Denis Villenueve to direct Dune

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/regal-cinemas-likely-suspending-operations-at-all-u-s-locations-11601793090

Considering what we are facing because people just will not mask and distance and observe safety protocols, whether bikers or deeply religious -- and how long we are going to be living -- and getting infected with and being sick and even dying from this -- will they ever come back?

Hollywood, particularly in the decades lives only by the blockbuster box office, and thus it dies by it as well, it kinda looks like?

Hollywood will embrace streaming, with only certain filmmakers doggedly resisting their films being shown on TV instead of the cinema.

[Werthead]

6 hours ago, Vaughn said:

What's the big summer movie next summer that the studio doesn't want to put 'Dune' up against? I expected the delay but figured it would be pushed back to early summer 2021, not October.

I suspect WW84, which is going to move next (Christmas Day seems optimistic).

Bond and Black Widow moved to April and May, and I suspect they're eyeing June or July for WW84, so that leaves them with later in the summer. They don't want to go to November as Eternals just got moved there.

Although that does delay The Batman as well, which right now has the exact same date as Dune (1 October).

You also have to factor in that at some point studios are going to stop producing films because the bottleneck of having these hugely expensive films going unreleased is going to get quite stupid.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I suspect WW84, which is going to move next (Christmas Day seems optimistic).

Bond and Black Widow moved to April and May, and I suspect they're eyeing June or July for WW84, so that leaves them with later in the summer. They don't want to go to November as Eternals just got moved there.

Although that does delay The Batman as well, which right now has the exact same date as Dune (1 October).

You also have to factor in that at some point studios are going to stop producing films because the bottleneck of having these hugely expensive films going unreleased is going to get quite stupid.

The Batman was pushed to March 2022. Interesting that they moved The Matrix 4 up to Dec. 2021.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Hollywood will embrace streaming, with only certain filmmakers doggedly resisting their films being shown on TV instead of the cinema.

They have no choice.

But lordessa I hope they come with another model beyond comix superheroes horror supernatural sf/f blockbuster or die model, because I'm beyond tired of them by now.  Way beyond.  Well, there seem to be the occasional exceptions, like The Boys, which was for tv anyway.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

You also have to factor in that at some point studios are going to stop producing films because the bottleneck of having these hugely expensive films going unreleased is going to get quite stupid.

Yup. Without seeing the financials, they have to be hemorrhaging money. And theaters in turn may never recover, but that was going to happen eventually anyways.

Indy films are probably going to take a horrific beating. 

[Werthead]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. Without seeing the financials, they have to be hemorrhaging money. And theaters in turn may never recover, but that was going to happen eventually anyways.

Indy films are probably going to take a horrific beating. 

Indie films might thrive, actually, since they're cheap to produce anyway so getting sweet VOD deals with Amazon and Netflix might end up with more people watching them then if they were in a cinema, then on physical media and then a later VOD release with little fanfare.

[Fez]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. Without seeing the financials, they have to be hemorrhaging money. And theaters in turn may never recover, but that was going to happen eventually anyways.

Indy films are probably going to take a horrific beating. 

Theaters will recovery; though the current theater owners might not. Whenever it is that the pandemic is truly over, there will be plenty of money to be made from owning theater chains. And there are plenty of companies with lots of money right now. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if AMC went bankrupt (maybe not Regal, being owned by Cineworld) and was bought for pennies on the dollar by one of Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/Google/random hedge fund. It's not their core business, but a good opportunity is a good opportunity.

"Buy when there's blood in the streets" and all that.

[Vaughn]

38 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Indie films might thrive, actually, since they're cheap to produce anyway so getting sweet VOD deals with Amazon and Netflix might end up with more people watching them then if they were in a cinema, then on physical media and then a later VOD release with little fanfare.

Agree with this. Something like 'Palm Springs' on Hulu has to be a million times easier to make than a Bond film, just in terms of keeping crew/cast numbers low and testing rates high.

[Heartofice]

Yeah I think that the potential dismantling of the theatre experience might in fact be a bit of a positive thing. The last 5 years or so have really seen the decline in quality of movies on the big screen. Sure there are the odd few gems, but we all know that the industry is now so utterly risk averse that the only movies that can attain a wide audience need to be based on an existing franchise or they just won't get funding.

