Theatrical Future/PVOD Thread

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

100% this, I haven't been to an AMC in maybe 5-6 years now because every one near me is disgusting. There's one here that is well-known for having a huge bedbug infestation that they haven't done anything about. If I go to the movies I'm going to an Alamo or barring that an XD showing at Cinemark.

Ya my personal AMC's are fine, but, I'm going to other movie theaters from now on. For the foreseeable future the movie theatre is a special occasion for me. Its sad, but its the reality of our world.

Im slowly accepting this stay at home thing more. I'm missing my friends around town and we all zoom twice a week but honestly, I'm somewhat introverted so Ive always kinda dreamt of something like this.

Also, Im excited for the future of streaming films. I think that stuff like SXSW being on Amazon is GREAT and if we can have virtual festivals? Id pay for that.

 

[lowbudget]

In my area you have an over saturation of theaters anyway, we had 5 and an I-Max within 15-20 minutes of each other, 3 and the I-Max have closed down in the past few years. I think moves such as this will push theaters in a new direction, showing block busters during the opening phase with a week or two of exclusive showing before going VOD, then filling in the gaps with special events. I've watched a couple classics in theaters over the past year, White Christmas and King Kong stick out. 10-years from now I think you'll have 25% as many theaters, lots of special showings on opening weekend, then one or two special events showing classics or re-runs a week.

This may be the catalyst for a paradigm shift in Theater operations.

 

[Legacy]

All I know is that seeing a moment like this would not have been nearly as bad ass seeing it at home for the first time instead of in a theater around a bunch of fans:
View attachment 12079

Sure, but that's the only movie last year that I can say that about. I could have happily watched every other movie that I saw in 2019 at home and been perfectly contented.

That’s one moment in the last 20-30 years, if not longer. And showing it in theaters deprived us of all the “reaction” videos of people watching the scene for the first time (which you know would have been a thing with VOD).

99.9999999999% of movie moments don’t need the theatrical experience.

 

[Jerroddragon]

All I know is that seeing a moment like this would not have been nearly as bad ass seeing it at home for the first time instead of in a theater around a bunch of fans:
View attachment 12079

Comic Book movies are a lot of fun to watch with others for sure and of course 30 bucks a month is a steel if you see more then 3 films a month.

At the same time I've watched a few films at home since this happened and its nice I can just have these films on and maybe do chores or work or just lay on my bed. Not all films are needed to be seen in a theater...Emma, little woman, The Way back and even Birds of Prey might have benefited from me watching them in my house.

 

[Nick]

Sure, but that's the only movie last year that I can say that about. I could have happily watched every other movie that I saw in 2019 at home and been perfectly contented.

I wouldn’t have been satisfied seeing Episode 9 at home, as bad as it was. John Wick is also something I feel is a much better theater experience than home.

 

[JungleSkip]

I wouldn’t have been satisfied seeing Episode 9 at home, as bad as it was. John Wick is also something I feel is a much better theater experience than home.

I mean I wouldn't have been satisfied seeing Episode 9 at home either, but that's mostly because the movie would have still sucked at home.

 

[Nick]

That’s one moment in the last 20-30 years, if not longer. And showing it in theaters deprived us of all the “reaction” videos of people watching the scene for the first time (which you know would have been a thing with VOD).

99.9999999999% of movie moments don’t need the theatrical experience.

If you truly think VOD can make over a Billion, I really think you’re insanely wrong.

Most movies don’t need theaters, but the big ones do.

So do you guys really think an original blockbuster movie like Avatar would ever have made the kind of money it did in a VOD only world? Absolutely not. Get rid of theaters and you are getting rid of a full fledged experience.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

Regal has said they won’t play films that don’t respect the windows. I guess this is the only way theatres can try and get these studios to not abandon them.

AMC seems to flat out say not Universal movies, where Regal is just saying films that don’t respect the 90 day window. Major difference there imo, and I totally get what Regal is saying. Universal even said that they plan to produce content for BOTH platforms. Comes off way way less petty than AMC in my opinion.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

As someone who went to the theater at least once per week prior to the pandemic, I'm mixed on whether the theatrical experience is still worth it. When everything is going absolutely right, I'm all for it, especially Dolby Cinema. A List is a great value, and oftentimes I would max out my benefits for the month. However, projectors can have dim bulbs or blurry lenses fairly often, and every now and then there can be an audience that's absolutely grating. For the last two movies I saw in theaters (The Way Back and The Invisible Man), I sat near people who were talking frequently enough to where I was getting annoyed. I moved seats for the former because it was a Monday night in an empty theater, but it wasn't possible to move seats at the latter because I was with friends on a Saturday night in a packed Dolby Cinema. Fortunately the sound is loud enough there to dilute talking, and it became less of an issue as the movie went on. Annoying audiences alone is enough for me to prefer a home viewing experience, but I won't pay $20 for every movie that comes out. Even though I was anticipating stuff like Emma, The Hunt, and Never Rarely Sometimes Always before theaters closed, I've yet to rent them due to their $20 fees and not having people to watch them with. I streamed Trolls World Tour with a friend, but I never would've paid for it alone. The only movie I was considering paying the $20 for was Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which went on Hulu early. It's a really hard price point to justify when you're viewing movies alone but great for 2+ people. I'll return to theaters whenever they re-open despite their flaws, but I can see why people prefer day and date VOD.

