How Will the Movies (As We Know Them) Survive the Next 10 Years?

G

groveChuck

U-matic Member
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e-industry-future.html?searchResultPosition=8

Excellent NY Times conversations with a great variety of people in the film business, including:

ANTHONY RUSSO There were 350 more movies released theatrically in the United States last year than there were when “Avatar” came out in 2009. The same thing’s happening on television. There just used to be fewer of everything — fewer movie stars, too — and when the numbers start to get up this high, you start to lose the trees for the forest.

J.J. ABRAMS When you have a movie that’s as entertaining, well-made, and well-received as “Booksmart” not doing the business it should have [the teen comedy underperformed at the box office despite critics’ raves], it really makes you realize that the typical Darwinian fight to survive is completely lopsided now. Everyone’s trying to figure out how we protect the smaller films that aren’t four-quadrant mega-releases. Can they exist in the cinemas?

JESSICA CHASTAIN What happens to these beautiful, small, dramatic stories? Are other studios going to make them so that we don’t lose part of our art form?

JORDAN HOROWITZ I don’t feel particularly optimistic about the traditional theatrical experience, especially for independent films.

J.J. ABRAMS We have to find ways to get people into theaters for movies other than the giant event movies. Not that those are a given either, by the way!


OCTAVIA SPENCER Here’s what I don’t want, and I’m going to be real honest about it: I don’t want people to not show their movies in a movie theater first. I like the idea of movies showing there and then going to streaming and devices. I’m a loyalist to that degree.

TOM ROTHMAN In a world where everything is on demand, I think that’s what makes movies special: Exactly because it’s harder is why it’s a more significant leisure choice. Guess what? You can’t see [the upcoming Quentin Tarantino film] “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” on your phone right now. If you want to see Leo and Brad together on the screen — the biggest star pairing since Butch and Sundance — you gotta get a babysitter.

KUMAIL NANJIANI This is very cynical, but I think the standard of quality for people who watch stuff at home is not the same. If you go see “Avengers” in the theater, it better be great, but if you’re just watching stuff at home, it doesn’t matter so much. I don’t want to diss on Netflix too much, because they make amazing stuff, and they’re giving shots to people who would not have been given shots 10 years ago, but I also think Netflix would rather have five things that people kind of like than one thing people really love.

PAUL FEIG In “Lawrence of Arabia,” one of the greatest shots of all time is when he comes over the vast landscape as this tiny little dot on a camel. There are moments when you want to do a cool shot like that, but you go, “When people end up watching this on their phone, they’re not going to see anything.” It’s a terrible way to have to think, but you’ve got to keep it in your brain. Even when we’re doing an insert shot of writing on a computer screen, I’m like, “You’ve got to make that bigger, because when that’s on somebody’s phone, they’re not going to be able to read that.”


SCOTT STUBER (Movie chief- Netflix) I think the trick is recognizing that there’s a giant global audience and everyone’s taste in L.A. and New York is not necessarily everyone’s taste in France or in South Africa.

TOM ROTHMAN With the streaming services, it’s the difference between a strategy to obliterate and a strategy to curate. At Sony, we make only 20 films a year, and every one of those films must make cultural impact. It’s really hard to have both enormous volume and significant cultural impact. It’s never been done.

KUMAIL NANJIANI I don’t want to sound like an old idiot, because I try to keep up with what’s happening on YouTube, and it’s a lot of people talking to camera, very personality-driven. I grew up watching “Ghostbusters” and “Gremlins” and “Indiana Jones.” If I had grown up watching YouTube, I don’t know if I would like movies.

JASON BLUM What I find striking is how much they’re watching pieces of things: “I saw some of that movie.” They’re multitasking while they’re watching the things that we’re making. That’s not what we want, but by the same token, I don’t subscribe to the notion that you should mandate how young people watch what you’re doing. That’s an arrogant position. If they watch half of my horror movie, I’m glad they watched half as opposed to not watching any of it!

And much, much more- a great read! And who knows what the movie-watching experience will be like in 10 years? (2030? OMG...)
 
Paul F said:
I don't have time to read the article or all those quotes. Can you give it to me in 280 characters or less?
Click to expand...

350 more films per year in theaters than 10 years ago. Audiences going to theater less. Ticket sales monopolized by blockbusters. Great films without mega budgets failing at box office. Whatever will we do? Everyone shares their thoughts.
 
