
How will movies, as we know them, survive the next ten years? - olvy0
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/20/movies/movie-industry-future.html
======
anderber
I never go to the movie theater except for when I'm in a town that has an
Alamo Drafthouse([https://drafthouse.com/](https://drafthouse.com/)).

The experience of good food, drinks and great curated movies is awesome. It's
not just going to the movies, it's an evening out. I hope they continue to do
well, and when they do decide to come to my town, I'll be there very often.

Last movie I saw there was Black Panther. Instead of ads before the movie,
they had a retrospective/documentary on the history of Black Panther in the
comics.

They know movies, and do them right.

~~~
baddox
It's interesting how people are looking for very different experiences at the
cinema. I haven't tried the Alamo Drafthouse in SF yet, but I am generally not
a fan of the hip cinemas. The food and drink is generally a huge distraction
during the movies, and the seating and screen technology is usually not a top
concern.

I really just want the best screen and nice seats, and sad as it may be, it's
really just the big cineplex chains that deliver on that. As far as movie
curation goes, that's certainly a weakness of the big chains, but at least in
SF I have been shocked at the variety of foreign/indie/classic films that show
up at the AMC and Cinemark if you pay attention to showtimes.

~~~
blhack
The drinks at Alamo aren’t distracting like at a dinner theater.

And that isn’t the allure anyway. The people who run Alamo have concentrated
so hard on customer experience that it’s almost embarrassing to the other
theaters.

1) Nobody takes your ticket. Buy it online and walk directly to your seat.

2) no advertisements for liposuction of real estate before the movie starts.
The media playing while you wait is interesting clips that are relevant to the
movie you are about to watch. When I saw “hackers” there, it was a bunch of
hilarious old computer ads from the 90s, music videos of the soundtrack, etc.

3) if you talk, text, or arrive late you get kicked out. People follow this
rule.

4) There might be some alternative revenue stream[1] but it doesn’t feel that
way. It feels like you exchange money for a ticket to a movie.

Honestly Alamo feel less hip, and more like it’s run by cranky old cinema
buffs that want you to shut up and pay attention during the movie. It’s like a
theater for adults.

[1] at other theaters it feels like they don’t care about you buying a ticket,
and the ticket is really just an excuse to sell you extremely expensive
popcorn.

~~~
baddox
Those things are all good ideas, but they honestly don't bother me much.
Perhaps SF is just a fairly savvy/respectful cinema audience, but I've very
rarely had any distracting audience members. The advertisements and preroll
clips are obnoxious, of course, but with reserved seating you can know when to
show up to avoid most of it. And so it really just comes back to the
audio/visual tech and the seating, and the local AMC and Cinemark are far and
away the best in that regard.

~~~
anderber
Just to add to the comments above you, all of the Alamo Drafthouses I've been
to have been the best screen and audio I've been to. I've frequented chains
and independent theaters. But I should point out that I don't live in a city
as big as SF, so it's just one man's opinion. Your AMC and Cinemark might just
be better.

~~~
goatherders
The ones in Austin (where the company is based) are old movie theaters with
old screens that are small. I don't mind, because other parts of the
experience are better, but ALamo Village for example may as well be a theater
from 1984.

~~~
jayvius
The Alamo Village location is an old theater, but the other five (soon to be
six) Austin locations have all been built in the last 10 years or so.

------
m23khan
IF I may assume, majority of the people commenting here are 25+. I am sorry
but movie theaters are not targeting you as primary audience. Why? You are an
adult, you are likely to enjoy somewhere with alcohol/adult-food, in adult-
only setting and somewhere you can get better value for your 'hard earned'
money. Sure, you MAY catch that marvel flick but how many times do you really
anticipate really watching a movie at cinema during the year?

See, with marvel and superhero movies and with chick flicks and raunchy over-
the-top comedies, who are they targeting? You? Give me a break!

They are targeting the youth! The ones 16-22, you know the ones who are mostly
students and have awkward social lives to begin with and the ones who are
likely to religiously follow the movies, later buy the related merchandise and
talk about it for long time in their gatherings.

And for kids below 16, there is a healthy stream of cartoon movies that Pixar,
Disney and the like keep doling out to the masses -- case in point, the next
Toy Story or Pets movie.

Because for that age group (22 and under), cinema is the biggest bang for the
buck AND the cheapest night-out with friends (spend around 10 dollars for
movie ticket followed by cheap pizza slice and can of cold drink before
heading home).

~~~
0xffff2
If this is true, why does virtually every theater I've been to in the last 5
years serve craft beer and cocktails?

