I think the bigger story will be potentially the worst summer box office in nearly a dozen years.
Printable View
I think the bigger story will be potentially the worst summer box office in nearly a dozen years.
Interesting. I was going to ask JE if it was an unusually good summer for mainstream movies. Spider-man, Dunkirk, Wonder Woman, Planet of the Apes, Big Sick, and Baby Driver, all popular movies that are over 90% on rotten tomatoes. Probably will end up with 3 of the top 5 over 90%. Is that unusual? I'm guessing that it is but I really have no idea.
Well, it is not like Big Sick ($36 mil) and Baby Driver ($100 mil) were huge boxoffice draws who helped shape the summer. They each did very nice business considering their budgets and the marketing behind them, but the overall summer boxoffice is not doing well. We are on course for May-Aug to do about $4 billion, which would be down more than 10% from 2016. And it is the big budget, big boxoffice films that determine that top line much moreso than a couple smaller indy hits that combine to gross less than $150 mil at the boxoffice.
In terms of quality, this has been a pretty good year. As you mention, several of the top marketed titles of the season were huge critical successes that audiences also loved. 4 of the major, big budget films fall into this category (5 if you count Guardians 2 scoring a pretty strong 82% on RT and 89% Flixter score). Last summer only saw Finding Dory and Cap:Civil War as big budget films that had high critical scores. 2015 was really strong with Inside Out, Mad Max Fury Road, and Rogue Nation all being big critical hits (and films like Jurassic World, Avengers: Ultron, and Ant Man also doing quite well in reviews). But, the bottom line is that there seems to be only a passing correlation between critical applause and the overall summer boxoffice.
So, what is happening to cause this year to really suffer? There are a lot of theories. I think the one that rings the most true to me is that the film industry is catching the same cold that has been impacting the broadcast TV world for a while -- there are just a lot, lot, lot more options for ways to capture our entertainment attention. Streaming (Netflix, Amazon, HBONow, whatever) has really taken off in the past year. It was huge but keeps getting bigger and bigger. Amazon, Netflix, and others are spending big money to fill their channels with high quality programming -- and it is a heck of a lot cheaper for a family to watch Netflix every night of the week than it is to even go see one movie in theaters. The pay channels (HBO, Showtime, Starz) have also really stepped up their game with content as well. I fully expect Sunday movie ticket sales have been impacted by Game of Thrones over the past month. American Gods attracted a lot of attention earlier this summer too. There are numerous other examples.
I'm not saying Hollywood is dying, just that the glut of competition makes it harder for the big studios to capture the nation's attention. I suspect we will see a stronger winter from Hollywood too as Justice League, Thor:Ragnarok, and especially Star Wars 8 will probably big major hits that everyone feels the need to see to be in on the cultural conversation.
-Jason "some may argue that Netflix will eventually kill the studios... I doubt that but something will someday need to be done with the movie theater experience/pricing structure or the studios and the theater industry will be in huge trouble" Evans
Its going to be interesting to see how the movie industry innovates over the next decade or two. Theaters have always run well on the simple fact that watching video entertainment on a large screen with a professional sound system is simply a different experience than watching the same video on your TV at home. While theaters have tweaked this experience over time, with ever-improving sound systems, changes in seating (our local theater now has big overstuffed recliners with individual cupholders and plenty of legs room), and, of course, IMAX screens or 3D. But the reality is those studios are now feeling the pressure, as evidenced by Tom Holland telling us before Spider-Man comes on screen a big hearty thank you for coming out to the theater. Cost of making movies keeps going up. Ticket sales keep going down. Ticket prices are already at a point where rising the price further will likely start lowering the gross.
So we may see tighter budgets. Already Hollywood is seeing that franchises sell better than name-brand actors (although actors still provide some needed box office muscle, like RDJ specifically in the Iron Man role). Hollywood may do with actors like the NFL has done with running backs: pay less planning to get the same job done by building around a cheaper, slightly less known or talented performer. Market forces may make CGI costs drop - providing reasonably high quality effects for relatively less money. Plus we may see further theater experience innovation - allowing audiences to still have the enjoyment of group entertainment while using tech to give an even more immersive experience.
At the end of the day, though, I think technology and the increasing way we live our lives online will dictate that watching recorded entertainment in a public theater environment may become a novelty anachronism, where those old made-for-big-screen-movies are enjoyed as a different, fun kind of dinner experience or at amusement parks, while the new releases are streamed directly to our wireless fully immersive virtual reality sets at home.
