Disney and Avatar 2

[Mike Blakesley]

My booker told me to be thinking about whether we want to play Avatar 2 in 3-D or not. I told him we wouldn't want to do ALL the shows in 3-D but we could do some. He told me that "Disney will dictate how many shows you have in 3-D, if you choose to play the movie in 3-D."

This brought back all the nightmares of the 3-D era where you HAD to play the movie in 3-D if it was booked that way and everyone (including me) was looking for a way to play a 3-D movie in 2-D, or find some way around the requirements. I'm sure in this case James Cameron is breathing down their necks and wanting as close to 100% 3-D shows as possible.

It all makes me tempted to say "Our 3-D unit is broken" and stay the 2-D course, but there ARE bound to be a lot of people wanting to see this new masterpiece in 3-D.

My question is a two-parter: (1) Who gives a shit, why can't they just let us play the movie the way we want to and our audience prefers? and (2) Has anyone heard about what kind of requirements Disney is going to have for this movie?

And why can't these studio goons realize that a one-screen theater has only one screen and it would help us stay profitable if we could be flexible with it? After all they want US to be flexible with the video windows and everything else.

[James Biggins]

My booker told me to be thinking about whether we want to play Avatar 2 in 3-D or not. I told him we wouldn't want to do ALL the shows in 3-D but we could do some. He told me that "Disney will dictate how many shows you have in 3-D, if you choose to play the movie in 3-D."

This brought back all the nightmares of the 3-D era where you HAD to play the movie in 3-D if it was booked that way and everyone (including me) was looking for a way to play a 3-D movie in 2-D, or find some way around the requirements. I'm sure in this case James Cameron is breathing down their necks and wanting as close to 100% 3-D shows as possible.

It all makes me tempted to say "Our 3-D unit is broken" and stay the 2-D course, but there ARE bound to be a lot of people wanting to see this new masterpiece in 3-D.

My question is a two-parter: (1) Who gives a shit, why can't they just let us play the movie the way we want to and our audience prefers? and (2) Has anyone heard about what kind of requirements Disney is going to have for this movie?

And why can't these studio goons realize that a one-screen theater has only one screen and it would help us stay profitable if we could be flexible with it? After all they want US to be flexible with the video windows and everything else.

Irony?....

[Steve Guttag]

What is nuts about the studios is that their position on things like 3D showings is that they somehow believe that an exhibitor will not act in their own self-interest and run the quantity of shows that best reflects their particular demographics and customer demands. Likewise when it comes to how long a title should play (they are making prints anymore so there isn't a cost factor there) or what screen within a complex they should occupy.

[Frank Cox]

My movie is the best so it should obviously have the biggest and best screen available at all times.

[Harold Hallikainen]

It may also be a way to keep the competition out of the biggest and best screen. Also, minimum run times keeps other competing movies out of the theater.

[Frank Cox]

Do movies really compete, though? People who came to see a romance probably won't stay to watch the new blast-em movie.

[Jon Dent]

It's a system entrenched by thousands of years of 'tradition' in regards to how studios treat theaters. Doesn't make much of any sense now, but Hollywood adapts about as fast and as well as the recording industry.

Plus I'm also sure Cameron is a major factor here. He has the clout to demand it and he still thinks 3D has a real future.

[Mike Blakesley]

It's a system entrenched by thousands of years of 'tradition' in regards to how studios treat theaters.

"Thousands" of years? I'd say more like 127 years, but point taken.

I'd guess it's mostly Disney's not caring enough to adapt to different sized exhibitors (along with there not being enough of us small guys to make a difference by raising a stink) is what's caused the situation.

[Leo Enticknap]

Disney may have an incentive not to be so choosy (this from the New York Post):

Shares in Walt Disney tumbled 13% to the lowest since March 2020 on Wednesday, as ballooning costs at the entertainment giant’s fast-growing streaming division cast a shadow on strong subscriber additions.

Disney+ has attracted millions of subscribers and will launch an ad-supported tier next month, but executives’ promise of profitability next year and forecast for operating results in the next quarter failed to impress.

The company, led by CEO Bob Chapek, missed analysts’ expectations for fiscal fourth-quarter earnings after a $1.5 billion loss in its streaming division.

“Disney’s streaming results are indicative of the tightrope it is walking,” said Fred Boxa, associate director at technology and management consulting firm Arthur D. Little.

Shares closed $86.75 on Wednesday. They have fallen more than 35% this year, compared with a 20% drop in the S&P 500, battered by a cautious outlook for ad sales and recessionary fears.

Finance chief Christine McCarthy, in a call with analysts on Tuesday, said the ad tier was not expected to provide a meaningful impact to results until later in Disney’s financial year.

Subscriber growth in Disney+ was expected to accelerate in the second quarter, she added, a sign analysts said indicated a soft first quarter.

“As the platform aims for profitability, it’s placing some of that burden on its user base in the form of price hikes that could stall growth during a time of economic pinch,” said Mike Proulx, research director at Forrester.

A weaker-than-expected full-year revenue growth forecast also dragged shares. Disney estimated a “high single-digit” percentage growth in revenue in this fiscal compared to the last, while the Street was expecting 12% growth.

At least 13 brokerages cut their price targets on Disney stock.

Credit Suisse analysts, who by far had the steepest cut of $31, said “the streaming investment cycle coinciding with macro weakness is certainly testing Disney investor patience.”