Great article. It’s tough for independent films like Booksmart with a celeb director and great support. What about The Miseducation of Cameron Post? It won the 2018 Grand Jury prize at Sundance in 2018 starring Cloe Grace Moretz and could not get a distribution deal, at all! I don’t think there is a future in theaters for independent or character driven movies except in art houses. The one around here is great. It’s a non-profit, with dinky screens and barely reasonable sound but I am still grateful for it.

The two multiplexes in my neighborhood are gone. In the past 5 years, we’d be in there with just a handful of people. I don’t go to international blockbuster super hero movies. Making all that money from a spectacle movie that plays in all countries to all demos creates crap movies IMHO. The studios are eating their own seed corn and destroying their own business for 2/3 more bank overseas. Yeah, yeah... it’s a business. I hope the studios collapse of their own weight. Go WGA!

I’m glad about streaming. I like the longer form. But as a guy who just shot one more of his own shorts I hope that movies that run 110 pages with endings don’t perish from the face of the earth. Streaming will have to do.
 
Last edited:
it used to be that tv was “garbage” and movies were where it was at, talking about quality content. I would say at some point around the mid or late 2000s that flip flopped. Now you have all these major actors on tv/streaming shows, many of those shows are very good, and theaters are mostly a wasteland of superhero/action/horror movies. Even the production value distinction is disappearing. Many may not have seen or hate the new star trek show (Discovery), but it looks (new season at least) as good as the recent films.

So then...what IS the point of the theatrical experience? Yes the big screen is still very cool. But if you have to share that screen with cave people who talk/are on their phones/seat kicking? I dunno, mang.
 
My home theater isn't epic or anything, but I already prefer it most of the time. Too many issues with some dude coughing behind me and feeling grossed out, cell phones lit up, annoying person, sound calibration weird (too much treble), screen with banding or some calibration issue, etc. Even some of the best theaters have technical issues that can be frustrating. Ticket prices creeping up, food usually not great. Some hip PDX spots do food/alcohol service for a huge up charge.

Now, the trendiest places here in PDX have the "living room experience" where a waiter brings you good food and wine/cocktails in lounge chairs or couches. It's cool. But it's also kind of like... wait... so the best spots are trying to replicate a good at home experience?

I think theaters are starting to be for the realm of people who live in really big cities and smaller studio apartments or what not. For me, I'll pretty much take my relatively humble place anytime now (Vizio P 75" 4k HDR, Polk Audio 5.1 setup). If I had a dedicated room with Dolby Atomos and a fancier screen (maybe high end projector or an 85" Sony panel or something) I wouldn't even see the draw, period.

I imagine they will move to a direct to digital model for all but the biggest releases in the future. I mean, it works for video games. Why not just release a new movie for $29.99 at home rental, then it drops after 6 months to $14.99, then eventually finds its way down to $4.99. Sure, people will have movie parties, but we're such an isolated society these days I can't imagine that's going to be a huge revenue changer if you release new films at $30. Now, it might make the piracy market easier when you don't have to wait until post theatrical release to get a clean pirated copy - but then, how many people in general population are really torrenting anymore anyway?

I just think it's the only way forward.
 
filmguy123 said:
350 more films per year in theaters than 10 years ago. Audiences going to theater less. Ticket sales monopolized by blockbusters. Great films without mega budgets failing at box office. Whatever will we do? Everyone shares their thoughts.
Click to expand...
You realize Paul was joking (in the way jokes are told best, with tongue firmly in cheek)?

In any case, I think those quoted were horribly self-serving and dismissive of their audiences with the exception of the Netflix studio chief who didn't have the private parts to be more blunt.

So, here's the truf, the full Monty. With streaming, Amazon, NF, Hulu, Apple, Disney, YouTube, etc. have a full control over content, costs and distribution which is something that wasn't practiced since after the government breakup of the "studio system" in the 1950's. Since then, the dominant players have been the big time actors, directors and powerful agencies (CAA, William Morris/Endeavor, ICM, United Talent, etc. in the feature business and the writers in TV*. That is pretty much done with, even as some big name stars like Adam Sandler and Sandra Bullock can still score large paydays from Netflix, because we are back to the studio system. And it is now global, not just covering the US. And those whose power is waning issue dire warnings after dire warnings about the loss of the status quo, without mentioning that the business kept changing throughout its history - from the silent comedy shorts from 1910's-1920's to the talkies and the singies to the sound with color to movies + TV to movies + TV + cable TV to the global movies + digital cable TV + streaming, from black-and-white films to the 70mm Todd AO to home theater to iPhones. The NYT article just took a snapshot of the day without bringing up the long history of moving images. Boo on them.

