10 ms·

What I actually got from the article is that if simply running a movie theater is wildly expensive just to achieve the status quo, so the only way to get enough

What I actually got from the article is that if simply running a movie theater is wildly expensive just to achieve the status quo, so the only way to get enough butts into seats is to really show lowest common denominator movies that will actually turn a profit. The only way to even release the films you'd like to see is to have your tent pole films. And not all movies need the advanced tech to tell a good story. It's been 25 years since Life Is Beautiful came out (my opinion: a masterpiece). I guess theaters can show the movie now if they get a digital transfer of it, but none of the extremely costly upgrades in the theaters will do anything to make the experience of watching that movie really any better. But I want to watch the next Life is Beautiful. I feel like Life is Beautiful is art, and I'm asking to see an art exhibition at an amusement park. I have to think I'm the one with the misaligned expectations.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
That's an absurd conclusion. One film will only get a person to sit in your theater one time. If you're very lucky, they will watch the same film two or three times. After the first few days, how is it any surprise your seats are left empty? Instead of maximizing for audience diversity, theaters need to rebalance content diversity. Get the same butts back into the same seats by showing something else. The largest theater in my state has 20 screens showing 19 films. The last time I saw a film there, the theater was empty, because of course it was! Everyone who wanted to see it either already had, was in the next room over, or was planning to see it at one of the other 5 showings that day; or the next... I bet they could have filled every seat on a Tuesday afternoon if they had just shown something else. It's not like every person in town has seen every movie ever. It's obvious this whole situation is self-inflicted. The studios that own 100 years of content don't want to compete with their own new releases.
- justinator 3y ago
  >Instead of maximizing for audience diversity, theaters need to rebalance content diversity. Get the same butts back into the same seats by showing something else. No one who goes to see the, Avengers: End Game is going to also want to watch, Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie - even on a lark. What I think you're proposing is theaters should have other movies shown that are similar to the popular movies- which OK, but movies don't just come out of thin air. A movie studio can only make a few $250m+ movies a year, so we get the movies we get. You can have lower budget, lower quality movies of the same genre, but they're most likely going to be bad - which isn't going to work out as being profitable for even the movie theaters to show if keeping up to the status quo and the lights are is already a problem. If that's your proposal, then congratulations: you've invented Netflix, which is completely packed with middling options. Difference is that the distribution essentially outsources all the equipment costs to watch the slop to the consumer, which regularly upgrades it. They can also grow far more easily than a movie theater physically building a new screen. Before Netflix there were bargain bin DVDs, which were also profitable, but not what I'd call a bastion of art.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    > movies don't just come out of thin air. A movie studio can only make a few $250m+ movies a year, so we get the movies we get. New ones, yes, but what about old ones? It's not like they are broken or incompatible or something. Movies don't just disappear the day after box office weekend! > No one who goes to see the, Avengers: End Game is going to also want to watch, Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie - even on a lark. So what? Show something else, then. There are thousands of movies out there to choose from, but there are only 19 showing today! Hell, you could pick one at random from IMDB's top 250, and it would probably fill more seats than yet another 4 daily showings of Evil Dead Rise. Hell, one of the 19 they are actually showing is Ponyo. That came out in 2008! I bet it outsells at least 3 of the 4 Super Mario Bros. Movie showtimes. Just because Netflix exists doesn't mean theaters are worthless without new content. What else is there to do around town? A couple weeks ago, my dad was in town for a few hours. We went out for lunch, and tried to think of something else to do together. Our first thought was to go see a movie, but we weren't interested in a single one of the ones that were showing that day. Imagine that: dozens of theater screens all around the city, and nothing to watch. It's absurd how normal that is.
    - justinator 3y ago
      I kind of agree with you - as when I went to the movies the most, it was actually to see weirdo old films at midnight movie events. I don't live in a city that's large enough to have a theater that can survive on that anymore (for a pop 125k city, we have one mainstream theater and no indies) Partly because real estate is through the roof and putting a movie theater in just again: doesn't work on paper. One of the challenges of showing these films is actually just to find a good-enough print to do so! So perhaps one of the hurtles for doing this now is getting that digital transfer to the new all-digital systems. Midnight movies are also going to/have died since working at a movie theater is already a shit job, and you're now asking people to work a shit job at a really really crappy schedule. But I still don't know if it's worth putting out like Ghostbusters on a regular schedule, but it sure was fun to watch it 20+ years after I first saw it at a midnight movie. When (past tense now) Netflix had mail service, they had a good Criterium Collection, which fills the gap for me. I guess $11/month for YA streaming service is an option.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

