This seemed like the best forum to put this in.

Apparently we, as movie goers, are being bad and runing movie takings
by being quicker than ever to tell others which movies s-u-c-k.

Well, maybe if they made good films, instead of "Gigli", we wouldn't comment on the s-uckage!

Interesting essay. Read it here.

An Intresting essay indeed, Luigi, but given the MPAA's record on staggered film/DVD releases, for various markets, highly unlikely to take off....
(An example of this happened until fairly recently in the U.K, where you could, in most cases, if you had a "Chipped" Multiregion DVD player, you could get the Region 1 DVD of a particular movie before it was cinematically released in the U.K...).

Personally I think the biggest problem with the movies today is that they are still trying to use the mass market style of business. We now have huge multiplexes (with between 16 and 30 screens) playing only 6 to 10 movies on 4 screens each. Most of the movies are over produced, over budgeted, over hyped, watered down flicks that were made to try to reach the biggest possible audience. If you try to please all of the people you will end up pleasing no one. Of course they have to hedge their bets because when you spend $100 million + on a movie you have to reach the widest possible audience as quick as possible to make that money back before interest dies down or bad word of mouth gets around.

I think that ironically the producers and distributors in Hollywood need to take a lesson from TV of all places. As the number of channels have increased exponentially the variety of programming has also increased as the audiences fragmented to cater to everyone’s tastes. You have edgy fair like The Sopranos, The Shield, Sex in the City, Queer as Folk in some places, more palatable trash TV with Desperate Housewives, Sci-Fi thrills with Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG1, trippy adult animation with Adult Swim. The list goes on but the point that I am making is that none of those things puts up the kind of numbers that Star Wars Ep III put up but none of them needed to because they were produced cheaper for a smaller audience.

Today on television they can produce 45 minutes worth of The Sopranos, or Enterprise (before it was canceled) for about $5 million. 45 minutes of Battlestar Galactica or Stargate for probably half of that. 45 minutes of Desperate Housewives for about $2 million.

With those numbers in mind why would anyone need to spend $60 million on Monster-in-law? Where did all of that money go? Did the movie really have anything that was worth $56 million more than two episodes of Desperate Housewives?

Enterprise’s “In a Mirror, Darkly” two-parter was produced for about $10 million ($5 mil per episode) Last year’s “The Chronicles of Riddick” cost $100 million. Yes it was a cool looking movie with lots of special effects (and one rapidly falling star) and everything but was it really $100 million better looking than that Enterprise ep?

“The Interpreter” cost $80 million to make. Once again that’s almost twice the budget of “Sin City where every shot was a VFX shot. Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman are good actors and everything but I don’t think that they would cost that much, nor that the logistics in making this film were really worth $80 million.

If I was running Hollywood I’d say lets take our money and put it towards making more films at lower prices, say between $5 million and $50 million. Of course their would be exceptions for James Cameron’s latest epic and Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruse collaborations, but they would be the exceptions not the rule. With more of these leaner films being made the producers could afford to take more chances and make films that are not the typical bland Hollywood product seen so much today. They could market them to smaller more niches of audiences and open them on 1 or 2 screens. A 30 auditorium megaplex could show between 15 and 30 movies at a time that way (more if you consider splitting auditoriums for movies that have been out a while or bumping some late night showings of kid films for more adult fare)

With the lower production costs Hollywood could afford to give the theaters a bit more of the box office take for the films which could mean no commercials and perhaps even lower prices. Commercials and prices are commonly named as reasons that people don’t want to go to the movies as much any more. In the theaters defense they have had to shoulder enormous costs recently to upgrade to stadium seating, digital surround sound, and build new bigger mega lexes. Perhaps the theaters could even spend a little bit more money where it counts on things like projectors and upkeep for them. When I worked for Regal cinemas we had a shiny new theater with LCD screens in the lobby and video projectors in the theaters for showing commercials, 5.1 digital surround in all of the theaters and 35mm projectors that were made in the 1970s and one projectionist who had to operate 16 of them while counting money to do deposits in-between shows. How about spending a little of that money on a projectionist who doesn’t have to be part of the management team, or really 2 projectionists if you have more than 10 or 12 projectors to run. Here’s an idea how about a maintenance standard that is more than “if the movie can still be projected on the screen nothing needs to be fixed“. Treat the projectors like the precision instruments that they are, not like an old car that needs to be kicked to start some times. Many people on that website Luigi linked to seem to think that DVD quality looks better than 35mm film and the biggest offender in that area is poorly maintained equipment that does not run smooth, scratches the film and has dust in the optical system. Well projected 35mm is about the best looking image you will see (much better than DVD), short of well projected 70mm or IMAX.

