If you're asking why we left out potential suspects like TV or the pandemic or capitalism, I explain all of those in the bonus companion video over on Nebula nebula.tv/videos/patrickhwillems-the-other-suspects-who-is-killing-cinema
Leftists killed cinema. They hate half their audience and they destroy characters, they attack citizens and openly hate whatever we happen to like so everything STINKS now We are boycotting movies now. Actively refusing to pay a dime to see this junk.
@@TheMajorStrangeryou're wrong because you know nothing about the financial situation of these companies. If you really think Warner bros is extremely profitable. Buy the stock then. Please. I beg you. I wish you people owned the stocks sometimes, so you'd be in just as much financial pain as the investors. Dude, Warner, paramount, and Disney(movie division) aren't profitable. People like you just scream late stage capitalism when in reality, you're financially illiterate people, who fall behind in the rat race of money because you REFUSE to learn anything. You just scream unfair. You're like children who try to play chess, lose every game, and cry, but spend zero time learning how to play.
@@youtubeviolatedme7123paramount, Warner, Disney movie division all don't make profits. So how does your comment make any sense if the companies don't make money? This is why I have zero sympathy for people like you who cry about how unfair things are. You can't even look up the most basic company info. You just assumed these companies were profitable. If we have infinite info available to us, and you still screw this up, you have no right having any wealth. Why would a person who can't Google basic company facts expect to have any wealth? How could you possibly make a correct investment in life when basic financial company research is too hard for you? It's not unfair dude. People who understand business and money generate wealth. 99% of you don't.... And you have zero interest in learning (trust me, I spend all day randomly trying to educate people before realizing, you can't help the masses).
@@JakHornbecause even if the companies are woke, there's a large enough audience for the content. It was always a pricing issue, becauee Netflix created an expectation of low prices, before their bait and switch. If they raise prices another 30%, it works. The main reason it got bad was Netflix had infinite venture capital money to spend. Now, interest rates are high. Studios borrow to find movies. So now, funding a movie is stupid expensive. They haven't adjusted, because no one(OK most) working there have never experienced 5%+ central bank interest rates before. I'll put my own money on woke content working fine the second I see Disney drop budgets (or if the next quarterly report shows the recent price hikes worked). But, no reason to bet now, when the stock is still getting cheaper and companies still losing money.
I would argue that the death of the move star was a deliberate choice on the part of studios, not an accident. Movie stars have power and studios hate it when anyone besides themselves are in control. Studios control the franchises, not the movie stars. If everything is a franchise, then actors have less power and influence.
True. And back in the "good old days," they could lock stars into highly restrictive contracts, so the studios retained all the power over their careers, but I don't think I've heard of anything like that in recent memory. Even with Marvel contracts where they are required to show up for X Marvel movies at a certain rate, they are still free to do their own projects whenever not on the clock. Imagine if someone like Ana de Armas had a contract that says "you can ONLY make movies for this one production group for the next 5+ years, and at pre-determined rates."
Honestly I wouldn't totally agree... Franchises give the actors HUGE leverage if contracts aren't signed for several movies at the beginning. Just remember Scarlet Johansson who got an additional 40million (or whatever it was exactly) for Black Widow. Just take the MCU as a total. I guess the position of those actors when it came to their payment wasn't that bad. I mean... I guess near endgame they could've literally asked for any amount and would've gotten it. Noone is gonna replace Iron Man 30 Movies into the MCU because RDJ wanted 20million more. I'd actually argue, that the MCU (while I hate it) is one of the biggest franchises in recent history to create "movie stars"
I agree, somewhat. There are fewer and fewer culturally relevant movie stars period. The stars of even 15 years ago will not necessarily draw wide audiences. Film projects are being flooded with faces we don't recognize, some of which are not talented. It's like everyone is trying to hire unknowns...but none of them hit well enough to be a trusted name in the quality of their projects. This does benefit the bottom line of the studio when it comes to the production of a film. More money paid to the producers...less put into the actors.
Gone Girl came out in 2014 and made $369m against a $61m budget and was a huge hit that everyone was talking about in a way they would talk about a big hit from the 90s. It was also David Fincher’s most financially successful film. It came out the same year as Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America 2, and X-Men: Days of Future Past. So clearly Scorsese was right when he said that audiences see what you allow them to see. And Gone Girl made similar money to superhero films comparatively to their budgets. It made over 6 times its budget. That’s a hell of a return on investment.
Gone girl is an adapted screenplay from a massively famous book. It already had a fan base. Rain Man was an original screenplay with no previous audience or following. You can't compare the two.
It doesn't help that Disney is now forbidding any movie theaters to screen old fox movies. They are mostly declining theaters that are usually run movies when they are new and first released, and only really gave permission to independent theaters. They are putting everything in the Disney vault so they can artificially inflate their value. I hate Disney so much
This is a massive issue for me. They also don't renew license for boutique blu ray labels. They're withholding They're own library which they could easily dump on Disney plus. So frustrating. That and censorship of classic films for no reason.
@@BustermachineDisney is doing this because Disney movie, TV, division loses a billion dollars a quarter. Pray tell me, why should they? Who is supposed to fund that billion dollar a quarter loss? Where is that money supposed to come from? You want to just need to save the movie theaters, but if Disney save the movie theaters and dies then who's going to save Disney? You guys assume Disney makes money because you're financially illiterate about business, hence why you struggle at the game of capitalism. Disney only makes money on parks now.
One of my media professors in college (2006ish) told our class how in the near future we would see bog screen TV's get exceedingly cheap and light weight, (which also weighed 150+ pounds) and that movies would be released in theaters and for rental/on demand simultaneously. Man he nailed it.
Honestly I'd see more movies day 1 and pay for it too if they released on streaming day 1 alongside theaters. Too many aholes in theaters and I have a nice OLED Atmos setup 😊
Your Honor, I present further evidence for the Netflix case: While I’m a big fan of Netflix, the moment they announced they had 88 million paid monthly subscribers, it was as if a starting gun went off for every studio to launch their own streaming platform. This race not only dealt a massive blow to DVD and home video sales, but it also dulled the desire to watch a movie in theaters. It fostered the ‘I’ll just wait for it to hit digital’ mindset.
also most seem OK to pay 5 seperate streeming services and none cares to have a copy of the movie or show despite its not IF it will be gone if its streemed it is WHEN.
people arent interested in the time commitment, and $10-14 per ticket to watch once versus a subscription you already pay for is losing proposition unless people actually care about the experience, like sad to say but netflix was winning because it offered a superior service (in regards to a majority of people). I think people are disinterested with netflix however and the competing services have dealt a blow. Im so tired of content overload.
I'll wait for to hit home video rentals was already existing attitude when it came to movies in 90's when the release cycle from cinemas to home video started to speed up. Cinema tickets starting to get more expensive at same time further sped up the process, but there also another factor in going to movies like travel costs, parking cost and so on. Home video release was already more convenient option on age of VHS, damn just the DVD and early wide screen TV's started to reduce the gap in quality of spectacle between home and cinema experience.
I think another symptom that you didn’t really talk about was how modern television took away a lot of the gravitas of movies. It’s easy to forget in our modern day but there used to be a time when film was seen as “above” television. Film actors would be people who USED to be on TV and any time a film star did appear on TV it was for a one episode guest appearance. The idea that an actor like Pedro Pascal could be both a TV and film star was unthinkable. They were even in completely separate unions up until 2012. Film always had higher budgets, better stunts, and better effects. But as the production value for TV steadily increased audiences started seeing TV as a longer equivalent to film. The ultimate example of this is Stranger Things season four where every episode is long enough and has enough effects to be a mid-budget movie. It’s telling that a lot of the most popular adult dramas of the past few years have been shows not movies.
Television has acquired the prestige of film and movies are serialized and forgettable. Add in that they're all streaming now and they really start to blend together.
100 percent agree I would put Breaking Bad on the the list. It became apparent after that the visual direction in TV was something that viewers can expect in not only movies but also TV shows. After this, the next clear step was black mirror. which by all intentions are just a set of movies per series, but with the effect of having a brand while still be novel.
The one suspect you missed is the consolidation of movie studios. Back in the day, there used to be about 50 different movie studios in Hollywood. This meant more competition, more options for audiences to choose from, and more opportunities for filmmakers to get a project greenlit, where smaller more niche projects could be made by smaller studios more willing to take risks to stand out. But over the years, all these smaller studios have been brought out or shut down by larger studios, to the point where there are only 5 left; Universal, Warner Bros, Disney, Sony and Paramount. This means less options for filmmakers to work with and less for audiences to choose from. If those 5 studios turn your script down, you’re shit out of luck. If you don’t like the movies being made by those 5, you’re shit out of luck. This is why Disney buying Fox was one of the worst things to happen to cinema in the last decade.
@@Philbert-s2c Precisely. The model of capitalism proposed and pioneered by such thinkers as Adam Smith has scant relationship to the monopoly economy foisted on the world today, and I really mean foisted when you consider the sheer speed with which this trend has engulfed the West. Late Capitalism - and also Late Democracy, and Late News/Journalism (why else do we prefer indie youtubers to TV legacy people?) - are all in dire straights. Tools meant to guarantee freedom are in mechanical meltdown, and we are living in a scarcely-masked oligarchy none-too-different to Russia.
Robert Reich has some interesting op-eds on how much of what we are calling "inflation" nowadays is really price-gouging by monopolies/oligopolies with price-setting power. The competition that used to create downward pressure on prices is gone. This is the case in almost every industry now, unfortunately.
It only takes a couple of minutes reading comments to realize the problem with cinema is very complex and there are a lot of suspects for its murder. This is a great essay that triggered great points and conversations.
One thing this video misses (though it's brought up in passing) is the monopolization of the physical theater into just a couple of large chains, which imo has caused prices to climb precipitously. The small local cinema or regional chain where you can get a ticket and refreshments for a few bucks is gone, you're more and more forced into huge cineplexes (usually far from downtown, built in giant malls or shopping centers on bypasses) where you'll pay $15 per person for tickets, more like $30+ per person if you add food. I think that can't be ignored if you're worried about the "frequency" of peoples' movie trips. I know I've gone to the movies 2 or 3 times more frequently since I moved near a downtown that's lucky enough to have a small theater with tickets under $10. More peripherally, I would throw in the "death of third places" thesis. The demise of arcades, roller rinks, bowling alleys, etc, which in the 1980s-1990s would often be built adjoining a theater (or even inside the theater in the arcade case!), has damaged the theater's ability to act as a casual hangout spot.
>I would throw in the "death of third places" thesis. The demise of arcades, roller rinks, bowling alleys, etc, which in the 1980s-1990s would often be built adjoining a theater (or even inside the theater in the arcade case!), has damaged the theater's ability to act as a casual hangout spot. Please read Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam based on his essay written in 1995. It very completely refutes the notion that the internet has caused the death of third spaces due to cataloging and showing the trends from the pre-social media era. What we should be focusing on is the American obsession with cars, the low implementation of public transit and the roadway killing pedestrian friendly cities, this has killed out community more then anything.
While true, don't studios negotiate deals with theaters regarding prices? I remember my old film class mentioning the first week of major film releases, theaters only get 0-10% of the ticket revenue and that theaters make the majority of their money from concessions. Studios demand most, if not all, of the ticket revenue go to them and the threaten theaters by saying they won't give them batches of movies (i.e. they'll hold both large and small movies). Theaters do get an incrementally larger proportion of the ticket revenue as time goes on though. (Apologies if this is in the video, btw, I'm still not done watching it.)
Disney shutting down Touchstone Pictures was appalling. I hated them for years for doing that, some of the best movies in the 90s were made in that division. If they had kept it, it would have continued to make great mid-budget comedy and action movies.
I honestly disagree. I think that stuff needs to be done under the Disney label. People deserve to know Disney themselves are capable of the types of films you mention, and having another label should not be a key to success.
Something I’ve always thought was a missed opportunity for streamers was to give us what we really have lost from DVDs: extras! Bloopers, deleted scenes, directors and cast episode commentaries. I remember LOVING these as a kid on DVDs of movies and shows I love, and we just don’t get these now. Streamers should start dropping those again a year or so after a show/movie is released to reinvigorate conversations and give those DVD vibes. HBO is the closest to that but they just need to take it one step further
I noticed when watching Captain Marvel that Disney+ had deleted scenes and a commentary version under "Extras" if you click on the movie. But I only noticed it by accident
Extras today are awkward looking actors dressed up in green in front of green walls, occasionally on wire. There's not much extra to the movies you watch that is compelling these days, probably why they shy away from it unless it's something like Barbie or Nolan made & those are outliers. It's mostly boring, unless you like watching a VFX artist sculpt a model in a program.
Media accessibility is a major culprit. When you have access to all different forms of media whenever you want, you watch almost none of it and default to what is the fastest and easiest to digest. Its the only way to "keep up".
I feel the same way. I’m subscribed to 3 streaming services and I barely watch most of it outside of streaming originals I’m interested, and even then, I can get really bored and end up coming here to RUclips and waste valuable time. And speaking of RUclips, there are so many videos and channels that breakdown movies and shows that it begs the question of, why bother watching stuff on a streamer, when you can listen to a person breakdown an entire 7-season show for 2.5 hours or an entire movie for 30-40min? For all the complaints about piracy hurting the film & TV industry, how come no one talks about breakdown videos/channels robbing people the opportunity to watch media? (analysis and review videos are another category, and they could potentially be harmful, but I am referring to those extremely long videos designed to ragebait).
It's too easy to spend hours idly browsing the libraries and before you know it, you've lost a chunk of a day. At least with rental stores you get to go someplace and interact with people.
@@JamesLawner If a breakdown of a film or show without having watched said media at all is more entertaining or interesting than actually watching it yourself maybe you just dont enjoy movies and tv that much in the first place.
@@JamesLawnerThose Channel breakdowns are mostly surface level details and most of the bigger ones fence sit on their takes of the films if it effects their sponsorships. I think RUclips is definitely beating Cinema as of now but it doesn’t have much content that ages well, that’s why the platform has gone through more phases in its short run compared to hollywood because it’s essentially Internet TV. Hollywood has more of a foundation to rebuild itself again while RUclips is just now building one, and it’s not that good when you really look at it. The biggest RUclips Stars are Live Streamers, gamers and influencers, those aren’t necessarily people that will still impact peoples minds in the next seven years while Eddie Murphy is still remembered to this day even though he hasn’t been main stream for about thirty years. What I’m getting at is Hollywood and cinema have more of culture impact than the internet and RUclips, hell a good chunk of the platform would be nothing without film cause they wouldn’t have anything to react to. RUclips at best is the biggest social media platform to exist, but that’s all it will really be, nothing more, nothing less.
I think one of the problems and one of the reasons for the whole "I’ll just wait for it to hit digital" thing is, that theaters are too expensive. Tickets are high priced, food and drinks are high priced, any games/arcades may also cost money. Some people just don't have enough money to spend on going to the theater to see a movie they may not even like. It's why people sometimes sneak food and drinks into the theaters. Why pay all that money for 1 movie for 1 day when you can get a monthly subscription to a streaming service and get access to 100's of movies and tv shows and wait for new movies to come to the platform to watch anytime you want for a 1 time a month fee from the comfort of home.
The Theatres have become expensive due to the Real Estate bubble making it so hard on them to stay in business. As less people come to theatres they have to jack up the price it’s a vicious cycle
Good point. Same situation here in France. The full price for one movie is the cost of 1 month subscription to a streaming service. Competition is therefore high...
honestly this is such a good point. i just realized i am surprised that that infaltion and the ecomonic situatiuons people are facing are not talked about as one of the reasons.
How abut go to the cinema once a month with the subscription money and pirate the rest of the time... 1) U don't support these arsehoes 2) U get to enjoy cinema properly at least once a month....
The death of the movie star phenomenon strikes home when I think of how much of a big deal my grandmother made of actors such as Clark Gable and Shirley Temple, which I have trouble fully comprehending.
Yes. I have an intelligent ( highly so ! ) university lecturer friend in her late 50s who seems obsessed with Cary Grant..??! With others it's Burton or James Mason ! I suppose it's harmless ?
One thing that was not mentioned is how expensive movie tickets has become. In Brazil, for example, going with your family to see a movie has become a luxury, so even if you like to go to the cinema, it's somethinfmg you can only do once in a while for most people
First of all you are wrong or lying since in the cinemas where I work there are ways to pay less. In London you are able to watch a movie in off peak times for 10 pounds. Sometimes even less. Secondly, why do you people think cinemas are detached from reality and not affected by inflation? Why is it fine for you to pay loads for petrol but think a cinema should be a charitable institution??? It's a private company, they also pay bills, it's not like a cinema theatre doesn't have any expense. Blame the government for raising taxes and bills, you can't expect cinema just to open for free. Grow up please.
Hollywood itself is killing cinema. Politics and the culture war. No matter where you fall politically, you have to understand that you can't piss off half of the country and still expect that half to show up to theaters and purchase a movie ticket.
even in germany watching a movie in a cinema, with your Family becomes a huge invest. Coke, Chips or popcorn + 5 tickets = 150€ ( 800.11 Real ) for one movie.......
Gen X here: I remember a time when my friends and I wanted to see "a movie" and we opened the paper to the movie section and looked for something acceptable around the time we wanted to go, +/- an hour. This worked because a 12 screen theater had 10 different movies playing. To us, the social experience of going to see a movie together and then talking about it over dinner was the fun - the movie was almost secondary to that mission.
This. Physically going to the theatres and watching a movie with friends is always the best part of watching movies, even if the movie itself sucks. It's best if the movie doesn't suck, but even if it does, the social aspect makes it fun. That's why I'll miss movies if they go away.
There was such a variety in the 1990s. Sometimes you didn't even need to check the paper, you would just turn up and look at the titles, rating and movie poster! You could ask the ticket seller what's popular!
@@matthewprince9705Glad I read this. Forgot about that experience of just showing up and picking a movie right then and there because you had so many to choose from. Allowed the focus to be on "seeing a movie with a friend" vs "seeing the new xyz film"
"I remember a time when my friends and I wanted to see "a movie" and we opened the paper to the movie section and looked for something acceptable around the time we wanted to go, +/- an hour. " Believe it or not, that's one reason I have a growing collection of old newspapers from way back when, like the Chicago Sun-Times from 1980, for one. These old newspapers have a bunch of ads for the major films of the time, and listings of where they could be seen in their areas and at what times (a far different time than today's model of seeing everything when you want it).
@wynn1587jealous you never got to see the good times eh yeah I kinda feel sorry for you guys you missed out Bigtime a lot of straight girls back then too you missed out Bigtime 😊
Honestly, as bleak as things seem, the fact that audiences seem to be getting tired of the same old stories is actually a GOOD thing in the long run, I think. It's at the very least a sign that there is still indeed a hunger for unique, bold, and unconventional stories among even general audiences.
They are getting tired of the "same old" 'subversive/deconstructive' stories that have been made for the last 8 or 9 years. That's not to say that there's no value in getting experimental and going off the beaten path, but I'd argue that alot of modern writers are caught up trying to re-invent the wheel while *lacking the experience and wisdom to actually do it well* ... plus I mean the cliches of 'subversive' writing are so worn out at this point that I'd say THEY are the one's being derivative and uninventive, when most audiences can pretty much predict exactly how the plot of the movie is going to go just by looking at a character's first appearance on screen because we've seen the same cookie cutter "subversive writing 101" narrative play out every time now.
here from twenty twenty four , december, and seeing what is coming next two years yeah i wish ... like we in for the bigest five films of the year been 3 marvel things, new launch for dc's new universe and a reboot of jurasic park ... fantastic ( I can't wait.) ... holy shit that is so sad
Excellent video, you nailed it! Mid budget, non-franchise movies need to come back into the mainstream consciousness. We’ve had 5 years of 200-300 million dollar flops. Quantity over quality never works in the long term. One other thing that proves audiences want good movies is, during covid there was a trend of people in their early 20s doing reaction videos to older movies and a lot of them discovered classic movies that were between 30-50 years old.
Also, something you missed, movie tickets are way more expensive than they used to be. The price has doubled in the past 20 years. That definitely effects audience choices and what they are willing to spend money on.
and why do you think they're more expensive than they used to be? we have to be honest about what came first, movie tickets being more expensive is an outcome of what the video is talking about
@@i_so_late I remember when they shot up in price. It happened in the early 2000s, when all the theater chains built new buildings, probably something to do with digital projection. With the new buildings came the new prices. It happened pre-Marvel, between 2000-2005. I was in a city in 2000, when the new movie theater opened up, moved to a small town in 2002, and they got the new theater in 2005. I was old enough to go to the movies with friends and pay tickets myself, and prices went from $5 to $10. Prices have continued to rise since then, but the new facilities came first.
@@i_so_late We were ok with the price hike at first because every community still had budget theaters, theaters that got the movies later but we cheaper. And then the budget theaters started closing. Probably because more people were going to the nice theaters fewer times a year instead of the budget theaters more often. But if we're talking about the audience being trained to not see movies as often, this is a huge part of it. I know families who basically stopped going to the theater at all when the budget theaters closed, because they can't afford it anymore.
@@miz4535 Prices rose because in the early 2000s, all the theater chains built fancy new theaters that had higher ticket prices. This trained audiences that movies were a fancy experience you went to less often, instead of a more affordable experience you went to regularly. I think the new theaters had to do with new technology, probably something with more digital films/sound systems. It started before Spiderman came out. The first movie I saw in the fancy new theater was Sorcerer's Stone.
