Thoughts on Cinema
Some thoughts summarised following our episode: The Big Screen vs. Streaming...
Making and showing movies was very hard in 2020 and the market is as volatile as ever. Disney, who own over a third of the US and Canadian market share and are twice as big as anything else have seen their takings drop by 82%. AMC, the largest movie theatre chain in the world had two thirds of its venues open in December but attendance was 92% down. The studios responded by pushing some stuff back and releasing some other stuff like Mulan on demand (which analysts theorise made it lose money). Cinema chains are struggling - ticket prices are going up whilst attendance continues to go down...
Since films like Jaws and Star Wars there has been an ever-widening cinematic gap between low and high culture which arguably did not exist before the blockbuster phenomenon. Pitch-driven, high concept and spectacle films work better at the cinema and so studios increasingly focused on these. Enter the franchise and the banking on a sequel or reboot of a strong intellectual property (especially if made quickly and cheaply at minimal expense) rather than a good film to guarantee bums on seats. Only the big film series can guarantee a safe return of investment in these turbulent times. This has led to studios having to cater to the lowest common denominator, as if making films for people that don't like films in order to meet cinema quotas. It has also lead to a short-sighted strategy of cannibalising stock by not making any new or original content. This doesn't really mesh well with the increasingly cinema-literate fans thanks to the growing popularity of and access to video-essays and behind then scenes features. As such, Hollywood cynicism and studio interference is exponentially becoming more transparent as it becomes ever-more necessary to generate profit and stay afloat.
The best sequels innovatively expand their source universe and raise the stakes while developing their characters and themes in an organic way. In short, do different stuff while continuing the same stuff in the same world. This is the secret to a franchise with longevity that won’t stagnate like Star Wars has. Even a re-tread can be respectful and contain some neat ideas.
The cinema experience is ultimately memorable and unique and currently cannot be replicated at home for those that adore watching the big screen. For many its a full-on, modern-day ritual. It will always have its fans no matter what though they may become a more indie and niche audience and begin attracting true movie fans at higher prices for a more bespoke experience. This could even be a good thing.
Any issues with the price of tickets is somewhat separated from a separate conversation about overall quality of experience. Just because certain fancy viewing experiences are gate-kept, inaccessible or out of a price range doesn't mean that cinema-goers are wasting their time by getting a ticket. There's a fine line between hollow cynicism, waffle or something being a scam and something being too pricey - like whiskey or ale tasting, which are not necessarily intrinsically pretentious but do have an expensive climate. It's the age old thing of bollocks vs. access - you find it with discussions about art, academia, food and it may become the conversation about cinema in a few years.
Just because you can get a TV show "for free" doesn't mean that streaming services aren't worth the cost. If anything it proves the opposite point - that they still have value. Their convenience and value from "cutting out the middle man" means that, in theory, they can fundamentally offer a lot more quantity and quality. The difficulty is having to choose between multiple platforms because, as we are beginning to see, many of these services have to diversify and appeal to niche markets with their specialised repertoire of genres. Netflix for example has its original series and Disney has its own portfolio. Staggered release also means that these platforms have you by the balls, so to speak.
Streaming might allow for greater equity of genres as more art-house films and intellectual properties with smaller budgets can be made for less and instant or direct returns of investment aren't really an issue. You can't fund Stranger Things or The Boys at the cinema after all because they are less likely to be green lit. We could see a rise in small self-contained stories with higher budgets since you don’t have to pay as many people to simply run an app. That said, there also seems to be a lot of mediocre stuff out there and you're more likely to become bored or disinterested if you haven't bought a ticket and have full control of the TV.
While the industry may have changed over the years the etiquette has always remained similar. Even during the silent film era people were worried about noise, attire and couples getting a bit too excited. The same kinds of instructive guidelines would appear before the picture started. People have always been pretty minging... maybe because these places are dark or people feel entitled? Perhaps people are unwilling to recognise cinema as art and that the experience is more enjoyable if taken seriously? We had our own rant in the episode and concluded...
- People should crunch during loud noises if they have to eat.
- Hold it in.
- No cheering unless you're American.
- In the name of god, keep your clothes on.