Re:Film Quality
In short, Brian, you're describing my former local "Fleapit"....
It does'nt help though, if the print that the cinema is lent, looks like it's been round the world before it gets to the cinema...
You could argue that a film now gets it's money back, so to speak, NOT in the traditional way, (ticket sales) but rather by licencing merchandising etc....

Actually the prints usually come to the theater in perfect condition (unless it's a cheap theater, not a first run) and than as soon as it gets there the projectionist has to put it together (a normal film is between 4 and 6 reels) and watch it one (to make sure all the splices are good and the reels are in order and everything) and since the mechanical parts that handle the film are old, dusty, greesey and loose.

The projectors are not going to be maintained unless the projectionists are held accountable AND given the time to do it. Usually the projectionist is either an underpaid 17 year old who's just happy to not be working the concession stand or a manager who's doing it in between counting money and keeping an eye on employees. They need to pay enough for trained projectionists why will be told "keep the equipment to this standard of clean or we'll get someone else who will. That and replace old equipment that's not working to specs, heck some of the new equipment out there and hold a film print so steady that Roger Ebert saw a demonstration discribed it as looking through a window rather than at a screen.

Brian,

I agree with your part about Hollywood putting out better movies with less money. I rarely go to the movies nowadays (I almost went to the SWIII because my little sister wanted me to go together to the English version, but now she's already seen it twice, and after Ep. I + II, I'm sure I won't like Ep. III). Instead, I'll wait till it's shown on TV, and save the admission money. (And it's only 2 or 3 years now till movies get on TV).

I think the problem is that TPTB don't know what a good movie is, but think only in terms of trends. There's a big star, let's pay him 50 mil. $ wage, and just because there's a big star, people will love it.
Let's use lots of impossible CGI sequences, because they're cool and nobody will watch a movie without them.
Let's use Matrix tricks, even when they don't belong, because (see above).
Let's use some kiddies doing things impossible for their age, because everybody loves to see kids.
Let's put in lots of explosion and actions and races with impossible speeds and impossible CGI stunts, because people won't watch other movies.

Plot? What Plot? Logic? Laws of physic? Believable characters? Aww, the public doesn't want it. And then let's whine about how expensive the movie was and that it has to suceed, or show how much effort the actors put in (which doesn't help with most of the actors, or if the script s-ucks.)

Let's have more movies that don't look like clones of each other because they follow formulas. And with less hype, people won't be disappointed and say "all major movies s-uck".

Exactly, and I'm not even saying simply make better movies, because their is no objective standard of good. I'm saying make more movies for less money that can take more chances and be more varied because they will need smaller audiences in order to make a profit.

Re: Last comment
So, Brian, you feel that the "film of the future", production wise, should be closer to the model of Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow or Sin City than for example The Pacifier....
But will Hollywood tolerate a active & flourishing Independant movie production sector, or will they just "cherry pick" movies, for cinematic distrubition depending on circumstances...?
BTW, Brian, I'm British, & often the prints shown in British cinemas, quality-wise, have been metaphorically & some cases
physically "around the houses" to start with...

I'd like to take Mr. Cuban up on his last suggestion. Did anyone else watch "The Benefactor"?

Cuban says the price of the DVD should be upped to $40 to make theater-going seem (keyword here) more economical. But what about DVD rental? That would still be less expensive than going to the theater. Sure, you wouldn't own the movie, but the same is true of the theater. Is the theater "experience" going to be that much better than paying less to rent it?

I don't know much about this, but it sounds like maybe 3-D is going to be the next theatrical film innovation. Maybe that would get people in the seats. Anyone know what's expected in this area?

Hmm. An interesting sequel to the story:

(My friend tried sending me the link, but it didn't work, so hopefully the Copyright Gods will forgive me.)

Indie film players reshape entertainment biz

By Anne Thompson Fri Jun 3, 9:05 AM ET


LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - A new theater is opening June 17 in Manhattan's Greenwich Village, where the Waverly Theatre used to be. It's called the IFC Center, and it isn't just the new flagship art house for IFC Films and IFC's indie cable channel. It's going to be another wedge in the destruction of the old media distribution paradigm.
ADVERTISEMENT

Change is in the air. Seismic change. Right now the mavericks grabbing headlines are 2929 Entertainment's Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner, owners of the 209-screen Landmark Theatre chain, indie distributor Magnolia Films and the high-definition cable channel HDNet.

