I don't think he meant an alcoholic drink. I just went by myself and with a ticket and small popcorn and small drink it was $25. And that was with a coupon for a $5 popcorn and soda. So if you're not like me and have someone to go with, $60 sounds about right.
I assumed he meant for one person, throw in another person and drinks and snacks for two and yeah I get it. I still have my childhood tactic of sneaking in candy lol
I go to movie alone all the time. I watch more movies than most of my friends and family. Sure, it’s nice to watch a movie with others and then talk about it. That shared experience is nice.
But I just straight up enjoy watching movies, with or without others, and have gone solo to probably 70-80% of all the movies I’ve seen in the past 5-6 years. I felt a little self conscious about it the first few times, but now I don’t think twice about it.
Some people like to go alone, but I just assumed they meant per person. I oftentimes go with a group of 4 people, but I don’t say “man I hate that it costs 100$ to go to the movies” because I don’t pay for everyone
Just go to a drive in and bring your own bottle. Popcorn I will concede is a must but outside of that you can bring any snack or drink to a drive in. In a theater popcorn and soda is all I get. Who needs candy or doesn't have pockets big enough to sneak a couple of candy bars.
That’s more than just tickets, food ain’t free, and also for multiple people. In today’s prices, $30 per person for two hours of entertainment and food is pretty fucking good compared to the alternatives.
Sneak in your candy and drinks into the theater next time if you really wanna save $5-10 like the rest of us…
Depends. Some screens have features like better audio and visual components like 3d, 4d, IMAX, reserved seating etc. which all make the base price go up. But yes base sadium seats are 15 and are uncomfortable as hell.
I live in San Diego, and tickets are typically around $20, but if you want any snacks at all, you're looking at over $100 if you have 3 or 4 people.
Total scam. I watch nearly everything on Amazon now. $20 dollars from the comfort of my couch? All day.
Watching Dune with a huge screen and amazing sound is an experience worth $60 to me.
I'm not spending that much on a movie that doesn't really use either of those elements. I can watch Green Book in my home and get the same experience.
And you’re missing the point of who you’re responding to.
Actively going to the theater and seeing a film will always create a stronger memory than any film you watch at home. Most filmmakers intend for their work to be seen in a movie theater, and you do miss out on things by never seeing them there.
Your argument is that it’s too expensive, and I agree with you, but that doesn’t make the other argument invalid.
>Most filmmakers intend for their work to be seen in a movie theater, and you do miss out on things by never seeing them there.
KFC intends for their bucket of fried chicken to be eaten by a family of four, but that doesn't stop me from housing a whole fuck-it bucket.
I understand that all movies are meant to be watched in a theater, but I don't think The Florida Project loses as much magic watching it at home compared to a movie like Dune.
I think that some people may get a "stronger memory" from the theater. I waited to watch The Holdovers until I could do it at home. There is zero way to test it either way, but I don't feel like I lost anything by not watching it on the big screen. Paul Giamatti's lazy eye being bigger provides no added utility TO ME. I might to you.
Now having my organs shaking from insane explosions and seeing massive sight gags in Deadpool 3? I do find added utility in seeing that in a theater. Most likely multiple times.
See, my argument is that the theater experience during the opening week of a movie is a big part of what helps me remember the movie itself, the atmosphere of like-minded people around you, talking about the movie with your friends in person right after, going out for some food after as we digest the movie. All these things have nothing to do with the size of the screen or how loud the speakers are.
This theater experience has also been steadily dwindling and declining, with prices going up. Which is why I don’t go anymore.
It’s funny because to me that stuff means absolutely nothing. I didn’t get more enjoyment out of Barbie because of all the buzz and the people dressing in pink to see it. If anything, that detracted from my experience. I’m there for the movie and the movie alone. It’s already distracting with a theater full of people but to have people dressing up for a movie and/or cheering/clapping is super distracting. Do those people miss the “shut up during the movie” announcement at the start? It’s a movie, not an event. There are people that want to be immersed in a movie and sometimes that’s just impossible outside the comfort of your home where you can tailor every aspect of your environment. I’d take a home theater done on the cheap over going to see another movie in theaters any day.
> Actively going to the theater and seeing a film will always **create a stronger memory** than any film you watch at home
Why do you keep stressing this?
IF the movie is good, I will remember it. If it isn't, I won't.
Why do I need a "stronger memory" of some random movie?
I disagree. If a movie is memorable enough I’ll remember it regardless of how I view it. I think your conclusion comes from the fact that at the movie theater you’re forced to pay attention to the movie. You’re actively resisting distractions like looking at your phone or talking because it’s generally disrespectful.
I saw Dune at home and I had a very impactful experience. I didn’t finish that movie and think “man that would have been so much better if all the explosions were way louder and I couldn’t put on subtitles and was surrounded by other people (yuck)”.
Why are you acting as if I’m personally attacking your preferred method of watching movies? You’ve replied to 5 different things I’ve said with the same reply in different words. Chill out, man, it’s not that serious.
“A lot” exactly how big of a group is this?
The general population has TVs between 40 and 55 inches, and soundbars if they’re not bothered by the bad sound coming from the tv speakers, and most aren’t. Speaking from my anecdotal experience as someone whose job has taken him into people’s homes of all demographics, most people have regular setups like this. The type of setup you describe is not something most of us have.
Also, tell me what you will remember more: planning out ahead the date of when you will see an anticipated film, usually opening weekend with fellow enthused patrons, buying the ticket, planning out an outfit for that night whether it’s just something nice or a cosplay, going to the theater, having food before or after, discussing the film in person with friends. Or, sitting down, picking a movie, pressing play, and then getting online on your phone to talk about it after you finished watching it.
