However, you can't blame Tech for year after year of (mostly) dumbed-down, race-and-gender-swapped, zero-risk-superheroing, hectoring-lecturing about what Critical Drinker calls "THE MESSAGE." That's a corporate-creative own-goal.
One could argue whether or not this is all by design in order to further the progress of Technocracy Inc, but in any case there is almost nothing worth going to the theatre FOR, especially at prices where they are now.
The real problem is the lack of risk taking by the big boys. Everything is a sequel now. The shit you are referring too is downstream of that, they pander rather than take any chances. If indie studios like A24 and Neon didn't still exist, there would be nothing original to watch in the cinema anymore.
Great point. Thought something similar as I read. I love film, but the film in theatres are mostly Hollywood blockbusters; most of those movies over the past few years feel more like propaganda than art.
I tend to think that a people pull products from the markets; if people want a communal place to watch movies, theatre's will persist. I think they will but it may just need a realtering.
Screen size aside, we are the keepers of the human artist flame. There’s a generation being trained to accept actor / singer / writer inanimate entities. Empathize, loathe, love, laugh with “its”. But AI is degenerative. It can’t live without feeding on new human genius. When an AI app fills in a band we would have been thrilled to HIRE, it’s degenerative not to mention depressing. AI will degrade art slowly with glimmers of inspired hope. But without a business model to nurture said hope…resist AI in the arts at all costs.
You are saying this so well, and I feel the same way. I don't ever want to see any AI actors and I rather not listen to new music coming out after tomorrow if I can't be sure that it's made and sung by humans. I just make music myself and meet people who want to make music with me and do it for ourselves and all the remaining people who listen and dance and laugh and cry.
Ted, I wish someone of your stature would write an article about how AI actors are NOT ACTORS. They need to be called something else. Already, the presence of these bots is being normalized, i.e. 'Tilly, the AI actress.' The words we use are important---
True that AI actors are not "actors," but does that mean that all the old "animated films" were also no good, per se? They had no actors, except for the ones doing the voices. Some of them are great, even digitally-created ones such as "Toy Story." However, most of the really good "all-digital" ones were made before Pixar was taken over by Disney. Steve Jobs was smart enough to leave his creators alone when he ran the company, since they were doing a spectacular job.
Even Disney is finding out that they will never get another "franchise" without a new emotionally-compelling story. Disney may have run into its own glass ceiling with the famous "Star Wars Hotel" disaster. Did you see the great video about it, a YouTube sensation?
On the other hand, films by Apple and others recently have often been very good, while Hollywood itself was turning into Marvel Comics, game-adjacent franchises, and "Snow White and The Umpteenth Rehash." Weren't we talking about a "Golden Age of Hollywood" just a few years ago? A lot of talented filmmakers and craftspeople were really busy, but not for the old studios. Admittedly, that may be because new companies were using these films as bait to get people into their walled gardens.
Then there were whole alternative cinematic universes like Hallmark; admittedly much smaller, and appealing only to a slice of the public.
Keep in mind that the biggest restaurant chain in the world is still McDonalds, and has been for years and years and years. Children now happily eat McBurgers and Fries, their favorite foods. It is the new "normal." Farm-sourced food tastes strange to them. Screens are the new paper, and babysitters.
But maybe this is all beside the point, now that business models have been purified into 100% extraction:
Digitize/Monopolize/Monetize....and all gas pedal, no brakes.
Course, taking every last drop of blood may kill the goose that laid the golden egg...but when your greed becomes excessive and blinds you, will that future possibility even occur to you?
Am not arguing against Ted's thesis here, just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate to make sure we really think this through from all angles.
Agreed: there is a need for culture that still has a beating heart in it!
There is a vast difference between AI bots realistically impersonating humans and animation, or even gaming characters that are 95% realistic.
And it also seems that this response is likely 'written' with an AI chatbot, which makes it pointless to care about or respond to further. Arguing with AI is pissing into a void.
Forgive me if I'm wrong--that's the problem with AI, it erodes any trust between strangers online.
Alex, you are forgiven. Yes, I am an actual person with a pulse, and I just wrote these words myself, but I was assisted by technology: a computer :-)
So, how can we humans prove we are not bots without passing a test consisting of picking out the fire hydrants?
Dunno. I really am a paid subscriber here, and I also did pay money to buy Ted's book "Healing Songs," so as they say I "have the receipts." I've been following Ted ever since I saw him talking to Rick Beato more than a year ago.
But I know where you are coming from. With the net flooded with influencers and self-proclaimed experts, and now totally bogus materiaI, I am also getting fed up.