Tech billionaire Cuban and Wagner are pioneering new ways of releasing movies and home videos. On April 22, they premiered Alex Gibney's documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" at L.A.'s Nuart Theatre; they also aired it exclusively on their HDNet channel on DirectTV. Theater chains around the country protested by not booking the movie. Nonetheless, it's a word-of-mouth hit (more than $2.6 million to date) playing in 150 theaters. Next, 2929 plans to release six digital Steven Soderbergh movies day-and-date in theaters and on TV and home video.

Theater owners and distributors are watching these experiments closely, even as they fiercely debate their own options -- behind closed doors. The entertainment industry already has been turned on its head.

The U.S. box office is still the heavy locomotive driving the train, establishing movie titles before they hit other markets, but international sales have far outstripped domestic, and DVD sales are now the biggest revenue stream -- some $16 billion last year, almost double domestic theatrical revenue.

This swiftly changing landscape is not for the faint of heart. It takes guts to break the mold. And mistakes are expensive. The studios, terrified of piracy, are chasing more global day-and-date launches and are inexorably shortening the gap between theatrical and home video release. But the pace of change is slow for these unwieldy corporate monoliths.

That's why the more nimble independents are taking the first steps in the revolution. The next step for art house distributors is to take their limited marketing dollars and push movies straight from the Paris Theatre in Manhattan to video-on-demand and DVD.

Universal's arthouse arm Focus Features experimented with overlapping theatrical and DVD releases for its Oscar contender "Lost in Translation," with positive results. Instead of wasting money on a short-lived theatrical run for the six-hour Italian success d'estime "Best of Youth," which Miramax Films released, one Warner Bros. executive opines, "Get it to DVD before I've forgotten it."

IFC is going to be the next bellwether. Launched by Cablevision in December 2000, IFC Films started out as a modest-sized producer of art films ("Boys Don't Cry," "Monsoon Wedding") that were intended to air on the cable channels IFC and Bravo. "We have the luxury of being able to sell our own movies to our own network," says IFC Entertainment president Jonathan Sehring, who quickly moved into distribution with such films as "Y Tu Mama Tambien," "Touching the Void" and "The Ballad of Jack and Rose." Now Sehring is adding exhibitor to his many hats.

While he has no plans to "expand beyond one facility," he sees other changes ahead. "We're going to alter our business plans over the next six to eight months. We feel strongly about video-on-demand as a future. As we shorten the window between DVD and theatrical, you're going to see some sort of mixture and blend of VOD."

As Sehring sees it, "When films open theatrically, they get national press attention for the first two to three weeks, and then move to B and C markets two to four months down the line. Aside from releasing on DVD earlier, we can take advantage of new technology on our cable channels via satellite and experiment with VOD day-and-date a week or two after the opening."

Capitalizing on the IFC Center is key to Sehring's strategy. A movie would launch with a videotaped special event at the IFC Center, says Sehring, which would be available, along with the movie, on a VOD basis to subscribers through IFC Films on Demand just one week after the premiere. This would have little effect on DVD sales, Sehring posits, because "most people buy and collect DVDs that they want to own, more than they ever did on tape. It might effect rentals, not sales. VOD is here and gone, like a rental."

The question is, which movie will be IFC's test case? Will Sehring risk a potential winner, like Miranda July's festival hit "Me and You and Everyone We Know," or experiment with a smaller fish like the Sundance mock-documentary "CSA: The Confederate States of America," which depicts the alternate America that would result if the Confederacy had won the Civil War?

The other powerful cable channel that is looking at these issues is HBO. At Cannes, HBO Films chief Colin Callender announced Picturehouse, HBO's new theatrical distribution co-venture with New Line Cinema.

"Everyone is looking at windows," Picturehouse West Coast marketing chief Dennis O'Connor says. "You could look at an HBO airing as a giant sneak preview. We've talked about it. Would the public be willing to pay for something after they've had it free on TV? We won't know until somebody does it in a real way with the right film."

The art house consumer tends to be an early adopter of new technology, like


TiVo. Survey the behavior of your friends and families, and the trend is clear: As more and more kids -- the prime target moviegoers -- order their movies through Netflix, Movielink computer downloads and cable VOD, theatergoing is taking a hit. (Even with the summer in full swing, admissions for the year are down 7%.)

What everyone knows, but few want to admit on record, is that day-and-date delivery of movies through every platform -- with different pricing -- is inevitable. As Landmark Theatres marketing chief Ray Price puts it, "This is the year that the walls of Jericho could come tumbling down."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Cuban says the price of the DVD should be upped to $40 to make theater-going seem (keyword here) more economical.

Yes, because no one will b*tch about how both DVD's and theater tickets cost too much.</sarcasm>

I don't care how much a DVD costs, it's not going to get me to pay for $9 movie tickets any more often.