There is some real irony that most of the popular films within the massive franchises are usually those which deviate the most from the formula or are made by directors who do not normally make such works.
A huge problem is that a lot of movie theaters no longer buy mid budget movies. I love cinema, I love foreign movies, I love dramas, I love experimental indie films and they don't play in the movie theaters nearby me. Some aren't even available on streaming services. So I have to pirate them. Because it's the only way to get them. Which creates the illusion that I don't want to see them, but I do. Is just that, along with studios withdrawing rights to theaters and removing content from streaming, pirating is just more practical and satisfactory.
Spot on! Luckily there is an indie cinema theatre in the cultural quarter where I live. There one can find all the types of movies you mentioned. Im always in that theatre 🎥
Bingo. It's Napster all over again. People don't pirate because they don't wanna pay. They pirate because that's the only place stuff is readily available. If I could go to one site and find any movie, I'd happily pay for it. Just like iTunes proved people would with music.
Same. Radarr and Plex has been a massive help in my watching of good movies. I was happy to pay for streaming services until they stopped having movies and shows that I liked or stopped allowing me to stream what I wanted on their services.
@@2face789 I no longer pirate many movies, since I've been able to build an exceptional collection from iTunes for $5 to $7 each... Other than Winter's Bone, Interstellar and Ex Machina, I have very few other titles from the last decade, as not many recent releases catch my eye. Oppenheimer is the only major new release that I've looked forward to in a while.
I've been a movie lover since my teens. As a student, I went to the movie theater several times per month, watching all kinds of films. I've also given over my love of movies to my son: In the last couple of years, we've watched movies from the last six decades almost weekly as a family - but at home, via stream and projector. We rarely watched recent movies, mostly those from the 1990s and 2000s, or even older ones. In the last five years, I've only been to a movie theater two times: for the movie 1917 in 2020 and Oppenheimer and 2023.
One thing that bothers me is that a movie like The Power of the Dog is now forever buried in Netflix's deep library. It is completely out of the public conversation and will have no shelf live. I honestly forgot it existed. Classics like Blade Runner and Shawshank Redemption did not do well initially, but was kept alive through reruns on TV and video/DVD sales.
I think that movie got a criterion release. I’m glad a lot of the “prestige” netflix films are getting some physical release thru criterion. What sucks is the smaller less prestigious movies that havent gotten any blurays id like to own (caliber and the ritual are both great netflix movies that dont have wide bluray release)
You say that but even after Blader Runner became well known people still didn't see 2047. No one can claim a good movie will always succeed or a bad move won't be a success.
First of all, great job to the whole team here! Regarding the death of physical media, the victims of that trend who we too often ignore are low and modest-income people who go to public libraries for their access to movies. I used to work in a public library in a downtown core where a significant portion of the community we served did not make enough money to afford either cable or the internet for their home. Consequentially, they would check out 10-20 DVDs at a time for their home entertainment. As fewer titles are released on physical platforms, especially really popular titles that were made explicitly and exclusively for streaming, it's people who are already living with too many barriers imposed upon them who will suffer the most. Additionally, public libraries are great resources for accessing older or classic titles that streaming services aren't interested in acquiring.
@mhawang4238 Kanopy is terrific! But it's unfortunately useless for someone who, through no fault of their own, can't afford the internet for their home.
I used to get movies and CDs from my public library. My entire life has been a struggle between poverty and lower Middle Class. I completely agree with you.
Dude these past three videos, Patrick has been fuckin killing it. I mean he’s always killing it but right now he’s hitting the exact topics that need to be hit and hitting them HARD.
Farmers back in the day, when asked why they all paint their barns red, said "that's the only color they sell." Hardware store owners, when asked why they only sell red paint, said "that's all that the farmers buy."
Um.. Barns are traditionally that color because 'paint', as we know it today was too expensive so they coated them in a mix of Linseed Oil and ferrous Iron Oxide a.k.a., Rust to prevent decay.
@williamdixon-gk2sk it's essentially a parable to convey the idea something can be viewed entirely differently by two different groups without acknowledgement of their own contribution to the matter. It's not meant to be taken literally. That said, that is an interesting fact I didn't know, and I appreciate you sharing it.
You're forgetting the factor of rising ticket costs. I remember hearing many people using the phrase "I don't need to see this one in the theater." People began only spending money for theater visits to see blockbusters, where the big speakers, and giant screen added more to the experience (in their opinions), and waited to see dramas, and comedies on video, DVD, and streaming.
I’m pretty cheap. I usually wait for the matinee & snuggle my own junk food in. Even so it wasn’t that long ago that I could do a matinee with a friend & we’d pay 8 bucks or so for our tickets. Now matinees cost as much as first night Fridays. And some of the theaters are looking to employee bomb-sniffing dogs to eliminate the scourge of illicit candy. If only the TSA was so efficient….
@@WalterGirao I'd rather rewatch Pretty Woman than Black Widow. I'd rather rewatch Die Hard than Ant Man. Yes movie stars had some duds too, but they also produced a lot of good films.
Yep, personally I didn't even go see things I _wanted_ to see in theaters this year because money and time have been tight and I couldn't justify the cost to myself. Nevermind the non-franchise things I wasn't sure I'd even enjoy!
The movie mad $5 million dollars, it sold 10 tickets. AMC and other Cinema chains are the main suspect. I can't afford $50 to go see one movie when I can get a months worth of streaming for less.
Crediting Roger Rabbit has highest grossing would ruin his ability to degrade any movie that includes children in its target audience as nothing more then a "children' movie."
@@mercuryredstone2235 Roger Rabbit was also one of the most expensive movies ever made _because_ of all the manual animation work. The animators had to trace the captured frames, and then match the real world's actors, lighting and camera movements. CGI was very primitive in 1988.
I remember when you could put Kevin Costner or Tom Hanks in a modestly budgeted film and it would make $80-$90 million and *that was okay* because they didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
@@Detonated66 Excellent point, but even when you adjust for inflation, most blockbusters today are still more. 80mill in the 90s would be about 160-170mill today versus the 200-300mill of most of today's blockbusters.
@@Detonated66 Sure, but we're talking about 80-90 million return on a 40-60 million budget that would then make still more money with rental and DVD sales.
a24 has shown that people will watch good quality films (and tv shows) even from fairly unknown and quirky filmmakers. the appetite has never been greater for original movies. make them and people will come rushing back to the cinemas.
I'm sure you are already aware of Ralph Tribbey's DVD release report, but it is very illuminating. It turns out that a lot of the loss in DVD sales is not due to lack of demand, but a lack of official releases as those are not captured by the official numbers. Companies are simply ignoring that revenue stream, enticed by the possibilities of streaming but not realizing they are cannibalizing their own business.
Honestly if I could get a box set of the Trio Era top gear for $50 for all episodes without them being the shitty edited down ones I'd buy it in a heartbeat (or ask my wife for it). I rewatch parts of it all the time. For more high brow cinematic stuff I'll happily shell out for Blu-Ray
(Apologies if mentioned elsewhere, but) Pandemic lockdown, where No One could see Anything in a theater, for TWO YEARS, thus lowering its perceived importance. We ALL made due without it so watching at home became norm. So the disadvantages (expense, crowds, phone users, etc.) became more pronouncd or obvious, so that many would ONLY go to theaters if it was a big spectacle. When smaller movies are released, more likely people will "wait until it's streaming". Not saying that's fair or right, but that's the Roger Rabbit on my conspiracy wall.
I remember a conversation with the CEO of Netflix on some news show, saying that several big studios took away their licensing at any price so that they would be robbed of content. I remember him saying that he thought the studios were trying to starve them out so all the had was cheap or old movies and TV. So the brain storm was "They can't take content we own." Not only did they hunt down tallented directors and writers they bought IP that other studios had given up on.
I'm not surprised that's the case, all the studios decided to pull their licenses and build their own streaming services. Now I think it's proven to have been a huge financial mistake, so they're going to basically recreate cable with channel bundles and commercials. We'll see if it works! If they want to put commercials ina TV show that was built to have commerical breaks then whatever, but when they drop adds in the middle of a movie, in the middle of a line of dialogue it fills me with rage.
@cbpd89 it won't work. The streamers themselves created the appetite for programming without ads. I will simply not go back to any model that makes me watch ads interspersed into my programming. And I'm 70. Do you think anyone under 30 has any interest in the old cable model? They barely watch TV now as it is.
I find myself watching more TV shows that have the production quality and length of mini movies. You get more complex stories with more run time that you can enjoy for a while, but all the visuals and quality of a movie.
It's a different thing though. I did this for like a few years I stopped watching movies completely, and going back and watching a movie felt very odd to me. It felt compressed. Like things were happening too quickly or not enough. It took a while for me to get back into the groove of movies and I still haven't really recovered, but what I learned from that was that movies are more poetic. A TV show, at least potentially, can be like a long novel or series of novels (apt comparison as those were once serialized). It can develop a story slowly and over years. A movie is much more poetic and artistic. And by artistic I mean when it's good it's more about creating a cohesive and unitary experience from start to end. TV shows have multiple directors and authors, movies just have 1 director taking the lead and responsible for the vision from start to end. Sometimes TV does something like this but they aren't involved in the directing the creative vision of every episode.
The success of Pirates of the Caribbean was apparently what killed Touchstone, because Disney discovered the formula to releasing successful live action movies that people would turn out to watch. Previous, due to a high number of live action box office bombs, the Disney branding was enough to kill any interest in live action releases to a general adult audiance. So Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures came about to fill that niche, without plastering Disney's name all over it.
See, nobody ever talks about Pirates, even though it's exactly like the mcu but started 3 years earlier. Iron Man (2008) basically copied the first pirates movie.
@@Frogman1212 Pirates of the Caribbean is a very traditional franchise (the kind that Hollywood's been making for decades since Star Wars). How did Iron Man or the MCU copy Pirates of the Caribbean?
@@Frogman1212I rewatched the first Pirates about a month ago and I cannot see where you got the idea the first Ironman movie copied the first Pirates movie. They are nothing alike in structure, narrative, or casting. If you are trying to intimate that Tony = Jack you are really reaching there.
People don't harp on the PIRATES movies because they're really weird in away even James Gunn's Marvel stuff isn't. I do think there's two things it did contribute, for the worse, though. 1) The first movie made around 300 million. (600 million worldwide) The second hit the billion dollar club. In the past, sequels would often get greenlit because the first one was so successful the expected two thirds was easy money, but they would always sort of be on the lookout for new ideas because returns would inevitably diminish. A megahit becoming and even mega-er hit, though set a dangerous precedent 2) The death of the movie star. Johnny Depp's take on Jack Sparrow was considered really refreshing at the time, but I think a huge reason movie stars have diminished is that so many want to prove themselves chameleons. If the star is to be a brand, they have to project some idea on what their name means. Tom Hanks was an everyman thrust into historical situations. Will Smith was a cocksure quipster who bristles under authority. Keanu Reeves was a laconic, surfer type trying to figure stuff out at the same pace we were. Julia Roberts can repackage her Julia Robertness into something like say, Erin Brockovich, which plays around with her persona, but she can't play Dr. Jeckyll's Irish maid. (And contrary to the video, Nicole Kidman was never a particularly commercial star) Everyone talks about what a perfect movie star George Clooney was, but he was so gun-shy about some his "do it for the money" role, he sometimes ran way too far into the other direction. I'm not saying Emma Stone can't occasionally do some weird stuff with Yorgos, but she can't do weird stuff all the time, or eve most of the time.
I used to watch Patrick on my own with headphones on while doing chores. Now my wife and I sit down and watch his videos like legit feature length films. Not saying this to put pressure on the production to abandon shorter formats (which, I realize, have a faster turnaround). Keep it up. Rooting for you!
Same! I suggested my husband watch these because I thought he'd like the whole Charl saga, now he expects to watch new videos together instead of me watching them as soon as they come out. 🤣
I think Tik Tok (and other short-form content) is actually a larger culprit for the decline of cinema than you might realize. I'm a young Grade 7 English and Socials Studies teacher and my students rarely ever watch tv and movies. The only content today's 12 year olds watch in their spare time is youtube and tiktok. Myself and my colleagues have a theory that they don't care about movies and tv shows as much anymore because media literacy rates across North America have plummeted over the past 5~7 years due to the proliferation of short-form dopamine dump style content. In short, a large chunk of modern young audiences lack the attention spans and media literacy to enjoy quote unquote "real cinema" anymore. But that's just my theory.
This was my thought too. It’s not a competitor in the sense that movies are being watched on tik tok, but the time spent on tik tok competes for the time they would be watching movies
@@Travybear1989 I think you just proved the OP's point about literacy in general. What language are you even speaking, and do you have an attention span higher that that of a mosquito on meth?
I was going to watch a movie when I got home from work and now I’m watching this feature length RUclips video. Are YOU killing cinema??? Side note - as a screenwriter who’s yet to break in, I hate that this is where we’re at. I feel like I’ve lived through every single great time to break in and we’re literally at the end of the road in terms of unknown writers making something that will ever make it into cinemas.
OR, maybe we're at the part in history where films are finally affordable enough that filmmaking isn't just a hobby for billionaires. What if we stop just being consumers of films and make them together instead? I refuse to believe people will only do filmmaking for big money when people spend weeks researching to add a sentence to Wikipedia for free. What if we focused not on the fossilized studios, and instead we think about adults who want to make movies for fun? There could be a new industry opening up in supporting people making of movies as a hobby. And just like owning a golf course; assisting adults to have access and fun with their hobby can definitely be profitable (and less risky than the standard film investment). 😎 What if instead of cinema death... this is an evolution? or even an opportunity to have a grassroots revolution?
@@melindawolfUS completely agree. like any other industry, cinema will undergoe phases and cycles of change and innovation. yet, there may be some benefits to stripping away the mystique of movie making and refraining from idolizing movie stars.
@@melindawolfUSI'm an amateur filmmaker residing in Atlanta, and while I do hope to break in so I can make the big idea movies that I want, I'm primarily here for fun. And I wish more people had that attitude. Like recently I was making some Facebook posts for cast and crew calls for a short film, and I got so many replies bashing me for daring to ask people to work for free. Of course I know making movies can be a job and it is hard work, but good god the mentality of making art for art's sake is criminal to some people. Luckily my short film went off without a hitch as I've helped other people with their projects in the burgeoning film scene here. But don't you dare ask people to make a movie for fun or you're an "exploiter".
I should also add that filmmaking is still expensive as a hobby. It's hard to imagine a barista or fast food worker being able to shill hundreds or even thousands on equipment and rental locations. And things are only getting more expensive. I mean if you don't have a 4k camera, you can forget about people working with you as a cinematographer. While tech wise it's more accessible to make a movie, it's still can be a dent in your bank account.
@@danman1950 I'm just hearing that it's hard... not impossible like it would have been 60 years ago. Sounds like we just need to network together outside of the studio system to solve 60% of these issues for live-action. Animation solves 99% of the location and equipment issues. Blender is free and the greasepencil tool is fantastic. Angel studios is making fully-funded films and shows using crowdfunding. They made 10x their investment on Sound of Freedom. It's likely the most profitable film this year when you consider marketing budgets added in. All because they didn't just assume the way studios do business is the BEST way to do business. I did mention HOBBY level in my comment, but you're still thinking current industry standards that the hobbyist doesn't give a flyingFug about. Film is a creative medium... so you need to get creative about solving the issues that are bound to pop up! Otherwise, these just sound like excuses for not trying ;) Your phone prob has a fine camera on it.
The problem with the death of movie stars is that people will get tired of a franchise or IP but a movie star, a good actor, can play many different characters in many different types of movies. Movies stars can play in movies that actually tell good stories about interesting things.
"Movie stars" have always been a myth. Pat overlooks the fact that Tom Cruise's career has more than it's share of underperformers and outright bombs, like Days Of Thunder, Far And Away, Night And The Day, The Mummy, etc etc. An attractive actor who's mildly charismatic-genuinely talented still requires a solid script and strong direction for a movie to sell
Robert Pattinson is a good modern day example of this, many went to watch Good Time and The Lighthouse because of him being in them, and those are made by out there smaller directors with out there concepts.
I think the reason we don't see movies like that anymore is because television is fulfilling that need to a large extent. If rain man was made now it would probably be a series.
Exactly. If we want adult drama there is a seemingly endless list of high quality shows that can do a better job of character development than a movie because they have more time. A guy like Scorsese will argue about the artistry and cinematic experience but he doesn't understand the average American doesn't have an unlimited budget for enertainment. If someone is already dropping X amount for streaming, they may not be inclined to spend more on one of his films.
the irony isn't lost on me after commenting on the lack of self contained stories, particularly marvel creating trailers in movies only to end it on a preview for the next video. Great video.
I like your ideas on how to bring cinema back, but really, it will only give studios more money and create a handful of stars who make all the money. I think a better idea is to follow the lead of A24. Create a production company that invests in good quality artist driven films, and people will follow that artist/production company knowing they will create something worth seeing. Let the artist drive it not the studio or stars.
The biggest problem with A24 is: they only produce low budget films, not mid budget films, so while they give a lot of creative freedom to directors and artists, they also do it because they know that anything they release will make profit, because of how small their budgets are. it's the same strategy that Blumhouse and other studios that make the films that big studios would only made 30 years ago does. They give a lot of freedom to their creators, yes, but next to zero resources as well, which also end up limiting the kinds of movies that are made, again, the death of mid budget films. A24 is more a part of the problem than a solution to the problem.
The film industry was doing fine about a decade ago. But now instead of being hired based on talent, people are hired for… let’s just say other reasons. When you don’t hire the best person for the job your project will suffer.
How convenient that Patrick let RUclips off the hook. Raise your hand if you spend more time watching RUclips video essays about movies instead of, you know, actually watching those movies. I'm embarrassed to admit I've spent way more time watching Star Wars video essays than Star Wars itself. Edit: Yes, I realize Star Wars is not the best example because that franchise has turned into a corporate content mill. I chose Star Wars as an example because Patrick himself has made at least five video essays about it.
I don't miss the irony that he made a feature lenght video with cinematic quality on YT for free about who is responsible the death of mainstream entertainment cinema.
I’m amazed by how this man can capture my undivided attention for a full hour and a half. Usually these days I watch most RUclips videos at double speed, and they rarely exceed 20-30min in length. I sat and deliberately watched this in its entirety at 1x speed. He’s like the Michael of vsauce of movies.
@@lordcommandernox9197 Easily the main culprit. People who write the scripts for these video essay channels don't realize how much selection bias has influenced their perception regarding who the average person is and how he/she thinks. The lion's share of their audiences may be literate, armed with an attention-span longer than three seconds. But if you were to pick any random person? He/she has been completely zombified by short-form social media content and to be frank most of these people were never going to split the atom even without these intrusive brain-rotting distractions.
What "killed" the cinema experience for me was simply a matter of economics. When I was a student in the 00s, who basically had no money, I could still afford to go to the cinema every other week or so with my friends. As a result of going so frequently, I saw many different movies of all kinds of genres. There were also a few smaller, independent theatres and local chains which showed more obscure fare. Nowadays, even though I make far more money than I did then, to take my wife and I to see a movie, I would have to seriously consider the cost of it. Therefore, I maybe go 5 or 6 times a year and only something that I know I'll probably enjoy because I'm not going to risk wasting my money. We also have far less choice as it's basically just picking which is the slightly less extortionate multiplex chain at that time. I would say that this is something that many people grapple with these days too. With the raise in the expense of going to the cinema, the death of smaller independent theatres and the general raise in inflation, people are not going to take the risk of seeing a movie which doesn't have a reliable IP or franchise attached to it. Instead, they will go to the cinema only if it's something they really want to see and will stay at home to watch Netflix and its competitors for everything else.
Exactly. It has always been about money. Another thing that "killed" cinema is the lingering effects of early 2000s piracy. When fans stopped pumping money into the art, it led to financial failures, disincentivizing investors and other shareholders. Hollywood designed cost-effective delivery methods, such as over-using CGI (even for blood), underpaying actors (or hiring unestablished actors to pay peanuts), and hiring film crews for gig jobs. All of those things lowered film quality overall.
Yeah and it’s even worse for people that have children. My parents took me and my siblings all the time back in the 00s but it was cheaper then. Kids nowadays don’t get to go to the movie theatre as often. Also we had a 3 year pandemic that isn’t fully over. So kids lost 3 years of their childhoods which is a huge chunk of time of their lives when no one could go to the theatre
Obviously it depends on where you're from but I live in a fairly major city in the UK and a full-price cinema ticket is £8.50. This really isn't unaffordable for most people - in fact it's about the price I remember it being about 10 years ago when I used to go to the cinema a lot more. So round here at least I'm sceptical that it's the price that's putting people off.
@@TheTillmanSneakerReview Blaming piracy only applies when it comes to small independent productions. Big companies have no problem taking a "hit" from pirates because the only people who pay for pirated media usually won't even watch the movies in theatres or even purchase their ridiculously overpriced DVDs in the first place, especially in placed where video rentals were virtually nonexistent, such as my country. I didn't have a convenient Blockbuster around me growing up, and I didn't have money for an expensive movie ticket, but I had the local night market selling a physical disc for a third of the price of a movie ticket that I could rewatch over and over. The choice was obvious for me, naturally. There was also the fact that the pirated movies were always for things that released at least 3 to 10 years ago, so no one was actually "losing" money by that point.