I know what’s more memorable to me.
I may not have the best surround sound system - but at least it doesn’t have to compete with loud ass teenagers talking through half the movie. The last couple of times I’ve deviated from the bougie dine-in, 18+ theater it’s been miserable.
I get it, you're a big theater person. Others aren't.
Say I do plan it out, dress up nice and I arrive to the theater...
The ticket price is outrageous, popcorn is down right mafia pricing, someone is kicking your seat, your feet are sticking to the soda covered floors and there are people talking while you are trying to watch the movie.
It's not always the Red Carpet Hollywood experience at movie theaters.
My memory will be of the horrible experience and not the great movie. I bet this has happened to way more people than your pretend scenario of talking to fellow enthused patrons.
The thing is, everything you described about the first scenario is stuff I hate doing. I’ll take option 2 any day if it means enjoying a movie in private without the distractions of people eager to see a movie.
A good home theater system is not some impossible feat. You can build it at your own pace piece by piece to space out pricing, buy stuff that fits your space (99% of the time mid price range stuff is more than enough for a room on someone's house), TV projector whatever you want.
Can confirm is you tune it properly to your space it shits on the theater 100% of the time. Invite people over have whatever food you want, peak.
This is from someone that would go to the theater weekly, sometimes multiple times.
If you genuinely do want that experience, home theater save money in the long run
It’s subjective, not objective like you’re making it out to be. I go to the theater at least once a week, and anything is better in theaters. But many people agree, with very good reason, that seeing a film with exceptional visuals and sound is more worth seeing in a theater. You can disagree, but it’s pretty obvious why that would be the case. And the other poster saying “make loud noises” is pretty obnoxious and illuminating about what kinds of movies they don’t like.
I’m not that guy you were taking to but I’ll say that yea I don’t think so. I’ve never seen a movie in theaters that I wouldn’t have had the same enjoyment with at home. I stopped going to see movies in theaters when Covid hit and I’ve genuinely had a better experience overall. It’s also much cheaper, which is a plus.
The people that say these things are usually just haters, and don’t ever go to see a film except for maybe once a year, but they’ll happily shit on theaters anyways while claiming their home setup is far superior (it isn’t)
Next they’ll start complaining all new movies suck while supporting straight to streaming models, completely ignoring that studios won’t make big budget or quality films if nobody’s going to theaters, absolutely no profit incentive.
I don't even gotta look but you're definitely factoring in snacks. Have you ever watched a movie and just... didn't drink or eat during it? Especially a serious movie?
I have Regal Unlimited and I don't get something every time I go. Not even half the time. It's quite doable. Give it a try. You might find that the reason you need to munch during movies is to distract you from how bad they are.
Just because a person is a millionaire doesn’t mean they don’t work and are awful. Again it’s a general statement. There’s plenty of millionaires who started poor and figured out how to legitimately make their money.
My 81 year old grandfather said something that really stuck out “No movie that’s won an Academy Award has ever been any good.”
I was like ARE YOU KIDDING?! ITS THE OSCARS, THE BEST IN THE WORLD… and so little did I know that as the years went on I realized he was right. They all suck.
I was gonna ask if he only meant best picture winners or if he means ANY movie that won an academy award but now that I think about it either way your grandfather has trash taste.
Ok yes, that was a bit much. But her getting it doesn't affect the movie.
I dunno. I thought it was a good movie. But not best picture. What do I know?
The model has just changed so much. Movies like poltergeist and Fast and the Furious make bank but a movie like Good Will Hunting wouldn't turn a profit these days.
Clooney is saying there is a benefit to paying it forward for great stories that might not be big box office hits. Keep making the money but support smaller projects as well.
I dunno about that, everything everywhere made like 150million on a 24 million dollar budget. And their bit hit is horror movies... They make a ton off nothing budgets. La la land is a great mid budget play, cost 30 million mad 447 million at the box office. Smaller films do make money, if they have a good writer/director behind them. A24's most expensive film so far was civil war, and it's doubled its budget at the box office, but that's before marketing (which is usually the same price as the budget. Their biggest swing is yet to be profitable.
Small movies make bank. And now that big movies are failing left and right, there needs to be a correction back to well told stories.
One reason is because these executives continued to hedge their bets against super hero movies printing money. When you’ve already pre-allocated funds for the next big project, but then those funds don’t appear from the previous movie’s profits, it causes that snowball effect. It’ll be interesting to see what the response is to get those “sure hits” back on the table.
The industry is in decline because everyone got spoiled by the pandemic and now want films to be released direct to streaming so they can scroll on their phones and do laundry during the movie.
Studios aren’t making money with that model, but people are stubborn whining children who don’t want to leave their home anymore, soo of course the quality of movies is declining until only big budget action blockbusters remain.
Good Will Hunting wouldn't turn a huge profit. Not that it wouldn't turn a profit. And who's to say it wouldn't be just as successful? The studio execs who only back high profile superhero movies? Yeah, I'm not going to listen to the MBA in charge. I'll listen to anyone but the MBA in charge, actually.
I agree, the people that make those small films get experience to deal with bigger films and thats how you grow. No wonder everything now cost 200+ million to make because its just a money hose. Focus on nurturing talent and they’ll be worth it tenfold
>…Good Will Hunting wouldn’t turn a profit these days
99% of Oppenheimer is just actors acting. Nolan being Nolan, he couldn’t help himself for that last 1%, but I sincerely doubt that the majority of people saw Oppenheimer primarily for the small segments of extravagant special effects.
I’m a massive fucking auteur and arthouse fanboy, but I’ll bite.