That's an absurd conclusion. One film will only get a person to sit in your theater one time. If you're very lucky, they will watch the same film two or three times. After the first few days, how is it any surprise your seats are left empty? Instead of maximizing for audience diversity, theaters need to rebalance content diversity. Get the same butts back into the same seats by showing something else. The largest theater in my state has 20 screens showing 19 films. The last time I saw a film there, the theater was empty, because of course it was! Everyone who wanted to see it either already had, was in the next room over, or was planning to see it at one of the other 5 showings that day; or the next... I bet they could have filled every seat on a Tuesday afternoon if they had just shown something else. It's not like every person in town has seen every movie ever. It's obvious this whole situation is self-inflicted. The studios that own 100 years of content don't want to compete with their own new releases.

justinator 3y ago
>Instead of maximizing for audience diversity, theaters need to rebalance content diversity. Get the same butts back into the same seats by showing something else. No one who goes to see the, Avengers: End Game is going to also want to watch, Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie - even on a lark. What I think you're proposing is theaters should have other movies shown that are similar to the popular movies- which OK, but movies don't just come out of thin air. A movie studio can only make a few $250m+ movies a year, so we get the movies we get. You can have lower budget, lower quality movies of the same genre, but they're most likely going to be bad - which isn't going to work out as being profitable for even the movie theaters to show if keeping up to the status quo and the lights are is already a problem. If that's your proposal, then congratulations: you've invented Netflix, which is completely packed with middling options. Difference is that the distribution essentially outsources all the equipment costs to watch the slop to the consumer, which regularly upgrades it. They can also grow far more easily than a movie theater physically building a new screen. Before Netflix there were bargain bin DVDs, which were also profitable, but not what I'd call a bastion of art.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  > movies don't just come out of thin air. A movie studio can only make a few $250m+ movies a year, so we get the movies we get. New ones, yes, but what about old ones? It's not like they are broken or incompatible or something. Movies don't just disappear the day after box office weekend! > No one who goes to see the, Avengers: End Game is going to also want to watch, Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie - even on a lark. So what? Show something else, then. There are thousands of movies out there to choose from, but there are only 19 showing today! Hell, you could pick one at random from IMDB's top 250, and it would probably fill more seats than yet another 4 daily showings of Evil Dead Rise. Hell, one of the 19 they are actually showing is Ponyo. That came out in 2008! I bet it outsells at least 3 of the 4 Super Mario Bros. Movie showtimes. Just because Netflix exists doesn't mean theaters are worthless without new content. What else is there to do around town? A couple weeks ago, my dad was in town for a few hours. We went out for lunch, and tried to think of something else to do together. Our first thought was to go see a movie, but we weren't interested in a single one of the ones that were showing that day. Imagine that: dozens of theater screens all around the city, and nothing to watch. It's absurd how normal that is.
  - justinator 3y ago
    I kind of agree with you - as when I went to the movies the most, it was actually to see weirdo old films at midnight movie events. I don't live in a city that's large enough to have a theater that can survive on that anymore (for a pop 125k city, we have one mainstream theater and no indies) Partly because real estate is through the roof and putting a movie theater in just again: doesn't work on paper. One of the challenges of showing these films is actually just to find a good-enough print to do so! So perhaps one of the hurtles for doing this now is getting that digital transfer to the new all-digital systems. Midnight movies are also going to/have died since working at a movie theater is already a shit job, and you're now asking people to work a shit job at a really really crappy schedule. But I still don't know if it's worth putting out like Ghostbusters on a regular schedule, but it sure was fun to watch it 20+ years after I first saw it at a midnight movie. When (past tense now) Netflix had mail service, they had a good Criterium Collection, which fills the gap for me. I guess $11/month for YA streaming service is an option.