Are the streamers runnign out of st(r)eam?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Yeah, YOLO... maybe that's the new way of life I should be adopting.

I always thought the idea of living on this big, round rock floating through space, is to leave it behind a little bit better than when you got it. I've never been the religious type, but I can't suppress the feeling that we've lost "our religion" somewhere along the ride...

[Bobby Henderson]

Just look at birth rates all over the world and you can see there is a massive problem brewing here in many places. Many couples I knew have opted out of children, because it doesn't just scare them to put a child into the world in the current state, it also scares them what it will cost to support those children until they're "self-providing adults"...

I've been pretty alarmed by falling birth rates for some time. It's partly out of my own selfish concern about my own retirement picture around 20 years from now. If current trends in total fertility rates continue the United States will suffer terrible consequences due to severe demographic imbalance. Programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be casualties. The math does not add up for any of those to survive, not in a country with way too many retired age people and not enough working age people sustaining the system with their taxes.

A nation needs a total fertility rate of 2.1 children per female to keep population sustained at a steady level. The US fell below that level on a sustained basis for the first time in the mid 2000's during the Great Recession. US TFR now stands at 1.7 and will likely fall more. European countries and Russia have all had TFR numbers below the replacement level for longer. The problem is even worse in Asian countries. China's one child only policy back-fired pretty badly. They raised the limit to 2 kids per family and then abolished the limits completely. Still most young adults in China are avoiding parenthood; the costs are just too high in relation to wage scales. Birth rates in India have leveled off near replacement level. Africa is the only continent where birth rates are still high. Numerically the majority of the world's youth will be in Africa soon. There may be huge ramifications on that economically and militarily.

In the US the price inflation on health care, day care, education, housing and other trappings of parenthood add up to one hell of a birth control pill. Since the early 1970's all of the net population gains in the US have come via immigration and higher birth rates of immigrants. American born women of all races have had fertility rates hovering at replacement rate levels for over 40 years. And now it's dropping. Plus we're putting more limits on immigration and the immigrants who are arriving are having fewer kids too. The US has all the conditions in place to see birth rates crash down much farther. Overturning Roe v Wade won't make any difference, other than maybe create a business boom in long term contraception methods.

Costs of houses are out of whack in many places in the Western world and it's all just due to speculation. Why put your savings in the bank if you get a negative return on that? Consider the housing business, which, despite the massive crash of 2008, only has gone up ever since...

The housing market in the US is now in an even worse price bubble than it was in the mid 2000's. My area of the country was fairly shielded from the last price bubble. Not this time. Here in Lawton some houses are getting bought up for cash and just sitting empty. People from, um, somewhere are buying up the properties just to hold like baseball trading cards. The prices don't match up with wage scales on what people living in the area can actually afford. Army Soldiers newly stationed at Fort Sill are arriving to find very little housing off Post affordable to rent or buy. The only new houses getting built are big homes for people with deep pockets.

A lot of these 4000 square foot McMansions selling for a fortune today may be very difficult to sell 20 years from now when lots of child-less adults might be more interested in living small. The cost of the utility bills alone on those big houses are insane.

I don't know how politicians around the globe expect future generations to pay for their houses. I guess owning property will not be a thing for the future "middle classes". Renting at exorbitant fees until you die will become the new norm.

So called "law makers" can't think any farther in the future than their next re-election date. Those old farts don't give a rat's ass about what could happen 20 or more years from now. This falling birth rates topic and what it could mean for generational demographic imbalance in the future is not on the radar scopes of any politicians at all.

[Leo Enticknap]

At the risk of getting political, I've often thought that a more effective implementation of term limits than is currently done would be a system whereby someone may run for elected office as many times as (s)he likes, but at least two terms must separate each run. So, using President Biden as an example, he would have to leave office at the end of his current term, but would be eligible to run again in the 2032 election (though he's probably not a very good example, because if he were to do so, he would have exceeded his statistical life expectancy by a significant margin). That would force politicians to think about the long term effects of what they do in office, because voters would be living with them, and able to evaluate them if and when that politician came back for another go

As for reproductive rate decline, your points remind me of a guy I interviewed in 2004. I was working for a small regional film and TV archive in northern England at the time. One day, a lady walked in through the door with a large reel of 16mm: she had no idea what the movie was. It had belonged to her husband, recently passed away, and she was dealing with his possessions in the aftermath of that.

