Hell-bent on killing the golden goose

[Frank Cox]

First they had Netflix, and Netflix had "everything". The movie companies decided that they wanted more, didn't want to share the revenue with Netflix. They fragmented the market, frustrated their customers and has led to a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars on streaming. So instead of getting "more", now they have losses.

Then the writers decided that they want their share of "more", now the actors want "more" and just when the system for making movies was finally starting to run again after Covid, everything comes to a screeching halt again. "On Strike! Give Us More!"

And lets not forget about squeezing the theatrical release window so the hundreds-of-millions movie becomes just another postage stamp on the TV screen among hundreds of other postage stamps.

And the chant continues: Give Us More! Give Us More!

Just one golden egg per day.....
GoldenGoose1_HighRes.jpg

[Marcel Birgelen]

I'm afraid you're partly blaming the wrong people...

Keep in mind that most actors and writers aren't the ultra-wealthy Hollywood stars we all know and love to hate. Most actors and writers will never make it that far and will only earn scraps, compared to what the big guys at the top earn.

You know that endless list of end-credits that roll by after almost every movie you show? They all need to earn their part in that production and they surely didn't get the multi-million dollar paychecks the few big Hollywood stars get.

Hollywood is known to squeeze every last bit out of the people that work for them. Simply look at how many special effect houses Hollywood has left in the dust over the last decade or so? I think those people have the right to protest, because they're most often the ones holding the bag. They suffer when stuff goes awry, but won't reap any of the benefits when stuff goes the other way. Eventually, all the big money flows up, to a happy few.

The fact that Hollywood currently is failing isn't because the writers are striking. Have you watched any of those Hollywood movies lately? How much "writing" was actually involved there? Maybe if they would spend more money on the actual writing instead of handing out 20 million dollar paychecks to actors and bonuses to their top tiers, they could afford some better writing and actually make movies people want to watch?

Ah, and imagine they would give every movie the theatrical release it deserves? It could actually earn some money, instead of ending up on a streaming service, where it will actually cost them money...

[Steve Guttag]

Frank, the blame here is all on the studios. The short release windows is all on the studios. No matter what anywhere here or elsewhere says, a theatrical window should be on the order of 6-months and preferably a year. It needs to be far enough away that people do not decide to "wait until it is on streaming." The most profitable place for a movie is in the cinema. When it comes home, it is just another "It's A Wonderful Life," whos job is to either get or retain subscribers? How much does a $300M + movie do towards that and for how long? For sure it cuts into theatrical revenue...there are tons of graphs showing the decline in attendance. There are other factors in play, I don't want it to seem like release windows are the only factor but they play a huge role, particularly as we are now down to weeks on some titles (or day and date).

Writers and actors should be entitled to residuals for streaming and that is going to be the biggest sticking point on these strike(s). Before streaming, there was a model working for most people. With streaming, the studios wan't to not keep a similar revenue model for those that create the movies. I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that almost all of the streaming models are not profitable is not the fault of the writers or actors...that is, again, the studios. Sony (Columbia/Tristar) has that part figured out in that they are not making their own streaming service. As a business model, it makes a lot of sense. You get to rent your content to a party and know exactly how much money you are going to make, right then and there. You also can maintain a bit of scarcity by limiting its time frame. Honestly, I do think that Disney COULD make a go out of Disney +, given their catalog and their primary audience that keeps renewing. However, they have other issues. Plus, one of the keys to their animated features was deliberately limiting availability (typically, they were on a 7-year re-release cycle). If everything is available at all times, what is the value of any one thing? I'd wager that if they put Song of the South on Disney +, they'd get a huge boost in subscribers (more than they would lose). That said, once people got their controversy fix, they probably would unsubscribe. But hey...put that on a 7-year cycle.

Back to the strike(s)...without writers and actors, you don't have movies. As much as people like to blame the writers for the current crop of duds, messaging, and repeat galore...they are going to write for those that are paying them to write. They are delivering what the studios want.

[Jon Dent]

The fracturing of the streaming landscape is definitely the studios' fault, and anybody with half a brain saw this coming years ago. When times were rolling it was easy(er) to have half a dozen streaming subscriptions. Now, not so much.

And the motivation seemed to be less about revenue and more about being able to have absolute control over content. If studios are consistent about anything, it's being control freaks.

[Leo Enticknap]

Ultimately, if Hollywood fails to deliver, savvy exhibitors will look elsewhere for their "content." I don't want to get into the political aspects of this, and I do acknowledge that the movie's success has likely been exaggerated by certain niche media organizations, but there is no denying that the success of Sound of Freedom in comparison to IJ5, and especially when comparing what the two movies cost to make and market, offers an opportunity for an alternative business model at the production end. An independent 11-plex I service is increasingly playing faith-based and Mexican films. The regular Hollywood tentpoles haven't disappeared altogether, but Hollywood (including its associated streamers) has competition, and if these two labor disputes indicate a systemic problem in its current business model, that competition will grow stronger.

[Mike Blakesley]

No matter what anywhere here or elsewhere says, a theatrical window should be on the order of 6-months and preferably a year. It needs to be far enough away that people do not decide to "wait until it is on streaming."

Exactly, but anyone suggesting that to the studios would be met with "We'd have to spend too much on promoting the movie again in 6 months" and also "What about piracy? We'd lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of piracy."

They all seem to be convinced now that a 45 day window is the "sweet spot" for maximizing revenue, but there sure are a lot of high-profile movies that are "underperforming." Why? Because more and more people are realizing that it's not going to be a 90 day wait anymore. Or not even 45 days in some cases. They are slowly eroding the market. What really infuriates me is HOW DO THEY NOT SEE THAT???

