That's what I was alluding to when I said the studios are partly to blame. Once they realized that a sequel would nearly always make a big profit, they slowly began to focus on milking franchises for every dollar they could rather than taking a risk on a new film. It began with Star Wars, Rocky, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Superman, and that era of films, and got worse over time.
They simultaneously stopped releasing all the mid-budget dramas aimed at adults, trying instead to knock it out of the park every time with a blockbuster.
Both strategies worked for awhile, but the long-term effect seems to have been that they've trained audiences to only show up for blockbusters, and forgotten how to make and market non-sequel blockbusters. That combined with post-Covid audiences preferring to watch from home has been a likely deathblow for the theater-going experience.
An anecdotal observation: I go to the cinema all the time. When I see new blockbuster films, it's nearly always in a near-empty theater. When I see showings of new less-marketed films, the theater tends to be sold out, or close to it. Recently I watched The Killer, and when I bought my ticket it was literally the last one left. It was nearly the same for The Holdovers, where there were only a few left.
When I see old films, it's always a sellout. I saw a 1920s silent film in a theater that seats 1,270, and it sold out. I was going to buy 2 tickets to see The Long Goodbye on Wednesday night next week, but there was only 1 seat left.
It seems audiences will still turn up for classics, and there are so few mid-budget pictures being made, that when one is released, it brings in a crowd, too, but neither will sustain theaters.
reply
share
alienzen (1931)
a year ago
Those films are sold out because there are limited screenings. If a film is showing 10 times a day, some of those screenings are not going to be sold out.
reply
share
FilmBuff (7234)
a year ago
That's part of it too, and why I say it isn't enough to sustain theaters. It used to be, when studios made a lot of those sorts of pictures, and put them into wide release, they made money, but audiences have been trained to ignore them, and I don't think it can be reversed.
reply
share
alienzen (1931)
a year ago
Audiences can watch old movies on demand at home any time. You used to have to buy a hard copy of a film to be able to watch it, or wait for it to be on TV with ads and a 4:3 ratio and low resolution. There used to be a massive difference watching a movie at the cinema and at home. Not so much any more.
reply
share
FilmBuff (7234)
a year ago
That isn't totally the case. As someone who mostly watches older films, I can tell you that it's hard to find many of them. I often end up having to buy a Blu-ray or DVD to watch something.
As for the quality of the experience at home vs. in a theater, it isn't even close. Even the nicest of home theaters, excluding homes that have actual full-size theaters built-in, pale in comparison to actual cinemas. Once you factor in the experience of seeing it in a crowded theater vs. alone, or with a few friends, at home, home viewing becomes at best 10% of the cinema experience.
The proof of this is how re-releases and repertory screenings routinely sell out. People with an appreciation for film understand how much better it is to see something in a theater.
reply
share
alienzen (1931)
a year ago
The gap in the experience between home and cinema is much smaller than it used to be. Even watching on a laptop in HD. Cinema used to be a totally different experience. It's still a bit better, but not that much. I don't agree that there is a big differnence in home cinema and cinema. It's more about the resoution than the size of the screen.
Theater is more of a ritual for me. I just like the ritual of it. It's not about the size of the screen.
reply
share