Movie studios pulling their movies too?

[Geoff Jones]

The sad fact is if those cinemas put a movie already available to stream on TV into their biggest houses they would be playing the movie to mostly empty seats.

You're probably right.

Here's something else that's true: Their biggest houses are playing to mostly empty seats much of the time anyway. The biggest houses of every single location for every single chain are all showing the current new release. They tend to be full-ish on opening weekends, but then for two and a half weeks (sometimes three and a half), they are all but vacant. There are exceptions, sure, but that's excactly what they are: exceptions.

Some of us do care about seeing movies on big screens. We care about image and sound quality and will drive out of our way to visit a location offering better presentation quality. But we're in the minority. Most people are only going to look at what something costs.

I hear you and I understand your point. Most people aren't very discerning. But I'm absolutely positive that this happens: Mr. and Mrs. Not-Very-Discerning (who used to love going out to the movies) decide every once in a while to go see a movie. They choose the closest location and the most convenient showtime. They end up in a shitty little auditorium without a single whisper of "grandeur." They aren't discerning enough to realize what exactly made it shitty, but they do not come away impressed. They do not come away feeling like "wow, that was awesome, we should do that again." Instead, they think to themselves (probably only subconsiously), that really wasn't worth it compared to just waiting and watching at home, where at least they won't have to sit through 30 minutes of trailers and listen to some stupid asshole talking on his phone for half the movie.

Well then stay out of the chains, if you know they're so bad. Aren't there any locally-owned, cared-about theaters in your vicinity?

In the Metro Denver area, we have:

• A bunch of Regals and AMCs, which are absolutely terrible.
• Four Landmarks, which, owing to their arthouse roots, have never really been know for delivering an impressive presentation.
• Three Cinemarks. I've only been to one of these, but its small constant-width screens didn't impress me. There are enough presetation complains in Google reviews for me to not bother with the other two, which are far away.
• Three Alamo Drafthouses. These have one or two decent auditoriums that are always booked with the exact same blockbuster and a bunch of embarassingly small screens.
• One Metrolux. I looked into this theater a few months back when I was desperately trying to find a theater showing a "mid-level" release on a decent-sized screen. I saw multiple reviews complaining about torn screens. They were knowingly projecting movies onto torn screens.
• Two Harkins. This is the only chain in town that seems to care about quality, and my main go-to location. But their large screens are always booked with the current big release. If I want to see anything else, I've got to weigh the one-hour round-trip drive against a screen that really isn't that impressive.
• There is a nice indie chain in Wyoming called WyoMovies with 7 locations. In the past few years, I made the 3-hour round trip drive to see Jaws and the LotR: EE up there, but 99% of the time, their big screens are booked with the exact same title playing at the Harkins that's only an hour round-trip.

I guess we have to keep in mind that both you and Joe R. live in Colorado, which (apparently, from many posts in the past by him and others) is home to the absolute worst theaters in the country.

Most of the theaters in the area are AMCs and Regals. Those are the two biggest chains in the country. Most people in the U.S. who see movies in the theater see them at AMCs or Regals. This isn't just a Colorado problem.

Nobody should go to movies there anymore.

Agreed.

[James Wyrembelski]

Most seem happy with the speaker built into their TV screen or the speakers in a sound bar. Home theater equipment sales aren't what they used to be, much like the broader downturn in movie disc sales.

A year or so ago I was in a dead ass panic when my old 5.1 system stopped working on a whim. Luckily it was just a bad update from Samsung and they paid to have it shipped to them and fixed. The panic came from the fact that those systems really don't exist anymore. The ones I remember being available were less than stellar if it was even available. Every place had plenty of those awful soundbars. I can't believe anyone finds those acceptable.



I see a lot of people mention "those people" who talk forever on their phones during a film. Oddly enough I almost never have an issue with people on phones. Most come out into the lobby if it's a call they need to take. However, our biggest problem is overly disruptive children. It's gotten much worse in the last year.

[Bobby Henderson]

Here's something else that's true: Their biggest houses are playing to mostly empty seats much of the time anyway. The biggest houses of every single location for every single chain are all showing the current new release. They tend to be full-ish on opening weekends, but then for two and a half weeks (sometimes three and a half), they are all but vacant. There are exceptions, sure, but that's excactly what they are: exceptions.

I think the ridiculously short release windows are partly to blame for full-ish crowds on opening weekends and mostly empty auditoriums during the week. It has never been easier to skip a movie's theatrical release than it is now.

I'm guilty of skipping the theatrical release of many recent movies, choosing to wait for the streaming option. Funny thing: I've never gotten around to watching most of those movies at all. There's very little to remind me those movies exist unless I launch a streaming app and manage to see it randomly mentioned in one of the rows of suggestions.