 

[Legacy]

If you truly think VOD can make over a Billion, I really think you’re insanely wrong.

Most movies don’t need theaters, but the big ones do.

So do you guys really think an original blockbuster movie like Avatar would ever have made the kind of money it did in a VOD only world? Absolutely not. Get rid of theaters and you are getting rid of a full fledged experience.

And I’m positing that most people either don’t care about the experience, or don’t actually enjoy it. They go for the movie themselves.

The first billion dollar (first run) movie was Titanic, a highly marketed, cultural phenom that still holds records. That was only 22 years ago. Billion dollar films are a fairly recent phenomenon that rely heavily on international markets. Even Endgame, the highest grossing movie ever, only made $850 million domestically (30% of its total gross). So to say VOD will never make a billion is overselling the theater experience while underselling the accessibility of VOD. Anything is capable of making a billion its culturally big enough.

Because the actual elephant in the room with this situation isn’t getting discussed. Ticket SALES have been trending down for the last twenty years, despite the increasing box office. That’s why AMC and NATO is so scared about VOD. That’s why theaters are willing to sacrifice so much to Disney (100% take, 60% of screens) so they can get people to actually go to the movies. That’s why ticket prices keep ticking up. So, when Universal says the quiet part out loud (“Maybe we don’t need theaters”), they’re actually the ones with the leverage and statistical advantage. And AMC knows it.

If movies studios are bands, movie theaters are the dive bars that let bands perform for “exposure” while taking a cut of the money. Eventually though, the bands start to realize they can make more money without the dive bar. That’s what we’re seeing here. Universal (ie- Comcast) has the infrastructure and capability to put their films directly into people’s homes with no middleman at all. Why wouldn’t they explore it? Because of the “theater experience?” Numbers indicate that doesn’t actually matter.

 

[Jerroddragon]

And I’m positing that most people either don’t care about the experience, or don’t actually enjoy it. They go for the movie themselves.

The first billion dollar (first run) movie was Titanic, a highly marketed, cultural phenom that still holds records. That was only 22 years ago. Billion dollar films are a fairly recent phenomenon that rely heavily on international markets. Even Endgame, the highest grossing movie ever, only made $850 million domestically (30% of its total gross). So to say VOD will never make a billion is overselling the theater experience while underselling the accessibility of VOD. Anything is capable of making a billion its culturally big enough.

Because the actual elephant in the room with this situation isn’t getting discussed. Ticket SALES have been trending down for the last twenty years, despite the increasing box office. That’s why AMC and NATO is so scared about VOD. That’s why theaters are willing to sacrifice so much to Disney (100% take, 60% of screens) so they can get people to actually go to the movies. That’s why ticket prices keep ticking up. So, when Universal says the quiet part out loud (“Maybe we don’t need theaters”), they’re actually the ones with the leverage and statistical advantage. And AMC knows it.

If movies studios are bands, movie theaters are the dive bars that let bands perform for “exposure” while taking a cut of the money. Eventually though, the bands start to realize they can make more money without the dive bar. That’s what we’re seeing here. Universal (ie- Comcast) has the infrastructure and capability to put their films directly into people’s homes with no middleman at all. Why wouldn’t they explore it? Because of the “theater experience?” Numbers indicate that doesn’t actually matter.

I for one, will not be paying 20 bucks for most new films either.

If Disney Plus adds a part to it where I can see all new films to for like an extra 10 bucks a months then maybeeeeee but while Trolls worked not every film will at least at the current price point

 

[JungleSkip]

I for one, will not be paying 20 bucks for most new films either.

If Disney Plus adds a part to it where I can see all new films to for like an extra 10 bucks a months then maybeeeeee but while Trolls worked not every film will at least at the current price point

If I'm going to the movies I'm paying 20 bucks a trip anyway. So I'd gladly spend 20 bucks to enjoy them at home

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

I think the one thing that has DEFINETLEY changed is the family movie going experience. Sure this is only one film but it was a film that wasn't even highly anticipated really. As stated several times, its clear that its cheaper for a family to do VOD than go to the movies. Especially in a post COVID climate where people just won't have $30 to spend on films.

AMC is panicking, makes me sad as a former movie goer but I'm still shocked at their decisions here. Their desperation is showing and what other move do they have here? If anything I thought their last move was to not show some films, but after 1 VOD release they're already stating this, soooooooo, what about the film distrubuors for Artemis Fowl? Or Scoob? Or The Lovebirds? All heavily advertised in the theatre and they won't be played in them. Will AMC now not show any Paramount, Disney, or Warner Bros films? No, Universal is just saying what every other company is thinking and AMC is trying to get ahead of anybody thinking or stating that they are thinking the same way. Its a sheer sign of panic and again it saddens me but it was a STUPID move to begin with to state you won't be showing a major companies films anymore. Just terrible.