* The greatest fortunes were and are still being made by the comedy writers who create hit sitcoms -- Larry David/Jerry Seinfeld, Chuck Lorre, James Brooks/Matt Groening, et al.
 
PS. I forgot the VCR era, which was a huge source of costernation in Hollywood in the 1970's and the 1980's until it became a huge source of income.

It also served as a point of expansion to what we euphemistically call the "adult film industry", which is estimated to gross $6B-$12B/year in the US alone, with the exact numbers difficult to calculate. By comparison, the US film industry grosses about $12B in North America, with the theater chains and the studios roughly splitting the total 50/50.

In addition, prior to the late 1970's, there was no video game industry. As of now, the video games generate about $43B globally, which gives them a small edge over films' $41B gross.
 
A new theater was built just down the road from my house. I was so excited at the thought of simply walking from my house to a theater. After it was opened I walked to the theater to see Isle of Dogs, found out that the ticket price was $18, turned around and went home. I never saw the movie in theaters, caught it on HBO some time later.

This is a problem. People are not going to take risks on original films when a single ticket is nearly $20. The cost of ticket prices are pushing casual movie goers away.

Hollywood and theaters are creating a system that only sustains franchises & familiarity. This pretty much makes them 100% reliant on specific fad. Eventually people will grow tired of the same old titles repeating themselves ad infinitum. When that happens who'll pay $20+ a ticket anymore? Theaters will basically implode.
 
People in the business don't want to acknowledge that they are part of a dying business (filmed entertainment). Our business was surpassed by gaming years ago. It's difficult to catorgorize it but the growth would have, should have came from young people that Hollywood has feverishly and unsuccessfully tried to cater to. Young people care more about gaming, legalized Pot and social media than they care about going to the movies. Filmed entertainment will always exist, storytelling is in our DNA, but you have to think how storytelling will survive, what is the next digital campfire? Perhaps OTTs are the way? Overall, believe it or not, if you are okay redefining what cinema is, the death of the traditional Hollywood sutio may be a good thing overall, although it's a terrible thing for those of us in the business.

I've worked quite a bit for the OTTS and the common theme I see as far as their mid level management of projects is they hire a lot of late 20-something, early 30-something MBAs who don't know anything about filmmaking, tradition, storytelling. They're feeling their way through it and eventually they will learn but from a client standpoint, as a producer/writer/DP, the clients I've had at the OTTs are pretty clueless about how to get things done in a timely, efficient way. They don't understand set politics, how to deal with their talent, the basics of storyelling, etc. That will change but for right now, it can be very challenging to work with them.
 
mcgeedigital said:
... Viewing habits have changed forever, and they're not going back.
Click to expand...

The viewing habits have never been a true constant. They've been changing since the Lumiere Brothers.

Which delves further into history. The movies, having premiered in 1895, competed with live theater/vaudeville performances, as did vinyl records. By the early 1920's, radio broadcasting began to compete against both. The immediate post-war brought television. The late 1970's-early 80's brought video games, cable/satellite TV and the VCR's. The late 80's-early 90's solidified the home theater. Internet, on a wide scale, came along in the mid-1990's; broadband and streaming a decade later. All of these developments have been battling one another for the consumer time and money.

Like any industry, Hollywood adopted but, in the process, there are always winners and losers. Ask Lina Lamont. Time marches on.
 
A lot of the best movies I’ve seen in recent years haven’t been mega block busters. And I’ve usually discovered them after the fact, at home. (As the article states). And block busters in general have become more underwhelming, with just a couple great ones a year.

Long form TV storytelling has really taken off and showed what filmed entertainment can do. The best “movie” I’ve seen in the last decade would probably be Breaking Bad. I think one thing being rethought is the idea of a filmed piece of entertainment being 2 hours. Why? Because theaters. I’d actually argue it’s often not the best way to tell a really great story, and long form doesn’t cater to theater. Therefore theaters may actually be getting in the way of ideal storytelling, at least for some stories.

To be honest, I think the new Star Wars trilogy pacing and story would have fairer better as a 10-12 hour saga. Some movies would be better at 4 hours, if they didn’t have to worry about turn times and bladders.