~~~
m23khan
did you go to cineplex or iMAX? Those are the ones I am talking about.
Otherwise, I dunno, maybe the locality/jurisdiction/state you live may have
laws allowing for alcohol in cinemas.

~~~
Larrikin
Every theater I've been to in Chicago has had alcohol, often times full bars.
The cheap student targeted ones with the lumpy seats and the fancy off
Michigan Avenue ones as well.

------
CM30
By accepting that event cinema is the only thing the movie industry has left
in its favour right now. As they say in the article itself, many people watch
maybe four films a year, and usually stick to those with the highest profile.

So I think that's really what film as a medium is going to be in future. It's
going to be the place you watch the next Avengers or Star Wars or James Bond
or what not. The place for big picture films with million dollar budgets and
rosters brimming with A listers, and nothing else beneath that.

Or okay, maybe indie cinema may exist on the fringes or something. But fact
is, the industry has probably got to accept that low/medium budget films are
pretty much history, and they've been replaced entirely by streaming services
and sites like YouTube.

Still, it's not all bad news. No, if you want bad news, that's probably the
future of television. That's on the way out right now, is probably going to
completely supplanted by streaming services like Netflix in future, and as a
format has pretty much no advantages over the internet whatsoever. Seriously,
could you imagine trying to selling the experience of watching TV in a society
that already has the internet? You couldn't. It objectively be a worse
solution for most people.

So yeah, I think film is probably gonna be reduced a bunch of blockbuster
films by large studios mixed with some arthouse works, and TV is probably just
going to be completely replaced by streaming services and video sharing
platforms.

~~~
kodz4
The past few years I am finding the Avengers, Star Wars and James Bond movies
hard to sit through. I really don't need 3 hours of over stimulation of all my
senses. There are better things to do in life.

~~~
anm89
Seriously.

I wish that I at least liked the one thing that was what the whole world
apparently decided all at once was the only way to do things.

I'm not even that snobby but I think these films are garbage from the
perspective of what I've liked about movies over the last 60 years.

~~~
derefr
They're also the type of film for which there is the largest difference
between watching them in a theatre and watching them at home.

The reason "movie-theatre movies" are the way they are, is that everything
that's not a "movie-theatre movie", people would rather watch on Netflix.

------
pjmorris
With a title like 'How will movies survive?' and an opening like "There were
350 more movies released theatrically in the United States last year than
there were when “Avatar” came out in 2009.", I think the question has,
unintentionally, been answered. Movies are doing fine. A multitude of options
for reaching and watching films has made room for more kinds of films and
given viewers better access.

About twenty years ago, some co-workers were predicting that home theater
technology would make the public movie theater obsolete. My counter-arguments
at the time were that there would always be room for seeing movies with the
best possible light and sound (better than the best home theaters), and there
would always be room for seeing movies together, not just your friends, but a
large group. I feel like there's something special about sharing the audience
reaction (FTA,"That social aspect of sharing a movie with friends and
strangers and family, that’s such a strong part of our tradition."). There's
certainly something special about seeing a movie with a date who's not yet
comfortable coming to your house. I don't, yet, see a reason to update my
viewpoint. Movies will survive.

~~~
m463
It would be nice to know the numbers.

Are people spending less or more? How are individual movies doing, and movies
in general?

Or: how big is the pie, and how big are the slices?

------
superqd
What won't be obvious, but at some point will tip over and wreak havoc on the
industry, will be AI generated films. You might think of the poor quality
deepfakes when I say that, but we are in the baby stages of something far more
powerful. Imagine if it was possible to autogenerate a script/story, then
autogenerate scenery, music and humans to play out that story. There is AI
work already going on in each of those areas, and as the quality improves, it
will become an obvious next step to put it all together into a single Movie
Machine, of sorts, that can remix existing movies (I think the first wave),
and/or synthesize movies completely from scratch based on various parameters
you provide (e.g., 'a movie like star wars, but with an all female cast', or
'an inspiring movie about dogs', etc).

It is not a matter of "if" this day will come, but simply "when". I think
10-15 years is very possible. We'll have audio software that generates all the
music we could want in a single app, have a single book app that generates any
novel in any genre we want, or creates videos/movies we want from a single
application. How could humans compete with their 1-5 movies a year against a
computer app that could generate 5 movies a minute?

I think it could easily find its way into Youtube first, as there is much less
to lose, and far more to gain, from short videos that capture attention. With
apps used by content creators to create music, or help with VFx, etc, to
eventually generating entirely new videos without requiring the content
creator to do any work, and they will jump at the chance if it gets them more
subscribers.

There will come a day, when there is a really popular film, that was
completely created by a computer. That day will come not in a 100 years, but
in the next decade or two.