Granted, cinemas have always been more busy on the weekends. But I've seen plenty of movies on week nights in the past and saw at least dozens of people in the theater (unless the movie I chose to see was some "artsy-fartsy" show not popular with mainstream audiences). On weeknights these days you're more likely to encounter a nearly empty auditorium for an evening weeknight show.

In the 1990's and earlier, I'd pay attention to details like if a movie was shot in anamorphic 'scope. I seriously hated watching panned-and-scanned movies on 4:3 TV sets. I had to see the movie in a theater if I wanted to see the whole image. Today the situation is totally different. Nearly everyone has a rectangle-shaped HDTV display. Scope movies are shown on those things with mild letter-box bars. It's not like the early days of DVD where a 'scope image was severely letter-boxed to fit a 4:3 image. Back then there were separate retail SKUs of movies in "full screen" and "wide screen" format. Today we have TV shows that are shot anamorphic and presented in letter-boxed 'scope format. It's kind of absurd. Very few people mind the black bars on TV screens anymore. Of course plenty of commercial cinemas are showing 'scope movies letter-boxed on their not-masked "wall to wall" HDTV-shaped screens.

I hear you and I understand your point. Most people aren't very discerning. But I'm absolutely positive that this happens: Mr. and Mrs. Not-Very-Discerning (who used to love going out to the movies) decide every once in a while to go see a movie. They choose the closest location and the most convenient showtime. They end up in a shitty little auditorium without a single whisper of "grandeur." They aren't discerning enough to realize what exactly made it shitty, but they do not come away impressed. They do not come away feeling like "wow, that was awesome, we should do that again." Instead, they think to themselves (probably only subconsciously), that really wasn't worth it compared to just waiting and watching at home, where at least they won't have to sit through 30 minutes of trailers and listen to some stupid asshole talking on his phone for half the movie.

Yes, most people do not understand the specifics of what separates a good theater from a bad theater. I think what tends to happen is they'll have a bad experience at one cinema and then think all other cinemas are just as bad.

Commercial cinemas do have an image problem. I know why the concessions prices are high (and do NOT need it explained to me either). It's still a fact the general public gets seriously pissed off paying those prices. In some larger cities customers might get financially ass-raped for parking fees. Cinemas are famous for badly behaved customers. People stick their feet up on the headrests of chairs in the next row (if their dirty shoes can reach them). They won't stop using their fucking phones. They'll bring infants to the show so they can scream-cry. Cinemas are famous for sticky floors, but that's just as much a negative statement about the general public being a bunch of filthy pigs as it is for theaters skipping on maintenance.

I guess it probably has something to do with margins. Some of what cinemas do falls into the same categories as restaurants. But I think most sit-down restaurants have better profit margins and thus more spending money to improve elements of the dining experience and customer service. Movie theaters are stuck in a position of having little control of the product supplied for them to play and putting up with studios taking a majority of the earnings. In a perfect world every cinema would be well-staffed and have top flight sound/projection gear and amenities. In reality every cinema is having to choose what things they can afford and what they can do without.

I see a lot of people mention "those people" who talk forever on their phones during a film. Oddly enough I almost never have an issue with people on phones. Most come out into the lobby if it's a call they need to take. However, our biggest problem is overly disruptive children. It's gotten much worse in the last year.

I rarely see anyone actually take or make voice phone calls in a theater auditorium anymore. The far bigger problem is texting and social media use. A lot of people are just too fucking obsessed with doing both. Every time they pick up their phones it's like turning on a flash light. Most current model phones have big, bright displays. I've even seen people with iPads in the theater (more often than not it's somebody's kid using the iPad).

If I want to see a movie on a premium screen, like the IMAX-branded one here in Lawton or Harkins' Atmos-equipped Cine Carpi (aka Cine1 now) in Oklahoma City I'll probably have to reserve a seat for an opening weekend show. The movie might get moved to another screen the following weekend. An auditorium filled with a few hundred customers is likely to be emitting a constellation of lighted phone displays at any given time. Live concerts are the only events with more phone displays lighting up the audience area. And I don't even understand that shit. Just watch the band play. Why try taping the show (in vertical video style no less)? If seeing a recording is that important buy a freaking professionally produced concert video.