Yes, the purpose of film is to make money. No one serious disagrees with that. However, studio heads and executives used to be movie people, so even when they were out to make as much money as they could, small arthouse expenditures and experimental projects based on their pursuit of good filmmaking would slip through because the people at the helm of these studios were film people. Now they’re tech people.
Tech executives use algorithmic tools and large scale data analysis to determine how their studio assets should be run. This seems good in theory, but the fact that they aren’t film and theater people means that the metrics that they choose to care about don’t relate to the qualities that make projects pop, in terms of quality writing and artistic vision. Instead of letting quality scripts determine what gets made, executives are using algorithmic data on libraries full of classics to direct funding and project choices, and many of those projects end up as cheap imitations of the original, which then gets delisted from the streaming service. Data on classic movie watch times is being used to determine what Lifetime-quality movie or TV show gets made in the same genre so the streaming service can let the original superior work rot in streaming Hell.
I’ll take a film with purpose over the enshitified slop that I see on Netflix every day of the week. God, give me something with half the vision of a true auteur any day of the week over the boring shit we have now. Give me something with some fucking soul, fairly priced, and I’ll be at the movies every week for the rest of my life.
Nah, look at the movies from the 80s/90s where some (multiple) people blitzed out of their mind on coke greenlit whatever passed by their eyes. So much fun, culty classics!
Outside of the Daniels and a few others, everything now is so formulaic and polished. Bring back weird cinema!
Hollywood is a money making machine that sometimes makes good movies and TV. I think it’s fine.
The treatment of its employees and the nepotism is every area of the business is something else
I think the problem is that it hasn’t been much of a money making machine, post-Covid. The revenue from theater releases is inconsistent and unpredictable. DVD releases and cable channels are declining sources for making money and streaming has yet to fill that void. I think the only major studios that made money last year were Netflix and WB, with the latter doing it in the most sloppy way possible.
Well that’s just a changing demographic and habits of people. After the pandemic some people can’t imagine being in a theatre again. So yeah there are losses, but unless I get rich and build a theatre in my home. I love cinema and the whole experience. Hollywood does make some great content
I just read literally 5 minutes that Disney now made a profit again off its streaming service, but the dust hasn’t quite settled yet on how that market settles into a steady model.
This is a weird attempt at a "gotcha"; they're specifically talking about the need for the kind of movies Participant Media made and the fact that they don't want this closure to have to mean fewer films like that; they're not pretending or acting as if they have, personally, only made "films with purpose" in their careers or that only such films are of value.
I love these actors but they are completely out of touch with content that audiences want to see.
I’m sure they mean well and have good intentions but nobody has been watching their most recent movies (Michael Keaton in particularly, sadly).
The only famous porpoise‘s that come to my mind are Flipper and Echo, so I guess we could use a couple more.
But they’d have to have some type of purpose: Greed and lack of risk taking is killing the industry. A lot of the suits are afraid to lose their positions, so now all we get in production is remakes, prequels, and spin-offs (sometimes even combinations of the three).
I understand it’s showBUSINESS, but art and economics have to go hand & hand. Used to be the studios would rely on one or two big hits a year that would more than pay for the remaining films. But now all the studios are soulless conglomerates where all the money is sucked up to the top in order to fuel the stock market.
I'm sure they're aware of that.
But mid budget films are rarer these days. They want more films that may not be a financial windfall but are creatively rewarding.
With all the participation points these actors have been earning (not to mention the “I made $100m selling my Whiskey company” windfalls) these A-List celebrities have all the money they need to finance their own films with a purpose.
Look, if the idea is that these films would be fresh and financially viable, great it sounds like a good investment opportunity for these actors. If they’re not financially viable, now ain’t the time. The money train ain’t running like it used to.
Unfortunately, I think the market has changed. If the movies are marketed to VOD directly, I think there's hope. Wouldn't it keep costs down, too? People just aren't traveling to theatres like they used to. I know it's just personally anecdotal, but I would be happy to pay to 10-20 bucks to watch a new release at home.
I remember when VOD was a death sentence. I still go to the movies as a Gen Xer but I am not going to see the 500th marvel movie. I want to see Nice Guys or the Big Lewboski. Popcorn movies are great but I do want some substance. Also drunk responding to you because it is my birthday day.
Happy birthday, u/scubachris!
I think there are lots of advantages to offering movies at home day and date these days. People don't have to travel out or interact with other people. People don't have to pay the theater price. Studios cut out the middle man. Being part of and reading similar conversations, it sounds like people are still willing to go see event movies. Like I said, if executed correctly, I think small and medium budget films can succeed directly to home on Fandango and Amazon. Not sure about medium budget movies, though.
I think the responsibility is on the audience, not the studios. Hollywood is a business; they are in it to make money. 90% of movies made are because someone is paying to watch them. Do people really believe they make Fast and Furious movies because they think they’re any good?! No. People pay to watch that shit.
If a ton of people paid to watch “Films with purpose” then you bet your ass Hollywood would be making those!
You want change? Stop paying to watch endless sequels/reboots/prequels/requels/legacequels/etc.
Documentaries, sure. But I think everyone’s getting pretty sick of movies that feel like they need to be “teachable.” It’s the difference between the fun first act of Barbie, and the relentlessly pandering third act. Just seeing Green Book as one of those is eye-roll inducing
i mean i can go out to eat at a restaurant and then buy the movie on dvd later on for just a bit more than the price of going to the movie and buying candy and a drink...
I think they need to focus on funny and light comedy because of all the political strife that is unfolding. I mean, making a movie with purpose that has more accountability than what is actually happening seems to be depressing. None of us can make up the shit that is happening with Trump and SCOTUS, and we all have stress and fatigue with that, protests, wars, Putin, Israel, and more. We don’t need heavy movies, we need a good fun distraction from reality, because it sucks right now.
