MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Not A Serious Person on July 16, 2023, 07:47:33 PM
-
This is the first SAG-AFTRA strike in about 40 years, and the first time both actors and writers have been on strike together since 1960.
Guild leaders described the crossroads as an existential one that many industries face. Namely, will technology eclipse human contribution?
When businesses look to Wall Street for answers instead of their creative collaborators, that answer has become yes, according to Fran Drescher, SAG-AFTRA President and co-chief negotiator.
“The eyes of labor are upon us. What happens here is important, because it’s happening across all fields of labor,” said Ms. Drescher at a press conference after the vote.
“I went in in earnest, thinking we could avoid a strike,” she said. “The gravity of this move is not lost on me.”
“The entire business model has been changed by streaming, digital, AI—this is a moment of history, and a moment of truth. If we don’t stand tall right now we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines and big business, who cares more about Wall Street than you and your family,” she said.
The big issues on the table had been streaming residuals and AI on top of the regular negotiations on minimum increases.
AMPTP released its own statement after the actors’ announcement of a strike, claiming studios presented “a deal that offered historic pay and residual increases, substantially higher caps on pension and health contributions, audition protections, shortened series option periods, and a groundbreaking AI proposal.”
--------------------------
Barry Diller Delivers Doomsday Forecast: Actor and Writer Strikes Could Lead to Hollywood’s ‘Absolute Collapse’
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/media-titan-barry-diller-delivers-doomsday-forecast-for-hollywood-actor-and-writer-strikes-could-lead-to-the-absolute-collapse-of-an-entire-industry/
Media titan Barry Diller delivered a devastating forecast for Hollywood, if the writers and actors’ strikes are not resolved soon.
Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday, Diller — the head of the media conglomerate IAC, who previously served as CEO for Paramount and 20th Century Fox — weighed in on the state of the industry amid the SAG-AFTRA and Writers Guild of America strikes. Diller called the current challenges facing the industry a “perfect storm.”
“You had Covid, which sent people home to watch streaming television and killed theaters,” Diller said. “You’ve had the results of huge investments in streaming which have produced all these losses for all these companies that are now kind of retrenching. So at this moment, it’s kind of a perfect storm.”
Diller called for a settlement deadline of September 1, and said there could be catastrophic ramifications if the strikes extend into the fall.
“Who cares about Hollywood?” Diller said — referencing what he believes to be overriding public sentiment on the issue. “Who cares about it? But the truth is, this is a huge business! Both domestically and for world exporters. … But these conditions will potentially produce an absolute collapse of an entire industry.”
The IAC chief acknowledged the “existential issues” at play, and said there is “no trust between the parties” — which could prolong the strikes.
Amid criticism of Disney CEO Bob Iger calling the demands from actors and writers “disturbing,” Diller argued that the top actors and the top executives are all disproportionately compensated and floated an out-of-the-box proposal designed to ease tensions between the two sides.
“Everybody’s probably overpaid at the top end,” Diller said. “The one idea I had is to say, as a good faith measure, both the executives and the most-paid actors should take a 25 percent pay cut to try and narrow the difference between those who get highly paid and those that don’t.”
-
100% support both writer and actors on their strike. This is an existential issue for both professions (excluding the absolute top tier people). And, frankly, both strikes are desperately trying to save the executives from chasing short term profits/numbers/trends at the what would end up absolutely destroying them in the long term.
-
Yes.
-
100% support both writer and actors on their strike. This is an existential issue for both professions (excluding the absolute top tier people). And, frankly, both strikes are desperately trying to save the executives from chasing short term profits/numbers/trends at the what would end up absolutely destroying them in the long term.
But is it a strike in vain?
New technologies like streaming are now crushing Hollywood and AI will soon add to this. Is massive disruption to Hollywood's current business model inevitable? This strike cannot stop the progress of technological evolution.
Why should Hollywood be any different than newspapers or taxis?
Diller is correct that this strike is risking the collapse of Hollywood (which means movies and TV shows continue to get made at the current breakneck pace. But the creation, writing, and distribution of these properties moves away from the traditional channels in LA to a far more distributed network. The costs and payments of these properties go way down. See what has happened to the music industry over the last 20 or so years).
-
The problem is that dozens of streaming services are charging from $5/month to $30 monthly. The costs must come down so they can charge $1 to $3/month and stay in business.
We are not going back to the theatre or the big three TV networks (ABC/NBC/CBS) as our primary sources of entertainment. Those eras are over. And their business model, designed to sell shows to ABC/NBC/CBS and tickets in theatres, has to change radically. And with those changes, Hollywood will get a lot less money in the future.
----------------
Hollywood Faces a Perfect Storm. Why Netflix Could Still Win.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/actors-strike-hollywood-netflix-stock-2309d9da?mod=hp_LEAD_2
Hollywood’s actors and writers, the first time both groups have hit the picket lines at the same time since 1960, when Ronald Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild. Both groups are focused not just on improved pay but on how streaming is changing the entertainment business.
Meanwhile, TV and film production companies are grappling with the unraveling of cable and satellite TV—this year, the number of U.S. households subscribing to those services is likely to drop below 50% for the first time in decades, and the trend is accelerating.
Here’s how dramatically the TV world is changing: This past week Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger told CNBC that the traditional linear TV business—like its ABC broadcast unit—“may not be core” to Disney’s (ticker: DIS) future. Meanwhile, FAST channels—free ad-supported linear channels—are taking a growing slice of TV ad dollars, posing a new challenge for subscription-based services.
-
But is it a strike in vain?
New technologies like streaming are now crushing Hollywood and AI will soon add to this. Is massive disruption to Hollywood's current business model inevitable? This strike cannot stop the progress of technological evolution.
Why should Hollywood be any different than newspapers or taxis?
Diller is correct that this strike is risking the collapse of Hollywood (which means movies and TV shows continue to get made at the current breakneck pace. But the creation, writing, and distribution of these properties movies away from the traditional channels in LA to a far more distributed network. The costs and payments if these properties go way down. See what has happened to the music industry over the last 20 or so years).
Maybe, but here's the deal, if you are given the choice of a 100% fatal wound, or a wound with a 1% survival rate, you take the latter every time. (Honestly, I don't think these odds apply to this situation as I explain at the very end of this post).
Hollywood (and this word is being used here interchangeably re both studios and streaming platforms because for all intents and purposes they are intertwined to the point of having unified interests against labor in this situation) chose to chase Netlflix into an over-the-top streaming distribution model and killed the nearly foolproof profit machine that was the cable distribution model. That's dead and buried and probably never coming back.
The last writers' strike was not long ago. Central to there being a strike now is how the prior strike was resolved with separate carve outs for digitally-distributed properties. Now that everything is, effectively, digitally-distributed, the "eh, it's not that important it's just for Lost promos and Comedy Central Shorts so let's not sweat taking a pay cut on it" position has come be revealed as a bleeding wound in the guild. They remember this, and they need to correct it... but not in the way that you think.
Right now the "eh, it's not that important so let's not sweat it" issue is how studios want to use "AI." They see ChatGPT as a mechanism they can use to "write" scripts that they then hand off to writers to "edit," and thus cut their involvement and rate down to the bone. Hollywood/the studios think this because they're fools. Generative AI tools cannot, full stop, do a writers job (I know this, because I've used those tools, and I am a writer, and whatever you think the exponential improvement curve on them is you're wrong, the asymptote is well before "can write a movie, tv series arc, or novel."). But writers remember how giving in on something that seemingly didn't pose a threat to them was exploited to their severe detriment from the online distribution negotiation of the last strike, and this time they know that if they give in on this the profession dies.
The Actors face a similar issue. Already rank and file are having their likenesses scanned for use in generative AI productions, being paid one day's union rate, and forced to sign away the rights to the AI-generated likeness in perpetuity. It does not take a genius to see how they would treat that as an extinction-level threat.
I just hope the big dogs have steel in their spines and the willingness to prop up the fight, because this is it.
(side note, not handicapping, but the execs are out there saying they have to break the strike in public and they just have to hold out a few months before people start losing homes/apartments before the unions fold, but it cuts the other way too but maybe on another quarter or 6 month lag. Right now the stuff that's coming out has been in the can for 3-6 months, e.g. Good Omens Season 2 was turned in 6ish months ago. But if this thing stretches on long enough there won't be "new" programming that can come out... and it only takes a quarterly report or two in the toilet before heads start to roll in the C-Suite)
-
Technology has changed the nature of work since the invention of the wheel.
Actors are now concerned because it is hitting them with the potential of AI. So they are fighting hard.
The reality is there are plenty of people who have talent and want to be Actors, part of Hollywood etc So this dispute will get settled .
-
Technology has changed the nature of work since the invention of the wheel.
Actors are now concerned because it is hitting them with the potential of AI. So they are fighting hard.
The reality is there are plenty of people who have talent and want to be Actors, part of Hollywood etc So this dispute will get settled .
Again, maybe.
Not sure about SAG, but if you scab during a strike and provide *any* writing services, the writers guilds will blacklist you for life. Wouldn't suprise me in the least if SAG did the same. And while there might be some handful of people that think it'd be a lark to be in a movie, take the bag, and never act again because they never really wanted to be a professional actor so getting blacklisted won't harm them... those people are probably not replacing Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lawrence, et al.
-
AI could make movies better says Hollywood star as thousands of actors stage walk-out
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/ai-could-make-movies-better-30481080
British actor Simon Pegg believes the threat of being replaced by robots could potentially spur on those in Hollywood to raise their standards. His comments come amidst the biggest actors’ strike in decades
---
Artificial Intelligence could make movies better, according to actor Simon Pegg.
The Mission: Impossible star believes the threat of being replaced by robots could spur on humans across Hollywood to raise their standards.
But Pegg, 53, said: “It might be a good thing in that it will stop us from being mediocre. There is a lot of mediocrity out there sometimes. So if it ups our game because we want to escape the velocity of this creeping threat then it’s a good thing.”
The use of AI has prompted the biggest actors’ strike in decades with A-list stars joining writers and extras in protests.
Thelma & Louise star Susan Sarandon, 76, who joined picket lines in New York last week, said AI-generated productions were bad for the industry.
She said: “I think it’s important to present human beings to human beings. I don’t know how people want to see a product that is soulless like that.
"If you could take my face, my body and my voice and make me say and do something I have no choice about it’s not a good thing.’’
Around 160,000 actors have gone on strike over pay and fears they may be replaced by digital replicas.
The Screen Actors Guild wants guarantees from studios and film makers that AI and computer generated faces and voices will not be used to replace them.
-
Generative AI tools cannot, full stop, do a writers job ..
Disagree, mostly. First .. AI is getting better every second. ChatGPT was released to the public 8 months ago. In 12, 24, 36 months, it and all the other LLMs are getting exponentially better.
Second .. There are ~1400 movies and ~500 TV series (times 8-12-20 episodes) are written/produced each year. 90% of them are absolutely mediocre-to-awful and few would notice if they were written by AI, they are total schlock.
I grant you, a chunk of entertainment benefits greatly by being written by eloquent humans.
I think the writers/actors, long term, will be some of the first casualties in the AI era.
-
Hallmark movies could be written by AI.
-
Disagree, mostly. First .. AI is getting better every second. ChatGPT was released to the public 8 months ago. In 12, 24, 36 months, it and all the other LLMs are getting exponentially better.
Second .. There are ~1400 movies and ~500 TV series (times 8-12-20 episodes) are written/produced each year. 90% of them are absolutely mediocre-to-awful and few would notice if they were written by AI, they are total schlock.
I grant you, a chunk of entertainment benefits greatly by being written by eloquent humans.
