I still really, really want to see FIRST COW in a theater. I'm not sure what streaming distribution deal is behind it, but unlike most A24 stuff it never popped up on Netflix, and now the only streaming options are buying a digital copy or subscribing to Showtime. I know, I know, just suck it up and buy the blu-ray, but I'm still bummed that of all the films who's releases got cut short or moved around last year, this one seemed to fall through the cracks the most.
That film got such a tortured release. If you'll recall, A24 released the film theatrically the same week that COVID shut everything down. (In fact, the only reason I saw it in a theater was as a contributor on a NYT piece about people who are still out seeing movies despite the pandemic!) Then after many months, I think it finally got put up for digital rental and purchase. But yes, it slipped through the cracks a bit, despite maybe getting her some of the best press and reception of any film of her career. Great, great movie, and I'm sure it'll find some way out. Reichardt will get some repertory play, too, at some point, so seeing her stuff projected will happen eventually.
I'm beside myself with excitement to see DUNE, but that excitement is hugely tempered by a reluctance to visit a cinema and sit in a (probably poorly ventilated) room with maybe hundreds of people, most of whom won't be wearing masks, and I just don't see that situation changing particularly soon. Which means that if I do get the chance to pay to stream it at home (I'm in the UK, so no HBO Max here) I'll do that, just to support the artist and make myself feel good about spending my 20 quid to "save cinema", but would that experience have the same "value" as spending 20 pounds to see it as intended, with an audience and on the big screen? I honestly don't know!
That's one of the really tricky parts of this discussion, because people have such different levels of comfort about going to the movies during the pandemic, even if they've been vaccinated. You can't draw any hard conclusions about where movies are headed when there are so many variables to consider. I definitely feel you on DUNE. I did not feel comfortable seeing TENET in a theater, even though it was playing in 70mm at my favorite theater, a few blocks from my place.
And that big problem with discussing and thinking about future of movies, because you have to consider short- and mid-term effects of COVID on top of effects of streaming services. Me suspect streaming was always going to take big bite out of movie theater attendance, but that it got huge kick in ass by pandemic. Now everyone used to consuming entertainment at home. Heck, Mrs. Cookie went to see Jeff Tweedy last night and he put on great show, but she came home wondering if it worth standing in crowded room and coming home on PATH train late at night when he perform for free on Instagram every week. Part of that because of COVID, but part of it because of our "give me convenience or give me death" attitude, to borrow phrase from Dead Kennedys.
During the brief period this summer when it seemed like things were really getting better, I ventured out to theaters for the first time in over a year. And while I enjoyed the movies I saw--The Sparks Brothers, Annette and Summer Of Soul--I was surprised to discover that I didn't really miss the moviegoing experience. I live in Des Moines, where the theatrical options range from pretty good multiplex to really awful multiplex, so there aren't any theaters that make the whole thing feel special--every theater has the same bland "pre-show experience" and endless parade of trailers, with the movie itself likely not starting until twenty minutes past its listed start time.
I'm not a big fan of streaming, which diminishes the experience of watching a movie even further, and that's what feels so disturbing. Movies as an art form really demand a certain level of concentration on the part of the viewer, and I don't know if it even exists anymore.
Me have been thinking about this whole lot lately, and there also other idea to consider, which is that walls have completely burned down between every form of visual entertainment. When Bagel Monster and Cookie Jr. were little, their favorite shows were Adventure Time, Good Mythical Morning, and teenagers playing Minecraft on YouTube, and all of those things had equal weight in their minds. As teenagers themselves now, they give equal weight to Ryan George and Bob's Burgers — both are reliably funny things they can pull up on Roku when they get bored.
There still lingering idea that, say, Shang-Chi is bigger deal than Falcon and Winter Soldier because it longer and play in movie theater, but me suspect even that distinction fading. "Movie" "TV show" and "video" all seem more and more like arbitrary categories. They all visual entertainment we can watch on television or computer or phone — movies just have this extra place we can all congregate while eating popcorn. And that still will be special experience, at least me hope, but probably not essential one for lot of people.
But there also some freedom that come with that. We not have rigid formats of movie and television we grew up with. Sherlock was three 90-minute stories per season, and Martin Freeman suggested they might take ten years off and then do new season when characters are older and see where they are in life. Is that TV show same way Rockford Files was TV show? Or is it series of short movies that get shown on television? And does distinction matter?
