On the year, domestic box office is down 6.2 percent. The sky is falling
September 4, 2017 5:52 PM Subscribe

A week ago, in the face of Hurricane Harvey, a “fight of the century,” and the conclusion of the monoculture’s last true symbol, the box office turned in its worst performance since September
posted by the man of twists and turns (175 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite

Adjusted for domestic inflation, Alien: Covenant is the least successful movie in the canon

Deserved.

I don't know, it's been kind of a flat year for movies, has anything really failed that wasn't at least part way deserving of it? The one thing I can think of is Spider-Man failing to soar, and that's more a matter of not meeting expectations than outright bombing.

Oh, and Baby Driver did alright, so yay that.
posted by Artw at 5:59 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

For a movie that exists in a middle ground Hollywood hasn’t been able to reconcile of late, Logan Lucky suffered a fate similar to many other recent Soderbergh projects. It is neither forgettable, nor essential. The market for a movie like that is unclear.

This I find more troubling, but it's not a new problem.
posted by Artw at 6:00 PM on September 4, 2017 [2 favorites]

Dry weather has meant our local theatre had a hard time getting people to come indoors this summer, they're offering half-price tickets this week. Anecdotally I saw a bunch of movies this summer (Alien Covenant, Valerian, Dunkirk, Atomic Blonde) mostly following directors I like, but also because I had a few weeks with no kid in the house. Wish I could have caught Baby Driver when it came through town.
posted by furtive at 6:02 PM on September 4, 2017

By the end of June, after Transformers: The Last Knight and The Mummy, movies were imperiled once again.

Ya don't say.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:11 PM on September 4, 2017 [11 favorites]

personal shopper and your name were the only standouts to me in '17. and i like going to a theatre for a film - it's a pretty easy sell.

wind river is good-not-great.
posted by j_curiouser at 6:12 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

Incoming 0%er

Have we had any early Oscar predictions yet this year? I'll be rooting hard for Get Out.
posted by Artw at 6:21 PM on September 4, 2017 [6 favorites]

They could try making movies people like for a change. Movies that people like are still doing well. This is an industry that's deliberately sinking all their money into trolling everyone and then crying when it turns out people aren't much in the mood to be trolled and pay $20 for the privilege.

Most of this summer’s fiascoes were made in bad faith, particularly the fifth installments of the Pirates of the Caribbean series and Michael Bay’s Transformers movies, two movies American audiences didn’t much want that were only bolstered by international ticket sales. (Notably, overseas box office is up this year, by more than 3 percent.) To commit to making movies like this, studios decrease the number of annual productions they’re willing to invest in, pursuing a home run strategy that often has disastrous consequences.
posted by bleep at 6:31 PM on September 4, 2017 [31 favorites]

Who'd have guessed that sequels to sequels to sequels to sequels that were unasked for, during a year with news so far defined largely by hate crimes and a hurricane so strong they had to add new a new color to the forecast map, might lead to weak revenues for Hollywood

Pity the poor studio executives — we must ask ourselves, what can we do to comfort them in their time of need?
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:34 PM on September 4, 2017 [36 favorites]

Maybe the industry that greenlit the Emoji Movie kinda earned their market failure?
posted by mhoye at 6:37 PM on September 4, 2017 [128 favorites]

There's probably a cocaine drought at the moment too what with The Mooch and all.
posted by Artw at 6:37 PM on September 4, 2017 [6 favorites]

Maybe the industry that greenlit the Emoji Movie kinda earned their market failure?
posted by mhoye at 10:37 on September 5

The Emoji Movie is the Moonraker of our times
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:38 PM on September 4, 2017 [5 favorites]

Did it fail? It is certainly hated, but it's been bobbing up and down in the charts quite well, despite all the fretting about Rotten Tomatoes.
posted by Artw at 6:38 PM on September 4, 2017

...it's been bobbing up and down in the charts quite well...

That probably speaks to the merits of the competition rather than the quality of the Emoji Movie.
posted by TedW at 6:55 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

HBO, Netflix and Amazon have shown that people want high quality TV series and movies and not Hollywood's garbage. Frankly I can't wait for Hollywood to completely implode and be replaced by something that's not ruled by fear and short-term greed.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 7:00 PM on September 4, 2017 [9 favorites]

Given Netflix's debt levels I wouldn't be so sure of the sustainability of that model.
posted by Artw at 7:01 PM on September 4, 2017 [10 favorites]

They need to figure out a model that lets them make, market and exhibit movies to niche audiences. They've been chasing the lowest common denominator for so long, and now that they're there there's nowhere to go. Innovation is extinct in factory movies.

You'd think with the amount of data available on audiences and viewing patterns that a studio could make 15 $10m movies instead of one $150m movie and get better returns percentage-wise and a longer tail on most of them. Plus you'd see a lot more new talent and probably better representation in all phases as well. Like a movie mutual fund, instead of a single stock.

But the only thing Hollywood does worse than trying to figure out what will sell is figuring out why a movie doesn't do well (if there's a woman involved in a key position for example, they're likely to think that's the reason rather than realizing the story is crap) so I don't hold out much hope.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 7:11 PM on September 4, 2017 [17 favorites]

I dunno. Movies as of late just aren't compelling. I think its because they focus too much on action and dialog that translates easily (i.e. non-existant is the cheapest). But, maybe that's just my impression.

I like TV series because that's where actual adventure and character seems to have gone.

All of that being said - I'll stand on my head in a 12" rain for a non-lucas Star Wars flick.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:12 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

Maybe they should try a few dozen more comic book movies.
posted by TrialByMedia at 7:13 PM on September 4, 2017 [43 favorites]

Movies are shitty and overpriced. TV is excellent and free to pretty reasonably priced. How is this more complicated?
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:18 PM on September 4, 2017 [18 favorites]

I went to five movies this summer and at all but one of them I had the misfortune to sit near people who talked though the movie, texted, laughed like Beavis and Butthead throughout movies that were not comedies or some combination of all of the above. The Beavis and Butthead reference obviously outs me as an Old, and therefore not someone Hollywood gives much of a shit about, but my fellow audience members are doing more to keep me out of the theatre than the quality (or lack thereof) of the films these days.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:18 PM on September 4, 2017 [34 favorites]

For a minute there, I thought it said "62 percent."

6.2%? Well, shit- just stop making garbage films. The ones I've seen in the theaters so far this year have been pretty damn good.

Diana Prince vs. the Perfidious Kaiser? Right on!

All the British Actors (Except Gary Oldman) On a Beach in Northern France? Excellent!

Foul-Mouthed Nuns in Medieval Tuscany? Hilarious!

Charlize Theron Beats Up All of East Germany To a Soundtrack Consisting Mostly of Peter Schilling and New Order? I can dig it!

Maybe make fewer films that suck, and I might spread my media dollars around a little more.

OK- Valerian was a disappointment, but that's mainly because Cara Delevingne was upstaged by her own eyebrows in most of the scenes they were in together, and if Dane DeHaan was any more wooden, he'd be a lovely oak armoire in the Arts & Crafts style. Visually, it was absolutely stunning.

And Lucky Logan wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. But if you're looking for Oceans Eleven Meets Talladega Nights to save your box office, there is already a problem.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch the next episodes of The Defenders, Narcos, and American Gods, but that's probably just a coincidence.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:23 PM on September 4, 2017 [29 favorites]

They need to figure out a model that lets them make, market and exhibit movies to niche audiences

I think they did...but they are Netflix.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:28 PM on September 4, 2017 [3 favorites]

I wanted to go see a movie this weekend, to take my daughter out because it's been a while, and my wife was out with friends. There was nothing to see that (a) looked any good, (b) I'd be comfortable taking a 13-year-old to, and (c) that we hadn't already seen. Instead we tried a new Italian place and went to a book store.
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:28 PM on September 4, 2017 [5 favorites]

Wonder Woman was wonderful.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:30 PM on September 4, 2017 [10 favorites]

I suppose it's telling that I'm much more excited that the apparently upcoming announcement of a 4K/HDR Apple TV in a week means a lot more HDR content on the iTunes store (and I'm especially hoping that that includes older movies) than for anything coming to theaters in the foreseeable future.

I'd count Baby Driver if it were playing somewhere nearby, but I suppose I can just wait for it to hit home video and then buy it on iTunes for the same price as a single movie ticket here. ƪ(˘∀˘)ʃ
posted by DoctorFedora at 7:33 PM on September 4, 2017

has anything really failed that wasn't at least part way deserving of it?

Atomic Blonde.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:42 PM on September 4, 2017 [8 favorites]

Aww, bummer.
posted by Artw at 7:48 PM on September 4, 2017

I was just trying to think of what movies that I'd seen in the theater this summer that I'd liked the most and realized that they were Terminator 2 and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
posted by octothorpe at 7:50 PM on September 4, 2017 [2 favorites]

I'm a fan who LOVED Civil War and Ultron and BvS (Don't yell at me.) and even I was tired with GOTG Vol.2 and Spiderman. I enjoy watching all the real schlock and something was off this summer, although they got my money of course.

I liked Atomic Blonde and Dunkirk. Valerian was... well it took me a decade to like Fifth Element, for most of the same reasons I disliked Valerian so I'll get back to it when I'm in my 40s. I saw Transformers, a routine I have with my mom, and we had a great time, but took a nap in the middle.

I think Wonder Woman had a lot of flaws but stood out as being completely different in tone and character. To be honest though the best movie I saw was The Founder. The stakes in that movie a way higher and it had a great style, soundtrack, and main performance.

Weirdly I've seen more movies this summer (Living by the downtown theater!) than ever before. Odd that it was a bad season.
posted by kittensofthenight at 7:57 PM on September 4, 2017

Well no one cares about that but one issue this blockbuster season was that too many "Must See Franchise Installents/side-quels/re-boots" were released that everything kinda blurred together, a montage set to classic hits of the 70s 80s and 90s with intense CGI action. It was hard to get excited about anything.
posted by kittensofthenight at 8:00 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

i guess you could say
*puts on sunglasses*
ragnarok is coming
posted by entropicamericana at 8:00 PM on September 4, 2017 [3 favorites]

I did like the first 2/3s of both Baby Driver and Wonder Woman but both of those fell apart in their respective third acts and just devolved into action cliches, WW slightly more so than than Driver. So many modern films seem to have trouble figuring out how to wrap things up in the last half hour and just do the same kind of boss fight that they all do. John Hamm turning into Jason was kind of silly and the final fight in Wonder Woman was just so boring.
posted by octothorpe at 8:11 PM on September 4, 2017 [8 favorites]

I've pretty much given up on theaters. It's all comic book movies (so many comic book movies), endless editions of big-name "properties", and remakes (often, all at the same time).

And, man...I've enjoyed a few of 'em, but enough already. Hollywood has perfected this unvarying formula for Extruded Entertainment Product, and it all tastes the goddamn same.

Get Out was fantastic. More of that, please. (Which doesn't mean "make more movies like Get Out". It means "take risks; give freedom to writers and directors; do things that haven't been done before".)
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:13 PM on September 4, 2017 [13 favorites]

It'll be fine folks, there's a sequel to Blade Runner coming out next month. That'll certainly save the industry, especially now that that hack Ridley Scott isn't directing.
posted by pwnguin at 8:15 PM on September 4, 2017 [3 favorites]

Is everyone having a shitty year just because of you-know-who and is taking it out on the movies? In no sense did Spider-Man: Homecoming "fail to soar" (unless you expect literally all the Marvel movies to make a billion, which, no); Wonder Woman likewise did fine, and Atomic Blonde made about three times its budget. GotGV2 did fine. This sort of article is all about a bunch of tentpole movies failing to hold the tent up, and Hollywood being all sorts of, well, dramatic about it, woe is us the sky is falling and so forth.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:31 PM on September 4, 2017 [8 favorites]

The thing is, I like going to the movies. I like watching stuff on my projection system at home, but I spend too much time at home, and ever since I was a kid I like actually going to a theater and watching a movie.