I think the writers/actors, long term, will be some of the first casualties in the AI era.
What about AI actors?
Isn't this just a fancy way of saying animation is about to see serious adoption?
The entertainment form that generates the most amount of revenue globally is gaming. More than all sports leagues, TV and radio advertising combined. Isn't that nothing but animation? Thus showing the art form is already very popular meaning audiences will not have a problem adopting it?
-
100% support both writer and actors on their strike. This is an existential issue for both professions (excluding the absolute top tier people). And, frankly, both strikes are desperately trying to save the executives from chasing short term profits/numbers/trends at the what would end up absolutely destroying them in the long term.
All the top tier people are dead and that is who they are afraid of with the advent of AI.
-
Disagree, mostly. First .. AI is getting better every second. ChatGPT was released to the public 8 months ago. In 12, 24, 36 months, it and all the other LLMs are getting exponentially better.
Second .. There are ~1400 movies and ~500 TV series (times 8-12-20 episodes) are written/produced each year. 90% of them are absolutely mediocre-to-awful and few would notice if they were written by AI, they are total schlock.
I grant you, a chunk of entertainment benefits greatly by being written by eloquent humans.
I think the writers/actors, long term, will be some of the first casualties in the AI era.
I suppose you're right in that I should define terms somewhat. If the goal is "content" and there's no interest whatsoever in producing anything of any quality whatsoever so long as it can exist in some format, then sure. AI is gonna be great at that.
I understand the exponential improvement thing, but I honestly believe the asymptote is somewhere before long-form storytelling is viable. A snippet that plays for a minute or two? I guess, maybe. Like elevator music, forgettable, something that just occupies space but not awareness in its audience? Plausible.
But there is simply no chance that, without human intervention, generative AI can produce a movie script that anyone will ever want to watch.
Studios think they can have ChatGPT output a RomCom script and pay a writer "editing" rates rather than writing rates and presto chango, the human will tighten it up into Hallmark movie quality level stuff for a fraction of the cost. But, again, that's why the writers are on strike.
(also, my god it's harder to edit ChatGPT produced words than it is to just produce the words yourself. That thing is hammered garbage for writing)
-
Somewhat related, the current issue of Rolling Stone has multiple articles covering AI in relation to the music industry.
-
I suppose you're right in that I should define terms somewhat. If the goal is "content" and there's no interest whatsoever in producing anything of any quality whatsoever so long as it can exist in some format, then sure. AI is gonna be great at that.
But there is simply no chance that, without human intervention, generative AI can produce a movie script that anyone will ever want to watch.
..(also, my god it's harder to edit ChatGPT produced words than it is to just produce the words yourself. That thing is hammered garbage for writing)
Still disagree. First, that even at ChatGPT4 level, the prose it outputs is quite good. I've toyed with it a little, and a few times I've asked ChatGPT "make this funnier" .. and .. I remember thinking .. this isn't bad, it really was funnier.
You have doubts it will get better. I don't. It's solid now .. +3 years, it'll be amazing.
Last .. as I alluded to in the my first post .. AI is going to write a lot of crap, no doubt. But so do humans. The sheer volume of content that streaming/Hollywood produces, I bet 1 hour of every 10 is high quality, the rest is awful. Have you seen a Hallmark movie? Wow.
I would not bet against AI hitting and superseding that ratio.
What's that old expression, with 1000 monkeys typing for 1000 years, eventually you get Shakespeare. AI can do that instantly.
-
Still disagree. First, that even at ChatGPT4 level, the prose it outputs is quite good. I've toyed with it a little, and a few times I've asked ChatGPT "make this funnier" .. and .. I remember thinking .. this isn't bad, it really was funnier.
You have doubts it will get better. I don't. It's solid now .. +3 years, it'll be amazing.
Last .. as I alluded to in the my first post .. AI is going to write a lot of crap, no doubt. But so do humans. The sheer volume of content that streaming/Hollywood produces, I bet 1 hour of every 10 is high quality, the rest is awful. Have you seen a Hallmark movie? Wow.
I would not bet against AI hitting and superseding that ratio.
What's that old expression, with 1000 monkeys typing for 1000 years, eventually you get Shakespeare. AI can do that instantly.
Again, maybe.
I do not doubt that it will get better. I believe that there are limits to how much better it can get and that those limits are somewhere before longform storytelling can be viable.
First, generative AI is not *generating* anything. It is reassembling the material it has been trained on, spitting out the algorithmically most likely next word/sentence/paragraph based on the task or prompt it has been given. Therefore, it is absolutely 100% certain that it will never write anything "new." It literally cannot do so. (yes, yes, people who think that there is no original art or all the plots have already been written may step in here and make those claims).
Second, I'm not convinced that generative AI models and tools are not going to experience some kind of recursive training collapse by feeding on the already-AI-Generated content that is beginning to choke publicly available for scraping data sets. Train ChatGPT on THE WIRE and maybe it can churn out a plagiarized-ish facsimile of THE WIRE, but then it's going to train itself on the facsimile, and the facsimile of a facsimile, and soon enough garbage in, garbage out will control.
Third, the benchmark for improvement that you are reporting is short. "Take this joke and make it funnier." Sure (see my earlier comment about elevator music). "Hold a protagonist, relationship character, and antagonist each with distinct voices, play each off each other across an A and B plot, and keep everything consistent across a 120 page feature length film script" Is a bigger ask. "Construct a decade-long mega arc of comic book movies out of dozens of characters with each movie within this megaarc a self contained story that leads to a capstone event that provides a resolution to everything that came before" Or, "Build an ensemble cast across a 5-season, 10-episode/season show, bridging arcs in every episode, every season, and series as a whole, providing resolutions to each arc that are satisfying* to the viewer." I just think that threshold is beyond the point at which these tools will be able to reach even given all the computing power and data in the world.
*Lastly, and this is very ineffable and wishy washy and you're just going to say that I the writer am the buggy whip man of 1910 clinging to the assumption that people will never take to those horseless carriages, but there is something to writing, music, filmmaking, acting, to "art" that defies quantification, and therefore is probably not something that lends itself to algorithmic generation. What makes a character arc satisfying? Why was everyone hanging on every new episode of GoT until it ended so poorly that basically everyone has forgotten it ever happened? The endings, the character arcs, were not satisfying resolutions that followed from the ground that came before (and those were human writers with big rooms and lots of resources behind them and they failed to stick the landing). I can talk to you for a long time about patterns that make satisfying resolutions more likely, but at the end of the day I simply don't believe a computer can hit this note except by accident because it does not and cannot understand the human condition. And it is reference to the human condition that underpins this.
At the end of the day it boils down to this: If the studios win, you will be correct in that generative AI tools will create stuff. It's just not going to be stuff you're going to want to watch. That much, at least, I will guarantee.
-
Given that AI will destroy the world before it comes up with a TV script even as good as the one from John From Cincinnati, this discussion is moot.
-
What about AI actors?
Isn't this just a fancy way of saying animation is about to see serious adoption?
The entertainment form that generates the most amount of revenue globally is gaming. More than all sports leagues, TV and radio advertising combined. Isn't that nothing but animation? Thus showing the art form is already very popular meaning audiences will not have a problem adopting it?
Well, animation isn't exactly a new art form. It's been around about as long as film. And in the 100 years or so since the general public - outside of child-oriented fare - has strongly favored viewing real people on their screens over animated counterparts. I'm not convinced that AI-generation is going to significantly increase the public's appetite for animation not geared towards children.
And gaming is a totally different experience from the passive nature of watching a movie or TV show. If you want to tell me that AI-generated interactive programming may threaten traditional film and television ... I'm skeptical, but willing to listen. But people aren't going to start preferring cartoon or CGI films and TV shows because they play FIFA and Call of Duty.
-
And just wait till we all prefer watching AI-generated sports over humans playing football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, etc.
AIMan1 vs AIMan2 definitely will be more entertaining to watch than Alcaraz vs Djokovic!
-
And just wait till we all prefer watching AI-generated sports over humans playing football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, etc.
AIMan1 vs AIMan2 definitely will be more entertaining to watch than Alcaraz vs Djokovic!
Not to mention porn
-
Good. I’ve been cheering for Hollywood’s demise when they showed Lucy pregnant on TV and made Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn pretend to approve of interracial marriage in that movie. Way too woke for me
-
Well, animation isn't exactly a new art form. It's been around about as long as film. And in the 100 years or so since the general public - outside of child-oriented fare - has strongly favored viewing real people on their screens over animated counterparts. I'm not convinced that AI-generation is going to significantly increase the public's appetite for animation not geared towards children.
I was referring to the deep fake level of animation that is indistinguishable from real people.
-
I was referring to the deep fake level of animation that is indistinguishable from real people.
Deep fakes interlay an image over an already existing video of a real person. I'm not sure how effectively they could replace an entire person
-
Deep fakes interlay an image over an already existing video of a real person. I'm not sure how effectively they could replace an entire person
But this is at the core of the strike. They pay an actor for one day of work to capture their image, and then they use it forever without paying them.
-
But this is at the core of the strike. They pay an actor for one day of work to capture their image, and then they use it forever with paying them.
It's one big issue.
No residuals on streaming platforms is another.
Hollywood accounting making it so that no productions *ever* turn a profit is another (see, John Cusack recently disclosing that he got "points" (share of) on net profits for "Say Anything" and that according to his residuals statements/the studio, that movie has *lost* $44M since it was released).
-
But this is at the core of the strike. They pay an actor for one day of work to capture their image, and then they use it forever without paying them.
Ha. That's funny.
-
But this is at the core of the strike. They pay an actor for one day of work to capture their image, and then they use it forever without paying them.
Just to be clear, the concern here is that the studios want to do this for background actors/extras, not leads.
Nobody is suggesting studios are going to take footage from "Top Gun" and make films starring perpetually 24-year-old Tom Cruise for eternity.
-
That’s exactly who the union primarily exists to represent though right? The rank and file rather than the stars?
-
That’s exactly who the union primarily exists to represent though right? The rank and file rather than the stars?
Exactly correct ... SAG wants to protect Tom Hanks and Matt Damon by selling out lesser stars.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/hollywood-actor-sag-aftra-ai-artificial-intelligence-strike-rcna94191
Its proposal "only permits a company to use the digital replica of a background actor in the motion picture for which the background actor is employed. Any other use requires the background actor’s consent and bargaining for the use, subject to a minimum payment," an AMPTP spokesperson told NBC News.
The technology either exists now or is close to existing, making this a significant issue of the strike.
Restated, actors are on strike saying they fear the use of AI to replace them ... and "them" are the major stars.
-
Exactly correct ... SAG wants to protect Tom Hanks and Matt Damon by selling out lesser stars.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/hollywood-actor-sag-aftra-ai-artificial-intelligence-strike-rcna94191
Its proposal "only permits a company to use the digital replica of a background actor in the motion picture for which the background actor is employed. Any other use requires the background actor’s consent and bargaining for the use, subject to a minimum payment," an AMPTP spokesperson told NBC News.
The technology either exists now or is close to existing, making this a significant issue of the strike.
Restated, actors are on strike saying they fear the use of AI to replace them ... and "them" are the major stars.
I believe you're misreading this. The "its" referred to in the portion you quoted is the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, i.e. the studios. They want to be able replicate background actors/extras after paying them once. This is what the union is opposing.
-
I believe you're misreading this. The "its" referred to in the portion you quoted is the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, i.e. the studios. They want to be able replicate background actors/extras after paying them once. This is what the union is opposing.
My understanding is this is what they do now ... pay unknown actors for one day's work to go into a studio to get their likeness and use it forever via AI. The union opposes this and wants them to get a royalty on the continued use of their image.