~~~
tomjen3
My guess is that it will be everything but the story that is auto generated
for a long time. We already have this human does not exist etc, but creating a
compelling story hasen't happened so far -- the closest thing we have had are
automatic newspaper writers, so maybe documentaries? (Oh God, then it will be
impossible to figure out if a given documentary is true or made up).

------
JKCalhoun
I would love to see theaters with $4 tickets. Not the whole crowded,
"experience" that cineplexes have become, more akin to the art-house theaters
that I remember. Plenty of indie and thoughtful films could make a little
lucre that way. Better than no return at all.

I've sat out of the whole superhero franchise for, what, over a decade or so
now? Can't stand movies-by-the-numbers.

~~~
asark
> I've sat out of the whole superhero franchise for, what, over a decade or so
> now?

I just tried to figure out whether I'd recommend any of the Marvel films on
their own raw merit to someone without interest in the whole series and... no?
Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy 2 if you like sci-fi. Solid theme, better
writing than most, fairly good humor. Maybe the first Iron Man since it stands
alone pretty well and it's not too hard to just stop there, satisfied, having
_basically_ seen what about half the rest of the movies do (god, there are
what, 22 or 23 now?), entirely. Interesting perspective to think about them
from.

If you have any interest in Marvel superheroes _whatsoever_ I'd recommend Into
the Spiderverse as the best _single_ movie they've put out. It's animated, not
part of their live-action "universe".

But yeah, none of it's Hitchcock or Renoir, at all. Or even upper-tier
Spielberg. Well, maybe Into the Spiderverse hits almost that level, at least.

[EDIT] I don't mean to be too harsh to them, overall they're an incredible
achievement in consistency, with only a couple being truly terrible (my
attempt to give Thor 2 a second chance was... not successful, only made it
about 30 minutes) which is pretty nuts, even for by-the-numbers filmmaking. At
least four of the five Avengers entries are maybe the most flawlessly-executed
high fan service in the history of ever (2 was a bit of a misstep—pulled their
punches, I think, though even it's _just_ shy of belonging with the others).
But yeah, "would you recommend any of these to a _film_ fan, not a blockbuster
movies fan, who doesn't want to sit through 50 hours to see the whole thing?".
That's a toughy. Maybe those couple, that's about it.

~~~
meheleventyone
Hands down Thor: Ragnarok. It’s utterly hilarious and I dislike most of the
other Marvel movies.

Into the Spiderverse is absolutely great as well.

~~~
asark
I'd think Ragnarok doesn't work too well unless you've at least got the gist
of several of the other films, like the first two Thors (which... ugh,
especially 2), probably the first two Avengers, Civil War AKA Avengers 2.5
which in turn drags in the first two Captain America movies (you'd think it
should drag in Iron Man 3 too, at least, but they just kinda ignored what
happened in that movie for some reason, so it doesn't). Especially lots of the
jokes, but also much of the character development. Could be wrong about that.

------
beat
My primary theater is a local nonprofit, running carefully curated art-house
stuff, both new and old, with some popular classics putting butts in seats to
help fund the more exotic fare. A couple of weeks ago, I got to see my two
favorite Coen brothers films on big screen that way.

We also have an outstanding second-run within walking distance of our house -
a 1950s-built theater that has been meticulously maintained and never cut up,
so it has comfy seats, great sound, and a gigantic screen. It fills up in the
evenings, mostly neighborhood people walking there, so it has a community
feel.

There are other variations of "art house theater" in town too, all doing
pretty well. They're not the ones suffering. It's the chain theaters at the
mall that are suffering.

Sure, I live in hipster paradise (aka Minneapolis), but you can find similar
facilities at many other cities.

~~~
mywittyname
My friend's wife volunteers at one of these in a ~500 person town that's smack
in the middle of Trump Country. So it isn't just hipsters that have a taste
for nostalgic movies/theaters. Though, I suspect they play more Fist Full of
Dollars stuff and less Rocky Horror Picture Show.

------
ken
Isn't this true of every medium? When's the last time you went to a concert of
a local musician, or a small theatre play, or bought a book that wasn't
already a bestseller?

I work in the arts and I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the
number of people I know who have been to a theatre to see something smaller
than "Hamilton".

The internet is here so everything must scale. If you're not serving a billion
people you're a failure.

