
Click to expand...

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/07/13/amc-raises-another-300-million-to-help-survive-shu.aspx

AMC seriously overestimated its leverage. But it goes beyond that. No chain broke ranks to show the "Irishman". Soon, they'll be begging for crumbs.


ahalpert said:
I mean, $1 is my sweet spot. Or they could just pay me to watch. Isn't there a limit to how low they can go? "Content" isn't free. Maybe the fees will come down in a race to the bottom, but after the losers exit the space, the fees will rise and stabilize...
Click to expand...

No, there won't be a race to the bottom but a constant flux of offers and options - from the streaming speed to content to price breaks for the multi-account families, etc. If there was "race to the bottom", Netflix wouldn't have spent $150M on the Irishman but instead gave me $1.50 to opine on everything that's wrong with it.
 
DLD said:
AMC seriously overestimated its leverage. But it goes beyond that. No chain broke ranks to show the "Irishman". Soon, they'll be begging for crumbs.
Click to expand...

There's no way that theater chains going bust is good for the institution of cinema...

As for race to the bottom - you said $5 was a subscription fee sweet spot. I haven't crunched the numbers but that doesn't seem reasonable to me for a company that spends billions of dollars on movie and TV production annually. Maybe you're suggesting that smaller outfits will flourish because people would psychologically prefer to part with $5 twice than $10 once.
 
John Brawley said:
The number I took from that article was that they added 30% to their subscription base over that weekend. That’s a huge bump. Will they churn ? Who knows. But they are now at the table. It’s up to Apple to make them something they want to stay for.

JB
Click to expand...

So, I'm one of the millions that have Apple+ for free, because I got a new iPhone last year. And I also have Disney+ for free, because of my Verizon service. So far, Apple hasn't been doing it for me. They only have one show that I really like(For All Mankind), so far. Maybe I'm just spoiled by most other streaming services I have, but I don't like seeing movies "advertised" on there, but they're not included in the service. The chances of keeping it come November aren't any better than 50/50, right now. Realistically, closer to 65/35 dump/keep. Disney on the other hand is a keeper. And I really probably wouldn't have it if it weren't for the free trial, but I like what they have to offer after experiencing it first hand, so it's gonna pay off long term for them, because now they will have a paying customer.
 
Paul F said:
Remember this threat from AMC 2 1/2 months ago? I hope the popcorn isn't getting stale.

Streaming = No revenue sharing, no distribution hassles, lower staffing overhead. What's not to like. Maybe AMC should consider a new business plan.

“Therefore, effectively immediately AMC will no longer play any Universal movies in any of our theatres in the United States, Europe or the Middle East.”

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/28/...rld-tour-disney-warnermedia-digital-streaming

Of course, if theaters ever open again, customers will come back and new releases will go back to theaters .... Well, I wouldn't place a bet on that.

“This policy affects any and all Universal movies per se, goes into effect today and as our theatres reopen, and is not some hollow or ill-considered threat.” Let's see how that holds up.
Click to expand...

Theaters don't have a leg to stand on. The studios can market right to the consumer today and there are plenty of people that would rather stay home and watch the new release instead of going to the theater.
 
ahalpert said:
There's no way that theater chains going bust is good for the institution of cinema...
Click to expand...

It's a brave new paradigm out there. The theater chains will soon be like wide receivers on a team without a quarterback - starved of service. Mega blockbusters may still be there after the reopening but chains will also need the supporting product but all that will be headed toward streaming. So, instead of 150 or so new films per year, they might get 50. And then 30. And then 10.

As for race to the bottom - you said $5 was a subscription fee sweet spot. I haven't crunched the numbers but that doesn't seem reasonable to me for a company that spends billions of dollars on movie and TV production annually. Maybe you're suggesting that smaller outfits will flourish because people would psychologically prefer to part with $5 twice than $10 once.
Click to expand...
I said that $5 is closer to the sweet spot than $15. I don't think the market will handle a dozen streamers at $15/pop. So, there will be all sorts of discounts available along the way and the Peacock formula of "$5 with ads, $10 ad free" may be what a lot of people will settle for,

Mind you, in broad business terms, once money is sunk into the product, the variable cost of streaming is not that high. The servers are getting more and more powerful, compression and speeds greater, the resolution close to tapping out, etc.. In other words, if you have a huge library, try to get people to pay something rather than nothing.
 