@@ardius9777 *"Blaming piracy only applies when it comes to small independent productions."* When big companies take hits, small companies take bigger hit because they don't have investors. *"Big companies have no problem taking a "hit" from pirates because the only people who pay for pirated media usually won't even watch the movies in theatres or even purchase their ridiculously overpriced DVDs"* Companies aren't taking the hit. Investors who pump money into the projects are the biggest losers in the business. Most of the money made is generated in countries such as The USA, Germany, China, and other places were pirating is harshly penalized. *"I didn't have a convenient Blockbuster around me growing up, and I didn't have money for an expensive movie ticket"* Then, you were never the target audience. Therefore, they planned for you. However, when Americans pirate, it kills the entertainment industry. *"There was also the fact that the pirated movies were always for things that released at least 3 to 10 years ago, so no one was actually "losing" money by that point."* Pirating became a problem because insiders leaked footage long before movies were released. For example, X-Men 3 leaked about a year beforehand, costing the studios significant money. In fact, the bootleg copy still had green screen footage and undeveloped CGI. It was crazy.
Sure, but those Movies always existed. James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Robin Hood. where it was more about the character than the actor ( interesting that all four are english )
@@achimdemus-holzhaeuser1233 indeed, but Sean Connery and Johnny Weismuller or Christopher Reeve were stars, and people paid to see them on the screen playing those characters. In the superhero franchises, the actor is not as relevant as the superhero character. Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield aren't the star, Spiderman is.
@@xaviconde Your picking the ONE guy from the Bond series that WAS a iconic star (Connery) but the rest of the 007's were decidedly ... not. Moore, Dalton, George Lazenby, Brosonan were not big time movie stars at all and were just guys playing the role they didn't have huge success outside of that role. Chris Reeves also wasn't really a star outside the Superman movies at all , what was his biggest most iconic non superman films ?
I think the killing off of Tony Stark was a factor. Robert Downy Jr. was a big draw for a lot of fans. It was for me. I went to see a lot of those movies to see him. After End Game I started caring less.
@@illyal1445 Connery only later became a big star after he stopped doing Bond. Before that he was frustrated by such limited success when he wasn't Bond.
I think a really big factor is also worth a deep dive. The death of cultural zeitgeist. More an more we're seeing less and less big moments or content that everyone sees and talks about. We don't have famous artists anymore, banksy is the only one I can think of since Francis Bacon (who isn't even a household name, for that you have to go back to Dali or Warhol) like it's said here, the idea of the movie star is dead. And the only big events that everyone watches are almost immediately forgotten. When was the last time you even heard someone talk about Game of Thrones. Or Tiger King? Squid Games? Do you think people will remember it 50 years from now like Starwars? Or even 25 years like the finale of Seinfeld?
That's a good point. The internet means the amount of stuff that has been published has increased exponentially. Therefore, people are into different things, and there's fewer and fewer moments where everyone experiences the same bit of culture. I'm not into sports, but I deliberately watch the super bowl, partly because it feels like the last remaining cultural experience that unites the whole country. (But that's just the U.S.)
Squid Games was really good! I still talk about it, especially with how much the show dealt with Korean history and culture. In 50 years, I think we'll talk about how Netflix made a billion dollars from Squid Games and Hwang Dong-hyuk made less than a million. Ironic, don't you think..?
Streaming Services also hurt their own brand by being a dumping ground for content filler. For me "straight to streaming" has become synonymous with "straight to DVD". The amount of content filler has affected the perception of the quality of all releases. I'd rather watch the 7-minute Pitch Meeting than watch the entire movie. Sadly a lot of movies today fit in that description.
Along with all of the other suspects, you have home cinema setups. People investing in bigger and better televisions. 4K, HDR, 70" screens with Dolby surround sound, bringing a cinematic experience to peoples homes, makes theatres fleecing you for popcorn and snacks much less attractive. Great video. Thank you!
would love your take on horror movies in recent years - they seem to be the only exception to the rule. they've been making more money, with a higher critical acclaim than ever before, on usually a low budget. i know horror movies have always sorta been this way, but i would love to see your take on why they seem to be disaffected by the modern state of the movie industry.
they're emotionally primevil which is cheap to make eg. one darkened hall way and a jump scare compared to a set piece explosion involving 20 cars. You know it already.
Working in the Industry for over 25 years, I regret to affirm all is true in this video. It's like I just visited my therapist and saw a sad truth as I looked in the mirror. I feel I jumped over Denial and Anger and went straight to Depression. I'm working towards Acceptance. :-)
One note I’d like to mention regarding the death of cinematic comedies: the Internet. In that now we have a bunch of indie comedians who through whatever platform of their choice (RUclips, Twitch, TikTok, etc) and not go through the studio system to make compromises on their content. Which also means making comedy that doesn’t need to appeal to a mass market and can instead focus that comedy on specific niche subjects or with jokes regarding social and political issues…not having a studio exec breathe down your neck and saying you’re going too far. So, why go for a comedy movie meant for a mass market when you could go online to find a comedic creator whose material is more targeted to your interests?
It seems like online platforms are more restrictive now than old media is, in as far as what you can say and show. Comparatively, I think you could get away with a lot more in an R rated comedy today, than you could trying to do the same stuff on RUclips or TikTok. Think about crude language, drug use, etc. A comedy doesn't necessarily need that to be funny, but online platforms still have restrictions that could prevent people from going as far with a comedic premise, as they could in an R rated comedy, or even a late night TV show.
Sad but true that comedies and it's production are more readily available on content platforms. I personally love comedy movies I think just having a funny and interesting story is great, and now the most you may get is through television. The problem with tv shows is that they're meant to run indefinitely, so there's only so many jokes you can make in condensed story that can't be told for infinity. That's why people still love Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen etc because you could see those same movies dozens of times and it would still be funny. On the monetary question, who knows how feasible it is today but people love comedies so I think it's possible it could be brought back, on a smaller scale anyway.
Saw Pulp Fiction in the theaters for $8.00. Lines stretched down the street. Today, those characters would have had to wear capes and live under glaciers to generate the same excitement.
A large part of why I haven't gone to see a movie in theaters is that... it's too expensive now. AMC used to be kind of the "budget" option in my experience. I still have ticket stubs where my ticket cost $8 for an evening screening. Even before the panorama, I had A-List and I was 100% utilizing the three movies a week perk. If I had the funds to go to Barbenheimer I would've done it. Movies need to be made that are worth paying the money. It's October. Why am I going to spend roughly $45+ on a horror movie that lasts 2 hours when I can spend a little more and go to a scare park for 6+ hours?
I'd also blame the death of the movie star on the internet. Not only are they more accessible than ever, but it's just that much easier to find your favorite actor doing little freak behavior.
I agree, but I don’t think it’s because you can find your favorite actor doing every little thing every day. Tabloids have existed for decades, and the internet has only increased the speed of what you know about your favorite actor. People used to care about movie stars because they were the only people who were everywhere. Whether it’s at the movie theater, or in the magazines you read or on your TV. The only way you could catch up with your friends remotely was through the phone (and that was if they were even home or not on another phone call). Now, the internet allows us to communicate with who we really care about anytime anywhere. And it can be as public as an Instagram post, or as private as a text message. Now, if we want joy in our lives, we don’t have to rely on whatever’s on TV or your DVD collection, and admire the select few who broke into stardom because they have wide reaching charisma. We can check in with the people who we really care about and have an interactive and engaging experience with. And most importantly, the people whom we won’t cancel if they mess up.
And even if none of their freak behavior is a dealbreaker, the fact that you can see them all the time on the confort of your phone dimishes their "starpower" to bring people to theaters. "Why would I drive to the cinema and spend money on a movie ticket to see Chris Evans or Amanda Seyfried for two hours when I can stay at home and watch them post instagram stories every three minutes?" John Q Public thinks
I also think it's also because who and what deem as famous has also changed. It can be an actor, but it also can be a social media star as well or even a someone who was on reality TV. The walls have crumbled and now any random person can be allotted their 15 minutes.
I think, at its core, the decline of audience numbers comes down to the sheer amount of offerings - not only does it feed directly into paralysis by choice (“Do I want to invest 2 hours of my life into this when I have so many other options that also look interesting?”) but it makes it virtually impossible to keep up with what your friends are watching in order to comment, discuss and share mutual love or hate for a particular film. Up until the early 2000s, you could absolutely be on top of new releases, while still exploring back catalogues and having a life of sorts. Today that is impossible.
Not really. The problem isn't the amount of offerings, but the fact that they've been homogenized into content, where hashtags and key words are meant to replace curation and critisism. You're overwhelmed by choices because the burden of looking into each project to see whether it's worth checking out is now entirely on the audience. There's no rollout, no campaign to neatly explain to you in human terms that you actually understand all while being factual, helpful and not biased either way. The few movie critics who are any good have long since succumbed to algorithm, and they are overrun by hordes of amateurs with a hysterical or cynical shtick, studios can't be bothered to invest in proper promotion, and there's very little credibility to go around when everyone and their uncle have a professional opinion. When a proper rollout does take place, like Barbenheimer, lightning in a bottle can still happen. But the whole industry has already formed around low budget, low effort barrage of speculative, mostly uninformed takes on what may or may not be coming out in franchise installments few months from now, and finding a reliable source to go to 15-something screenings every week and giving an unbiased consise overview of what you can expect to see in theaters is as likely as finding a unicorn. The analysis paralysis is not because of the embarassment of riches on offer, there aren't more movies coming out than 20 years ago. it's lack of readily available information about those to inform audience choices. Which is why people spend more time looking for something to watch than actually watching.
@@tatianar9429 There are many more movies being produced and released now than there were 20 years ago. That’s not a matter of opinion. 20 years ago is when the digital revolution liberated the indie world. Plus, with internet and streaming-propelled globalization, on top of all the additional movies being thrown at you, you have all the offerings from foreign markets also knocking at your door. Using your words, the burden is entirely on the audience precisely because proper, actual critics cannot keep up with and sift through all the offerings, so everything becomes dispersed. Up until the late 90s, filmmakers and cinephiles grew under the shadow of these mythical pop figures with a deep knowledge of the history of the medium, like Truffaut, Scorsese, Tarantino, Bogdanovich, because it was manageable. You could study the medium’s history, keep up with all the new releases, develop your own projects and have a life on top of that. Nowadays, that is not possible anymore, not even remotely. The amount of new releases being thrown at you in streaming alone will prevent you from having a life of any sort and even then you won’t be able to keep up with it. Cinema existed as spectacle not simply due to the scale of the productions, but mostly because it was an event, because releases had time to breathe, exist and occupy space in the cultural discourse, if the audiences so desired. Nowadays, as soon as you leave the theater, people are already caught up in talking about what will be released in streaming the day after or maybe on that very same day - and two days down the road they won’t even remember they went to the theater that week. It all becomes diluted into this grey pulp. There’s also the commitment side of it all, which I think Patrick addressed, not sure: you making a choice to carve time out of your life to go out, buy a ticket, probably even get a meal before or after, infuses the entire process with more meaning and expectation. For the most part of the medium’s history, both filmmakers and studios were always aware of that and respected it. Nowadays, studios don’t care because their primary concern is in keeping and attracting subscribers, and that is done by constantly throwing balls in the air and keeping the subscribers busy. Theatrical releases at this point are basically a big advertisement for the studio/streamer in the sense that it reminds the audience that “This title will be available in OUR catalog next month. Subscribe now.”. The current “machine gun” approach to the business model of production is stripping the cultural importance from the medium.
@@mhawang8204they're gobbling each other up because when you lose a billion dollars a quarter, consolidation happens. Like, it's weird, you guys don't understand, they're losing money. I don't get it. Do you guys just assume every company prints money? If so, why do financial analysts even have jobs? You do realize, it's a whole job to explain which companies are profitable and which aren't right? You do realize companies die... Because they aren't profitable? They don't just exist forever?
the cinema prices for the most part here [uk] are the biggest reason my cinema trips have dropped rapidly. Now it takes something special to get me through the doors.
I have been watching a lot of old siskel and ebert episodes and recently watched their review of Kramer vs Kramer. It’s interesting to me that one of their chief complaints about the movie culture at the time is that Kramer vs Kramer is one of the “few” movies aimed at grownups that people wanted to see Not saying that goes against the idea that “we didn’t know how good we had it” per se, but it’s interesting that even at the time, there was the notion that “movies for adults” were becoming a rarity.
Well Kramer vs. Kramer came out in '79, two years after Star Wars so there was the influx of Star Wars knockoffs and despite the apotheosising of cinephiles, the New Hollywood of the 70's was a short period and there was still various big budget, VFX driven films coming out like disaster movies like The Towering Inferno and Earthquake or comedy films and the like.
Sounds to me like the success of some of these movies like Rain Man and Kramer vs Kramer could also be owed a bit to the scarcity of similar subject matter on that level of quality. That can focus the target audience to make them a real success. I think today's market is quite oversaturated with content and this makes targeting this demographic more risky than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I also found it interesting that the rise of the video game was not at all on Patrick's radar. People only have so much disposable time and income and games certainly remove an increasing portion of both from the audience.
@@Spearhead78 Oh yeah, the rise of games media has also something to with that as well. Also the after effects of a pandemic that put a lot of people onto streaming in lieu of going to the cinema. A lot of discussion about this topic has excluded the pandemic.
@@furbl4345 Probably not particularly well. When it came out no-fault divorce was still relatively 'new' and not yet nationwide. Almost 45 years later, most of us have either lived through their own version (of either version) or been close to someone who has. That kind of knock down drag out custody battle is far less common. My thought when Patrick brought it up for comparison was that most people these days don't want to spend money (on Marriage Story) to relive their own traumas, unless there's a therapist with good advice at the end. I'm sure it's still very raw and honest feeling, but the ground it covers is dated, I think is my point.
We have a few dozen of those. Just about every major name actor in Hollywood has their own production company or is tied to one. Adam Sandler's Happy Madison Productions is just one example.
Just so long as it doesn’t end up like the original UA did. The thing that made them what they were - artistic freedom and non-interference with that - was what ultimately killed them.
Oh man, as a kid growing up in the 80s, I so wanted to make films that were akin to those Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures releases. "Rain Man" was one of my faves, and my parents took me to the actual theater to see it. Look, I love franchise films as much as the next guys, but I definitely mourn the death of original adult comedies and dramas, sexy thrillers, and action films that, as you said, were once the norm. I'm also glad you mentioned the demise of DVDs/home video. As soon as you started talking about it, the Matt Damon quote popped into my head (and I'm glad you included that as well).
Disney shutting down Touchstone Pictures was appalling. I hated them for years for doing that, some of the best movies in the 90s were made in that division. If they had kept it, it would have continued to make great mid-budget comedy and action movies.
Going to the movies went from a hobby to an event to a chore. It just got too expensive to go to cinemas, and that trend started 20 years ago. Instead of addressing prices or putting more old movies back into circulation, they squeezed international distribution, stuck to gimmicks and milked big hit genres until they thinned the herd of ideas. I stopped going to the movies long before Netflix.
The mid-level drama and comedy have just migrated to the small screen and are now the staple of television. My go-to actors, like Bryan Cranston or Vanessa Bayer, are now largely based exclusively in television or streaming shows.
Before iron man bobby I've grew up with in 1985 weird science back to school less than zero the pick up artist comedian sketch comedy SNL.before Wesley snipes blade it was wildcat's 1985 mo better blues jungle fever drama comedy acting Brian Cranston Seinfeld the dentist mysterion was Donny Darko and bubble boy I've been watching these guys literally my entire life before marvel movies the reason they're so good is they have actors who've been acting since the cradle and I've been a fan since then.marty is right before joe peci was a gangster he was leo getz lethal weapon the super michael jackson smooth criminal video with a pony tail an actor. Movie's suck now because writers and actors and directors suck they didn't build heartache and pain they was given a $200 million dollar film with one direction under their belt Christian haden wooden performance in Star wars to the oh I lost my spider sense script far from home to strong woman script for captain marvel I asked for a empty popcorn bucket watching it so I could barf between plot and climax
You forgot another suspect: covid and the pandemic, this completely broke the habit of going to theaters for most people. I used to see around 20 movies a year in theaters but I haven't gone back to theaters since before the pandemic. Going cold turkey on going to the movies completely broke my habit. I haven't had any desire to go back.
Personally, I didn’t go to the theater because there really wasn’t one near me and if I had it would be on my own. I stopped going years before the pandemic, because living in a rural area, streaming just makes it easier.
Cold Turkey has that effect on a lot of things. College wrecked my leisure reading habits, and then a stressful job took me out of video gaming. Not that I don't still enjoy them theoretically, but I seem to be able to get back into the mood.
I was going to bring this up, but you beat me to it. As much as people want to pretend everything is "back to normal," it isn't. The people who we lost during the height of the pandemic before vaccines were introduced certainly aren't going back to theaters. We can't go back to all the theaters that permanently closed during the pandemic. My mom and I used to go to the theater here in town, but that isn't an option anymore. I don't think she's been to a theater since. I have, but the expensive inconvenient activity of going to a theater certainly hasn't been made less expensive or more convenient through that change. A lot of what we do is based on habits, and those habits can be disrupted by even small things. Downplaying or ignoring the lingering effects of something like the worldwide pandemic on stuff in the 2020s is like downplaying the effect WW2 had on the 1940s. That said, at least Patrick briefly mentioned it in the video. I've seen similar videos talking about theatrical attendance over the past four years, and they don't mention it at all.
Yes I was surprised he didn’t mention being prevented from theaters due to Covid. I would only see a handful of movies that were theater worthy but have only been back so far to see Everything Everywhere and (unfortunately) GG 3…if Barbie is still going I will see it this week now that I have my Covid vaccine.
@@Bustermachine Your mentioning video games here actually gives me hope. I went cold turkey off video games in college, because of money and time. Then, literally TEN years later, with a bit more financial stability and boredom, I randomly got a PS5 and am now fully back into video games. Heck, this year I rediscovered for my passion for Old Hollywood movies. I never really stopped watching movies from the 30s-50s, but hadn't been watching them as obsessively in many years. Then one day, I just randomly did a Boris Karloff marathon (those movies are 70 minutes long and so easy to marathon) which kicked off a Universal Horror weeks-long marathon which kicked off a full return to all those old films that I love so much. I think this year I've watched more movies from the 30s and 40s than I previously had in my entire life. Basically what I'm saying is: It IS possible to return to old ways and old loves.
With the streaming originals, there’s a bunch (a metric TONNE) of them I would have gladly watched in cinemas from Prey and Tetris to masterpieces like They Cloned Tyrone. For a person like myself who, more often than not, prefers smaller scale, meaningful stories with things to say, it sucks that good films go straight to streaming and a cinema’s timings are taken up by all the IP slop no one intends to really watch and instead ‘see’ passively
Somehow, I doubt that you'd actually have gone to see all those movies in theatres because "smaller scale, meaningful stories with things to say" are still getting theatrical releases even now. Most people are just too lazy to look for them and wait for them to go on streaming.
Agreed but the whole "IP slop no want intends to watch but passively" is objectively not correct. Most people do not go to a movie theatre to not actively watch the movie. Yes, there is always one asshole on his phone during the whole movie but most people go to actually watch the movie. I wish more movies would get theatrical releases but this argument is not the right one to make for that to happen.
I'm so happy this video exists! Thank you for passionately advocating for the cinematic experience. I love going to the movies, I love everything about it. We need to fight for more affordable viewings so everyone has a chance to share in this awesome community practice! For example, where I live, the local theater is a drive-in, and it's always affordable and always a double feature showing first run movies. It's awesome, and yes, there's a regular modern theater in the next town over which has reclining seats with warmers and is also awesome! See? It's a fully rounded experience that is fun and special, and I hope theaters don't die off too soon. ❤
Ah yes, the sacrifice of the "mid-budget drama intended for a grown audience" upon the altar of summer blockbusters. At least we still have international cinema - imagine a government willing to subsidize art for arts own sake.
I don’t think that government subsidies would be able to revive mid-budget dramas for adults because the problem isn’t on the production side, it’s on the audience side. Even when those kinds of movies get made, the theaters are empty. Mid-budget middlebrow stories make for great episodic series, and so most of this stuff has moved to streaming. Ted Lasso can be a big hit on Apple TV, but I’m skeptical that audiences would show up if it were in a theater. That’s just the way it is now. I won’t say that those kind of movies are never coming back, but the kind of change needed to revive them would be a change to *audience viewing habits*, not a change to the funding model.
The subsidies would need to be legislated in an insanely precise way to ensure the production of movies doesn't end up relying (so much) on easy bets to make the government regain their initial investments. Here in Spain, for example, the largest domestic movies with theatrical releases are usually either part of the "rancid comedy" genre or a copycat of all the wrong lessons learned from Hollywood drama/action/thriller movies, mainly made by the production studios of the two TV conglomerates that can pull out any meaningful promotion (and one is not particularly good at marketing). All of this taking into account that the rancid comedies are actually "kidnapped" movies from other european countries, most of the time at least, specially with the french summer comedy genre (they have better things to offer). People get paid to avoid the originals to be screened, so they can be remade by out-of-touch comedians who only convince conformist audiences. From time to time, new theater movies will get made by renowned directors, who started in a more chaotic era after 40 years of fascism and soon after are going to leave a vacuum not easy to fulfill, but most of the other gemstones won't be next to them because they are indie and without a big promotional budget/influence. Now, back to the subsidies, because of media control to ensure a basic level of viewership, you can guess who gets the easiest and largest public funding. The money is going to the wrong place, so if implemented there, You should be careful with how.