The median price target on the stock is $125, according to Refinitiv data.

If they're pinning their hopes on ad revenue, good luck. Pretty much all the big tech giants have reported falls in ad revenue over the last few months, added to which Netflix is also about to launch a cheap subscription with ads package. In a recession, the advertising budget is one of the first things to go to the guillotine in a typical megacorp. So we appear to be looking at a situation in which more advertising platforms are chasing less advertisers' money.

Bringing this back to the topic, if their streaming revenue is not meeting expectations, Disney execs might find themselves under pressure to be a little more cooperative with theatrical exhibitors, especially for major tentpole movies that have huge P & A budgets anyways. Even if it's just a couple of hundred theaters, the revenue from them playing it in 2-D is better than no revenue at all.

[Steve Guttag]

Revenue from exhibition is genuine revenue directly tied to a title's performance. A problem with streaming is that one is really selling subscriptions to the entire service and not do a particular title though a title can certainly boost subscriptions. I suspect that the vast majority of people will not subscribe to a service just to gain one title or even one franchise.

I think a fallacy to all of the various streamers is the thought that the average family would be okay with subscribing to all ALL of the various streamers. It was one thing when Netflix and Amazon covered just about all of the market (and I guess Hulu is in there somewhere too). it is was just 1-3 entities for a family to subscribe to...but when you add in Paramount/CBS, Disney, Warner Brothers (HBO, for at least the moment)...plus traditional movie content providers like HBO, Showtime...etc. from the Cable services. It is an expensive nightmare.

Sure, Amazon is trying to bring everything under their umbrella but it still becomes an expensive and logistical nightmare and Disney seems to want to get Hulu is an option to its package...but still. It's too many. Plus, not all interfaces are equally-friendly. One could search for days for what one wants to see (a benefit to the cinema is the limited selection...it cuts way down on the decision making process).

Another problem with the streaming services is the instability of what titles one can find (movies or TV series). You might like an XYZ series or franchise and a month later find that it was dropped by the streamer you are signed up for...but it is available on one you are not.

Like it or not, these independent streamers were better off licensing their catalogs to a small number of large streamers. And, like it or not, collapsing the windows of theatrical releases is just money flushed away. Your $200M movie once it is on a streaming platform is no more valuable than the 70 year old catalog title.

[Leo Enticknap]

Agreed completely on the multiple platforms, and there will have to be serious consolidation. I guess that is why Disney's board and stockholders are letting the company sink billions of front end investment into their platform: gambling that after the big shakedown happens, they'll be one of two or three gorillas left standing (Netfux and Scamazon presumably being the others).

However, I'd be surprised if these platforms aren't generating metrics and data as to who watches what, with which to determine the big budget movies are attracting and maintaining subscribers, and those that are not; and using that data, figure out the relative economics of a traditional 90-day window theatrical release, a shorter window, same release day for theatrical and streaming, or no theatrical release at all. From that, you can determine, in relative terms, if a new mega blockbuster every few weeks, or a static catalog of thousands of 70-year old movies, is making you the bigger margin.

[Steve Guttag]

In the end, I do think Disney, due to its inherent family-friendly catalog could withstand the strong and be one of the Gorillas. They certainly do in theatrical! That said, once viewers move beyond young family, I don't think Disney has to lock on them anymore. Does Disney want to JUST be for young families? I didn't think anyone could really butcher the Star Wars franchise (more than Lucas did with Eps 1-3)...but the mouse seems to have done that...ticking off built in fans and causing un-forced controversy with new offerings and, quite frankly diluting the franchise with too many choices.

Which swings back to having a small number of master distributors for all content, least one pigeon holes themselves in to a particular market.

[Carsten Kurz]

We have also received a long letter with AVATAR booking obligations from Disney. Me and quite a few colleagues I spoke to have opted out. We'll see wether we can show it mid-end January. We can not afford not showing any family or kids movies over Christmas, which an Avatar booking would not let us to.

[Mike Blakesley]

I'm a tad bit worried that they'll pursue an "all or nothing" with regard to 3-D and Avatar 2. If that's the case, we'll probably go "all-2-D" because I don't want to lose a big chunk of my audience by playing it 100% 3-D, which almost no one is clamoring for anyway. I would like the option to do maybe 2 or 3 shows per week in 3-D and to have those shows on nights I pick. I'd probably pick Friday, Monday and Wednesday, or something like that.

If they won't give us the 2-D only version because we have 3-D capability, then I guess we'll play it in January sometime, maybe, unless it turns into a big turd, in which case maybe we'll bring back Top Gun Maverick again.

I've also started hearing that there is "controversial content" in the upcoming "Strange World," not sure what that means, but I'm sure it's something that'll get people fired up. I wish they would just make movies and stop with the 'virtue signaling' and 'messaging.'

[Leo Enticknap]

Amen, Brother. Without wanting to get into a political discussion, the big takeaway from last week for me is that the country is split pretty much 50/50 in terms of which party they supported. So if you make a movie that advances a politically or ideologically polarized message, you immediately deny yourself half your potential customer base. If you're Michael Moore or Dinesh d'Souza making arthouse documentaries for a minority audience, that doesn't really matter. But if you're making mainstream entertainment, it's a problem; and if I were running a theater, then unless it's in a city or area in which the population trends very strongly in one political direction, I would avoid trying to play any such movies.