There's a 16-plex two blocks from where I live, and there's often nothing at all I want to see playing there. If a smaller/indie/art/foreign film happens to slip through and screens there, it only lasts for a week, and many of its showtimes will be preempted by other events.

When I lived in Seattle there were a couple neighborhoods with more than one art house, so if there were a few things you wanted to see you could do that in one locale. I don;t think that's really the case anymore. In LA, the art houses are spread out all over the place and it's a massive pain in the ass to go all the way across town and try to park during the one week the movie you want to see is screening.

I used to see all sorts of non-mainstream movies in the pre-WWW days, and I am having a hard time remembering how I tracked what was coming up, what I was interested in and where those films were showing. I remember sharing info about stuff like that with like-minded, friends, but I'll be damned if I can remember where the info came from.

tl:dr - I'm old.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 8:35 PM on September 4, 2017 [5 favorites]

Hollywood is over a barrel with their addiction to the foreign box office. The article mentions the risk adversity of the industry, which makes sense if you model everything on the billion dollar jackpot. Even a total failure, like The Mummy, still earned its production budget back through the strength of its foreign box office (83ish domestic, and 320ish foreign). If you think of it more like stock trading, and less like producing art, then high risk high reward seems appealing... But, I'm really happy to see the domestic box office flagging on a lot of these uninspired turds. It definitely seems like the tide is starting to turn, at least a little bit. Maybe it will get to the point where domestics start getting so low on super hero / franchise dreck that they're forced to actually start making real movies again.

Movies are shitty and overpriced. TV is excellent and free to pretty reasonably priced. How is this more complicated?

When an interesting, fun, and original movie comes out, people tend to spend a lot of money to see it. It's true that Netflix and appointment TV have eaten into the domestic box office, but there is a clear indicator that audiences still respond to good movies. So, yeah, it's more complicated than that.

This sort of article is all about a bunch of tentpole movies failing to hold the tent up, and Hollywood being all sorts of, well, dramatic about it, woe is us the sky is falling and so forth.

The article is pretty bland in its claims. In fact it mocks the 'sky is falling' attitude. It basically said that this year is a serious drop in box office returns (which is true), but that these things tend to be cyclical, and if anything it indicates that due to diminishing returns on sure-bets Hollywood might be ponderously turning towards new models: "The New Hollywood of the ’70s begat the blockbuster age begat the indie rebels of the ’90s begat the superhero globalization of this century. This summer in Hollywood—by turns crass and inspiring, confounding and crystal clear—could trigger a new era. But more likely, it’s business as usual. "

Have we had any early Oscar predictions yet this year? I'll be rooting hard for Get Out.

For my movie league this year (which has Oscar bonuses) my picks for most likely to win something are:

The Post - Stephen Spielberg directs a movie about the importance of journalism with Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep. This is whatever Oscar statuettes eat, placed lovingly onto a hook.
Shape of Water - Guillermo del Torro's romantic fantasy about merpeople, which is getting a surprising amount of buzz. This could be a lock for the technicals, but I've also heard it seriously considered for the bigger prizes.
Call me by Your Name - A love story of two Americans spending a summer in Italy. It has the sort of weighty roles, and serious drama that the Oscars tend to like a lot. Really well made and acted too, apparently.
Mudbound - This is a Netflix original, and I'm really interested to see how it does. It's about two black veterans returning from WWII, and dealing with racism in post-war America. This might be the first year that Netflix wins one of the big ones.

A few other options Phantom Thread (Daniel Day Lewis being directed by PTA, and reportedly his final performance), Darkest Hour (Winston Churchill biopic w/ Gary Oldman), and The Florida Project (apparently an amazing supporting role by Willem Dafoe).
posted by codacorolla at 8:51 PM on September 4, 2017 [3 favorites]

Logan Lucky was the hardest i laughed at the movies this year, and i fucking adored Keogh.
posted by PinkMoose at 8:52 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

You'd think with the amount of data available on audiences and viewing patterns that a studio could make 15 $10m movies instead of one $150m movie and get better returns percentage-wise and a longer tail on most of them.

This is exactly the business model of A24, and I think they're great. I certainly haven't liked everything they've put out, but Moonlight, The Lobster, Swiss Army Man, Room, Obvious Child and Under the Skin (all since 2014!) certainly buy them enough credit for some misses in my book.

I'm also surprised that nobody has mentioned The Big Sick. It's earned nearly $50MM on a budget of 5 and for my money is the best film I've seen this year (aside from Get Out perhaps).
posted by Cogito at 8:55 PM on September 4, 2017 [19 favorites]

I've seen a lot of movies this year. I am Not Your Negro and The Big Sick were probably my two favorites. And that right there says a lot about why I'm going to the movies less often - the movies generally suck and insult my intelligence. It's not a big secret.
posted by 1adam12 at 8:56 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

The Big Sick and Get Out killed it for me, and Dunkirk, while not perfect, earned back a lot of points for Nolan. So I dunno, I'm satisfied so far; usually when I make my year end top 10, 7 or 8 of them were released from Sep onwards anyway.
posted by mannequito at 9:04 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

It bums me out to hear so many people complaining about this summer when there have been so many great smaller movies. My favorite that nobody talks about was Landline (from the Obvious Child team) which inspired a lot of 90s nostalgia and also nostalgia for the type of movies that got made in the 90s. Impressively dorky Jenny Slate performance, but the little sister (Abby Quinn) was the true revelation.

I too love the A24 model, and have been paying attention to Neon, a new distributor from the Alamo Drafthouse founder, as they attempt to do the same thing. I really enjoyed Colossal, Ingrid Goes West, and Beach Rats and really thought that Ingrid Goes West would catch on. This line from Jen Yamato's review has really stuck with me: "This is the real “Emoji Movie,” a true horror story for our digital times." And actually, it could describe all three films.

Honestly though how can anyone call this summer's box office a disappointment when A Ghost Story made more than a million dollars? Forget the pie scene, I thought the best special effect of the summer was when Rooney Mara pulled back the sheet to identify Casey Affleck's body, put it back, and then (several interminable minutes later) he rose and the sheet had sprouted a tail and was seamlessly covering his back side. And then I found out it was actually a practical effect!! Hollywood is alive and well.
posted by acidic at 9:26 PM on September 4, 2017 [2 favorites]

The first movie I was really looking forward to was Valerian, which apparently was awful. I didn't have a second movie at all until I learned of the existence of Three BIllboards Outside Ebbings, Missouri (though the whole Seven Psychopaths history makes me somewhat less excited). I'm not really expecting a third movie this year.
posted by chrominance at 9:34 PM on September 4, 2017

You'd think with the amount of data available on audiences and viewing patterns that a studio could make 15 $10m movies instead of one $150m movie and get better returns percentage-wise and a longer tail on most of them.

That's not a bad summary of what Netflix appeared to have in mind when they transitioned away from DVDs-by-mail and towards streaming. They were going to be, from what I can tell, their own movie studio, bootstrapped on DVD subscription fees but then producing content based on their intimate knowledge of their audience.

Two things happened to it, though: (1) the studios turned the screws on them and got them to back away from doing their own content, and were able to do this largely because the legalities of streaming give the advantage to existing content owners rather than to distributors like Netflix (there's no first sale doctrine to fall back on); and (2) they realized that while people want a "cinematic" experience and high production values, people actually seem to like the episodic format of TV shows more than the self-contained "feature", and so that's what they've been producing.

I'm not convinced that Netflix has ever effectively leveraged the knowledge of their audience that they supposedly have as a result of all their DVD-queue / streaming-analytics data. That they seem to have just licensed and released the same comic book adaptation storylines that are being pushed everywhere suggests that their special sauce ain't so special.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:39 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

I have not had a splendid year at the cinema. Get Out was great, and Logan Lucky was (despite the awful but thankfully brief jarring bits from Seth) super-fun and worth seeing a second time to see if it all did tie up.

Dunkirk was absorbing until the problematic last 20 minutes (but not as bad as the ending of Interstellar which got me banned from that cinema for shouting an obscenity to Mr Nolan over the end credits), and Baby Driver went from fun to tediously eye-rollingly silly by the end. Um, struggling a bit now (when did Rogue One come out, as that was good?)

Perhaps tellingly, am noting that the three films I've been most looking forward to in 2017 are:
- The sequel to a 35 year old film.
- The 3D version of a 26 year old film.
- The re-release of a 40 year old film, which is my favorite [previously]
posted by Wordshore at 9:41 PM on September 4, 2017

(Reading back that comment, I just sound like a grumpy old man who is hopelessly wallowing in nostalgia. Perhaps I am.)
posted by Wordshore at 9:53 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

Y'all shoulda seen Valerian, it was great.
posted by Rash at 10:07 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

I'm so tired of being offered the same thing over and over again.

But out of franchise movies, there has even been couple of good ones this year. War for the Planet of the Apes (or, Ape-pocalypse Now), for example, but it's merely breaking even. Wonder Woman, too, of course, was surprisingly good, despite the usual DC rays-and-turds-of-fire-ending. I did not expect DC to deliver in any way, but somehow they pulled it off. Diana becoming a true hero is some great film making.
posted by sapagan at 10:47 PM on September 4, 2017

When television first became big, the film industry countered by making film brighter, wider, louder. "Screw your tiny television," they said, "We have Super-Panorama." And that worked for a time.

Now that people can get most of the entertainment they want on their phone and people don't seem to care as much about screen size (seriously, I watch my coworker's kids watch TV on a tiny iPhone all the time), they're countering with... yet another sequel to a sequel.

At some point the global market for tentpole movies isn't going to recoup the cost of making and marketing them, and then what will Hollywood do when they're out of ideas? Probably add more sequels to the queue.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:51 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

But for a woman-on-woman scene so transparently conceived for the male gaze as to outdo those in Blue is the Warmest Color and The Handmaiden, Atomic Blonde was the most fun I've had at a movie theater since Fury Road. Now, hmmmm...what could these two very different cinematic experiences possibly have in common? Make more of that.

I don't merely mean "make films in which Charlize specifically kicks mucho ass." I mean, if you're going to make action films (and why shouldn't you?) make them with style, with verve, with an awareness of their own stoopidity, with a cast well-stocked with the well-beloved, and with a director who knows how to choreograph a legible, kinetic fight sequence. A call-out to Tarkovsky is a tad pretentious, but you know what? I'll allow it.

About the Alien film...the less said, the better. Neither that recent precedent nor the bits of frankly flat and colorless dialogue in the trailers makes me particularly hopeful for the upcoming Blade Runner. If there's hope at all, it resides not in Scott's involvement but in a script by Hampton Fancher.

I won't comment on films starring animated pieces of shit, IDF apologists or racist caricatures dressed up as...what, giant robots? that take on the outer aspect of everyday objects? Also PS next time think Tom Hardy before James McAvoy. Like years before.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:51 PM on September 4, 2017 [2 favorites]

I really enjoyed Menashe. I really want to see Good Time. Small non-blockbuster films are still exciting and good and take wild risks.
posted by naju at 10:53 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

Valerian was a disappointment, but that's mainly because Cara Delevingne was upstaged by her own eyebrows in most of the scenes they were in together

I thought Delevingne's performance as Laureline was one of the highlights of the movie. It's shameful that in many reviews that she had to be picked apart solely on physical attributes such as her eyebrows. Her blend of aplomb and self-confidence made her a most memorable character in an underrated film.
posted by fairmettle at 11:05 PM on September 4, 2017 [10 favorites]

There are two trailers that excite me for films coming out the rest of the year. The first is Black Panther. The other is Professor Marston and the Wonder Women.

The former makes me part of the problem, I suppose. But the latter? More like this, please.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:06 PM on September 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

The whole "make good movies" thing sounds great, in theory, but it doesn't really work all that well in practice.