@lrigsnart6821 I know they exist. And there are other filmmakers like them as well - Ridley Scott, Scorsese, Spielberg, the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, Martin McDonagh, etc are all still churning away making accessible middlebrow movies. And there are plenty of talented new filmmakers making original movies on smaller budgets. My point is that throwing a govt subsidy at PTA won't turn his movie into a box office success. You have to make audiences care enough about these movies to go to the theater, and I'm not sure how govt subsidies will accomplish that.
It would be interesting to explore who was killing cinema in the past. People were afraid that the wide availability of TVs would kill cinema, or the VHS tape industry, etc.
Nothing will kill it, it'll just be added to the long line of entertainment options. Just because it's changing doesn't mean it's dead. Plus, people need to stop idolizing movies period. It's not trying to cure cancer, it's just trying to entertain you.
@@leoelliondeux That mindset is part of the problem. Art can be much more than simple entertainment. It can be more than "content". When we forget that something significant is lost. The "death of cinema" isn't about losing junkfood entertainment like Marvel. It's about losing one of the most powerful and influential art forms humanity has ever had.
That's why I'm building up my 4k/Blu-ray/DVD collection. I'm up to around 4,000 movies mostly from the 70's 80's and 90's. I know it's nostalgia with some movies but I've found so many "hidden gems" and well known movies I had never seen that I know now I just enjoy older movies even crappy ones better than modern movies.
@@Skyforger23 I seriously doubt it I have dvd's that are almost 30 years old that work perfectly. Plus newer Blu-ray and 4k's are manufactured even better than those old dvd's.
I like the physical movie sitting on a shelf too. Apart from actual film prints in my collection, DVDs and Blurays seem to have lasted a long time too. VHS was the only home market medium that showed degradation sometimes - dropouts, jamming mechanism, mould etc were the main culprits.
It only takes a couple of minutes reading comments to realize this is a massive and complex topic. There are lots of suspects for murdering cinema. This is a great essay, congratulations for triggering all these great points, valid arguments, and conversations.
This made me realise how Star driven the Bollywood movies still are.. Like you can slap Shah Rukh Khan's face on a poster and people will still flood the theatres without even looking up the synopsis.
which is a bad thing for Indian Cinema.This is why Stars like Prabhas can get way with making absolutely shitty movies just because he is PRABHAS. I thought this star culture was over in 2022 but 2023 just re-established that again.
@@imnotakingimnotagodiam..ab9455 It’s bad but having them be IP driven is even worse for cinema. In the words of the video you just watched, “you have no idea how good you have it”.
That is why they say that SRK is the last superstar of Bollywood. Indian audience is getting over superstars, first in Bollywood and soon in regional cinemas.
Patrick and Co. out here making feature-length film critiques that are more interesting that 95% of major cinematic releases this year. Bravo. Such great, informative, entertainment.
I just saw Godzilla Minus One recently and it reminded me of why I like going to the theater. Most of the Godzilla movies I’ve seen have just been at home, so seeing and hearing Godzilla during that movie made him feel much more intimidating to me. He looked huge on the screen and it was in IMAX so the sound was great too. The only movies I had really seen in theaters this year were superhero movies so it was a nice experience.
There are two things I'd like to point out that were important in my lifetime that you haven't mentioned. Firstly, that around the time of Rain Man, and I specifically remember Rain Man being one of the first, movies started being sold as well as rented. Before then, buying movies cost a lot of money, like £70. And almost everyone rented. But Rain Man was £15. Which was still a lot. But it did mean that the VHS copy that you got to watch was in good condition, unlike renting. Secondly, I believe that the arrival of DVD, with it's far higher quality and no decay over time meant that people could see a movie in good quality at home. I think that both of these matter in terms of the decline of films like Kramer vs Kramer, but also how other genres were sustained or grew. Your points about screen size, sound and distractions are spot on. And I think every film is better in a theater. But, if you're watching Licorice Pizza or a Woody Allen movie, it doesn't matter so much. Whereas, I have to tell people to see Gravity in a theater because it depends on these things. That giant screen showing you the bleakness of space, the ominoous music, the tension of whether Sandra Bullock's character is going to get home. It's why horror has remained as big, perhaps as big as ever. Horror is just better in a theater. If you're at home and the cat comes into the room or your mom calls, you lose the tension. I'd also add something of my own about giant blockbuster movies, which is that people like going to these movies for new thrills. They also have to have good characters and story, but people were blown away by spectacle too. The submarine battle in The Spy Who Loved Me was an upgrade to anything before. Star Wars too. The morphing Terminator, the first dinosaur in Jurassic Park, Gollum, Iron Man. And something I feel is that we might have reached a point where it's harder to go higher. Like the last Mission Impossible was fun, but it didn't push things beyond Fallout. The MCU hasn't topped Endgame. Bond hasn't topped Skyfall. I feel like cinema is going through a period of change, and I don't quite grasp it. But I think that international cinema, creative low budget cinema is going to become bigger. Maybe not many people want to go and see Fall, but it only cost $3m to make and was a more exciting film than the last Ant-Man was.
I’d add that television got much bigger, visual quality is fantastic and sound systems got much better too. Being on your sofa in your pajamas drinking your favorite wine for under $10 bottle and using real butter for your popcorn and having a silent room to absorb a movie is hard to top!
@@r8chlletters Good points. Larger screens and also switching from 4:3 to widescreen. Even non-blockbusters are improved by not being panned and scanned. I still prefer a cinema, though. I don't mind that it costs £5 for a box of popcorn and £10 for a ticket.
I honestly do agree with the notion of making comedies again. Not only are these movies inexpensive to make, the general overall feeling of watching a comedy is amazing with a crowded theater of people laughing, and if written well can also come with a lot of genuine feel-good heart that many modern movies try and can't quite reach. My favorite movie of 2023 was strangely the Dungeons and Dragons movie Honor Among Thieves. True, it was a movie based on a beloved property (in this case DnD), and it's still a fantasy adventure film that was made for $150 million (not as expensive as Flash or Indy 5, but still substantial). It did unfortunately flopped at the box office, largely due to bad marketing and being released too close to movies like the new Mario movie...but it got insanely good reviews. Why? Because it was written to be a heist-comedy first and a fantasy epic second. It was fun, fresh, and had great heart attached to it.
Comedies are dead because Hollywood is infected with the woke virus, so they would never be able to make any of those Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey comedies today. Too censorious of anything that might offend anyone.
The part an hour in where you talk of the commitment of the physical movie experience (and the phone component) really spoke to me. The value of just everything is completely eroded now. Not even just film, everything from physical media like paintings to a comic book to a piece of clothing. It's all so very disheartening.
This is awesome. Went in expecting a 10 minute video I can listen to while I work, but got a full length, well done documentary for free. Respect to you and your work!
I think it will always be a challenge from now on to convince people to watch adult dramas in theaters when they can watch a 4K version on their TV at home. Adult dramas can only succeed theatrically if they are sold as something that needs to be experienced on the big screen (Oppenheimer, for example, was sold as something that needs to be seen on IMAX).
The thing though is that most places don’t have IMAX including mine so literally the only advantage my local cinema of 2 screens have is the screen size and sound system but my home setup isn’t that far off in that regard.
@lrigsnart6821 I agree and that's one of the reasons I watch these films in the theater (I've seen 4/5 of those in theaters). But it's a hard sell for most people.
People just don't have the money or time anymore to spend on a new movie whenever they want. If it's more convenient I don't blame anyone, movies aren't everything and I lobe movies but not everyone can treat it beyond something to do for fun and intrigue
Not gonna lie. Seeing a film like Skinamarink in theaters has given me hope that someone like me, who only ever thought his work would be in print, could have a shot at breaking into the business. Where the big corporations fumble the bag, opportunity is created for the rest of us.
One thing I would add to make people watch more movie is to do something about the release calender. Way too many movies gets dropped at the same time, many because of the awards season. Also movies should be released at the same time through the world. I've heard about the holdovers how great it is for a month but isn't released in Norway before the hype is gone. There's a lot of free marketing through social media because many people follow people from the US through hearing about great movies they should be able to check it out at the same time, or else they have to re market the film again.
Part of that is probably international releases costing more money/being more trouble, so studio’s probably weigh the cost/benefit profits wise before doing international releases. Which is the unfortunate reality for many people.
@1:30: Gonna stop you right there. No, those films were not aimed at thirteen year old boys. Thirteen year olds barely knew who those characters were at the time those films released. Those were aimed at the 80s kids who were now adults who would drag their thirteen year olds to theatres so they didn't look creepy while reliving nostalgia of ages past.
well except that hes wrong on most things he mention. Like DVDs selling in the 80ies. What a blunder. I cant believe nobody is mentioning that in the comments. Are people stupid?
Makes me glad that I've been slowly building a personal archive of physical media currently consisting of over 200 films and 100 anime features, mostly horror, cult, and art films from the 70s, 80s and 90s. I used to stream my favorite films to a small online audience but now I enjoy showing these films to friends and visitors in my basement theater. I love it so much that I've considered inviting strangers over to watch movies with me, lol
Do you have some sort of archive? I am currentlu trying to do something similar and id love to know what strange and unknown movies you may have gathered
This is Patrick's best video in my opinion. Coming back to it months later, I'm editing this comment to add some reflection. Tarantino's comments about the average person and family being priced out of the theatrical experience on a Director's roundtable by THR rings in my ears years later... When I went to see The Dark Knight Rises, I drove two hours round trip to see it in full scale IMAX. During the football stadium scene while the kid was singing, the digital audio started to loop, and the analog film kept going. They came in and said, "Sorry it takes a half hour to rewind the film, so you all have to leave now." I spent $30 on gas, probably $20 on popcorn and drinks for my girlfriend and I. Oh, and the IMAX ticket cost, whatever that was. I still hear that kid's looped chirping in my mind all these years later. I got 'free guest passes' and a really bad night. That is one of many awful theater experiences I've had. It's the standout, most extreme example. But I don't gamble; I don't buy lottery tickets and I don't pay for an experience that has a high odd of going south and shoving a bad night into my life. In the 80s and 90s I saw a lot of movies in theaters and almost always had a great experience. Starting in the early 2000s, the experience started to slide. As time went on, it got worse, and then worse still. Audiences became annoying, theaters forgot how to show films. The first IT movie, the theater left the lights on in the theater as the movie began, and I almost became a one-man riot. The last truly great experience I had during a movie was The Roadshow version of The Hateful Eight, and I don't even remember when that came out. Tarantino also touched on another problem with the movie theater experience in a Hollywood Reporter Director's Round Table some time ago, wherein he said Hollywood had priced out the everyman, the normal person, with ticket prices and other costs. I'm not wealthy, and I agree with him on that. If I dump money into entertainment, I want it to be a good experience. Now I'm extremely depressed. I don't want to watch movies on streaming, but I swear to God it's the only way that I have a fairly guaranteed decent experience in my overpriced home theater. Streaming and Blu-ray, all day, unless something changes where quality returns to the theater industry and audiences have reverence for the medium again. /rant
Yeah, this is a big part of it for me too. I gather I'm a bit younger than you, but I remember having perfectly fine theater experiences in the 2000s and 2010s. There's been a sharp decline in etiquette/basic human thoughtfulness in the last few years for sure, especially since the pandemic. The last movie I went to see in theaters was Across the Spider-Verse, and there was this dude a few seats down from me who kept laughing at bizarre times and shouting at the screen and annoying everyone around him. All I could think was "I don't know why I paid $20 to be annoyed watching this movie when I could see it at home and not be annoyed." You've got companies like Alamo Drafthouse trying to fight against this by actually enforcing 'shut up and watch the movie' rules, but those are few and far between. (ArcLight was also really hardcore about this, to the point that they would not let you in to the theater if you were late, but they've sadly closed up shop.) Most theater chains don't care because they're so short-sighted-all they care about is getting your money, which they have by the time you're sitting down in your seat in the theater. My hope is that the major chains will realize that people will go to see more movies if they aren't plagued by annoying weirdos/jerks in the audience and there aren't technical issues like the one you described with TDKR. But I ain't really holding my breath.
I go often to cinema (I'm from Barcelona, I can walk to several cinemas in the area and the tickets are reasonably priced). I'm not subscribed to streaming platforms, instead I buy blu ray and have a 5.1 system. I agree with you, sometimes I'm watching a movie in a cinema and someone bothers me by speaking during the movie or checking a phone. Despite the nuisance, I like sharing the experience with other people who are as interested in a film as I am, even if we don't know each other. I enjoy my home theater, and I enjoy watching movies at home with friends (curating films for them if you want), but I wouldn't stop going to cinema to watch a movie as soon as it opens.
this was incredible. i had planned to watch a movie tonight, but this *became* my movie of the night. entertaining, thought-provoking, trailblazing. can't wait to watch your past and future videos, this is a conversation that NEEDS to keep being discussed
On movie stars; it sort of feels like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine helped make him a star, but in his case you could argue that he himself defined that iteration of the character. Jackman isn't easily replaceable as Wolverine. You could say the same about Reynolds being as irreplaceable as Deadpool, but i think that's a case of Reynolds loving and understanding so much.
Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds are iconic as Wolverine and Deadpool, but being a movie star isn't just about being iconic in a role. It's more like - how many hit movies could you name starring [superhero actor] besides their superhero character? Hugh Jackman has got a handful. He's Wolverine, but he's also done big thrillers like The Prestige and Prisoners, and big musicals like Les Mis and The Greatest Showman. Tom Cruise is even better, he's got a couple dozen hit movies across various decades and various genres. But Ryan Reynolds? Besides Deadpool, he's got... Detective Pikachu and Free Guy? I think Reynolds is pretty funny, but he's not the kind of actor where you can just drop him into a lead role and have a guaranteed hit. You can't sell "the new Ryan Reynolds movie" the same way that you used to be able to sell "the new Harrison Ford movie"
I’ve had several films which id wanted to see, but as a broke college student many ticket prices are absurd if you’re not going to a franchise installment with friends
As a boomer, I really hate how hedonistic gen X and millenials are At their age, people like me back in the day already accomplish more than them You are right about instant gratification Instead of saving money to buy a house and meet someone, they spend it all on games and other useless things
I think another factor could be the trailers. I remember watching trailers on TV back in the 90s, and since I couldn't skip them, I learned about a bunch of indie, and non-blockbuster movies that way. These days it's only social media and YT, but you have to actively look for them.
In the same vein: VHS had you watch through the ads, since you couldn't conveniently skip them. DVD/BlueRay have it in some sense, but at first chapter skipping and then Fast Play makes watching the ads more unlikely.
@@JerbilKonai absolutely! I remember watching a lot of MTV in the 90s, and they were constantly airing trailers. I remember learning about Big Lebowski, Requiem for a Dream, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Fear and Loathing in LV. So many great lower budget movies.
YES, I have the same opinion about music and radio. You cant find new stuff anymore unless you say 'I want to listen to new stuff' because algorithms exist now so you cant just rabbit hole down youtube or something anymore, and spotify is a library before all else It hurts that radio is dying, especially because radio is a shell of itself (radios now have revolving repeating playlists instead of DJs with their own thoughts and musical preferences) so why would people enjoy a cheaper product, of course they're gonna use the aux every time. You can't get honest numbers about consumer opinion from sales/usage anymore because 1. money is a factor in consumption choice now more than ever 2. products offered are cheaper versions of their predecessors and are hollow, corporatized and 3. use doesn't indicate satisfaction anyway, and now people don't trust any surveys because of data selling lmao Long winded way of saying it really, REALLY IS, corporate greed and corporate polishing--the idea that corporations cannot make risks because mistakes mean failure, so they have to have only safe, polished, previously successful products.
Whenever something is mass produced, the quality is what is sacrificed. And when most people consume the mass produced stuff, it becomes the standard for them.
An aspect of the attraction of the movie star is that they are not just good actors, but some become known to choose great scripts to attach to - or at least scripts with certain qualities,. Well, until they start to get older and sell-out one too many times.
If you're asking why we left out potential suspects like TV or the pandemic or capitalism, I explain all of those in the bonus companion video over on Nebula nebula.tv/videos/patrickhwillems-the-other-suspects-who-is-killing-cinema
Leftists killed cinema. They hate half their audience and they destroy characters, they attack citizens and openly hate whatever we happen to like so everything STINKS now We are boycotting movies now. Actively refusing to pay a dime to see this junk.
@@TheMajorStrangeryou're wrong because you know nothing about the financial situation of these companies. If you really think Warner bros is extremely profitable. Buy the stock then. Please. I beg you. I wish you people owned the stocks sometimes, so you'd be in just as much financial pain as the investors. Dude, Warner, paramount, and Disney(movie division) aren't profitable. People like you just scream late stage capitalism when in reality, you're financially illiterate people, who fall behind in the rat race of money because you REFUSE to learn anything. You just scream unfair. You're like children who try to play chess, lose every game, and cry, but spend zero time learning how to play.
@@youtubeviolatedme7123paramount, Warner, Disney movie division all don't make profits. So how does your comment make any sense if the companies don't make money? This is why I have zero sympathy for people like you who cry about how unfair things are. You can't even look up the most basic company info. You just assumed these companies were profitable. If we have infinite info available to us, and you still screw this up, you have no right having any wealth. Why would a person who can't Google basic company facts expect to have any wealth? How could you possibly make a correct investment in life when basic financial company research is too hard for you? It's not unfair dude. People who understand business and money generate wealth. 99% of you don't.... And you have zero interest in learning (trust me, I spend all day randomly trying to educate people before realizing, you can't help the masses).
@@JakHornbecause even if the companies are woke, there's a large enough audience for the content. It was always a pricing issue, becauee Netflix created an expectation of low prices, before their bait and switch. If they raise prices another 30%, it works. The main reason it got bad was Netflix had infinite venture capital money to spend. Now, interest rates are high. Studios borrow to find movies. So now, funding a movie is stupid expensive. They haven't adjusted, because no one(OK most) working there have never experienced 5%+ central bank interest rates before. I'll put my own money on woke content working fine the second I see Disney drop budgets (or if the next quarterly report shows the recent price hikes worked). But, no reason to bet now, when the stock is still getting cheaper and companies still losing money.
@@JakHorn Biggest cancel culture is always on the right. ESPECIALLY the religious right.
I would argue that the death of the move star was a deliberate choice on the part of studios, not an accident. Movie stars have power and studios hate it when anyone besides themselves are in control. Studios control the franchises, not the movie stars. If everything is a franchise, then actors have less power and influence.
This is good thing
that isnt a good thing@@raja-jl9os
True. And back in the "good old days," they could lock stars into highly restrictive contracts, so the studios retained all the power over their careers, but I don't think I've heard of anything like that in recent memory. Even with Marvel contracts where they are required to show up for X Marvel movies at a certain rate, they are still free to do their own projects whenever not on the clock. Imagine if someone like Ana de Armas had a contract that says "you can ONLY make movies for this one production group for the next 5+ years, and at pre-determined rates."
Honestly I wouldn't totally agree... Franchises give the actors HUGE leverage if contracts aren't signed for several movies at the beginning.
Just remember Scarlet Johansson who got an additional 40million (or whatever it was exactly) for Black Widow.
Just take the MCU as a total. I guess the position of those actors when it came to their payment wasn't that bad. I mean... I guess near endgame they could've literally asked for any amount and would've gotten it. Noone is gonna replace Iron Man 30 Movies into the MCU because RDJ wanted 20million more.
I'd actually argue, that the MCU (while I hate it) is one of the biggest franchises in recent history to create "movie stars"
I agree, somewhat. There are fewer and fewer culturally relevant movie stars period. The stars of even 15 years ago will not necessarily draw wide audiences. Film projects are being flooded with faces we don't recognize, some of which are not talented. It's like everyone is trying to hire unknowns...but none of them hit well enough to be a trusted name in the quality of their projects. This does benefit the bottom line of the studio when it comes to the production of a film. More money paid to the producers...less put into the actors.
Gone Girl came out in 2014 and made $369m against a $61m budget and was a huge hit that everyone was talking about in a way they would talk about a big hit from the 90s. It was also David Fincher’s most financially successful film. It came out the same year as Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America 2, and X-Men: Days of Future Past. So clearly Scorsese was right when he said that audiences see what you allow them to see.
And Gone Girl made similar money to superhero films comparatively to their budgets. It made over 6 times its budget. That’s a hell of a return on investment.
Gone girl is an adapted screenplay from a massively famous book. It already had a fan base. Rain Man was an original screenplay with no previous audience or following. You can't compare the two.
@@jaeger1989*mildly famous book. I know maybe one person in my life who knew it was based on a book at all, but I know many who watched and loved it.
@@turbochargedfilms No, trust me. At least 90% of females who saw that movie had read the book. It was a bestseller.
@@jaeger1989 I agree with you. Gone Girl had fan base
People come out for directors like Fincher or Nolan.
It doesn't help that Disney is now forbidding any movie theaters to screen old fox movies. They are mostly declining theaters that are usually run movies when they are new and first released, and only really gave permission to independent theaters. They are putting everything in the Disney vault so they can artificially inflate their value. I hate Disney so much
This is a massive issue for me. They also don't renew license for boutique blu ray labels. They're withholding They're own library which they could easily dump on Disney plus. So frustrating. That and censorship of classic films for no reason.