DLD said:
It's a brave new paradigm out there. The theater chains will soon be like wide receivers on a team without a quarterback - starved of service. Mega blockbusters may still be there after the reopening but chains will also need the supporting product but all that will be headed toward streaming. So, instead of 150 or so new films per year, they might get 50. And then 30. And then 10.

I said that $5 is closer to the sweet spot than $15. I don't think the market will handle a dozen streamers at $15/pop. So, there will be all sorts of discounts available along the way and the Peacock formula of "$5 with ads, $10 ad free" may be what a lot of people will settle for,

Mind you, in broad business terms, once money is sunk into the product, the variable cost of streaming is not that high. The servers are getting more and more powerful, compression and speeds greater, the resolution close to tapping out, etc.. In other words, if you have a huge library, try to get people to pay something rather than nothing.
Click to expand...

I took your comment of "$5" as more of the sweet spot for sneaking into the market, as even people who may already have 3 subscriptions won't blink at adding a $5 one.

Big companies rarely race to the bottom, but might "Public Storage" their customers instead. Get a unit for $1 and then $50 a month after that, and then they keep raising the price on you hoping you are too lazy to deal with moving your junk, and before you know it, that unit costs $100 a month, and eventually more. But the nature of big business is big profit. They exist and profit, or they don't exist. It is the altruistic artist and small business types that might race to the bottom.

I wouldn't mind AMC going out of business, but I like the theaters nearby where I live. Maybe if there is no AMC they'll get more business? Who knows, may just not be a viable business in general.... in particular during a pandemic.

Part of me does think about the people in smaller towns that might like movie theaters, but maybe with digital, dollar theaters can still exist. I just liked the cheap escape of movies in the past. Things change. Flying on an airplane used to be glamorous and exciting, now I dread the idea. Coca-Cola used to be a cheap luxury, now it is part of the symbol of a modern health crisis. So, sometimes we change.

Cinema as an ART is not going anywhere. There will always be some form of cinema in big cities trying to preserve culture. But movie theaters kept adapting to smaller audiences by trying to appeal to the premium experience.... which is ironic given the realities of the experience was often anything but premium. The sound was er, loud, but so were the people in the next row sometimes. And don't get me wrong, if we are purely talking about cinema and the cinema experience, I am far more ready to wax nostalgic and even embrace the imperfections and interruptions, but if we are crying because AMC is doomed, I don't know that I care so much. And no, I don't have a streaming service subscription either, and have no plans to. And while I miss the feeling of going to a record store or getting something as Blockbuster rentals, as there was a bit of a small ritual that made it more special and memorable to go through the effort to get something vs endless scrolling online for something that catches my fancy.

Now I connect with a friend and reserve my content viewing for occasions and fellowship. I just can't be arsed to endlessly watch these days, with the exception of the occasional binge watching immersion.

But we are in a time when we are trying to escape screens and spend more time IRL, vs in the past decades of needing a cheap escape from the realities. And that is all indirectly effecting the media businesses that are involved. People are consuming more content than ever before... so content has become a reality rather than an escape.
 
It's hard to guess what will happen. Maybe some general parameters. My guess is that some theaters will show the blockbusters; others will revert to showing classics in 8K with the high end sound system; others still would become part-time movie theaters, part time convention/exhibition/music halls; some will be bought out by the streamers and will have the lavish premiers for the big budget flicks that will revert back to the streamer in 30-60 days; some may show their own productions, etc.
 
Dateline, 6 months from now - LOS ANGELES - Today, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti together with theater chain AMC announced today a $767 million deal to turn all AMC theaters in Los Angeles into homeless shelters. With the shuttered theaters crumbling into heroin dens, and AMC burdened with un-payable debt, this announcement was heralded as a major victory in the fight against homelessness.

In other news, there has been an odd sight all around Los Angeles on street intersections. Instead of people selling bags of oranges, people are seen trying to sell 20 lb bags of un-popped popcorn and 10 lb tubs of artificial butter flavor.
 