As a recovering photojournalist I can tell you that my former beloved field is also facing an existential threat from fake images. Most of the newspaper jobs have already been destroyed. And how can photographers function at all if even true images are never trusted unless they confirm our pre-existing beliefs? Or maybe not even then?
When Photoshop came out a few decades ago it was used by us photographers to do things like remove film scratches and dust spots after we converted the images on film to digital files by scanning. It was a real help.
But before long some started using it to create images that had little to do with any actual objects in the world. They wanted to create their own "worlds" the way they liked them, not study the one we have already got, which was my motivation. A friend of mine once used over 100 layers in Photoshop to create a single illustration!
The technology soon became an indispensable tool for the official dream factory of the time, Hollywood. But it has since escaped into the culture at large; everyone with a phone is now a Dream Factory of their own.
I have no idea what to do about this.
BTW You might want to have a look at "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America" by Daniel Boorstin for how we got here.
Contrarian (to this silo - except maybe Herb Roselle) here:
My "tiny" screen is a 4K big screen (65" at the moment) with a Dolby Atmos spacial sound system and friends over to watch (or listen) with me instead of dealing with jerks in a theater.
I wonder if part of the problem is also technology has gotten cheaper for people to watch movies in higher quality at home (home theatres, projectors, surround sound) so the differences in experiences have gotten smaller compared to going out to the movies. The marginal benefit of going to the actual theatre has also reduced if people are not valuing the shared moment.
Perhaps this is impetus for theatres to innovate? "How might we's?" anyone?
This has got me thinking - if anyone would like to participate in a digital whiteboard design jam session on this - I'd be happy to design a workshop and facilitate the discussion to see what ideas can come up with. I'd be curious to see what comes out of it using to the tools I've learnt as a service designer/design thinker.
It may not start a movement but at the very least it might be an interesting conversation among people with a shared goal to keep genuine human experiences alive.
Frankenstein played for weeks here in The Netherlands. Unfortunately it was such a bore that I walked out of the cinema (and I am a huge del Toro fan). I go to the cinema about once a week, but I must say I’m getting fed up by the people being on their phones all the time. At home at least I don’t have that.
It played for two weeks in the USA. The phones are annoying, but the big problems are the lack of civility and the short runs for films showing complexity (Train Dreams, etc.). Movie watchers have been influenced by the world around them. When I was young, I saw a film by Rohmer called Claire's Knee. At the time, the film seemed, to me, to just be about her knee. I wasn't interested in the dialogue--nothing was interesting. I think when you go to see a movie, you bring more of yourself than the movie brings to you. Perhaps, I should view it at home. That said, now, people seem to want a video game (Mission Impossible); otherwise they're easily bored.
So many problems with this whole issue all around. Theaters ARE expensive ($20 or so for a ticket at most places), and society apparently can no longer stay off their phones or stay quiet for 2 hours, so, despite the great sound systems in some theaters and the comfy seats, it CAN be more pleasant to be at home in our space with your friends or loved ones, etc. Going to the movies isn't always the "communal shared cultural experience" this article longs for.
And the streamers have a LOT of good shows and movies. I concede the Netflix is an evil company, but the astounding number of international shows (US reader here) that they have in their library is amazing. I've watched countless numbers of fantastic series from South Africa, Korea, Argentina, etc. etc. that I would simply never be able to access without Netflix. A lot of quality artists are making shows on the streaming networks we can't ignore that, and a lot of what the studios are producing is crap. And vice versa of course!
I will also never watch anything with AI, and that's an easy line in the sand, but the studios vs. streamers has a lot of nuance to it!
Netflix said it would never do advertising. Netflix said it would never do live events. Netflix said it would never invest in sports. Netflix said it would never cut down on password sharing. Obviously Netflix does all of those things now. I do not disagree that Netflix is not interested in the current theatrical model, but they're also a company that experiments and likes money.
How many subscribers can you monetize before needing other revenue streams beyond price increases? Advertising is one answer, but so is theatrical. Where Netflix does screen its films presently? Primarily at Netflix owned theaters like the Paris in NY or Egyptian in LA. The Paris in NY is one of the best repertory theaters in the city. Period. They've invested millions in renovations and programming fees. Is that all for PR? So they can win Oscars? They're not collecting data on that too?
Is it so hard to imagine Netflix expanding that model to owned theaters (now that Paramount decrees are kaput) and running a mix of original and repertory films on the big screen? If they get to keep all of the profits and own the experience?
I just don't see this as so binary, given their history of moving into new businesses when they could control the experience end to end.
When I was a kid, there was a big antitrust decision that made the studios give up their theaters. Now, it has come full circle except that the streamers have replaced the studios.