For one thing, just look at the top box office draws over the past decade or so, either domestic or worldwide, and you'll see it's largely made up of franchise movies, prequels, sequels or tie-ins to other media usually based on nostaglia and/or animation from popular studios that effectively become franchise like fare. The difference between those box office winners and the losers drawn from the same pool of concepts is minimal. The studios develop films based on concepts and talent, they can't determine "good" in the way the audience believes it can by seeing the finished film, they are making bets on the people they hire people who make the movies sight unseen.

When Hollywood takes risks and goes outside this formulaic method of filmmaking, it often, no, usually, doesn't pay off good movie or no. Audiences aren't looking for good movies in any lasting sense of merit, they're looking for good in the familiar, so the same as they have had before, but just a little bit better than last time. That's not an easy thing to create. Go too far and you alienate the audience or fail to gain their interest or notice in the first place, stick too close to the old and you bore the audience or annoy them with things that are too predictable and familiar. It's in-between those two where you find the mass audience sweet spot, movies that are familiar and don't ask too much of the audience, but alter the tropes just enough to make the movie seem fresh even as it follows the same general patterns.

Making more, cheaper movies isn't a solution since those movies fail at even higher rates so the profits in bulk aren't that impressive even when one might hit the jackpot and rake in 100 million on a 10 million dollar budget.

Netflix has advantages in their productions in part because the money is subscription based, so they know, to some extent, what kinds of budgets they have to work with given how much money they are taking in from subscribers and because they are, right now, purposefully attempting to both subvert the big film studios reliance on theater going and are trying to establish themselves as a dominant force in the entertainment sector worldwide. They are willing to take risks to lure a broader selection of people into subscribing in attempts to kill off rivals. Once they establish themselves as dominant, there is little to prevent them from placing profits back in the center of their model, ditching the experimental niche films and shows. They and their few rivals at that point will recreate the same Hollywood studio dynamic, but on a global scale, where there will be just a handful of content providers controlling what most people see.

There are already serious tensions rising between Netflix and the European filmmaking community for how Netflix is threatening their methods of production and profit, and for what that will mean to national cultural identity. Netflix, along with some of their competitors, are already branching out into making shows and films in other languages as well in hopes of taking business from filmmaking centers around the world. Korean, French, Spanish language shows are being developed and more will be on the way as they focus their need for growth into those areas.

The hope that this downturn in ticket sales is cyclical seems to me to be based on wishful thinking where theater going is somehow felt to be a necessary aspect of life for audiences, when the new media models strongly suggest it isn't. I wouldn't be putting any money into theater companies right now, or into any companies relying on theater going as a model. Hollywood is indeed also facing serious pressures from the overseas markets even aside from streaming services. China isn't proving as open to their products as they'd hoped, with the government pressuring companies within China to reduce investment with/in Hollywood and in audiences not taking to Hollywood products as predictably as they hoped as well.

It's a grim time for the old model of Hollywood success. There could be a cascade effect on theater going in the US if some of the bigger chains can't find reasonable profit, causing theater shutdowns in malls nationwide, which reduces the number of screens available to show movies, reducing the number of movies which will be seen, which further reduces possibility of profit and so on.

Companies are experimenting with a Netflix model ticketing option, where audience members pay a flat rate per month to go to as many movies as they like, but the theater owners aren't happy with that model, and, from my perspective, it seems unlikely to turn the tide. So my guess is that the theater model of movie going is on its last legs as a central part of audience experience, with movies and theaters not going away completely in the near term, but finding themselves in something like a Blockbuster situation within a few years with moviegoing splitting into high spectacle events at fewer theaters and smaller theaters showing whatever is left for the older crowd that still prefers that experience.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm just guessing like everyone else at the moment, including the studio execs.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:40 PM on September 4, 2017 [12 favorites]

Y'all shoulda seen Valerian, it was great.
hmm. maybe if you don't mind a very 1950's sort of approach to women, and a male lead that has all the charisma of an overtired child. Personally I find that sort of thing gets in the way of my enjoyment of a movie.

I thought Delevingne's performance as Laureline was one of the highlights of the movie
seriously. why the hell wasn't the movie called Laureline. oh right, because in the future apparently women are just going to be assistants and subordinates. grumble grumble
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 11:41 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

I saw Dunkirk and it was good and now I can die happy.
posted by tully_monster at 11:44 PM on September 4, 2017 [4 favorites]

The hope that this downturn in ticket sales is cyclical seems to me to be based on wishful thinking where theater going is somehow felt to be a necessary aspect of life for audiences, when the new media models strongly suggest it isn't.

I went to a cinema this summer for literally the first time in years, because I had a friend visiting from overseas who's into it. It's a bit of a mystery to me that cinemas are seemingly hanging on longer than book stores, despite being threatened by similar competitive pressures.
posted by Coventry at 1:05 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Just saw my first film of the year this past weekend, and, contrary to almost all of my other theater experiences of the past several years (especially you, Prometheus in IMAX 3D), it was completely phenomenal. Maybe my favorite film experience since watching Star Wars in 1977 as a very little boy. Dunkirk, in 70mm at the Portland Hollywood.
posted by Auden at 1:27 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

Let's be honest here, about things we don't like to think about, and that's the fact that movie theaters no longer serve a purpose, for the most part. Yes, yes, yes... there is nothing to equate to the sheer wonder you get from the big screen. But factor in everything it takes to go to a movie, the excessive cost of tickets, parking, concession, maybe a babysitter or something off the wall like reserved seating and things start looking pretty grim for 2+ hours of entertainment compared to anything the internet can give you for free or at cost. It easily costs our family over $50 to see a movie opening weekend.

Movie theaters used to serve a communal purpose, but now we can see equal or better content in nearly or better quality at home, for next to nothing. And it's been this way for, what, a dozen years now? But we still count box office over everything else. I worked in theaters for over a decade and video stores until they, mostly, ceased to exist. What is happening now has no equal unless you go all the way back to buggy whip sales. People, at least here in America, just want to watch a thing. Like, now, you know? Just take my money and give me the thing. This artificial environment where we all sit in a box and watch light for a time then go home, as much as I love it, the ritual, the artifice, the doing and the being, the old deco art houses, the curtain and all that, no one cares any more. Just give me the thing.

And we are not long from the day when a single voice in a shareholders meeting pipes up and asks the question, why?

Why are we beholden to the theaters?

With DVD/BLU sales in the gutter why are we not doing day and date on all our titles? Why post a slump in box office when we can just combines B/O with VOD sales/rentals on opening weekend? The optics on even the worst movie will be amplified ten fold under such a system.

Sure, a chorus a voices will rise and scream PIRACY! and denounce the internet as a whole and spit blood at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but in the end and after someone else beats that studio to the punch and proves a viable market strategy can be had, the studios will all abandon the theaters for where the market dictates and the money flows like honey and wine. It's just a matter of who smartens up first.

Day and date is inevitable. The victor will be who figures it out first AND finds a way to make theaters BELIEVE that it is a good thing for everybody.
posted by gideonswann at 1:45 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Movie theaters don't want day and date for obvious reasons, it'll further degrade their receipts and render them irrelevant. Which is fine, there's no reason theaters, in their current form, need to exist. But movie studios don't want day and date or any kind of streaming service to control the market for more complicated reasons, which is they would then be beholden to the most popular streaming services for their product to find mass audience, which inevitably eats into their profits much like services like Expedia cut into hotel profits and cause difficulties for the hotels they rely on to operate, even as they provide benefit as well.

It isn't necessarily a plus for consumers these relationships develop. If one values convenience more than cash, they can be great, but third parties are looking for their own profits and can cause increases in costs to support them. More importantly, perhaps, is how streaming services can potentially effect what gets made and seen as the process almost inevitably leads to fewer services at the top controlling ever greater amounts of product. Right now it seems like there is an almost infinite amount of choices as competition between media companies and providers as to who will become dominant feeds that endless supply of content, but once that subsides, as it must since there is far more content being created than can be supported profitably, there will be a few major players controlling everything on a scale greater than the movie studios today, which may have some chilling implications for culture worldwide if trends continue in the direction they appear to be going.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:29 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

I've been to the movies more recently than in many years. We have a tendency to go to the trippier Marvel movies at the local IMAX in 3d (yer Dr Strange and GotG -type movies), which do benefit from it. Went to see Dunkirk in real 70mm IMAX (at the Science Museum, which has turned into the Trocadero with technological artefacts, though as I've mentioned it was cool to walk out of Dunkirk and pass under an actual Spitfire). There are movies that I've gone to see in the cinema because I wanted to see them sooner, and I hoped that there'd be an amenable audience (that is to say, less chatty, which I hate. The other good reason to mainly go to comic book movies is that they're loud enough to drown the fuckers out). Generally that worked - examples such as Free Fire, Baby Driver, definitely looking forward to The Shape of Water. That said, I'm in London, so firmly in The Rest of the World. Ticket prices in London are eye-wateringly expensive, so I have to be sure I'm going to get enough of a unique experience.

I'm kind of looking forward to things like Logan Lucky to turn up at the (cheaper, repertory) Prince Charles or on Netflix or failing that the back of the seat in front when I'm flying a long way.

The original report is mostly execs who've developed an unrealistic definition of success, isn't it? A lot of the mainstream films will be consistent earners for them for years to come, so even if they break even or just over now, that's an income stream for them in the future.
posted by Grangousier at 2:43 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

The original report is mostly execs who've developed an unrealistic definition of success, isn't it?

It'll likely prove to be unrealistic given their lack of foresight. I mean no one should feel bad for Hollywood studios, it was, afterall, their fear of THE PIRATES! that put them into this position. Had they jumped into streaming their catalogs sooner rather than allowing companies like Netflix to insert themselves between the consumer and their product they might have been better able to deal with these changes. Instead, they're finding themselves caught up in the changes without a clear path forward to their past results.

Given the unlikelihood consumers will want to join too many services and the growth that will surely continue to come from sports and other markets into the streaming sector, there is going to be a limit to how content will be able to make its way to consumers that Hollywood may have cut themselves off from directly. I'm sure they'll try and fight back, like CBS with the new Star Trek series, but they've put themselves in a bad position and allowed new content creators to arise from the providing services which only adds to their woes.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:59 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

I think the world is getting more gay and Hollywood is still making moving for a straight world.

Being transgay sucks for going to movies. Atomic Blonde had two girls hooking up as the only real "on-screen" love interest. Of which half was the internal-screaming-with-massive-envy-absolutely-stunning Charlize Theron. So yeah Hollywood made the big sick but I'm tired of love stories about straight people so it gave me atomic blonde instead and I'll never be as pretty as Charlize Theron I'll just go cry 😭 myself to sleep now.

Oh yeah wonder women was cool why wasn't she the gay.
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:08 AM on September 5, 2017 [8 favorites]

I'm part of the problem -- I think I last went to a movie in a theater maybe a year and a half ago? Or maybe longer? It's not just that the majority of the mainstream movies don't do it for me (I mean, I'm an adult, my interest is limited in part four of a comic book movie that centers on a bunch of stylized "fights"), it's that even a great art house movie means driving across town, hoping to get a decent seat instead of being stuck on the far left with your head turned at an angle, and paying steep ticket and food prices. It's a hard sell compared to the alternatives.

So many modern films seem to have trouble figuring out how to wrap things up in the last half hour and just do the same kind of boss fight that they all do

So much this. There is nothing more boring than a big set piece fight/battle where there is no emotional involvement and no suspense.

(2) they realized that while people want a "cinematic" experience and high production values, people actually seem to like the episodic format of TV shows more than the self-contained "feature", and so that's what they've been producing.

Over the last few years, I've been consistently more impressed with the best of the serialized shows (miniseries, I think is the correct name) than most movies. The production quality is just as good, and they have the space to explore characters and stories. Most aren't that great, but shows like Top of the Lake or Gomorrah beat anything showing at the theater currently.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:41 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

Oh yeah wonder women was cool why wasn't she the gay.

Because she's canonically bi. DC has confirmed it.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 4:42 AM on September 5, 2017 [4 favorites]

Maybe it will get to the point where domestics start getting so low on super hero / franchise dreck that they're forced to actually start making real movies again.