As much as cinephiles love to attack Marvel movies, me fascinated at how that series break entirely new ground, with interconnected series of movies and TV shows that share characters and storylines but not are stricly Episode I, II, III, IV series. No one has ever done anything like that, and me feel like possibilities are endless for ambitious writer or director to create something outside of superhero movie that breaks boundaries in same kind of way. (Animatrix was maybe first glimpse we saw at possibilities outside strict model of theatrical release or 26-episode season of television)
Everything changing. And that can be scary, but also exciting. It what Homer Simpson call crisistunity for creative community. But me have friend in book publishing who once told me this when everyone was worried ebooks were going to destroy traditional publishing:
Radio not destroy books
Movies not destroy radio or books
TV not destroy movies or radio or books
Internet not destroy TV or movies or radio or books
Movies, and economics behind movie theater, will change. But all these new models not erase old things like going to movies. We just have more of everything. More content, more ways to experience it, and as someone who never say no to more cookies, me can step back and appreciate that.
Good dialogue, good insights. I'd also be interested in hearing what filmmakers think, given that the trade-off for them (depending on whether they shopped to theatrical distributors or streaming directly) is usually elite presentation vs. more eyeballs.
Also, I wouldn't be me if I didn't point out that you misspelled Bacurau :)
Zach! Thanks for signing on. Can't believe I misspelled a movie that made my Top 10 list from last year, but I'll make the correction. It feels like in general filmmakers have been pretty unhappy with the state of things, particularly if they're used to seeing their movies have a theatrical window. But it gets pretty hazy when you have these same streaming companies financing films that may not have been produced otherwise. Can't really complain in that case.
It's funny, reading you guys discuss this topic made me realize that my attitude to going to see movies hasn't really been affected by the pandemic, outside of the ways that viewing windows have changed things. Before, there were the 40 or so movies a year that I would make the time to go see in theatres and then another 50-60 more that I would watch at home, either cause I missed them in theatres or just wasn't interested in them enough to make it worth it, and barring any changes to theatres being open here in Toronto, I feel like I'm probably just going to go right back to doing that. The only difference might be that the things that I was always going to watch at home are now available the same day or a month down the line rather than 3-6 months later.
For me, the breakdown of what I want to see where really comes down to some combination of size and immersiveness, as Keith mentioned. So, I'll go see a big blockbuster or action movie on the big screen because I think those movies do benefit from that size and sound setup, but I'll also go see the arthouse/indie and auteur driven stuff that I'm most excited about, both because I want to see them as soon as possible, but also because I want to give them my full attention in a way that can be difficult at home.
As for the COVID of it all, I've kind of surprised myself in how quickly I feel like I'm comfortable just casually going to the movies again at this point. I've only seen a couple things so far as I was away from the city this summer when theatres reopened, but between proof of vaccination, mandatory masking and distanced seating, I really feel completely at ease in a way I would not have imagined only a few months ago. As it is, the TIFF lightbox sent out an email to members this week about opening up again starting with screenings of Titane and I immediately made plans with a friend to go see it tomorrow without a second thought.
I do really like the idea of day and date, or at least shorter release windows and what it does in so far as making movies available to more people for whom going to the theatre is a challenge or who live in places where theatres aren't available, but I hope that at the end of all this upheaval theatres are still left standing and movies of all sizes and shapes are still able to make a profit being played there.
Sadly, the pandemic has only made it more plain how disillusioned I am with the theatrical experience. If you got a decent set up at home, it just has too many advantages.
Consistency is one thing. If you ever been to an AMC or even small art house theater, the screening itself is a crap shoot. Dull projection, dirty screens, the curtains don’t properly mask the screen, sound too low/loud, who knows. And then you got the random audience members with god knows what their behavior is gonna be like. At home, I always know what to expect. My TV is properly calibrated to deliver a great movie watching experience. I got my sound system in place and the volume is in my hands. I can dim the lights, silence my phone, and know with confidence that I immerse myself into the film and no presentational flaws remain.