And the union also wants a ban on AI-generated lead characters.
So, they want to get some royalty crumbs for unknowns and completely protect the likeness/image of stars. And protecting the likeness and image of stars also means human stars never have to compete with "AI actors" for lead roles.
Please correct any of this that is not correct.
-
I'm surprised they'd need to capture any background extra person's image.
AI is completely capable of generating new faces and bodies that look realistically human.
https://www.unrealperson.com/
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
-
My understanding is this is what they do now ... pay unknown actors for one day's work to go into a studio to get their likeness and use it forever via AI. The union opposes this and wants them to get a royalty on the continued use of their image. [/qupte]
I don't know if the first part - that they do this now - is true or not. Source?
But yes, the union wants the actor to a)have to give consent for each use of his/her likeness and b) to be compensated for each use.
And the union also wants a ban on AI-generated lead characters.
I've seen nothing to suggest this. Source?
This story seems to suggest the opposite.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/business/ai-actors-strike/index.html
-
I support the striking workers.
Having said that, I also agree that change in entertainment will come fast and hard. Writers and actors should fight for every dollar they can before technology replaces them.
Furthermore, this is just the first fight for jobs that can and will be made obsolete in search of profits for shareholders.
-
Nobody has made a joke about Keanu Reeves being the first AI actor? People are slipping here.
-
I think background actors/extras will lose in this strike.
Nobody is shedding tears for all of the animators that lost jobs, the NTSC standard is 25 frames per second. Animators used to hand-draw all of those frames now done via computers.
Once upon a time I was a rate clerk at trucking companies. Every terminal for each carrier used to have rate clerks, many unionized, rating was mostly computerized in the late 1980's and rate clerks became extinct.
Technology marches on.
-
I support the striking workers.
Having said that, I also agree that change in entertainment will come fast and hard. Writers and actors should fight for every dollar they can before technology replaces them.
Furthermore, this is just the first fight for jobs that can and will be made obsolete in search of profits for shareholders.
It is a fight for survival.
Netflix = $9.99/mo (basic) to $19.99 (premium)
Disney+ = $7.99.mo to $19.99
Apple TV+ = $4.99.mo
Amazon Prime = $8.99/mo
Hulu = $6.99/mo (ads) $12.99 (no ads)
I'm too lazy to look up the rest of the prices, but they are all in the same range
Paramount
Peacock
HBO
Showtime
Starz
And I'm sure I'm forgetting many more, not to mention foreign streaming.
And I'm ignoring sports which is another long list.
---------------
There is not enough people with big enough budgets for all these streaming services to survive. They have to cut their prices ... and cut them a lot. So, the content producers are going to have to get less.
So, it does not matter which side one supports ... the costs inevitably have to come down.
-
It is a fight for survival.
Netflix = $9.99/mo (basic) to $19.99 (premium)
Disney+ = $7.99.mo to $19.99
Apple TV+ = $4.99.mo
Amazon Prime = $8.99/mo
Hulu = $6.99/mo (ads) $12.99 (no ads)
I'm too lazy to look up the rest of the prices, but they are all in the same range
Paramount
Peacock
HBO
Showtime
Starz
And I'm sure I'm forgetting many more, not to mention foreign streaming.
And I'm ignoring sports which is another long list.
---------------
There is not enough people with big enough budgets for all these streaming services to survive. They have to cut their prices ... and cut them a lot. So, the content producers are going to have to get less.
So, it does not matter which side one supports ... the costs inevitably have to come down.
They’ve been saying that since the invention of moving pictures. Next.
-
Mission Impossible was a disappointment. Indiana Jones was only lukewarm.
So, now the fate of theatres and maybe even the Hollywood strike rests on the take this weekend for Barbie and Oppenheimer.
If they disappoint, the future of theatres (aside from specialty types) will be questioned more than ever. A disappointment by "Barbheimer" will underscore again that everyone in Hollywood will have to realize EVERYTHING is now made for streaming.
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/hollywood-is-banking-on-these-films-to-save-cinemas-will-it-work-20230711-p5dndl.html
-
Mission Impossible was a disappointment. Indiana Jones was only lukewarm.
So, now the fate of theatres and maybe even the Hollywood strike rest of the take this weekend for Barbie and Oppenheimer.
If they disappoint, the future of theatres (aside from specialty types) will be questioned more than ever. A disappointment by "Barbheimer" will underscore again that everyone in Hollywood will have to realize EVERYTHING is now made for streaming.
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/hollywood-is-banking-on-these-films-to-save-cinemas-will-it-work-20230711-p5dndl.html
Lol
-
They’ve been saying that since the invention of moving pictures. Next.
Wait, have you been paying for Amazon for the last 100 years????
-
Wait, have you been paying for Amazon for the last 100 years????
Amazon is doomed. Start a thread about it. I look forward to what else you deem doomed. Make sure to post links. Thanks
-
Amazon is doomed. Start a thread about it. I look forward to what else you deem doomed. Make sure to post links. Thanks
Apple. Doomed.
NFL. Doomed.
Cities. Doomed.
Hollywood. Doomed.
Human actors. Doomed.
Amazon. Doomed.
I'm beginning to see a trend.
-
It is a fight for survival.
Netflix = $9.99/mo (basic) to $19.99 (premium)
Disney+ = $7.99.mo to $19.99
Apple TV+ = $4.99.mo
Amazon Prime = $8.99/mo
Hulu = $6.99/mo (ads) $12.99 (no ads)
I'm too lazy to look up the rest of the prices, but they are all in the same range
Paramount
Peacock
HBO
Showtime
Starz
And I'm sure I'm forgetting many more, not to mention foreign streaming.
And I'm ignoring sports which is another long list.
---------------
There is not enough people with big enough budgets for all these streaming services to survive. They have to cut their prices ... and cut them a lot. So, the content producers are going to have to get less.
So, it does not matter which side one supports ... the costs inevitably have to come down.
It is very funny to me that the thing that this cries out for is not actually reduced prices (people were paying this and more on cable before everything went ott), but for a cable company to bundle it all together so there's one dang subscription to manage/pay.
-
Yes. Bundle it at a slightly discounted rate, be a hero. Some see opportunities, some see doom.
-
It is very funny to me that the thing that this cries out for is not actually reduced prices (people were paying this and more on cable before everything went ott), but for a cable company to bundle it all together so there's one dang subscription to manage/pay.
Sounds like a great idea, but why would a Netflix or a Max play along?
-
Sounds like a great idea, but why would a Netflix or a Max play along?
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't expect them to actually do this.
-
I think background actors/extras will lose in this strike.
Nobody is shedding tears for all of the animators that lost jobs, the NTSC standard is 25 frames per second. Animators used to hand-draw all of those frames now done via computers.
Once upon a time I was a rate clerk at trucking companies. Every terminal for each carrier used to have rate clerks, many unionized, rating was mostly computerized in the late 1980's and rate clerks became extinct.
Technology marches on.
SAG represents all actors, not just extras.
-
Mission Impossible was a disappointment. Indiana Jones was only lukewarm.
So, now the fate of theatres and maybe even the Hollywood strike rests on the take this weekend for Barbie and Oppenheimer.
If they disappoint, the future of theatres (aside from specialty types) will be questioned more than ever. A disappointment by "Barbheimer" will underscore again that everyone in Hollywood will have to realize EVERYTHING is now made for streaming.
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/hollywood-is-banking-on-these-films-to-save-cinemas-will-it-work-20230711-p5dndl.html
Make better movies.
-
Yes. Bundle it at a slightly discounted rate, be a hero. Some see opportunities, some see doom.
The reason the cable bundle is collapsing was it was too damm expensive. Even with the convenience of everything in one place was factored in.
Besides, many services bundle streaming and none have not been that successful.
The public no longer wants to shell out a few hundred dollars a month for streaming services (in addition to paying for internet services). The guys in charge know this and are scrambling for a finite amount of money. So, they must get costs down to grab their piece of the pie.
Tower, how do you pay a month for streaming services? As much as your old cable bill? If not, why not?
-
Unions are becoming more popular.
According to a recent Gallup poll, more than 70% of Americans surveyed said they "approve of labor unions."
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2Fbriefing%2FoakImage-1689616252493%2FoakImage-1689616252493-jumbo.png&t=1689801597&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1c30-81016d01bb00&sig=1ixgXvek6OnEoLjB2tyTow--~D)
Said the NYT's David Leonhardt: This interest in unions is economically rational for many workers. Collective bargaining gives employees leverage that they tend to lack when they negotiate on their own. Unionized workers typically make 10 percent to 20 percent more than similar nonunionized workers, as I’ve explained before. The extra pay often comes out of executive salaries or corporate profits, reducing income inequality in the process.
-
The reason the cable bundle is collapsing was it was too damm expensive. Even with the convenience of everything in one place was factored in.
Besides, many services bundle streaming and none have not been that successful.
The public no longer wants to shell out a few hundred dollars a month for streaming services (in addition to paying for internet services). The guys in charge know this and are scrambling for a finite amount of money. So, they must get costs down to grab their piece of the pie.
Tower, how do you pay a month for streaming services? As much as your old cable bill? If not, why not?
Is anybody really paying a few hundred dollars a month to stream?
One could have premium Netflix, the premium Disney bundle (Hulu and ESPN+), Prime, Apple+, Max premium, Paramount and Peacock for about $92 a month.
WiFi seems irrelevant. People are paying for that whether they're streaming or plugged in.
Not Tower, but I pay significantly less to stream (YouTube TV, plus Netflix, Apple, Max and Prime) than I did for DirecTV. Even five years after I cut the cable and a couple of YouTube TV fee hikes later, it's still about 40% less and I have more options.
-
Is anybody really paying a few hundred dollars a month to stream?
One could have premium Netflix, the premium Disney bundle (Hulu and ESPN+), Prime, Apple+, Max premium, Paramount and Peacock for about $92 a month.
WiFi seems irrelevant. People are paying for that whether they're streaming or plugged in.
Not Tower, but I pay significantly less to stream (YouTube TV, plus Netflix, Apple, Max and Prime) than I did for DirecTV. Even five years after I cut the cable and a couple of YouTube TV fee hikes later, it's still about 40% less and I have more options.
Give it a year and we’ll have a streaming is doomed thread. Save some ammo
-
Apple. Doomed.
NFL. Doomed.
Cities. Doomed.
Hollywood. Doomed.
Human actors. Doomed.
Amazon. Doomed.
I'm beginning to see a trend.
Don’t forget:
People-driven cars
Car dealerships
-
Don’t forget:
People-driven cars
Car dealerships
I think Marquette was included too
-
It is my recollection that in a previous iteration Heisy said he makes his money off of instability and turmoil. Perhaps my aged mind is incorrect.
-
Apple. Doomed.
NFL. Doomed.
Cities. Doomed.
Hollywood. Doomed.
Human actors. Doomed.
Amazon. Doomed.
I'm beginning to see a trend.
Every thread from Smuggles is a Daily Dose of Doom thread. He's a real happy-go-lucky guy.
He might even be right about one eventually. Hopefully Fox News Doomed.
-
I can get on board with “car dealerships are doomed.”
Screw the finding of a pinch point in economic activity,
Squatting on it, and rent seeking.
-
I can get on board with “car dealerships are doomed.”
Screw the finding of a pinch point in economic activity,
Squatting on it, and rent seeking.
Theoretically, me too. In reality, it’s never going to happen.
-
Thanks for the great additions!
Apple. Doomed.
NFL. Doomed.
Cities. Doomed.
Hollywood. Doomed.
Human actors. Doomed.