------
mti27
The (Russo?) comment about multitasking brought to mind a discussion at work
last month about AI taking over. I asked my younger 20-something co-workers if
they had ever seen the movie "War Games".... One of them watched it and said
he liked the movie, but when discussing specifics ("How about that big steel
door in the side of the mountain!?") it was obvious he missed a lot of details
due to multitasking. Netflix seems pretty smart in catering to this behavior,
in that they removed on site reviews so just scan/skip/previewing a movie is
the easiest way to see if it's good.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I think we should consider whether the American movie theater experience is
really the best way to share video entertainment in a communal fashion.

One anecdote to consider:

Back in 2005 I went to India on business. While there in the city of
Hyderabad, a local contractor that I was working with invited me to visit the
village where his grandparents lived. We went to the village which was several
hours drive from Hyderabad (something like 8 hours or more ... I don't
remember exactly). The village was a completely different environment than
Hyderabad ... very humid, but green and beautiful. And very few people spoke
English there (which is relevant as you'll see).

In that village there was a kind of communal video hall run by a local
entrepreneur. He basically had computer projector (I think it was 720p
resolution ... nothing fancy) connected to a computer and a rudimentary PA
system.

Starting at around 6pm or so, after people in the village had had their
supper, he would start showing films. It was whatever he felt like showing or
whatever people paid him to play.

My host was kind of a big man in the village, since he was from the city, and
much more well to do. He was shown a lot of deference. My host asked the
theater owner to play a movie that I would enjoy ... and the theater owner
decided to play Rambo.

It was very clear that everyone in the village had seen the movie before ...
probably many times before.

People talked with each other during the film. Some of the men were smoking
(which I wasn't a fan of). And it was hot and humid.

But god damn if it wasn't the best action movie screening of my life. Everyone
was commenting and cheering for Stallone ... and nobody knew what the hell
Stallone was saying directly ... but there was kind of a really bad audio
running in Telugu on top of the English audio ... which I can only assume was
a local translation recorded over the original audio.

At one point Stallone has a bow and arrow and shoots a guy with a grenade tip
... and the guy explodes. Not something I'd want my kid to see ... but there
were kids from 5 to 15 cheering and hollering like he'd scored a goal in a
tournament or something.

Really an enjoyable experience.

Maybe we just need smaller, nearer, more locally tailored theaters.

------
samfisher83
The whole title is the following:

How Will the Movies (As We Know Them) Survive the Next 10 Years?

I think big tent pole movies will still be there because they bring in the
audience.

Small budget horror movies will exist because even if they didn't make money
they didn't cost a lot of money. I think the medium priced movies are going to
in trouble.

People complain about why all we get are remakes and superhero movies, it
appears people aren't going to see new IP in 80-130 million dollar range.

~~~
kibwen
_> people aren't going to see new IP in 80-130 million dollar range_

We might as long as it's an adaptation from a medium with a lower barrier to
entry, e.g. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings.

------
galkk
I'm going to cinema to experience the movies the way, I can't experience them
at home: at enormous screen, with great sound. By doing that, I'll select
movies that will utilize that, and it's, naturally, blockbusters with great
special effects.

I don't need to go to cinema to see drama or comedy or anything else, I can
easily do that from the comfort of my own house.

~~~
dawnerd
Somewhat the same as you. Even though I have a very expensive home theater
setup, it just can't compete with the theaters, plus theres the whole not
wanting to wait for a bluray release - which might not even have the same
quality or audio.

Plus A-List is really cheap

------
lubujackson
As home theaters get bigger and better, I feel like movie theaters are going
the wrong direction trying to amp up the experience. Sure, they can ride the
Marvel movies for a while and catch people who need to be there opening
weekend, but the core viewers have been chipped away.

I think there are two ways forward: return to the crummy old theater model of
playing classic movies day and night (why don't any multiplexes have 1 screen
dedicated to this?) Curation is key as well as choice. It would be bice when
there are 8 crappy movies at the theater to see "Die Hard" and "The Godfather"
playing so there is always an option for people that just want a night out.

Which is the second point: movie theaters are one of the last remaining
"things to do" on a normal night that is kid-friendly and group-friendly.
Malls are gone (or profoundly dead) and movie theaters are one of the last
options. Although I feel like the concept of "going out" is itself maybe
dying.

~~~
m23khan
Malls are gone? Serious? Here in Canada they are getting more and more jam
packed with more upscale retailers and ever growing crowds. Heck, check out
Square one mall in Mississauga, ON -- the place is booming for last 10+ years.

Heck, even the crappier (2nd class) malls have been putting on the proverbial
lipstick and targeting hip food retailers thus inviting younger crowds dating
and chilling.

The only malls that seem to die off are the ones who were opened in places
which are not progressing economically (for example low-income neighborhoods)
and they never took off to begin with nor has the neighborhood improved
economically.