Or will the studios eventually kill Netflix?
Disney is pulling its films from Netflix
https://www.popsugar.com/entertainme...tflix-41441900
-- that's a BIG hit for the service ... cutting into the content available to families with kids. If Disney also pulls the Star Wars and Marvel films (being debated right now), it's going to hurt bad. And if other studios follow suit, Netflix could go the way of Blockbuster.
Except the vast majority of content streamed on Netflix is TV shows, not movies. I suspect that there won't be all that much of a subscriber loss when Disney pulls content from Netflix. While there are some parents of small kids who primarily use Netflix for the access to Disney/Pixar movies, most Netflix subscribers are there so they can stream many seasons of TV shows with the movies being just an added bonus.
By the way, I found this cool infographic... which came out in 2016, before Stranger Things.
http://images5.aplus.com/uc-up/02a25...2db.inline_yes
-Jason "now, if Disney/ABC pulls all the ABC and Disney produced TV shows from Netflix, that could move the needle... especially if other studios followed suit" Evans
Raise your hand if you had Wyoming as the home of the most die-hard iZombie fans.
http://s.quickmeme.com/img/78/789a9a...b1377ededc.jpg
Yup, that's what I thought.
I find it fascinating/hysterical that Virginia has House of Cards and West Virginia has American Horror Story.
We watched Dr. Strange on Netflix a couple months ago, speaking of Marvel.
I LOLered at Utah & Gilmore Girls.
I always find it fascinating that theaters generally charge the same amount for a current blockbuster movie as for a piece of junk few want to see. Not many businesses run on this model.
Definitely not a classic supply and demand situation.
That map cracks me up in so many ways: as mentioned Utah => Gilmore Girls plus Montana => Peaky Blinders and Maine => Nurse Jackie. What's up with Scandal? I find that show unwatchable. Re the movie biz: they need to cut production by 50% or more because most of them flat out suck. There are far too many unworthy remakes, dead and beaten horse trends (Super Hero, e.g.) plus your IIs, IIIs and IVs. Yet the price to sit (in an albeit nicer room than years past) with a bunch of talking, popcorn munching, wrapper twisting folks I'd never invite into my living room goes up and up. I think I'm officially a curmudgeon...
Pretty interesting that we started this thread only days before MoviePass shook up the movie industry by offering a subscription package which allows you to see 1 movie per day (in a theater) for a flat fee of $10 for the month... a crazy good deal if you even attend 2 movies the entire month.
AMC does not like it and is suing.
-Jason "I don't think AMC cares if MoviePass goes bankrupt with this money-losing plan, but is worried that MoviePass is going to make folks not willing to pay AMC's regular ticket price" EvansQuote:
In 2016, the service started at $15 per month and ran up to $50 per month for unlimited movies in bigger cities. AMC, which is the largest theater chain in the US said in a statement that MoviePass’ model is unsustainable. The company argued that ticket prices below $10 a month over time wouldn’t be able to generate enough cash to operate quality theaters, nor produce enough income that would allow film makers to make movies of value.
I'd never heard of MoviePass until yesterday, but I'm confused - both by how it isn't losing money terribly, and by why the theaters would oppose it. From what I've read, MoviePass effectively purchases the tickets from the theaters, at full price, and then transfers them to it's subscribers. A) How could that possibly be economically feasible? Their subscription fee is so low that it's hard to imagine they have many subscribers who under-utilize the service. I'd think that pretty much every subscriber is going to at least 2 movies a month, and many are obviously going to more, so how are they not spending more on tickets than they're taking in in subscription fees. (Maybe it's been high enough to date that they benefit from under-utilization, but at the new price, I don't see how that's remotely possible). B) If the theaters are getting full face value for the tickets used by MoviePass' subscribers, why would they care? If anything, it'd seem like people would go to more movies using MoviePass than they otherwise would, so that's more tickets sold for the theaters. Whether the individuals are saving money at MoviePass' expense should be irrelevant to the theaters. Why is AMC (and my understanding is other theater chains as well) bothered by this? If MoviePass eventually goes out of business, so be it. But in the meantime, they're selling tickets for the theaters. Obviously I'm missing something.
I imagine if you are seeing 5 movies a month for $10...and now moviepass is out of business what are you more likely to do? Go see one movie for $10, or 5 movies for $50? It will fundamentally change the way your customers view the value of your product.
that said, I would think the movie industry would really like folks to go to the movies more...I'm just not sure $10/mo is the price point here. It feels far too low.