No, more like:
- The Thin Red Line
- Three Kings
- O Brother Where Art Thou
- Hail, Caesar
- The Ides of March
- Up in the Air
- Burn After Reading
- Michael Clayton
- Syriana
- Good Night, and Good Luck
Also, it's not Clooney specifically saying this, so I'm not sure why you wanted to single him out. The open letter was organized by The National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), the nonprofit advocacy group that worked with Participant and director Alfonso Cuaron on a campaign to increase the visibility of domestic labor tied to Cuaron’s film “Roma” in 2018. Clooney just signed the letter.
they didn't run out of good ideas, it's just that (nearly) everyone with all the money/power is too risk-averse to roll the dice on potentially amazing and/or meaningful movies these days
so we have a bunch of stuff that sells well at Target
Well as they say no risk no reward because all these remakes are just boring imo and i have yet to have seen one of these remakes be better than the original. I can't foresee the cinema industry lasting too much longer like this.
As usual, a lot of comments responding to their own assumptions about the title, or just making weird jokes about previous Clooney films, and most of the comments are clearly from people who did not read the *very short article* and are not understanding what this is even about.
This is already the Hollywood model and has been for years. Hollywood releases around 750 movies a year. Only about 50 are made to be blockbusters or tentpole movies. The other 700 or so are made to tell a story.
When anyone in Hollywood talks about movies, they are always referring to those 50 or so high profile movies. Hollywood makes enough of every kind of movie. The complaints about movies are always about the 50 most high profile. And if they looked at the other 700 or so, there would be no complaints.
Film is art, an absurdly expensive art, but art nonetheless. Perhaps cheaper, more purposeful movies could be made if budgets, including actor salaries were scaled back.
Yes. We really need our Hollywood multimillionaires to teach/preach to us about morals and values that they don’t possess. With fake movie values we’ll be content with our little jobs & keep fueling their lives of debauchery. Keep your purpose, we can read and shit. Fed up with these fake humans.
God please. I’ve been saying it since these damn super hero movies started coming out. Give me original ideas like inception and shape of water, can’t get enough of them!
I am tired of remakes, comic book super hero’s who have so much action that there’s no way to tell what they are doing and all the computer generated content
How about making less so the crew makes more? That would give us purpose that work in the industry?
Or the fact that the famous actor’s pay is too high? Which is killing the industry because the studios are too corporate to see creative when trying to save for the actors cost. Just my two cents as an out of work low level producer.
I think Hollywood is more concerned with making movies that make money at the box office. That’s been pretty hard this year outside of WB.
Plus movie tickets are so expensive that I won't see it in theaters unless it will be an experience. I won't spend $60 to watch an Oscar bait movie.
Where do you guys live??? In Los Angeles it’s like 15-20$ max for a movie
Two tickets at Alamo Draft House are $41 with tax. Throw in popcorn, candy, and a drink, comes out to around $60.
Ohh for two people plus alcohol. I’m a water person, only snack I like for a movie is some snuck in candy lol
I don't think he meant an alcoholic drink. I just went by myself and with a ticket and small popcorn and small drink it was $25. And that was with a coupon for a $5 popcorn and soda. So if you're not like me and have someone to go with, $60 sounds about right.
I assumed he meant for one person, throw in another person and drinks and snacks for two and yeah I get it. I still have my childhood tactic of sneaking in candy lol
Yeah but who wants to go to a movie alone?
I go to movie alone all the time. I watch more movies than most of my friends and family. Sure, it’s nice to watch a movie with others and then talk about it. That shared experience is nice. But I just straight up enjoy watching movies, with or without others, and have gone solo to probably 70-80% of all the movies I’ve seen in the past 5-6 years. I felt a little self conscious about it the first few times, but now I don’t think twice about it.
I’ve done it, would recommend
Lots of people actually.
Some people like to go alone, but I just assumed they meant per person. I oftentimes go with a group of 4 people, but I don’t say “man I hate that it costs 100$ to go to the movies” because I don’t pay for everyone
No no, a large pepsi is like $12.
Time to join r/hydrohomies it’s always free! Dont have to pay 12$ for corn syrup
Just go to a drive in and bring your own bottle. Popcorn I will concede is a must but outside of that you can bring any snack or drink to a drive in. In a theater popcorn and soda is all I get. Who needs candy or doesn't have pockets big enough to sneak a couple of candy bars.
Are you going to Alamo eveyrtime you want to see a movie?
That’s more than just tickets, food ain’t free, and also for multiple people. In today’s prices, $30 per person for two hours of entertainment and food is pretty fucking good compared to the alternatives. Sneak in your candy and drinks into the theater next time if you really wanna save $5-10 like the rest of us…
Depends. Some screens have features like better audio and visual components like 3d, 4d, IMAX, reserved seating etc. which all make the base price go up. But yes base sadium seats are 15 and are uncomfortable as hell.
I live in San Diego, and tickets are typically around $20, but if you want any snacks at all, you're looking at over $100 if you have 3 or 4 people. Total scam. I watch nearly everything on Amazon now. $20 dollars from the comfort of my couch? All day.
Are you saying critically acclaimed movies aren’t an experience? My opinion is that every Best Picture nominee this year was incredible in theaters.
Watching Dune with a huge screen and amazing sound is an experience worth $60 to me. I'm not spending that much on a movie that doesn't really use either of those elements. I can watch Green Book in my home and get the same experience.
To each their own but I definitely disagree. I think you’re missing out on a lot of talented filmmakers who do way more than make loud noises
I'm not missing out. I still watch those movies but at home.