Amazon. Doomed.
Marquette. Doomed.
Fox News. Doomed.
Driving. Doomed.
Auto dealers: Doomed.
-
Is the circle jerk doomed?
Sparks have to be flying off your hands with these recent posts.
-
Is anybody really paying a few hundred dollars a month to stream?
One could have premium Netflix, the premium Disney bundle (Hulu and ESPN+), Prime, Apple+, Max premium, Paramount and Peacock for about $92 a month.
WiFi seems irrelevant. People are paying for that whether they're streaming or plugged in.
Not Tower, but I pay significantly less to stream (YouTube TV, plus Netflix, Apple, Max and Prime) than I did for DirecTV. Even five years after I cut the cable and a couple of YouTube TV fee hikes later, it's still about 40% less and I have more options.
So I don’t see a way to watch MU games as you’re not paying for Fox Sports. How do you watch them?
How about Fox News, you certainly have an opinion about Tucker but no way to watch him.
Did you forget to add your $100/month cable bill to the list above?
-
Is the circle jerk doomed?
Sparks have to be flying off your hands with these recent posts.
Uh-oh
Heisey is getting salty.
-
So I don’t see a way to watch MU games as you’re not paying for Fox Sports. How do you watch them?
How about Fox News, you certainly have an opinion about Tucker but no way to watch him.
Did you forget to add your $100/month cable bill to the list above?
Ummm, YouTube TV?
-
Related to this topic, I was surprised to learn today that someone is reopening the movie theatre at Bayshore after being closed for several years. Didn't think people were still opening movie theatres
-
Related to this topic, I was surprised to learn today that someone is reopening the movie theatre at Bayshore after being closed die several years. Didn't think people were still opening movie theatres
Movie Theaters - Doomed!
-
Movie Theaters - Doomed!
Depending on your definition of doomed, I agree with that one. Movie theatres will survive for decades longer, but their numbers and prevelance will be greatly diminished. Which is sad, I still love going to the movies
-
Movie Theaters - Doomed!
(https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/BoxOffice1.png?itok=_PdLchgC)
-
Saw some interesting stats today ..
2012 to 2022: (inflation adjusted)
Pay TV (cable) down $67b (-51%)
Movie Theaters down $6b, (-46%)
Streaming up $27b (+923%)
TOTAL Entertainment revs: DOWN $60b (-36%).
Really surprised me that the total entertainment pie has shrunk more than a third .. yet there are more entertainment/streaming folks chasing pieces.
Ad rev 2022:
Youtube: $29b versus NBC + CBS + ABC $28b.
TikTok $10b - Didn't exist 5 years ago.
-
Saw some interesting stats today ..
2012 to 2022: (inflation adjusted)
Pay TV (cable) down $67b (-51%)
Movie Theaters down $6b, (-46%)
Streaming up $27b (+923%)
TOTAL Entertainment revs: DOWN $60b (-36%).
Really surprised me that the total entertainment pie has shrunk more than a third .. yet there are more entertainment/streaming folks chasing pieces.
Ad rev 2022:
Youtube: $29b versus NBC + CBS + ABC $28b.
TikTok $10b - Didn't exist 5 years ago.
I definitely go to the box office less.
However my fees for TV and internet are probably up over that timeframe. This massive decline has to be advertising related right?
-
(https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/BoxOffice1.png?itok=_PdLchgC)
Movie theaters were hurt worst than most business from Covid. If you look at the very end of that graphic you posted, you'll see a pretty robust comeback -- and that's despite very few blockbusters having come out.
It will be a difficult road back, not helped at all by these strikes, and theaters might never return to their pre-pandemic success. Heck, they might actually be doomed. We'll have to see.
-
Don’t forget:
People-driven cars
Car dealerships
Iirc, it wasnt just people driven cars that were doomed, it was people owned cars too. I recall a prediction that by around now people would no longer own personal cars but instead would have car subscriptions where they could pick up any nearby car and drive it and park it wherever for a monthly fee
-
Iirc, it wasnt just people driven cars that were doomed, it was people owned cars too. I recall a prediction that by around now people would no longer own personal cars but instead would have car subscriptions where they could pick up any nearby car and drive it and park it wherever for a monthly fee
you are probably correct...that sounds familiar.
-
We were all gonna be taking our flying saucers to our jobs at either Spacely Sprockets or Cogswell Cogs.
(https://wp-media.beliefnet.com/sites/212/import/assets_c/2010/10/the-jetsons-thumb-400x274-18376.jpg)
-
Depending on your definition of doomed, I agree with that one. Movie theatres will survive for decades longer, but their numbers and prevelance will be greatly diminished. Which is sad, I still love going to the movies
I do too, though there are not many movies I would like to see over he last few years. My old plasma finally died after 16 years and I replaced it with a 77 inch OLED. Picture is just breath taking and it would take a movie like Midway to peak my interest in going to the theatre. My daughter and I, her treat, went to see Sounds of Freedom the other day.
Tickets were 36 dollars for the 8pm showing. I could not believe ticket prices went up that much. The movie was OK but not worth 36 bucks to see in my opinion, though the subject matter, child sex trafficking, is worth a view once it makes the streaming services. Of note is that the film was actually produced in 2018 and the monies for distribution were raised in 2023.
I often wonder why I can hear and understand all the dialogue in a movie theatre but once it is released for streaming or DVD the dialogue channel is so much less audible.
-
I do too, though there are not many movies I would like to see over he last few years. My old plasma finally died after 16 years and I replaced it with a 77 inch OLED. Picture is just breath taking and it would take a movie like Midway to peak my interest in going to the theatre. My daughter and I, her treat, went to see Sounds of Freedom the other day.
Tickets were 36 dollars for the 8pm showing. I could not believe ticket prices went up that much. The movie was OK but not worth 36 bucks to see in my opinion, though the subject matter, child sex trafficking, is worth a view once it makes the streaming services. Of note is that the film was actually produced in 2018 and the monies for distribution were raised in 2023.
I often wonder why I can hear and understand all the dialogue in a movie theatre but once it is released for streaming or DVD the dialogue channel is so much less audible.
Get a better sound system? TV speakers are notoriously cheap.
-
FWIW, Barbie and Oppenheimer are expected to inject the movie theater industry with a significant bump in profits.
-
I do too, though there are not many movies I would like to see over he last few years. My old plasma finally died after 16 years and I replaced it with a 77 inch OLED. Picture is just breath taking and it would take a movie like Midway to peak my interest in going to the theatre. My daughter and I, her treat, went to see Sounds of Freedom the other day.
Tickets were 36 dollars for the 8pm showing. I could not believe ticket prices went up that much. The movie was OK but not worth 36 bucks to see in my opinion, though the subject matter, child sex trafficking, is worth a view once it makes the streaming services. Of note is that the film was actually produced in 2018 and the monies for distribution were raised in 2023.
I often wonder why I can hear and understand all the dialogue in a movie theatre but once it is released for streaming or DVD the dialogue channel is so much less audible.
Short answer: Production isn't prioritizing sound mixing for home theaters combined with mixing for home theaters being non-standard and difficult to do:
"There is yet another important variable in this sprawling equation, and it might be the most important one of all: the home theater experience. "Ultimately, the historical record of the film will not be seen in theaters, it will be what you see in your home theater," Karen Baker Landers says. "That's how most people see certain products. So you want it to be great."
For audio mixers, the theatrical mix comes first, followed by a streaming mix. Then, a stereo mix will often be created, funneling the full scope of the sound mix through just two simple speakers in a process Donald Sylvester likens to "taking a beautiful steak and dragging it through the dirt."
"A lot of people watch it on their flatscreen with their sound bar and they think it's going to be an improved sound situation, but it may not translate," says Sylvester:
"Some TVs take the 5.1 [surround sound mix] and they turn it into a stereo. They have algorithms inside the TV. It's not even our mix. We don't even know what it sounds like. I think a lot of tuners do that, if you have a receiver — I know they have algorithms, and they also put coloring on it, like 'cinema approach' that adds reflection and noise and stuff that you don't want in the mix. That's another problem. You don't know how it's being presented in the home."
Complicating matters even further is the unfortunate fact that "not every filmmaker knows that you have to rebalance your film so it plays differently on a home theater," Baker Landers explains. "That's a big problem. Because if you've mixed this for spread in a theater and you just do a simple transfer with some kid at night who doesn't know what they're doing, who didn't [work on] the movie [originally], there's a huge problem with that. I think that problem needs to be addressed. People who aren't in the industry complain to me all the time: 'Why can't I understand the dialogue? Why am I always riding the levels? The music comes in huge.'"
Craig Mann tells me most modern movies are required to create a separate mix for home video, but there is still the occasional film which decides to skip that step in the process. "Those mixes often have less dynamic range than the theater mix," Mann says. "If you're really having to ride the volume around a lot, chances are they didn't have a home theater mix on that.""
Read More: https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/
-
FWIW, Barbie and Oppenheimer are expected to inject the movie theater industry with a significant bump in profits.
I hope it does, as Cineworld, the second-largest movie theater chain in the world, filed for bankruptcy last year and might have to liquidate (as opposed to reorganizing).
AMC, the largest movie theatre chain in the world, has seen its stock fall 90+% from its high.
Cinemark, the third-largest movie theater, is the powerhouse of the group. Its stock is only 65% lower than its pre-pandemic peak.
And as far as the hope that Barbie and Oppenheimer will save the industry.
This was the exact same thing said last month about the latest Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones movies.
And two weeks before that about Spiderman and the Flash
And two weeks before that, about Elemental and the Little Mermaid
All disappointed.
In fact, the only movie that has surprised to the upside this summer was "Sound of Freedom." And the left is bizarrely, desperately, trying to cancel it as some sort of Qnon conspiracy theory.
So, good luck to you as you continue to pour your money into movie theatre investments. Hopefully, the proud boys continue to buy tickets and make you money.
-
I often wonder why I can hear and understand all the dialogue in a movie theatre but once it is released for streaming or DVD the dialogue channel is so much less audible.
If you don't want to spring for a sound system (receiver, amp, excellent speakers), try a high-quality soundbar. Wirecutter recommends the Polk MagniFi Mini AX ("best all-around"), the Vizio M-Series Elevate ("for more enveloping surround sound"), the Yamaha SR-C30A ("budget pick") and the LG S95QR ("upgrade pick").
If you buy one, make sure you set it up quickly so you can see if it works well for you. If not, you'll be able to take it back within the store's return window and try another.
You're welcome.
-
And as far as the hope that Barbie and Oppenheimer will save the industry.
Which is not even in the same universe with what I said.
So, good luck to you as you continue to pour your money into movie theatre investments. Hopefully, the proud boys continue to buy tickets and make you money.
I don't have a nickel in "movie theatre investments" and never have. Not sure why you feel disinformation helps your arguments.
I hope it does
I doubt this is true. People love to get to say "I told you so," you more than most.
I'll resist the temptation to respond to your attempts at making this a political argument.
-
I hope it does, as Cineworld, the second-largest movie theater chain in the world, filed for bankruptcy last year and might have to liquidate (as opposed to reorganizing).
AMC, the largest movie theatre chain in the world, has seen its stock fall 90+% from its high.
Cinemark, the third-largest movie theater, is the powerhouse of the group. Its stock is only 65% lower than its pre-pandemic peak.
And as far as the hope that Barbie and Oppenheimer will save the industry.
This was the exact same thing said last month about the latest Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones movies.
And two weeks before that about Spiderman and the Flash
And two weeks before that, about Elemental and the Little Mermaid
All disappointed.
