6 ms·

The industry needs to change. Charging all movies the same is ridiculous and just totally counter to all reality about their audience. We have fast food and gou

by sho 6y ago

The industry needs to change. Charging all movies the same is ridiculous and just totally counter to all reality about their audience. We have fast food and gourmet, why wouldn't we have that with cinema too? I suppose I could be reluctantly convinced to part with $5 or $10 for the latest predictable comic book CGI-fest. I'll pay much more for Fincher, or anyone else I actually respect. Trying to charge the same for mass-market lowest-common-denominator marvel or transformers nonsense as something aimed for the sniff art crowd sniff just sounds unsustainable. There needs to be a free-floating price, just like any other product with different markets.

goto11 6y ago
People like different things.
bshimmin 6y ago
This is an interesting but problematic idea. Firstly, I'm not certain of how the economics would play out: the "marvel or transformers nonsense" (and boy is it nonsense) tends to cost a lot of money to make, because they feature famous actors and they're end-to-end expensive CGI; arthouse films tend to be a lot cheaper because they feature less CGI, and sometimes the actors involved will work for less money because the films are more "worthy", or they like the director. More people watch the superhero drivel than the arthouse films, for sure, so perhaps it would all balance out, but it's unclear. Secondly, while I broadly love Terrence Malick, if I'd paid £20 for "Knight of Cups" (which was dire), I would have to think very, very hard about parting with another £20 for his next film unless the notices were very good. I think you'd end up with a minuscule audience if you started marking up arthouse films in this way. Unrelatedly, I have to admit that "Mank" sounds really boring and I'm not eager to watch it, even though I have a Netflix subscription and I've enjoyed many of Fincher's previous films (hell, I even liked "Alien 3").
- goto11 6y ago
  If you are a fan of Citizen Kane and the whole mythos around this movie, you might enjoy Mank. If not, you will probably find it quite boring and pointless. Fincher is certainly no art house director. He makes big-budget movies with stars like Brad Pitt or Ben Affleck. He is kind of like Steven Spielberg - a director so talented in the craft he elevates rater middlebrow material to be uniquely enjoyable. Fincher just gets a bit more respect because he is "dark". But dark does not mean deep. For example Seven is really quite silly and contrived, but his excellence at directing makes us forget that.
  - sho 6y ago
    > Fincher [..] is kind of like Steven Spielberg [..] just gets a bit more respect because he is "dark" So he's a great director like Spielberg - but he's in a different genre and willing to tackle less family friendly subjects. Sorry was this meant to be a criticism? They're both great. Get off your high horse. Great cinema is great cinema. If you can't appreciate them both, there's something wrong with your taste in movies. Sounds like you don't like them just because they're popular, which is lame. Of course Fincher isn't "art house" - although Mank is moving in that direction. But he's certainly not a multiplex pleaser. There's a lot of different genres and a fan base for all of them. The challenge is finding a model that makes this work.
    - mkr-hn 6y ago
      It's like we read different comments. goto11 called one an excellent director and the other talented. I get the impression they like both and that their comment wasn't...whatever you thought it was.
      - sho 6y ago
        Hm. Maybe I imagined it but I got a definite negative undertone. Eg: > dark does not mean deep Well I thought The Social Network and Zodiac were thoughtful and at least somewhat deep. I guess this can just turn into a "deepness" competition but eh, I liked them.
        pas 6y ago
        Wasn't the Zodiac brutally simple, the typical Fincher-like precision, almost sterile presentation of the story, with almost perfect linearity? I mean, I love that movie, but I love it especially because it's not "deep". (It doesn't mean there are no interesting questions/plotlines, of course there is the whole who-was-really-the-killer question. Of course there's the whole personal drama of the main character.) But compared to Seven - I think - there's a lot less abstract/social commentary and symbolism. (Even though it's full of the killer's code symbols.)
    - 6y ago
coldtea 6y ago
>The industry needs to change. Charging all movies the same is ridiculous and just totally counter to all reality about their audience. We have fast food and gourmet, why wouldn't we have that with cinema too? That might kill "serious" movies even faster. The people that like to watch them don't necessarily have more income.
- sho 6y ago