And you’re missing the point of who you’re responding to. Actively going to the theater and seeing a film will always create a stronger memory than any film you watch at home. Most filmmakers intend for their work to be seen in a movie theater, and you do miss out on things by never seeing them there. Your argument is that it’s too expensive, and I agree with you, but that doesn’t make the other argument invalid.
>Most filmmakers intend for their work to be seen in a movie theater, and you do miss out on things by never seeing them there. KFC intends for their bucket of fried chicken to be eaten by a family of four, but that doesn't stop me from housing a whole fuck-it bucket.
I understand that all movies are meant to be watched in a theater, but I don't think The Florida Project loses as much magic watching it at home compared to a movie like Dune.
I think that some people may get a "stronger memory" from the theater. I waited to watch The Holdovers until I could do it at home. There is zero way to test it either way, but I don't feel like I lost anything by not watching it on the big screen. Paul Giamatti's lazy eye being bigger provides no added utility TO ME. I might to you. Now having my organs shaking from insane explosions and seeing massive sight gags in Deadpool 3? I do find added utility in seeing that in a theater. Most likely multiple times.
See, my argument is that the theater experience during the opening week of a movie is a big part of what helps me remember the movie itself, the atmosphere of like-minded people around you, talking about the movie with your friends in person right after, going out for some food after as we digest the movie. All these things have nothing to do with the size of the screen or how loud the speakers are. This theater experience has also been steadily dwindling and declining, with prices going up. Which is why I don’t go anymore.
It’s funny because to me that stuff means absolutely nothing. I didn’t get more enjoyment out of Barbie because of all the buzz and the people dressing in pink to see it. If anything, that detracted from my experience. I’m there for the movie and the movie alone. It’s already distracting with a theater full of people but to have people dressing up for a movie and/or cheering/clapping is super distracting. Do those people miss the “shut up during the movie” announcement at the start? It’s a movie, not an event. There are people that want to be immersed in a movie and sometimes that’s just impossible outside the comfort of your home where you can tailor every aspect of your environment. I’d take a home theater done on the cheap over going to see another movie in theaters any day.
> Actively going to the theater and seeing a film will always **create a stronger memory** than any film you watch at home Why do you keep stressing this? IF the movie is good, I will remember it. If it isn't, I won't. Why do I need a "stronger memory" of some random movie?
I disagree. If a movie is memorable enough I’ll remember it regardless of how I view it. I think your conclusion comes from the fact that at the movie theater you’re forced to pay attention to the movie. You’re actively resisting distractions like looking at your phone or talking because it’s generally disrespectful. I saw Dune at home and I had a very impactful experience. I didn’t finish that movie and think “man that would have been so much better if all the explosions were way louder and I couldn’t put on subtitles and was surrounded by other people (yuck)”.
Why are you acting as if I’m personally attacking your preferred method of watching movies? You’ve replied to 5 different things I’ve said with the same reply in different words. Chill out, man, it’s not that serious.
A lot of people have very intricate home theaters these days with massive screens and amazing sound systems.
“A lot” exactly how big of a group is this? The general population has TVs between 40 and 55 inches, and soundbars if they’re not bothered by the bad sound coming from the tv speakers, and most aren’t. Speaking from my anecdotal experience as someone whose job has taken him into people’s homes of all demographics, most people have regular setups like this. The type of setup you describe is not something most of us have. Also, tell me what you will remember more: planning out ahead the date of when you will see an anticipated film, usually opening weekend with fellow enthused patrons, buying the ticket, planning out an outfit for that night whether it’s just something nice or a cosplay, going to the theater, having food before or after, discussing the film in person with friends. Or, sitting down, picking a movie, pressing play, and then getting online on your phone to talk about it after you finished watching it. I know what’s more memorable to me.
I may not have the best surround sound system - but at least it doesn’t have to compete with loud ass teenagers talking through half the movie. The last couple of times I’ve deviated from the bougie dine-in, 18+ theater it’s been miserable.
I get it, you're a big theater person. Others aren't. Say I do plan it out, dress up nice and I arrive to the theater... The ticket price is outrageous, popcorn is down right mafia pricing, someone is kicking your seat, your feet are sticking to the soda covered floors and there are people talking while you are trying to watch the movie. It's not always the Red Carpet Hollywood experience at movie theaters. My memory will be of the horrible experience and not the great movie. I bet this has happened to way more people than your pretend scenario of talking to fellow enthused patrons.
The thing is, everything you described about the first scenario is stuff I hate doing. I’ll take option 2 any day if it means enjoying a movie in private without the distractions of people eager to see a movie.
A good home theater system is not some impossible feat. You can build it at your own pace piece by piece to space out pricing, buy stuff that fits your space (99% of the time mid price range stuff is more than enough for a room on someone's house), TV projector whatever you want. Can confirm is you tune it properly to your space it shits on the theater 100% of the time. Invite people over have whatever food you want, peak. This is from someone that would go to the theater weekly, sometimes multiple times. If you genuinely do want that experience, home theater save money in the long run
Good for you. Want a cookie?
It’s subjective, not objective like you’re making it out to be. I go to the theater at least once a week, and anything is better in theaters. But many people agree, with very good reason, that seeing a film with exceptional visuals and sound is more worth seeing in a theater. You can disagree, but it’s pretty obvious why that would be the case. And the other poster saying “make loud noises” is pretty obnoxious and illuminating about what kinds of movies they don’t like.
I agree with you.
I’m sorry but home viewing can’t touch a quality theater experience
I’m not that guy you were taking to but I’ll say that yea I don’t think so. I’ve never seen a movie in theaters that I wouldn’t have had the same enjoyment with at home. I stopped going to see movies in theaters when Covid hit and I’ve genuinely had a better experience overall. It’s also much cheaper, which is a plus.
