Do you tell a painter that seeing a photo of their painting and seeing it in person is the same thing
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Denis Villeneuve on HBO Max move: "AT&T has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history"
- Thread starter Schlorgan
- Start date
Do you tell a painter that seeing a photo of their painting and seeing it in person is the same thing
I guess that Box Office Mojo just doesn't have the data for that film apparently for whatever reason. They have The 47th week of the 2020 BO vs the 2019 reflects a take of $9k vs $600k. I wonder if the box office reporting in general is just a mess in a lot of countries right now? As to that movie, my wife is very excited. She's a Fannibal who is Mads obsessed and helped arrange this watch party, lol.
Fair enough. I just don't see how me watching at home on a 120in screen in 7.1 while focused is less "in the image of the creator" than being in a theater with noisy teens and crying babies.
I roll my eyes at people who tell me I don't understand a musician because my headphones aren't $1,000s yes.
I would always say the correct course of action was for AT&T/WarnerMedia to renegotiate and adjust the compensation contracts for ALL its current Hollywood partners - and not just for the Wonder Woman 84 crew - to include BOTH cinema box office returns and HBO Max earnings and THEN make the announcement that their current slate of movies would be released simultaneously in both.
I don't think "consumer choice" or "sanctity of cinema" is the issue here at all because simultaneous release if implemented can cater to both. The only question is whether acting in bad faith towards their Hollywood partners is financially and legally worth it for AT&T/WarnerMedia.
I don't think "consumer choice" or "sanctity of cinema" is the issue here at all because simultaneous release if implemented can cater to both. The only question is whether acting in bad faith towards their Hollywood partners is financially and legally worth it for AT&T/WarnerMedia.
And honestly, sometimes art is subjective enough that the elitism of access is eye rolling worthy. This is a huge discussion in art communities. What constitutes a true artistic experience? Does the artist set the terms? Or does the viewer experience it on their terms despite the artists attempts? Intent of the creator isn't always the final word.
OP
OP
Paramount should seriously start talking to
Legendary, Nolan and Villeneuve. I'd honestly be surprised if they haven't started reaching out already.
Legendary, Nolan and Villeneuve. I'd honestly be surprised if they haven't started reaching out already.
OP
OP
This is the 💯 the real issue here. Thank you for expressing it so elegantly.
I don't know how much I'd spread blame out on this, tbh.
Ever since labor rights got blown up in the 70s, we've been heading in one direction and one direction only: corporate squeezes workers to get as much product for as little money as possible. Creative industries were doing better on that front due to strong unionization and the fundamental fact that if you screw over your artists you get shitty art in a way that isn't really true to the same extent of, say, manufacturing - you can set a procedure and get people to follow it exactly and so long as you do that, you'll have about the same quality of lugnut or whatever at the end of the day (though there's huge caveats there as well, naturally), but movies and writing doesn't work like that. Formula works until it doesn't, and you need to keep people happy to avoid ending up in a lurch. But ever since Google and Facebook kicked off the contraction of the internet and set the expected price of digital services at "free but ad supported," investors have been trying their damndest to get the effect to replicate over. As much content for as little money as possible. Look at what happened to Deadspin and news media generally - same shit. It's the core of the dynamics with Spotify, too. A lot of artists hate the service, but it's free, so people use it, which makes it incredibly hard to sell music directly (unless you're Mariah Carey or somebody), which gives Spotify more power to screw over artists.
What's unclear in all this is that it's actually necessary to survive, or if it's just investors feeling like dividends are more important than actual longterm success. Sure, there's some new business models that are extremely appealing, but it's not clear if they're actually sustainable without massively fucking over employees - or, in fact, sustainable. at all. To invoke the earlier examples, Spotify is still l, last I checked, losing money. Deadspin is functionally dead. But oh boy, investors sure do love moves like the ones they made. Investment market bears no relationship to reality anymore, which creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
So I don't think that this is "Corporate pushing boundaries to try and survive" vs. "artists struggling with change." I think it's just corporate fucks being corporate fucks. Maybe if there was some kind of history of them not being corporate fucks I'd be inclined to give them more of the benefit of the doubt, but like, the foundation of modern American business practices is "fuck over your workers as hard as you can so you can please your shareholders no matter what it does to the health of the company" so I really have no idea why anyone would assume anything else is happening here.
So a movie ticket is now a 1000k pair of headphones?
The reality is many film directors absolutely plan their shot composition based on a movie theater screen
That's their canvas.
This 100%. They should have negotiated "ok, this is what the movie probably would have made in theaters, this is the bonus you would have gotten because of that, this is what we'll pay you by putting it on HBO Max on launch day instead" and the business people, lawyers, etc negotiate the numbers until both sides agree.
Instead it just sounds like Warner did that for WW84, looked at the other 20 movies, and just said "ehh fuck it lets just announce, our lawyers will deal with the fallout".
In 3-4 years all this will be sort of moot as theaters are back to normal, HOWEVER the big change is that now EVERYONE - Disney, HBO/WB, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc - are far more invested and interested in feeding their subscribers content at a regular clip, and it doesn't have to be great, it just has to be new.