Choice is another big one. You wanna see a movie in theaters, you’re stuck buying tickets to what’s currently available, which is usually whatever is new. With the advent of 2K/4K restorations, lossless audio codecs, better video codecs, Blu-rays, UHD, and high quality 4K streaming like Vudu and iTunes, it’s never been a better time to watch thousands of movies from all over cinema history right at home. Why settle for watching a mediocre CGI infested marital arts movie in Shang-chi, when I can easily watch some recently remastered versions of Jackie Chan’s finest like Drunken Master 2, Police Story, or Wheels on Meals. This weekend I’m watching LA Confidential, Chunking Express and Aliens. Three all-time greats that you can’t get in a theater unless they’re doing a special one night retrospective screening.
Which brings me to yet another C word, convenience. If you want to see a movie in the theater, you have to be there at a certain place and a certain time, most likely in a certain seat. You need to get dressed, get in a car, drive to the location, don’t be late! All so you can sit through 20-25 mins of largely interminable trailers and commercials. And God forbid you have any kids, because someone has to watch them now, too. At home, I can go from turning the TV on to watching the actual movie in 30 seconds, right there on my couch. I can pause and feed my child, I can rewind if missed something, I don’t even need to get dressed. And with so much control, it makes it feel easier for me to get into the movie.
So really, going to the movies nowadays is an exceptional case for exceptional movies. Sure I’ll see the new Wes Anderson, PTA, Spielberg and Coens in the theater. But I’m currently more excited for the 4K UHDs of Mulholland Dr and the Red Shoes and how I get to watch them in their comfort of my home.
Tons to unpack here, and I can't help but share Keith's feeling of being overwhelmed. Sitting here as a 40-year-old, I think back to my first job that I started at the age of 16 and stayed with through college. I worked for a movie theatre company, first tearing tickets and scooping pop corn and then working up into managerial roles. I voraciously consumed movies during that time, fully believing the theatre experience to be the purest, best format for movies...all movies. It didn't hurt that in Wichita, KS, we were extremely fortunate to have independently owned luxury cinemas, which was where I worked. The focus on presentation and experience at the Warren Theaters was unequalled. They are still around in Kansas and Oklahoma, but now owned by Regal Theatres. Catch a film at one if you ever have the chance and see how spoiled I was.
All that said, I'm older, have a family, and so my theatre trips, even before the pandemic, were few and far between. I've really come to love that I can stream movies at home on my own time and that the windows between theatrical releases and home viewing have shrunk. This is because it allows me to see more movies, including independents that are being edged out of multiplex existence.
Which brings up another aspect of the new movie landscape. With the transition to streaming distribution, there has been much discussion about the unsustainability of studio movie budgets. It is getting harder and harder for a $100 million movie to be viable financially. While that might hurt theatres even more, it does make me optimistic for the future of independent cinema, which operates at a budget level with tons of room for profitability in the streaming landscape. Perhaps this is just what we need to balance the scales away from tent pole IP movies and endless sequels that exist to set up more sequels toward more fresh cinematic voices?
It's interesting to me that this discussion is framed as "what are movies worth," but to me the real question is "what is moviegoing worth?"
I love going to the movies, and I'm back at it (vaccinated AND preferring Portland's Hollywood Theatre, which is requiring proof of vaccination) — but as many, many people have noted, the true cost of moviegoing is not just "how much was my ticket" but "how inconvenient was it in many ways to go to a showing that may or may not be better than what I can set up at home."
I surprised myself a little bit when theaters here reopened. I spent so much of 2020 watching non-new releases that the actual new releases in 2021 rarely seemed compelling by comparison. And in fact I've probably seen more retro screenings since theaters reopened than new releases ...
Late to the party here, but I find it interesting how we think of titles included with streaming subscriptions as "free." Less cost, certainly, especially when you calculate a per-click average over the month. I also think of titles that come onto the services I subscribe to as free, same as the water from my faucet, etc. But the accumulating cost of Netlix and Prime Video and Disney+ and HBO and Apple TV and, and, and... adds up. The theater experience (and maybe moreso the theater + video store rental days) may have meant spending more per title, but the money could be targeted to what we wanted to see. A better measure of what a movie is worth that the emerging streaming model misses.
Extremely good point, and one we missed a bit. I'm sure there are good stretches of time that go by on certain monthly apps where I watch next to nothing and still get charged. It does indeed add up, even though I've scuttled my cable subscription.