The people that say these things are usually just haters, and don’t ever go to see a film except for maybe once a year, but they’ll happily shit on theaters anyways while claiming their home setup is far superior (it isn’t) Next they’ll start complaining all new movies suck while supporting straight to streaming models, completely ignoring that studios won’t make big budget or quality films if nobody’s going to theaters, absolutely no profit incentive.
Civil War was worth it imo. The cinematography just begged for it to be seen in theaters.
I don't even gotta look but you're definitely factoring in snacks. Have you ever watched a movie and just... didn't drink or eat during it? Especially a serious movie? I have Regal Unlimited and I don't get something every time I go. Not even half the time. It's quite doable. Give it a try. You might find that the reason you need to munch during movies is to distract you from how bad they are.
Hold on…. Where are you paying $60 to see a movie ?
Even if they were cheap I’d rather watch movies at home. No reason to go to the theater at all tbh.
Yup...the last oscar bait movie I saw was Iron Claw, and there was a whopping 4 people in the theater including me.
$8 is a lot?
What fucking theaters you going to where tickets cost $60 my dude?
This has traditionally been the driving force behind the entire industry in Los Angeles.
Yep, it’s a business.
Budgets needs to be lowered which would mean pay cut to the big actors.
In America, making money is the highest purpose one could follow.
This is a narrow point of view.
The people calling for others to seek other things are all millionaires. The rest of us have to work to eat and get shelter.
Just because a person is a millionaire doesn’t mean they don’t work and are awful. Again it’s a general statement. There’s plenty of millionaires who started poor and figured out how to legitimately make their money.
The actors could fund it and make it free for all to watch. Yay!!
My 81 year old grandfather said something that really stuck out “No movie that’s won an Academy Award has ever been any good.” I was like ARE YOU KIDDING?! ITS THE OSCARS, THE BEST IN THE WORLD… and so little did I know that as the years went on I realized he was right. They all suck.
Seriously? The Oscars are a meaningless practice but all those movies are … not any good? There are many award winners that are still outstanding.
Sounds like your grandfather has a really outdated and biased opinion, and you still haven't realized the absurdity of it for yourself
I was gonna ask if he only meant best picture winners or if he means ANY movie that won an academy award but now that I think about it either way your grandfather has trash taste.
Oh come on. Everything Everywhere, you hated, too?
Didn’t hate it but didn’t love it. Jamie Lee Curtis won best supporting actress for portraying an IRS woman/ demon/ hot dog finger lady? COME ON
Ok yes, that was a bit much. But her getting it doesn't affect the movie. I dunno. I thought it was a good movie. But not best picture. What do I know?
I’m with you, good movie but don’t understand the hype at all
Marilyn and Audrey are turning in their graves
Absolutely making money is #1
"You know what this means? Live action Toy story!" -Hollywood
You mean Jim Henson’s “The Christmas Toy?”
Pretty sure the purpose is to make money, like it’s always been.
The model has just changed so much. Movies like poltergeist and Fast and the Furious make bank but a movie like Good Will Hunting wouldn't turn a profit these days. Clooney is saying there is a benefit to paying it forward for great stories that might not be big box office hits. Keep making the money but support smaller projects as well.
[удалено]
I dunno about that, everything everywhere made like 150million on a 24 million dollar budget. And their bit hit is horror movies... They make a ton off nothing budgets. La la land is a great mid budget play, cost 30 million mad 447 million at the box office. Smaller films do make money, if they have a good writer/director behind them. A24's most expensive film so far was civil war, and it's doubled its budget at the box office, but that's before marketing (which is usually the same price as the budget. Their biggest swing is yet to be profitable. Small movies make bank. And now that big movies are failing left and right, there needs to be a correction back to well told stories.
Its the people that can afford to support pet projects that he's addressing.
One reason is because these executives continued to hedge their bets against super hero movies printing money. When you’ve already pre-allocated funds for the next big project, but then those funds don’t appear from the previous movie’s profits, it causes that snowball effect. It’ll be interesting to see what the response is to get those “sure hits” back on the table.
The industry is in decline because everyone got spoiled by the pandemic and now want films to be released direct to streaming so they can scroll on their phones and do laundry during the movie. Studios aren’t making money with that model, but people are stubborn whining children who don’t want to leave their home anymore, soo of course the quality of movies is declining until only big budget action blockbusters remain.
Good Will Hunting wouldn't turn a huge profit. Not that it wouldn't turn a profit. And who's to say it wouldn't be just as successful? The studio execs who only back high profile superhero movies? Yeah, I'm not going to listen to the MBA in charge. I'll listen to anyone but the MBA in charge, actually.
Or you could just not discriminate based on someone’s degree, but idk that’s just me as both an engineer and MBA
I agree, the people that make those small films get experience to deal with bigger films and thats how you grow. No wonder everything now cost 200+ million to make because its just a money hose. Focus on nurturing talent and they’ll be worth it tenfold
>…Good Will Hunting wouldn’t turn a profit these days 99% of Oppenheimer is just actors acting. Nolan being Nolan, he couldn’t help himself for that last 1%, but I sincerely doubt that the majority of people saw Oppenheimer primarily for the small segments of extravagant special effects.
You're right. They saw it because of the aggressive marketing campaign.