As an indie filmmaker of 45+ years this trajectory has been apparent for a long time. We can continue to consume whatever crap they give us or we can make choices that support small theaters and the very concept of being together as human beings. That's what's at stake. Get out of your house and go to a movie, folks. Support indie venues and indie film with your dollars and stop throwing it away on the wasteland that is streaming...
Re: "Netflix only released [Frankenstein] for a few days in cinemas—without any marketing or promotion." I live in Toronto, where it played for at least two, maybe three weeks in key downtown cinemas, and there was extensive advertising on transit and billboards.
Was that because del Toro lives and works here? Maybe. I'm curious about other major cities.
Otherwise, thank you as always for your coverage of this.
There's an awful calculus. Movie tickets are no longer cheap. Our local theater charges $14.50 for a single show. A month of Netflix, the standard no ads tier, is $18. Netflix is the low priced spread. Going out to a movie is expensive. Americans don't have any money, at least not those in the bottom 90% who collectively account for just 50% of all spending.
Thank you! You are the first person I know of who has even seen it. It's a thing of beauty, but if anybody goes there expecting entertainment they will be sorely disappointed. They will be challenged, but what they might get in return is better than entertainment...
You must have heard the back story? He asked for permission to make this film, and the monks said we'll get back to you. They did: 16 years later!
No rush.
Then the guy had to live with the monks, as they did, for six months while filming. No talking. Just be there, shut up, and film without being a distraction. And he used a "digital cinema" camera (the horror!), which let him shoot silently, in light too dim for film.
Miracle of miracles, it turned into this film, somehow!
I think the film told the essence of what that monastery was about because of his deep artistic integrity as a filmmaker, and his monk-like devotion to getting it right.
If you liked that, you gotta check out this by Hania Rani:
Hi there. I also am in the bottom 90%, for sure! No streaming services at all: no Netflix, no Spotify.
Don't play games either; not even cards. Prefer the real stuff, not play acting.
Long ago when I was taking film classes I especially loved to go to the little theaters where they showed the "foreign films."
The last movie I saw in a theater was the documentary about Fred Rogers, "Won't You Be My Neighbor," which was better than Tom Hanks' version because it was real, and also more revealing. The theater was mostly empty.
BTW If you could only see one film, ever, may I recommend "Into Great Silence," by Philip Groning, which was shot in a silent monastery in the French Alps? Just a man, a tripod, and a camera. This is NOT a date flick, action flick, buddy movie, star vehicle, etc. etc. To call it a mere "documentary" misses it completely. There is no dialogue, music, or plot. And it's long. So what is in it? Find out! Not sure if you can watch it online. Worth tracking down. I was so happy when I managed to get my DVD. The most perceptive review I've seen is this one: "Pure cinema at its purest and most exalted"...
I live near a thoughtfully programmed indie movie theatre and go all the time. The tickets are purposefully cheap (so is the popcorn). Some films are even free. It’s always been a movie house so the screen is old timey big. There is easy, free parking. There is a college nearby. It even has a cinema/media studies major. Yet nearly every audience, even for Frankenstein, is made up primarily of middle aged and older people. People who still have and exercise the muscle memory of going to the movies. The theater survives on supplemental donations to ticket sales. What will happen as its donor base shuffles off to assisted living? I actually was a film major, graduating in the mid-80s. I worked in and adjacent to the industry until the early aughts. It never occurred to me the movies would die, much less before I become eligible for Medicare. But I’m watching it happen and it’s heartbreaking. (As an aside, Sinners is my pick for Best Movie and I don’t even like horror movies.)
Dear Ted read your last post on worries about Hollywood changing and respecctively disagree with your worried....the changes coming from advancement in tech mean trying to save an old approach just won't work Just as when the world move from radio to television then to the internet as new approaches to entertainment, there is a need for a new approach. Do you read Ben Thompson? I think you said so once before..If so read the Netflix and the Holywood end game. To me it seems the creative approach wiil stay only with different ownership. And as you have said abut how terrible that old ownership is in the music business, I think it really isn't that good anymore in the theatrical release business either. I'd rather hear you thoughts on how to have creative new ways for high touch experiences in the theatrical business like the music business has done with live experiences. New ways to keep community will appear as people want them. It's just that the ways people work with tech has changed so much for entertainment. Hopefully AI will make the creative part easier for creators. If you want my two cents on it, more aggregators such as you in music will be needed for us and I think Ben Thompson states that very clearly and Netflix understands it
70s, really? Thats one decade of movies i find hard to watch. I love a lot of the preceding decades, and i grew up in the 80s and 90s and those movies(and shows for that matter) just feel *comfortable*.