YES! A legitimate criticism of Disney!
There's lot to hate about the company, but some people have been getting really WEIRD about the Mouse lately.
Buy the dvds while you can I guess…
just stop worrying so much
@@BustermachineDisney is doing this because Disney movie, TV, division loses a billion dollars a quarter. Pray tell me, why should they? Who is supposed to fund that billion dollar a quarter loss? Where is that money supposed to come from? You want to just need to save the movie theaters, but if Disney save the movie theaters and dies then who's going to save Disney? You guys assume Disney makes money because you're financially illiterate about business, hence why you struggle at the game of capitalism. Disney only makes money on parks now.
One of my media professors in college (2006ish) told our class how in the near future we would see bog screen TV's get exceedingly cheap and light weight, (which also weighed 150+ pounds) and that movies would be released in theaters and for rental/on demand simultaneously.
Man he nailed it.
Honestly I'd see more movies day 1 and pay for it too if they released on streaming day 1 alongside theaters. Too many aholes in theaters and I have a nice OLED Atmos setup 😊
Your Honor, I present further evidence for the Netflix case: While I’m a big fan of Netflix, the moment they announced they had 88 million paid monthly subscribers, it was as if a starting gun went off for every studio to launch their own streaming platform. This race not only dealt a massive blow to DVD and home video sales, but it also dulled the desire to watch a movie in theaters. It fostered the ‘I’ll just wait for it to hit digital’ mindset.
also most seem OK to pay 5 seperate streeming services and none cares to have a copy of the movie or show despite its not IF it will be gone if its streemed it is WHEN.
people arent interested in the time commitment, and $10-14 per ticket to watch once versus a subscription you already pay for is losing proposition unless people actually care about the experience, like sad to say but netflix was winning because it offered a superior service (in regards to a majority of people). I think people are disinterested with netflix however and the competing services have dealt a blow.
Im so tired of content overload.
My man you da GOAT
Amazon is pushing me to have FOUR subscriptions. I cant be bothered with that
I'll wait for to hit home video rentals was already existing attitude when it came to movies in 90's when the release cycle from cinemas to home video started to speed up. Cinema tickets starting to get more expensive at same time further sped up the process, but there also another factor in going to movies like travel costs, parking cost and so on. Home video release was already more convenient option on age of VHS, damn just the DVD and early wide screen TV's started to reduce the gap in quality of spectacle between home and cinema experience.
I think another symptom that you didn’t really talk about was how modern television took away a lot of the gravitas of movies. It’s easy to forget in our modern day but there used to be a time when film was seen as “above” television. Film actors would be people who USED to be on TV and any time a film star did appear on TV it was for a one episode guest appearance. The idea that an actor like Pedro Pascal could be both a TV and film star was unthinkable. They were even in completely separate unions up until 2012.
Film always had higher budgets, better stunts, and better effects. But as the production value for TV steadily increased audiences started seeing TV as a longer equivalent to film. The ultimate example of this is Stranger Things season four where every episode is long enough and has enough effects to be a mid-budget movie.
It’s telling that a lot of the most popular adult dramas of the past few years have been shows not movies.
The golden era of TV should have been a suspect: Sopranos, The Wire, 24 Hours, Lost, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, the HBO catalog etc.
@@robsonwaterkemperAgreed
Television has acquired the prestige of film and movies are serialized and forgettable. Add in that they're all streaming now and they really start to blend together.
Came here to say basically this lol
100 percent agree I would put Breaking Bad on the the list. It became apparent after that the visual direction in TV was something that viewers can expect in not only movies but also TV shows. After this, the next clear step was black mirror. which by all intentions are just a set of movies per series, but with the effect of having a brand while still be novel.
The one suspect you missed is the consolidation of movie studios. Back in the day, there used to be about 50 different movie studios in Hollywood. This meant more competition, more options for audiences to choose from, and more opportunities for filmmakers to get a project greenlit, where smaller more niche projects could be made by smaller studios more willing to take risks to stand out.
But over the years, all these smaller studios have been brought out or shut down by larger studios, to the point where there are only 5 left; Universal, Warner Bros, Disney, Sony and Paramount. This means less options for filmmakers to work with and less for audiences to choose from. If those 5 studios turn your script down, you’re shit out of luck. If you don’t like the movies being made by those 5, you’re shit out of luck.
This is why Disney buying Fox was one of the worst things to happen to cinema in the last decade.
I think this is key.
This is true but it's also true of American capitalism in general. Just about every industry now has 2-3 corporations dominating it.
@@Philbert-s2c Precisely. The model of capitalism proposed and pioneered by such thinkers as Adam Smith has scant relationship to the monopoly economy foisted on the world today, and I really mean foisted when you consider the sheer speed with which this trend has engulfed the West.
Late Capitalism - and also Late Democracy, and Late News/Journalism (why else do we prefer indie youtubers to TV legacy people?) - are all in dire straights. Tools meant to guarantee freedom are in mechanical meltdown, and we are living in a scarcely-masked oligarchy none-too-different to Russia.
@@Philbert-s2c Exactly. It's a problem.
Robert Reich has some interesting op-eds on how much of what we are calling "inflation" nowadays is really price-gouging by monopolies/oligopolies with price-setting power. The competition that used to create downward pressure on prices is gone. This is the case in almost every industry now, unfortunately.
It only takes a couple of minutes reading comments to realize the problem with cinema is very complex and there are a lot of suspects for its murder.
This is a great essay that triggered great points and conversations.
One thing this video misses (though it's brought up in passing) is the monopolization of the physical theater into just a couple of large chains, which imo has caused prices to climb precipitously. The small local cinema or regional chain where you can get a ticket and refreshments for a few bucks is gone, you're more and more forced into huge cineplexes (usually far from downtown, built in giant malls or shopping centers on bypasses) where you'll pay $15 per person for tickets, more like $30+ per person if you add food. I think that can't be ignored if you're worried about the "frequency" of peoples' movie trips. I know I've gone to the movies 2 or 3 times more frequently since I moved near a downtown that's lucky enough to have a small theater with tickets under $10.
More peripherally, I would throw in the "death of third places" thesis. The demise of arcades, roller rinks, bowling alleys, etc, which in the 1980s-1990s would often be built adjoining a theater (or even inside the theater in the arcade case!), has damaged the theater's ability to act as a casual hangout spot.
>I would throw in the "death of third places" thesis. The demise of arcades, roller rinks, bowling alleys, etc, which in the 1980s-1990s would often be built adjoining a theater (or even inside the theater in the arcade case!), has damaged the theater's ability to act as a casual hangout spot.
Please read Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam based on his essay written in 1995. It very completely refutes the notion that the internet has caused the death of third spaces due to cataloging and showing the trends from the pre-social media era. What we should be focusing on is the American obsession with cars, the low implementation of public transit and the roadway killing pedestrian friendly cities, this has killed out community more then anything.
While true, don't studios negotiate deals with theaters regarding prices? I remember my old film class mentioning the first week of major film releases, theaters only get 0-10% of the ticket revenue and that theaters make the majority of their money from concessions. Studios demand most, if not all, of the ticket revenue go to them and the threaten theaters by saying they won't give them batches of movies (i.e. they'll hold both large and small movies). Theaters do get an incrementally larger proportion of the ticket revenue as time goes on though. (Apologies if this is in the video, btw, I'm still not done watching it.)
I noticed that- on $5 movie day, the entire theater was sold out, whereas before then a lot of movie places were empty.
This is a great comment
And he totally missed COVID as a major game changer feeding into streaming and the full cinema experience.. low IQ from the dude??
Disney shutting down Touchstone Pictures was appalling. I hated them for years for doing that, some of the best movies in the 90s were made in that division. If they had kept it, it would have continued to make great mid-budget comedy and action movies.
Now they are killing 20th Century in the same fashion. It could have become the next Touchstone for them.
I honestly disagree. I think that stuff needs to be done under the Disney label. People deserve to know Disney themselves are capable of the types of films you mention, and having another label should not be a key to success.
Something I’ve always thought was a missed opportunity for streamers was to give us what we really have lost from DVDs: extras! Bloopers, deleted scenes, directors and cast episode commentaries. I remember LOVING these as a kid on DVDs of movies and shows I love, and we just don’t get these now. Streamers should start dropping those again a year or so after a show/movie is released to reinvigorate conversations and give those DVD vibes. HBO is the closest to that but they just need to take it one step further
They do but not in their platform. They use platform likes youtube to post mini documentaries. Roma, Irishman and Pinocchio from Netflix come to mind.
Physical media releases most definitely do still have these extras.
I noticed when watching Captain Marvel that Disney+ had deleted scenes and a commentary version under "Extras" if you click on the movie. But I only noticed it by accident
Extras today are awkward looking actors dressed up in green in front of green walls, occasionally on wire. There's not much extra to the movies you watch that is compelling these days, probably why they shy away from it unless it's something like Barbie or Nolan made & those are outliers. It's mostly boring, unless you like watching a VFX artist sculpt a model in a program.
this is one the reasons i watch the credits to the very end to this day
I was devastated when Netflix announced they were stopping DVDs, now if you don’t have every streaming service then some things are just unobtainable
Pirate it...download for free and give them the finger.
I buy bluray and 4k, the rest will be pirated or ignored
Sorry, there is Amazon ! I get all the old movies I want each time i don't have them in my collection ç
Arr matey..
Piracy. ;)
Media accessibility is a major culprit. When you have access to all different forms of media whenever you want, you watch almost none of it and default to what is the fastest and easiest to digest. Its the only way to "keep up".
Internet can kill good cinema
I feel the same way. I’m subscribed to 3 streaming services and I barely watch most of it outside of streaming originals I’m interested, and even then, I can get really bored and end up coming here to RUclips and waste valuable time. And speaking of RUclips, there are so many videos and channels that breakdown movies and shows that it begs the question of, why bother watching stuff on a streamer, when you can listen to a person breakdown an entire 7-season show for 2.5 hours or an entire movie for 30-40min? For all the complaints about piracy hurting the film & TV industry, how come no one talks about breakdown videos/channels robbing people the opportunity to watch media? (analysis and review videos are another category, and they could potentially be harmful, but I am referring to those extremely long videos designed to ragebait).
It's too easy to spend hours idly browsing the libraries and before you know it, you've lost a chunk of a day. At least with rental stores you get to go someplace and interact with people.
@@JamesLawner If a breakdown of a film or show without having watched said media at all is more entertaining or interesting than actually watching it yourself maybe you just dont enjoy movies and tv that much in the first place.
@@JamesLawnerThose Channel breakdowns are mostly surface level details and most of the bigger ones fence sit on their takes of the films if it effects their sponsorships. I think RUclips is definitely beating Cinema as of now but it doesn’t have much content that ages well, that’s why the platform has gone through more phases in its short run compared to hollywood because it’s essentially
Internet TV.
Hollywood has more of a foundation to rebuild itself again while RUclips is just now building one, and it’s not that good when you really look at it. The biggest RUclips Stars are Live Streamers, gamers and influencers, those aren’t necessarily people that will still impact peoples minds in the next seven years while Eddie Murphy is still remembered to this day even though he hasn’t been main stream for about thirty years. What I’m getting at is Hollywood and cinema have more of culture impact than the internet and RUclips, hell a good chunk of the platform would be nothing without film cause they wouldn’t have anything to react to. RUclips at best is the biggest social media platform to exist, but that’s all it will really be, nothing more, nothing less.
I can’t believe you never mentioned skyrocketing ticket prices. They’re pricing more and more of the audience out of the the theater experience.
because they're making no money genius.
He doesn't mention it because he's just another clueless armchair critic.
@@nbaallday8391we dont care. Or they make it cheaper, or we will simply not going to watch it
AMC has their A-List subscription service, which for my money is a great investment even if I only see one movie per month
Which in turn can be explained by skyrocketing commercial real estate costs.
I think one of the problems and one of the reasons for the whole "I’ll just wait for it to hit digital" thing is, that theaters are too expensive. Tickets are high priced, food and drinks are high priced, any games/arcades may also cost money. Some people just don't have enough money to spend on going to the theater to see a movie they may not even like. It's why people sometimes sneak food and drinks into the theaters. Why pay all that money for 1 movie for 1 day when you can get a monthly subscription to a streaming service and get access to 100's of movies and tv shows and wait for new movies to come to the platform to watch anytime you want for a 1 time a month fee from the comfort of home.
The Theatres have become expensive due to the Real Estate bubble making it so hard on them to stay in business. As less people come to theatres they have to jack up the price it’s a vicious cycle
Good point. Same situation here in France. The full price for one movie is the cost of 1 month subscription to a streaming service. Competition is therefore high...
honestly this is such a good point. i just realized i am surprised that that infaltion and the ecomonic situatiuons people are facing are not talked about as one of the reasons.
Not even an elephant, the skyscraper in the room is capitalism. That is causing all "money" related problems people are mentioning in the comments.
How abut go to the cinema once a month with the subscription money and pirate the rest of the time... 1) U don't support these arsehoes 2) U get to enjoy cinema properly at least once a month....
The death of the movie star phenomenon strikes home when I think of how much of a big deal my grandmother made of actors such as Clark Gable and Shirley Temple, which I have trouble fully comprehending.
Yes. I have an intelligent ( highly so ! ) university lecturer friend in her late 50s
who seems obsessed with Cary Grant..??!
With others it's Burton or James Mason !
I suppose it's harmless ?
One thing that was not mentioned is how expensive movie tickets has become. In Brazil, for example, going with your family to see a movie has become a luxury, so even if you like to go to the cinema, it's somethinfmg you can only do once in a while for most people
First of all you are wrong or lying since in the cinemas where I work there are ways to pay less. In London you are able to watch a movie in off peak times for 10 pounds. Sometimes even less. Secondly, why do you people think cinemas are detached from reality and not affected by inflation? Why is it fine for you to pay loads for petrol but think a cinema should be a charitable institution??? It's a private company, they also pay bills, it's not like a cinema theatre doesn't have any expense. Blame the government for raising taxes and bills, you can't expect cinema just to open for free. Grow up please.
Same here, just me and my girlfriend will cost $50 for admission, popcorn and drinks.
Hollywood itself is killing cinema. Politics and the culture war. No matter where you fall politically, you have to understand that you can't piss off half of the country and still expect that half to show up to theaters and purchase a movie ticket.
@@madameversieraOP did say in BRAZIL though, why do you think Brazilian cinemas have the same policies as London? reading comprehenssion please
even in germany watching a movie in a cinema, with your Family becomes a huge invest.
Coke, Chips or popcorn + 5 tickets = 150€ ( 800.11 Real ) for one movie.......
Gen X here: I remember a time when my friends and I wanted to see "a movie" and we opened the paper to the movie section and looked for something acceptable around the time we wanted to go, +/- an hour. This worked because a 12 screen theater had 10 different movies playing. To us, the social experience of going to see a movie together and then talking about it over dinner was the fun - the movie was almost secondary to that mission.
This. Physically going to the theatres and watching a movie with friends is always the best part of watching movies, even if the movie itself sucks. It's best if the movie doesn't suck, but even if it does, the social aspect makes it fun. That's why I'll miss movies if they go away.
There was such a variety in the 1990s. Sometimes you didn't even need to check the paper, you would just turn up and look at the titles, rating and movie poster! You could ask the ticket seller what's popular!
@@matthewprince9705Glad I read this. Forgot about that experience of just showing up and picking a movie right then and there because you had so many to choose from. Allowed the focus to be on "seeing a movie with a friend" vs "seeing the new xyz film"
"I remember a time when my friends and I wanted to see "a movie" and we opened the paper to the movie section and looked for something acceptable around the time we wanted to go, +/- an hour. "
Believe it or not, that's one reason I have a growing collection of old newspapers from way back when, like the Chicago Sun-Times from 1980, for one. These old newspapers have a bunch of ads for the major films of the time, and listings of where they could be seen in their areas and at what times (a far different time than today's model of seeing everything when you want it).
@wynn1587jealous you never got to see the good times eh yeah I kinda feel sorry for you guys you missed out Bigtime a lot of straight girls back then too you missed out Bigtime 😊
Honestly, as bleak as things seem, the fact that audiences seem to be getting tired of the same old stories is actually a GOOD thing in the long run, I think. It's at the very least a sign that there is still indeed a hunger for unique, bold, and unconventional stories among even general audiences.
They are getting tired of the "same old" 'subversive/deconstructive' stories that have been made for the last 8 or 9 years. That's not to say that there's no value in getting experimental and going off the beaten path, but I'd argue that alot of modern writers are caught up trying to re-invent the wheel while *lacking the experience and wisdom to actually do it well* ... plus I mean the cliches of 'subversive' writing are so worn out at this point that I'd say THEY are the one's being derivative and uninventive, when most audiences can pretty much predict exactly how the plot of the movie is going to go just by looking at a character's first appearance on screen because we've seen the same cookie cutter "subversive writing 101" narrative play out every time now.
here from twenty twenty four , december, and seeing what is coming next two years yeah i wish ... like we in for the bigest five films of the year been 3 marvel things, new launch for dc's new universe and a reboot of jurasic park ... fantastic ( I can't wait.) ... holy shit that is so sad
Excellent video, you nailed it!
Mid budget, non-franchise movies need to come back into the mainstream consciousness. We’ve had 5 years of 200-300 million dollar flops. Quantity over quality never works in the long term.
One other thing that proves audiences want good movies is, during covid there was a trend of people in their early 20s doing reaction videos to older movies and a lot of them discovered classic movies that were between 30-50 years old.
Also, something you missed, movie tickets are way more expensive than they used to be. The price has doubled in the past 20 years. That definitely effects audience choices and what they are willing to spend money on.
and why do you think they're more expensive than they used to be? we have to be honest about what came first, movie tickets being more expensive is an outcome of what the video is talking about
@@i_so_late I remember when they shot up in price. It happened in the early 2000s, when all the theater chains built new buildings, probably something to do with digital projection. With the new buildings came the new prices. It happened pre-Marvel, between 2000-2005. I was in a city in 2000, when the new movie theater opened up, moved to a small town in 2002, and they got the new theater in 2005. I was old enough to go to the movies with friends and pay tickets myself, and prices went from $5 to $10. Prices have continued to rise since then, but the new facilities came first.
@@i_so_late We were ok with the price hike at first because every community still had budget theaters, theaters that got the movies later but we cheaper. And then the budget theaters started closing. Probably because more people were going to the nice theaters fewer times a year instead of the budget theaters more often. But if we're talking about the audience being trained to not see movies as often, this is a huge part of it. I know families who basically stopped going to the theater at all when the budget theaters closed, because they can't afford it anymore.
@@lydia1634 Why did they close? Because people stopped going. Why are prices rising? Smaller attendance.
@@miz4535 Prices rose because in the early 2000s, all the theater chains built fancy new theaters that had higher ticket prices. This trained audiences that movies were a fancy experience you went to less often, instead of a more affordable experience you went to regularly. I think the new theaters had to do with new technology, probably something with more digital films/sound systems. It started before Spiderman came out. The first movie I saw in the fancy new theater was Sorcerer's Stone.
There is some real irony that most of the popular films within the massive franchises are usually those which deviate the most from the formula or are made by directors who do not normally make such works.
A huge problem is that a lot of movie theaters no longer buy mid budget movies. I love cinema, I love foreign movies, I love dramas, I love experimental indie films and they don't play in the movie theaters nearby me. Some aren't even available on streaming services. So I have to pirate them. Because it's the only way to get them. Which creates the illusion that I don't want to see them, but I do. Is just that, along with studios withdrawing rights to theaters and removing content from streaming, pirating is just more practical and satisfactory.
Spot on! Luckily there is an indie cinema theatre in the cultural quarter where I live. There one can find all the types of movies you mentioned. Im always in that theatre 🎥
I'm happy we got Alamo finally. We also have a small local single screen theater showing classic movies. Its always a celebration there.
Bingo. It's Napster all over again. People don't pirate because they don't wanna pay. They pirate because that's the only place stuff is readily available. If I could go to one site and find any movie, I'd happily pay for it. Just like iTunes proved people would with music.
Same. Radarr and Plex has been a massive help in my watching of good movies.
I was happy to pay for streaming services until they stopped having movies and shows that I liked or stopped allowing me to stream what I wanted on their services.
@@2face789 I no longer pirate many movies, since I've been able to build an exceptional collection from iTunes for $5 to $7 each... Other than Winter's Bone, Interstellar and Ex Machina, I have very few other titles from the last decade, as not many recent releases catch my eye. Oppenheimer is the only major new release that I've looked forward to in a while.
I've been a movie lover since my teens. As a student, I went to the movie theater several times per month, watching all kinds of films.
I've also given over my love of movies to my son: In the last couple of years, we've watched movies from the last six decades almost weekly as a family - but at home, via stream and projector. We rarely watched recent movies, mostly those from the 1990s and 2000s, or even older ones.
In the last five years, I've only been to a movie theater two times: for the movie 1917 in 2020 and Oppenheimer and 2023.
One thing that bothers me is that a movie like The Power of the Dog is now forever buried in Netflix's deep library. It is completely out of the public conversation and will have no shelf live. I honestly forgot it existed.
Classics like Blade Runner and Shawshank Redemption did not do well initially, but was kept alive through reruns on TV and video/DVD sales.
