Matt Damon had a good explanation about how streaming changed the way movies are made: https://youtu.be/gF6K2IxC9O8?si=ha1uAisY0HrZK9_b. Taking his example - there were only 25 U.S. movies in 2023 that broke $100m in gross: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2023/?grossesOption=totalGrosses&releaseScale=all&sort=gross&sortDir=asc
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Same with the music industry. Streaming has made it so that a lot more artists can get a piece of the pie, but it’s a smaller pie, and much smaller pieces.only the people at the very top are still seeing significant income from recordings. Ok, so you have to tour more and make your money there. But Ticketmaster, Live Nation, and the labels are all part of the same machine, and so now that they aren’t getting revenue from album sales they want a bigger cut of your touring revenue. Ok, well we can make that up on merch sales, but now they want a cut of that too. So basically unless you’re Metallica, Taylor Swift, any big superstar you’re making far less than you would have 10, 20 years ago.
Blockbuster movies take up a higher share of the revenue.
A24 is mostly a small scale studio so they are more willing to release low budget movies to theatres, but it doesn't make any financial sense for big studios to spend money on a low budget movie that has a high chance of bombing compared to a big studio movie that in most cases reliably turns a huge profit.
I understand what you're saying...but we're in a chicken-or-egg situation here.
Because if they advertised mid-budget films half as much as they advertise blockbusters, it would be a more or less safe investment. Most of the mid-budget films they make now, with rare exceptions, don't reach a large audience because they aren't advertised well. For example, there is a lot of fear even in producing original Blockbusters, but taking Nolan as an example.
In my opinion Nolan has a big fan base but a good part of his success is because they advertise his film with a lot of advertising budget.
And seeing the flops that have happened lately, in my opinion spending less by producing mid-budget films, but raising the advertising budget a little more could be a not stupid choice
>Because if they advertised mid-budget films half as much as they advertise blockbusters, it would be a more or less safe investment. Most of the mid-budget films they make now, with rare exceptions, don't reach a large audience because they aren't advertised well.
Is this the case? Or will people, generally, not go to the cinema for a mid-budget film as they don't see it as an added value over watching it on streaming a month or two down the line? A comedy like Bottoms, or something like Priscilla or Eileen - is it easy to convince people to spend money to watch them when the experience will be broadly the same on their TV at home?
Went to the cinema to see Saltburn, and other than my friend & I, there were only a handful of people in the screening. I get the idea it didn't do particularly well at the box office, but I haven't checked. Amazon Prime release it, though, and suddenly it was massively discussed and I knew so many people that ended up seeing it over the festive period. Can marketing recreate that, or is it a combination of going viral, being easy to watch on your sofa, and not risking a potentially expensive night out to see a film you may not like?
Personally I go to the cinema a fair amount, maybe 35-40 times a year, and will always watch on the big screen if I have a chance. I can recognise that these days I'm an outlier, the question is why. I feel like the ship sailed for most mid-budget theatrical releases when the streaming release turnaround was so drastically cut down.
The thing is, you don’t know. Every industry is so set in their ways thanks to digitized strategies, that actions are only taken in biased data.
“We have to do the thing we have been doing, because we know what happens when we do that,” stops making sense when it’s the -only- thing you do for years and it’s the -only- thing bringing you money.
Understandably, there is a higher risk involved in producing and releasing a smaller budget film, but conversely there’s more reward. So taking 5% of the blockbuster budget and putting it toward 12 low budget movies a year could result in larger returns than 5% of a blockbuster franchise, but that also takes away more than 5% of our blockbuster franchise sales. Blockbuster franchise is the -only- thing keeping this company afloat, so if investors see a dip in blockbuster franchise money, they might invest less, which means we don’t even have the money for the next set of small budget movies. Stupid small budget movies, see how “unpredictable” you are and the “problems” that arise.
>Is this the case? Or will people, generally, not go to the cinema for a mid-budget film as they don't see it as an added value over watching it on streaming a month or two down the line? A comedy like Bottoms, or something like Priscilla or Eileen - is it easy to convince people to spend money to watch them when the experience will be broadly the same on their TV at home?
>
>Went to the cinema to see Saltburn, and other than my friend & I, there were only a handful of people in the screening. I get the idea it didn't do particularly well at the box office, but I haven't checked. Amazon Prime release it, though, and suddenly it was massively discussed and I knew so many people that ended up seeing it over the festive period. Can marketing recreate that, or is it a combination of going viral, being easy to watch on your sofa, and not risking a potentially expensive night out to see a film you may not like?
>
>Personally I go to the cinema a fair amount, maybe 35-40 times a year, and will always watch on the big screen if I have a chance. I can recognise that these days I'm an outlier, the question is why. I feel like the ship sailed for most mid-budget theatrical releases when the streaming release turnaround was so drastically cut down.
Ok, so I don't want to be the Saul Goodman of the situation but I take your examples to explain my point of view.