But idk, movies from the 70s never seem to land for me. I can see they were doing a lot of experimenting, exploring new ideas(that perhaps didnt bear fruit until later), but they always kinda make me feel like im on the tail end of a trip, when things are still weird but not fun anymore.
Ill admit i havent seen much from then, for those reasons. Perhaps i should try them again and see if theyve aged well
Yeah, I was born in the 80s, but the 70s were great.. If you like a road trip movie that's heartfelt with great writing/acting, check out "Harry and Tonto".. "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" is 1969, but it's on YouTube, and a perfect description of the modern system.. "Nashville" is also very Americana, many characters in this great Altman movie. "A Woman Under The Influence" is Cassavetes, but his wife Gena Rowlands steals the show. "Fat City" is a gritty movie with John Huston directing, starring Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges' first movie. AIf you name some movies you do like from the 70s (or your favorite movies in general), I'd be more than happy to recommend some to you...
Alas, checking out movies for me means buying dvds. Which i happily do, but i rarely see movies from the 70s on that format. Seems like ive heard of they shoot horses recently.. ill have to see if i can find it.
Asking me for my favorite movies is the same as asking for my favorite songs.. i draw a blank when asked, but *i know* my favorites when i see or hear them lol
You never know, the 70s bug might get me one day, and ill think well damn, loyal opps was right!
I hope you do.. If you were to give me characteristics of movies you like... Or things you won't watch, I could give you better recommendations. Ones that YOU would like.
70s movies, which really began with Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate and Easy Rider in the 60s, are the best! Maybe you haven't seen the right ones. So many to name, but here are some gems: Thieves Like Us, Pretty Poison, Up the Sandbox, Next Stop Greenwich Village, Mean Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Story of Adele H, The Conformist, The Wild Child, The Long Goodbye, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Straw Dogs, The Heartbreak Kid, Harold and Maude, The Landlord, Sounder, Smile, Three Women, The Go-Between, The Emigrants, The New Land, Harry and Tonto, An Unmarried Woman, Joe, The Sterile Cuckoo, Bound for Glory, Sisters. Then there are the well-known classics: MASH, Cabaret, Sleeper, Annie Hall, Nashville, Fiddler on the Roof, The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, The French Connection, The Wild Bunch, Chinatown, Taxi Driver, Last Tango in Paris, Carrie, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Shampoo, Klute, They Shoot Horses, Network, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, All the President's Men, Shaft, Manhattan, Saturday Night Fever, The Warriors, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. And on and on. The great thing about movies in the "70s" is that they were all made for adults. Disney had pretty much vanished from theaters then. There was always something new and interesting to see every weekend.
*Was* at stake, 10 years ago. Its done. Even if ai tanks(which it wont. The videos are incredibly convincing already, and theyre just getting started), we are never going *back*. Back to any of those good old things. Just like tanks are superseded by drones(now), movies are superseded by little videos in your hand(also now). I read in this subs comment section half a year or so ago that the future of entertainment will be movies created by ai specifically for *you*, right on demand. I think that sounds pretty close.. but that will just be the beginning. They will be so good at giving people exactly what they want(are they not already?) nobody will mind that real life has dwindled to nothing, they are no longer needed to work, and they are in fact being managed.
This is all rolling over us like a tide. We might try to save what we can from the flood, but we had better worry about swimming. The loss of hollywood is nothing compared to what we're really losing. If youre on the fringes looking at all of this, you know we're in the transition from present to past tense.
I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but it's an interesting question to me: if an indie writer/director could not get any funding for a film (as is the case for almost all), and they turn to using AI to make their film (because they can't hire cinematographers, actors etc), so a film is made that a studio couldn't, do we find that worse than none at all? I'm increasingly thinking it's the future whether we want it or not. Essentially it will allow more writers/directors to make things at the cost of other creative roles.
(If you're picturing lazy ai prompting, I think it's more likely going to be, eg: one person "acting" every role with their phone camera but having the performance be transformed into each character/envionment. We're seeing this happen on youtube etc in small doses already)
Yes, yes and yes. All true.
However, you can't blame Tech for year after year of (mostly) dumbed-down, race-and-gender-swapped, zero-risk-superheroing, hectoring-lecturing about what Critical Drinker calls "THE MESSAGE." That's a corporate-creative own-goal.
One could argue whether or not this is all by design in order to further the progress of Technocracy Inc, but in any case there is almost nothing worth going to the theatre FOR, especially at prices where they are now.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
The real problem is the lack of risk taking by the big boys. Everything is a sequel now. The shit you are referring too is downstream of that, they pander rather than take any chances. If indie studios like A24 and Neon didn't still exist, there would be nothing original to watch in the cinema anymore.
Agree with your comment 💯!