I doubt it, as long as the international take stays good. In imagining myself as a studio exec, and I'm really struggling to find any reason why I'd rather make my millions from the US box office. As long as the global total is nice and big, any individual domestic market could collapse almost entirely and it wouldn't matter.
posted by Dysk at 4:51 AM on September 5, 2017

I'd hate to lose the theater going experience and only be able to watch films on my TV. I mean it's a very nice television but nothing at home compares to seeing films on a huge screen with an audience; it's such a different experience.

I've now been going to see movies in the theater for 50 years now having started with Dr. Doolittle in 1967 and am not ready to give that up.
posted by octothorpe at 4:55 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

Because she's canonically bi.

Well, it would help to actually write that into the damn movie plot.
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:05 AM on September 5, 2017 [7 favorites]

Well, they could have been more explicit about it, but there was the scene on the boat where she told Steve that on their island, men are considered optional for sexual pleasure. I didn't get the sense that she was implying masturbation.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:26 AM on September 5, 2017 [9 favorites]

Ah yes!! Thank you for that reminder!! I had forgotten! It was a rather wry moment where I realized What those women were doing all those years alone on that island
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:36 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

GOTG2 was a disappointing mess of people being assholes to each other for no good reason, crass attempts to milk the popularity of Baby Groot without really getting it and a few fun moments.

I really enjoyed Wonder Woman until the Big Stupid Boss Fight.

Valerian was neat except for the part where the main characters were supposed to have any personality or chemistry. That was weird for a Luc Besson film, and it kind of felt like George Lucas' fault somehow.

But Spider-Man Homecoming was lots of fun and I wouldn't change a thing.
posted by Foosnark at 5:46 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

I haven't seen Valerian yet, so I don't know how well Dane DeHaan did, but Cara Delevingne has a lot of room to grow as an actor. Which is disappointing, because from the trailer it looked like they had good chemistry. I had hoped that Besson had found a way to make it work.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:55 AM on September 5, 2017

There was a movie called The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature. Hollywood deserves all the failure we can give it.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:21 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

Movies I Have Actually Been Motivated To Leave The House For And See In An Actual Theatre This Summer:

1) The Godfather (classic movie on a big screen)
2) North By Northwest (classic movie on a big screen)
3) Dunkirk (new movie in classic genre on a big screen).

tl:dr - I'm old.
[supra]
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:24 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

I went to see Wonder Woman in the theater and nothing else this year.

Why would I spend $40 to gamble on enjoying a movie with my wife when I can wait for it to stream or pick it up at a Redbox for $1.50 a few months later.

I know for certain that the Au Cheval burgers and beers that I'll spend that $40 on instead will be excellent.
posted by srboisvert at 6:25 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Movies I Have Actually Been Motivated To Leave The House For And See In An Actual Theatre This Summer:

Speaking of classics, the 4K remaster of Close Encounters was so awesome
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:41 AM on September 5, 2017 [7 favorites]

middleclasstool: "I haven't seen Valerian yet, so I don't know how well Dane DeHaan did, but Cara Delevingne has a lot of room to grow as an actor. Which is disappointing, because from the trailer it looked like they had good chemistry. I had hoped that Besson had found a way to make it work."

He was pretty terrible but wasn't helped by the fact that half of his dialog consisted of sexual harassment of Delevingne's character.
posted by octothorpe at 6:45 AM on September 5, 2017 [7 favorites]

Speaking of classics, the 4K remaster of Close Encounters was so awesome

We get it here in the UK in two weeks and, despite seeing this movie numerous times over the years and knowing large chunks of the dialog, I am more excited about this than any other film in a long while.
posted by Wordshore at 6:47 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

I love going to the movies at the theater. I like it enough that I'll occasionaly see movies I know are going to be sort of terrible just because it's one of those "things I do to pick myself up" things and I like the experience (it helps that our fancy local movie theater is comfortable as hell). And I've seen a bunch of movies this summer--Dunkirk, Baby Driver, Lady Macbeth, Logan Lucky, Atomic Blonde, Spiderman: Homecoming, GoTG2, The Big Sick, Ingrid Goes West, Wonder Woman, Alien: Covenant, a few documentaries and I'm pretty sure I'm missing something--and I was thinking a few days ago how this was the rare summer that I actually enjoyed most of them.
posted by thivaia at 6:50 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Y'all, the "Oscar movie season" is yet to come. That's when they release all the really good stuff, don't forget.

A few weekends ago, though, a bunch of us were debating seeing a movie after a group outing, but we checked the listings and the only thing we all would have wanted to see was Wonder Woman, which had already left the theaters. Maybe that's the problem - if a movie is doing well, let it stay in theaters so people can catch up and see it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:51 AM on September 5, 2017

Actually, my only real problem with Atomic Blonde is that nobody had underwear that good in the '80s.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:56 AM on September 5, 2017 [6 favorites]

Yeah, I've noticed that the theaters seem to have a lot more turnover than I remember in the past - Baby Driver and Atomic Blonde came and went from my preferred theater so fast that I didn't have the opportunity to see them. Which brings up the other half of the box office problem, previously mentioned - oh well, I guess I'll wait to see them on my 55" TV with an acceptable sound system for a buck fifty instead when they hit Redbox. Since my preferred (ish) theater is a collection of not especially big screens with ~100 seats per theater, the transition isn't that significant.

And yeah, it has to be a huge action spectacular for me to be able to deal with seeing it in normal showing times. The last few times I went in the evening, between people talking and waving their phones around, I was annoyed the whole time. At least when I go see a matinee it's me and like 3 retirees. And it's only 60% the normal cost, so win-win if I can make it work.
posted by Kyol at 6:59 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

One Neat Trick Blockbusters Don’t Want You to Know: my movie-going experience has improved immensely since I started going to morning Saturday shows on either the opening weekend for a big movie, or the second weekend. There is usually an 11:00 or 11:30 show, and it is less hectic than evening shows, tends to be full of people who are interested in the movie but hate crowds, fewer teens tweeting through the whole show (and people waving phones around in general), and you don’t have to get your ticket in advance or stand in line.

Highly, highly recommend.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:04 AM on September 5, 2017 [4 favorites]

Smaller movies here tend to only show on one or two screens and are usually gone within two weeks. I wanted to see Ghost Story but that went away before I had a chance.
posted by octothorpe at 7:06 AM on September 5, 2017

Hoo boy, Marvel TV IMAX expirment didn't go so well.
posted by Artw at 7:16 AM on September 5, 2017

Valerian would have been helped with a script pass done by someone who spoke English a little more fluently. And wasn't super lechy. But looking back at Fifth Element, imagine it starred somebody like Skeet Ulrich and Alicia Silverstone instead. The acting chops and charisma of the Fifth Element cast really carried that movie despite its script.

I'm no longer the target audience for the various Transformers sequels but when I do want to catch a big movie, the theatre experience itself is offputting. My partner and I started to pay the premium for the VIP screens in our area and one of the reasons was we're both rather sensitive to talkers and texters and tired of telling them off. But this summer for the first time we noticed that even at screenings with a $20 ticket price there were people on their phones or talking through the movie. And if that's not an issue, we go to the only 2D screening of the day (which is a full house btw) only to have them not bother to remove the 3D lens so there's a double ghost image on the screen. Or the theatre staffer to who walks in during to the screening to check on things decides they're going to loudly play with their keyring the whole time.

I love going to the movie theatre. I just wish the theatre actually wanted me to be there and wanted me to enjoy the show.
posted by thecjm at 7:22 AM on September 5, 2017 [5 favorites]

The thing about movies is that they are a thing to do to kill time for two hours on a weekend night and/or when it is hot outside. They are priced probably too expensively for something that's two hours of killing time in air conditioning, which may be a deterrent for that sort of thing, but given the kajillions they cost, the tickets may be too cheap for all I know.

I pretty much classify movies as the following:
(a) Movies I actually want to see and am wanting to see soonish so I will pony up to go to the movie in the theater.
(b) Movies I do not really care about, but will cave in and see if someone else wants to.
(c) Movies I refuse to see.

So generally speaking, most of the time I don't go to the movies. This weekend the conversation about going to the movies went like this:
"Hey, let's go to a movie."
"Um, ok."
"What's playing?"
"Um....nothing I care about seeing."
"Huh."
"We could go see X movie (I've already seen X movie, it's been floated to her as a might see, so it's a Category 2 for her). It sounds like the only one that isn't terrible."
"Eh....."

So we don't go see it.
Repeat ad infinitum.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:29 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

But this summer for the first time we noticed that even at screenings with a $20 ticket price there were people on their phones or talking through the movie

I've since discovered that there are at least a couple of movie ticket clubs you can join that greatly reduce the per-movie cost to the point where the decision to stay in or go out isn't $20/ticket versus a $3 rental but really who all belongs to MoviePass for $10/month. So on the one hand you have a full price patron who paid a lot of money so they're deeply invested in the experience, on the other hand you have someone who paid a buck twenty-five who is only there because it was that or be bored at home, with no investment in the experience.

Bleh.
posted by Kyol at 7:33 AM on September 5, 2017

Hoo boy, Marvel TV IMAX expirment didn't go so well.

Someone at work pointed out that the showrunner on Inhumans is Scott Buck, who was also showrunner on the disliked last season of Dexter and was also fired as showrunner of Iron Fist after its disastrous reception.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:42 AM on September 5, 2017 [5 favorites]

We have a nearby cheap second run theatre and it is fantastic.
posted by Artw at 7:53 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

We only have one second run theater left in the area.
posted by drezdn at 8:01 AM on September 5, 2017

Companies are experimenting with a Netflix model ticketing option, where audience members pay a flat rate per month to go to as many movies as they like, but the theater owners aren't happy with that model

I thought theaters made their money mostly on concessions? Wouldn't they rather have someone come in multiple times and drop $20 on snacks each time than come in once and drop $20 on snacks and $10 on a ticket?
posted by ejs at 8:01 AM on September 5, 2017

Okay, this is paranoid, I know. And if the movies were good enough, I'd probably get over it and go to the theater anyway. But these days, whenever you go to the movies, you have to ask yourself not only if it'll be worth the ticket price and the parking hassles, you have to ask yourself if seeing the movie will be worth bringing home bedbugs.
posted by MrVisible at 8:05 AM on September 5, 2017

a fiendish thingy We do something similar, but on Sunday morning, first showing. Living in the bible belt means fewer people at the theater. YMMV.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:08 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

The article briefly mentioned how well Girl's Trip did. I wish I could remember whose twitter account pointed out how consistently well Malcolm D. Lee's movies do, yet Hollywood is not handing him big-budget franchise films (I wonder why??)

FYI if you're looking for an escape from our never-ending horror show of real life, you could do worse than Girl's Trip. I only smiled for the first half hour, but the public urination spray scene won me over and I was definitly laughing out loud through the rest. The paper-thin 'message' part of the movie is - yawn - but the movie is super funny, the four stars have great chemistry together, and Tiffany Haddish is hilarious and so charismatic!
posted by latkes at 8:15 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

Fleebnork: "a fiendish thingy We do something similar, but on Sunday morning, first showing. Living in the bible belt means fewer people at the theater. YMMV."

During the fall and winter here, you can go during a Steelers game and have the theater to yourself. Works for shopping too.
posted by octothorpe at 8:26 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

16 weekends in the summer. The goal was to go camping more than in past summers. Also, once in a lifetime (ok, maybe twice) astronomical event. Baby Driver and Atomic Blonde looked good, but Hollywood just couldn't compete with life this summer.
posted by herda05 at 8:28 AM on September 5, 2017

The chains would have to actually employ a few people to enforce talking and texting rules and as far as I can tell our local AMC 16 has about 12 employees in the whole place these days.
posted by octothorpe at 8:45 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

crass attempts to milk the popularity of Baby Groot without really getting it

FIGHT ME.