Perhaps streaming is indicative of a society becoming increasingly insular, isolated to small friendship groups or bubbles and unwilling to suffer the village idiots of its day. People now have the tools and the will to avoid being around other annoying people. The cinema has always been a communal experience, providing loads of social functions. We are increasingly consumptive and very particular about our demands and the market seems to reflect that in this change of services that we have ultimately created. We may have gained value for our money in this exchange but at the sacrifice of no longer romanticising the hallowed experience of the big screen and all the things it brings. But this may not be permanent... things are always changing - as this recent trend shows.
Since films like Jaws and Star Wars there has been an ever-widening cinematic gap between low and high culture which arguably did not exist before the blockbuster phenomenon. Pitch-driven, high concept and spectacle films work better at the cinema and so studios increasingly focused on these. Enter the franchise and the banking on a sequel or reboot of a strong intellectual property (especially if made quickly and cheaply at minimal expense) rather than a good film to guarantee bums on seats. Only the big film series can guarantee a safe return of investment in these turbulent times. This has led to studios having to cater to the lowest common denominator, as if making films for people that don't like films in order to meet cinema quotas. It has also lead to a short-sighted strategy of cannibalising stock by not making any new or original content. This doesn't really mesh well with the increasingly cinema-literate fans thanks to the growing popularity of and access to video-essays and behind then scenes features. As such, Hollywood cynicism and studio interference is exponentially becoming more transparent as it becomes ever-more necessary to generate profit and stay afloat.
The best sequels innovatively expand their source universe and raise the stakes while developing their characters and themes in an organic way. In short, do different stuff while continuing the same stuff in the same world. This is the secret to a franchise with longevity that won’t stagnate like Star Wars has. Even a re-tread can be respectful and contain some neat ideas.
The cinema experience is ultimately memorable and unique and currently cannot be replicated at home for those that adore watching the big screen. For many its a full-on, modern-day ritual. It will always have its fans no matter what though they may become a more indie and niche audience and begin attracting true movie fans at higher prices for a more bespoke experience. This could even be a good thing.
Any issues with the price of tickets is somewhat separated from a separate conversation about overall quality of experience. Just because certain fancy viewing experiences are gate-kept, inaccessible or out of a price range doesn't mean that cinema-goers are wasting their time by getting a ticket. There's a fine line between hollow cynicism, waffle or something being a scam and something being too pricey - like whiskey or ale tasting, which are not necessarily intrinsically pretentious but do have an expensive climate. It's the age old thing of bollocks vs. access - you find it with discussions about art, academia, food and it may become the conversation about cinema in a few years.
Just because you can get a TV show "for free" doesn't mean that streaming services aren't worth the cost. If anything it proves the opposite point - that they still have value. Their convenience and value from "cutting out the middle man" means that, in theory, they can fundamentally offer a lot more quantity and quality. The difficulty is having to choose between multiple platforms because, as we are beginning to see, many of these services have to diversify and appeal to niche markets with their specialised repertoire of genres. Netflix for example has its original series and Disney has its own portfolio. Staggered release also means that these platforms have you by the balls, so to speak.
Streaming might allow for greater equity of genres as more art-house films and intellectual properties with smaller budgets can be made for less and instant or direct returns of investment aren't really an issue. You can't fund Stranger Things or The Boys at the cinema after all because they are less likely to be green lit. We could see a rise in small self-contained stories with higher budgets since you don’t have to pay as many people to simply run an app. That said, there also seems to be a lot of mediocre stuff out there and you're more likely to become bored or disinterested if you haven't bought a ticket and have full control of the TV.
While the industry may have changed over the years the etiquette has always remained similar. Even during the silent film era people were worried about noise, attire and couples getting a bit too excited. The same kinds of instructive guidelines would appear before the picture started. People have always been pretty minging... maybe because these places are dark or people feel entitled? Perhaps people are unwilling to recognise cinema as art and that the experience is more enjoyable if taken seriously? We had our own rant in the episode and concluded...
- People should crunch during loud noises if they have to eat.
- Hold it in.
- No cheering unless you're American.
- In the name of god, keep your clothes on.
Perhaps streaming is indicative of a society becoming increasingly insular, isolated to small friendship groups or bubbles and unwilling to suffer the village idiots of its day. People now have the tools and the will to avoid being around other annoying people. The cinema has always been a communal experience, providing loads of social functions. We are increasingly consumptive and very particular about our demands and the market seems to reflect that in this change of services that we have ultimately created. We may have gained value for our money in this exchange but at the sacrifice of no longer romanticising the hallowed experience of the big screen and all the things it brings. But this may not be permanent... things are always changing - as this recent trend shows.