Great point. Thought something similar as I read. I love film, but the film in theatres are mostly Hollywood blockbusters; most of those movies over the past few years feel more like propaganda than art.
I tend to think that a people pull products from the markets; if people want a communal place to watch movies, theatre's will persist. I think they will but it may just need a realtering.
Screen size aside, we are the keepers of the human artist flame. There’s a generation being trained to accept actor / singer / writer inanimate entities. Empathize, loathe, love, laugh with “its”. But AI is degenerative. It can’t live without feeding on new human genius. When an AI app fills in a band we would have been thrilled to HIRE, it’s degenerative not to mention depressing. AI will degrade art slowly with glimmers of inspired hope. But without a business model to nurture said hope…resist AI in the arts at all costs.
You are saying this so well, and I feel the same way. I don't ever want to see any AI actors and I rather not listen to new music coming out after tomorrow if I can't be sure that it's made and sung by humans. I just make music myself and meet people who want to make music with me and do it for ourselves and all the remaining people who listen and dance and laugh and cry.
Surely, we all loved Jar Jar Binks. Sniffle.
Ted, I wish someone of your stature would write an article about how AI actors are NOT ACTORS. They need to be called something else. Already, the presence of these bots is being normalized, i.e. 'Tilly, the AI actress.' The words we use are important---
True that AI actors are not "actors," but does that mean that all the old "animated films" were also no good, per se? They had no actors, except for the ones doing the voices. Some of them are great, even digitally-created ones such as "Toy Story." However, most of the really good "all-digital" ones were made before Pixar was taken over by Disney. Steve Jobs was smart enough to leave his creators alone when he ran the company, since they were doing a spectacular job.
Even Disney is finding out that they will never get another "franchise" without a new emotionally-compelling story. Disney may have run into its own glass ceiling with the famous "Star Wars Hotel" disaster. Did you see the great video about it, a YouTube sensation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0CpOYZZZW4
The customers have spoken!
On the other hand, films by Apple and others recently have often been very good, while Hollywood itself was turning into Marvel Comics, game-adjacent franchises, and "Snow White and The Umpteenth Rehash." Weren't we talking about a "Golden Age of Hollywood" just a few years ago? A lot of talented filmmakers and craftspeople were really busy, but not for the old studios. Admittedly, that may be because new companies were using these films as bait to get people into their walled gardens.
Then there were whole alternative cinematic universes like Hallmark; admittedly much smaller, and appealing only to a slice of the public.
Keep in mind that the biggest restaurant chain in the world is still McDonalds, and has been for years and years and years. Children now happily eat McBurgers and Fries, their favorite foods. It is the new "normal." Farm-sourced food tastes strange to them. Screens are the new paper, and babysitters.
But maybe this is all beside the point, now that business models have been purified into 100% extraction:
Digitize/Monopolize/Monetize....and all gas pedal, no brakes.
Course, taking every last drop of blood may kill the goose that laid the golden egg...but when your greed becomes excessive and blinds you, will that future possibility even occur to you?
Am not arguing against Ted's thesis here, just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate to make sure we really think this through from all angles.
Agreed: there is a need for culture that still has a beating heart in it!
Completely agree with your satanic advocacy!
There is a vast difference between AI bots realistically impersonating humans and animation, or even gaming characters that are 95% realistic.
And it also seems that this response is likely 'written' with an AI chatbot, which makes it pointless to care about or respond to further. Arguing with AI is pissing into a void.
Forgive me if I'm wrong--that's the problem with AI, it erodes any trust between strangers online.
Alex, you are forgiven. Yes, I am an actual person with a pulse, and I just wrote these words myself, but I was assisted by technology: a computer :-)
So, how can we humans prove we are not bots without passing a test consisting of picking out the fire hydrants?
Dunno. I really am a paid subscriber here, and I also did pay money to buy Ted's book "Healing Songs," so as they say I "have the receipts." I've been following Ted ever since I saw him talking to Rick Beato more than a year ago.
But I know where you are coming from. With the net flooded with influencers and self-proclaimed experts, and now totally bogus materiaI, I am also getting fed up.
As a recovering photojournalist I can tell you that my former beloved field is also facing an existential threat from fake images. Most of the newspaper jobs have already been destroyed. And how can photographers function at all if even true images are never trusted unless they confirm our pre-existing beliefs? Or maybe not even then?
When Photoshop came out a few decades ago it was used by us photographers to do things like remove film scratches and dust spots after we converted the images on film to digital files by scanning. It was a real help.
But before long some started using it to create images that had little to do with any actual objects in the world. They wanted to create their own "worlds" the way they liked them, not study the one we have already got, which was my motivation. A friend of mine once used over 100 layers in Photoshop to create a single illustration!