 

[Jerroddragon]

If I'm going to the movies I'm paying 20 bucks a trip anyway. So I'd gladly spend 20 bucks to enjoy them at home

You don't have AMC alist?

Its literally ten bucks more than that and can see imax and Dolby?

Also sure some people will pay it...but not every film it will work out for. Trolls worked because it was one of the only new films you could see VOD

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

You don't have AMC alist?

Its literally ten bucks more than that and can see imax and Dolby?

Also sure some people will pay it...but not every film it will work out for. Trolls worked because it was one of the only new films you could see VOD

I feel that part is really not true. If people have VOD, Onward, Sonic, The Invisible Man, Emma, Bloodshot, The Gentlemen, have all been on their for weeks or have just been added. Im not stating that is a tremendous selection to choose from, but especially from the kids standpoint, Sonic and Onward are right there. Id be surprised if the vast majority of whoever saw Trolls 2 also had already seen those 2 films. Maybe I'm underestimating but there are some options out there, just not a plentiful of options.

I think best case scenario for all involved is what Universal's plan is, release big movies in theatres and the rest can plan theaters but are ultimately on VOD either at or soon after initial release.

 

[JungleSkip]

You don't have AMC alist?

I go to the movies maybe once a month, and that's on a good month.

Also sure some people will pay it...but not every film it will work out for. Trolls worked because it was one of the only new films you could see VOD

A couple is already paying over $20 for a night at the movies. I seriously don't get the justification that people "won't pay $20" when they already are.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

I go to the movies maybe once a month, and that's on a good month.



A couple is already paying over $20 for a night at the movies. I seriously don't get the justification that people "won't pay $20" when they already are.

Well I was just paying $23.99 for 12 movies a month at AMC so paying 19.99 for 1 film is a MAJOR adjustment for me. We likely don't make up the majority of people but AMC did finally turn a small profit on A-list subscribers, so, there is some base out there that is not going to be willing to pay for this much.

Something I havent even done yet as im waiting for King of Staten Island to be on VOD.

 

[Nick]

And I’m positing that most people either don’t care about the experience, or don’t actually enjoy it. They go for the movie themselves.

The first billion dollar (first run) movie was Titanic, a highly marketed, cultural phenom that still holds records. That was only 22 years ago. Billion dollar films are a fairly recent phenomenon that rely heavily on international markets. Even Endgame, the highest grossing movie ever, only made $850 million domestically (30% of its total gross). So to say VOD will never make a billion is overselling the theater experience while underselling the accessibility of VOD. Anything is capable of making a billion its culturally big enough.

Because the actual elephant in the room with this situation isn’t getting discussed. Ticket SALES have been trending down for the last twenty years, despite the increasing box office. That’s why AMC and NATO is so scared about VOD. That’s why theaters are willing to sacrifice so much to Disney (100% take, 60% of screens) so they can get people to actually go to the movies. That’s why ticket prices keep ticking up. So, when Universal says the quiet part out loud (“Maybe we don’t need theaters”), they’re actually the ones with the leverage and statistical advantage. And AMC knows it.

If movies studios are bands, movie theaters are the dive bars that let bands perform for “exposure” while taking a cut of the money. Eventually though, the bands start to realize they can make more money without the dive bar. That’s what we’re seeing here. Universal (ie- Comcast) has the infrastructure and capability to put their films directly into people’s homes with no middleman at all. Why wouldn’t they explore it? Because of the “theater experience?” Numbers indicate that doesn’t actually matter.

And I get most of that. I don't like it, because I prefer to see a movie in theaters, but I GET it.

Now here's the thing for me though. Unless it's a big event film, i'm still most likely not in the demographic that would spend any money on these other types of films. Like I said, i'm single, so unless I were to get together with friends (which right now I can't do), i'm not spending $20-$25 on a film to not even own it. I haven't spent money on any of these quarantine releases so far, either. To me, it's cheaper to go to the theater and watch a movie, and I don't even do A-List or a service like it. I spend $8.50 max when I go to the movies and I go the the CityWalk Cinemark.

I know movie theaters are probably being expedited downhill because of this pandemic, but hey, i'm allowed to not like it. I still don't think studios can afford to budget films for $200M and spend $100M-$150M on marketing the film if they are doing a VOD release. I could very well be wrong though and if so, it'll just be an excuse to finally get that home theater system i've been wanting

 

[JungleSkip]

I still don't think studios can afford to budget films for $200M and spend half of that on marketing the film if they are doing a VOD release.

I think the number of films you're going to see cost that much decline pretty significantly moving forward. Disney has been the only company that has had consistent success with them.

 

[Nick]

I think the number of films you're going to see cost that much decline pretty significantly moving forward. Disney has been the only company that has had consistent success with them.

I'll believe that when I see it. Hollywood is very much like WDI and doesn't know how to control spending or spend wisely.