I feel terrible about my moviegoing habits, in that movies are now so expensive that I rarely go to a first-run film that doesn't demand the big screen to be successful, and that generally means superhero/Big Action flicks, even though they represent only a sliver of my actual taste in film. This summer I've been to Wonder Woman, Spiderman: Homecoming, GotG2, and Atomic Blonde (all of which I did enjoy, which isn't always the case). At the rep film theater (which costs nearly as much, depressingly), Shadow of a Doubt and The French Connection. If it's a current release that's not a special-effects extravaganza, odds are not good that I'll see it anywhere but on my own home TV. Which, of course, means I'm most financially supporting the least interesting movies.
posted by praemunire at 8:56 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

The thing about movies is that they are a thing to do to kill time for two hours on a weekend night and/or when it is hot outside.

I had meant to go to the movies more this summer, but it wasn't quite as hot as I'd feared it might be.

Both movies I did see this summer were at the Alamo Drafthouse, which isn't very convenient for me and is definitely expensive, but at least I know I won't have to deal with talking and texting through the movie.

And even at the Alamo I usually wear earplugs. It'd be great if theaters promised to keep the sound at a reasonable level.

Mostly I'm just lazy about scheduling, though. The showtimes always seem to be just a bit too early or too late and it's easier to watch things when I can start them any time I like, and pause them whenever I need to. I don't object to spending money on concessions at theaters, but an enormous soda for a long movie with no intermissions is just unpleasant. Maybe that's why so many movies have such terrible third acts? Perhaps they're assuming everyone's just gritting their teeth until they can get in line for the restroom, so why bother with a decent ending?
posted by asperity at 9:08 AM on September 5, 2017

I thought theaters made their money mostly on concessions? Wouldn't they rather have someone come in multiple times and drop $20 on snacks each time than come in once and drop $20 on snacks and $10 on a ticket?

It's a bit complicated, but AMC, the biggest theater chain, believes the method is doomed to fail and will cause conflict between patrons and theaters. Right now, Movie Pass is selling the subscription cards, usable once a day with some restrictions, for 9.95 a month, but paying the theaters full price for the tickets in hopes of building a customer base. If they do, they'll then try to negotiate with the theaters to lower ticket prices, which isn't something theaters necessarily want to see as they'll have to make up the lost ticket revenue through concessions to pay for the movies.

If the Movie Pass crowd would be big enough, that might indeed be a good trade off, but it isn't clear that will be the case or if there would be enough extra money coming in to balance out any cut in prices, since for the pass to work longer term, that cut may be significant as one can imagine from how cheap they had to go to finally get the 150K subscribers they have now after being around for several years.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:12 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Don't forget all the numbers discussed are intertwined with Hollywood Accounting Principles which are as opaque as legally (and otherwise) possible. Don't weep for entertainment executives.
posted by sammyo at 9:23 AM on September 5, 2017 [6 favorites]

I went to see 4 movies this summer:

The Stalker (1979) 4k restoration
Endless Poetry
The Girl Without Hands
In This Corner of the World

3 of them were new releases, all 4 were made in countries other than the US.

I'm the most crotchety of crotchety people, and though there are lots of times I lament the state of the movie industry, there is good stuff out there, stuff being made by people and not by corporations. If you're done with Superhero movies/big explosion movies/endless sequels, stop seeing them. Even if you're in a smaller market and aren't getting all the foreign/weird releases, there were movies to see that weren't Valerian and Atomic Blonde and GOTGv2 and Wonder Woman.

(I'll cement my 'crotchety' status by being the one person in the world who does not like the Alamo Drafthouse. Sure, no talking or texting, but is people running in front of the screen the entire movie to deliver food and drinks any less distracting?)
posted by matcha action at 9:31 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

One thing that has made the talking and texting problem a non-issue is going to see films at Alamo Drafthouse. They kick people out that do it, and I've never had a problem there like I do at the multi-plexes. However, they don't typically have the best screens and sound.
posted by hootenatty at 9:45 AM on September 5, 2017

If you're done with Superhero movies/big explosion movies/endless sequels, stop seeing them.

I'm not done with them and, uh, don't particularly struggle with the concept of not doing a leisure activity I don't enjoy. I enjoyed all the superhero/action films I went to see this year. The difference in ROI between seeing a superhero film on the big screen with the big sound versus seeing a movie where people talk quietly and look at each other yearningly on the big screen with the big sound is generally quite large. When even going singleton to a movie and buying a modest snack runs you $25, you start to think critically about how much better than waiting and watching it at home the big-screen experience will actually be.
posted by praemunire at 9:56 AM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

(This problem also extends to light disposable comedies. Girls Trip looked cute, but not $25 cute.)
posted by praemunire at 9:57 AM on September 5, 2017

As praemunire said. If I am going to brave the wilds of downtown San Jose for a film, I want it to be a spectacle that really needs a large screen. Those four films matcha action listed- is there any particular reason they could be watched on a TV, or even a tablet?
posted by happyroach at 10:09 AM on September 5, 2017

I just think that it's the reason we're moving towards more and more movies that are all spectacle and no plot is because that's what people are choosing to pay for. I choose not to. I don't have endless disposable income and I am very picky in what I see (and I never get snacks, because I want to pay $15 and not $25), but I would rather see something that awes me the whole way through (even if not in a big-screen amazing visuals kind of way) then something that has me rolling my eyes.

(IMO Endless Poetry had several big-screen worthy scenes)
posted by matcha action at 10:17 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Movie theaters used to serve a communal purpose, but now we can see equal or better content in nearly or better quality at home, for next to nothing. And it's been this way for, what, a dozen years now? But we still count box office over everything else. I worked in theaters for over a decade and video stores until they, mostly, ceased to exist. What is happening now has no equal unless you go all the way back to buggy whip sales.

I don't know if I totally agree it has no equivalent. What about arcades and bookstores? Both of which have taken a huge pummeling, but are still surviving and some ways are making a come back.

Also, I think with the increase of people living alone is both a good and bad on theater attendance. Yes, there's more opportunity for online streaming into one person households, but also at the same time as mentioned earlier folks want to get out of the house sometimes. Also for most people living in small apartments and cozy houses, it's hard to show a movie once you have more than 4-6 people at your house. So, I think theaters can still serve a purpose as a third space to get your posse together to go watch something. And there's still demand for public screenings: Movies at the park/beach/cemetery always get a good crowd and college campuses still get college students (perhaps the most media piracy savvy group) to show up to see movies in lecture halls.

But, it's possible that things might be coming to a head with the current movie distribution and theater chain system. Internet streaming is a thing and since movies are becoming more product like, most consumers will head towards cheaper options. This will force chains to maybe try out different events and funding models. I know there's at least one local indie theater close to me that sells memberships similar to a theater patron model.

But, even if the chains don't figure it out and end up going under, someone will buy up the theater spaces and/or equipment for a song and figure out a way to make things work. Like make it into a bar, or get aspiring filmmakers from the Internet to show their stuff, or turn it into church.
posted by FJT at 10:26 AM on September 5, 2017

Anyway, yeah. Alamo. The best movies in circulation, occasional special features and classics, good food, cocktails, reserved seats, good crowd, what's not to love?

The co$t. Yeah, it's not much more than the average AMC, but that's still a lot.

Especially compared to the indie version of Alamo I know about with a similar model, where the price of first-run tickets is only $7 and the price for classics is $4. (Plus they call their cheeseburger the "Royale with Cheese".)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:29 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

But for a woman-on-woman scene so transparently conceived for the male gaze as to outdo those in Blue is the Warmest Color and The Handmaiden, Atomic Blonde ...

as a data point my very lesbian wife and I were turned completely off by the sex scenes in Blue is the Warmest Color but very tuned on by the sex scenes in Atomic Blonde. My wife I both discussed afterward that we didn't see it as male gaze but instead saw it as red-hot girl-on-girl gaze.

IMO, the best lesbian sex scene to use for a reference point for what a "not male gaze girl on girl sex scene" looks like is the lesbian sex scene made by lesbians for lesbians in the movie "The Watermelon Woman"
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:41 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

Article from a few years ago: Save the Movie! Why does every movie released these days feel exactly the same? This book. (The book: Save the Cat by Blake Snyder.)

his book broke down the three-act structure into a detailed “beat sheet”: 15 key story “beats”—pivotal events that have to happen—and then gave each of those beats a name and a screenplay page number. Given that each page of a screenplay is expected to equal a minute of film, this makes Snyder’s guide essentially a minute-to-minute movie formula.
...
Or look at March’s Jack the Giant Slayer. There’s an opening image that sets up each of the young protagonists’ problems and states the theme at the five-minute mark, a catalyst at the 12-minute mark, an act break between the 25- and 30-minute mark when Jack climbs the beanstalk, and a false victory 90 minutes in, when it looks as if the evil giants have been definitively defeated.

It goes on to mention classic stories that were re-organized to fit the beat sheet, and how Holloywood makes sure every beat gets touched, even when it makes little sense for the storyline. And oh hey, while it really does work well for a lot of movies, especially adventure stories--audiences get tired of seeing the same story over and over.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:50 AM on September 5, 2017 [7 favorites]

I would rather see something that awes me the whole way through (even if not in a big-screen amazing visuals kind of way)

Yes, and I see those movies at home, for three bucks or so, or at the rep theater, for maybe $20 instead of $25. Sunday night I watched a 1950 b&w Cocteau-Melville collaboration about, I guess, sibling incest, for a whopping $0 via my NYPL membership's access to Kanopy. (Good deal for NYC people, by the way; 10 streams a month, and they have a big chunk of the Criterion Collection.) The constraining resource here is money, not time. I'm not really sure what's confusing about that.
posted by praemunire at 10:51 AM on September 5, 2017

(And, well, I try, like most people do, I imagine, not to see movies in the theater that will have me rolling my eyes. Because it costs me $25.)
posted by praemunire at 10:53 AM on September 5, 2017

If I am going to brave the wilds of downtown San Jose for a film, I want it to be a spectacle that really needs a large screen. Those four films matcha action listed- is there any particular reason they could be watched on a TV, or even a tablet?

For what it's worth, I rarely find watching action adventure movies to be much better on the big screen than at home, but often find slower paced atmospheric films a much better experience on the big screen.

Really though, I suppose it'd be even more to the point to say good directors are more likely to make full use of the screen than mediocre ones overall, so that would be the real line I'd draw in deciding. Unfortunately, so many movie screens now are so small and shoddy that the experience at those theaters is almost no improvement on watching at home no matter what's showing. A old school big screen though is worth the trip.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:05 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

Out of curiosity, I looked up future-scheduled releases for the rest of the year. There are some decent-sounding things coming up:

* The Battle of the Sexes is a dramatization of the famous tennis match with Billie jean King and Bobby Riggs. It's due in theaters September 22nd, and stars Emma Stone and Steve Carrell.

* Also opening on 9/22 is Loving Vincent, an animated film about Vincent Van Gogh. This may verge on the gimmicky - the film was filmed first, and then re-animated with a series of individual paintings done in Van Gogh's style - I've seen some test footage and it looks intriguing. We'll see how the story holds up.

* On October 13, we get Profesor Marston and the Wonder Women. This is a story about the guy who created Wonder Woman - and his wife, and the woman they had a menage a trois relationship with.

* Wonderstruck opens on October 20th, and looks like it's a tale of a couple of kids, each in a different time period: the two tales are linked.

* On November 3rd, we get The Man Who Invented Christmas, the story of Charles Dickens' writing A Christmas Carol.

* On November 8th, 2017, we get 11/8/2016, a documentary about the last election day.

* Goodbye Christopher Robin opens November 10th. It's the story of A.A. Milne and his son Christopher, the inspiration for the Pooh books, and the sometimes contentious relationship they had.

* Sometime in December we're due to see Gotti, the story of John Gotti, with John Travolta in the lead role.

* The Greatest Showman opens on Christmas Day, and is the story of P. T. Barnum. Hugh Jackman stars.

...and then of course there is The Last Jedi.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:31 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

On November 8th, 2017, we get 11/8/2016, a documentary about the last election day.