The technology soon became an indispensable tool for the official dream factory of the time, Hollywood. But it has since escaped into the culture at large; everyone with a phone is now a Dream Factory of their own.
I have no idea what to do about this.
BTW You might want to have a look at "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America" by Daniel Boorstin for how we got here.
the AI image
Contrarian (to this silo - except maybe Herb Roselle) here:
My "tiny" screen is a 4K big screen (65" at the moment) with a Dolby Atmos spacial sound system and friends over to watch (or listen) with me instead of dealing with jerks in a theater.
I wonder if part of the problem is also technology has gotten cheaper for people to watch movies in higher quality at home (home theatres, projectors, surround sound) so the differences in experiences have gotten smaller compared to going out to the movies. The marginal benefit of going to the actual theatre has also reduced if people are not valuing the shared moment.
Perhaps this is impetus for theatres to innovate? "How might we's?" anyone?
This has got me thinking - if anyone would like to participate in a digital whiteboard design jam session on this - I'd be happy to design a workshop and facilitate the discussion to see what ideas can come up with. I'd be curious to see what comes out of it using to the tools I've learnt as a service designer/design thinker.
It may not start a movement but at the very least it might be an interesting conversation among people with a shared goal to keep genuine human experiences alive.
Just shoot me a message if you're interested!
Frankenstein played for weeks here in The Netherlands. Unfortunately it was such a bore that I walked out of the cinema (and I am a huge del Toro fan). I go to the cinema about once a week, but I must say I’m getting fed up by the people being on their phones all the time. At home at least I don’t have that.
It played for two weeks in the USA. The phones are annoying, but the big problems are the lack of civility and the short runs for films showing complexity (Train Dreams, etc.). Movie watchers have been influenced by the world around them. When I was young, I saw a film by Rohmer called Claire's Knee. At the time, the film seemed, to me, to just be about her knee. I wasn't interested in the dialogue--nothing was interesting. I think when you go to see a movie, you bring more of yourself than the movie brings to you. Perhaps, I should view it at home. That said, now, people seem to want a video game (Mission Impossible); otherwise they're easily bored.
Great article as always.
So many problems with this whole issue all around. Theaters ARE expensive ($20 or so for a ticket at most places), and society apparently can no longer stay off their phones or stay quiet for 2 hours, so, despite the great sound systems in some theaters and the comfy seats, it CAN be more pleasant to be at home in our space with your friends or loved ones, etc. Going to the movies isn't always the "communal shared cultural experience" this article longs for.
And the streamers have a LOT of good shows and movies. I concede the Netflix is an evil company, but the astounding number of international shows (US reader here) that they have in their library is amazing. I've watched countless numbers of fantastic series from South Africa, Korea, Argentina, etc. etc. that I would simply never be able to access without Netflix. A lot of quality artists are making shows on the streaming networks we can't ignore that, and a lot of what the studios are producing is crap. And vice versa of course!
I will also never watch anything with AI, and that's an easy line in the sand, but the studios vs. streamers has a lot of nuance to it!
Even when theres nothing *but* ai to watch?
We obviously have to guard against that. Both the streamers and the studios will try to push it down our throats that’s for sure!
We are hoping to do this with the NonDe Film Movement!
Netflix said it would never do advertising. Netflix said it would never do live events. Netflix said it would never invest in sports. Netflix said it would never cut down on password sharing. Obviously Netflix does all of those things now. I do not disagree that Netflix is not interested in the current theatrical model, but they're also a company that experiments and likes money.
How many subscribers can you monetize before needing other revenue streams beyond price increases? Advertising is one answer, but so is theatrical. Where Netflix does screen its films presently? Primarily at Netflix owned theaters like the Paris in NY or Egyptian in LA. The Paris in NY is one of the best repertory theaters in the city. Period. They've invested millions in renovations and programming fees. Is that all for PR? So they can win Oscars? They're not collecting data on that too?
Is it so hard to imagine Netflix expanding that model to owned theaters (now that Paramount decrees are kaput) and running a mix of original and repertory films on the big screen? If they get to keep all of the profits and own the experience?
I just don't see this as so binary, given their history of moving into new businesses when they could control the experience end to end.
When I was a kid, there was a big antitrust decision that made the studios give up their theaters. Now, it has come full circle except that the streamers have replaced the studios.
and ‘cable tv’ said they wouldn’t have commercials 😂 and people continued to pay. and pay and pay.