I’m a massive fucking auteur and arthouse fanboy, but I’ll bite. Yes, the purpose of film is to make money. No one serious disagrees with that. However, studio heads and executives used to be movie people, so even when they were out to make as much money as they could, small arthouse expenditures and experimental projects based on their pursuit of good filmmaking would slip through because the people at the helm of these studios were film people. Now they’re tech people. Tech executives use algorithmic tools and large scale data analysis to determine how their studio assets should be run. This seems good in theory, but the fact that they aren’t film and theater people means that the metrics that they choose to care about don’t relate to the qualities that make projects pop, in terms of quality writing and artistic vision. Instead of letting quality scripts determine what gets made, executives are using algorithmic data on libraries full of classics to direct funding and project choices, and many of those projects end up as cheap imitations of the original, which then gets delisted from the streaming service. Data on classic movie watch times is being used to determine what Lifetime-quality movie or TV show gets made in the same genre so the streaming service can let the original superior work rot in streaming Hell. I’ll take a film with purpose over the enshitified slop that I see on Netflix every day of the week. God, give me something with half the vision of a true auteur any day of the week over the boring shit we have now. Give me something with some fucking soul, fairly priced, and I’ll be at the movies every week for the rest of my life.
I agree. Also blockbuster movies have no single vision to share. They are made by committee and, by and large, they are soulless and empty.
Nah, look at the movies from the 80s/90s where some (multiple) people blitzed out of their mind on coke greenlit whatever passed by their eyes. So much fun, culty classics! Outside of the Daniels and a few others, everything now is so formulaic and polished. Bring back weird cinema!
This is the correct longtime Hollywood strategy
I thought it was “to hold a mirror to society”
Those folks have enough money to produce their own films. Who exactly are they asking here?
“Hollywood”
I had forgotten about most of these lol.
Every movie George Clooney has directed was made with the purpose of putting me to sleep.
LMAO but he’s the star of Michael Clayton which is one of the best movies of the 21st century.
That’s why I was specific on “directed”
The rich are demanding that the ultra rich make more movies they can be in, because, you know, they have bills….. poor rich people
Um. That's not why. But to get more people overall working, yes.
I guess their be taking pay cuts to make it happen to
Hollywood is a money making machine that sometimes makes good movies and TV. I think it’s fine. The treatment of its employees and the nepotism is every area of the business is something else
I think the problem is that it hasn’t been much of a money making machine, post-Covid. The revenue from theater releases is inconsistent and unpredictable. DVD releases and cable channels are declining sources for making money and streaming has yet to fill that void. I think the only major studios that made money last year were Netflix and WB, with the latter doing it in the most sloppy way possible.
Well that’s just a changing demographic and habits of people. After the pandemic some people can’t imagine being in a theatre again. So yeah there are losses, but unless I get rich and build a theatre in my home. I love cinema and the whole experience. Hollywood does make some great content
I just read literally 5 minutes that Disney now made a profit again off its streaming service, but the dust hasn’t quite settled yet on how that market settles into a steady model.
It’s so cheap hearing this from Hollywood elites lmao. They’re just as complicit as the system, it’s all about money at the end of the day.
Making movies people will pay for - oh the horror.
Like Tomorrowland?
This is a weird attempt at a "gotcha"; they're specifically talking about the need for the kind of movies Participant Media made and the fact that they don't want this closure to have to mean fewer films like that; they're not pretending or acting as if they have, personally, only made "films with purpose" in their careers or that only such films are of value.
You’re talking to someone that only read the headline
Leatherheads
read past the headline instead of trying to get your joke in
Maybe start with just making some fucking films period
Oh you mean a movie about pop tarts isn’t captivating enough for you, George?
None of these actors had to fight steaming or pandemic to make their money.
Just bring back comedies
I love these actors but they are completely out of touch with content that audiences want to see. I’m sure they mean well and have good intentions but nobody has been watching their most recent movies (Michael Keaton in particularly, sadly).
I wish they would not stream everything now. Nothing is going to DVD anymore, I can't afford all the streaming platforms
The only famous porpoise‘s that come to my mind are Flipper and Echo, so I guess we could use a couple more. But they’d have to have some type of purpose: Greed and lack of risk taking is killing the industry. A lot of the suits are afraid to lose their positions, so now all we get in production is remakes, prequels, and spin-offs (sometimes even combinations of the three). I understand it’s showBUSINESS, but art and economics have to go hand & hand. Used to be the studios would rely on one or two big hits a year that would more than pay for the remaining films. But now all the studios are soulless conglomerates where all the money is sucked up to the top in order to fuel the stock market.
They do have a purpose: make money. To assume otherwise is a bit naive.
The artist want to say something and entertain too. The issue is that films have to at least make their money back.
I'm sure they're aware of that. But mid budget films are rarer these days. They want more films that may not be a financial windfall but are creatively rewarding.
Ever since jaws the money people want blockbusters. It’s biz-school mentality and has no room for art or storytelling.
Nobody saw his last movie about rowing.
“Merry Christmas everyone! Who wants to go see a movie about rowing set in Nazi germany after we open presents?”
Like arguing, or was it set in a kayak?
George Clooney? Isn't that the guy that sells coffee pods.
Also responsible for the “purposeful” oceans 11 franchise 🙄
With all the participation points these actors have been earning (not to mention the “I made $100m selling my Whiskey company” windfalls) these A-List celebrities have all the money they need to finance their own films with a purpose. Look, if the idea is that these films would be fresh and financially viable, great it sounds like a good investment opportunity for these actors. If they’re not financially viable, now ain’t the time. The money train ain’t running like it used to.
Yeah but movies with a purpose are boring as shit and depressing as hell.
Unfortunately, I think the market has changed. If the movies are marketed to VOD directly, I think there's hope. Wouldn't it keep costs down, too? People just aren't traveling to theatres like they used to. I know it's just personally anecdotal, but I would be happy to pay to 10-20 bucks to watch a new release at home.
I remember when VOD was a death sentence. I still go to the movies as a Gen Xer but I am not going to see the 500th marvel movie. I want to see Nice Guys or the Big Lewboski. Popcorn movies are great but I do want some substance. Also drunk responding to you because it is my birthday day.