In fact, the only movie that has surprised to the upside this summer was "Sound of Freedom." And the left is bizarrely, desperately, trying to cancel it as some sort of Qnon conspiracy theory[/b].
So, good luck to you as you continue to pour your money into movie theatre investments. Hopefully, the proud boys continue to buy tickets and make you money.
whyever could this possibly be? Truly, it is a mystery that cannot be solved with common sense, google, and listening to Jim Caviziel talk about adrenochrome while doing press junkets for the movie.
-
[...]
In fact, the only movie that has surprised to the upside this summer was "Sound of Freedom." [...]
But in all seriousness this is not some new groundbreaking piece of economics. A couple of the all time leaders for largest "upside" are "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Blair Witch Project." What they have in common is small budgets, which means that when they got legs and became extremely popular, the denominator was small and they could hit huge multiples over their budget at the box office (to say nothing of long tail revenues from non-box office sources).
"Sound of Freedom" was relatively cheap to make, lots of people who really are invested in having their irrational fear of the fantasy of stranger-danger trafficking validated showed up at the box office (plus a bunch showed up because it has a legitimately smart marketing plan (the movie *they* don't want you to see!)), and presto chango you've got a big "surprise to the upside." Good for their distributors for making money. It's more complicated, however, when you say "well, new Marvel Property X only got 1.75 or 2x its budget" but their budget was $200M, so is it a flop? Or is it just disappointing numbers against investment and the hope that "because old Marvel Property Y got $1B+ gate, New Marvel Property X must get $1B+ too!" ?
-
I hope it does, as Cineworld, the second-largest movie theater chain in the world, filed for bankruptcy last year and might have to liquidate (as opposed to reorganizing).
AMC, the largest movie theatre chain in the world, has seen its stock fall 90+% from its high.
Cinemark, the third-largest movie theater, is the powerhouse of the group. Its stock is only 65% lower than its pre-pandemic peak.
And as far as the hope that Barbie and Oppenheimer will save the industry.
This was the exact same thing said last month about the latest Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones movies.
And two weeks before that about Spiderman and the Flash
And two weeks before that, about Elemental and the Little Mermaid
All disappointed.
In fact, the only movie that has surprised to the upside this summer was "Sound of Freedom." And the left is bizarrely, desperately, trying to cancel it as some sort of Qnon conspiracy theory.
So, good luck to you as you continue to pour your money into movie theatre investments. Hopefully, the proud boys continue to buy tickets and make you money.
Sound of Freedom isn't being cancelled. It's being propped up by terminally online weirdos who think buying ten tickets to a movie is a good idea. Or who think that spamming 10/10 reviews makes a movie good.
The right is so filled with social idiots who have been conditioned to think they're being canceled or repressed in some way. They see conspiracy and persecution at every turn... especially when there is none. Then the right wing media apparatus picks it up and overinflates reality for a week or two and then finally we end up here. With Heisey or rocket posting nonsense like the 'left is trying to cancel the film'. MAYBE, just maybe, it's a movie for right wingers and there just isn't interest from a broad audience that enjoys this type of story.
Not to mention that box office sales are down across the board. I think I've seen one or two movies since early 2020. Two were kids movies where the family rented out the theater, and the last one I saw was the second Avatar movie. My wife and I used to go at least 10-20 times per year... but in the two years that the theaters were closed we found other ways to enjoy our time. Also, most movies come to streaming services in only a couple of months. I can wait a couple of months to see something.
-
Jayzuss Hardship, you are the Progressive version of Archie Bunker. Can there ever be a thread where you don’t denigrate anybody who disagrees with Your truth?
-
Sound of Freedom isn't being cancelled. It's being propped up by terminally online weirdos who think buying ten tickets to a movie is a good idea. Or who think that spamming 10/10 reviews makes a movie good.
The right is so filled with social idiots who have been conditioned to think they're being canceled or repressed in some way. They see conspiracy and persecution at every turn... especially when there is none. Then the right wing media apparatus picks it up and overinflates reality for a week or two and then finally we end up here. With Heisey or rocket posting nonsense like the 'left is trying to cancel the film'. MAYBE, just maybe, it's a movie for right wingers and there just isn't interest from a broad audience that enjoys this type of story.
Not to mention that box office sales are down across the board. I think I've seen one or two movies since early 2020. Two were kids movies where the family rented out the theater, and the last one I saw was the second Avatar movie. My wife and I used to go at least 10-20 times per year... but in the two years that the theaters were closed we found other ways to enjoy our time. Also, most movies come to streaming services in only a couple of months. I can wait a couple of months to see something.
Plus, we have to boycott Barbie because it’s woke
-
Plus, we have to boycott Barbie because it’s woke
Cancellation for me but not for thee?
-
Cancellation for me but not for thee?
I guess Ken has low T and the movie has hints of feminism. Don’t take your daughters. They might think women have merit other than appearance.
-
I guess Ken has low T and the movie has hints of feminism. Don’t take your daughters. They might think women have merit other than appearance.
I heard Ken joined the women's swim team and has an Antifa T-shirt as part of his fall collection.
-
I heard Ken joined the women's swim team and has an Antifa T-shirt as part of his fall collection.
He’s not driving a convertible either. They have him in a Prius. Sad!
-
I hope it does, as Cineworld, the second-largest movie theater chain in the world, filed for bankruptcy last year and might have to liquidate (as opposed to reorganizing).
AMC, the largest movie theatre chain in the world, has seen its stock fall 90+% from its high.
Cinemark, the third-largest movie theater, is the powerhouse of the group. Its stock is only 65% lower than its pre-pandemic peak.
And as far as the hope that Barbie and Oppenheimer will save the industry.
This was the exact same thing said last month about the latest Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones movies.
And two weeks before that about Spiderman and the Flash
And two weeks before that, about Elemental and the Little Mermaid
All disappointed.
In fact, the only movie that has surprised to the upside this summer was "Sound of Freedom." And the left is bizarrely, desperately, trying to cancel it as some sort of Qnon conspiracy theory.
So, good luck to you as you continue to pour your money into movie theatre investments. Hopefully, the proud boys continue to buy tickets and make you money.
"Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" were not doomed.
The summer box office just went nuclear.
Filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s female-fueled Barbie opened to a historic $155 million domestically, a threshold usually reserved for male-driven superhero fare or marquee IP, such as the final Harry Potter movie. It came in well ahead of an expected $90 million to $110 million and helped fuel one of the biggest weekends in history.
Not that Oppenheimer, from Universal, is any slouch. The three-hour, R-rated historical drama about J. Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the atomic bomb likewise came in well ahead of expectations with $80.5 million. That’s the filmmaker’s third-biggest domestic debut behind The Dark Knight Rises ($160.9 million) and The Dark Knight ($158.4 million), not adjusted for inflation. It also will come in ahead of recent summer pics including The Flash, Elemental and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-box-office-oppenheimer-opening-1235541719/
-
"Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" were not doomed.
The summer box office just went nuclear.
Filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s female-fueled Barbie opened to a historic $155 million domestically, a threshold usually reserved for male-driven superhero fare or marquee IP, such as the final Harry Potter movie. It came in well ahead of an expected $90 million to $110 million and helped fuel one of the biggest weekends in history.
Not that Oppenheimer, from Universal, is any slouch. The three-hour, R-rated historical drama about J. Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the atomic bomb likewise came in well ahead of expectations with $80.5 million. That’s the filmmaker’s third-biggest domestic debut behind The Dark Knight Rises ($160.9 million) and The Dark Knight ($158.4 million), not adjusted for inflation. It also will come in ahead of recent summer pics including The Flash, Elemental and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-box-office-oppenheimer-opening-1235541719/
Interesting note:
"Barbenheimer" led to the fourth-biggest box-office weekend ever in the U.S., according to Comscore, as well as the only weekend in the top 10 of all-time that didn't include a movie from Jurassic Park, Marvel or Star Wars franchises.
-
Interesting note:
"Barbenheimer" led to the fourth-biggest box-office weekend ever in the U.S., according to Comscore, as well as the only weekend in the top 10 of all-time that didn't include a movie from Jurassic Park, Marvel or Star Wars franchises.
Goes to show you, being woke pays
-
Interesting note:
"Barbenheimer" led to the fourth-biggest box-office weekend ever in the U.S., according to Comscore, as well as the only weekend in the top 10 of all-time that didn't include a movie from Jurassic Park, Marvel or Star Wars franchises.
Is there a signal for Hollywood here ... and, if so, will they take it?
The big action moves, such as Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, and Spider-man, disappointed.
In general, the movies that are part of franchise movies have been disappointing.
So along comes two movies oriented toward different audiences, not part of a franchise, and are not action films, and both have huge opening weekends.
Ask anyone in Hollywood even a few months ago if summer audiences would flock to a heady, intellectual, three-hour history pic with an unknown lead, and they would have laughed you out of the room.
Goes to show you, being woke pays
Except Barbie was not marketed as a woke movie. Now that it has been exposed as a woke movie, as you yourself have noted, let's see how much it does this coming weekend. Was last weekend the result of a great marketing campaign and "hiding" its wokeness catch up this weekend?
-
Is there a signal for Hollywood here ... and, if so, will they take it?
The big action moves, such as Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, and Spider-man, disappointed.
In general, the movies that are part of franchise movies have been disappointing.
So along comes two movies oriented toward different audiences, not part of a franchise, and are not action films, and both have huge opening weekends.
Ask anyone in Hollywood even a few months ago if summer audiences would flock to a heady, intellectual, three-hour history pic with an unknown lead, and they would have laughed you out of the room.
Except Barbie was not marketed as a woke movie. Now that it has been exposed as a woke movie, as you yourself have noted, let's see how much it does this coming weekend. Was last weekend the result of a great marketing campaign and "hiding" its wokeness catch up this weekend?
If being woke means encouraging girls they can be anything, well, I’d say woke warriors are idiots
-
If being woke means encouraging girls they can be anything, well, I’d say woke warriors are idiots
That was the marketing campaign. Did you see it? Is that what you saw on the screen?
-
Except Barbie was not marketed as a woke movie. Now that it has been exposed as a woke movie, as you yourself have noted, let's see how much it does this coming weekend. Was last weekend the result of a great marketing campaign and "hiding" its wokeness catch up this weekend?
Sounds like Ben Shapiro wasn't the only dude burning his Barbie collection this weekend
-
Sounds like Ben Shapiro wasn't the only dude burning his Barbie collection this weekend
Correct ... I have not seen it and will probably never see it, as it was not made for me, but I've seen several reviews that both say it was not a good movie and had a hidden political agenda.
So, let's see if it loses steam this weekend. (again, I did not see it so this is based on second-hand info like your OP was.)
-
Correct ... I have not seen it and will probably never see it, as it was not made for me, but I've seen several reviews that both say it was not a good movie and had a hidden political agenda.
So, let's see if it loses steam this weekend. (again, I did not see it so this is based on second-hand info like your OP was.)
Funny the reviews you’ve seen are from right wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war.
-
So, let's see if it loses steam this weekend. (again, I did not see it so this is based on second-hand info like your OP was.)
Movies typically see a 50% decline in box office in their second week. For major summer releases, it can be closer to 60%.
So, there's your bar.
Love to see these several reviews you're reading. Links?
-
Funny the reviews you’ve seen are from right wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war.
So I should read reviews from the left wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war?
The same ones that said Sound of Freedom is a Qnon conspiracy?
-
So I should read reviews from the left wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war?
The same ones that said Sound of Freedom is a Qnon conspiracy?
I don’t, so I wouldn’t recommend reading them
-
So I should read reviews from the left wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war?