That is going to radically alter the TV/movie landscape, and I think these guys know it and don't like it. Which is completely understandable, consumers will basically have had 2 years of getting used to watching EVERYTHING at home and changing that inertia is going to be impossible.
Tenet actually got some high numbers in countries where theaters were open this summer, like having the best opening weekend for a Nolan movie in Netherlands. Thus beating The Dark Knight Rises.
It is more tricky to track because you don't find the same big movies now. And of course most weeks there is nothing new to go to the cinema. But there are other indications how fast people want to go back. See that sold out rugby match in NZ for instance. That was 70K people.
Last edited:
Already seeing actors backing this on social media. Time for industry talent to boycott warner.
The act of releasing a movie in theaters between now and this time next year is asking people to risk their health. There's no way around that. He could delay the movie again but then now the studio is losing money... plus if and when theaters do reopen, they're going to be CROWDED with new films. There are still millions without jobs, people aren't going to afford to see them all. Who is to say movie profits will ever return to normal?
Look, I have a lot of respect for Denis and a lot of other directors. My dream job is to direct something one day. But I'd never demand the only way to see this is in the cinema during a pandemic. Or harp that the best way to experience my movie is the theaters (cause I needs my points). These directors need to step outside of LA and see how shitty the movie going experience is for most people. Doing this would inform them it's not worth the risk and if given the option to stay home, people will take that.
I could go on and on about the theater experience in South Carolina. Most chains have: dim projectors, out of focus (they do nothing even if you complain), projector screens have holes, people on their phones, projector screens have marks and lines, low volume, and they love stuffing you in the smallest theater room if the movie you want to watch isn't made by Disney. And yet, ticket prices were going up damn near every 6 months. These things force me to go to IMAX/LieMAX... they're the only ones who give a shit.
Nope. That's not what I said. Arguing there is only "one true way" to experience art, is eye rolling to me. Access to the theater experience is, thankfully, more than expensive headphones. Of course directors choose to paint their canvas on a theater experience, but they, ultimately, can only suggest the best experience in their mind. Art is then consumed in multiple ways and the effect on people and culture is varied.
When people gatekeep art experience I roll my eyes. It, frankly, just doesn't matter that much what people SHOULD do. If people appreciate it through another medium, let them, no one needs to tell them they aren't really enjoying it because they didn't do it the "right" way. There will always be better ways they aren't doing, always be preferences, always be shitty theater experience and amazing at home viewing experiences. It's all nuanced.
But we are already talking about October 2021 in the case of Dune. And the studio is losing money anyway, Warner has announced nothing in regards to compensating Legendary.
Again, I really don't understand this defensiveness. I watch movies at home all the time. But I also can recognize that the best version of the film would be in a theater. The Dark Knight looks great on my TV. It would look better on an IMAX, especially the scenes specially shot for the format.
Two points:
Denis Villenueve has already stated this is about the integrity of cinema, not as much about money. I think he is full of it.
It is about consumer choice. Only enthusiasts care about the details of these backroom deals. The majority of people just want to watch Day 1 at home. That pandoras box has been opened and it will happen eventually. It will be up to them to decide how to split up the pie, and we don't really care how it works out or if directors are peeved about it or whatever.
Not one true
But an artist saying to fully experience it see it on the canvas I designed it around is factual.
Interstellar is made for IMAX, that is the best way to experience it.
This weird shitting on artists who love the cinema is really weird
Where am I shitting on artist or people who love the cinema? I said that's a great way to experience it for some?
I just said stop gatekeeping art.
And no, an artist asking to fully experience it on the canvas is the INTENT of the art created, it is not the final word on how the art is received and interpreted.
The other big Mads Mikkelsen release of the autumn (and the one I'm looking forward to more) Anders Thomas Jensen's Riders of Justice was also at impressive 336 000 tickets sold just two weeks after release. The Danish sure love Mads Mikkelsen.
In general, Denmark's box office is a weird anomaly among European and even Nordic countries. In my country (Finland), the highest grossing post-COVID-19 release is Tenet which is only at 181 000 tickets sold (which would make it the 11th most popular film of 2019 for example). That is still far from catastrophic: it's more than Spiderman's or Captain Marvel's total in 2019.
This absolutely matters to consumers even if there's not a need for a detailed awareness; the financial feasibility of a streaming-centric future will put caps on budget maximums and/or a minimum on subscription costs unless the company is willing to take it as a loss-leader to support other revenue streams.
The 'backroom deals' and distribution channel has significant implications on what sort of content people can consume.
I'm thinking about films like Moonlight and the Florida Project or Ladybird and I wouldn't describe them as having "spectacle" at least. But I guess it depends on your definition.
Who is actually gatekeeping though.
These artists are just commenting on their love for the cinema and how their work is designed for it.
Nobody knows what October 21 is going to look like. Nobody. All of this pandemic shit is new.