Fuck no.
posted by Artw at 11:40 AM on September 5, 2017 [8 favorites]

Although neither my budget nor my current living situation (small town with one multiplex and no car) allow me to see very many movies that I want to see, I've come around to thinking that a lot of the time, I really do want to see a movie in a theater if I want to see it at all. My usual mode for watching TV at home is to browse the internet when I get bored, to get interrupted by "Oh, I need to order a new pair of shoes" or "Do I still have reading left to do for my Restoration Ecology class?", to knit, and... to just have all of my chores and my to-do list weighing on my attention. Which turns out to be a very hard habit to abandon when I want to watch a good movie.

If there is a movie that I expect to actually reward my close attention, then I kind of need to see it in a darkened room where I don't have my knitting, or my dishes, or my cell phone. I've found myself avoiding movies I genuinely want to see on Netflix/streaming because I don't have enough attention to give them.
posted by Jeanne at 11:43 AM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

Wordshore, on Third Encounters, did you see this?
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 11:48 AM on September 5, 2017

Something else the Alamo Drafthouse does, or used to do at least, is show tv shows "live." I watched every episode of the last season of Breaking Bad on a giant screen with hundreds of fans. It was amazing. Every week, they'd show last week's ep, followed by the current ep as soon as it was available, and it was free because they couldn't charge for the shows. What they did do was let you buy a ticket in the form of $5 worth of food in order to reserve a seat.

When there is a show that is really popular, they can be so much more fun as a communal experience. This is what theaters were/are good for. Alamo Drafthouse gets that.
posted by nushustu at 11:59 AM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

So I've been going to alot of movies the last couple of years because as a gift, my employer gave out $150 gift cards to AMC to all employees (and I also bought one of my co-workers at a discounted price)

The thing that really bugs me about the action flicks that are supposedly better to see in the theater than at home is that they are all so bad. I've mentioned this a few times IRL and the response is "but you go for the effects" WHICH IS THE POINT OF MY COMPLAINT. Just because there are supposedly big awesome effects doesn't mean the movie has to be so bad: bad dialogue, bad story, plot holes, bad acting. It is possible to make an action movie with great effects without making a bad movie. See: The 5th Element, one or two of the Indian Jones, Terminator 2, Fury Road, the first Matrix, one or two of the Aliens. Instead we get 7-8 sequels of comic book movies and only maybe 1 of them is any good. If I'm going to watch a shitty movie with good special effects, I can do that at home on my 42" HDTV when FX shows it in the afternoon sometime.

I go to the movie theaters because I want to see good movies. I want to support good studios with my money.

(Also, I prefer to go to the off-peak showing because I want to be able to talk and text without bothering anyone. Although I do talk very quietly, if there's only a couple people in the theater and you can hear me talking, you're sitting way too close to me for such an empty theater).
posted by LizBoBiz at 12:04 PM on September 5, 2017

Sundance, our favored spot, seems functionally similar to Alamo but shitty screens dobbit appear to be part of that package.

The cocktails are very good too.
posted by Artw at 12:09 PM on September 5, 2017

Are summer movies worse than they used to be? I don't know. Everyone remembers Ghostbusters and The Karate Kid, does anyone remember Cannonball Run II or Sheena? They all came out in 1984.

It's hard to tell what's going to attain classic status. Only one person has mentioned War for the Planet of the Apes in this thread, and that's part of the best summer trilogy in years. Maybe Atomic Blonde will be remade in 2045, if we're not all dead. Who knows?
posted by Automocar at 12:09 PM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

The Close Encounters of the Third Kind re-release was a wonderful experience that I would highly recommend, however with one caveat: there is a mini-documentary about the making of the movie that, for some reason, they have decided to run before the movie. It's only about 10 minutes long, but by showing so many shots from the actual film (as well as footage of how the special effects were done) it kind of dampens some of the impact when you see those scenes play out in the film itself.

My suggestion for anyone going to see the film would be to use that ten minutes of time to instead go to the bathroom or make a last-minute snack run.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:14 PM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

Skull Island is my monkey movie.
posted by Artw at 12:17 PM on September 5, 2017

On November 8th, 2017, we get 11/8/2016, a documentary about the last election day.

SCREAMS
posted by Wordshore at 12:20 PM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

11/8/2016, a documentary about the last election day

wait. is this official, like was there an executive order that I missed, or something
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:26 PM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

They would have to pay me, and a lot more than $25, to go see that one, anywhere.
posted by praemunire at 12:36 PM on September 5, 2017 [3 favorites]

It's Tuesday in OKC, and AMC Northpark 7 will be showing "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tails" at 7:20 pm for $2.99 plus tax. And the online description says "closed caption" which is a thing I wish I'd known about when watching "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," because I was completely lost during that movie.
Reading lips doesn't work during "Moana."

Free parking in a small neighborhood mall, for movies just prior to DVD sales. I don't think I remember a time when the theater was filled; usually, just a dozen or so are seated with us.
Not long ago we went to Dollar Tuesdays, but management did away with it last year.
However, the cost of a bottle of water is outrageous, so there is that.

The main reason to go to the cheap shows instead of turn on Netflix is just to get out of the house, especially if we can convince one of our grown daughters to tag along. It's a fun date night, even if we can't pause the action and raid the fridge.

The last time I actually paid over $5 for a movie was "The Shallows" during its first run (I'm a sucker for a "Jaws" ripoff) and that was at the cheaper matinee in Yukon.
posted by TrishaU at 1:04 PM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

I went and saw The Matrix at the Oregon Museum of Science & Industry, where they have a fucking gigantic screen and Dolby Atmos soundsystem (I wasn't fortunate enough to go see Stalker on this). Then I went and saw Seven Samurai in 35mm at Hollywood Theater, and I've been going to some Church of Film showings, which are a lot of underground or art film showings of movies at a couple of different places around town. I went and saw "Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets", a Japanese experimental film from 1971. It was really interesting. I saw Moonlight (amazing) and Nocturnal Animals (also good) at some independent theaters as well.

I've been enjoying going to the movies, I'm just not going to big theaters and watching new movies. I know this isn't always an option for most people, which really sucks, because seeing something like Seven Samurai in the theater was riveting and fun, and I felt like a 10-year-old again at the end of The Matrix when Rage Against The Machine started playing. That was a blast.
posted by gucci mane at 1:28 PM on September 5, 2017

About ten minutes' drive from my place is a theatre that opened in maybe 1980. It is a tiny sad mall in the base of an apartment building. It opened during the first wave of cineplexes and was always sort of the runt of the litter in the days when it was owned by a big chain: six auditoriums, ranging in size from 48 to 80 seats, appropriately-sized screens...

It has closed and reopened under new ownership maybe three times in the seven years since the big chain shut it down. Now it is part of a tiny chain of five theatres and runs in a quasi-rep style, with a mix of second-run and art house stuff that plays nowhere else locally. At any given point, there are beteeen nine and fourteen films playing there with a Tetris approach to scheduling: one flick ends and another one starts about eleven minutes later. No trailers. No ads. No absurd "trivia quizzes" or promotional pieces on some new tech gadgets. Movie advertised to start at 7:20; the house lights drop like hanged men at 7:20 and the movie starts. The price is anywhere from a third to half of the price at the big 12-screen first run place down the way.

Amazing how the crappiest theatre in town ten years ago has become the best place to see a movie now.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:54 PM on September 5, 2017 [6 favorites]

In Atlanta, the dying malls on the edge of the city are key for awesome movie watching. Yes, I could go to one of the fancy, high end theaters at one of the fancy, high end in-town mall-type things multi-use development things, where you pay $20 per ticket plus hourly parking and matinees don't exist. Or I could go 2 miles out of the city to North DeKalb Mall where all the stores are closed except Marshalls and Burlington, the food choices are Wendy's or American Deli, and the AMC charges $4.50 for matinees like it's 1995. I saw so many awesome movies this summer, but even if they sucked, it was $4.50.

Definitely recommend: Baby Driver, Wonder Woman, GotG 2, Spider Man, Girls' Trip, The Big Sick, Atomic Blonde.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:09 PM on September 5, 2017 [4 favorites]

and the AMC charges $4.50 for matinees like it's 1995

The aforementioned place down the way from me is four bucks CANADIAN, which at today's exchange rate is $3.23 USD. At those prices, I am prepared to take a chance on The Dark Tower.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:30 PM on September 5, 2017 [2 favorites]

While I agree the tensions of the new media / new technologies are putting pressure on the old model (how & how much? That is a harder thing to say), however, Hollywood's Sky is Falling / Everything is Awesome narrative is completely cyclical. You can go back in Variety and find articles that say one or the other spaced by a few years.

guessing like everyone else at the moment, including the studio execs.

Having talked to execs of studios, I can confirm this. They have no idea and I'm not sure if they ever truly knew. But you know why they keep making those super hero movies and sequels? People pay to see them. All over the world. In my experience, dealing with product on a distribution level, quality is nearly irrelevant to whether a large budget / blockbuster / tent pole movie succeeds or doesn't. It’s all the audience. No one in Hollywood sets out to make a bomb (read the Disaster Artist...) and many would love to take greater risks & explore mature storylines but consistently these don't make money (not in a sustainable way). As Gusottertrout points out, the big studios are looking for a sweet spot - different enough to be fresh but familiar enough not to alienate. Small studios can pivot better, they have less to lose so they can take more interesting chances. But that's been the case for years in Hollywood (Cannon, Roger Corman, Val Lewton, etc). Want to support that kind of output? Vote with your dollar; pay to go see those films. Theatres don't keep films that don't make them money.

insert themselves between the consumer and their product they might have been better able to deal with these changes.

Most studios didn't want to do it then and I really don't think they want to do it now. Frankly, it would take a massive collective Hollywood stroke for them even to consider it in a meaningful way. Sure they'll dip their toe into it here and there but they'd much rather farm it out to the others to take the risk. Why? Hollywood doesn't trust the public. I mean they love the cash but seriously the public are fickle and it drives them nuts.

Day and date is inevitable.

They've been talking about that for over a decade now and they really aren't any closer. I could be wrong but it'd shock me if it happened anytime soon. Sure the release windows will narrow and simultaneous global roll outs will become common but Studios don't want to lose control of their product and Day & Date would do that in an instant. Studios also negotiate and carefully plan territorial roll outs, Day & Date can mess that up. The only way I could see it happening is if it was DRMed and watermarked up the wazoo. And even then, you think they get worked up about Academy screeners making it to the Internet? They'd lose it with Day & Date. As long as the streaming services are balkanised and barring a collapse of theatrical, the studios will stick to the old model as long as it presents a low risk on their investment, according to their calculus, and it makes an acceptable amount of money.

Personally, I'd like to see some kind of modification of theatrical. The point of a theatrical experience is to take part in a shared viewing experience. Making it too expensive or unpleasant just alienates. What I'd be interested in seeing someone try (to see if it could be sustained) would be something like a multi tiered viewing experience within megaplexes: a handful of small screens for second run films or rep cinema whose tickets are cheap, high end 70mm cinemas where the tickets are expensive, cinemas with wait staff, cinemas with paired menus, cinemas where you can use your phones without a problem (even allowing you take pictures) and cinemas where devices & talking are banned completely. All housed within the same building.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:25 PM on September 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

There was a movie called The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature. Hollywood deserves all the failure we can give it.

This is another example of the current culture of piling on that sinks many worthy movies before they even have a chance to be seen. The Nut Job 2 is very much in the style of the classic Looney Tunes cartoons - darkly sarcastic and slightly absurd. It is also the funniest animated movie I've seen so far this year. For those who like the smart-aleck humor of Daffy Duck et al, it is refreshing to see a non-musical cartoon (complete with a non-song) featuring sharp and cynical dialogue, irredeemable villains, and sly hidden gags for the adults in attendance. Sure, this type of humor is out of fashion at the moment, but then just look at what is in fashion at the movies nowadays.
posted by fairmettle at 12:31 AM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

One of my favorite movies of all time, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (Why), was released this fiscal year.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:32 AM on September 6, 2017

I knew what that link was going to be before I clicked on it. It's a convincing little essay and makes me interested in seeing Fantastic Beasts, even though the previews didn't thrill me.