On reading the actual link and not just the comments about it, I see that he's not actually advocating merely raising DVD prices, but instead releasing DVD's at the same time the movie is released to theaters and charging that price, with a $10-15 rebate if you send in a ticket stub. That's actually not a horrible idea. I know I'd like to have a copy of Star Wars Ep III right now. (And yes, I know it's on the internet, I don't care, I mean the real DVD)

Well, at least it's not a horrible idea until you take into account the people that would just rent it at the videostore anyway like Nove Rockhoomer brought up...

Maybe this board should be retitled something more generic, like What's Wrong with Hollywood Movies, or The Decline of Hollywood and the Box Office because I have a bit that I'm going to post here because, while it has nothing to do with Mark Cuban, it does pertain to the current issue of why Hollywood and box office revenues are in decline.

Roger Ebert, in his review of the new comedy The Man, relates this ancedote:

At Telluride over the weekend, I was talking to James Mangold, the director of "Walk the Line" and other ambitious pictures, and he said an interesting thing: Hollywood executives are reluctant to green-light a project that depends on the filmmakers being able to pull it off. They want familiar formulas in safe packages. An original movie idea involves faith that the script will work, the director knows what he's doing and the actors are right for the story. Too risky. Better to make a movie where when you hear the pitch you can already envision the TV commercial, because the movie will essentially be the long form of the 30-second spot.

Go online, look at the trailer for "The Man," and you will know everything you could possibly need to know about this movie except how it would feel if the trailer was 80 minutes long.

I think that the biggest problem with the people running hollywood today is that they are thinking in too much of a business model. They want everything broken down to spreadsheets. "If we spend this much money on a big actor, this much of special effects, have some action and a few jokes and spend this much on advertising we should be able to make this much money." The problem with athat is that it may work for cars, DVD players or something like that movies aren't simply the sum of the parts. Any type of art has a value that is more than just what they were made with. That's why so many big "tentpole" projects (XXX" State of the Union" "Electra") that seemed like sure things are ending up getting outgrossed by little films that could like "Napoleon Dynamite" or "Open Water" that were produced on the cheap.

If this becomes a general board about Hollywood and the movies it makes, this article might also belong.

A fan made his own version of "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" by editing (cutting) parts of the movie he thought were superfluous, and distributed it over the Internet (calling it "Phantom Edit").

Salon speculates on the effects this might have:

If the still-growing deluge of "Phantom Menace" interpretations are any indication, this is only the beginning. We might see ambitious amateur editors take on overlong projects like "The Green Mile" or "Meet Joe Black," or perhaps attempt to edit a TV series like "Twin Peaks" into a coherent feature-length film. It almost goes without saying that if 2002's "Episode 2" fails to live up to expectations, we will see "Episode 2.1" through "2.9" by year's end.

With its obvious parallels to the Napster debate, the shifting of power from the filmmakers to the fans is both disturbing and exciting. It is disturbing because there will no longer be any sort of quality control, aside from the natural assumption that the best "fan edits" will be the ones that get passed around the most. We may have 100 different versions of the next "Star Wars," and 95 of them will be sub-par.

What's exciting is that one or two of these versions will not only be reedits but reimaginings, radically changing the narrative through unexpected audio and visual juxtapositions. The possibilities are endless -- indeed, "Battlefield Earth" may be a much better picture when reedited into a 15-minute experimental short film. In the upcoming years we will be privileged to witness, essentially, critics making movies, which we haven't seen in abundance since French New Wavers like Godard and Truffaut decided that the best response to a film was making another film.

If nothing else, the arrival of the fan edit takes its place alongside the recent slew of good movies made on consumer video cameras (such as "The Celebration," "Dancer in the Dark," "Chuck & Buck," "The Blair Witch Project" and the just-released "Lisa Picard Is Famous"), as yet another way in which the proliferation of digital technology could change the movie industry for the better. Because if the filmmakers themselves can't cut it, the fans will.

Umm.......excuse me? The Blair Witch Project is a "good" film????

Okay, sorry, but whatever else that egghead said is not important enough for me to read, because he just lost me right there with that profoundly silly statement.

Re:last comment
It depends on how you define the term "good" Luigi...
You could argue that The Blair Witch Project was a example of how "non-commercial" Digital Video (DV) "Palmcorders" (The professional version is called DV-Cam) could be used to produce a cinematically acceptable "product" for release, and as such, the results obtained could be regarded as "good" with regards to technical quality...
However, in terms of pacing, & narrative delevopment, The Blair Witch Project, shows it's "Amateur" as opposed to "Auteur" status, IMO...