Creatively it's just a massive vacuum. I mean this whole thread is us drooling in anticipation of a movie based on a decades old book, that already has a couple of adaptations behind it, and we are excited because it feels new and different! 

Having said that, so far the 'Netflix' model of movie production hasn't exactly shown itself to be the way forward creatively, as they have gone for the quantity over quality choice. Hardly anything they make is better than a 7/10 when it comes to movies certainly. 

But the streaming model could hopefully lead to a resurgence of risk taking? It has worked for tv series, which is where the real creativity seems to be most of the time.

[Kalbear]

Indie films are making a ton of money relatively by being sold to Netflix or Amazon and skipping the minimal box office in favor of getting massive guaranteed money. And Netflix loves it - a couple mil for a film that rocks is super cheap compared to some of the contracts they're signing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Indie films might thrive, actually, since they're cheap to produce anyway so getting sweet VOD deals with Amazon and Netflix might end up with more people watching them then if they were in a cinema, then on physical media and then a later VOD release with little fanfare.

"Indie" in the sense that they're using an indie model with some financial backing. Studios are going to heavily prioritize profitability over quality, and indies will suffer in a number of ways absent those with significant connections. Streaming services will mitigate things, but everyone  still needs money right now give the model is broken.

12 hours ago, Fez said:

Theaters will recovery; though the current theater owners might not. Whenever it is that the pandemic is truly over, there will be plenty of money to be made from owning theater chains. And there are plenty of companies with lots of money right now. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if AMC went bankrupt (maybe not Regal, being owned by Cineworld) and was bought for pennies on the dollar by one of Amazon/Apple/Microsoft/Google/random hedge fund. It's not their core business, but a good opportunity is a good opportunity.

"Buy when there's blood in the streets" and all that.

 I disagree. They'll still exist, but it won't be the same, even if there's some recovery. Home entertainment is frankly a better experience. If studios can make that profitable, they'll bypass theaters. 

[Veltigar]

The death of the theatre has been predicted ever since the rise of television. The  industry will adapt as it has always done. Smaller in size perhaps due too many bankruptcies and with shorter windows between releases in the theatre and streaming, but that's the only thing I'd place a bet on.

So far @Fez has the most rational comment of all. We'll see a massive restructuring. All the cinema groups that took on way too much debt to grow will falter, but there are cinema groups out there who actually own 80% of their screens. When the films will be released again they'll start printing money again. And indeed some firm like DIsney or an outsider PE group might also save a few big chains. Close all the unprofitable branches, kick out a massive number of employees and they'll be roaring to go again. 

In fact, this crisis might give an extra incentive to studios to protect studio experience. Mulan was a failure (although Disney claims to be content without releasing figures), so that doesn't give them much incentive to push aggressively for an only streaming model. On the other hand, the theatre chains are on their knees so what I think is going to happen (apart from consolidation) is that the emboldend studios will push for a greater share of ticket sales than before. 

[Heartofice]

There probably is some truth in the idea that this might just see more entrenchment of the current system. So fewer independent outlets, a monopoly of screen holders and distribution, and worst of all, maybe only a handful of companies releasing movies into theatres.

Since the decline of DVD we’ve seen a trend of studios banking on ‘safe’ franchises, a small number of big releases banking all the bucks, and probably that will continue for a while.

But it depends how long this all goes on for. Cinemas if they are open are operating at 50% capacity, and rarely meet that. Real estate is hugely expensive and it’s hard to see how anyone could afford it during the crisis. 
 

If this goes on for another year or so, maybe buildings get torn down, replaced by housing or something more profitable. At that point who is going to invest in building a huge modern cinema complex? Would be massively risky. Then with less screens studios will be less willing to produce big budget movies.

Or the other thing that could happen is that movies get produced more and more for foreign  audiences, in countries where the virus doesn’t exist like China (hahahah!!) 

 

[Corvinus85]

Well, here's one solution https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-pledges-to-stay-open-touts-pvod-pact-with-universal

Quote

AMC Theatres said Tuesday it is not currently planning to close any of its movie theaters that have reopened, in part because of the leeway provided by an unprecedented premium VOD deal it recently signed with Universal.

....

Aron also referenced the Universal pact, which collapses the traditional theatrical window by allowing the film studio to make some of its movies available on PVOD just 17 days after they debut on the big screen. In exchange, AMC will share in the revenue. Most movie circuits won't play a title that debuts early in the home.