From my perspective, I'd agree that the last couple of years have seen a number of really fine films released, but they aren't the ones that bring in big box office. So, for me, the art and craft of filmmaking is as strong as ever, its just the industry, and I suppose audience, that's the problem in maintaining the business side of things. I'm undoubtedly an outlier in my tastes, but given the problems in the tent pole/franchise film side of things and the reliance on spectacle to drive sales I'm not sure there is much that can be done to change things.

It is, in a way, similar to the problems in the fine arts, where loss of centrality of those forms led many artists to start pushing the forms for arts sake alone, where the interest in the art came from its relation to other art, almost requiring a depth of experience to see what is exciting or meaningful about a work. In film though, it went in a slightly different direction, movies now seem almost entirely tied to other movies or popular media forms, like tv and comics, where knowledge of media tropes is more important than connection to reality in any form. Their meaning is purely functional in the sense of working on and thwarting audience expectation developed from excessive consumption and familiarity of/with media product. So many of the big budget movies carry little beyond that interplay, with only facile, glancing connection to real concerns. It's the "low art" version of the same issue facing "high art".
posted by gusottertrout at 5:47 AM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

I'm undoubtedly an outlier in my tastes, but given the problems in the tent pole/franchise film side of things and the reliance on spectacle to drive sales I'm not sure there is much that can be done to change things.

It me. I was always kind of further into the smaller stuff - I somehow got my hands on a college-level cinema studies textbook as a kid and read that a lot, and so I ended up being curious about and cognizant of things like Walkabout and The Deerhunter and The Sting, even though I had utterly no chance of seeing them; firstly, because the rest of my family was more into the blockbustery things, and secondly, because I was, like, nine.

Also, aside from a couple of the big epic classics like Star Wars and E.T., I've always been more focused on "but does it have a good script?" If something is written well I'll follow it anywhere. Mind you, there are a lot of different definitions for "written well", and a lot of places to find it. And sometimes an actors' performance trumps things (I was never into comic books, but I had fun with Iron Man because Robert Downey Jr. was having a blast) or I'll go into something knowing it's bad for the schaudenfreude or the joke of it (I confess to having watched Snakes On A Plane in the theater on opening day, because - as a friend of mine put it at the time - "the only time you want to see that film is on opening day with a room full of internet nerds"). But I've always been the one that's waiting for the IFC and Sundance releases in the summer while everyone else is going to see the blockbusters.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:18 AM on September 6, 2017

Honestly I have no idea what to expect from this years Oscar season - line up looks a bit empty from here, though I'm sure a few things will pop up.
posted by Artw at 8:34 AM on September 6, 2017

Once they [Netflix] establish themselves as dominant, there is little to prevent them from placing profits back in the center of their model, ditching the experimental niche films and shows. They and their few rivals at that point will recreate the same Hollywood studio dynamic, but on a global scale, where there will be just a handful of content providers controlling what most people see.

Not really seeing this as a risk, honestly. Netflix, IMO, did a very stupid thing when they moved away from DVDs-by-mail, in terms of their own business model. But by moving the world towards streaming they opened it up wide to competition.

If Netflix had stayed in the physical-DVD-distribution business they could have owned home entertainment for a generation; the model was as hard to compete with as Amazon. (Actually Amazon strikes me as probably the only company with the physical infrastructure and distribution knowledge to successfully have competed with them even if they hadn't jumped to streaming. But even then, Netflix had patents that are only now getting close to expiring.) That model, combined with content creation, would have been phenomenally dangerous. If they'd managed to stay there, take advantage of first-sale doctrine so they couldn't be arm-twisted by Hollywood, pushed discs (maybe even their own alternative to Sony's BluRay) over streaming, and poured their profit margins into exclusive content with which to slowly bleed the existing studio system...? In a few decades I could see them with a classic vertically-integrated monopoly that would have made Marcus Loew jealous, and an opportunity to extract rents on a grand scale. Like the old studio/theater system, it probably would have taken antitrust action to bust them up.

But by pivoting to streaming for ... reasons, which I think have more to do with a fascination with the technology than any real hard-nosed business case, they opened themselves up to a ton of—well, the phrase bush league comes to mind—competition. It doesn't take much to compete with Netflix right now, compared to having to build out thousands of distribution centers and get around their myriad DVD-handling patents, and the companies that are doing it and making money are frankly the sort of dopey operations that, if they'd been DVD rental businesses, would have been stains on life's floor right next to Hollywood Video. (I mean, fucking Crackle? C'mon.)

By ensuring that everyone has, or will soon have, a box next to or integrated with their TV that gives access to multiple streaming services—not just Netflix (another boner of a mistake)—they basically ensured they can't just tie up the entertainment market. The moment they start to move onto the rent-extraction phase of the operation, where they cut back on investment and reap profits, they'll create a vacuum into which it's easy for some other service to step. When Netflix doesn't have anything good on, people will just flip over to the next streaming service on their Roku.

What we're probably looking at is a "permanently multipolar" streaming-entertainment world, with Netflix as one player (a major one, because they did have a big first-mover advantage), and then Amazon (deep pockets), plus private-label services from each of the big studios or studio-wannabes (Disney, HBO, Showtime, etc.). If I had to bet against someone it would be Hulu, but they seem to be trying to develop their own content—which is good, because streaming other people's content is a dumb move; it makes you a mere distributor, one of many, to be beaten to death on licensing fees. (They're safe until Fox or Disney decide to pull out. It seems like an ugly marriage though, long term.)

About the only thing that would screw this up would be a regulatory environment that lets the ISPs, which are mostly (in the US, anyway) cable companies and very much not interested in giving up that revenue stream without replacing it somewhere else, throttle connections or charge for optimized IP transit. That, and not Netflix's investments in content, is what should be really scary at the consumer level. Netflix gave up its opportunity for a natural monopoly based on real-world infrastructure, but the ISPs haven't, and they're always going to have the ability to choke off content by virtue of owning the pipe going into your house.

European consumers seem to have it pretty good in that they (AFAICT) have better last-mile regulation. The Euro fussing over Netflix and film-festival entries is like watching people debate the terroir of a fine Bordeaux, when you're trying to decide if what you're drinking is turpentine.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:22 AM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]

For the record Netflix does still do the DVDs-by-mail thing; it's not as front-and-center, but it's still there.

(and I have 500 movies in my DVD queue)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:39 AM on September 6, 2017

I think it is clear that Netflix jumped into streaming because it avoids the expense and slowness of the DVD business. All that labor and inventory must be a pain and discounting availability of specific content, streaming is the better end user experience.

What would be interesting to know is how much or how little Netflix anticipated how others would get into the business and now rights holders would hold streaming rights over their head.
posted by mmascolino at 10:27 AM on September 6, 2017

LizBoBiz: "(Also, I prefer to go to the off-peak showing because I want to be able to talk and text without bothering anyone. Although I do talk very quietly, if there's only a couple people in the theater and you can hear me talking, you're sitting way too close to me for such an empty theater)."

Wait, so the problem with someone being disturbed by you talking and texting is on their side?

ಠ_ಠ
posted by scrump at 11:20 AM on September 6, 2017 [10 favorites]

But by moving the world towards streaming they opened it up wide to competition.

That's giving an undue amount of control to Netflix over the changing device landscape. It's a smart phone world, not because of Netflix, they just guessed right on the direction things were headed and acted on it. (Not first really, just first in any kind of scale.) Netflix sticking to DVDs seems likely to just have left Netflix behind whoever did take their spot and make the large scale effort. Netflix came into the streaming after some small scale operators saw an opportunity for getting into the market by that route.

The Auteurs, aka Mubi, was an early adopter of the streaming platform, so much so that the platform was only barely adequate for their plans at first. Efe, the founder of Mubi, jumped in because he saw how ubiquitous video phones were becoming outside the US and wanted to establish a company to take advantage of that. Unfortunately Mubi was underfunded for their ambitions at the start, so they both took on too many projects at once and focused primarily on critically acclaimed more "arty" films from around the world instead of block busters as the rights to stream were easier to come by. The plan was great, just not fully realized by the time Netflix made their move and were able to vastly outspend Mubi. (There were other companies exploring the same ideas, small and large, but Netflix committed the most to it in resources and gained the most.)

Relying on DVDs would keep Netflix behind the technology and likely as a third party vendor, with much of their money tied up in inventory replacement and the physical requirements for operation of a vast bulk mailing service. It also really limited their reach given the different legal and operational issues each country they wanted to operate in had. Streaming gives them a different level of world wide reach and it has allowed them to move from third party vendors alone to be content producers without having to rely on the Hollywood theatrical distribution method, which is in itself an advantage. There are still widely different rules over what can be shown and how in the areas the operate, but that is matched by a greater ease of controlling the flow of their content and by being able to make it to order for whatever area they see possibilities.

They are more open to competition now, strictly speaking, but the companies that can really compete with them are few. Netflix has dumped billions into their production side, which is building a back catalog and providing a hook for current and future audiences. The vastly larger catalogs of the studios are more a mirage of value than the oasis they might appear. Younger audiences have shunned movies made before the eighties almost entirely, leaving that part of the catalog of minimal use for the studios, and focus much more attention on the recent, which allows Netflix more opportunity to compete since they aren't as far behind as they might be were older works valued more broadly.

The limits of consumer expenditures for streaming services also favors Netflix and their small handful of close competitors since there isn't an easy path to woo customers from them without expending huge amounts of money to get content and/or make it that Netflix doesn't already have. The movie studios could, in theory, offer greater resistance and deny Netflix more of their content, but the longer they wait, would they want to go that route, the less likely that will be to work. If they don't band together because they either think they don't have to or just don't want to, Netflix will end up with the possibility of having even greater influence on the studios for being needed as a provider for the studios content.

Dominating the world markets can draw more content to the company as the best way to put that content in front of audiences. There is really little loyalty to the film studios outside of Disney, who are engaged in some skirmishes with Netflix because they retain so much of the vital children's market, so the other studios going it on their own isn't as big a threat as it might be given the limits of what they'll be providing. Customers aren't going to pay for dozens of streaming services, so they'll likely be a few huge ones and a number of smaller niche operations once things settle more. There'll be battles for content from companies that choose not to go the streaming route on their own, but those battles will tend to go to the wealthy as usual. There is always the possibility of upstarts with deep pockets and some better idea, the ESPNs of the streaming world, but there is a point where that becomes increasingly difficult to do and actually harm Netflix if they fully establish themselves as one of the dominant players globally, which is clearly the direction they are headed in.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:21 AM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

I think it is clear that Netflix jumped into streaming because it avoids the expense and slowness of the DVD business.

AFAIK, Netflix still does DVD-by-mail. (At least, I see plenty of movies are available as DVDs but not availabe to stream.) They just separated the revenue streams because they realized that more people wanted streaming, enough that they weren't going to lose substantial numbers of users by not providing both services for a single low price.

DVD service is slow, has the risk of losses, and doesn't give them that sweet, sweet data of exactly who watches what for how long and at what times.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:54 PM on September 6, 2017

For a terrible mistake they seem to have done quite well out of it, even with over extension on licenses/original properties.
posted by Artw at 2:35 PM on September 6, 2017

o I ended up being curious about and cognizant of things like Walkabout and The Deerhunter and The Sting, even though I had utterly no chance of seeing them; firstly, because the rest of my family was more into the blockbustery things, and secondly, because I was, like, nine.

One of my earliest movie memories is of going to see The Sting at the local arthouse with my parents (not when it first came out, I probably wasn't born yet). I'm not sure how old I was, maybe 6 or so? What I remember is how totally bored I was and how I couldn't understand why everyone was loving such a stupid movie.