No the Blair Witch project was a little movie that could. It was an experimental film made for a 5 figure budget that gross over $100 Million at the box office. Also it was shot on 16mm B&W film and Hi8 video (not DV)

The other stuff on the blair witch DVD I think is better than actual film (Curse of the Blair Witch and the other fake documentary stuff was really cool when it just used some of the improved "found footage")

Whoa. This really surprised me.

I wonder how it'll effect the efforts to produce a Hobbit film. Will it expedite the process? Or hinder it?

I thought New Line was owned by Miramax, or something, but I guess that was a misconception brought on from knowledge that the Weinsteins executive produced the LOTR trilogy.

(I actually found this out last night at a screening from a guy at Miramax, but I forgot about it until I came across a link just now.)

New Line, AFAIK, was founded by Robert Shaye, and bought by Ted Turner sometime in the 1990's. When Time Warner bought all Turner's properties, New Line became a Time Warner company.
I wonder how, or if, it will affect the release of Sex and the City - The Movie, which was to be released by New Line on May 30.

Here's a corporate breakdown of who owns what in the major studios -
Universal (includes Focus and Rogue Pictures) - owned by General Electric, who also owns NBC
Columbia Pictures and MGM (includes Sony Pictures Classics) - owned by Sony Corp.
Paramount (includes Paramount Vantage) - owned by Viacom
Warner Bros. and New Line (includes Warner Independent) - owned by Time Warner, who also owns AOL.
Miramax, Touchstone, Hollywood and Walt Disney Pictures - owned by the Walt Disney Company, who also owns ABC.
Twentieth Century Fox - owned by News Corp., who also owns the Fox Network and the New York Post.
The Weinstein Co. was founded by the Weinstein brothers after they left Miramax.
Hope I didn't miss anything...

Hope I didn't miss anything...
Think I did.
Dimension Pictures (which released Grindhouse) is a subsidiary of Miramax.
United Artists has been owned by MGM since 1981 (since the overbudgeted floperoo Heaven's Gate sank it), and is now owned by Sony as well.

Also (and I think I've noted this elsewhere on this website) Dreamworks was bought by Viacom, and it's films are distributed by Paramount. The previously signed deal giving HBO pay-cable rights to Dreamworks movies is still effective.
New Line is now essentially extinct. Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay will be released by Warners on April 25. More here. I assume the same will be true of Sex and the City - The Movie when it comes out May 30.

Viacom, parent co. of Paramount, is planning to launch it's own pay movie channel, with MGM and Lions Gate. Currently, all three studios have exclusive deals with CBS's Showtime. More here.
If those three studios join forces and start their own channel, Showtime would pretty much go dark, as much of Showtime's content comes from those three studios.

Both Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay and Sex and the City both have the New Line logo in their ads; the Warner Bros. logo is nowhere to be found. So, despite what what was said above, New Line may be a going concern. I don't know for how long, though.

dont where to put it, but the Great Escape is on Amc, the 45th aniversary-
I was 8 or so and I had to beg my parents to stay up and watch it!

it was kinda longish to me..

More about the upcoming Viacom/MGM/Lions Gate pay channel here.
Showtime is looking into more original programming, as ratings for theatrical movies on cable channels are way down. So, it may not go dark. Yet.
IMHO, this could be a costly mistake, as there are carriage issues. Not every cable company has the space for another channel. Fees will be a big issue. I'm not holding my breath for my cable company to sign on.

Dreamworks SKG, which was acquired by Paramount not long ago, has split with the latter. More here.

Here's more about the upcoming Viacom/MGM/Lions Gate movie channel, now titled "Epix". IMHO, this venture may be DOA, as so far no cable or satellite system has signed on to carry it. Including, as of two weeks ago, my cable carrier, Time-Warner.

And still no major TV provider wants to carry the "Epix" channel. The whole venture should have been aborted from the start, as it's apparently a white elephant that's costing Viacom millions. More on that here.

Verizon FiOS has signed on to carry the "Epix" channel. But, Cablevision, Comcast and DirecTV have said "No." I don't know if my own provider, Time Warner, will ever carry the channel; the last time I spoke to them, they said "No" as well. But, if I (or you) wanted to see any of the films that are exclusive to Epix, such as Ironman or Cloverfield, I (or you) could go out and rent the DVDs.

"Epix" is scheduled to sign on this October 30; Verizon is hyping the channel in their FiOS ads. More here. I still think this is a white elephant that has "Bust" written all over it. Especially since FiOS's 2.2 million subscribers probably aren't enough to make the channel viable. Let's see if time proves me right or wrong.

MGM is for sale.