  You might be right. I was just trying to offer a data point and offering a speculative extrapolation. If I've decided to "make a night of" a movie, the ticket price is almost irrelevant. I guess I'm applying a very narrow stereotype but most of the "serious movie lovers" I know are fairly well paid. I'll pay for quality. Transformers - I wouldn't go even if it was free. I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    The average low income worker might not have the education / cultural upbringing for "serious" movies, and the typical audience might be college educated and middle/upper-middle class, but I think that many with the education and/or culture are still penny-pinching in these days, whether they are college-educated or not. >I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here. As a European I'd add "state funding for the arts". It's in no way more of a no-no than state funding for space is (which is how everything major has ever been achieved there, from NASA to Space-X, a state outsourcing/subsidy business if there ever was one).
    - sho 6y ago
      So how about highbrow art forms like Opera? They're generally supported by the state. How many factory workers can afford to go? I'm not even sure what point I'm making here. I think it would be a good thing if the Opera cost $10.
      - sailfast 6y ago
pessimizer 6y ago
> I suppose I could be reluctantly convinced to part with $5 or $10 for the latest predictable comic book CGI-fest. You'd probably never get that chance if prices floated; those films go out to a market that bases their social life on consuming genre fiction and for whom seeing them is not optional. Prices would shoot up to $40 a ticket, and marketing would just be laser-targeted towards that audience, who would pay like putting money into the collection tray at church. Kickstarter has proved that 5-10% of that audience would be willing to pay multiples of that (2x to probably 50x) extra without anything in return but exclusive tokens that are evidence that they paid. IMO, mostly middle-of-the-road, highly-competent directors like Fincher would be in trouble in that world, since they are both going for a general audience and relying on a general media narrative of genius and award potential to market their films. Genre movies withdrawing from general reviewers and general marketing (like awards shows) reduces the impact of those awards, and leaves them as a de facto genre themselves - like mainstream literary fiction. Maybe able to crank out one or two films that crack the top 10 every year and barely self-supporting on average; highly dependent on government and institutional support. Talent graduates from mainstream non-genre awards-show films to comic book films, not vice-versa, which is why awards shows are desperately trying to get those films into every category, as a means to market those traditional blockbusters to genre fans. > mass-market lowest-common-denominator marvel or transformers nonsense So, tl;dr, IMO Fincher is the mass-market lowest-common-denominator choice, and bombastic genre trash targets a small inelastic market that would still be sustainable at a far higher price point. The number who would pay a premium for Fincher wouldn't be enough to support his budgets and marketing. Mainstream Fincher films would only survive given away for a token (or in order to market something else.) 20M people would pay $60 for The Avengers 8, but 400M might be willing to pay $3 for Mank or watch it for free if you put it on all of some brand's devices as a promotion (like a U2 album, or Netflix.) Of course Fincher would be (and probably is) highly desired in genre films, so in that world he'd probably be charging $100 per to 40M fans for The Incredulous Spider-Man: Sapphire Empire's Revenge Chapter II or The New Fast More Furious 19.
- sho 6y ago
  I can't reply to all of this but I will say - I paid to go see the Avengers finale movies - despite seeing none of the preceding films - purely because I felt a kind of social obligation. Like it or not, Avengers was part of the zeitgeist and I just felt compelled to go see both of them. Part of the shared cultural experience or something. The movies were just ludicrous but I don't regret it. snap
golemotron 6y ago
That happens right now with streaming services. They jack up the prices for premium movies.
gregmac 6y ago
> The industry needs to change. Ticket prices for cinema likely pale in comparison to the changes as a result of technology improvements and COVID. In the past two decades we've gone from the biggest home screens being a huge heavy CRT or mediocre projection screen, to large 1080p or 4k LCD and OLED displays. The average TV size was 25" in 2000, now approaching 50". [1] Audio has similar improvements, with not only built-in TV audio being better, but now with soundbars, subwoofers, wireless options, Atmos, etc it's much more common to have decent or excellent sound. What does post-COVID theatre look like? I can't imagine it has zero effect. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/961283/united-states-average-tv-screen-size/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/961283/united-states-ave...
mixmastamyk 6y ago
Equating Marvel with Tranformers shows a lack of understanding. They’re both “fun entertainment” but while one is a cynical money grab the other has a commitment to quality. Quality fun may seem paradoxical to some snobs but it is definitely possible.

