MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > "The Death of Movies Part XXXXIV: All ...

"The Death of Movies Part XXXXIV: All 2021 Warners Movies to Streaming Same Day as Theaters(ON TOPIC)

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
9 replies | jump to latest

Movie news this week in December 2020: Warner Brothers will now release its ENTIRE 2021 slate of movies (including Matrix IV and Suicide Squad II) the same day to theaters and to streaming on HBO Max.

Christopher Nolan chimed right in(paraphrased): "Scores of the best movie stars and directors in Hollywood went to bed working for one of the best studios in town...and woke up working for one of the worst streaming services on TV."

Given that movie theaters may spend half of 2021 not even being allowed to open, and then the other half trying to entice people to come back...evidently this looks to be quite a death blow to the "theatrical exhibition" side of the business. And not necessarily good for the pocketbook of Christopher Nolan.

For years, we have been seeing people willing to forego theaters and "wait the six months" for cable or DVD or streaming. But theatrical business was always there and -- given a huge worldwide market -- always lucrative with the billion-dollar grossing hits.

But as has been noted, a family can rent Wonder Woman II on HBO Max(along with all other content on the channel) for 15 dollars a month -- the price of ONE adult ticket to ONE movie.

How is the same money made?

I dunno. I'd rather ponder this.

If first run movies move steadily onto streaming ....are we really seeing the end of the "theatrical movie going experience?"

And Psycho is as good an example as any of what you lose.

All reports from 1960 are that the movie played to full houses, for at least a month that way, filled with screaming people from about minute 47 (the shower scene) to the end at minute 109 (oh there were gaps in between, but everybody stayed tense.)

There is footage of lines around the block to get in to see it in NYC. And reports of THREE MILE lines of cars on the road to a New Jersey drive-in to get in.

In a 1976 Film Comment Hitchcock Issue, "Get Carter" director Mike Hodges wrote of how his local London cinema -- usually empty of crowds most weeks -- was filled to the max and screaming when Psycho came to town in 1960.

Now, Hodges story reminds us that in some ways, "Psycho" was the exception and not the rule in movies circa 1960. It could fill a theater and create lines down the block(especially with that "nobody gets in after the movie starts' edict.)

That OTHER type of movie that Hodges wrote about -- the movie in 1960 that could NOT fill a theater, not even close -- well, maybe that's where streaming comes in today.

For in any given year of movie releases, perhaps more movies get small crowds than big ones, no lines at all (I think waiting in line for a movie ended once multiplexes could run the same movie on 10 screens, same day -- THAT change is already in place.)

I guess one aspect of my being on the old side is having those memories of waiting in long lines and seeing movies with huge crowds.

Its ironic...running the concept through my memory banks I realize that the vast majority of movies I have seen in my life have been with half-full houses or less. Just walked in. No lines at all. These are the famous exceptions in my life:

Kiddies movies in the early 60's. As a clue to my childhood, I will note that I eventually refused to stand in long lines to see kiddie movies and then entering the theater to be surrounded by yelling, laughting caterwauling kids. I had to do this for Disney's "The Absent Minded Professor"(1961 -- the year after Psycho), but I also had to do this for "The Three Stooges Meet Hercules," (1962) which was MY request but a day I grew to remember in hatred. The line. The crowds. The noise. The lousy movie.

Wait Until Dark. My memory here is interesting. I didn't have to wait in a long line, but the theater was packed. And came the third act, EVERYBODY was screaming, long and hard and up to the biggest scream in the movie and then trailing down in the minutes of sheer terror in its aftermath. Wait Until Dark is my favorite movie of 1967 among many top competitors(The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, The Dirty Dozen, and for me, Hotel)...that screaming audience is the reason why.

Interesting: though Wait Until Dark was a 1967 release, I saw it in 1968, inexplicably on a double-bill with a Western, The Scalphunters(with Burt Lancaster.) I moved away, but came back on a vacation trip and went with my old friends to see Wait Until Dark AGAIN, two years later, in 1970, at the SAME theater, in a re-release, and AGAIN with a Western(Chisum, with John Wayne.) And yet...two full years later, Wait Until Dark STILL drew a full house, which STILL screamed all the way through the third act. Its the only movie I've seen that got the same reaction twice. (Not so, Jaws, see below.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

1972. The Godfather. This is the first time I remembering having to stand in line for a movie that wasn't for kids. Something about the 70's blockbusters drove these big lines. My guess: more people wanted to see these movies than ever before(the baby boomers were now young adults), but the studios weren't yet into releasing these movies on too many screens(not that many screens were available.) I stood (or sat) in long lines for at least two hours for: The Godfather, The Exorcist, and Jaws. I missed out on the equally insane lines for Star Wars only because I had seen it for free on the 20th Century Fox backlot because of a school connection. The impact of these two hour waits just to get into the theater was to create INCREDIBLE anticipation and excitement when the lights finally went down, the curtain finally went up and "that movie" started to unfurl.
"The Godfather" inaugurated the era of "no big opening credits and music" -- rather than starting off with a Bernard Herrmann/Saul Bass bang of music and animation...The Godfather began only with the title, in darkness, some music, and a man's face in the darkness as he said: "I believe in America." It was a great movie watching experience, and a great memory. No screams, though.