~~~
kibwen
The US might be different from Canada here, most of our malls were built back
when the now-graying suburbs were booming, and cities (especially the hip
ones) have tended to fiercely resist them. Now that the younger crowd whom one
would expect to populate the mall are largely fleeing suburbia for cities,
malls in the US tend to be popularly associated with "that sad, empty,
decaying structure back in the hometown that you escaped". Then again, this
could just be my Western-Pennsylvania bias talking.

~~~
m23khan
ah I see, thank you guys...I really didn't know about USA with regards to the
shopping mall situation.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Dying and prospering malls are just a function of the income/wealth gap
increasing. There used to be a much larger population that could afford
discretionary spending at malls, or maybe didn’t have anything better to spend
their money on like on demand media and video games at home. But now, only the
richer areas can afford to pay for very marked up items that can sustain a
mall environment.

You can search for an Apple Store or Nordstrom’s and find the wealthy part of
town wherever the mall they are in is located. Also works with Whole Foods and
a couple other stores.

------
growlist
It's the old chestnuts that firstly the home cinema experience is now pretty
close to being equal in AV terms, and secondly I don't have to deal with a
scuzzy cinema, overpriced tickets and idiots talking/on their phones.

What would draw me back would be a really high class experience with great
films, great food, alcoholic drinks, a beautiful classy interior, and maybe a
bar downstairs for a drink or two after the film. That could overall make a
real lovely evening of the entertainment. Add in a creche/dog sitting to make
it parent friendly. Don't know if it's economically viable though.

~~~
jpindar
That exists. Search for "Dinner Cinema" or "Cinema Pub". They vary in quality
of course.

------
wyoh
> J.J. ABRAMS > > When you have a movie that’s as entertaining, well-made, and
> well-received as “Booksmart” not doing the business it should have [the teen
> comedy underperformed at the box office despite critics’ raves], it really
> makes you realize that the typical Darwinian fight to survive is completely
> lopsided now.

The fact that critics, a very insular group of people, liked the movie doesn't
mean it is good or will please the public at large. Booksmart is a prime
example of the « Get woke, go broke » adage.

~~~
TylerE
By adage, you mean thing the alt-right chants with no basis in fact?

~~~
wyoh
Nothing to do with the alt-right boogeyman. Not every person right of AOC is
alt-right.

------
soulofmischief
None of this really matters; Or rather, this consolidation is only laying the
groundwork for the _real_ change coming.

Once deepfake tech is so good that we can create hyper-realistic performances
at a fraction of the cost (both in terms of effects and salary), the game is
really on.

Over time big studios and fans alike will adjust to the idea that a movie
doesn't _need_ real actors to be good. Maybe it needs real actors to sell the
star system Hollywood has milked since the 20's. But they don't need to be
_present_ for filming, and salaries will adjust accordingly.

Many ticket-selling actors will just become celebrity icons and nothing more.
You thought the lip-syncing phenomenon of celebrity pop acts during the
80's-00's was bad? Just wait until we are having the conversation about
whether an actor can really act or if it's just CG.

In fact, many small studios will survive because of this; like the underground
music scene, they will represent "real" cinema with "real" acting. But this
will come with massive paycuts and lifestyle adjustments. And higher ticket
prices for fans of real cinema.

Underground acting will become what theatre is now: a chance to test your
meddle and artistic credibility, at the cost of fame and fortune.

It's crazy that something as artistically extravagant as movie-making scarcely
lasted a century, compared to other mediums.