The film turned out to be a documentary, made between 1959 and 1963, about the closure of a coal mine, and specifically the local unemployment problem that caused. Furthermore, it was a lost film (as in, no elements were known to survive in any major public or corporate archive), and, for reasons I won't bore you with, a very important and valuable local history document. I didn't recognize any of the names on the credits (there were only four or five), and scouring the Internet only yielded any information at all about one of them.

It turns out that the director of this pic was a sociology professor who had made the movie as a purely amateur project after becoming interested in the minor political controversy created by the mine closure. After he was done with it, he had nothing to do with films ever again. After seeing to it that the film was properly preserved (in any case, as properly as possible, given that the only surviving element was a release print), I drove across the country to interview him, wanting to gather as much information about the circumstances of its production as possible.

When I got there, he didn't want to talk much about the film at all. What he really did want to talk about was the topic that he had devoted almost his entire life to studying, which was population control: and specifically, his beliefs that overpopulation was the greatest threat facing humanity, and one that was being weaponized by certain nations to overwhelm others. I listened patiently to a 2-3 hour lecture on this thesis, the short version of which is that the Chinese one child policy was the best thing any government has ever done, and that if the west doesn't do it too, we're all doomed.

He died a couple of years after I met him, and so never knew that although the academic establishment had come to regard him as, how should I put it - "non-mainstream" ? - much of the world appears to have taken his beliefs very seriously, as evidenced, as you point out, by ongoing population declines in every major region of the world except Africa.

[Bobby Henderson]

Overpopulation is definitely a very bad thing. It leads to environmental disaster, particularly in poor/developing nations. Health risks spike and life expectancy drops. Overpopulation creates serious political problems too.

Even in the United States too much population in a given area leads to bad outcomes, like the millions of people moving into the desert Southwest, straining the Colorado River system well beyond its capacity to provide drinking water and water for agriculture.

Steep drop-offs in birth rates are not good either. Governments of most developed nations and many large businesses all have pension systems of some sort. Every one of these systems depends on a higher ratio of workers paying into the system versus retirees drawing from it. When Social Security was first put into law there were 42 full time workers for every 1 retired person. Today the ratio of full time workers to retirees is only 2.7 to 1. The ratio was forecast to hit 2:1 by 2050, but with birth rates dropping that 2:1 ratio will be hit some time much sooner. Life expectancy was much lower in 1940; someone drawing Social Security typically did so for less than 5 years. Today it's very common for people to draw Social Security for more than 10 years. It typically takes only 3 years for someone to draw out what they paid into Social Security.

I'm not calling for Social Security to be abolished. Still, it's a system that was designed on the guess that generational demographics would always be a pyramid shape, with far more younger people supporting the bottom of the pyramid and fewer elderly people at the top. Our generational demographics are shifting to an inverse of that. If we're going to have a draw-down in population it needs to happen in a more steady manner, not like that of a pendulum swing from one extreme to another.

There are more problems with generational demographic imbalance than just the threat of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many public/private pension systems going bust. The obscene cost of health care in the United States is greatly influenced by how we fund elder health care. These worsening funding burdens will affect a government's ability to fund other priorities, like infrastructure or national defense. Fewer young adults will lead to manpower shortages in all kinds of sectors, such as the military. The United States already depends heavily on H1B Visa immigrants to staff all kinds of medical, science and engineering jobs.

On the personal level, dropping birth rates and child-less adults can lead to very lonely and grim outcomes. The Japanese coined the term Kodokushi, which translates to "lonely death." So many people there were raised as the only child in their immediate families. With parents gone they might have no living relatives. The island nation now has a phenomenon of elderly people dying alone in their apartments and not being discovered for long periods of time. One man's skeletal remains were discovered over a year after his death, only because his bank account finally hit empty after enough billing auto-drafts.