I think that movie got a criterion release. I’m glad a lot of the “prestige” netflix films are getting some physical release thru criterion. What sucks is the smaller less prestigious movies that havent gotten any blurays id like to own (caliber and the ritual are both great netflix movies that dont have wide bluray release)
Yeah, you could say that is the weakness of The Power of The Dog 🥁
You say that but even after Blader Runner became well known people still didn't see 2047. No one can claim a good movie will always succeed or a bad move won't be a success.
Granted maybe Jane Campion needed Netflix to make or distribute The Power of the Dog. But if she didn't then her deal with Netflix was a mistake.
See also memes, such as with the Bee Movie, Morbius, and the Lorax. None of those were any good however.
First of all, great job to the whole team here!
Regarding the death of physical media, the victims of that trend who we too often ignore are low and modest-income people who go to public libraries for their access to movies. I used to work in a public library in a downtown core where a significant portion of the community we served did not make enough money to afford either cable or the internet for their home. Consequentially, they would check out 10-20 DVDs at a time for their home entertainment. As fewer titles are released on physical platforms, especially really popular titles that were made explicitly and exclusively for streaming, it's people who are already living with too many barriers imposed upon them who will suffer the most.
Additionally, public libraries are great resources for accessing older or classic titles that streaming services aren't interested in acquiring.
@mhawang4238 Kanopy is terrific! But it's unfortunately useless for someone who, through no fault of their own, can't afford the internet for their home.
I used to get movies and CDs from my public library. My entire life has been a struggle between poverty and lower Middle Class. I completely agree with you.
i watched the first 3 seasons of succession on dvd from my local library
Dude these past three videos, Patrick has been fuckin killing it. I mean he’s always killing it but right now he’s hitting the exact topics that need to be hit and hitting them HARD.
“Patrick Has Been Killing It - A Murder Mystery” Coming soon to a cinema near you!
Definitely!
I would say last four, but yes!!
Agreed. Dude always delivers.
Is it too much to say his acting gets better every time too? The mustache gag in this one slayed. He is hilarious.
Farmers back in the day, when asked why they all paint their barns red, said "that's the only color they sell."
Hardware store owners, when asked why they only sell red paint, said "that's all that the farmers buy."
hmmmm
Um.. Barns are traditionally that color because 'paint', as we know it today was too expensive so they coated them in a mix of Linseed Oil and ferrous Iron Oxide a.k.a., Rust to prevent decay.
Ye as h, but it makes Sweden look really cute.
@@williamdixon-gk2sk shut up nerd
@williamdixon-gk2sk it's essentially a parable to convey the idea something can be viewed entirely differently by two different groups without acknowledgement of their own contribution to the matter. It's not meant to be taken literally.
That said, that is an interesting fact I didn't know, and I appreciate you sharing it.
You're forgetting the factor of rising ticket costs. I remember hearing many people using the phrase "I don't need to see this one in the theater." People began only spending money for theater visits to see blockbusters, where the big speakers, and giant screen added more to the experience (in their opinions), and waited to see dramas, and comedies on video, DVD, and streaming.
I’m pretty cheap. I usually wait for the matinee & snuggle my own junk food in. Even so it wasn’t that long ago that I could do a matinee with a friend & we’d pay 8 bucks or so for our tickets. Now matinees cost as much as first night Fridays. And some of the theaters are looking to employee bomb-sniffing dogs to eliminate the scourge of illicit candy. If only the TSA was so efficient….
@@WalterGirao I'd rather rewatch Pretty Woman than Black Widow. I'd rather rewatch Die Hard than Ant Man. Yes movie stars had some duds too, but they also produced a lot of good films.
Yep, personally I didn't even go see things I _wanted_ to see in theaters this year because money and time have been tight and I couldn't justify the cost to myself. Nevermind the non-franchise things I wasn't sure I'd even enjoy!
The movie mad $5 million dollars, it sold 10 tickets. AMC and other Cinema chains are the main suspect. I can't afford $50 to go see one movie when I can get a months worth of streaming for less.
Technically, Roger Rabbit was the highest grossing movie of 1988 worldwide. Rain Man was only at the top in the US.
Which I suppose means Roger isn't *quite* a crackpot accusation.
He can’t be bothered with facts, that would upset the algorithm
Crediting Roger Rabbit has highest grossing would ruin his ability to degrade any movie that includes children in its target audience as nothing more then a "children' movie."
@@clarkkent7973 Roger Rabbit was traditionally animated. 🙄🙄
@@mercuryredstone2235 Roger Rabbit was also one of the most expensive movies ever made _because_ of all the manual animation work.
The animators had to trace the captured frames, and then match the real world's actors, lighting and camera movements.
CGI was very primitive in 1988.
I remember when you could put Kevin Costner or Tom Hanks in a modestly budgeted film and it would make $80-$90 million and *that was okay* because they didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Key phrase was "modestly Budgeted". Indiana Jones 5 tanked because it had to make too much in order for it to be Profitable
Don't forget the different stages of inflation, though
@@Detonated66 Excellent point, but even when you adjust for inflation, most blockbusters today are still more. 80mill in the 90s would be about 160-170mill today versus the 200-300mill of most of today's blockbusters.
@@bl3343 Fair enough, we just have to compare adjusted figures
@@Detonated66 Sure, but we're talking about 80-90 million return on a 40-60 million budget that would then make still more money with rental and DVD sales.
a24 has shown that people will watch good quality films (and tv shows) even from fairly unknown and quirky filmmakers. the appetite has never been greater for original movies. make them and people will come rushing back to the cinemas.
Unfortunately this is not true for the masses...
I like a lot of A24 films but I am not going to the theater to see them.
True
@@arempy5836really? I’m the opposite, I almost only see a movie in theaters if it’s A24, at this point
I'm sure you are already aware of Ralph Tribbey's DVD release report, but it is very illuminating. It turns out that a lot of the loss in DVD sales is not due to lack of demand, but a lack of official releases as those are not captured by the official numbers. Companies are simply ignoring that revenue stream, enticed by the possibilities of streaming but not realizing they are cannibalizing their own business.
100%. There are plenty of shows I’d love to get on DVD but they just aren’t being released. For example Dark on Netflix.
Honestly if I could get a box set of the Trio Era top gear for $50 for all episodes without them being the shitty edited down ones I'd buy it in a heartbeat (or ask my wife for it). I rewatch parts of it all the time.
For more high brow cinematic stuff I'll happily shell out for Blu-Ray
(Apologies if mentioned elsewhere, but)
Pandemic lockdown, where No One could see Anything in a theater, for TWO YEARS, thus lowering its perceived importance. We ALL made due without it so watching at home became norm. So the disadvantages (expense, crowds, phone users, etc.) became more pronouncd or obvious, so that many would ONLY go to theaters if it was a big spectacle. When smaller movies are released, more likely people will "wait until it's streaming". Not saying that's fair or right, but that's the Roger Rabbit on my conspiracy wall.
I remember a conversation with the CEO of Netflix on some news show, saying that several big studios took away their licensing at any price so that they would be robbed of content. I remember him saying that he thought the studios were trying to starve them out so all the had was cheap or old movies and TV. So the brain storm was "They can't take content we own." Not only did they hunt down tallented directors and writers they bought IP that other studios had given up on.
I'm not surprised that's the case, all the studios decided to pull their licenses and build their own streaming services.
Now I think it's proven to have been a huge financial mistake, so they're going to basically recreate cable with channel bundles and commercials. We'll see if it works! If they want to put commercials ina TV show that was built to have commerical breaks then whatever, but when they drop adds in the middle of a movie, in the middle of a line of dialogue it fills me with rage.
@cbpd89 it won't work. The streamers themselves created the appetite for programming without ads. I will simply not go back to any model that makes me watch ads interspersed into my programming. And I'm 70. Do you think anyone under 30 has any interest in the old cable model? They barely watch TV now as it is.
I find myself watching more TV shows that have the production quality and length of mini movies. You get more complex stories with more run time that you can enjoy for a while, but all the visuals and quality of a movie.
It's a different thing though. I did this for like a few years I stopped watching movies completely, and going back and watching a movie felt very odd to me. It felt compressed. Like things were happening too quickly or not enough. It took a while for me to get back into the groove of movies and I still haven't really recovered, but what I learned from that was that movies are more poetic. A TV show, at least potentially, can be like a long novel or series of novels (apt comparison as those were once serialized). It can develop a story slowly and over years. A movie is much more poetic and artistic. And by artistic I mean when it's good it's more about creating a cohesive and unitary experience from start to end. TV shows have multiple directors and authors, movies just have 1 director taking the lead and responsible for the vision from start to end. Sometimes TV does something like this but they aren't involved in the directing the creative vision of every episode.
The success of Pirates of the Caribbean was apparently what killed Touchstone, because Disney discovered the formula to releasing successful live action movies that people would turn out to watch. Previous, due to a high number of live action box office bombs, the Disney branding was enough to kill any interest in live action releases to a general adult audiance. So Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures came about to fill that niche, without plastering Disney's name all over it.
See, nobody ever talks about Pirates, even though it's exactly like the mcu but started 3 years earlier. Iron Man (2008) basically copied the first pirates movie.
@@Frogman1212 Pirates of the Caribbean is a very traditional franchise (the kind that Hollywood's been making for decades since Star Wars). How did Iron Man or the MCU copy Pirates of the Caribbean?
@@TheRockerX 1. Watch them
2. Star Wars >> Pirates
3. You liked your own comment
@@Frogman1212I rewatched the first Pirates about a month ago and I cannot see where you got the idea the first Ironman movie copied the first Pirates movie. They are nothing alike in structure, narrative, or casting. If you are trying to intimate that Tony = Jack you are really reaching there.
People don't harp on the PIRATES movies because they're really weird in away even James Gunn's Marvel stuff isn't. I do think there's two things it did contribute, for the worse, though.
1) The first movie made around 300 million. (600 million worldwide) The second hit the billion dollar club. In the past, sequels would often get greenlit because the first one was so successful the expected two thirds was easy money, but they would always sort of be on the lookout for new ideas because returns would inevitably diminish. A megahit becoming and even mega-er hit, though set a dangerous precedent
2) The death of the movie star. Johnny Depp's take on Jack Sparrow was considered really refreshing at the time, but I think a huge reason movie stars have diminished is that so many want to prove themselves chameleons. If the star is to be a brand, they have to project some idea on what their name means. Tom Hanks was an everyman thrust into historical situations. Will Smith was a cocksure quipster who bristles under authority. Keanu Reeves was a laconic, surfer type trying to figure stuff out at the same pace we were. Julia Roberts can repackage her Julia Robertness into something like say, Erin Brockovich, which plays around with her persona, but she can't play Dr. Jeckyll's Irish maid. (And contrary to the video, Nicole Kidman was never a particularly commercial star) Everyone talks about what a perfect movie star George Clooney was, but he was so gun-shy about some his "do it for the money" role, he sometimes ran way too far into the other direction. I'm not saying Emma Stone can't occasionally do some weird stuff with Yorgos, but she can't do weird stuff all the time, or eve most of the time.
I used to watch Patrick on my own with headphones on while doing chores. Now my wife and I sit down and watch his videos like legit feature length films. Not saying this to put pressure on the production to abandon shorter formats (which, I realize, have a faster turnaround). Keep it up. Rooting for you!
So you’re saying that Patrick is killing cinema?
Same! I suggested my husband watch these because I thought he'd like the whole Charl saga, now he expects to watch new videos together instead of me watching them as soon as they come out. 🤣
@@walterelias6494O.M.G. 😂
I think Tik Tok (and other short-form content) is actually a larger culprit for the decline of cinema than you might realize. I'm a young Grade 7 English and Socials Studies teacher and my students rarely ever watch tv and movies. The only content today's 12 year olds watch in their spare time is youtube and tiktok. Myself and my colleagues have a theory that they don't care about movies and tv shows as much anymore because media literacy rates across North America have plummeted over the past 5~7 years due to the proliferation of short-form dopamine dump style content. In short, a large chunk of modern young audiences lack the attention spans and media literacy to enjoy quote unquote "real cinema" anymore. But that's just my theory.
This was my thought too. It’s not a competitor in the sense that movies are being watched on tik tok, but the time spent on tik tok competes for the time they would be watching movies
Is it really proper grammar in England to use "myself and . . . have a theory . . ."? Instead of 'my friends and I have a theory'?
tiktok is awesome nice cap take boomer deadass stop talkin like u got rizz when you dont bruh
@@Travybear1989 I think you just proved the OP's point about literacy in general. What language are you even speaking, and do you have an attention span higher that that of a mosquito on meth?
I fucking love old movies and I still have a DVD player
I was going to watch a movie when I got home from work and now I’m watching this feature length RUclips video.
Are YOU killing cinema???
Side note - as a screenwriter who’s yet to break in, I hate that this is where we’re at. I feel like I’ve lived through every single great time to break in and we’re literally at the end of the road in terms of unknown writers making something that will ever make it into cinemas.
OR, maybe we're at the part in history where films are finally affordable enough that filmmaking isn't just a hobby for billionaires. What if we stop just being consumers of films and make them together instead?
I refuse to believe people will only do filmmaking for big money when people spend weeks researching to add a sentence to Wikipedia for free.
What if we focused not on the fossilized studios, and instead we think about adults who want to make movies for fun? There could be a new industry opening up in supporting people making of movies as a hobby. And just like owning a golf course; assisting adults to have access and fun with their hobby can definitely be profitable (and less risky than the standard film investment). 😎
What if instead of cinema death... this is an evolution? or even an opportunity to have a grassroots revolution?
@@melindawolfUS completely agree. like any other industry, cinema will undergoe phases and cycles of change and innovation. yet, there may be some benefits to stripping away the mystique of movie making and refraining from idolizing movie stars.
@@melindawolfUSI'm an amateur filmmaker residing in Atlanta, and while I do hope to break in so I can make the big idea movies that I want, I'm primarily here for fun. And I wish more people had that attitude. Like recently I was making some Facebook posts for cast and crew calls for a short film, and I got so many replies bashing me for daring to ask people to work for free. Of course I know making movies can be a job and it is hard work, but good god the mentality of making art for art's sake is criminal to some people. Luckily my short film went off without a hitch as I've helped other people with their projects in the burgeoning film scene here. But don't you dare ask people to make a movie for fun or you're an "exploiter".
I should also add that filmmaking is still expensive as a hobby. It's hard to imagine a barista or fast food worker being able to shill hundreds or even thousands on equipment and rental locations. And things are only getting more expensive. I mean if you don't have a 4k camera, you can forget about people working with you as a cinematographer. While tech wise it's more accessible to make a movie, it's still can be a dent in your bank account.
@@danman1950 I'm just hearing that it's hard... not impossible like it would have been 60 years ago.
Sounds like we just need to network together outside of the studio system to solve 60% of these issues for live-action.
Animation solves 99% of the location and equipment issues. Blender is free and the greasepencil tool is fantastic.
Angel studios is making fully-funded films and shows using crowdfunding. They made 10x their investment on Sound of Freedom. It's likely the most profitable film this year when you consider marketing budgets added in. All because they didn't just assume the way studios do business is the BEST way to do business.
I did mention HOBBY level in my comment, but you're still thinking current industry standards that the hobbyist doesn't give a flyingFug about.
Film is a creative medium... so you need to get creative about solving the issues that are bound to pop up!
Otherwise, these just sound like excuses for not trying ;)
Your phone prob has a fine camera on it.
The problem with the death of movie stars is that people will get tired of a franchise or IP but a movie star, a good actor, can play many different characters in many different types of movies. Movies stars can play in movies that actually tell good stories about interesting things.
@@bmasters1981and she’s mid in all of them. Easily the worst part of bullet train
@@bmasters1981you must be kidding right?
"Movie stars" have always been a myth. Pat overlooks the fact that Tom Cruise's career has more than it's share of underperformers and outright bombs, like Days Of Thunder, Far And Away, Night And The Day, The Mummy, etc etc. An attractive actor who's mildly charismatic-genuinely talented still requires a solid script and strong direction for a movie to sell
Robert Pattinson is a good modern day example of this, many went to watch Good Time and The Lighthouse because of him being in them, and those are made by out there smaller directors with out there concepts.
I hate Avatar 2: The Way of Water.
I think the reason we don't see movies like that anymore is because television is fulfilling that need to a large extent. If rain man was made now it would probably be a series.
Exactly. If we want adult drama there is a seemingly endless list of high quality shows that can do a better job of character development than a movie because they have more time. A guy like Scorsese will argue about the artistry and cinematic experience but he doesn't understand the average American doesn't have an unlimited budget for enertainment. If someone is already dropping X amount for streaming, they may not be inclined to spend more on one of his films.
Well i don't think i really want to see movies like that/Rain Man and it's ilk anyway.......they're dreadfully trite and overblown.
The problem with a lot of series though is that too often they drag things out too long. Some series should've just been movies.
the irony isn't lost on me after commenting on the lack of self contained stories, particularly marvel creating trailers in movies only to end it on a preview for the next video. Great video.
I like your ideas on how to bring cinema back, but really, it will only give studios more money and create a handful of stars who make all the money. I think a better idea is to follow the lead of A24. Create a production company that invests in good quality artist driven films, and people will follow that artist/production company knowing they will create something worth seeing. Let the artist drive it not the studio or stars.
The biggest problem with A24 is: they only produce low budget films, not mid budget films, so while they give a lot of creative freedom to directors and artists, they also do it because they know that anything they release will make profit, because of how small their budgets are. it's the same strategy that Blumhouse and other studios that make the films that big studios would only made 30 years ago does. They give a lot of freedom to their creators, yes, but next to zero resources as well, which also end up limiting the kinds of movies that are made, again, the death of mid budget films.
A24 is more a part of the problem than a solution to the problem.
The film industry was doing fine about a decade ago. But now instead of being hired based on talent, people are hired for… let’s just say other reasons. When you don’t hire the best person for the job your project will suffer.
@@willw3736bro did not watch the video at all
I really appreciate you as a youtuber employing a dedicated music composer!
How convenient that Patrick let RUclips off the hook.
Raise your hand if you spend more time watching RUclips video essays about movies instead of, you know, actually watching those movies.
I'm embarrassed to admit I've spent way more time watching Star Wars video essays than Star Wars itself.
Edit: Yes, I realize Star Wars is not the best example because that franchise has turned into a corporate content mill. I chose Star Wars as an example because Patrick himself has made at least five video essays about it.
Ha, joke’s on you, I watch RUclips videos about Warhammer books 😝
Oh, absolutely 😂💀
maybe, but i wasn't going to watch any more star wars anyways after disney so blatantly scammed me the first time
I don't miss the irony that he made a feature lenght video with cinematic quality on YT for free about who is responsible the death of mainstream entertainment cinema.
Got a mention within the TikTok bunch
I’m amazed by how this man can capture my undivided attention for a full hour and a half. Usually these days I watch most RUclips videos at double speed, and they rarely exceed 20-30min in length. I sat and deliberately watched this in its entirety at 1x speed. He’s like the Michael of vsauce of movies.
Lowered attention spans caused by short-format videos are also a culprit in the death of cinema. 💀
@@lordcommandernox9197
Easily the main culprit. People who write the scripts for these video essay channels don't realize how much selection bias has influenced their perception regarding who the average person is and how he/she thinks.
The lion's share of their audiences may be literate, armed with an attention-span longer than three seconds. But if you were to pick any random person? He/she has been completely zombified by short-form social media content and to be frank most of these people were never going to split the atom even without these intrusive brain-rotting distractions.
What "killed" the cinema experience for me was simply a matter of economics.
When I was a student in the 00s, who basically had no money, I could still afford to go to the cinema every other week or so with my friends. As a result of going so frequently, I saw many different movies of all kinds of genres. There were also a few smaller, independent theatres and local chains which showed more obscure fare.
Nowadays, even though I make far more money than I did then, to take my wife and I to see a movie, I would have to seriously consider the cost of it. Therefore, I maybe go 5 or 6 times a year and only something that I know I'll probably enjoy because I'm not going to risk wasting my money. We also have far less choice as it's basically just picking which is the slightly less extortionate multiplex chain at that time.
I would say that this is something that many people grapple with these days too. With the raise in the expense of going to the cinema, the death of smaller independent theatres and the general raise in inflation, people are not going to take the risk of seeing a movie which doesn't have a reliable IP or franchise attached to it. Instead, they will go to the cinema only if it's something they really want to see and will stay at home to watch Netflix and its competitors for everything else.
Exactly. It has always been about money. Another thing that "killed" cinema is the lingering effects of early 2000s piracy. When fans stopped pumping money into the art, it led to financial failures, disincentivizing investors and other shareholders. Hollywood designed cost-effective delivery methods, such as over-using CGI (even for blood), underpaying actors (or hiring unestablished actors to pay peanuts), and hiring film crews for gig jobs. All of those things lowered film quality overall.
Yeah and it’s even worse for people that have children. My parents took me and my siblings all the time back in the 00s but it was cheaper then. Kids nowadays don’t get to go to the movie theatre as often. Also we had a 3 year pandemic that isn’t fully over. So kids lost 3 years of their childhoods which is a huge chunk of time of their lives when no one could go to the theatre
Obviously it depends on where you're from but I live in a fairly major city in the UK and a full-price cinema ticket is £8.50. This really isn't unaffordable for most people - in fact it's about the price I remember it being about 10 years ago when I used to go to the cinema a lot more. So round here at least I'm sceptical that it's the price that's putting people off.