I still really, really want to see FIRST COW in a theater. I'm not sure what streaming distribution deal is behind it, but unlike most A24 stuff it never popped up on Netflix, and now the only streaming options are buying a digital copy or subscribing to Showtime. I know, I know, just suck it up and buy the blu-ray, but I'm still bummed that of all the films who's releases got cut short or moved around last year, this one seemed to fall through the cracks the most.
That film got such a tortured release. If you'll recall, A24 released the film theatrically the same week that COVID shut everything down. (In fact, the only reason I saw it in a theater was as a contributor on a NYT piece about people who are still out seeing movies despite the pandemic!) Then after many months, I think it finally got put up for digital rental and purchase. But yes, it slipped through the cracks a bit, despite maybe getting her some of the best press and reception of any film of her career. Great, great movie, and I'm sure it'll find some way out. Reichardt will get some repertory play, too, at some point, so seeing her stuff projected will happen eventually.
I was surprised, given the reviews in March, that First Cow just sort of disappeared from Oscar conversations once Oscar season actually came around.
I'm beside myself with excitement to see DUNE, but that excitement is hugely tempered by a reluctance to visit a cinema and sit in a (probably poorly ventilated) room with maybe hundreds of people, most of whom won't be wearing masks, and I just don't see that situation changing particularly soon. Which means that if I do get the chance to pay to stream it at home (I'm in the UK, so no HBO Max here) I'll do that, just to support the artist and make myself feel good about spending my 20 quid to "save cinema", but would that experience have the same "value" as spending 20 pounds to see it as intended, with an audience and on the big screen? I honestly don't know!
That's one of the really tricky parts of this discussion, because people have such different levels of comfort about going to the movies during the pandemic, even if they've been vaccinated. You can't draw any hard conclusions about where movies are headed when there are so many variables to consider. I definitely feel you on DUNE. I did not feel comfortable seeing TENET in a theater, even though it was playing in 70mm at my favorite theater, a few blocks from my place.
And that big problem with discussing and thinking about future of movies, because you have to consider short- and mid-term effects of COVID on top of effects of streaming services. Me suspect streaming was always going to take big bite out of movie theater attendance, but that it got huge kick in ass by pandemic. Now everyone used to consuming entertainment at home. Heck, Mrs. Cookie went to see Jeff Tweedy last night and he put on great show, but she came home wondering if it worth standing in crowded room and coming home on PATH train late at night when he perform for free on Instagram every week. Part of that because of COVID, but part of it because of our "give me convenience or give me death" attitude, to borrow phrase from Dead Kennedys.
During the brief period this summer when it seemed like things were really getting better, I ventured out to theaters for the first time in over a year. And while I enjoyed the movies I saw--The Sparks Brothers, Annette and Summer Of Soul--I was surprised to discover that I didn't really miss the moviegoing experience. I live in Des Moines, where the theatrical options range from pretty good multiplex to really awful multiplex, so there aren't any theaters that make the whole thing feel special--every theater has the same bland "pre-show experience" and endless parade of trailers, with the movie itself likely not starting until twenty minutes past its listed start time.
I'm not a big fan of streaming, which diminishes the experience of watching a movie even further, and that's what feels so disturbing. Movies as an art form really demand a certain level of concentration on the part of the viewer, and I don't know if it even exists anymore.
Me have been thinking about this whole lot lately, and there also other idea to consider, which is that walls have completely burned down between every form of visual entertainment. When Bagel Monster and Cookie Jr. were little, their favorite shows were Adventure Time, Good Mythical Morning, and teenagers playing Minecraft on YouTube, and all of those things had equal weight in their minds. As teenagers themselves now, they give equal weight to Ryan George and Bob's Burgers — both are reliably funny things they can pull up on Roku when they get bored.
There still lingering idea that, say, Shang-Chi is bigger deal than Falcon and Winter Soldier because it longer and play in movie theater, but me suspect even that distinction fading. "Movie" "TV show" and "video" all seem more and more like arbitrary categories. They all visual entertainment we can watch on television or computer or phone — movies just have this extra place we can all congregate while eating popcorn. And that still will be special experience, at least me hope, but probably not essential one for lot of people.
But there also some freedom that come with that. We not have rigid formats of movie and television we grew up with. Sherlock was three 90-minute stories per season, and Martin Freeman suggested they might take ten years off and then do new season when characters are older and see where they are in life. Is that TV show same way Rockford Files was TV show? Or is it series of short movies that get shown on television? And does distinction matter?