Yes, AT&T/WB should have handled this better with their talent, but there's no magic promise that everything will be back to normal by October.
No matter how or when Dune is released, SOMEONE was losing money. Either way, consumers will go for the path of least resistance.
I like artists and its very cool they love cinema. That doesn't mean I should support a format which costs me extra money, time, and convenience.
A streaming-centric future is a certainty, end of story. If media companies want to keep profits they will come up with a format that will cater to consumers who want access to stream films day 1. If they can't come up with a format that provides the needed convenience and value to the consumer, someone else will step in and do it for them. That is how it has worked since the beginning and we have always had good movies being made regardless. If movies that cost hundreds of millions to be made are not sustainable unless people are forced into a theatre, then maybe they should die.
Saying the only "true" way to experience the art is in theaters is gatekeeping. Especially when you factor in how shitty a lot of theaters are for a huge amount of the population and how limited access is for some.
It's fine that they designed the movie with that in mind, but to tell people they aren't appreciating the art or the artist because they don't view it in the most perfect of spaces is gatekeeping. It assumes so many things and places oneself in a position of telling others to rise up to a specific standard of consumption or they aren't worthy of the conversation.
Dune is alot of things, but there's nothing cookie-cutter about it's handling of chosen one tropes and very little cookie-cutter about it in general.
This depends on what customers want. You're coming at this with a supposition but trying to portray it as a clear-cut fact.
If customers value large-budget style-productions then streaming by its nature cannot be the future of those movies and there will be continue to be a theatre presence. If studios want to continue generating the same sort of revenue, they cannot revert to a streaming future and won't support it to try and force the existence of theatres (unless studios invest in their own digital channels and charge per movie). If customers place more value on the convenience of streaming and a variety of lower to medium budget content, then streaming will continue and theatres won't be sustainable.
I don't think anybody knows which of the two exactly has a larger draw, nor do I think it's something that consumers in general are aware they're actually choosing between.
This is nonsense. It's not gatekeeping to acknowledge that if a movie was made for theaters, that a theater is the best way to watch it.
You seem to be taking this personally, or expecting people to take this personally, and for the life of me I can't understand why. Do some of you tie your sense of self to your home theater set ups or something? Is that why folks in these threads are always rattling off the specs of the shit in their living rooms?
I think this is bang on. No one really knows what's going to happen, but things are definitely changing.
One thing I will say though, is to not bet on trying to convince consumers that they NEED to go to theaters to keep blockbusters happening. Time and time again has shown that consumers (en masse) will always choose the cheapest, simplest option, despite the sustainability of the industry. Of course their will always be people who really want to take a deep dive into it, but the general population is ok with streaming iTunes on the included headphones, watching some of the blockbusters on an airplane, and hanging up art printed on their $100 home printer.
Very few actually say it that way.
They express that their art is designed to be seen that way.
So essentially what you are saying is that models like Game Pass will result in gamers playing mediocre to bad games because the revenue has changed and the content creators cannot adapt. Also that companies like Netflix and Tesla (which are considered to be the among the most innovative companies in the world) will not be able to provide value because they front loaded their businesses and they will have to start making up for their losses by overcharging the customer?
I'm not taking it personally at all. I don't care all that much frankly. If you want to project that onto me you are free to do so though. It doesn't effect my life one bit.
I'm not even that much of a home theater geek, I have a nice, but simple setup that most people on any AV forum would consider "basic" and I would be told it's too entry.
But you're really fishing for something to insult me with personally, some of you on this forum really can't get away from personally attacking people with different opinions than you. But if you want to dismiss my post as "nonsense" go ahead.
I never said there wasn't a "best" way to view it. I said to tell people that their viewing method of choice isn't "good enough" to appreciate it is gatekeeping. To tell people that aren't "true" appreciators of the art if they don't view it in theaters is gatekeeping. That's it.
Uhhh ok?
Doesn't mean they should cater the release of movies to you.
OP
OP
I think it would be hilarious if because of this, Paramount swooped in and took Legendary, Nolan and Villeneuve from WB.
WB is not in for a huge financial hit with dune, legendary bankrolled 75% of the budget. They are doing this to boost HBO max, acting as if that is not their main goal with this is being ridiculous.
No artist is required to cater to anyone.
No consumer is required to cater to anyone.
Wherever sustainability for those two realities to exist is what it is.
Their the ones saying not giving them day 1 streaming is anti-consumer
Well I definitely think your post was nonsense, but trust that I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely just don't understand how anyone could say that acknowledging that a theater is the ideal format to watch something made for a theater, is gatekeeping, or treat it as an attack on people who prefer to watch at home.
I don't understand this sentence structure. Can you rephrase?
Half of this thread is acting like the current theatrical window model is anti-consumer. It's not.
Is this a joke?
Shot composition designed to be seen on a large screen where the subtleties the mis en scene are on full display, these fine details get muddied snd blurred on small screens.
Surround Sound design far above 5.1 or 7.1 that gets flattened to stereo in headphones on a phone.
This is such an absurd question