[Harold Hallikainen]

We've certainly drifted away from the streaming subject! On population, we've generally talked about "the earth's carrying capacity." This seems to be the maximum population that can be supported with bare survival. I suspect there is a lower optimum population that results in the highest standard of living.

On Social Security, Medicare, and pensions, it SEEMS that what SHOULD happen is contributions made by people when they are young support them when they are older. Ideally, contributions to SS would go into the SS trust fund that gains interest (ideally more than inflation) and is then paid out when the person retires. Since people are now living longer than when SS was created, either more has to be contributed each year by workers or the retirement age needs to be increased so the number of years of payout remains the same. SS is slowly increasing the retirement age.

Summarizing, today's contributions should not be paying for today's retirees. But, that's where we are, and it makes shifts in population demographics problematic.

Harold

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah, the size and demographics of one generation versus another and those effects on macro-economics and politics is very big picture stuff compared to the topic of streaming entertainment.

The fortunes of companies like Netflix in the near term are being affected by more immediate problems, like the spike in consumer price inflation. Money is getting tight and consumers are looking for the least painful areas to make budget cuts. Consumers can't catch a break with what geo-political issues like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and war in Ukraine are doing to the supply chain of manufactured goods and commodities like oil. Big businesses have a relentless drive to look for "efficiencies" (ways to eliminate jobs), even if they're dealing with labor shortages currently.

I think these past 3 years of supply chain crisis will spark a new boom of automation and AI-driven tech for both manufacturing and white color type work. It might bring a bunch of manufacturing production back into the US, but with robots doing the work.

Considering all the short-term and long-term economic problems, ones that appear very structural and thus very difficult to solve, I don't see how we can have a market that supports umpteen different streaming services. Netflix is looking at some tough times ahead, but so are all the other services. Some kind of market shake-up and consolidation is bound to happen. The immediate failure of CNN+ could be an outlier for various reasons, but consumer fatigue over the idea of paying for yet another subscription has to be a contributing factor.

[Jon Dent]

Hey, on the plus side this is by far the most level headed conversation on a serious topic I've seen in a while.

Maybe we should be solving all the world's problems instead...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I really hope they end up shutting many of the streamers down, because then the studios will have to rely on theater revenues again . I also don't think that people always want to sit at home and watch a movie when they can go see it on the big screen. It's hard to beat seeing a movie in a real theater. Well, unless it's an AMC. Then watch the movie at home!!!!

[Geoff Jones]

I really hope they end up shutting many of the streamers down, because then the studios will have to rely on theater revenues again.

I would like to see the release window disappear completely. Every title should be available both at home and in theaters, day and date.

I think it's the only thing that would improve the moviegoing experience. Without their vaunted window of exclusivity, cinema chains would have to find other way to draw customers.

This would result in a smaller number of screens, at least in the near term, but they would be much better than they are today and they would be filled with audiences who actually care about presentation.

[Bobby Henderson]

I really hope they end up shutting many of the streamers down, because then the studios will have to rely on theater revenues again.

The problem is big media company bean counters have taken control of the steering wheel. Those guys don't care very much about the revenue one single movie can make by itself. They care much more about a larger library of content and how that library can tie into other media properties, like TV networks. One Marvel movie doesn't get them excited, but a concept like the "Marvel Universe" generates more interest.

The streaming services are all sold on this content portfolio idea. Bean counters like the idea of many millions of customers being on the hook for a monthly subscription. It generates far more steady cash-flow that the radical up-down cycles seen in commercial cinemas -cycles that are very title-dependent.

I would like to see the release window disappear completely. Every title should be available both at home and in theaters, day and date.

100% day and date release will kill the vast majority of cinemas. More than 90% would disappear in a short amount of time. The only ones that would survive an environment like that would be theaters in giant sized cities. And if there are too few of those cinemas left the movie studios will pull the plug on the entire release platform. There won't be enough theaters around to make the effort of doing any theatrical release worth their while. They sure won't spend much money at all promoting such limited theatrical releases.