 _Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat_ was released in 1896. By 2026 the days of
real cinema will be in rapid decline, and if the progress made in the last two
decades are any indication, by 2046 it will be all but gone from big studio
productions.

~~~
funkymike
Deepfake tech could make a big difference in film editing. Film 15 takes and
it doesn't matter if none of them is exactly what the director wants because
they could make the perfect take out of the others. The top actors will end up
with "natural takes only" clauses in their contracts.

It has pretty big implications for film awards as well. Can an actor get an
award if their performance was altered? What does good directing mean if they
don't have to get the actors to perform as well as it ends up on the screen?

------
temp-dude-87844
Many of the paragraphs are painful to read, and not just because, as Ava put
it: "when I hear people being so rigid and so strict about certain forms and
presentations, it just reminds me of that "Simpsons" cartoon, "Old Man Yells
at Cloud" \-- but also because there's a clear sociocultural gulf between the
kind of semi-fictitious art-seeking, high-culture but low-access-to-
celebrities Sundance fan for whom many of the interviewed appear to target
their works and the kinds of people who actually exist in their potential
audience.

It's as if their target person, whose lack of access to the actual movie
festivals where these films are first shown, is made whole by urban theatres
in culturally-thriving cities, with these theatres serving as a democratizing
force of access, so that the viewer can ponder the topics and messages in the
film and reflect on its lessons for themselves and their communities -- while
they seem oblivious to the fact that technology and online distribution have
democratized access not just for dopamine-cravers whose tastes they seemingly
find lacking, but also for their target groups.

The fact is, in the history of public art and entertainment, there has never
been a time where access to one's idealized audience was easier. Some
filmmakers have demonstrated that they can successfully leverage these new
channels to make their works have more of an impact, than they would have had
otherwise, while others seem to writhe in discomfort as they try to articulate
their displeasure with a world that no longer matches their preferred where of
scarcity was the norm, their societal role was clearly seen as provoking
emotion and critical thought, and they had leverage over the venues that would
dole out the privilege of this access.

------
wayoutthere
What we think of as “movies” (traditional theater distribution) will become
limited to big-budget “tentpole” movies that anchor a larger media franchise
including toys, games and other forms of media. The art film world will
probably survive as a niche, if for no other reason than they have a dedicated
audience — think the same situation with non-digital photography. But art
films will likely trend more provocative as the streaming services are also
funding a lot of high-concept films.

Movie production costs have gotten so low that online streaming is quickly
becoming the predominant model. These low costs allow streaming studio heads
to diversify across genres and take lots of small risks, which ultimately
reduce me the risk to the production company. This increased risk tolerance
allows them to give up almost all creative control to the writers, actors and
directors. A-list actors and directors are willing to give up a lot of money
to get that creative control, so the streaming services still recruit top
talent.

But by far the biggest cost difference is marketing. The only way studios can
justify a $50M marketing budget for a movie is if that marketing also drives
additional commercial activity outside of theatrical attendance (games, merch,
anticipated sequels, etc.) Streaming services can benefit from a constant,
consolidated marketing budget: they can advertise the “new movie of the week”
with a sustained ad buy over time while still retaining the brand advertising
uplift for the entire service. Global distribution is also waaaaay easier for
streaming services.

Ultimate takeaway though is that the window release model is dead. Everyone in
the media industry has known this for years; and I think that we’ll look back
at 2019 as the year that really started to happen for real.

------
potta_coffee
Hopefully they don't survive...current state of Hollywood's output is garbage,
IMO. I'm definitely not the target audience for what they're making. Currently
re-watching all the old Spaghetti Westerns, they're better entertainment than
any recent movie I can think of.

------
andrew_
Disappointed that "cost" only appeared once, and neither "ticket" nor "price"
appeared in the article. Ticket prices for movies at the theater are absurd.
It's an experience that we've lost, and it's been buried under ludicrous
consumer costs.

~~~
ghaff
People have been complaining about movie ticket prices for decades. Average
inflation-adjusted ticket prices are pretty much the same as they were in
1970.

[http://collider.com/movie-ticket-price-inflation-
statistics/](http://collider.com/movie-ticket-price-inflation-statistics/)

~~~
aries1980
$8 would be nice, but it is around £16 in London:
[https://booking.cineworld.co.uk/booking/8110/37196/0974ddb09...](https://booking.cineworld.co.uk/booking/8110/37196/0974ddb0944c11e98d2e3ba71e5bb233/tickets)

~~~
ghaff
And London tickets probably cost a lot more than the US average in 1970 too.
Certainly, in NYC movie tickets have tended to cost quite a bit more than the
suburban theater norm.

------
Bakary
We already spend so much time at home that there might be a pushback with the
next generations where they try to find any excuse to have an event outside
its confines. That said it will probably be augmented VR reality in the street
or something of that nature.

------
bsenftner
This is about how will theaters and the big marketing machine required for
feature film cycles to continue. "Movies", as they call it, is an extensive
economic driver from the marketing to the consumer alone. The streaming
services have no where near the marketing expense of a feature film studio,
and the self produced content from "studios" like Netflix, Amazon, and even
Hulu compares far too well to the "Hollywood studios" for consumers to care. I
wager in 10 years theaters will be in the same place as malls are now - dead,
dying and empty.

------
kennyloginNTH
Alamo Drafthouse type accommodations (alcohol, increased food options) are
already integrated in many old theaters (minus the tables at seating). It only
marginally improves attendance and customer experience.

We seem to be moving away from communal space as a society in USA (failing
malls, theaters, and other community shopping/work/recreation spaces). I'm not
a fan anymore of isolating every human needs/experiences and charging a
service for each (Netflix, Tinder, Facebook, Grubhub, texting).