The same ones that said Sound of Freedom is a Qnon conspiracy?
lol
-
Sounds like Ben Shapiro wasn't the only dude burning his Barbie collection this weekend
So much of Ben Shapiro's schtick can be traced to him being a failed screenwriter it would be funny if it weren't both so sad and also hadn't caused so much harm.
-
So I should read reviews from the left wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war?
The same ones that said Sound of Freedom is a Qnon conspiracy?
I haven't read the reviews you've referenced. But you do know that the star of the film, Jim Caviezel, is a QAnon adherent who has been going on film-promotion junkets and talking about "the whole adrenochrome empire," right?
"It's an elite drug that they've used for many years," Caviezel said on one of Steve Bannon's podcasts. "It is 10 times more potent than heroin."
If Little Mermaid star Halle Bailey went on Rachel Maddow's podcast claiming that everyone in "the whole MAGA empire feasts on children," what would your take be?
-
Ask anyone in Hollywood even a few months ago if summer audiences would flock to a heady, intellectual, three-hour history pic with an unknown lead, and they would have laughed you out of the room.
Hold on, we're calling Cillian Murphy an "unknown"? The lead in one of the most talked about, acclaimed, and watched TV series of the last decade?
-
Hold on, we're calling Cillian Murphy an "unknown"? The lead in one of the most talked about, acclaimed, and watched TV series of the last decade?
Ya. Wtf? How is he considered unknown?
As an aside, I want to see any interaction if there's a Sound of Freedom and Barbie audience that gets let out at the same time
-
Sounds like Ben Shapiro wasn't the only dude burning his Barbie collection this weekend
The question shouldn’t be ‘ why did Shapiro burn his Barbie’s’.
More like ‘Why does a grown a$$ “man” have a Barbie collection?’
-
Yeah I noticed the whole Cillian Murphy = unknown and just decided to let it slide. I suppose now he'll say "well it's not one of the bankable megastars so outside of The Rock/Tom Cruise/etc everyone might as well be unknown."
-
Yeah I noticed the whole Cillian Murphy = unknown and just decided to let it slide. I suppose now he'll say "well it's not one of the bankable megastars so outside of The Rock/Tom Cruise/etc everyone might as well be unknown."
Also, the buzz around Oppenheimer has been palpable since Nolan announced it
-
Is there a signal for Hollywood here ... and, if so, will they take it?
The big action moves, such as Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, and Spider-man, disappointed.
In general, the movies that are part of franchise movies have been disappointing.
So along comes two movies oriented toward different audiences, not part of a franchise, and are not action films, and both have huge opening weekends.
Ask anyone in Hollywood even a few months ago if summer audiences would flock to a heady, intellectual, three-hour history pic with an unknown lead, and they would have laughed you out of the room.
Except Barbie was not marketed as a woke movie. Now that it has been exposed as a woke movie, as you yourself have noted, let's see how much it does this coming weekend. Was last weekend the result of a great marketing campaign and "hiding" its wokeness catch up this weekend?
Cillian Murphy is hardly an unknown lead.
Edit: that horse was already beaten pretty well.
-
Is there a signal for Hollywood here ... and, if so, will they take it?
The big action moves, such as Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, and Spider-man, disappointed.
In general, the movies that are part of franchise movies have been disappointing.
So along comes two movies oriented toward different audiences, not part of a franchise, and are not action films, and both have huge opening weekends.
Ask anyone in Hollywood even a few months ago if summer audiences would flock to a heady, intellectual, three-hour history pic with an unknown lead, and they would have laughed you out of the room.
Except Barbie was not marketed as a woke movie. Now that it has been exposed as a woke movie, as you yourself have noted, let's see how much it does this coming weekend. Was last weekend the result of a great marketing campaign and "hiding" its wokeness catch up this weekend?
Apparently $700 million worldwide is "disappointing"
-
Apparently $700 million worldwide is "disappointing"
It was too woke
-
Apparently $700 million worldwide is "disappointing"
Covered this earlier in the thread when I was being generous to Sound of Freedom by comparing box take to budget. By certain measures, execs will try to spin movies that don't 3x their budgets as disappointing. It's more of a marketing/future negotiation tactic than it is an objective measure of success.
-
Jayzuss Hardship, you are the Progressive version of Archie Bunker. Can there ever be a thread where you don’t denigrate anybody who disagrees with Your truth?
Yes of course, but not one where you're involved.
-
He does not mince words ... he fears that AI/Robots are going to put him out of a job.
July 26, 2023
Bryan Cranston slams artificial intelligence during SAG-AFTRA rally: 'We ask you to hear us'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2023/07/25/bryan-cranston-sag-aftra-rock-the-city-rally-speech/70464165007/
During his speech, Cranston called out Disney CEO Bob Iger, who previously called actors' strike activity "disturbing."
"I know, sir, that you look (at) things through a different lens," Cranston said. "We don’t expect you to understand who we are. But we ask you to hear us, and beyond that to listen to us when we tell you we will not be having our jobs taken away and given to robots. We will not have you take away our right to work and earn a decent living. And lastly, and most importantly, we will not allow you to take away our dignity."
----
Cranston said during his speech that the economic landscape of "our industry has changed exponentially."
"We are not in the same business model that we were even 10 years ago," Cranston said. "And yet, even though they admit that that is the truth in today's economy, they are fighting us tooth and nail to stick to the same economic system that is outmoded, outdated. They want us to step back in time. We cannot and we will not do that."
-
Heisenberg quotes Heisenberg. Well done!
-
Heisenberg quotes Heisenberg. Well done!
It's turtles all the way down
-
My wife is watching a 3-season series on Netflix that is awful. She concedes this point, and is just "trying to get to the end."
As I've suffered through this show playing in the living room, I have zero point zero zero doubt that it could be written equal to or better by our AI overlords.
-
My wife is watching a 3-season series on Netflix that is awful. She concedes this point, and is just "trying to get to the end."
As I've suffered through this show playing in the living room, I have zero point zero zero doubt that it could be written equal to or better by our AI overlords.
which series?
-
which series?
Sweet Magnolias, three godawful seasons.
-
So I should read reviews from the left wing morons who collect paychecks fighting a culture war?
The same ones that said Sound of Freedom is a Qnon conspiracy?
I know you’ll catch flack for this, but you’re not wrong. Even if I have my opinions on Sound of Freedom, your first statement reminds us that everyone has an agenda. It’s a matter of do we choose to let someone else craft our thoughts or do we put in the effort to craft our own.
Read both.
-
Barbenheimer has a stellar second weekend
https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/barbie-box-office-oppenheimer-second-weekend-records-1235681039/
-
Yep. Make good movies, and people will come back to the theaters.
My wife and I just saw and enjoyed Oppenheimer. Barbie is next.
-
So the last three years did not signal a post-pandemic shift away from going to a movie theatre and toward streaming on the big screen at home.
Instead, as you just said, it has been hundreds and hundreds of bad movies ... which ended ~10 days ago.
Got it
(PS The movie theatre industry is set to sell ~25% fewer tickets this year over 2019. Its revenue near records are thanks to inflation, as ticket prices are up ~25% since 2019)
---------
ADDED
Now nothing is getting made because Bryan Cranston is worried a robot is going to take his job. So, theatres better save their money as a "movie winter" is coming soon (unless you make the case the month-long strike is close to ending and does not drag on for many more months.)
-
Instead, as you just said, it has been hundreds and hundreds of bad movies ... which ended ~10 days ago.
Nobody said that.
In fact, I specifically said that the pandemic hit movie theaters harder than just about any business.
But I also said that one way back is to just make good movies that weren't reboots of over-done franchises. Like Oppenheimer and Barbie.
-
Classic Heisey
"When Barbenheimer flops, it'll prove Hollywood is doomed. "
<Barbenheimer has monster opening weekend >
"That opening weekend was a fluke and when they flop next week, it'll prove Hollywood is doomed."
<Barbenheimer has stellar second weekend >
"Movie theaters were hit hard by the pandemic Checkmate. Go circle jerk."
-
Classic Heisey
"When Barbenheimer flops, it'll prove Hollywood is doomed. "
<Barbenheimer has monster opening weekend >
"That opening weekend was a fluke and when they flop next week, it'll prove Hollywood is doomed."
<Barbenheimer has stellar second weekend >
"Movie theaters were hit hard by the pandemic Checkmate. Go circle jerk."
Maybe, just maybe, it’s always more nuanced than “thing X is doomed”
-
Maybe, just maybe, it’s always more nuanced than “thing X is doomed”
Spoken like a guy who's truly doomed.
-
July 27, 2023
AI in Hollywood Has Gone From Contract Sticking Point to Existential Crisis
As the strikes grind on, actors and writers are worried about technology encroaching on their jobs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-27/ai-use-in-movies-and-tv-looms-over-writers-and-actors-strike
Growing fear of AI has contributed to Hollywood’s biggest labor dispute in six decades, since the emergence of TV raised issues about who would get what cut of programming revenue. Both writers and actors are now on strike, shutting down hundreds of film and TV productions. While AI isn’t the most important issue in these labor negotiations—that would be money—the technology has turned a business dispute into an existential crisis. Creatives in the industry already say that they aren’t banking enough from streaming services and that technology companies exploit their labor. Now they fear AI will eliminate their jobs entirely, replacing their voices and faces with computer-generated renditions. AI is already being used to create marketing materials, eliminate swear words and reduce the cost of visual effects. It won’t be long before it might plausibly replace voice actors and extras. “It has the potential to impact our members’ lives so extensively,” says Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief negotiator for the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the union that represents performers.
-
AMC posts best admissions revenue week in its 103-year history.
https://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/amc-barbie-and-oppenheimer-drive-admissions-revenue-to-best-ever-week-3139441
-
AMC posts best admissions revenue week in its 103-year history.
https://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/amc-barbie-and-oppenheimer-drive-admissions-revenue-to-best-ever-week-3139441
Thank you inflation
-
Thank you inflation
Citation needed.
-
Der iz know inflation, aina?
-
The second story below says Disney spends $30+ billion yearly on content. Wow!!
The first story says Disney is pushing headlong into using AI.
Disney reports earnings this afternoon, so these numbers should be updated.
My bottom line.
Margo Robbie and Cillian Murphy are good at their craft. But they are expensive. There are an endless number of young talented actors behind them to replace them.
Studios have been doing this for years (finding cheaper unknown talent), which is why the stars are essentially gone. There are no new Cruise, Stallone, Hanks, Ford, or Streep anymore. You don't buy tickets due to the lead actor's name. If you do, it is for a 60- to 80-year-old actor that will soon be gone.
I do not see Robbie and Murphy as moving the needle on ticket sales. It is Chris Nolan and the marketing hype of Barbie that drove tickets. Robbie and Murphy could easily be replaced; these movies would have done the same.
Now Disney is going to replace the actors and writers with software. Hence the strike.
Essentially this is a strike of Hollywood against Disney as Iger is driving the move to AI.
This has every indication that it will go on for months, and by next summer, there will be no new content. Hence no new releases for theatres.
---------------------
August 8, 2023
Disney creates task force to explore AI and cut costs - sources
https://www.reuters.com/technology/disney-creates-task-force-explore-ai-cut-costs-sources-2023-08-08/
Walt Disney has created a task force to study artificial intelligence and how it can be applied across the entertainment conglomerate, even as Hollywood writers and actors battle to limit the industry's exploitation of the technology.
Launched earlier this year, before the Hollywood writers' strike, the group is looking to develop AI applications in-house as well as form partnerships with startups, three sources told Reuters.
One of the sources, an internal advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said legacy media companies like Disney must either figure out AI or risk obsolescence.