1- Eileen is a classic example of a low budget film advertised very little and by very little I mean that if you don't follow Neon Rated on social media you definitely don't even know it exists. I'm not saying that if advertised more it would have become a success, but it certainly wouldn't have grossed 1 million miserably.
Bottoms actually had more success on streaming, but since the target audience was teenagers and it's also a comedy with an LGBT target audience, the circle narrows. It doesn't help that having such a narrow target audience, the film was distributed exclusively in the USA and UK.
Priscilla on the other hand, in my opinion, is the example that sometimes the theme of the film isn't that appealing and in any case it grossed 20 million in the USA alone, which isn't too bad.
As for Saltburn, the film's virality began right when it was released but after a week where it was projected at 1,500 theaters, Amazon drastically removed Saltburn from theaters and projected the growing success onto its streaming service. If it was maintained a little more in theaters it would have grossed much more in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't have made 100 million domestic, even seeing the type of movie, but if they had kept it in theaters it would have become a mini sleeper hit
And giving you other examples, films like Anyone But You are doing great in theaters when it's a classic film that the cinema doesn't give you added value.
Films like The Beekeeper, which as much as I hate this type of film, is a classic mid-budget action film that is doing reasonably well and is now on 122 million worldwide.
I leave you this article which in my opinion fully takes my point of view and explains it with more suitable words:https://variety.com/2024/film/columns/is-streaming-becoming-a-form-of-stockholm-syndrome-anyone-but-you-1235896638/
This is saying why we shouldn't let streaming take movies out of cinema, but they will. Streaming services are a lot more convenient than going to a cinema. I used to go to the cinema about once a month and I looked forward to it, but I last time I went was to see No Time to die. Watching something at home is a lot easier than making arrangements with friends, going out in the rain, having to buy expensive food and drinks, sitting next to someone who makes unfunny jokes through the movie, etc.
My sister is 16 and she has never been to a theatre. I've asked her why and she said that she has Amazon and Disney her friend has Netflix, everything they want to watch is on one of the three. If there is something they want to watch that's not on any, it will be in a few months. Or they can stream it on an illegal website.
There's quite a bit more competition now.
If you take your question back even further, you'll see an even more profound trend.
Prior to television in the 1930s and 40s, Americans went to the theater on average once a week. Bear in mind, that was during the Great Depression.
Our appetite for entertainment hasn't necessarily changed, but our options for it and its convenience certainly have.
Those low/mid budget movies are sent to streaming now.
True, even if i don't really undestand the logic behind
Matt Damon had a good explanation about how streaming changed the way movies are made: https://youtu.be/gF6K2IxC9O8?si=ha1uAisY0HrZK9_b. Taking his example - there were only 25 U.S. movies in 2023 that broke $100m in gross: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2023/?grossesOption=totalGrosses&releaseScale=all&sort=gross&sortDir=asc
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Same with the music industry. Streaming has made it so that a lot more artists can get a piece of the pie, but it’s a smaller pie, and much smaller pieces.only the people at the very top are still seeing significant income from recordings. Ok, so you have to tour more and make your money there. But Ticketmaster, Live Nation, and the labels are all part of the same machine, and so now that they aren’t getting revenue from album sales they want a bigger cut of your touring revenue. Ok, well we can make that up on merch sales, but now they want a cut of that too. So basically unless you’re Metallica, Taylor Swift, any big superstar you’re making far less than you would have 10, 20 years ago.
Blockbuster movies take up a higher share of the revenue. A24 is mostly a small scale studio so they are more willing to release low budget movies to theatres, but it doesn't make any financial sense for big studios to spend money on a low budget movie that has a high chance of bombing compared to a big studio movie that in most cases reliably turns a huge profit.
I understand what you're saying...but we're in a chicken-or-egg situation here. Because if they advertised mid-budget films half as much as they advertise blockbusters, it would be a more or less safe investment. Most of the mid-budget films they make now, with rare exceptions, don't reach a large audience because they aren't advertised well. For example, there is a lot of fear even in producing original Blockbusters, but taking Nolan as an example. In my opinion Nolan has a big fan base but a good part of his success is because they advertise his film with a lot of advertising budget. And seeing the flops that have happened lately, in my opinion spending less by producing mid-budget films, but raising the advertising budget a little more could be a not stupid choice
>Because if they advertised mid-budget films half as much as they advertise blockbusters, it would be a more or less safe investment. Most of the mid-budget films they make now, with rare exceptions, don't reach a large audience because they aren't advertised well. Is this the case? Or will people, generally, not go to the cinema for a mid-budget film as they don't see it as an added value over watching it on streaming a month or two down the line? A comedy like Bottoms, or something like Priscilla or Eileen - is it easy to convince people to spend money to watch them when the experience will be broadly the same on their TV at home? Went to the cinema to see Saltburn, and other than my friend & I, there were only a handful of people in the screening. I get the idea it didn't do particularly well at the box office, but I haven't checked. Amazon Prime release it, though, and suddenly it was massively discussed and I knew so many people that ended up seeing it over the festive period. Can marketing recreate that, or is it a combination of going viral, being easy to watch on your sofa, and not risking a potentially expensive night out to see a film you may not like? Personally I go to the cinema a fair amount, maybe 35-40 times a year, and will always watch on the big screen if I have a chance. I can recognise that these days I'm an outlier, the question is why. I feel like the ship sailed for most mid-budget theatrical releases when the streaming release turnaround was so drastically cut down.