 

[Inkdaub]

The last movie I saw in the theater was Joker at Seattle Cinerama.  The theater was nearly full but Cinerama has been closed since February.  Sad to see but hopefully it will reopen at some point.  That property has to be worth a ton.  Paul Allen, who owned it, loved the Cinerama but I'm not sure his sister cares all that much. 

My favorite theater in Portland closed years ago.  One small reason I loved it is that it was always empty or near enough.  I have watched movies there completely alone.  It wasn't a small room, either.  It never would have survived Covid.  Too bad.

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

Well, here's one solution https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-pledges-to-stay-open-touts-pvod-pact-with-universal

 

I don't understand how this would work long term. Why would anyone go the cinema to see something if its going to be on their TVs in 2 weeks? Didn't the Irishman do something similar? How well did that do? 

Then if nobody is going to the cinema, why would studios even consider them for distribution? Why cut such a deal?

[Corvinus85]

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't understand how this would work long term. Why would anyone go the cinema to see something if its going to be on their TVs in 2 weeks? Didn't the Irishman do something similar? How well did that do? 

Then if nobody is going to the cinema, why would studios even consider them for distribution? Why cut such a deal?

The Irishman is a Netflix movie that was released in limited theaters for awards purposes. Not the best example.

VoD releases this year have been expensive so far, at least for me, at roughly $20 for most releases, even $30 for Mulan. I would much prefer to go to my local theater where I usually spend less than $10. But I usually go alone. The VoD experience is much more beneficial for families or large groups of friends if they all pitch in. So by combining VoD with theater releases, they get money from all audiences.

[Vaughn]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't understand how this would work long term. Why would anyone go the cinema to see something if its going to be on their TVs in 2 weeks? Didn't the Irishman do something similar? How well did that do? 

Then if nobody is going to the cinema, why would studios even consider them for distribution? Why cut such a deal?

Well this lines right up with the theaters' reliance on mega-budget event movies, right? I want to see 'Dune' in the theater or 'Infinity War' but 'Palm Springs' or 'Enola Holmes' on my TV is fine.

 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

The Irishman is a Netflix movie that was released in limited theaters for awards purposes. Not the best example.

VoD release this year has been expensive so far, at least for me at roughly $20 for most releases, even $30 for Mulan. I would much prefer to go to my local theater where I usually spend less than $10. But I usually go alone. The VoD experience is much more beneficial for families or large groups of friends if they all pitch in. So by combining VoD with theater releases, they get money from all audiences.

The problem is it splits the audience, and the audience needs are different. I'd have to look into the actual financials, but I'm willing to guess that people are not willing to pay the same amount of money to watch something at home as they are in a theatre (not that it makes a lot of sense, but in general if you can watch something for free or cheap and are used to it, then paying £20 to watch a movie, only once, at home, is an insane price) 

So while it might be a temp fix for some companies, I don't see it working long term. Theatres need to get close to capacity on some of their movies to stay profitable, and I think that VOD will need to drop their prices in order to get people to watch at home. So the margins keep getting tighter, and theatres need to pay their rent. 

6 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

Well this lines right up with the theaters' reliance on mega-budget event movies, right? I want to see 'Dune' in the theater or 'Infinity War' but 'Palm Springs' or 'Enola Holmes' on my TV is fine.

 

Well exactly. But how many of these tentpole movies are there a year? What if the COVID crisis carries on and screens can only show at 50% capacity. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

The Irishman is a Netflix movie that was released in limited theaters for awards purposes. Not the best example.

VoD releases this year have been expensive so far, at least for me, at roughly $20 for most releases, even $30 for Mulan. I would much prefer to go to my local theater where I usually spend less than $10. But I usually go alone. The VoD experience is much more beneficial for families or large groups of friends if they all pitch in. So by combining VoD with theater releases, they get money from all audiences.

What? The last movie I saw in a theater that wasn't one which you could get dinner at was $15 for a ticket. I'd much rather pay $20 to watch a movie at home. It's cheaper if you consider everything involved and I can pause the movie if I need to take a shit. If I was married with kids I'd save so much money just getting everything on demand.

ETA: Last movie I saw on a weekend at night. The last movie I saw in theaters was Knives Out during the day, and that was about $30 for my ticket, two beers and popcorn.