@@TheTillmanSneakerReview Blaming piracy only applies when it comes to small independent productions. Big companies have no problem taking a "hit" from pirates because the only people who pay for pirated media usually won't even watch the movies in theatres or even purchase their ridiculously overpriced DVDs in the first place, especially in placed where video rentals were virtually nonexistent, such as my country. I didn't have a convenient Blockbuster around me growing up, and I didn't have money for an expensive movie ticket, but I had the local night market selling a physical disc for a third of the price of a movie ticket that I could rewatch over and over. The choice was obvious for me, naturally. There was also the fact that the pirated movies were always for things that released at least 3 to 10 years ago, so no one was actually "losing" money by that point.
@@ardius9777 *"Blaming piracy only applies when it comes to small independent productions."*
When big companies take hits, small companies take bigger hit because they don't have investors.
*"Big companies have no problem taking a "hit" from pirates because the only people who pay for pirated media usually won't even watch the movies in theatres or even purchase their ridiculously overpriced DVDs"*
Companies aren't taking the hit. Investors who pump money into the projects are the biggest losers in the business. Most of the money made is generated in countries such as The USA, Germany, China, and other places were pirating is harshly penalized.
*"I didn't have a convenient Blockbuster around me growing up, and I didn't have money for an expensive movie ticket"*
Then, you were never the target audience. Therefore, they planned for you. However, when Americans pirate, it kills the entertainment industry.
*"There was also the fact that the pirated movies were always for things that released at least 3 to 10 years ago, so no one was actually "losing" money by that point."*
Pirating became a problem because insiders leaked footage long before movies were released. For example, X-Men 3 leaked about a year beforehand, costing the studios significant money. In fact, the bootleg copy still had green screen footage and undeveloped CGI. It was crazy.
Recently, Tarantino was criticized by saying that in a superhero movie, the star is the superhero, not the actor. He was spot on.
Sure, but those Movies always existed. James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Robin Hood. where it was more about the character than the actor
( interesting that all four are english )
@@achimdemus-holzhaeuser1233 indeed, but Sean Connery and Johnny Weismuller or Christopher Reeve were stars, and people paid to see them on the screen playing those characters. In the superhero franchises, the actor is not as relevant as the superhero character. Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield aren't the star, Spiderman is.
@@xaviconde Your picking the ONE guy from the Bond series that WAS a iconic star (Connery) but the rest of the 007's were decidedly ... not. Moore, Dalton, George Lazenby, Brosonan were not big time movie stars at all and were just guys playing the role they didn't have huge success outside of that role. Chris Reeves also wasn't really a star outside the Superman movies at all , what was his biggest most iconic non superman films ?
I think the killing off of Tony Stark was a factor. Robert Downy Jr. was a big draw for a lot of fans. It was for me. I went to see a lot of those movies to see him. After End Game I started caring less.
@@illyal1445 Connery only later became a big star after he stopped doing Bond. Before that he was frustrated by such limited success when he wasn't Bond.
I think a really big factor is also worth a deep dive. The death of cultural zeitgeist. More an more we're seeing less and less big moments or content that everyone sees and talks about. We don't have famous artists anymore, banksy is the only one I can think of since Francis Bacon (who isn't even a household name, for that you have to go back to Dali or Warhol) like it's said here, the idea of the movie star is dead. And the only big events that everyone watches are almost immediately forgotten. When was the last time you even heard someone talk about Game of Thrones. Or Tiger King? Squid Games? Do you think people will remember it 50 years from now like Starwars? Or even 25 years like the finale of Seinfeld?
So true!
That's a good point. The internet means the amount of stuff that has been published has increased exponentially. Therefore, people are into different things, and there's fewer and fewer moments where everyone experiences the same bit of culture. I'm not into sports, but I deliberately watch the super bowl, partly because it feels like the last remaining cultural experience that unites the whole country. (But that's just the U.S.)
Squid Games was really good! I still talk about it, especially with how much the show dealt with Korean history and culture. In 50 years, I think we'll talk about how Netflix made a billion dollars from Squid Games and Hwang Dong-hyuk made less than a million. Ironic, don't you think..?
Streaming Services also hurt their own brand by being a dumping ground for content filler. For me "straight to streaming" has become synonymous with "straight to DVD". The amount of content filler has affected the perception of the quality of all releases. I'd rather watch the 7-minute Pitch Meeting than watch the entire movie. Sadly a lot of movies today fit in that description.
"where's the beef" phenomenon ~ would not exist today.
Along with all of the other suspects, you have home cinema setups. People investing in bigger and better televisions. 4K, HDR, 70" screens with Dolby surround sound, bringing a cinematic experience to peoples homes, makes theatres fleecing you for popcorn and snacks much less attractive. Great video. Thank you!
would love your take on horror movies in recent years - they seem to be the only exception to the rule. they've been making more money, with a higher critical acclaim than ever before, on usually a low budget. i know horror movies have always sorta been this way, but i would love to see your take on why they seem to be disaffected by the modern state of the movie industry.
they're emotionally primevil which is cheap to make eg. one darkened hall way and a jump scare compared to a set piece explosion involving 20 cars. You know it already.
Working in the Industry for over 25 years, I regret to affirm all is true in this video. It's like I just visited my therapist and saw a sad truth as I looked in the mirror. I feel I jumped over Denial and Anger and went straight to Depression. I'm working towards Acceptance. :-)
One note I’d like to mention regarding the death of cinematic comedies: the Internet.
In that now we have a bunch of indie comedians who through whatever platform of their choice (RUclips, Twitch, TikTok, etc) and not go through the studio system to make compromises on their content. Which also means making comedy that doesn’t need to appeal to a mass market and can instead focus that comedy on specific niche subjects or with jokes regarding social and political issues…not having a studio exec breathe down your neck and saying you’re going too far.
So, why go for a comedy movie meant for a mass market when you could go online to find a comedic creator whose material is more targeted to your interests?
Comedy movies' comparative advantage over Twitter & TikTok is the live crowd reaction, so the Hollywood marketing probably needs to lean into that.
@@nolaffinmatter For you, our crowd usually keep quiet.
Comedy peaked in the 1980s with the original _Whose Line Is It_ hosted by Clive Anderson.
It seems like online platforms are more restrictive now than old media is, in as far as what you can say and show. Comparatively, I think you could get away with a lot more in an R rated comedy today, than you could trying to do the same stuff on RUclips or TikTok. Think about crude language, drug use, etc. A comedy doesn't necessarily need that to be funny, but online platforms still have restrictions that could prevent people from going as far with a comedic premise, as they could in an R rated comedy, or even a late night TV show.
Sad but true that comedies and it's production are more readily available on content platforms. I personally love comedy movies I think just having a funny and interesting story is great, and now the most you may get is through television. The problem with tv shows is that they're meant to run indefinitely, so there's only so many jokes you can make in condensed story that can't be told for infinity. That's why people still love Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen etc because you could see those same movies dozens of times and it would still be funny. On the monetary question, who knows how feasible it is today but people love comedies so I think it's possible it could be brought back, on a smaller scale anyway.
Saw Pulp Fiction in the theaters for $8.00. Lines stretched down the street. Today, those characters would have had to wear capes and live under glaciers to generate the same excitement.
A large part of why I haven't gone to see a movie in theaters is that... it's too expensive now. AMC used to be kind of the "budget" option in my experience. I still have ticket stubs where my ticket cost $8 for an evening screening. Even before the panorama, I had A-List and I was 100% utilizing the three movies a week perk.
If I had the funds to go to Barbenheimer I would've done it. Movies need to be made that are worth paying the money. It's October. Why am I going to spend roughly $45+ on a horror movie that lasts 2 hours when I can spend a little more and go to a scare park for 6+ hours?
I'd also blame the death of the movie star on the internet. Not only are they more accessible than ever, but it's just that much easier to find your favorite actor doing little freak behavior.
And you can watch their early and obscure movies at home
I agree, but I don’t think it’s because you can find your favorite actor doing every little thing every day. Tabloids have existed for decades, and the internet has only increased the speed of what you know about your favorite actor.
People used to care about movie stars because they were the only people who were everywhere. Whether it’s at the movie theater, or in the magazines you read or on your TV. The only way you could catch up with your friends remotely was through the phone (and that was if they were even home or not on another phone call). Now, the internet allows us to communicate with who we really care about anytime anywhere. And it can be as public as an Instagram post, or as private as a text message. Now, if we want joy in our lives, we don’t have to rely on whatever’s on TV or your DVD collection, and admire the select few who broke into stardom because they have wide reaching charisma. We can check in with the people who we really care about and have an interactive and engaging experience with. And most importantly, the people whom we won’t cancel if they mess up.
this is a fair point, maybe popular actors being "ultra super relatable" was a mistake
And even if none of their freak behavior is a dealbreaker, the fact that you can see them all the time on the confort of your phone dimishes their "starpower" to bring people to theaters. "Why would I drive to the cinema and spend money on a movie ticket to see Chris Evans or Amanda Seyfried for two hours when I can stay at home and watch them post instagram stories every three minutes?" John Q Public thinks
I also think it's also because who and what deem as famous has also changed. It can be an actor, but it also can be a social media star as well or even a someone who was on reality TV. The walls have crumbled and now any random person can be allotted their 15 minutes.
I think, at its core, the decline of audience numbers comes down to the sheer amount of offerings - not only does it feed directly into paralysis by choice (“Do I want to invest 2 hours of my life into this when I have so many other options that also look interesting?”) but it makes it virtually impossible to keep up with what your friends are watching in order to comment, discuss and share mutual love or hate for a particular film. Up until the early 2000s, you could absolutely be on top of new releases, while still exploring back catalogues and having a life of sorts. Today that is impossible.
Not really. The problem isn't the amount of offerings, but the fact that they've been homogenized into content, where hashtags and key words are meant to replace curation and critisism. You're overwhelmed by choices because the burden of looking into each project to see whether it's worth checking out is now entirely on the audience. There's no rollout, no campaign to neatly explain to you in human terms that you actually understand all while being factual, helpful and not biased either way. The few movie critics who are any good have long since succumbed to algorithm, and they are overrun by hordes of amateurs with a hysterical or cynical shtick, studios can't be bothered to invest in proper promotion, and there's very little credibility to go around when everyone and their uncle have a professional opinion. When a proper rollout does take place, like Barbenheimer, lightning in a bottle can still happen. But the whole industry has already formed around low budget, low effort barrage of speculative, mostly uninformed takes on what may or may not be coming out in franchise installments few months from now, and finding a reliable source to go to 15-something screenings every week and giving an unbiased consise overview of what you can expect to see in theaters is as likely as finding a unicorn.
The analysis paralysis is not because of the embarassment of riches on offer, there aren't more movies coming out than 20 years ago. it's lack of readily available information about those to inform audience choices. Which is why people spend more time looking for something to watch than actually watching.
@@tatianar9429 There are many more movies being produced and released now than there were 20 years ago. That’s not a matter of opinion. 20 years ago is when the digital revolution liberated the indie world. Plus, with internet and streaming-propelled globalization, on top of all the additional movies being thrown at you, you have all the offerings from foreign markets also knocking at your door. Using your words, the burden is entirely on the audience precisely because proper, actual critics cannot keep up with and sift through all the offerings, so everything becomes dispersed. Up until the late 90s, filmmakers and cinephiles grew under the shadow of these mythical pop figures with a deep knowledge of the history of the medium, like Truffaut, Scorsese, Tarantino, Bogdanovich, because it was manageable. You could study the medium’s history, keep up with all the new releases, develop your own projects and have a life on top of that. Nowadays, that is not possible anymore, not even remotely. The amount of new releases being thrown at you in streaming alone will prevent you from having a life of any sort and even then you won’t be able to keep up with it. Cinema existed as spectacle not simply due to the scale of the productions, but mostly because it was an event, because releases had time to breathe, exist and occupy space in the cultural discourse, if the audiences so desired. Nowadays, as soon as you leave the theater, people are already caught up in talking about what will be released in streaming the day after or maybe on that very same day - and two days down the road they won’t even remember they went to the theater that week. It all becomes diluted into this grey pulp. There’s also the commitment side of it all, which I think Patrick addressed, not sure: you making a choice to carve time out of your life to go out, buy a ticket, probably even get a meal before or after, infuses the entire process with more meaning and expectation. For the most part of the medium’s history, both filmmakers and studios were always aware of that and respected it. Nowadays, studios don’t care because their primary concern is in keeping and attracting subscribers, and that is done by constantly throwing balls in the air and keeping the subscribers busy. Theatrical releases at this point are basically a big advertisement for the studio/streamer in the sense that it reminds the audience that “This title will be available in OUR catalog next month. Subscribe now.”. The current “machine gun” approach to the business model of production is stripping the cultural importance from the medium.
@@mhawang8204they're gobbling each other up because when you lose a billion dollars a quarter, consolidation happens. Like, it's weird, you guys don't understand, they're losing money. I don't get it. Do you guys just assume every company prints money? If so, why do financial analysts even have jobs? You do realize, it's a whole job to explain which companies are profitable and which aren't right? You do realize companies die... Because they aren't profitable? They don't just exist forever?
the cinema prices for the most part here [uk] are the biggest reason my cinema trips have dropped rapidly. Now it takes something special to get me through the doors.
I have been watching a lot of old siskel and ebert episodes and recently watched their review of Kramer vs Kramer. It’s interesting to me that one of their chief complaints about the movie culture at the time is that Kramer vs Kramer is one of the “few” movies aimed at grownups that people wanted to see Not saying that goes against the idea that “we didn’t know how good we had it” per se, but it’s interesting that even at the time, there was the notion that “movies for adults” were becoming a rarity.
Well Kramer vs. Kramer came out in '79, two years after Star Wars so there was the influx of Star Wars knockoffs and despite the apotheosising of cinephiles, the New Hollywood of the 70's was a short period and there was still various big budget, VFX driven films coming out like disaster movies like The Towering Inferno and Earthquake or comedy films and the like.
Sounds to me like the success of some of these movies like Rain Man and Kramer vs Kramer could also be owed a bit to the scarcity of similar subject matter on that level of quality. That can focus the target audience to make them a real success. I think today's market is quite oversaturated with content and this makes targeting this demographic more risky than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I also found it interesting that the rise of the video game was not at all on Patrick's radar. People only have so much disposable time and income and games certainly remove an increasing portion of both from the audience.
@@Spearhead78 Oh yeah, the rise of games media has also something to with that as well. Also the after effects of a pandemic that put a lot of people onto streaming in lieu of going to the cinema. A lot of discussion about this topic has excluded the pandemic.
I wanted to check out Kramer vs Kramer. Is the film with its subject matter aging well after all these years?
@@furbl4345 Probably not particularly well. When it came out no-fault divorce was still relatively 'new' and not yet nationwide. Almost 45 years later, most of us have either lived through their own version (of either version) or been close to someone who has. That kind of knock down drag out custody battle is far less common. My thought when Patrick brought it up for comparison was that most people these days don't want to spend money (on Marriage Story) to relive their own traumas, unless there's a therapist with good advice at the end. I'm sure it's still very raw and honest feeling, but the ground it covers is dated, I think is my point.
We need a United Artists. We need a production company that makes actor-driven movies, and character-driven movies.
A24 and Neon
@@robertoinzunzamorales1844
We have a few dozen of those. Just about every major name actor in Hollywood has their own production company or is tied to one. Adam Sandler's Happy Madison Productions is just one example.
Boy, calm.
Just so long as it doesn’t end up like the original UA did. The thing that made them what they were - artistic freedom and non-interference with that - was what ultimately killed them.
Oh man, as a kid growing up in the 80s, I so wanted to make films that were akin to those Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures releases. "Rain Man" was one of my faves, and my parents took me to the actual theater to see it. Look, I love franchise films as much as the next guys, but I definitely mourn the death of original adult comedies and dramas, sexy thrillers, and action films that, as you said, were once the norm.
I'm also glad you mentioned the demise of DVDs/home video. As soon as you started talking about it, the Matt Damon quote popped into my head (and I'm glad you included that as well).
Disney shutting down Touchstone Pictures was appalling. I hated them for years for doing that, some of the best movies in the 90s were made in that division. If they had kept it, it would have continued to make great mid-budget comedy and action movies.
Going to the movies went from a hobby to an event to a chore. It just got too expensive to go to cinemas, and that trend started 20 years ago. Instead of addressing prices or putting more old movies back into circulation, they squeezed international distribution, stuck to gimmicks and milked big hit genres until they thinned the herd of ideas. I stopped going to the movies long before Netflix.
The mid-level drama and comedy have just migrated to the small screen and are now the staple of television. My go-to actors, like Bryan Cranston or Vanessa Bayer, are now largely based exclusively in television or streaming shows.
Before iron man bobby I've grew up with in 1985 weird science back to school less than zero the pick up artist comedian sketch comedy SNL.before Wesley snipes blade it was wildcat's 1985 mo better blues jungle fever drama comedy acting Brian Cranston Seinfeld the dentist mysterion was Donny Darko and bubble boy I've been watching these guys literally my entire life before marvel movies the reason they're so good is they have actors who've been acting since the cradle and I've been a fan since then.marty is right before joe peci was a gangster he was leo getz lethal weapon the super michael jackson smooth criminal video with a pony tail an actor. Movie's suck now because writers and actors and directors suck they didn't build heartache and pain they was given a $200 million dollar film with one direction under their belt Christian haden wooden performance in Star wars to the oh I lost my spider sense script far from home to strong woman script for captain marvel I asked for a empty popcorn bucket watching it so I could barf between plot and climax
You forgot another suspect: covid and the pandemic, this completely broke the habit of going to theaters for most people. I used to see around 20 movies a year in theaters but I haven't gone back to theaters since before the pandemic. Going cold turkey on going to the movies completely broke my habit. I haven't had any desire to go back.
Personally, I didn’t go to the theater because there really wasn’t one near me and if I had it would be on my own. I stopped going years before the pandemic, because living in a rural area, streaming just makes it easier.
Cold Turkey has that effect on a lot of things. College wrecked my leisure reading habits, and then a stressful job took me out of video gaming. Not that I don't still enjoy them theoretically, but I seem to be able to get back into the mood.
I was going to bring this up, but you beat me to it. As much as people want to pretend everything is "back to normal," it isn't. The people who we lost during the height of the pandemic before vaccines were introduced certainly aren't going back to theaters. We can't go back to all the theaters that permanently closed during the pandemic. My mom and I used to go to the theater here in town, but that isn't an option anymore. I don't think she's been to a theater since. I have, but the expensive inconvenient activity of going to a theater certainly hasn't been made less expensive or more convenient through that change. A lot of what we do is based on habits, and those habits can be disrupted by even small things. Downplaying or ignoring the lingering effects of something like the worldwide pandemic on stuff in the 2020s is like downplaying the effect WW2 had on the 1940s. That said, at least Patrick briefly mentioned it in the video. I've seen similar videos talking about theatrical attendance over the past four years, and they don't mention it at all.
Yes I was surprised he didn’t mention being prevented from theaters due to Covid. I would only see a handful of movies that were theater worthy but have only been back so far to see Everything Everywhere and (unfortunately) GG 3…if Barbie is still going I will see it this week now that I have my Covid vaccine.
@@Bustermachine Your mentioning video games here actually gives me hope. I went cold turkey off video games in college, because of money and time. Then, literally TEN years later, with a bit more financial stability and boredom, I randomly got a PS5 and am now fully back into video games.
Heck, this year I rediscovered for my passion for Old Hollywood movies. I never really stopped watching movies from the 30s-50s, but hadn't been watching them as obsessively in many years. Then one day, I just randomly did a Boris Karloff marathon (those movies are 70 minutes long and so easy to marathon) which kicked off a Universal Horror weeks-long marathon which kicked off a full return to all those old films that I love so much. I think this year I've watched more movies from the 30s and 40s than I previously had in my entire life.
Basically what I'm saying is: It IS possible to return to old ways and old loves.
With the streaming originals, there’s a bunch (a metric TONNE) of them I would have gladly watched in cinemas from Prey and Tetris to masterpieces like They Cloned Tyrone. For a person like myself who, more often than not, prefers smaller scale, meaningful stories with things to say, it sucks that good films go straight to streaming and a cinema’s timings are taken up by all the IP slop no one intends to really watch and instead ‘see’ passively
I hope They Cloned Tyrone gets a DVD release. It seems cool but I don't have Netflix. I enjoyed I'm A Virgo (2023) because I do have Prime.
Somehow, I doubt that you'd actually have gone to see all those movies in theatres because "smaller scale, meaningful stories with things to say" are still getting theatrical releases even now. Most people are just too lazy to look for them and wait for them to go on streaming.
Would've gladly gone to see No one will save you in theaters!
i see no downsides to watch movies at home. movie thaters are fucking stupid, let them die
Agreed but the whole "IP slop no want intends to watch but passively" is objectively not correct. Most people do not go to a movie theatre to not actively watch the movie. Yes, there is always one asshole on his phone during the whole movie but most people go to actually watch the movie.
I wish more movies would get theatrical releases but this argument is not the right one to make for that to happen.