Jaws, 1975. A long line. A two hour wait. Playing cards with friends. And than a movie that had the most screaming in it since Wait Until Dark. After that guy's head popped out of the hole in the boat under water, during the next scene among Brody, Hooper and the Mayor -- you couldn't hear a word they were saying. The screams were STILL going.

That was opening day, June 1975. By October 1975 when I went to see Jaws for the third and final time, the theater was barely full and there were no screams...and the movie deflated before my eyes. THIS is probably the biggest marker of what we have lost with a generation of movies being on TV sooner rather than later, and it is about to get worse.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

1977. Star Wars. Though I never had to brave the multi-hour lines in LA (where I lived at the time) to see Star Wars, the 20th Century Fox backlot theater was filled to the aisles(SRO and sitting room only) with what I am guessing were Star Trek fans in the main(one came with me.) That opening shot where the little spacecraft goes flitting forward and that BIG spacecraft pursues...filling and filling and FILLING the screen -- got a standing ovation and unending cheers. Screaming wasn't the issue, here. Being enthralled and worshipful, was. I KNEW the movies had changed, right then and there. It was a definite feeling inside me. And when the movie reached its end and "the Magnificent Seven" bowed to get their medals and the words "Directed by George Lucas" came on the screen to a jolt of John Williams music...the place went nuts. Minutes on end. A great memory.

1979....Psycho (?) I've covered this before, but it was a gift from ...someone. I ended up on a long line and in a packed theater to see Psycho at a college revival(more space in the building than a usual theater) and FINALLY got to see how the movie worked. Confession: the shower scene didn't get many screams...something about the slow build up to it, I think. But ARBOGAST getting it got big screams (you couldn't hear Sam and Lila in the scene afterwards) and moments like Norman appearing behind Sam at the motel("Looking for me?") and Lila jumping at her reflection in the mirror got HUGE screams and by the time Lila turned to go into the fruit cellar..fuggedabout it. Nobody could hear the shrink's speech for about two minutes, there was so much screaming.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Along with the memories above are the memories of going to packed theaters in LA in the 70s where every comedy seemed to get wall to wall laughs and you DEFINITELY couldn't hear the lines after them.

Indeed, the only Hitchcock movie I saw with a crowd that reacted -- other than that Psycho revival -- was a college revival of North by Northwest..THAT packed house was laughing most of time ("with, not at") at such lines as Grant's "Seven parking tickets" about why the cops were chasing him. There was also a lot of cheering and applause, especially at the Mount Rushmore climax. (James Mason himself always noted that his great last line -- "Not very sporting, using real bullets" always got drowned in audience applause for the rescue of Grant and Saint.)

---

I suppose it was in the 80's that these effects started to wear off. That said, I don't remember lwaiting in line,, but I remember full houses and big reactions to Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET(crying,sobbing and sniffling), Terms of Endearment(ditto) and even Ghostbusters(the huge laugh when the three heroes first got scared by a ghost and ran out of the library seemed to lead to an EXPLOSION of laughs...kids, maybe.)

--
And so: now all of that is pretty much over, isn't it? If people can see first run movies in their house without even going to the theater, each and every one of the memories I described above can't really happen in the years to come. A DIFFERENT experience will arise -- the "community of the household" , of watching a movie at home with family or friends or lovers or spouses.

That said, I read this a lot: "I'd rather watch the movie at home than have to deal with a crowd of rude, talking, cell phone using people, packed side to side like sardines." COVID-19 's aftershocks alone may deal with that. It will be a long time til folks want to be side by side.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Anyway, the Warner Brothers experiment looms ahead. It starts with Wonder Woman II on Christmas Day, right there in your home OR at the theater, if you've a mind. (Hey, I might go to the theater -- I just saw Psycho there in October and I'm still alive.)

Change is inevitable, but memories are great.

PS. The most intriguing movie on the Warners 2021 slate to me is the "Sopranos" prequel about Young Tony in Newark. It should have come out back in September, now -- it lies ahead.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 4 years ago

That said, I read this a lot: "I'd rather watch the movie at home than have to deal with a crowd of rude, talking, cell phone using people, packed side to side like sardines." COVID-19 's aftershocks alone may deal with that. It will be a long time til folks want to be side by side.

I tend to take specific countermeasures to deal with some of these problems! That is, I tend to sit very close to the screen, maybe just 4 or 5 rows back (and in the centre). Not only does that put most of the audience (looking at their phones, etc.) *behind you* and out of your visual field, it also ensures that the screen is *huge* for you with maximal sound so even if there is some misbehaviour close to you, you probably won't notice it!