------
smattiso
The unfortunate consequence of this is that some previously viable types of
movies won't make financial sense in a mostly streaming world. Spending 50
million dollars to produce a comedy only to have it end up on Netflix
competing directly with thousands of low budget comedy TV shows and indie
films isn't going to work. Would a movie like Austin Powers be able to make
money today?

~~~
rhino369
Austin Power's would probably make money today, but it probably wouldn't be
made. Because it's impossible to only make "good movies," especially when you
are working without an established fanbase or franchise, for every Austin
Powers you make, you get 2-3 shitty high budget attempts that flop.

We should also ask ourself if high budget comedies are really necessary. You
could do Austin Powers on a cheap budget and it would probably only reduce the
quality a bit. So maybe it's not the end of the world if the Austin Powers
movies of the future are lower budget and on TV.

------
dcolkitt
One hypothesis, which I think is worth considering, is that maybe short-form
video is just fundamentally more compelling than long-form video media. Think
TikTok vs. 150 minute feature films.

Before modern technology there was major overhead, to both consumer and
producer, when selecting any single piece of media. Producers had to acquire
expensive filming equipment, go through an arduous editing process, and
negotiate distribution. Consumers had to pick out what they were going to
watch next, possibly travel to a venue, or at least jump through a bunch of
hoops to load the next playback media.

It would make sense for the economics to bias towards long-form video media,
even in the face of consumer preference for short-form. It would be absurd to
release a 2 minute feature film to play in theaters. It'd even be absurd to
schedule a 2 minute broadcast television slot. Even a 2 minute video is
pushing it on a streaming service, unless there's a very good algorithm that
the user's happy to delegate auto-playback to. Otherwise the overhead of
picking the next video is on par with the video length itself.

Maybe most of us would prefer just to watch a hundred one minute videos,
instead of a single full-length movie. It's just the technology to make this
happen is just arriving now. Again, I'm not sure if it's true. But if you're
in media, you definitely can't blind yourself to this possibility.

~~~
tines
This sounds like "Maybe most of us would prefer to just think 100 tiny
thoughts, feel 100 tiny emotions rather than one large thought, one complex
emotion", and I think you're probably right, which is probably sad. After all,
isn't the point of movies to spur you to think thoughts and feel feelings you
wouldn't have thought and felt otherwise?

~~~
watwut
Shows that run multiple seasons are among the most popular. I mean shows like
Westworld, Game of Thrones etc - and they have way more complex emotions and
stories then typical theater movie.

Theater movies have usually simple story.

~~~
tines
It seems like we both agree that length implies complexity which was all I was
trying to say, so we're on the same page.

------
Animats
One key problem is mentioned in that article - having to make movies phone-
screen compatible. The user just can't see the details on the tiny screen, no
matter how many pixels the screen has. That limits you to close-up shots and
vague backgrounds.

I'm waiting for the first theatrical release in vertical video.

------
jger15
Good read - Jenkins' commentary especially

Matthew Ball's Netflix series is a great companion:
[https://redef.com/original/netflix-misunderstandings-
pt-1-ne...](https://redef.com/original/netflix-misunderstandings-
pt-1-netflixs-content-budget-is-bigger-than-it-seems)