Far too much of the general public doesn't really give a damn about the difference between seeing a movie in a commercial cinema versus watching it on a TV screen at home, or even watching it on a portable device. They don't care. The ONLY reason why most of these people end up in commercial cinemas is because that is the only way they can see the movie at that time.

If a cheaper, at-home viewing option is available that's what most people are going to choose. People like me who would drive 100 miles to watch a movie in a big theater with Dolby Atmos sound are in a very small minority. Other people are happy to get a "fire stick" thing and watch a boot-legged camcorder version of the show on their phone. Big picture? Surround sound? Atmos? Who cares? That's the attitude of too much of the general public.

Choosing the cheaper option is also partly why physical media sales of movies has largely tanked. The shitty efforts of movie studios in recent years could also be a factor; most retail movie discs are bare bones affairs that offer little advantage over simply streaming the movie. Plus, the vast majority of these movies are worth watching only one single time. My movie disc buying habits died off years ago because of that. I'd rather save the shelf space than keep adding discs that will only gather dust.

[Geoff Jones]

More than 90% would disappear in a short amount of time.

The ONLY reason why most of these people end up in commercial cinemas is because that is the only way they can see the movie at that time.

And yet, screenings of classics, which can be watched at home any time, continue to draw large crowds and outperform new releases across the country, and not just in "giant-sized cities."

[Bobby Henderson]

Geoff, it would not be a good thing for 90% or more of commercial cinemas to go out of business. If that happens the very business model for much of the industry-specific products made for movie theaters will be dissolved. There has to be a market base of at least so many theater screens to make everything from d-cinema projection systems and cinema screens down to a bunch of the stuff installed in theater lobbies. The prices of some products will spike and other products will just disappear. We've already seen this play out with the production of film projectors. If there isn't a large enough customer/install base any product will be End-Of-Life'd.

As I said earlier, the movie studios need at least so many commercial cinemas in service to make any efforts worth it to distribute movies on a theatrical basis. They're sure as hell not going to do any national ad-buys on movies that play on only a dozen or so screens around the country.

And yet, screenings of classics, which can be watched at home any time, continue to draw large crowds and outperform new releases across the country, and not just in "giant-sized cities."

Specifics please.

We have two theaters in the Lawton area (population around 120,000): an AMC 13-plex with an IMAX-branded screen and the old Vaska theater. The Vaska doesn't run full time; it mostly shows first run movies but occasionally shows older movies, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The theater can't survive without the first run content. And even still it's operating on a wing and prayer. I know the guy who owns the building and he's being pretty much charitable with the lease arrangements just to keep the theater alive.

Appreciation of classic movies on the big screen is very much a big city phenomenon. A cinema needs enough of an artsy-fartsy customer base to draw upon for those kinds of shows to work. The situation might be do-able in Denver or even Oklahoma City. Theaters in smaller cities or towns will go broke trying to show such content exclusively.

[Geoff Jones]

Specifics please.

Here's a comparison from late last year of Carrie (1976) and Free guy in OKC, a city known for its artsy-fartsy population.

Here's another: Tonight, in the bustling metropolis of Casper, Wyoming (population 60k), at the Studio City @ Mesa + ARQ, the ~7pm showings of 8 different new releases (Bad Guys, Northman, Massive Talent, Fantastic Beasts, Father Stu, Ambulance, Morbius, & Lost City) have currently sold only 4 tickets, in total.

The ~7pm showing of Pride and Prejudice (2008) has also sold 4 tickets. Granted, those numbers will likely change as the 7pm hour draws closer, but there will likely be showtimes of new releases that sit completely empty.

Both of those examples are obviously a little thin. When classics with broader appeal than Carrie or P&P are shown, they do much better. But even those two titles show(ed) better performance than new releases, despite the fact that anyone can watch them at home whenever they want.


You are currently driving 100 miles to see movies because the theaters nearby don't provide a quality presentation. How long will that last? Why should that 100-mile-away theater bother to maintain its presentation if it has a (short-term) monopoly on its content?