As an indie filmmaker of 45+ years this trajectory has been apparent for a long time. We can continue to consume whatever crap they give us or we can make choices that support small theaters and the very concept of being together as human beings. That's what's at stake. Get out of your house and go to a movie, folks. Support indie venues and indie film with your dollars and stop throwing it away on the wasteland that is streaming...
Re: "Netflix only released [Frankenstein] for a few days in cinemas—without any marketing or promotion." I live in Toronto, where it played for at least two, maybe three weeks in key downtown cinemas, and there was extensive advertising on transit and billboards.
Was that because del Toro lives and works here? Maybe. I'm curious about other major cities.
Otherwise, thank you as always for your coverage of this.
Curious indeed. So the rest of us not named del Toro will be unable to see it without subscribing to Netflix?
I am Spartacus...can I get in?
There's an awful calculus. Movie tickets are no longer cheap. Our local theater charges $14.50 for a single show. A month of Netflix, the standard no ads tier, is $18. Netflix is the low priced spread. Going out to a movie is expensive. Americans don't have any money, at least not those in the bottom 90% who collectively account for just 50% of all spending.
Yes, Into Great Silence is fantastic.
Thank you! You are the first person I know of who has even seen it. It's a thing of beauty, but if anybody goes there expecting entertainment they will be sorely disappointed. They will be challenged, but what they might get in return is better than entertainment...
You must have heard the back story? He asked for permission to make this film, and the monks said we'll get back to you. They did: 16 years later!
No rush.
Then the guy had to live with the monks, as they did, for six months while filming. No talking. Just be there, shut up, and film without being a distraction. And he used a "digital cinema" camera (the horror!), which let him shoot silently, in light too dim for film.
Miracle of miracles, it turned into this film, somehow!
I think the film told the essence of what that monastery was about because of his deep artistic integrity as a filmmaker, and his monk-like devotion to getting it right.
If you liked that, you gotta check out this by Hania Rani:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTVXaxHBQQ&t=753s
Thanks to Ted for steering us her way. Incredible. She takes you "there" right now, apparently channelling music from some higher dimension...
… *and* I saw it on the big screen 😎.
Thx for the link, i love her work but haven’t seen this one.
Lucky you, I never did.
Check out the link right now! It is stunning.
Hi there. I also am in the bottom 90%, for sure! No streaming services at all: no Netflix, no Spotify.
Don't play games either; not even cards. Prefer the real stuff, not play acting.
Long ago when I was taking film classes I especially loved to go to the little theaters where they showed the "foreign films."
The last movie I saw in a theater was the documentary about Fred Rogers, "Won't You Be My Neighbor," which was better than Tom Hanks' version because it was real, and also more revealing. The theater was mostly empty.
BTW If you could only see one film, ever, may I recommend "Into Great Silence," by Philip Groning, which was shot in a silent monastery in the French Alps? Just a man, a tripod, and a camera. This is NOT a date flick, action flick, buddy movie, star vehicle, etc. etc. To call it a mere "documentary" misses it completely. There is no dialogue, music, or plot. And it's long. So what is in it? Find out! Not sure if you can watch it online. Worth tracking down. I was so happy when I managed to get my DVD. The most perceptive review I've seen is this one: "Pure cinema at its purest and most exalted"...
http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/intogreatsilence
I live near a thoughtfully programmed indie movie theatre and go all the time. The tickets are purposefully cheap (so is the popcorn). Some films are even free. It’s always been a movie house so the screen is old timey big. There is easy, free parking. There is a college nearby. It even has a cinema/media studies major. Yet nearly every audience, even for Frankenstein, is made up primarily of middle aged and older people. People who still have and exercise the muscle memory of going to the movies. The theater survives on supplemental donations to ticket sales. What will happen as its donor base shuffles off to assisted living? I actually was a film major, graduating in the mid-80s. I worked in and adjacent to the industry until the early aughts. It never occurred to me the movies would die, much less before I become eligible for Medicare. But I’m watching it happen and it’s heartbreaking. (As an aside, Sinners is my pick for Best Movie and I don’t even like horror movies.)
Dear Ted read your last post on worries about Hollywood changing and respecctively disagree with your worried....the changes coming from advancement in tech mean trying to save an old approach just won't work Just as when the world move from radio to television then to the internet as new approaches to entertainment, there is a need for a new approach. Do you read Ben Thompson? I think you said so once before..If so read the Netflix and the Holywood end game. To me it seems the creative approach wiil stay only with different ownership. And as you have said abut how terrible that old ownership is in the music business, I think it really isn't that good anymore in the theatrical release business either. I'd rather hear you thoughts on how to have creative new ways for high touch experiences in the theatrical business like the music business has done with live experiences. New ways to keep community will appear as people want them. It's just that the ways people work with tech has changed so much for entertainment. Hopefully AI will make the creative part easier for creators. If you want my two cents on it, more aggregators such as you in music will be needed for us and I think Ben Thompson states that very clearly and Netflix understands it
I'm sticking with the movies from the 1930-70s.