Sure, plenty of content is perfect at 80-140 minutes - not the point - point is theater logistics actually limit what the ideal length, form and structure of filmed entertainment can be. TV logistics often times over stretch content, too, but I see the industry beginning to figure out the sweet spot with newer streaming and digital purchase models.

Looping back full circle to the first point - point is most of us watch the best content we’ve seen in the last 10 years at home, going to the theaters for big blockbusters that are more often mediocre, with only a few greats.
 
Slightly tangential comment... in the mid-80's as a college student and general film free-lancer, I made lots of theatrical commercials for local and regional clients. You'd go to the movies, and the audience would groan and moan as a handful of car dealer, fitness club and other spots would air before the show. We shot these on 35mm, they were almost always first generation prints from the negatives compared to the actual movies or national commercials, which were prints from dupe negs pulled from interpositives (a copy of a copy of a copy of the camera negative). So these local spots were razor sharp and CLEAN, and I'd sit there in the dark on a Friday night and generally love watching them with my date even as the boos and hisses rained down from the audience in general. It was really something special to see your work on a motion picture screen, worth even a bit of audience abuse, as it was quite the process, expense and battle to get those images there.

Today I can get more image IQ than even those first gen 35mm prints from a freaking camera that costs a thousand dollars, spend no money or effort to edit, and get it aired on a movie screen via a digital projector with more or less flawless projection compared to those film days. However, for me, all the emotional investment is also gone! I couldn't give a rip to see my work on a traditional movie screen today, when I can watch it with equal or better technical specs in my own home. Of course you want to see a feature film for a bigger bucket of reasons, but I find this a true case for me...

Regards,
 
filmguy123 said:
... Long form TV storytelling has really taken off and showed what filmed entertainment can do. The best “movie” I’ve seen in the last decade would probably be Breaking Bad. I think one thing being rethought is the idea of a filmed piece of entertainment being 2 hours. Why? Because theaters. I’d actually argue it’s often not the best way to tell a really great story, and long form doesn’t cater to theater. Therefore theaters may actually be getting in the way of ideal storytelling, at least for some stories.

To be honest, I think the new Star Wars trilogy pacing and story would have fairer better as a 10-12 hour saga. Some movies would be better at 4 hours, if they didn’t have to worry about turn times and bladders...
Click to expand...
This goes back to live theater, where a typical performance is somewhere around three hours long with an intermission somewhere in the middle. In the old USSR, this was also fairly common. But, under the financial considerations, more showings means more paying fans. A 3-hr film, much like a 3-hr opera/musical, can only be shown once in "prime time". Subsequently, in terms of screenplays, the desired length is 100-120 pages. There's an old story about John Ford looking at a 160-page Western script and just tossing pages out. According to him, a good Western only needed 40 pages of dialog. Of course, there are always exceptions like, "In the mood for love", where Wong Kar-wai had no script and ended up shooting for almost a year while keeping the basic theme in mind. It's a Turgenev style storytelling that was edited down to 98 minutes. Shining was shot similarly, albeit for different reasons.
 
DLD said:
A 3-hr film, much like a 3-hr opera/musical, can only be shown once in "prime time". Subsequently, in terms of screenplays, the desired length is 100-120 pages.
Click to expand...

I think the awareness of some of where we've developed normal paradigms also allows us to rethink things for better reasons. In fact, it's exciting that the theater model is changing - I think we are in a new era of exploration with what storytelling looks like, with no arbitrary or artificial parameters on length. Doesn't mean we won't still see plenty of content at 90-120 minutes, its a great run time for many things, but I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more freedom on storytelling in the future.

Actually, Avatar 2-5 are the first big budget foray into that. I can't help but think James Cameron had that in mind - exploring long form TV style storytelling but still with theatrical release and hollywood budgets. I don't know IF it will be good, but from a thousand miles, I do not get the sense that the motivation is a cash grab. James Cameron seems to be much more interested in his craft than quick cash grabs, and it appears to have been him pushing the studios for this model, not vice versa (like with the Hobbit being broken into 3 overlong movies).
 
combatentropy said:
Having sat through The Return of the King, I'm pretty sure there are reasons both fiscal and physical.
Click to expand...
Back in 1967 - it had to have been 1967 because that's when the film was released - my parents took me to see Sergei Gerasimov's "The Journalist". A 226 minute 2parter with an intermission. We walked out after Part I. I tried watching it again a few years ago online - there's an official/licensed version on YouTube - and quit even earlier.

My attention span must have gotten shorter over the last 50 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top