NATO did a great job of making the studios realize that a video window is NEEDED. John Fithian's favorite phrase was "a robust theatrical window." Well, now they need to start pushing for a LONGER robust window.

It was long stated that once the day-and-date genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to put it back in. Well, that proved to be untrue, since they've returned to a window after the day-and-date days of Covid. So it should also be possible to lengthen the window out. If a film has a great opening weekend, why not promote that the movie won't be on video for at least 3 months?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Ultimately, if Hollywood fails to deliver, savvy exhibitors will look elsewhere for their "content." I don't want to get into the political aspects of this, and I do acknowledge that the movie's success has likely been exaggerated by certain niche media organizations, but there is no denying that the success of Sound of Freedom in comparison to IJ5, and especially when comparing what the two movies cost to make and market, offers an opportunity for an alternative business model at the production end. An independent 11-plex I service is increasingly playing faith-based and Mexican films. The regular Hollywood tentpoles haven't disappeared altogether, but Hollywood (including its associated streamers) has competition, and if these two labor disputes indicate a systemic problem in its current business model, that competition will grow stronger.

Hollywood filled their own moat when they hardhandedly forced every exhibitor to switch over to digital, come hell or high water. Now, every exhibitor in the world still in business can show high quality, screen filling alternative content, without needing their distribution network. Everybody can send out a bunch of hard drives, heck, it won't even be THAT expensive to start an alternative on-line DCI distribution network anymore.

So, it only takes a bunch of wealthy investors to realize that there is still a lot of money to be made by producing movies for the BIG screen and giving them a proper theatrical release. Thanks to those Hollywood Studios filling that moat, they can now cheaply distribute those movies all over the world. If I'd some Bezos-sized wads of cash lying around, I'd know where I'd put my money.

As for an alternative DCI content distribution network... maybe it's time for someone to start something like that? There is enough clue around here and there is quite a bunch of indie content floating around, some of it utter crap, but also quite a lot of stuff that really deserves some more attention and ways to monitize on that content. Call it the "YouTube of Cinema". Not all of it is feature length, but why not bundle a few short movies together into an evening-filling program? Cinema can be so much more than just showing the latest, lackluster Hollywood crap, we just need to have more guts to innovate and try new stuf, especially since it looks like Hollywood almost has given up on itself...

[Jon Dent]

What really infuriates me is HOW DO THEY NOT SEE THAT???

Umm, cause Hollywood has a perpetually golden, stuck in the past view of how the theatrical experience is perceived. They truly don't understand that a trip to the local half ass AMC with the dim bulb and blown center channel isn't really worth the $150 (or more) the average family will spend, especially when all they need to do is wait a short time for Amazon Prime to offer VOD.

Back when I was a wee lad, you'd wait at least a year for a film to be available. The theaters would get it for six months, then video stores would buy VHS copies for $100 and rent for six months, and then the price would finally drop to consumer levels. Hollywood seemed to be doing just fine back then.

[Jim Cassedy]

On my way home today, I heard a story on the news that a bunch of "A-List" actors & actresses were attending
a special advance OPPENHEIMER preview screening event (in London, I think) when word came down that
SAG was going on strike- - and they all got up & walked out of the movie.

[Mark Ogden]

Here is one of the proposals that the Proudcer's Alliance is trying to force on SAG-AFTRA: that they can, for ONE day's pay, scan your face and body, save the scan as data, and then use your face and likeness again as an AI generated image in ANY project whatsoever for NO extra pay for eternity.

You can imagine why SAG is against that. First it is extras, then it it will be under-fives, then day players, then leads.

I don't see the union's objection to this major sticking point as Give Us More! level greed. It is really trying to maintain what they have now, including the right to one's own likeness and to select where it appears.

[Steve Guttag]

"I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin' bushwackin', hornswagglin' cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter."

[Frank Cox]

Restrictions on that sort of thing are short-term at best and futile over any longer term. Think: King Canute holding back the tide or, perhaps more accurately, laws that required a man to walk in front of a "horseless carriage" carrying a red flag.

If it's cost-effective to do so and if it can be done, it will be done by someone eventually and then it will take over the industry simply because it's more efficient. The luddites didn't manage to hold off the mechanized looms either.

Folks involved in these industries should probably be considering a future career in some other field, along with truck drivers, taxi drivers and radio dj's (though most of those guys are gone already).

EDIT: I should probably clarify that I'm not saying this is a good thing. It probably isn't. But it's unavoidable.

[Steve Guttag]

I don't see it as inconceivable for one to control one's likeness and in perpetuity. That would be relatively easy legislation to get through most governments, if it hasn't already. The implications to not control one's likeness has far reaching implications beyond that of cinema and other image arts. The same with one's voice. In the USA, some of this has been before the judicial system and the person who is the voice can use their voice (think John Fogerty who was sued for sounding and writing music like himself...he won...all of the way up to the Supreme Court.

I think, as AI grows (and remember, it will never be worse than it is now), there will indeed need to be legislation to safeguard one's self from outright impersonation with the intent to have others believe what they are seeing/hearing is you.

[Leo Enticknap]

I believe that trademarking your likeness is a widespread practice, especially in caricature form.

However, I would advocate putting term limits on likeness rights, as already exist in copyright - IMHO, they should die with the individual, following the "you can't libel the dead" principle. If these rights are allowed to exist in perpetuity, then public access to centuries old movies is made even more of a problem than copyright makes it already.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd go further than that. I'd allow the "copyright" to extend to a surviving spouse (but not any offspring). And then what do you do about "estates" where we now have author's works being altered in a manner clearly that would be against the author's wishes...if they were alive.