I'm so happy this video exists! Thank you for passionately advocating for the cinematic experience. I love going to the movies, I love everything about it. We need to fight for more affordable viewings so everyone has a chance to share in this awesome community practice! For example, where I live, the local theater is a drive-in, and it's always affordable and always a double feature showing first run movies. It's awesome, and yes, there's a regular modern theater in the next town over which has reclining seats with warmers and is also awesome! See? It's a fully rounded experience that is fun and special, and I hope theaters don't die off too soon. ❤
Ah yes, the sacrifice of the "mid-budget drama intended for a grown audience" upon the altar of summer blockbusters. At least we still have international cinema - imagine a government willing to subsidize art for arts own sake.
if only we valued art even close to how much we value money
I don’t think that government subsidies would be able to revive mid-budget dramas for adults because the problem isn’t on the production side, it’s on the audience side. Even when those kinds of movies get made, the theaters are empty. Mid-budget middlebrow stories make for great episodic series, and so most of this stuff has moved to streaming. Ted Lasso can be a big hit on Apple TV, but I’m skeptical that audiences would show up if it were in a theater. That’s just the way it is now. I won’t say that those kind of movies are never coming back, but the kind of change needed to revive them would be a change to *audience viewing habits*, not a change to the funding model.
@@nolaffinmatterI think the problem is multifaceted and you could point to any one thing and still be a given level of correct.
The subsidies would need to be legislated in an insanely precise way to ensure the production of movies doesn't end up relying (so much) on easy bets to make the government regain their initial investments.
Here in Spain, for example, the largest domestic movies with theatrical releases are usually either part of the "rancid comedy" genre or a copycat of all the wrong lessons learned from Hollywood drama/action/thriller movies, mainly made by the production studios of the two TV conglomerates that can pull out any meaningful promotion (and one is not particularly good at marketing). All of this taking into account that the rancid comedies are actually "kidnapped" movies from other european countries, most of the time at least, specially with the french summer comedy genre (they have better things to offer). People get paid to avoid the originals to be screened, so they can be remade by out-of-touch comedians who only convince conformist audiences.
From time to time, new theater movies will get made by renowned directors, who started in a more chaotic era after 40 years of fascism and soon after are going to leave a vacuum not easy to fulfill, but most of the other gemstones won't be next to them because they are indie and without a big promotional budget/influence.
Now, back to the subsidies, because of media control to ensure a basic level of viewership, you can guess who gets the easiest and largest public funding. The money is going to the wrong place, so if implemented there, You should be careful with how.
@lrigsnart6821 I know they exist. And there are other filmmakers like them as well - Ridley Scott, Scorsese, Spielberg, the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, Martin McDonagh, etc are all still churning away making accessible middlebrow movies. And there are plenty of talented new filmmakers making original movies on smaller budgets. My point is that throwing a govt subsidy at PTA won't turn his movie into a box office success. You have to make audiences care enough about these movies to go to the theater, and I'm not sure how govt subsidies will accomplish that.
It would be interesting to explore who was killing cinema in the past. People were afraid that the wide availability of TVs would kill cinema, or the VHS tape industry, etc.
Nothing will kill it, it'll just be added to the long line of entertainment options. Just because it's changing doesn't mean it's dead. Plus, people need to stop idolizing movies period. It's not trying to cure cancer, it's just trying to entertain you.
@@leoelliondeux That mindset is part of the problem. Art can be much more than simple entertainment. It can be more than "content". When we forget that something significant is lost.
The "death of cinema" isn't about losing junkfood entertainment like Marvel. It's about losing one of the most powerful and influential art forms humanity has ever had.
cinema killed theatre
That's why I'm building up my 4k/Blu-ray/DVD collection. I'm up to around 4,000 movies mostly from the 70's 80's and 90's. I know it's nostalgia with some movies but I've found so many "hidden gems" and well known movies I had never seen that I know now I just enjoy older movies even crappy ones better than modern movies.
Hope all your discs haven´t rotten in 20 years.
@@Skyforger23 I seriously doubt it I have dvd's that are almost 30 years old that work perfectly. Plus newer Blu-ray and 4k's are manufactured even better than those old dvd's.
I like the physical movie sitting on a shelf too. Apart from actual film prints in my collection, DVDs and Blurays seem to have lasted a long time too. VHS was the only home market medium that showed degradation sometimes - dropouts, jamming mechanism, mould etc were the main culprits.
@@Skyforger23 Since the expected life of a factory stamped bluray/4k disc is 200 years, I highly doubt it
It only takes a couple of minutes reading comments to realize this is a massive and complex topic. There are lots of suspects for murdering cinema.
This is a great essay, congratulations for triggering all these great points, valid arguments, and conversations.
This made me realise how Star driven the Bollywood movies still are..
Like you can slap Shah Rukh Khan's face on a poster and people will still flood the theatres without even looking up the synopsis.
which is a bad thing for Indian Cinema.This is why Stars like Prabhas can get way with making absolutely shitty movies just because he is PRABHAS. I thought this star culture was over in 2022 but 2023 just re-established that again.
Its a 50 50 thing. Shit like patahan gets made but also like chak de india
@@imnotakingimnotagodiam..ab9455
It’s bad but having them be IP driven is even worse for cinema. In the words of the video you just watched, “you have no idea how good you have it”.
That is why they say that SRK is the last superstar of Bollywood. Indian audience is getting over superstars, first in Bollywood and soon in regional cinemas.
Patrick and Co. out here making feature-length film critiques that are more interesting that 95% of major cinematic releases this year. Bravo. Such great, informative, entertainment.
I just saw Godzilla Minus One recently and it reminded me of why I like going to the theater. Most of the Godzilla movies I’ve seen have just been at home, so seeing and hearing Godzilla during that movie made him feel much more intimidating to me. He looked huge on the screen and it was in IMAX so the sound was great too. The only movies I had really seen in theaters this year were superhero movies so it was a nice experience.
Love that guy
I plan on watching Godzilla Minus One later this week. Huge Godzilla fan. Godzilla vs Kong wasn’t bad.
One of my favorite movies was Coming To America and one of my least favorite movies was Coming To America 2.
Possibly the only channel that can put out an hour-and-a-half video that I'll actually schedule 90 minutes of my day to sit and watch with no regrets.
You don’t watch 1.5 hour video essays on 4x speed? In my mind, Patrick’s voice is a genius chipmunk.
I did it @ 2x... and it was still not informative enough.
That's why they made the 2X speed button.
I somehow think you touched the problem
There are two things I'd like to point out that were important in my lifetime that you haven't mentioned. Firstly, that around the time of Rain Man, and I specifically remember Rain Man being one of the first, movies started being sold as well as rented. Before then, buying movies cost a lot of money, like £70. And almost everyone rented. But Rain Man was £15. Which was still a lot. But it did mean that the VHS copy that you got to watch was in good condition, unlike renting.
Secondly, I believe that the arrival of DVD, with it's far higher quality and no decay over time meant that people could see a movie in good quality at home.
I think that both of these matter in terms of the decline of films like Kramer vs Kramer, but also how other genres were sustained or grew. Your points about screen size, sound and distractions are spot on. And I think every film is better in a theater. But, if you're watching Licorice Pizza or a Woody Allen movie, it doesn't matter so much. Whereas, I have to tell people to see Gravity in a theater because it depends on these things. That giant screen showing you the bleakness of space, the ominoous music, the tension of whether Sandra Bullock's character is going to get home.
It's why horror has remained as big, perhaps as big as ever. Horror is just better in a theater. If you're at home and the cat comes into the room or your mom calls, you lose the tension.
I'd also add something of my own about giant blockbuster movies, which is that people like going to these movies for new thrills. They also have to have good characters and story, but people were blown away by spectacle too. The submarine battle in The Spy Who Loved Me was an upgrade to anything before. Star Wars too. The morphing Terminator, the first dinosaur in Jurassic Park, Gollum, Iron Man. And something I feel is that we might have reached a point where it's harder to go higher. Like the last Mission Impossible was fun, but it didn't push things beyond Fallout. The MCU hasn't topped Endgame. Bond hasn't topped Skyfall.
I feel like cinema is going through a period of change, and I don't quite grasp it. But I think that international cinema, creative low budget cinema is going to become bigger. Maybe not many people want to go and see Fall, but it only cost $3m to make and was a more exciting film than the last Ant-Man was.
I’d add that television got much bigger, visual quality is fantastic and sound systems got much better too. Being on your sofa in your pajamas drinking your favorite wine for under $10 bottle and using real butter for your popcorn and having a silent room to absorb a movie is hard to top!
@@r8chlletters Good points. Larger screens and also switching from 4:3 to widescreen. Even non-blockbusters are improved by not being panned and scanned.
I still prefer a cinema, though. I don't mind that it costs £5 for a box of popcorn and £10 for a ticket.
What's fall?
where did you find somewhere so cheap?
@@timalmondvideo
@@shanemont3611 ruclips.net/video/aa5MXOMN1lM/видео.htmlsi=pZaPrXCmSE55LqRc
I honestly do agree with the notion of making comedies again. Not only are these movies inexpensive to make, the general overall feeling of watching a comedy is amazing with a crowded theater of people laughing, and if written well can also come with a lot of genuine feel-good heart that many modern movies try and can't quite reach.
My favorite movie of 2023 was strangely the Dungeons and Dragons movie Honor Among Thieves. True, it was a movie based on a beloved property (in this case DnD), and it's still a fantasy adventure film that was made for $150 million (not as expensive as Flash or Indy 5, but still substantial). It did unfortunately flopped at the box office, largely due to bad marketing and being released too close to movies like the new Mario movie...but it got insanely good reviews. Why? Because it was written to be a heist-comedy first and a fantasy epic second. It was fun, fresh, and had great heart attached to it.
IMO the humour is pretty solid in that film. Like you'd expect it to not be, but it's suprisingly good.
They don't make much money because comedy is very specific to a culture. So no overseas sales.
@cejannuzi I'd say the Speak with Dead scene would be funny regardless of culture. It's not impossible.
Comedies are dead because Hollywood is infected with the woke virus, so they would never be able to make any of those Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey comedies today. Too censorious of anything that might offend anyone.
The part an hour in where you talk of the commitment of the physical movie experience (and the phone component) really spoke to me. The value of just everything is completely eroded now. Not even just film, everything from physical media like paintings to a comic book to a piece of clothing. It's all so very disheartening.
This is awesome. Went in expecting a 10 minute video I can listen to while I work, but got a full length, well done documentary for free. Respect to you and your work!
Same I'm watching at work
Watching at work
I think it will always be a challenge from now on to convince people to watch adult dramas in theaters when they can watch a 4K version on their TV at home. Adult dramas can only succeed theatrically if they are sold as something that needs to be experienced on the big screen (Oppenheimer, for example, was sold as something that needs to be seen on IMAX).
The thing though is that most places don’t have IMAX including mine so literally the only advantage my local cinema of 2 screens have is the screen size and sound system but my home setup isn’t that far off in that regard.
I didn't need IMAX to convice myself and watch Oppenheimer.
Yeah. I think that won't mean the death of cinema just the difficulty theaters has to face.
@lrigsnart6821 I agree and that's one of the reasons I watch these films in the theater (I've seen 4/5 of those in theaters). But it's a hard sell for most people.
People just don't have the money or time anymore to spend on a new movie whenever they want. If it's more convenient I don't blame anyone, movies aren't everything and I lobe movies but not everyone can treat it beyond something to do for fun and intrigue
Not gonna lie. Seeing a film like Skinamarink in theaters has given me hope that someone like me, who only ever thought his work would be in print, could have a shot at breaking into the business. Where the big corporations fumble the bag, opportunity is created for the rest of us.
Microbudget horror has never been more accessible! And that's awesome!
Your lips to god’s ears, son.
Your lips to god’s ears, son.
Your lips to god’s ears, son.
One thing I would add to make people watch more movie is to do something about the release calender. Way too many movies gets dropped at the same time, many because of the awards season. Also movies should be released at the same time through the world. I've heard about the holdovers how great it is for a month but isn't released in Norway before the hype is gone. There's a lot of free marketing through social media because many people follow people from the US through hearing about great movies they should be able to check it out at the same time, or else they have to re market the film again.
Part of that is probably international releases costing more money/being more trouble, so studio’s probably weigh the cost/benefit profits wise before doing international releases. Which is the unfortunate reality for many people.
@1:30: Gonna stop you right there.
No, those films were not aimed at thirteen year old boys. Thirteen year olds barely knew who those characters were at the time those films released. Those were aimed at the 80s kids who were now adults who would drag their thirteen year olds to theatres so they didn't look creepy while reliving nostalgia of ages past.
He only has two labels on that matter, 'movies for kids, and real cinema'
I rarely comment on anything but this is a truly exceptional piece of work! Absolutely loved it!
well except that hes wrong on most things he mention. Like DVDs selling in the 80ies. What a blunder. I cant believe nobody is mentioning that in the comments. Are people stupid?
@@timboslice7982 what? When did he say that? He said that DVD sales fell by more than 80%...
Who needs cinema when I have a new Patrick Willems video the length of Office Space to fill the void in my heart.
This is getting weird stephen
So it's Patrick who killed cinema, got it.
@@key099able it really twas butey killed the beest
Makes me glad that I've been slowly building a personal archive of physical media currently consisting of over 200 films and 100 anime features, mostly horror, cult, and art films from the 70s, 80s and 90s. I used to stream my favorite films to a small online audience but now I enjoy showing these films to friends and visitors in my basement theater. I love it so much that I've considered inviting strangers over to watch movies with me, lol
Do you have some sort of archive? I am currentlu trying to do something similar and id love to know what strange and unknown movies you may have gathered
@gabrielepasserini6860 I think I posted some screenshots of my Jellyfin library on Twitter, which uses the same screen name I use here.
Hammer fan...??? 👍👍👍 🇬🇧 !
This is Patrick's best video in my opinion. Coming back to it months later, I'm editing this comment to add some reflection.
Tarantino's comments about the average person and family being priced out of the theatrical experience on a Director's roundtable by THR rings in my ears years later...
When I went to see The Dark Knight Rises, I drove two hours round trip to see it in full scale IMAX. During the football stadium scene while the kid was singing, the digital audio started to loop, and the analog film kept going. They came in and said, "Sorry it takes a half hour to rewind the film, so you all have to leave now." I spent $30 on gas, probably $20 on popcorn and drinks for my girlfriend and I. Oh, and the IMAX ticket cost, whatever that was. I still hear that kid's looped chirping in my mind all these years later. I got 'free guest passes' and a really bad night.
That is one of many awful theater experiences I've had. It's the standout, most extreme example. But I don't gamble; I don't buy lottery tickets and I don't pay for an experience that has a high odd of going south and shoving a bad night into my life.
In the 80s and 90s I saw a lot of movies in theaters and almost always had a great experience. Starting in the early 2000s, the experience started to slide. As time went on, it got worse, and then worse still. Audiences became annoying, theaters forgot how to show films.
The first IT movie, the theater left the lights on in the theater as the movie began, and I almost became a one-man riot. The last truly great experience I had during a movie was The Roadshow version of The Hateful Eight, and I don't even remember when that came out.
Tarantino also touched on another problem with the movie theater experience in a Hollywood Reporter Director's Round Table some time ago, wherein he said Hollywood had priced out the everyman, the normal person, with ticket prices and other costs. I'm not wealthy, and I agree with him on that. If I dump money into entertainment, I want it to be a good experience.
Now I'm extremely depressed. I don't want to watch movies on streaming, but I swear to God it's the only way that I have a fairly guaranteed decent experience in my overpriced home theater. Streaming and Blu-ray, all day, unless something changes where quality returns to the theater industry and audiences have reverence for the medium again.
/rant
Yeah, this is a big part of it for me too. I gather I'm a bit younger than you, but I remember having perfectly fine theater experiences in the 2000s and 2010s. There's been a sharp decline in etiquette/basic human thoughtfulness in the last few years for sure, especially since the pandemic. The last movie I went to see in theaters was Across the Spider-Verse, and there was this dude a few seats down from me who kept laughing at bizarre times and shouting at the screen and annoying everyone around him. All I could think was "I don't know why I paid $20 to be annoyed watching this movie when I could see it at home and not be annoyed."
You've got companies like Alamo Drafthouse trying to fight against this by actually enforcing 'shut up and watch the movie' rules, but those are few and far between. (ArcLight was also really hardcore about this, to the point that they would not let you in to the theater if you were late, but they've sadly closed up shop.) Most theater chains don't care because they're so short-sighted-all they care about is getting your money, which they have by the time you're sitting down in your seat in the theater. My hope is that the major chains will realize that people will go to see more movies if they aren't plagued by annoying weirdos/jerks in the audience and there aren't technical issues like the one you described with TDKR. But I ain't really holding my breath.
I go often to cinema (I'm from Barcelona, I can walk to several cinemas in the area and the tickets are reasonably priced). I'm not subscribed to streaming platforms, instead I buy blu ray and have a 5.1 system.
I agree with you, sometimes I'm watching a movie in a cinema and someone bothers me by speaking during the movie or checking a phone. Despite the nuisance, I like sharing the experience with other people who are as interested in a film as I am, even if we don't know each other. I enjoy my home theater, and I enjoy watching movies at home with friends (curating films for them if you want), but I wouldn't stop going to cinema to watch a movie as soon as it opens.
this was incredible. i had planned to watch a movie tonight, but this *became* my movie of the night. entertaining, thought-provoking, trailblazing. can't wait to watch your past and future videos, this is a conversation that NEEDS to keep being discussed
So youtube IS killing cinema huh?
Lol you're part of the problem
What the fuck did you just say.
Same... such a paradox.
On movie stars; it sort of feels like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine helped make him a star, but in his case you could argue that he himself defined that iteration of the character. Jackman isn't easily replaceable as Wolverine. You could say the same about Reynolds being as irreplaceable as Deadpool, but i think that's a case of Reynolds loving and understanding so much.
Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds are iconic as Wolverine and Deadpool, but being a movie star isn't just about being iconic in a role. It's more like - how many hit movies could you name starring [superhero actor] besides their superhero character? Hugh Jackman has got a handful. He's Wolverine, but he's also done big thrillers like The Prestige and Prisoners, and big musicals like Les Mis and The Greatest Showman. Tom Cruise is even better, he's got a couple dozen hit movies across various decades and various genres. But Ryan Reynolds? Besides Deadpool, he's got... Detective Pikachu and Free Guy? I think Reynolds is pretty funny, but he's not the kind of actor where you can just drop him into a lead role and have a guaranteed hit. You can't sell "the new Ryan Reynolds movie" the same way that you used to be able to sell "the new Harrison Ford movie"
@@nolaffinmatter *side eyes Green Lantern* fair enough.
I’ve had several films which id wanted to see, but as a broke college student many ticket prices are absurd if you’re not going to a franchise installment with friends
Instant Gratification is what’s killing art across all mediums
I'm surprised this isn't talked about more.
It's what's killing a lot of companies across other industries, short term thinking, wanting results now, fast
Interactivity is what gen z and gen alpha are use to movies don't give you that
As a boomer, I really hate how hedonistic gen X and millenials are
At their age, people like me back in the day already accomplish more than them
You are right about instant gratification
Instead of saving money to buy a house and meet someone, they spend it all on games and other useless things
It’s corporate greed
I think another factor could be the trailers. I remember watching trailers on TV back in the 90s, and since I couldn't skip them, I learned about a bunch of indie, and non-blockbuster movies that way.
These days it's only social media and YT, but you have to actively look for them.
In the same vein:
VHS had you watch through the ads, since you couldn't conveniently skip them.
DVD/BlueRay have it in some sense, but at first chapter skipping and then Fast Play makes watching the ads more unlikely.
@@JerbilKonai absolutely! I remember watching a lot of MTV in the 90s, and they were constantly airing trailers. I remember learning about Big Lebowski, Requiem for a Dream, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Fear and Loathing in LV. So many great lower budget movies.
I agree! I hardly watch normal Tv so I don’t get many trailers there. I feel like the only place you get them is in the cinema
YES, I have the same opinion about music and radio. You cant find new stuff anymore unless you say 'I want to listen to new stuff' because algorithms exist now so you cant just rabbit hole down youtube or something anymore, and spotify is a library before all else
It hurts that radio is dying, especially because radio is a shell of itself (radios now have revolving repeating playlists instead of DJs with their own thoughts and musical preferences) so why would people enjoy a cheaper product, of course they're gonna use the aux every time. You can't get honest numbers about consumer opinion from sales/usage anymore because 1. money is a factor in consumption choice now more than ever 2. products offered are cheaper versions of their predecessors and are hollow, corporatized and 3. use doesn't indicate satisfaction anyway, and now people don't trust any surveys because of data selling lmao
Long winded way of saying it really, REALLY IS, corporate greed and corporate polishing--the idea that corporations cannot make risks because mistakes mean failure, so they have to have only safe, polished, previously successful products.
Bros been making videos for the past 12 yrs and yet no proper recognition, he deserves to be famous , he's putting too much effort in this
Not the movie star we wanted, but the movie star we deserve.
Well, he defended the Ladt Jedi. Kinda hard to have credibility after that
Yet no one asked him to do it. What type of recognition do you suggest? Get out there on the street and start handing out flyers.
Whenever something is mass produced, the quality is what is sacrificed. And when most people consume the mass produced stuff, it becomes the standard for them.
An aspect of the attraction of the movie star is that they are not just good actors, but some become known to choose great scripts to attach to - or at least scripts with certain qualities,. Well, until they start to get older and sell-out one too many times.
I never really considered the physical movie copy disappearing completely. Time to go stock up on the classics.
Thrift/charity shops and garage sales are the place for stocking up. Can often buy 3 or 4 classics for a $1.
I like how that article from 1908 also mentions bicycles and ping pong as fads, even though they’re still very much popular today.