Of course, watching stuff at home is normally an invitation to have a much *more* distracted time. People (even if they're by themselves) are constantly tempted to chat, get up and make drinks/food, answer phones, you name it. At home, *you* have the power to pause, interrupt, rewind. In the cinema you're strapped into a rollercoaster, you give yourself over to the director's power and you *feel it* - is the director a good driver, a safe pair of hands, or not? At home, you're doing some of the driving: if things are too stressful or confusing you pause, look up something on IMDb, who knows what? It's a completely different experience.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

That said, I read this a lot: "I'd rather watch the movie at home than have to deal with a crowd of rude, talking, cell phone using people, packed side to side like sardines." COVID-19 's aftershocks alone may deal with that. It will be a long time til folks want to be side by side.
---
I tend to take specific countermeasures to deal with some of these problems! That is, I tend to sit very close to the screen, maybe just 4 or 5 rows back (and in the centre). Not only does that put most of the audience (looking at their phones, etc.) *behind you* and out of your visual field, it also ensures that the screen is *huge* for you with maximal sound so even if there is some misbehaviour close to you, you probably won't notice it!

--

That's a good approach, swanstep. I think that those of us who still love to see a movie at a theater develop whatever strategy works for us.

And I will add this: the paragraph I wrote above about why people DON'T go to theaters has never really applied to my own experience too much. Its the old "perception versus reality" thing. My theater crowds generally DON'T talk, overuse the cell phone, etc. And a GOOD crowd still works well with a comedy -- lots of laughs. I don't hear much screaming anymore at shockers, we got jaded.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

BUT I will add THIS: in the 2 years before COVID-19 hit, I became a bit frustrated and angry with my local theater's change in policy: reserved seats only. Problem one: you can't just go on a whim on the day you want to see the movie...you have to book in advance or the theater is sold out that day(which means you have to "commit" days before you want to.) Problem two: the theater sells the seats pushing everybody together. I used to pick a row up in the back and maneuver AWAY from other people; now more often than not, I am put right next to someone. For this reason alone, I was starting to edge away from local movie-going, but COVID ended that problem, for now. When I saw Unhinged and I saw Psycho at the theater recently...there was PLENTY of room around me.

Perhaps when theaters "come back"(IF they come back), management will start to reserve seats(in a half-empty theater) farther apart rather than bunching us back together.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

1972. The Godfather. This is the first time I remembering having to stand in line for a movie that wasn't for kids

---

I had this follow-up thought: Though I waited in a long, two-hour line for the first Godfather(aka "The Godfather"), with Godfather II....I just walked right in. Half full theater. That should tell us something right there.

And this nice memory of youth. I was at the home of my girlfriend. It was around maybe 8:30 pm and a carload of my male friends showed up to offer me to join them at 10:00 pm showing of Godfather II. "I picked the girl." (See, its not movies that are my first love.) Thanked my friends...off they went to a 10:00 pm show, no big line to wait in. I saw the movie a couple of weeks later...with the girl(er, young woman). Walked right in. I might add -- that two-hour line to see the original Godfather was about two months after it came out!

And this: the opposite of full-house theaters are empty theaters. To date, only ONCE in my life have I been the only one in an empty theater to see a movie. But that's not really the case; a male relative went with me. So, just the two of us. Anyway, it was 1972 and the movie was "The Hot Rock" with Robert Redford and George Segal, two favorite stars of mine. For DECADES since then, I've been alone in a theater for awhile, waiting for the show to start, thinking "Is this going to be like The Hot Rock? Just me here?" Nope -- somebody else ALWAYS shows up.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Of course, watching stuff at home is normally an invitation to have a much *more* distracted time. People (even if they're by themselves) are constantly tempted to chat, get up and make drinks/food, answer phones, you name it.

---

Absolutely. This is one reason that -- pre-COVID -- I've had an interest in seeing movies at the theater instead of at home, so as to get the "full immersive experience." Its worth paying a few extra bucks for me (and, once upon a time, it meant I could see the movie ASAP and not wait months for TV;.)

I'll go further. I've made it a point over my adult lifetime to see the most dramatic, complex "Oscar bait" films at the movie theater because I know I would never finish them at home. Example: The Last Emperor of 1987. I had to force myself into the car and out to the theater to watch that film with the full attention it required.

Conversely, I've watched action movies and comedies of little consequence for the first time on TV , not at the theater..and sacrificed quality.

---

At home, *you* have the power to pause, interrupt, rewind.

---

Which is kinda cheating, isn't it? Oh well...I do it all the time.

--

In the cinema you're strapped into a rollercoaster, you give yourself over to the director's power and you *feel it* - is the director a good driver, a safe pair of hands, or not? At home, you're doing some of the driving: if things are too stressful or confusing you pause, look up something on IMDb, who knows what? It's a completely different experience.

---

Yes, it is completely different, and I really don't like it so much watching at home.

That said, in the past two years I have liked two Netflix movies more than almost all that I saw in theaters : Buster Scruggs and The Irishman. Now with the Irishman , I actually went and saw it at a theater first -- which made it more "legitimate to me." Also, The Irishman had to "take a tie" with a movie I DID first see at the theater: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'

reply