As much as cinephiles love to attack Marvel movies, me fascinated at how that series break entirely new ground, with interconnected series of movies and TV shows that share characters and storylines but not are stricly Episode I, II, III, IV series. No one has ever done anything like that, and me feel like possibilities are endless for ambitious writer or director to create something outside of superhero movie that breaks boundaries in same kind of way. (Animatrix was maybe first glimpse we saw at possibilities outside strict model of theatrical release or 26-episode season of television)
Everything changing. And that can be scary, but also exciting. It what Homer Simpson call crisistunity for creative community. But me have friend in book publishing who once told me this when everyone was worried ebooks were going to destroy traditional publishing:
Radio not destroy books
Movies not destroy radio or books
TV not destroy movies or radio or books
Internet not destroy TV or movies or radio or books
Movies, and economics behind movie theater, will change. But all these new models not erase old things like going to movies. We just have more of everything. More content, more ways to experience it, and as someone who never say no to more cookies, me can step back and appreciate that.
Good dialogue, good insights. I'd also be interested in hearing what filmmakers think, given that the trade-off for them (depending on whether they shopped to theatrical distributors or streaming directly) is usually elite presentation vs. more eyeballs.
Also, I wouldn't be me if I didn't point out that you misspelled Bacurau :)
Zach! Thanks for signing on. Can't believe I misspelled a movie that made my Top 10 list from last year, but I'll make the correction. It feels like in general filmmakers have been pretty unhappy with the state of things, particularly if they're used to seeing their movies have a theatrical window. But it gets pretty hazy when you have these same streaming companies financing films that may not have been produced otherwise. Can't really complain in that case.
It's funny, reading you guys discuss this topic made me realize that my attitude to going to see movies hasn't really been affected by the pandemic, outside of the ways that viewing windows have changed things. Before, there were the 40 or so movies a year that I would make the time to go see in theatres and then another 50-60 more that I would watch at home, either cause I missed them in theatres or just wasn't interested in them enough to make it worth it, and barring any changes to theatres being open here in Toronto, I feel like I'm probably just going to go right back to doing that. The only difference might be that the things that I was always going to watch at home are now available the same day or a month down the line rather than 3-6 months later.
For me, the breakdown of what I want to see where really comes down to some combination of size and immersiveness, as Keith mentioned. So, I'll go see a big blockbuster or action movie on the big screen because I think those movies do benefit from that size and sound setup, but I'll also go see the arthouse/indie and auteur driven stuff that I'm most excited about, both because I want to see them as soon as possible, but also because I want to give them my full attention in a way that can be difficult at home.
As for the COVID of it all, I've kind of surprised myself in how quickly I feel like I'm comfortable just casually going to the movies again at this point. I've only seen a couple things so far as I was away from the city this summer when theatres reopened, but between proof of vaccination, mandatory masking and distanced seating, I really feel completely at ease in a way I would not have imagined only a few months ago. As it is, the TIFF lightbox sent out an email to members this week about opening up again starting with screenings of Titane and I immediately made plans with a friend to go see it tomorrow without a second thought.
I do really like the idea of day and date, or at least shorter release windows and what it does in so far as making movies available to more people for whom going to the theatre is a challenge or who live in places where theatres aren't available, but I hope that at the end of all this upheaval theatres are still left standing and movies of all sizes and shapes are still able to make a profit being played there.
Sadly, the pandemic has only made it more plain how disillusioned I am with the theatrical experience. If you got a decent set up at home, it just has too many advantages.
Consistency is one thing. If you ever been to an AMC or even small art house theater, the screening itself is a crap shoot. Dull projection, dirty screens, the curtains don’t properly mask the screen, sound too low/loud, who knows. And then you got the random audience members with god knows what their behavior is gonna be like. At home, I always know what to expect. My TV is properly calibrated to deliver a great movie watching experience. I got my sound system in place and the volume is in my hands. I can dim the lights, silence my phone, and know with confidence that I immerse myself into the film and no presentational flaws remain.