Well, heck, Luigi- I got a couple hundred bucks. Wanna go in on it together? ;-)

Sure. But we better get at least one more person in on it with us. (I have a feeling these Hollywood broker types might charge as much as $150.)


(Interestingly, I was going to make a similar joke myself in my initial post on this, but decided against it. You're psychic!)

I've got a few hundred, we can make it an international conglomerate...

G.E. sells controlling share of NBC/Universal to Comcast.

Miramax closes for good.

Chapter 11 for Blockbuster.

And, MGM filed for bankruptcy yesterday. The studio hopes to emerge from bankruptcy within 30 days.

Oooh! Those Evil Content Pirates^OMT!!!!!

MGM Restructure Complete.

I hope this means more releases for "Green Acres"

A Rare Look Inside Pixar Studios by The New York Times.

Man, what a cool place that would be to work.

Blockbuster auctions off their stuff.

Disney sold Miramax in December for $663 million. The new CEO is Mike Lang, a former business development executive at New Corp.

Pity. For a while there, Disney owned both Miramax and Marvel Comics, and I was so looking forward to seeing an adaptation of a Jane Austen novel featuring Wolverine.

Time Warner buys Flixster in bid to counter Netflix.

Marvel regains rights to Punisher and Ghost Rider, while 20th Century Fox still has X-Men, Ghost Rider, and Fantastic Four, and Sony still has Spider-Man.

This past weekend, Dolphin Tale beat The Lion King 3-D.

Really?

A dolphin beat a lion?

And a crippled dolphin with a prosthesis, no less?

Wow, I must've missed that episode of Wild Kingdom, cuz I didn't know dolphins could do that!

What next, Professor X beats up Rocky Balboa in a fistfight?

Well, if they were in the ocean the dolphin would have the home field advantage. ;-)

Now if the rematch takes place on the African Savannah...

Actress sues Amazon for revealing age on IMDB by using personal details from her credit card.

If this is true, I hope she sticks a tree trunk up Amazon's butt.

I think this might be a better link:

news.yahoo.com/actress-sues-amazon-revealing-age-film-database-195731388.html

Yeah, the link Luigi provided was for his Futurama post, I do believe.

Whoops! Thakns, Charles.

Starz Entertainment has licensed 500 films from LionsGate, one of the partners in the Epix channel I ranted about above. It includes films like The Expendables, Conan The Barbarian and 2007's 3:10 to Yuma. I don't know if it includes LionsGate's most recent release, the Katherine Heigl pic One for the Money. More here. Something from the article I didn't know before - LionsGate recently bought Summit Entertainment, the studio that made Red and the Twilight films. And which has a deal with Showtime, the pay-channel that LionsGate dealt with before buying into Epix.
I don't know if this is the beginning of the end for the Epix channel, but (IMHO) it doesn't look good. Then again, LionsGate may simply be looking for some extra money from their film library.

Some idiot is trying to sue a theater because their concession prices are too high.

Gimme a break.

Putting aside the fact that that's where the theaters make most of their money, no one is forcing him to go there, or buy stuff like popcorn and soda. When I go to the theater nowadays, I either bring a drink with me in my shoulder bag (and a burger or wrap or sandwich if I'm hungry), or I just--get this--wait until I get home to eat. I'm not crazy about popcorn, and don't eat candy often, but even if I did, I don't go to the theater for that. I go to WATCH MOVIES.

I'm not crazy about popcorn...
I love popcorn, but don't eat it any more. Not since I broke a molar with a kernel back in 2005, when my son and I saw The Longest Yard. I got a crown to cover the tooth a few months later. Maybe I should have sued the theater or the chain...
Back in 1977, me and my friend tried to smuggle a six pack of beer into the local cinema. We got nailed by an usher, who confiscated our brew. We got it back when we left the theater.

This may have been noted on another page here at some point, but - Disney has purchased Lucasfilm from George Lucas for $4 billion. More here.
In 1976, Mel Brooks made a very funny movie titled Silent Movie. One subplot was that Mel Funn (Brooks) had to sell a conglomerate named "Engulf and Devour" on the idea of making a silent movie. With the purchases of Marvel Studios and now Lucasfilm, Disney is the real "Engulf and Devour". That still won't get them to release season three of Once and Again anytime soon. (You didn't think I'd miss this, or any, chance to nail Disney on that one, did you? )

And, Disney is back in the news again. They have just sold exclusive rights to their movies to Netflix, starting in 2016. This means that Disney's films will no longer be seen on pay-TV services such as Starz, who now has first-run rights to their films. More here.

This is interesting: A study shows that video piracy actually helps small films, though it hurts big ones.