Meanwhile, over at the AVS forum, there are threads about 4k projectors with thousands of posts and millions of views because an awful lot of people do care about presentation. They just aren't the ones going to the cinemas any more, by and large.

Something has to change.



Edit to add: Oh - I missed this:

Theaters in smaller cities or towns will go broke trying to show such content exclusively.

I'm not suggesting that theaters should show classics exclusively. They should show both.

I'm suggesting that theaters can and should draw customers by providing outstanding experiences, rather than rely on a short term content monopoly.

[Harold Hallikainen]

Also, putting content on streaming early apparently makes it easier for pirate copies to be made and distributed early.

I really wonder how the economics work out. Does an exclusive theatrical window increase or decrease the value of the content when it streams. What is the total revenue to the studio from theaters and independent streamers (not owned by studios) under various release window conditions? As others have mentioned previously, studios MAY reserve the theatrical window for their "blockbuster" movies and go direct to streaming (or a combination of streaming and theatrical) for their less salable movies. Movies with no theatrical window is today's "direct to DVD" movie.

[Bobby Henderson]

Here's a comparison from late last year of Carrie (1976) and Free guy in OKC, a city known for its artsy-fartsy population.

Oklahoma City has a metro population over 1 million people. Norman, home to Oklahoma University, is in the metro. Stillwater, home to OSU, is outside the metro area, but considerably closer than Lawton. There is enough people in that immediate area for repertory shows to draw decent crowds from time to time. Also, the Bricktown 16 theater in that comparison is showing mostly first run content. It's not like they had Carrie playing on the big Cine Capri screen. Another factor: market conditions in cinemas last year were very far from normal. Most theaters were being starved of new content. Things are still not exactly normal; most theaters are still operating with limited hours/shows. Very few cinemas, such as the New Beverly in Los Angeles, can get away with showing repertory content exclusively.

You are currently driving 100 miles to see movies because the theaters nearby don't provide a quality presentation. How long will that last? Why should that 100-mile-away theater bother to maintain its presentation if it has a (short-term) monopoly on its content?

I don't drive out of town, such as up to Oklahoma City, every time I see a movie in a theater. Most of the time I settle for watching shows at our local AMC theater, which isn't all that often. It has been at least a year plus a few months since I've watched a movie in Oklahoma City.

Meanwhile, over at the AVS forum, there are threads about 4k projectors with thousands of posts and millions of views because an awful lot of people do care about presentation. They just aren't the ones going to the cinemas any more, by and large.

Forums like AVS, Home Theater Forum or even this forum cater to a niche audience. But even some technically astute home theater fans are deliberately not supporting commercial cinemas at all; they think their home setups are better.

Non-expert movie goers don't think it is anything special to watch a movie in a commercial cinema; if there is a cheaper option available they'll choose that. Even the movie distributors have admitted to this via their own actions. If they really thought day and date releasing was going to make them so much more money why didn't they use the excuse of this pandemic to lean into it all the way? Warner Bros did day and date releasing for a while (via HBO Max), but then backed off of it.

I agree things need to change in the commercial movie theater industry. But day and date release patterns on a permanent basis will only make matters much worse for cinemas. Most theaters would close. That would radically shrink the market for all cinema-related products. Items that don't disappear will spike in price due to the items needing to be produced in much lower quantities. That would put even more downward pressure on show quality (not to mention wage scales for theater personnel).

The entire paradigm of the theatrical release platform really hinges on there being at least so many cinema screens in service. No one is going to see new lines of d-cinema projectors or even replacement lamps for them being made if the US goes from 40,000+ screens down to only a few hundred. Even with tens of thousands of screens it's difficult for computer chip makers to be profitable making specialty components for use only in commercial cinemas.

As others have mentioned previously, studios MAY reserve the theatrical window for their "blockbuster" movies and go direct to streaming (or a combination of streaming and theatrical) for their less salable movies.

This is already happening, but in a different way. Far more "grown up" movies and comedies are being produced solely for streaming services, bypassing theaters entirely. Cinema screens are being dominated more by super hero movies and other kinds of spectacles that can be marketed globally.