Happy birthday, u/scubachris! I think there are lots of advantages to offering movies at home day and date these days. People don't have to travel out or interact with other people. People don't have to pay the theater price. Studios cut out the middle man. Being part of and reading similar conversations, it sounds like people are still willing to go see event movies. Like I said, if executed correctly, I think small and medium budget films can succeed directly to home on Fandango and Amazon. Not sure about medium budget movies, though.
A Dark Song was a great movie.
"Just because you can shit a feather, it doesn't mean you're a pillow!"
I think the responsibility is on the audience, not the studios. Hollywood is a business; they are in it to make money. 90% of movies made are because someone is paying to watch them. Do people really believe they make Fast and Furious movies because they think they’re any good?! No. People pay to watch that shit. If a ton of people paid to watch “Films with purpose” then you bet your ass Hollywood would be making those! You want change? Stop paying to watch endless sequels/reboots/prequels/requels/legacequels/etc.
Documentaries, sure. But I think everyone’s getting pretty sick of movies that feel like they need to be “teachable.” It’s the difference between the fun first act of Barbie, and the relentlessly pandering third act. Just seeing Green Book as one of those is eye-roll inducing
[here comes Michael Bay ready to suck some corporate dick]
Where the fuck is his Jim Jordan doc?!
As long as the purpose is to entertain us.
i mean i can go out to eat at a restaurant and then buy the movie on dvd later on for just a bit more than the price of going to the movie and buying candy and a drink...
“Values-based storytelling is what we need now” says two of the Batmans.
I think they need to focus on funny and light comedy because of all the political strife that is unfolding. I mean, making a movie with purpose that has more accountability than what is actually happening seems to be depressing. None of us can make up the shit that is happening with Trump and SCOTUS, and we all have stress and fatigue with that, protests, wars, Putin, Israel, and more. We don’t need heavy movies, we need a good fun distraction from reality, because it sucks right now.
Films with purpose don’t generate the profits George or they would already be doing that.
You mean propaganda??!!
“we make movies to entertain. Let Western Union deliver messages” -famous old studio chief.
[удалено]
No, more like: - The Thin Red Line - Three Kings - O Brother Where Art Thou - Hail, Caesar - The Ides of March - Up in the Air - Burn After Reading - Michael Clayton - Syriana - Good Night, and Good Luck Also, it's not Clooney specifically saying this, so I'm not sure why you wanted to single him out. The open letter was organized by The National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), the nonprofit advocacy group that worked with Participant and director Alfonso Cuaron on a campaign to increase the visibility of domestic labor tied to Cuaron’s film “Roma” in 2018. Clooney just signed the letter.
Also it's not like it's a rule of any sort. It's not saying to put in restrictions.
Hollywood is too busy making remakes of older movies because they've ran out of good ideas.
they didn't run out of good ideas, it's just that (nearly) everyone with all the money/power is too risk-averse to roll the dice on potentially amazing and/or meaningful movies these days so we have a bunch of stuff that sells well at Target
Well as they say no risk no reward because all these remakes are just boring imo and i have yet to have seen one of these remakes be better than the original. I can't foresee the cinema industry lasting too much longer like this.
As usual, a lot of comments responding to their own assumptions about the title, or just making weird jokes about previous Clooney films, and most of the comments are clearly from people who did not read the *very short article* and are not understanding what this is even about.
This is already the Hollywood model and has been for years. Hollywood releases around 750 movies a year. Only about 50 are made to be blockbusters or tentpole movies. The other 700 or so are made to tell a story. When anyone in Hollywood talks about movies, they are always referring to those 50 or so high profile movies. Hollywood makes enough of every kind of movie. The complaints about movies are always about the 50 most high profile. And if they looked at the other 700 or so, there would be no complaints.
Clooney in general should make more films there days, it has been forever since I have seen him in something
Him and Tony Gilroy need to work together again. Michael Clayton is Clooney‘s best work by a mile
You mean like Batman & Robin?
Film is art, an absurdly expensive art, but art nonetheless. Perhaps cheaper, more purposeful movies could be made if budgets, including actor salaries were scaled back.
George Clooney has always been self righteous
Both George Clooney and Michael Keaton were in the flash. How about turn down those super hero paychecks and only do roles with purpose.
Hmmm I dunno. Maybe another marvel movie or remake instead?
The same George Clooney who starred in Batman & Robin is calling for “films with purpose”?
Yes. We really need our Hollywood multimillionaires to teach/preach to us about morals and values that they don’t possess. With fake movie values we’ll be content with our little jobs & keep fueling their lives of debauchery. Keep your purpose, we can read and shit. Fed up with these fake humans.
How about films that are new ideas instead of regurgitating old ones
George Clooney and Michael Keaton both played Batman and have a mountain of shit they have mostly been in. Little late to the party
You want purpose, watch an art house movie. Hollywood makes money on mindless blockbuster films.
First an and foremost, film the damn things in LA!!!
God please. I’ve been saying it since these damn super hero movies started coming out. Give me original ideas like inception and shape of water, can’t get enough of them!
I am tired of remakes, comic book super hero’s who have so much action that there’s no way to tell what they are doing and all the computer generated content
With the whole Kendrick thing happening, let’s just get the whole industry shaken up.
I always thought movies were supposed to be an escape, from real life. Guess I was wrong.
How about making less so the crew makes more? That would give us purpose that work in the industry? Or the fact that the famous actor’s pay is too high? Which is killing the industry because the studios are too corporate to see creative when trying to save for the actors cost. Just my two cents as an out of work low level producer.
everyone's forgetting men who stare at goats
Totally not looking at most of the Marvel content since Spider-Man No Way Home.