[Frank Cox]

And so it begins...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/b...ke-movies.html

Hollywood studios, scrambling to contend with a strike by unionized actors, have started to remove big-budget movies from the 2023 release calendar, newly imperiling theaters and undoubtedly irritating fans.
Sony Pictures Entertainment on Friday pushed back the release of two major films that had been set to arrive in theaters by the end of the year — the Marvel Comics-based “Kraven the Hunter” and a sequel to “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.”
In addition, Sony is postponing some of its big 2024 releases. “Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse,” is no longer on track for a March premiere, and a new “Karate Kid” will no longer arrive in June.
Until now, the 2023 theatrical release schedule had been left relatively unscathed by the actors’ strike, which started on July 14. But other studios are likely to follow Sony’s lead. Warner Bros. has been debating whether to postpone “Dune: Part Two,” which is supposed to arrive in theaters on Nov. 3. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” a big-budget superhero sequel, and “The Color Purple,” based on the Broadway musical, are among other 2023 holiday-season movies that could be delayed.
It’s not that the studios need striking actors on set — most of these films are finished or nearly so. Rather, they are worried about a lack of stars to promote them.
Until the strike is resolved, SAG-AFTRA, as the actors’ union in known, has barred its members from engaging in any publicity efforts for films and TV shows that have already been completed. That means no red carpet appearances, no social media posts, no interviews on morning news shows and no participation in newspaper or magazine articles.
Searchlight Pictures, the art house studio, on Monday postponed “Poor Things,” a surreal science-fiction romance, citing the publicity ban. The film, which stars Emma Stone as a Frankenstein-like monster, will arrive in December instead of September. Last week, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer moved “Challengers,” a sex-infused sports drama starring Zendaya, to April from September for the same reason.
SAG-AFTRA has said it is willing to remain on strike until next year in pursuit of better pay from streaming services, protections around artificial intelligence and other gains. No talks are scheduled. About 11,500 movie and television writers are also on strike.
The thinning of the fall release schedule is troubling for a movie theater industry that has only recently shown signs of recovering from the pandemic. “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” released last weekend, powered the box office to its highest total since 2019.
Large multiplex chains like AMC and Cinemark have repeatedly said that a steady flow of big movies is crucial to the health of their business. Moviegoing begets moviegoing, with trailers for coming releases that play before audiences one weekend filling seats the next. During the pandemic, the supply of movies dropped sharply, and it has only recently returned to 2019 levels.
With fewer movies to show, some theaters have gone out of business. The United States and Canada lost 2,220 movie screens between 2019 and 2023, according to a report by the Cinema Foundation, a nonprofit arm of the National Association of Theater Owners, a trade organization. (42,063 screens remain.) Cineworld, which owns the Regal chain, has been operating in bankruptcy for nearly a year.
Cineworld said on Friday that it could emerge from Chapter 11 reorganization by the end of the month. Now comes a new threat.
If union walkouts in Hollywood drag into September, theaters will also face a sparse 2024. Multiple movies scheduled for release next year had to stop shooting when actors went on strike. To make the films’ 2024 release dates, cameras need to start rolling again relatively soon.
For now, however, next year’s release calendar is more crowded than ever. Sony’s new 2024 slate includes the Marvel Comics-based “Madame Web” (February), the “Ghostbusters” sequel (March), a “Bad Boys” sequel (June), a “Venom” sequel (July), “Kraven the Hunter” (August) and “Karate Kid” (December).
“Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse,” the animated follow-up to “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which collected $677 million worldwide earlier this year, was not given a new release date.

Interesting fact in here too that I was not previously aware of: "The United States and Canada lost 2,220 movie screens between 2019 and 2023."

[Mike Blakesley]

There's two good things coming out of this:

1. At least the studios won't be releasing all their movies straight to video this time

2. At least "Ghostbusters" sequel is no longer a Christmas release. That was the dumbest idea ever. I get that they maybe don't want to compete with the R-rated horror moviefest that always arrives in October, but Christmas? Summer would be better.

This is a worry though. When the strike(s) started I thought we'd be OK through this year, but I never thought about the stars being needed to promote the movies. (Although a certain share of them might do better if the stars would just STFU.)

[Frank Cox]

I genuinely don't know what I'll do if we run out of movies this fall. When I told my wife what's going on she said, "Maybe we should just close for a while if that happens."

Well, maybe. None of the "old movies" that I played in 2020 really made enough to pay for themselves so there's probably not much point in doing that again....

[Mike Blakesley]

Maybe I'll disconnect the phone, stop getting the mail, and play old Disney classics until some lawyer shows up. (Note to Disney spies who might be reading this: I'm kidding.)

[Marcel Birgelen]

Maybe I'll disconnect the phone, stop getting the mail, and play old Disney classics until some lawyer shows up. (Note to Disney spies who might be reading this: I'm kidding.)

I was seriously considering pulling this copy of Song of the South through some fancy AI upconversion algorithms. If you want the most bang for your bucks, then why not really piss them off.