I actually think the opposite. I can watch unlimited movies, albeit a few months after release, for a very low price at home. If I get back into the habit of going to the theater instead, I think I'm more likely to continue that in the future, even if the low price offered by MoviePass disappears.
If the theaters can continue to get people to buy concessions at 1000 percent profit, they shouldn't care if people get into the theater for free.
Joking. Sort of. Maybe. Kinda.
What's more, if I am only spending $10/month to go to all the movies I want, I am probably not going to flinch as much at dropping $8 for a bag of popcorn and $5 for a soda. If I just spent $25 on 2 tickets to the movie, I am going to be significantly more reluctant to buy that $4 SweetTarts box.
MoviePass, which I too had never heard of before yesterday, has gotten a ton of publicity in the past 24 hours. I bet they have a ton new subscribers too. Though they claim they are collecting important demographic and marketing info on their customers that they can monetize, I suspect they are going to be losing money hand-over-fist very soon and will have real trouble staying in business. Perhaps their model is to capture a significant portion of the moviegoing business and then negotiate a sweeter ticket price deal from AMC and others. I dunno...
-Jason "if I did not go to most movies for free, I'd be all over the $10 moviepass" Evans
The Ringer has an article up on how Rotten Tomatoes impacts the movie industry. Interesting read.
DOOOOOMED!!! DOOOOMED I tell ya!
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/med...age/index.htmlQuote:
Helios and Matheson, the parent company of the popular movie subscription service, said that it had a service outage on Thursday because it couldn't afford to pay for movie tickets. The company borrowed $5 million in cash Friday to pay its merchant and fulfillment processors, according to a regulatory filing.
Would have been a great short.
2018 does appear to be a better summer than last year.
My wife and I each have MoviePass. We are retired so we try to go to one movie a week, usually at a slow time Monday or Tuesday afternoon. The only issue we have with it so far is that our local theater has reserved seats and we can not reserve the seats until we got to the box office so to insure we can get decent seats we go on off hours.
While it has been good for us and we have seen many more movies than if had to pay $10 or so per movie, the business model just seems like a loser. I just hope we don't get charged for the next month and then they go out of business before we can see a movie that month.
I think you will see all of the chains adopt something like what AMC did. Monthly fee at a more sustainable price and less generous than one movie a day. Finding the right model is probably tricky. How much would you pay with a limitation of 5 movies a month? How much more for 10? Keeping down fraud is another issue. Our local theater requires photo id to use MoviePass, which adds to the check-in time.
Another question - When does MoviePass go out of business as we know it? Before the World Series, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Super Bowl?
SoCal
I agree that the industry will try to find a subscription model that works. Everyone will be watching AMC. One thought I have heard bandied about is the notion of a subscription service that allows you to see movies Mon-Thu, which are typically slower days for the theaters. Everyone is worried about messing with the big crowds for blockbusters on Friday and Saturday. I have also heard that AMC is trying to study whether people on their subscription service buy more concessions. They did not have to pay for a ticket at that moment so, the theory goes, they will feel less reluctant about spending $15 on a popcorn, coke, and overpriced candy. If that proves to be true, the industry will jump all over this model (though Hollywood will not like it as they don't care whether the theaters sell more popcorn).
I'd put my money on Labor Day. I cannot fathom why anyone would loan them money going forward to keep this money-losing business model afloat. Their current market cap is 3.37 million dollars. In other words, they borrowed about twice the value of the company on Friday just to pay their credit card processing company. If you had invested $1.25 million in Moviepass back in October, less than a year ago, your investment would be worth... wait for it... $2 today.
The news has been so bad lately, I would expect very few new subscribers are joining, as everyone is worried the company will shut down before you can buy your next ticket.
They are done.
-Jason "Go see a movie tonight, because there is a non-zero chance the company won't be around tomorrow" Evans
Some theaters have what is called e-ticketing. I have not used it but you buy your ticket at home through the app and get a response on your phone which you show at the theater for admission. My guess is that that MoviePass is not paying the theater full price for those tickets. This weekends big hit Mission Impossible seems to be only available on MoviePass at theaters that have e-ticketing.
They recently added something called surge pricing. The idea is that you pay a surcharge for popular movies or times. MoviePass is trying to justify this by saying that it will help the theaters by driving customers to slower days and times. I have not run into it but many people have complained that surge pricing was applied when there were few people in the theater. MoviePass says that do this "holistically" whatever that means.