This supporter sees AI as one tool to help control the soaring costs of movie and television production, which can swell to $300 million for a major film release like "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" or "The Little Mermaid." Such budgets require equally massive box office returns simply to break even. Cost savings would be realized over time, the person said.
May 17, 2023
Disney Content Spending in 2023 May Be Lower Because of Writers Strike, CFO Says
Disney has pegged total cash content spending at around $30 billion for this year — but the ongoing Writers Guild of America strike may drive that down, CFO Christine McCarthy said.
-
The second story below says Disney spends $30+ billion yearly on content. Wow!!
The first story says Disney is pushing headlong into using AI.
Disney reports earnings this afternoon, so these numbers should be updated.
My bottom line.
Margo Robbie and Cillian Murphy are good at their craft. But they are expensive. There are an endless number of young talented actors behind them to replace them.
Studios have been doing this for years (finding cheaper unknown talent), which is why the stars are essentially gone. There are no new Cruise, Stallone, Hanks, Ford, or Streep anymore. You don't buy tickets due to the lead actor's name. If you do, it is for a 60- to 80-year-old actor that will soon be gone.
I do not see Robbie and Murphy as moving the needle on ticket sales. It is Chris Nolan and the marketing hype of Barbie that drove tickets. Robbie and Murphy could easily be replaced; these movies would have done the same.
Now Disney is going to replace the actors and writers with software. Hence the strike.
Essentially this is a strike of Hollywood against Disney as Iger is driving the move to AI.
This has every indication that it will go on for months, and by next summer, there will be no new content. Hence no new releases for theatres.
---------------------
August 8, 2023
Disney creates task force to explore AI and cut costs - sources
https://www.reuters.com/technology/disney-creates-task-force-explore-ai-cut-costs-sources-2023-08-08/
Walt Disney has created a task force to study artificial intelligence and how it can be applied across the entertainment conglomerate, even as Hollywood writers and actors battle to limit the industry's exploitation of the technology.
Launched earlier this year, before the Hollywood writers' strike, the group is looking to develop AI applications in-house as well as form partnerships with startups, three sources told Reuters.
One of the sources, an internal advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said legacy media companies like Disney must either figure out AI or risk obsolescence.
This supporter sees AI as one tool to help control the soaring costs of movie and television production, which can swell to $300 million for a major film release like "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" or "The Little Mermaid." Such budgets require equally massive box office returns simply to break even. Cost savings would be realized over time, the person said.
May 17, 2023
Disney Content Spending in 2023 May Be Lower Because of Writers Strike, CFO Says
Disney has pegged total cash content spending at around $30 billion for this year — but the ongoing Writers Guild of America strike may drive that down, CFO Christine McCarthy said.
Kind of, but not like you're suggesting.
People, studio and publishing executives in particular, seem hell bent on taking the wrong lessons from the hollywood and publishing successes and failures. One of those things that you're alluding to is the idea that the talent doesn't really matter. There's another pretty face, another musclebound dude, another brooding and mysterious type, and so on, and so on. Afterall, Hollywood has been minting new stars for ages, right?
Similarly, why did the Marvel Cinematic Universe "work" (at least up to Endgame)? There's a simple but not easy lesson (make good movies), but the one that the suits seem to have taken from it, which is "established IP, interconnected universe = $." But if that's the case why has every attempt to create another cinematic universe (the Monster-verse) failed? Why have revenues and reviews of all of the post-Endgame Marvel properties been worse than before?
The answer is that the talent is actually what matters. It doesn't need to be Cillian Murphy, but it does need to be an investment in all of the complicated human parts of creating cinema that is actually good. Christopher Nolan helms Oppenheimer and invests in a team of studs from writers to actors to VFX and more, and you get a good movie, and wonder of wonders, people pay to see it.
I haven't seen Barbie, everyone but the incel-adjacent Ben Shapiro (himself a very very bitter failed screenwriter) crowd seems to love it, and it does $1B at the box office. The takeaway is probably "hire very talented people to make a good movie and support it with marketing and get a little lucky too is the way to succeed" the suits' takeaway is "toy IP =$." I will be highly amused when Lena Dunham's Polly Pocket movie loses 9 figures.
The strikes fighting against AI are saving the suits from themselves. If the studios cram garbage AI writing and garbage AI acting into an IP vehicle, they will successfully cut costs, but those vehicles will fail comprehensively in every regard.
-
Here's a suggestion for how to make movies that make money that don't break the bank: try to hit some singles and see which ones get into the gap and let you grab extra bases. Do this with movies that do not mandate a 9 figure VFX spend.
Romantic comedies (non Hallmark Channel division) and adult comedies are good places to do this. The budget for "Old School" was $24M. That's peanuts. Not everything needs to be a blockbuster in production or in cost.
-
Here's a suggestion for how to make movies that make money that don't break the bank: try to hit some singles and see which ones get into the gap and let you grab extra bases. Do this with movies that do not mandate a 9 figure VFX spend.
Romantic comedies (non Hallmark Channel division) and adult comedies are good places to do this. The budget for "Old School" was $24M. That's peanuts. Not everything needs to be a blockbuster in production or in cost.
Dramas and comedies are cheaper because you do not have to blow up many expensive things.
-
Again, this is why the Hollywood strike will drag on and on .... streaming is too expensive. The costs (Hollywood) have to come down.
----
“... ‘A basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this autumn, compared with $73 a year ago .. The average cable TV package costs $83 a month.’ That’s a +19% increase.”
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3f5FnKXAAAj1-9?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Does anyone pay for Hulu and Disney Plus seperately? I get the Disney bundle for a lot less than those two together. Throw in the discount I get from AmEx and I'm paying less than what Disney+ costs by itself.
I also personally don't know anyone that owns all six of those streaming services. Theres also people like me who cycle through various streaming services so Im only paying for one at a time. I have the disney bundle year round and then a cycle between Max, AppleTV, and Netflix every 4 months.
Then there's even more people who share streaming logins between households. I know they are trying to crack down but its still rampant.
To be clear, I don't disagree that this is impacting the strike, it is. I just took issue with that graphic seeming to imply that cable was a cheaper option than streaming
-
Does anyone pay for Hulu and Disney Plus seperately? I get the Disney bundle for a lot less than those two together. Throw in the discount I get from AmEx and I'm paying less than what Disney+ costs by itself.
I also personally don't know anyone that owns all six of those streaming services. Theres also people like me who cycle through various streaming services so Im only paying for one at a time. I have the disney bundle year round and then a cycle between Max, AppleTV, and Netflix every 4 months.
Then there's even more people who share streaming logins between households. I know they are trying to crack down but its still rampant.
To be clear, I don't disagree that this is impacting the strike, it is. I just took issue with that graphic seeming to imply that cable was a cheaper option than streaming
I do similar to what you're doing. One has to stay on one's toes a little to make sure to remember to cancel after seeing the shows one wants to see, but it's worth doing it that way.
-
(So far) each year, Hulu has a Black Friday sale .. I think it was $2/month last time, so I signed up. I'll alternate email addresses to be considered "new" each time.
Paramount+ and Peacock had a $1 deal too.
If any of those deals don't appear this time around, I'll drop them. No need for all that media.
-
Does anyone pay for Hulu and Disney Plus seperately? I get the Disney bundle for a lot less than those two together. Throw in the discount I get from AmEx and I'm paying less than what Disney+ costs by itself.
I also personally don't know anyone that owns all six of those streaming services. Theres also people like me who cycle through various streaming services so Im only paying for one at a time. I have the disney bundle year round and then a cycle between Max, AppleTV, and Netflix every 4 months.
Then there's even more people who share streaming logins between households. I know they are trying to crack down but its still rampant.
To be clear, I don't disagree that this is impacting the strike, it is. I just took issue with that graphic seeming to imply that cable was a cheaper option than streaming
Are you not making the case that streaming is too expensive and costs have to come down?
-
Does anyone pay for Hulu and Disney Plus seperately? I get the Disney bundle for a lot less than those two together. Throw in the discount I get from AmEx and I'm paying less than what Disney+ costs by itself.
I also personally don't know anyone that owns all six of those streaming services. Theres also people like me who cycle through various streaming services so Im only paying for one at a time. I have the disney bundle year round and then a cycle between Max, AppleTV, and Netflix every 4 months.
Then there's even more people who share streaming logins between households. I know they are trying to crack down but its still rampant.
To be clear, I don't disagree that this is impacting the strike, it is. I just took issue with that graphic seeming to imply that cable was a cheaper option than streaming
Like most people I have the Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle
Netflix
Prime was the byproduct of free shipping on Amazon.
Max is free as part of my AT&T phone plan.
My wife got Apple+ thrown in as part of some Apple music subscription or something.
My kids got Peacock for something they wanted to watch over the summer, but will be canceled in September.
And I temporarily have Starz to watch Outlander but will drop after all episodes air. There was special price for the first 2 months also.
No other subscriptions.
Sounds typical and not paying those prices in the chart for a full year.
-
Are you not making the case that streaming is too expensive and costs have to come down?
No, I'm making the case the streaming is much less expensive than cable.
-
From the WSJ:
Get ready for streamflation.
The average cost of watching a major ad-free streaming service is going up by nearly 25% in about a year, according to a Journal analysis. Entertainment giants bet that customers will either pay up or switch to their cheaper and more-lucrative ad-supported plans. It’s not hard to see why: Streaming’s share of U.S. viewing time grew to a new high in July, while television viewing fell below 50% for the first time, according to new Nielsen data.
They included this graphic:
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.cmail20.com%2Fei%2Fd%2FAF%2F61A%2FC0D%2Fcsimport%2Fstreamflation.165054.png&t=1692140825&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1cf2-34023f015000&sig=lvCgw.haTHwJGS6jEFN5IQ--~D)
-
From the WSJ:
Get ready for streamflation.
The average cost of watching a major ad-free streaming service is going up by nearly 25% in about a year, according to a Journal analysis. Entertainment giants bet that customers will either pay up or switch to their cheaper and more-lucrative ad-supported plans. It’s not hard to see why: Streaming’s share of U.S. viewing time grew to a new high in July, while television viewing fell below 50% for the first time, according to new Nielsen data.
They included this graphic:
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.cmail20.com%2Fei%2Fd%2FAF%2F61A%2FC0D%2Fcsimport%2Fstreamflation.165054.png&t=1692140825&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1cf2-34023f015000&sig=lvCgw.haTHwJGS6jEFN5IQ--~D)
What needs to be added to all these is sports, especially ESPN.
Disney+, give you ESPN+, which is "the Ocho." It has tons of sports not on cable ESPN. You still need cable for ESPN for the major sports they carry.
But, as detailed on previous pages, ESPN is considering ditching cable for streaming. But that might be another $20 to $30 per month because of the huge broadcast rights fees.
Then add in Fox Sports and other sports-only streaming and this is getting really pricey.
And we see this above, as many are arbitraging streaming services by subscribing and unsubscribing several times a year to watch specific shows. This signals streaming costs too much and is not sustainable for the streaming services' long-term health.
Then add in the Hollywood strike, and things should be coming to an "infection point" soon.
-
Here's a suggestion for how to make movies that make money that don't break the bank: try to hit some singles and see which ones get into the gap and let you grab extra bases. Do this with movies that do not mandate a 9 figure VFX spend.
Romantic comedies (non Hallmark Channel division) and adult comedies are good places to do this. The budget for "Old School" was $24M. That's peanuts. Not everything needs to be a blockbuster in production or in cost.
Hit a single here, single there. Stretch one into a double. Is Buzz producing now?
-
Disney stock is getting smashed again today. It is now at $82, just above its $79 COVID panic low.