The thing is, you don’t know. Every industry is so set in their ways thanks to digitized strategies, that actions are only taken in biased data. “We have to do the thing we have been doing, because we know what happens when we do that,” stops making sense when it’s the -only- thing you do for years and it’s the -only- thing bringing you money. Understandably, there is a higher risk involved in producing and releasing a smaller budget film, but conversely there’s more reward. So taking 5% of the blockbuster budget and putting it toward 12 low budget movies a year could result in larger returns than 5% of a blockbuster franchise, but that also takes away more than 5% of our blockbuster franchise sales. Blockbuster franchise is the -only- thing keeping this company afloat, so if investors see a dip in blockbuster franchise money, they might invest less, which means we don’t even have the money for the next set of small budget movies. Stupid small budget movies, see how “unpredictable” you are and the “problems” that arise.
>Is this the case? Or will people, generally, not go to the cinema for a mid-budget film as they don't see it as an added value over watching it on streaming a month or two down the line? A comedy like Bottoms, or something like Priscilla or Eileen - is it easy to convince people to spend money to watch them when the experience will be broadly the same on their TV at home? > >Went to the cinema to see Saltburn, and other than my friend & I, there were only a handful of people in the screening. I get the idea it didn't do particularly well at the box office, but I haven't checked. Amazon Prime release it, though, and suddenly it was massively discussed and I knew so many people that ended up seeing it over the festive period. Can marketing recreate that, or is it a combination of going viral, being easy to watch on your sofa, and not risking a potentially expensive night out to see a film you may not like? > >Personally I go to the cinema a fair amount, maybe 35-40 times a year, and will always watch on the big screen if I have a chance. I can recognise that these days I'm an outlier, the question is why. I feel like the ship sailed for most mid-budget theatrical releases when the streaming release turnaround was so drastically cut down. Ok, so I don't want to be the Saul Goodman of the situation but I take your examples to explain my point of view. 1- Eileen is a classic example of a low budget film advertised very little and by very little I mean that if you don't follow Neon Rated on social media you definitely don't even know it exists. I'm not saying that if advertised more it would have become a success, but it certainly wouldn't have grossed 1 million miserably. Bottoms actually had more success on streaming, but since the target audience was teenagers and it's also a comedy with an LGBT target audience, the circle narrows. It doesn't help that having such a narrow target audience, the film was distributed exclusively in the USA and UK. Priscilla on the other hand, in my opinion, is the example that sometimes the theme of the film isn't that appealing and in any case it grossed 20 million in the USA alone, which isn't too bad. As for Saltburn, the film's virality began right when it was released but after a week where it was projected at 1,500 theaters, Amazon drastically removed Saltburn from theaters and projected the growing success onto its streaming service. If it was maintained a little more in theaters it would have grossed much more in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't have made 100 million domestic, even seeing the type of movie, but if they had kept it in theaters it would have become a mini sleeper hit And giving you other examples, films like Anyone But You are doing great in theaters when it's a classic film that the cinema doesn't give you added value. Films like The Beekeeper, which as much as I hate this type of film, is a classic mid-budget action film that is doing reasonably well and is now on 122 million worldwide. I leave you this article which in my opinion fully takes my point of view and explains it with more suitable words:https://variety.com/2024/film/columns/is-streaming-becoming-a-form-of-stockholm-syndrome-anyone-but-you-1235896638/
This is saying why we shouldn't let streaming take movies out of cinema, but they will. Streaming services are a lot more convenient than going to a cinema. I used to go to the cinema about once a month and I looked forward to it, but I last time I went was to see No Time to die. Watching something at home is a lot easier than making arrangements with friends, going out in the rain, having to buy expensive food and drinks, sitting next to someone who makes unfunny jokes through the movie, etc. My sister is 16 and she has never been to a theatre. I've asked her why and she said that she has Amazon and Disney her friend has Netflix, everything they want to watch is on one of the three. If there is something they want to watch that's not on any, it will be in a few months. Or they can stream it on an illegal website.
There's quite a bit more competition now. If you take your question back even further, you'll see an even more profound trend. Prior to television in the 1930s and 40s, Americans went to the theater on average once a week. Bear in mind, that was during the Great Depression. Our appetite for entertainment hasn't necessarily changed, but our options for it and its convenience certainly have.
On top of that they are remaking everything.
The the simplest answers are cost and the time it takes to do modern VFX.
There are only so many comic books
They take longer to make because they rely so heavily on CGI even in genres where you wouldn't think they would need to