We do not buy more overpriced food because we got into the movie for less.
My understanding is that the movie distributor gets a percentage of the ticket sales, as does the theater owner. I wonder how AMC Stubbs splits the gross. Something for subscription models to figure out.
SoCal
The free fall continues. MoviePass' parent company's stock (HMNY) opened this morning at $2, and is now under $1.
As they say in Cameron...Ahhhhhhh Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeya!
Today the only theaters in my reasonable vicinity that have showings available for MoviePass are those that do e-ticketing. While I am guessing, my guess is that MoviePass does not reimburse the theaters full price for e-ticket movies.
There appears to be a war between the movie owners and MoviePass. MoviePass has its millions of subscribers as its weapon in the war. Basically they went concession in the form of reduced prices for MoviePass users. I think the general logic goes - Discount coupons are sold at Costco, why not give MP the same break? MP is increasing attendance and sales of popcorn, candy, etc. so give it a break on admission price. MP is driving customers to times and shows that are off-peak and putting bodies in otherwise empty seats.
Last weekend MP had so called Peak Pricing on every movie in the theaters nearest to me. Had we gone to a movie we would have paid MP $8 for the tickets rather than $12 or so to the theater. I am not sure how much MP is making off of Peak Pricing.
Mission Impossible Fallout was only on MP at e-ticket theaters in my area (and I think everywhere). It did $61 Million domestic opening weekend, a record for the franchise. Hard to see that that MP blackout has hurt the box office.
We will probably drive to an e-ticket theater tomorrow.
SoCal
Moviepass stock is tanking further. Now $.70 a share.
The company now says it will not be able to sell tickets to upcoming releases like Christopher Robin and The Meg. I'm not sure why it would bar certain films from the service as I believe it pays the same amount for a ticket to a new release as it does for a ticket to a film that has been in theaters for weeks. I guess this is an effort to stop subscribers from using the service. If you cut out new releases, there is simply less demand for people to use their moviepass. I know a guy who has one who goes to 4 or 5 movies a week and he said there just aren't any movies left that he can see with his moviepass.
--Jason "the crashing stock now means that my house is worth more than the entire company... and I don't live in that nice of a house" Evans
I think MoviePass is barring major releases for two reasons.
1. As you stated, cutting down on usage and saving money. Kind of a strange way to try to succeed.
2. MP wants the theaters to give them a break on ticket price. They hope the BO for these releases will be reduced and the theater owners will then strike a deal. Jason would know better than I if Mission Impossible Fallout was hurt.
My subscription runs to Aug 3. Trying to decide if I should cancel now or hope it lives for another month.
SoCal
Their stock actually jumped up to $2 today after they announced they are raising subscription prices and limiting viewing on major release movies. Then reality set in that that idea means you pay more for less, and it dropped down to about 50 cents. Someone made a boatload of cash though if they bought at .70 and sold at 2.00. Whoever bought at 2.00 isn't very happy right now.
The new MoviePass price point puts them within a few bucks of the AMC Stubs A-List monthly program which allows you to go to 3 movies a week and, unlike MoviePass, they can be IMAX or 3D or prime-time first release showings. You can do two or three movies in a day if you want, unlike MoviePass which limits you to one a day. The AMC program is much better, no question about it, and Twitter is full of people who are cancelling their MoviePass to get the AMC A-List.
But, sadly, the AMC pass only allows you to go to AMC theaters and that will be a problem for some smaller, independent films that don't make it to AMC. MoviePass had been a real boon to smaller documentaries and independent films and that will go away now, which is a real pity.
Some of these Tweets are hilarious.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/what...-problems.html
And down to 0.23
MoviePass Shutting Down, Parent Company ‘Unable To Predict If Or When…Service Will Continue’
https://deadline.com/2019/09/moviepa...wn-1202734166/
Hang on... Moviepass was still operating? I'm just shocked they hung on as long as they did.
Quote:
HMNY today said that it formed a strategic review committee comprised of independent directors, to identify, review and explore all strategic and financial alternatives for the Company, including a sale of the Company in its entirety, a sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets including MoviePass, Moviefone and MoviePass Films. Today, MoviePass notified its subscribers that “it would be interrupting the MoviePass service” effective Sept. 14 to because its efforts to recapitalize MoviePass have not been successful to date.
What the heck is Moviepass? Or, was movie pass?