This is becoming a typical strike. Everyone loses. The "winners" are those that are "less worse" than others.
----
What's Going On With Disney Stock Today?
Ryan Gustafson
(Benzinga Newswire) The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) shares are trading lower Thursday amid overall market weakness. The stock has also been under pressure amid the SAG-AFTRA strike.
What To Know: The ongoing strike began after the SAG-AFTRA union was unable to reach an agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). In light of risks facing the industry, such as those from streaming services and artificial intelligence, the actors represented by the union are fighting for better pay and working conditions.
However, the strike has the potential to greatly disrupt the industry, stopping production worldwide and cutting off a large source of profits for studios, production companies, and streaming services. Many sets will close indefinitely, impacting release dates. Furthermore, actors not being allowed to promote new projects will greatly affect movie marketing strategies.
Disney stock has suffered as a result, with the stock trading at a nine-year low.
Shares of DIS were down 3.77% at $82.59 at the time of publication, according to Benzinga Pro.
-
Not to worry, the EXTREMELY likable Rachel Zegler is here to save the day for Disney!
(I'm actually a huge Disney fan, have Disney Junior on most of the day in the background of my household, can separate the absurdity of Disney Adults and nosebleed prices from the ability to actually really enjoy Disney parks...I don't care about woke aspects as much as needlessly butchering source material into a Frankenstein version of a movie for no reason. Little Mermaid was fine, but the new Snow White is beyond silly, at that point just make a new movie, don't be lazy like the rest of Hollywood, Disney is better than that. Oh and don't cast a sneering 22 year old who hates the source material and thinks shes smarter and more cultured than everyone else and can't help but share that in EVERY interview.
-
*AMAZON IN TALKS WITH DISNEY ABOUT ESPN STREAMING: INFORMATION
Amazon has had early talks with Disney about working on the streaming version of ESPN it is developing, said people familiar with the matter. The tech giant could offer the service through one of its streaming offerings, helping to expand its distribution, while possibly also taking a minority stake in ESPN.
Such an arrangement could shore up ESPN’s status as the biggest force in sports media, even as declining TV viewership and advertising, combined with rising sports programming costs, have squeezed the sports channel and Disney, its majority owner. It could also reposition the tech behemoth, which has been trying to make a dent in sports streaming, as more friend than foe to ESPN. And it could weaken the sports leagues’ bargaining power.
ESPN is considering charging between $20 and $35 a month for the new streaming service, said people familiar with the matter, a potential price range that could make it the most expensive streaming service in the U.S. and add pressure on already-stagnant growth in the streaming sector.
The new service would show the same marquee programming as ESPN's cable channel, unlike the existing ESPN+ streaming service which shows niche sports and which would likely be a part of the new offering. Executives at Disney and ESPN are still doing research to determine what sort of price makes the most sense for this new service, the people cautioned.
Amazon is one of a number of companies that have shown interest in an ESPN partnership, the people said. Verizon has also expressed interest in a distribution partnership, as The Information previously reported. Amazon didn't immediately have a comment.
Much is at stake for both Disney and the sports world. The future shape of ESPN could affect the value of sports leagues and teams and determine how fans can watch their favorite teams and athletes, according to conversations with nearly 30 current and former Disney and ESPN employees, sports leagues representatives, investors, bankers and tech executives. Disney CEO Bob Iger has said a streaming version of ESPN is inevitable but hasn’t set a date for the service’s launch. It would likely operate in parallel with the cable channel indefinitely.
ESPN’s survival as a profitable behemoth is vital for Disney. The sports network has been a major profit engine for the entertainment giant for many years, helping to fund its key acquisitions over the past two decades, Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm. But there are signs that ESPN’s financial contributions have been on the wane. Profits from Disney’s U.S. networks, which include ESPN as well as ABC and other cable channels, fell nearly 20% in the first three quarters of Disney’s fiscal year, which the company blamed on rising sports costs and declining cable subscribers. The picture is mixed, however. In the most recent quarter, Disney emphasized that ESPN’s TV ad revenue rose 4% as TV ratings improved.
Iger has said he is open to selling Disney’s traditional entertainment networks, such as ABC and FX. But he has made it clear that sports is key to Disney and he wants to retain control of the sports network.
It’s possible that Disney could strike multiple partnerships for ESPN, including with multiple sports leagues for content and a tech or telecom firm for distribution, the people said.
Just under 30% of the sports channel is up for grabs in the partnership discussions. Disney wants to retain control of the network, while existing 20% shareholder Hearst Corp. will keep its stake, people familiar with the matter said. A 30% stake in ESPN could be worth $9 billion, based on a valuation put on ESPN of between $25 billion and $35 billion by multiple current and former Disney and ESPN insiders. While Iger has said Disney doesn’t need a cash infusion, he hasn’t ruled out the idea of selling a stake for cash.
An equity stake in ESPN could be valuable for a number of different companies, said George Pyne, a sports media and technology investor and former NASCAR executive and director. The ESPN brand is “a point of differentiation and distinction” for streaming technology partners, he said.
Up for Grabs
Disney and ESPN have also been in early talks with sports leagues including the NFL, NBA and MLB about adding new content to the service. That would include live sports and original scripted and unscripted programming that ESPN does not currently have the rights to, said people familiar with the matter. The price for the service could rise above $35 if ESPN is able to add a significant amount of new content, they added.
The leagues are open to striking new content arrangements in exchange for equity in the business, the people said. But sports leagues are not likely to give ESPN a discount on existing and upcoming live sports rights, people familiar with the matter said. Those rights now cost Disney around $10 billion a year and the total cost will likely rise if Disney renews its rights to carry the NBA and college sports, as expected. To be sure, Iger has said Disney and ESPN will be more disciplined about the sports rights they compete for. As a sign of that, ESPN walked away from renewing its contract with the Big Ten, one of the top conferences in college sports, last year.
League executives say ESPN’s deteriorating TV economics aren’t their problem. They believe they can continue to increase the money they generate from licensing sports rights by striking deals with tech giants including Amazon, Apple and Google-owned YouTube, multiple sports league executives told The Information.
However, Disney and ESPN executives believe the sports network is in a better negotiating position than the leagues realize. The sports network could argue that it will soon have locked up all of the top-tier U.S. sports rights—namely, the NFL, the NBA and the college football playoffs—for years. ESPN’s current deal with the NFL, signed in 2021, runs through the next decade.
ESPN is very likely to retain rights to NBA games, which are currently up for renewal in an early, exclusive negotiating window, said people familiar with the matter. It also expects to retain rights to the college football playoffs, which will have new deals by 2026, people familiar with the matter said. ESPN believes if it gets all these deals, tech firms that want to expand their efforts in live sports may need to strike a deal with it or otherwise stick to smaller, niche sports.
Several tech firms, including Apple and Google's YouTube, have bought up rights to some sports. Amazon’s most notable live sports offering is the NFL’s “Thursday Night Football” package, which it has rights to for the next decade. Amazon is also broadcasting NBA games in Brazil and streams some New York Yankees games locally. Apple, meanwhile, has exclusive rights to all Major League Soccer matches along with some MLB regular-season games. And YouTube bought the rights to the NFL's Sunday Ticket.
So far, the tech firms haven’t made a huge impact on sports. Ratings for Amazon’s NFL Thursday night games last season were lower than when they were on traditional TV. Lately, tech firms have signaled they won’t be a pushover in negotiating for the leagues. Amazon’s global head of sports, Jay Marine, said on a recent press call regarding its upcoming season of the NFL’s “Thursday Night Football” that Amazon will be “aggressive, but we’ll also be rational” when it comes to future live sports deals.
Still, the tech firms remain interested in expanding in sports. Apple, for instance, has had conversations with the NBA about potentially creating a new streaming hub for live sports, said a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Apple declined to comment.
ESPN could be helpful to the tech firms’ own sports-streaming offerings, said one person familiar with the situation. For instance, in recent weeks Apple made a bid for the Pac-12 college football rights, valued at $23 million per year, said a person familiar with the matter. As part of its bid, Apple wanted the Pac-12 to produce the actual broadcasts, a similar arrangement to what it has with Major League Soccer, according to people familiar with the matter. ESPN has a production apparatus that could be useful to Apple, people said.
If Iger sells ABC, that could complicate ESPN’s ambitions to remain dominant in sports. The broadcast network still airs some NBA games, including the finals, and other live sports available through ESPN. Sports leagues still value the reach provided by ABC, which as a broadcast network can reach more people than cable.
In the NBA’s current early negotiations with ESPN on its next TV contracts, the league has emphasized that it wants more games to air on ABC, said people familiar with the matter. Other sports leagues have also indicated how much distribution on ABC in particular matters to them. But those requests could be difficult for Disney to meet if it sells ABC.
Iger acknowledged earlier this month that separating ABC from ESPN would be complicated. But it’s “nothing that we feel we can’t contend with if we were to ultimately create strategic alignment” in new deals for ESPN, he added.
-
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkaqvn/tim-ballards-departure-from-operation-underground-railroad-followed-sexual-misconduct-investigation
-
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkaqvn/tim-ballards-departure-from-operation-underground-railroad-followed-sexual-misconduct-investigation
fry-shocked-not-shocked.gif
-
https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-box-office-success-christopher-nolan-imax-413bc36ac6ae68f422c06c9b1cc0ab0a?user_email=6647dfa7189f748384d7389910f7b584c6fcfc35ae990102964c7e826d4175c7&utm_medium=Afternoon_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=AfternoonWire_Sept19_2023&utm_term=Afternoon%20Wire
Hopes were always high for Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer.” The studio knew the film was great, and commercial. But no one in the industry expected that a long, talky, R-rated drama released at the height of the summer movie season would earn over $900 million at the box office.
-
Oppenheimer was showing at a local theater for about 2 weeks and disappeared.
Tired of reading about box office revenue records, without the context of tickets sold.
In 20 years, Pee Wee's Big Adventure 2 will come out and make $900m, paying $50 a ticket.
-
Oppenheimer was showing at a local theater for about 2 weeks and disappeared.
Tired of reading about box office revenue records, without the context of tickets sold.
In 20 years, Pee Wee's Big Adventure 2 will come out and make $900m, paying $50 a ticket.
Sultan.
Pee Wee is dead. Hate to break the bad news to you.
-
Sultan.
Pee Wee is dead. Hate to break the bad news to you.
In 20 years all the movies will be done by AI holograms, so no worries.
-
Screenwriters reach deal with Hollywood studios, getting just about everything they wanted.
Actors are still on strike, though, so production still won't be up and running again.
-
Actors have settled. Like the writers, they got a very good contract.
The end of the writers' strike quickly led to the return of SNL, late night talk shows, etc. With the actors now also in the fold, production can resume on films, TV shows and other entertainment.
And here's something truly amazing ...
Hollywood hasn't "absolutely collapsed" yet.
-
Actors have settled. Like the writers, they got a very good contract.
The end of the writers' strike quickly led to the return of SNL, late night talk shows, etc. With the actors now also in the fold, production can resume on films, TV shows and other entertainment.
And here's something truly amazing ...
Hollywood hasn't "absolutely collapsed" yet.
It will because it’s woke
-
And doomed.
-
It will because it’s woke
Hypocritically woke serial sexual assaulters - but yeah.
-
Hypocritically woke serial sexual assaulters - but yeah.
A republican throwing the words “serial sexual assaulters” around made me chuckle.
-
Hypocritically woke serial sexual assaulters - but yeah.
We’re not taking about evangelicals
-
Plenty of inappropriateness to go around.
-
Hypocritically woke serial sexual assaulters - but yeah.
Sound of Freedom, aina?