Paul F said:
Dateline, 6 months from now - LOS ANGELES - Today, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti together with theater chain AMC announced today a $767 million deal to turn all AMC theaters in Los Angeles into homeless shelters. With the shuttered theaters crumbling into heroin dens, and AMC burdened with un-payable debt, this announcement was heralded as a major victory in the fight against homelessness.

In other news, there has been an odd sight all around Los Angeles on street intersections. Instead of people selling bags of oranges, people are seen trying to sell 20 lb bags of un-popped popcorn and 10 lb tubs of artificial butter flavor.
Click to expand...

So good
 
And btw, for those that don't live in LA, there may be some missed nuances in Paul's commentary.
 
I think it's gotten to the point that artists can no longer depend on royalties and profits from their art to sustain them. The profits that artists receive from streaming services, where most everything is headed, are a joke, and get worse with every passing month. The only time you can expect money is from licensing fees for your content, and / or from the salary you get paid for your production services. The problem is, only the highest profile content typically gets licensed for a profitable amount and independent artists often fund their own work so their is no commission for production.
 
DLD said:
Mind you, in broad business terms, once money is sunk into the product, the variable cost of streaming is not that high. The servers are getting more and more powerful, compression and speeds greater, the resolution close to tapping out, etc.. In other words, if you have a huge library, try to get people to pay something rather than nothing.
Click to expand...

"The cook can’t stop. That’s the one thing I’m certain of. Production cannot stop." - Walter White

Back catalogs are good and necessary. But new content production can't stop. Maybe it can slow down a bit. But new hits will always be needed. We canceled Netflix after finishing the Witcher late last year because there wasn't that much new stuff that we wanted to watch on it. But there was stuff on other services we wanted to see.

CBS All Access has parlayed a free trial for me into a couple months of paid subscription. They basically own me now since they're the home of Trek - they have 4 new Trek shows in Production and the 2 that have aired already are pretty good. And basically there's always a new Trek season about to launch. And they've got the Twilight Zone reboot.
 
Whoah Tom Hanks wrote the screenplay for Greyhound (adapted from a novel). He's finally putting all his typewriters to good use - good for him. Just saw a trailer - looks beautiful and very exciting. First thing that Apple+ has tempted me with, though I'm not a major war movie person

I loved the shots of the sonar circling around and then revealing the enemy ships. Quite a lot of mystery and terror transmitted by that little screen
 
The Allied sonar was very effective but the U-boats surfaced at night for the attack and, until there were enough destroyers/escorts to ward off U-boats, the top U-boat crews were very successful.

And, in terms of technology, it wasn't all that difficult to fool the sonar but the Germans chose not to do it until very late in the war. That was Karl Dönitz's fault.

Side story - about 20 years ago, there was a History Channel (they were once history before they went to trucking) program about the U-boats, narrated by Bob Urich. In it, there was an interview with Reinhard Hardegen (March 18, 1913 - June, 9 , 2018), captain of U-123, on patrol of the US in the winter-spring 1942 under Unternehmen Paukenschlag. Hardegen surfaced right across Manhattan, which was then not under the blackout rule. He said he saw the Manhattan skyline at night and realized that Germany had no chance in the war.

Operation Drumbeat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time

Reinhard Hardegen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Hardegen#First_Drumbeat_Patrol
 
The way these encounters play out is not that different from a scenario that could happen in Star Trek with spaceships:

"The skipper of Kosmos, Einar Gleditsch, decided to ram U-123, ordering full speed ahead.[14] Hardegen, realizing that the whaler was too close for him to submerge, turned hard to port and ordered full ahead. With its port engine unable to deliver top RPMs, U-123 only just managed to keep ahead of the tanker, and it took over an hour for Hardegen to gain enough of a lead to have room to maneuver.[15]"
 
Yes, Typ VII's were underpowered and Typ XXI's, much to the Allied delight, didn't appear until the end of the war. And I mean, the very end. May, 1945. Overall, despite sinking a prodigious amount of tonnage, the U-Boat program was a disaster for the Germans.
 
Well their port engine was damaged in this case. Nevertheless it does sound like a wimpy showing if a warship can barely outrun a fishing vessel...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top