An independent review of the academic research ... has shown that the vast majority of research available in fact does show that piracy does harm sales. And a recent study from Carnegie Mellon University found that digital sales in countries where Megaupload was popular increased after Megaupload shut down. And in fact, the Munich and Copenhagen paper also finds that box office increased after Megaupload shutdown for an important segment of titles that they don't clearly define, although it's hard from the study's descriptions to determine exactly what the control and treatment sample groups are, among other key factors.

Unfortunately, in order to reach its conclusion, the Munich and Copenhagen study also all but ignores a critical piece of the box office picture - how timing or other factors that are completely unrelated to Megaupload impact the box office performance of small, medium or large films.

Paramount, in the middle of an underwhelming year, will lay off 110 employees. More here.

DISH Network announced that they're closing their remaining 300 Blockbuster Video stores (there were still some that were open?) and their mail distribution distribution centers by January. They will retain the Blockbuster brand for their streaming service.

---

quote:

DISH Network announced that they're closing their remaining 300 Blockbuster Video stores (there were still some that were open?)

---

I think I might have had... one left in town? I don't know, it seemed like every time I'd drive by I'd think "that one is still open?"

Time Warner Cable has finally added the Epix channels to its lineup. IIRC, four SD and three HD channels, plus the On-Demand. They're giving customers the channels for free until on or about June 18. After that, I don't know if they'll be kept (at an additional fee, of course) or dropped entirely.

Disney (aka Engulf and Devour) has cut a deal to buy 21st Century Fox's film and TV subsidiaries. More on that here.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

This item doesn't quite involve the film industry. Or maybe it does, since there is a company called CBS Films. CBS CEO Leslie Moonves was canned yesterday, amid a slew of sexual harassment (and worse) allegations, some dating back decades. Don't cry for him, Argentina (nor should anyone else) as he's leaving CBS with a very generous package. More on this news item here.

CBS Corporation and Viacom, which split up a few years ago, has (like The Beatles song) come together. The new company will be called (surprise) Viacom/CBS. This puts all Star Trek back under one corporate umbrella.

As noted above, Disney has completed its purchase of Twentieth Century Fox studios. One of their first moves was to drop the "Fox" from the name. The main studio is now Twentieth Century Studios; Fox Searchlight Pictures is now (guess what?) Searchlight Pictures.

Why is wealth seen as obscene? Provided it is honestly earned and used in a responsible way, and provided all taxes on it are paid, I see nothing wrong with it. You can't have capitalism without reward.

Because when ten people have more wealth than half of the remaining population combined, and someone can buy a house for a price that would adequately house all the homeless people in his city, and someone else is trying to buy his way to the White House, something has gone tragically wrong somewhere.

Why are the last two posts here? instead of PM?

CBS All Access will be re-branded as Paramount+ in 2021. First up will be a limited series about the making of The Godfather. More on that offer (which I still may refuse) here.

Warner Media has announced that in addition to Wonder Woman 1984, all their major 2021 movies will play both in theaters and simultaneously stream on HBO Max. At least one theater chain is understandably pissed. More here.

And, to add insult to injury in the previous item, an agreement has finally been reached to allow HBO Max on Roku devices. It's the last major streaming service to sign on. More here.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, one of the most iconic of Hollywood studios, is apparently one step away from going out of business; the studio is exploring a sale of its assets. Including the James Bond franchise. The latest entry of which, No Time To Die, has seen several postponements, due to the current pandemic. More here.
The article states that MGM produced the Bond series from the beginning. That's not correct. United Artists produced them; that studio was acquired by MGM in 1981, following the mega-failure of Heaven's Gate. IIRC, the first Bond flick to use the MGM logo was 1981's For Your Eyes Only.

And, the next film in MGM's cash cow...er...Bond series, No Time To Die, may get postponed a third time, due to the ongoing pandemic. Which has closed movie theaters, some since spring, 2020. The movie was first scheduled for release in April, 2020. It was postponed to the following November, then postponed again to April, 2021. Now, it may be put off again, to November 2021, as the pandemic has not slowed down. Watch it not even hit theaters then; I predict it will not see the light of movie theaters (those that haven't gone out of business) until mid-2022. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as that is the 60th anniversary of the release of Dr. No, the first Bond flick. (Who'd a thunk the Bond series would go on that long? ) More here.

And, that did happen; the Bond flick has been pushed back to October 2021. More on that here. Let's see if that holds, or if the movie gets postponed a fourth time.

Disney is now looking to buy MGM. With all their other acquisitions, maybe the anti-trust squad should be looking to investigate. More here.

Amazon, and not Disney, is now poised to buy MGM. Which would give it a huge amount of content for it's Prime streaming service. More here.