Choice is another big one. You wanna see a movie in theaters, you’re stuck buying tickets to what’s currently available, which is usually whatever is new. With the advent of 2K/4K restorations, lossless audio codecs, better video codecs, Blu-rays, UHD, and high quality 4K streaming like Vudu and iTunes, it’s never been a better time to watch thousands of movies from all over cinema history right at home. Why settle for watching a mediocre CGI infested marital arts movie in Shang-chi, when I can easily watch some recently remastered versions of Jackie Chan’s finest like Drunken Master 2, Police Story, or Wheels on Meals. This weekend I’m watching LA Confidential, Chunking Express and Aliens. Three all-time greats that you can’t get in a theater unless they’re doing a special one night retrospective screening.
Which brings me to yet another C word, convenience. If you want to see a movie in the theater, you have to be there at a certain place and a certain time, most likely in a certain seat. You need to get dressed, get in a car, drive to the location, don’t be late! All so you can sit through 20-25 mins of largely interminable trailers and commercials. And God forbid you have any kids, because someone has to watch them now, too. At home, I can go from turning the TV on to watching the actual movie in 30 seconds, right there on my couch. I can pause and feed my child, I can rewind if missed something, I don’t even need to get dressed. And with so much control, it makes it feel easier for me to get into the movie.
So really, going to the movies nowadays is an exceptional case for exceptional movies. Sure I’ll see the new Wes Anderson, PTA, Spielberg and Coens in the theater. But I’m currently more excited for the 4K UHDs of Mulholland Dr and the Red Shoes and how I get to watch them in their comfort of my home.
Tons to unpack here, and I can't help but share Keith's feeling of being overwhelmed. Sitting here as a 40-year-old, I think back to my first job that I started at the age of 16 and stayed with through college. I worked for a movie theatre company, first tearing tickets and scooping pop corn and then working up into managerial roles. I voraciously consumed movies during that time, fully believing the theatre experience to be the purest, best format for movies...all movies. It didn't hurt that in Wichita, KS, we were extremely fortunate to have independently owned luxury cinemas, which was where I worked. The focus on presentation and experience at the Warren Theaters was unequalled. They are still around in Kansas and Oklahoma, but now owned by Regal Theatres. Catch a film at one if you ever have the chance and see how spoiled I was.
All that said, I'm older, have a family, and so my theatre trips, even before the pandemic, were few and far between. I've really come to love that I can stream movies at home on my own time and that the windows between theatrical releases and home viewing have shrunk. This is because it allows me to see more movies, including independents that are being edged out of multiplex existence.
Which brings up another aspect of the new movie landscape. With the transition to streaming distribution, there has been much discussion about the unsustainability of studio movie budgets. It is getting harder and harder for a $100 million movie to be viable financially. While that might hurt theatres even more, it does make me optimistic for the future of independent cinema, which operates at a budget level with tons of room for profitability in the streaming landscape. Perhaps this is just what we need to balance the scales away from tent pole IP movies and endless sequels that exist to set up more sequels toward more fresh cinematic voices?
Can there be a bright side here? I hope so.
It's interesting to me that this discussion is framed as "what are movies worth," but to me the real question is "what is moviegoing worth?"
I love going to the movies, and I'm back at it (vaccinated AND preferring Portland's Hollywood Theatre, which is requiring proof of vaccination) — but as many, many people have noted, the true cost of moviegoing is not just "how much was my ticket" but "how inconvenient was it in many ways to go to a showing that may or may not be better than what I can set up at home."
I surprised myself a little bit when theaters here reopened. I spent so much of 2020 watching non-new releases that the actual new releases in 2021 rarely seemed compelling by comparison. And in fact I've probably seen more retro screenings since theaters reopened than new releases ...
Late to the party here, but I find it interesting how we think of titles included with streaming subscriptions as "free." Less cost, certainly, especially when you calculate a per-click average over the month. I also think of titles that come onto the services I subscribe to as free, same as the water from my faucet, etc. But the accumulating cost of Netlix and Prime Video and Disney+ and HBO and Apple TV and, and, and... adds up. The theater experience (and maybe moreso the theater + video store rental days) may have meant spending more per title, but the money could be targeted to what we wanted to see. A better measure of what a movie is worth that the emerging streaming model misses.
Extremely good point, and one we missed a bit. I'm sure there are good stretches of time that go by on certain monthly apps where I watch next to nothing and still get charged. It does indeed add up, even though I've scuttled my cable subscription.