by sho 6y ago

goto11 6y ago

People like different things.

bshimmin 6y ago

This is an interesting but problematic idea. Firstly, I'm not certain of how the economics would play out: the "marvel or transformers nonsense" (and boy is it nonsense) tends to cost a lot of money to make, because they feature famous actors and they're end-to-end expensive CGI; arthouse films tend to be a lot cheaper because they feature less CGI, and sometimes the actors involved will work for less money because the films are more "worthy", or they like the director. More people watch the superhero drivel than the arthouse films, for sure, so perhaps it would all balance out, but it's unclear. Secondly, while I broadly love Terrence Malick, if I'd paid £20 for "Knight of Cups" (which was dire), I would have to think very, very hard about parting with another £20 for his next film unless the notices were very good. I think you'd end up with a minuscule audience if you started marking up arthouse films in this way. Unrelatedly, I have to admit that "Mank" sounds really boring and I'm not eager to watch it, even though I have a Netflix subscription and I've enjoyed many of Fincher's previous films (hell, I even liked "Alien 3").

goto11 6y ago
If you are a fan of Citizen Kane and the whole mythos around this movie, you might enjoy Mank. If not, you will probably find it quite boring and pointless. Fincher is certainly no art house director. He makes big-budget movies with stars like Brad Pitt or Ben Affleck. He is kind of like Steven Spielberg - a director so talented in the craft he elevates rater middlebrow material to be uniquely enjoyable. Fincher just gets a bit more respect because he is "dark". But dark does not mean deep. For example Seven is really quite silly and contrived, but his excellence at directing makes us forget that.
- sho 6y ago
  > Fincher [..] is kind of like Steven Spielberg [..] just gets a bit more respect because he is "dark" So he's a great director like Spielberg - but he's in a different genre and willing to tackle less family friendly subjects. Sorry was this meant to be a criticism? They're both great. Get off your high horse. Great cinema is great cinema. If you can't appreciate them both, there's something wrong with your taste in movies. Sounds like you don't like them just because they're popular, which is lame. Of course Fincher isn't "art house" - although Mank is moving in that direction. But he's certainly not a multiplex pleaser. There's a lot of different genres and a fan base for all of them. The challenge is finding a model that makes this work.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    It's like we read different comments. goto11 called one an excellent director and the other talented. I get the impression they like both and that their comment wasn't...whatever you thought it was.
    - sho 6y ago
      Hm. Maybe I imagined it but I got a definite negative undertone. Eg: > dark does not mean deep Well I thought The Social Network and Zodiac were thoughtful and at least somewhat deep. I guess this can just turn into a "deepness" competition but eh, I liked them.
      - pas 6y ago
        Wasn't the Zodiac brutally simple, the typical Fincher-like precision, almost sterile presentation of the story, with almost perfect linearity? I mean, I love that movie, but I love it especially because it's not "deep". (It doesn't mean there are no interesting questions/plotlines, of course there is the whole who-was-really-the-killer question. Of course there's the whole personal drama of the main character.) But compared to Seven - I think - there's a lot less abstract/social commentary and symbolism. (Even though it's full of the killer's code symbols.)
  - 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>The industry needs to change. Charging all movies the same is ridiculous and just totally counter to all reality about their audience. We have fast food and gourmet, why wouldn't we have that with cinema too? That might kill "serious" movies even faster. The people that like to watch them don't necessarily have more income.