Eventually I saw it as an adult and understood.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:11 PM on September 6, 2017

Probably the music. The music choice is really odd.
posted by Artw at 6:27 PM on September 6, 2017

Ragtime music was inescapable for a while after that movie came out but it never did make much sense to use a genre from 1910 in a movie set in the mid-thirties.
posted by octothorpe at 6:35 PM on September 6, 2017

Nothing says high stakes grift like "The Gambler" on loop.
posted by Artw at 6:43 PM on September 6, 2017

Going back and looking through my Letterboxd, 2017 releases that I would say are at least very good all the way up to truly great, in descending order of quality:

A Taxi Driver
The Big Sick
Okja
Logan
Get Out
John Wick: Chapter Two
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Dunkirk
Logan Lucky
Wonder Woman

That's not a bad haul of great movies for 2017, honestly, and there's a bunch more that are just a step behind (Baby Driver, Guardians of the Galaxy v2, etc.).
posted by mightygodking at 10:56 PM on September 6, 2017

Films from Marvel and Star Wars that now go to Netflix will move to Disney’s planned ad-free direct-to-consumer streaming service, CEO Bob Iger said today at an investor gathering.

Yep, Disney isn't gonna let Netflix do as they will without some serious pushback, and they're the best poised company to do it with their name recognition, domination of the children's market, and franchise catalog. They've been headed this direction for a while in gathering all those resources, and now they're going to make their own bid for streaming audiences.

Netflix saw this coming when Disney pulled some of their content from the service earlier and in seeming retaliation swiped ABC/Disney's top showrunner Shonda Rhimes. (Rimes is a fascinating figure in her own right if you're not familiar with her.)
posted by gusottertrout at 9:05 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

Disney is one of the few who could pull it off. I don't see CBS's thing working for instance.
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on September 7, 2017

Disney is one of the few who could pull it off. I don't see CBS's thing working for instance.

no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of trekkies
posted by entropicamericana at 10:38 AM on September 7, 2017

Well, I mean, I'm pretty damn keen on your SF and your Star Trek and *I'm* not buying it, so I guess that theory is going to be severely tested.
posted by Artw at 10:44 AM on September 7, 2017

Same. Sell the season, I'll buy it if I hear it's worth buying. But I'm not paying a monthly subscription to a service for a mostly-meh network for one show. Hardcore Trek fans may love it enough, but they'll need a hell of a lot more than hardcore Trek fans to make All Access work.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:02 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

My daughter is dying for the new Trek but part of why I would never subscribe is knowing that they will most assuredly re-release the series later (on hulu or whatnot). There's no way they aren't going to milk that show for the rest of eternity. So even if she misses it in the moment, I know she will get to watch it later easily.
posted by latkes at 11:06 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

I imagine CBS will see the Trek series drive subscriptions to service while it runs, but I have no idea what they possibly think those people would stick around for after its eight episodes, or whatever limited run it is. I think they might even be doing the usual 30 day free thing, which would mean the paid commitment to the service would be for maybe a month or two. So absent some further developments, like say an all Trek all the time station, I'm not sure even the new subscribers will stay long.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:15 AM on September 7, 2017

no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of trekkies

It's not about having one property that people like. It's about having a lot, and nobody has that but Disney.

Disney has:

- tons of animated movies,
- tons of cartoon shows,
- tons of classic shorts,
- Marvel, and
- Star Wars.

Tack on their incredibly dense traditional film library, which further includes everything ever released by Touchstone, Hollywood, and most of Miramax, and all of the tween-oriented shows they've produced over the years for their various channels, and their large backlog of nature documentaries (both pre-DisneyNature and post-), and ESPN Films (all those 30 for 30 docs), and Indiana frickin' Jones, and you've got a media library that makes for an excellent streaming service, and Disney will likely have all of it ready to go on day one.

Now, granted, you're going to say something like "well all of the major studios have large film libraries" and that's true, but there's having a library and having a library that's really well-suited to vertical integration, and nobody else does. The closest is probably Time Warner, who have HBO, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the DC Comics properties, Looney Tunes and some other things, but even they don't come close to Disney, because the truth about film libraries is that the long tail of your film library will, in most cases, generate maybe 5% of the total views and most people only care about the new and current stuff.

Disney's is the exception because most of Disney's library is and was designed to age well. The Apple Dumpling Gang can still capably entertain a six-year-old today. Cartoons and nature documentaries are essentially timeless. Disney has been preparing for vertical integration essentially for the last fifty years; the "Disney Vault" strategy of the 80s and 90s was their first trial run at it.

What's going to happen with streaming services is probably something like this:

1. Disney's will succeed.

2. One or two other studios will try to introduce their own services and those will fail (Paramount is already trying this with CBS All Access, and Sony with Crackle).

3. A service representing the film libraries of two or three of Warner, Sony, Paramount, Universal and Fox will rise in opposition to Disney - this might be Netflix or Amazon Prime or something else entirely - and Disney's service will probably come to agreement on the libraries of one or two other studios.

4. When the dust settles, there will be Disney's service, Not Disney's service, maybe one more service like Amazon which combines non-exclusive pay-per-use rental content from all of the big studios with their own exclusive content, and probably one or two TV services like Hulu and Sling.
posted by mightygodking at 11:48 AM on September 7, 2017 [3 favorites]

Trek is the only thing that I'd be interested to see on CBS all access and they want $10 a month for ad-free access. I'll be happy to wait until the season is over and just buy the whole season on Google Play for $20.
posted by octothorpe at 12:19 PM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

. When the dust settles, there will be Disney's service, Not Disney's service, maybe one more service like Amazon which combines non-exclusive pay-per-use rental content from all of the big studios with their own exclusive content, and probably one or two TV services like Hulu and Sling.

Very well said, and if someone would take the bet, that's almost exactly what I'd be putting my money on. With perhaps the added suspicion of there being at least one big merger between one of the players and some other content provider. I wouldn't even be surprised to see it in the AOL buys Time Warner style, upstart buying out old school, with potentially the same kind of end result if the parties aren't careful about it.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:18 PM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

It looks like I might be able to find someone to take that bet after all as Wall Street is showing some serious initial doubts to Disney's plan with their stock dropping 5% after the news, while Netflix stock stayed steady. On the plus side, cable companies across the board also saw drops in their share prices as worries over cable's future increase.

I'll still bet on Disney and its subsidiaries seeing this through and maintaining their position in the media markets long term.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2017

Ugh. Missed adding this bit of unpleasantness in my previous post. Facebook is looking to get into the creative side, spending up to one billion dollars on original shows.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

I didn't mean to imply that Netflix doesn't do DVDs anymore, I mean yes they do, but they pretty clearly don't want to be doing it. They tried to spin that whole operation off as a subsidiary and only backed away from that plan when their customers told them it was a dumb idea.

All that labor and inventory must be a pain

I guess, but that's sort of, you know, the business. And they were remarkably good at it, meaning that the difficulty was actually to their advantage.

I don't know anyone who watches "serious" or high-production-value (as in, not user-generated / Youtube-esque) content on a smartphone. I'm sure that exists, and there's probably some non-overlapping demographics at work where I just don't know anyone who does that, but I question whether the move to streaming was necessarily inevitable before Netflix pushed it. Perhaps outside the US. As recently as May 2017, the traditional boob tube still crushes small screens as the dominant way to consume video entertainment. I don't see that changing too much in the future; people have literally built their houses around the TV+couch model of consuming video.

Netflix was, prior to their pivot, the biggest user of the USPS. (I don't think they are anymore, pretty sure it's now Amazon or back to being the IRS.) Within 18 months or so of the streaming pivot, they became the biggest source of traffic on the Internet within the US. That's a huge shift in content delivery. Although it's generally inflated by the cablecos, there was a significant capacity buildout in the last decade a result of the traffic increase that streaming television caused. It's upset some of the core economics of the Internet (peering agreements).

I don't think the significance of that should be understated, and I am intensely skeptical that it would have happened if Netflix hadn't decided to take its library of content and shove it onto a streaming service, and produced a device (the Roku, which was originally supposed to be a proprietary Netflix-only STB) that you could use to watch streaming content on a regular TV. There were lots of people trying to make it work before them, but there was a chicken-and-egg problem with content being underwhelming, therefore not getting customers to justify buying an STB, meaning the content was limited to computers, meaning there wasn't demand for a pay service, meaning the content was underwhelming.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:12 AM on September 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

Might Youtube Red fit in there somewhere too? It seems like the under-20 set care more about youtube video than anything on netflix at the moment, and the budget and production values of those videos increase every day.
posted by mosst at 9:12 AM on September 8, 2017

I don't know anyone who watches "serious" or high-production-value (as in, not user-generated / Youtube-esque) content on a smartphone.

My husband, who's fairly non-techie, watches Netflix on a smartphone before bed. I watch Netflix on a laptop. I know a lot of other people who watch Netflix and Hulu on computer monitors. We sometimes watch Netflix or Youtube on a standard TV, but we no longer have a standard TV service. (Our landlord insisted on removing the dish, and we're not willing to do business with ComCast.) I've considered getting a tablet for the sole purpose of watching streaming shows.

I suspect part of the reason for the switch to streaming was to fight piracy - the people who wanted to watch shows on their computers were going to do so; they're willing to pay a few dollars a month to do it, but not willing to put up with the endless hardware conflicts that DVD and Blu-Ray were causing. So there were a lot of torrents, and a lot of large-file-transfer services, enough that "mainstream" TV watchers were starting to look online before trying to buy a movie or rent the new delivery service.

And there's a nice legal precedent for, "well, if you don't provide a commercial version, it may not be infringement to share it," so they may have needed to provide laptop-and-tablet usable content.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:29 AM on September 8, 2017

I also question the total value of those Nielsen results - yes, they said that over 90% of viewing time is TV-based - but they're gathering ratings for specific shows and movies; I don't think they count YouTube.

Considering how much tv viewing has dropped for age groups under 50 in the last 16 years, I'm not sure that "TV is still king!" is the real message to take from recent Nielsen stats. The 18-24 crowd has dropped over a third of its former TV viewing.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:44 AM on September 8, 2017

When the dust settles, there will be Disney's service, Not Disney's service, maybe one more service like Amazon which combines non-exclusive pay-per-use rental content from all of the big studios with their own exclusive content, and probably one or two TV services like Hulu and Sling.

That's a safe bet for the US market. The rest of the world is more up for grabs and I think how things will go is much harder to predict.
posted by Ashwagandha at 4:41 AM on September 9, 2017

Warner has had their own service for four years but hasn't made any splash with it.
posted by octothorpe at 5:57 AM on September 9, 2017

Attacked by Rotten tomatoes - "Most importantly, studios are panicking because moviegoing is no longer a habit for most Americans. Because of climbing prices and competition from other forms of entertainment, a trip to the multiplex has become a special event. In particular, more movie fans are ignoring low- and mid-budget films when they are in theaters: Ehh, let’s wait until they show up on Netflix."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:29 PM on September 9, 2017

For what it's worth, It is on pace to break 100 million bucks this weekend.
posted by codacorolla at 7:53 AM on September 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

That's because it cheated and had critics and audiences like it.
posted by Artw at 7:56 AM on September 10, 2017 [2 favorites]

The lesson that studios will learn from this will be: reboot any old 40 year old horror franchise and you'll crack 100 million opening weekend. Get ready to see an Anne Rice extended universe that has films lined up until 2030 (but will actually only have two before being taken out behind the woodshed and then buried next to the Dark Universal Monster universe).
posted by codacorolla at 8:54 AM on September 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

(but will actually only have two before being taken out behind the woodshed and then buried next to the Dark Universal Monster universe).

I just hope they go long enough that we get a gritty, grimdark, Hard-R remake of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
posted by Copronymus at 10:20 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

« Older No basis for a system of government | "Every year about around this time it happens." Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

On the year, domestic box office is down 6.2 percent. The sky is falling
September 4, 2017 5:52 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

On the year, domestic box office is down 6.2 percent. The sky is falling September 4, 2017 5:52 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

On the year, domestic box office is down 6.2 percent. The sky is falling
September 4, 2017 5:52 PM Subscribe