------
jshaqaw
Event movies for teenagers sell lots of popcorn and candy. Sophisticated indie
movies for adults don't. A huge amount of the profit margin at the theaters is
driven by the concessions counter. This drives which films the big theaters
want to show.

~~~
humanrebar
I bet indie films sell hipster beer, wine, and cocktails, though.

------
seattle_spring
It's a bummer this is happening in a major way internationally too. Wandering
Earth was maybe the worst movie I've seen in 10 years, yet China is falling
over itself saying it's the best "Sci-Fi" ever made. Once Asia only churns out
Michael Bay garbage, it'll all be over.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I thought it was fascinating. It took a lot of the tropes everyone takes for
granted in US blockbusters and China-fied them.

Seriously jarring. When you see a different culture trying to do them, it
makes you realise just how just how unconvincingly stiff and nationalistic
those tropes are.

I don't know if that was deliberate. If it was, it was a much cleverer movie
than it appeared to be.

------
Aardwolf
What's different about the next 10 years than the last 10 years?

------
rjf72
Like they've survived the past 20. Hollywood ticket sales have been declining
sharply since 2002. [1] That's also the year that their inflation adjusted
profits also peaked. Hollywood started making more and more awful movies while
trying to argue that 'this is what people want.' Well, it clearly wasn't,
isn't, and won't ever be. Nonetheless they'll continue down their current
trajectory because they think they're right, as this article emphasizes.

Here's an extremely relevant article about Hollywood. [2] Hollywood has been
one of the earliest adopters of active utilization and commercialization of
"AI technologies". Scripts are actively analyzed using machine learning
systems to try to predict profits. Guess what the AI says? Stuff that made
money in the past will keep making money, and things that didn't won't. And
what do we get out of Hollywood? Repetitive rubbish whose only novelty is
tossing in some identity politics to, in this article's phrasing, offer a
"more representative portrayal of the world in which we live."

More to the point, think about some of the all time greatest movies (as well
as money makers). Here's [3] a list of the top 10 by gross. Tellingly, only 3
of the top 10 were made after 2000. But now consider the other films - Gone
with the Wind, Titanic, Star Wars, The Sound of Music, ET, The Ten
Commandments, etc. These films were all, if not extremely unique, certainly
not derivative rubbish. Now look at the 21st century films and you'll see a
whole bunch of generic superhero movies and sequels. Even if not the product
of AI, it's certainly the product of a mindset that's no different than a
profit oriented regression analysis of the past - the less glorified truism of
what "AI analysis" is.

Maybe the biggest problem with Hollywood is summed by one sentence in the AI
article I referenced: “[AI analysis] takes a lot of the risk out of what I
do.” No, it just makes you comfortable releasing crap that you'd otherwise
recognize as crap. Interestingly the producer that gave that quote ended up
releasing two mega-flops after the article and has not released anything
since. It's not like we've even scratched the surface of possible ideas, but
Hollywood has become uncreative, lazy, and averse to any and all risk - to the
point that they'd rather drown than try something else, so long as it happens
slowly.

[1] - [https://www.the-numbers.com/market/](https://www.the-
numbers.com/market/)

[2] - [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-
eq...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-equation-of-
a-hit-film-script-with-data.html)

[3] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-
grossing_films...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-
grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation)

~~~
mrob
Generic superhero movies make more profit. The IMO hugely underrated Batman v
Superman tried to do something different, but critics hated it (Armond White
being a notable exception[0]), and despite making a profit it was considered a
financial disappointment. But formulaic Marvel movies continue to sell well.
Audiences don't care about art.

[0] [https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-
cul...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-culture-war-
gets-mythic/)

~~~
rjf72
This is based on perception, but it is not supported by the numbers which is
why I made sure to source my comments. Profits are riding on inflation alone.
Only one superhero movie made it into the top 10!

Even on ticket numbers for the big movies, everything is in decline. For
instance Avengers Endgame is, by far, the biggest movie in recent decades. Yet
it sold 3 million tickets fewer than e.g. Titanic. This is made even more
remarkable by population growth. The population since 1998 (when Titanic was
released) has increased by nearly 28%. Even the US population has increased by
more than 19% since then. Titanic sold 94,524,324 tickets. A population
normalized comparable success would move more than 112 million tickets, and
that's using just a 19% growth factor.

Avengers: Endgame, the mega-hit of the 21st century, sold 91,353,296 tickets.
The industry is dying and blaming absolutely everything except their own
decisions which, in turn, is likely contributing to their own demise as they
refuse to accept responsibility for their own declining results. One of the
countless parallels shared between Hollywood and the big budget game industry.

------
sonnyblarney
The newer cinemas are too much like a grotesque plastic theme park. Buzzling
lights, games, fast food.

They are like 'Chucky Cheeze'.

No thanks.

How about nice, quaint theatre? Maybe a coffee shop out front. Popcorn, soda,
candy, beer/wine in respectable containers.

And somewhat reduced price on the entry.

$25/head is just not worth the outing.

~~~
strictnein
Arcades and a myriad of junk food have been in theaters for 35+ years now, so
I'm not sure what you mean by "newer".

------
velcrovan
I thought this was going to be about the fact that movies are stored on hard
drives that are going to fail, and in formats that aren't going to be readable
in ten years.

------
MuffinFlavored
I feel like the majority of good movies came out before 2000. The Dark Knight
is an exception.

[https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?groups=top_250&sort=user_...](https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?groups=top_250&sort=user_rating,desc)

There are very few good movies coming out anymore. When is the next Pulp
Fiction or The Godfather going to come out? It is very hard to get excited for
whatever is being released these days. It's just not even comparable/close.

~~~
dumbfoundded
The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes to mind. The trilogy set a record for
academy awards.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
What notable has come out since then?

~~~
dumbfoundded
Children of Men, The Incredibles, Inception, Toy Story, Lala Land. Just a few
off the top of my head.

I'm not sure what genres you like but I cannot imagine you haven't enjoyed a
significant number of movies over the past two decades.