sho 6y ago
You might be right. I was just trying to offer a data point and offering a speculative extrapolation. If I've decided to "make a night of" a movie, the ticket price is almost irrelevant. I guess I'm applying a very narrow stereotype but most of the "serious movie lovers" I know are fairly well paid. I'll pay for quality. Transformers - I wouldn't go even if it was free. I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here.
- coldtea 6y ago
  The average low income worker might not have the education / cultural upbringing for "serious" movies, and the typical audience might be college educated and middle/upper-middle class, but I think that many with the education and/or culture are still penny-pinching in these days, whether they are college-educated or not. >I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here. As a European I'd add "state funding for the arts". It's in no way more of a no-no than state funding for space is (which is how everything major has ever been achieved there, from NASA to Space-X, a state outsourcing/subsidy business if there ever was one).
  - sho 6y ago
    So how about highbrow art forms like Opera? They're generally supported by the state. How many factory workers can afford to go? I'm not even sure what point I'm making here. I think it would be a good thing if the Opera cost $10.
    - sailfast 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

> I suppose I could be reluctantly convinced to part with $5 or $10 for the latest predictable comic book CGI-fest. You'd probably never get that chance if prices floated; those films go out to a market that bases their social life on consuming genre fiction and for whom seeing them is not optional. Prices would shoot up to $40 a ticket, and marketing would just be laser-targeted towards that audience, who would pay like putting money into the collection tray at church. Kickstarter has proved that 5-10% of that audience would be willing to pay multiples of that (2x to probably 50x) extra without anything in return but exclusive tokens that are evidence that they paid. IMO, mostly middle-of-the-road, highly-competent directors like Fincher would be in trouble in that world, since they are both going for a general audience and relying on a general media narrative of genius and award potential to market their films. Genre movies withdrawing from general reviewers and general marketing (like awards shows) reduces the impact of those awards, and leaves them as a de facto genre themselves - like mainstream literary fiction. Maybe able to crank out one or two films that crack the top 10 every year and barely self-supporting on average; highly dependent on government and institutional support. Talent graduates from mainstream non-genre awards-show films to comic book films, not vice-versa, which is why awards shows are desperately trying to get those films into every category, as a means to market those traditional blockbusters to genre fans. > mass-market lowest-common-denominator marvel or transformers nonsense So, tl;dr, IMO Fincher is the mass-market lowest-common-denominator choice, and bombastic genre trash targets a small inelastic market that would still be sustainable at a far higher price point. The number who would pay a premium for Fincher wouldn't be enough to support his budgets and marketing. Mainstream Fincher films would only survive given away for a token (or in order to market something else.) 20M people would pay $60 for The Avengers 8, but 400M might be willing to pay $3 for Mank or watch it for free if you put it on all of some brand's devices as a promotion (like a U2 album, or Netflix.) Of course Fincher would be (and probably is) highly desired in genre films, so in that world he'd probably be charging $100 per to 40M fans for The Incredulous Spider-Man: Sapphire Empire's Revenge Chapter II or The New Fast More Furious 19.

sho 6y ago
I can't reply to all of this but I will say - I paid to go see the Avengers finale movies - despite seeing none of the preceding films - purely because I felt a kind of social obligation. Like it or not, Avengers was part of the zeitgeist and I just felt compelled to go see both of them. Part of the shared cultural experience or something. The movies were just ludicrous but I don't regret it. snap

golemotron 6y ago

That happens right now with streaming services. They jack up the prices for premium movies.

gregmac 6y ago

> The industry needs to change. Ticket prices for cinema likely pale in comparison to the changes as a result of technology improvements and COVID. In the past two decades we've gone from the biggest home screens being a huge heavy CRT or mediocre projection screen, to large 1080p or 4k LCD and OLED displays. The average TV size was 25" in 2000, now approaching 50". [1] Audio has similar improvements, with not only built-in TV audio being better, but now with soundbars, subwoofers, wireless options, Atmos, etc it's much more common to have decent or excellent sound. What does post-COVID theatre look like? I can't imagine it has zero effect. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/961283/united-states-average-tv-screen-size/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/961283/united-states-ave...

mixmastamyk 6y ago

Equating Marvel with Tranformers shows a lack of understanding. They’re both “fun entertainment” but while one is a cynical money grab the other has a commitment to quality. Quality fun may seem paradoxical to some snobs but it is definitely possible.