And, this article states that Amazon will be undergoing an anti-trust motion, in regard to its purchase of MGM. I don't recall Disney getting any anti-trust motions in regard to its acquisitions (Capital Cities/ABC, LucasFilm, Twentieth Century-Fox Studios). Favoritism? Guess someone in the Justice Department likes both Mary Poppins and The Sound Of Music.

IIRC there were some aspects of the Fox buyout that were prevented by anti-trust concerns, but I don't recall what exactly, I think it had something to do with sports and/or cable.

On the other hand I do look forward to the new Stargate series, Stargate: Interstellar Deliveries about the team that fulfills Amazon orders on other planets. ;-)

The more likely answer is that The Mouse has deeper pockets which they can bribe the right people with it.

IIRC there were some aspects of the Fox buyout that were prevented by anti-trust concerns, but I don't recall what exactly, I think it had something to do with sports and/or cable.

Fox's regional sports networks were acquired by Bally.

Now, it is rumored that Warner Bros./Discovery is merging with NBC Universal. Maybe to make more work for the anti-trust division of the Justice Department. More on that here.

Another legacy of Orange?

Two major entertainment industry unions are either on strike or one step away. The Writers' Guild of America has been on strike for weeks, impacting almost every show and movie in production. Including Jeopardy, as Ken Jennings returned as host, due to Mayim Bialik's refusal to cross the WGA picket line. (Jeopardy clues, written by WGA members, were in place when the strike began.) Now actors, represented by SAG/AFTRA, are poised to strike imminently. The impact will be first felt on TV, with the fall series premieres postponed for who knows how long.
There have been more than a few entertainment industry strikes over the years. The one I remember most was the 1988 writers' strike. Which postponed fall premieres up to two months. Next Gen's second season premiere was in November, 1988. Four episodes were cut from production, down from 26 to 22. Producers dusted off a script, "The Child", written for Phase II in 1977, adapted it for Next Gen, and used it as the season premiere.

Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep and all the rest of those poor put upon workers. Never mind that they make more money than most of us will ever see and live in houses we could never afford. We must pity these poor downtrodden souls.

So, will the actors walk the picket lines themselves, or will they send their butlers and maids to do it, while they sit in their Beverly Hills mansions, drinking piña coladas.

The writers I can sympathize with. However, these privileged millionaires, no.

Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep and all the rest of those poor put upon workers. Never mind that they make more money than most of us will ever see and live in houses we could never afford. We must pity these poor downtrodden souls.

Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep and others like them are a very small minority of rich actors. Most actors have very average and inconsistent incomes. They have to hold other jobs to make ends meet. The cliche of the struggling actor working as a waiter or a taxi driver actually has a strong basis in reality. So yeah, the problem is real and the strike is justified.

Like them or hate them, streaming and AI are here to stay. These people have no more chance of getting rid of either than those deluded fools of 200 years ago, who thought they could stop the Industrial Revolution by running around wrecking machines.

It's the price of progress, unfortunately.

Disney is on track to lose $900 million this summer, with major box office disappointments (read-flops) like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, The Little Mermaid here.

Indy should have quit while he was ahead.

The SAG/AFTRA strike is reportedly over. The studios have reached a tentative agreement with the union; work can resume today. More here.

Of course, it's far too early to say when our shows will return to our screens.

I would imagine they'll probably hold off until the upcoming holiday season is out of the way.

The writers' strike ended a while back; I'm fairly sure shows have stockpiled scripts in anticipation of the actors' strike ending. In my opinion, we probably won't see new episodes until mid-January at the earliest. Some shows, like NBC's The Irrational and Found, have bern running fresh episodes for a while. I wonder how they got around the strikes. NBC has also been running new episodes of Transplant, but I think that's a Canadian import. (Am I right, Tim? )

NBC has also been running new episodes of Transplant, but I think that's a Canadian import. (Am I right, Tim?


Yes, you are. It's made by CTV.

I don't know where else to put this, but - Netflix has mailed out its last DVD. For the curious, it was the 2010 Coen brothers' remake of True Grit. Which, for your perusal, could at one time be bought in a two-movie set, with the 1969 John Wayne original, for five bucks at Wal Mart. More here.

Guess they're going streaming and nothing but.

In another probable expression of corporate greed, CBS/Paramount is shutting down its Showtime Anytime streaming app in December, 2023. This app comes free if you're a Showtime subscriber. No doubt it's a move to get one to subscribe to Paramount+. Which now includes Showtime. Another scheme to separate one from their hard earned dollars.

I hear you, Adam.

Like the Mouse now getting its claws on Doctor Who and locking it behind a pay wall