70s, really? Thats one decade of movies i find hard to watch. I love a lot of the preceding decades, and i grew up in the 80s and 90s and those movies(and shows for that matter) just feel *comfortable*.
But idk, movies from the 70s never seem to land for me. I can see they were doing a lot of experimenting, exploring new ideas(that perhaps didnt bear fruit until later), but they always kinda make me feel like im on the tail end of a trip, when things are still weird but not fun anymore.
Ill admit i havent seen much from then, for those reasons. Perhaps i should try them again and see if theyve aged well
Yeah, I was born in the 80s, but the 70s were great.. If you like a road trip movie that's heartfelt with great writing/acting, check out "Harry and Tonto".. "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" is 1969, but it's on YouTube, and a perfect description of the modern system.. "Nashville" is also very Americana, many characters in this great Altman movie. "A Woman Under The Influence" is Cassavetes, but his wife Gena Rowlands steals the show. "Fat City" is a gritty movie with John Huston directing, starring Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges' first movie. AIf you name some movies you do like from the 70s (or your favorite movies in general), I'd be more than happy to recommend some to you...
Alas, checking out movies for me means buying dvds. Which i happily do, but i rarely see movies from the 70s on that format. Seems like ive heard of they shoot horses recently.. ill have to see if i can find it.
Asking me for my favorite movies is the same as asking for my favorite songs.. i draw a blank when asked, but *i know* my favorites when i see or hear them lol
You never know, the 70s bug might get me one day, and ill think well damn, loyal opps was right!
I hope you do.. If you were to give me characteristics of movies you like... Or things you won't watch, I could give you better recommendations. Ones that YOU would like.
70s movies, which really began with Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate and Easy Rider in the 60s, are the best! Maybe you haven't seen the right ones. So many to name, but here are some gems: Thieves Like Us, Pretty Poison, Up the Sandbox, Next Stop Greenwich Village, Mean Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Story of Adele H, The Conformist, The Wild Child, The Long Goodbye, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Straw Dogs, The Heartbreak Kid, Harold and Maude, The Landlord, Sounder, Smile, Three Women, The Go-Between, The Emigrants, The New Land, Harry and Tonto, An Unmarried Woman, Joe, The Sterile Cuckoo, Bound for Glory, Sisters. Then there are the well-known classics: MASH, Cabaret, Sleeper, Annie Hall, Nashville, Fiddler on the Roof, The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, The French Connection, The Wild Bunch, Chinatown, Taxi Driver, Last Tango in Paris, Carrie, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Shampoo, Klute, They Shoot Horses, Network, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, All the President's Men, Shaft, Manhattan, Saturday Night Fever, The Warriors, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. And on and on. The great thing about movies in the "70s" is that they were all made for adults. Disney had pretty much vanished from theaters then. There was always something new and interesting to see every weekend.
"That’s what is at stake right now in Hollywood"
*Was* at stake, 10 years ago. Its done. Even if ai tanks(which it wont. The videos are incredibly convincing already, and theyre just getting started), we are never going *back*. Back to any of those good old things. Just like tanks are superseded by drones(now), movies are superseded by little videos in your hand(also now). I read in this subs comment section half a year or so ago that the future of entertainment will be movies created by ai specifically for *you*, right on demand. I think that sounds pretty close.. but that will just be the beginning. They will be so good at giving people exactly what they want(are they not already?) nobody will mind that real life has dwindled to nothing, they are no longer needed to work, and they are in fact being managed.
This is all rolling over us like a tide. We might try to save what we can from the flood, but we had better worry about swimming. The loss of hollywood is nothing compared to what we're really losing. If youre on the fringes looking at all of this, you know we're in the transition from present to past tense.
Sigh. If only indie writers were as celebrated and supported as indie filmmakers.
I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but it's an interesting question to me: if an indie writer/director could not get any funding for a film (as is the case for almost all), and they turn to using AI to make their film (because they can't hire cinematographers, actors etc), so a film is made that a studio couldn't, do we find that worse than none at all? I'm increasingly thinking it's the future whether we want it or not. Essentially it will allow more writers/directors to make things at the cost of other creative roles.
(If you're picturing lazy ai prompting, I think it's more likely going to be, eg: one person "acting" every role with their phone camera but having the performance be transformed into each character/envionment. We're seeing this happen on youtube etc in small doses already)
Ugh. Wait til AI decides to write everything for us. No one will have a role in anything creative. That's not the future I want.