If Hollywood is truly concerned about saving itself, although I’m not necessarily convinced that it’s in need of saving, then they would lean hard on the cinemas themselves to improve the quality of the product of the cinematic experience. True, some people stay home nowadays because it’ll be on streaming sooner rather than later, but there’s a large contingent out there who would go to the cinema to see, at the very least, the so-called “big” releases if the cinemas themselves weren’t a hellscape of essentially all of the ills of society rolled up into one overwhelmingly miserable experience.
Fixing the cinemas themselves won’t cure all that ails Hollywood, but it would be a start. With streaming happening closer and closer to the actual theatrical run for a film, putting oneself through the misery of going to the cinema for the “cinematic experience” just simply isn’t worth it.
I hear you, and I had similar experiences in theaters (bad projection, questionable hygiene, obnoxious and threatening behavior from audience members).
But that’s not Hollywood’s responsibility, it´s the theatre owners´. The big chains tend to have better standards but what can they do about people behaving badly? That’s society’s problem.
The smaller venues are struggling to keep afloat anyway, so renovations are hardly on their to do list as long as they fight to stay open for business at all.
Returning to your doubt about Hollywood being in need of saving - it might not seem so right now because moguls and stars are earning a king´s ransom per year. But as Barry Diller said today in THR: if the strikes are lasting into the next year, sooner or later there will be no new content. Meaning no money for the theaters, streaming suscriptions (already going down) being cancelled, broadcasting stations running repeats or only hastily put together reality shows. And it´s not just the writers and actors not earning money (aside from the big time stars there are 90 per cent who live from paycheck to paycheck, losing health care if they don’t have enough jobs per year), it´s all the industries surrounding it, up to the caterer.
Mainly, it´s about the usual conflict: the incredible huge earners refuse to share the money they can only get because others create the product these huge earners sell.
It may not be their responsibility, but it’s impacting their business, and if the theater owners aren’t doing anything about it, then the responsibility falls on Hollywood to force them to clean up their act. There certainly are ways they can apply pressure to the theater chains in order for them to get their product up to at least an acceptable minimum level.
That’s an easy problem to solve. There are chains out there that have set certain standards of conduct that they expect and, if people don’t meet them, they’re told to leave. This is probably the easiest of the problems to fix, if the industry wanted to actually put some effort into it. Buying a ticket doesn’t give you carte blanche to act however you want to in the theater. The chains need to make that clear to customers, make the expectations clear, and if those expectations aren’t met, ejection from the premises is the consequence. Plain and simple.
You mean Hollywood, i.e. the association of studios and producers, can force theater owners to keep paying customers in line? How?
Setting a standard and threatening ejection might work for some theaters - but how do you act if the conflict escalates? The usher has to be capable to act like a bodyguard? The police has to be called every time?
Like MrHinx, I left the movie theatre feeling underwhelmed. Not bored, but rather with a nagging sense of ennui: “This is the best they could deliver for $400 million?”
The opening with Ethan in the shadows, and an aged Tom Cruise emerging from them, was well-done, and I enjoyed the early exposition scene being interrupted with action–it felt cheeky/knowing without being ironic. Also, the sequence on the train was fine, though I was sated with moving-train fight sequences as far back as Aldrich’s EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (this is probably just me).
But we have reached terminal adventure film rogueness, when both the hero, Ethan Hunt, and the villain, in this case The Entity, are said to have gone rogue. What constitutes normativity any more?
There was an Scheherazade quality to the story-telling–this happened, then this happened, and this happened next. But the tale is being spun not to forestall death, but to keep the movie unspooling, and the franchise (and Tom Cruise) running–always putting a conclusion just out of reach.
Interestingly, MI:DRPT1 is the third instance of the return of the analog I have seen this year. The first was the final season of “Picard,” where the analog Enterprise is the only ship that can save the digitally interconnected Federation/fleet. Then there was JOHN WICK 4, with its deep and beautiful evocation of THE WARRIORS and analog communications, as well as the Marquis having to default to a rotary phone after he smashes his cellular one.
And speaking of JOHN WICK 4: once again we have a hero in an environment suffused with candles, and in another scene, attending a wild party. To my eyes, the JOHN WICK versions are better, with the candle scene, especially, contributing more to the mise en scene. In MI:DRP1, the candles seem more like background to the latest Ethan Hunt sprint.
The audience I saw it with with quiet and attentive, but effusiveness was absent. They filed out having done their duty, but I could not determine if they had enjoyed themselves.
One thing to keep in mind re: The studios needing theater owners to clean up their act: the Paramount decrees
Remember that for over 70+ years studios were not allowed to own movie theaters (it was an anti-trust issue). A federal judge threw that out in August 2020, with a 2 year sunset period.
So this is the first year studios have been allowed to own and operate their own theaters. They can either buy a financially struggling chain or build their own. I’m not suggesting they’re going to do that, but for the first time it’s POSSIBLE. At a bear minimum they hold a lot more leverage over owners, but they also can completely remove owners from the equation if they wanted to as well.
After what we’re seeing with box office results I’m inclined to agree. Big revenues are no longer guaranteed for anything. A real deal stripped down Bond movie would be very exciting to me. Think Casino Royale but without the Miami Airport and sinking house in Venice sequences. Something a lot more cloak and dagger and dripping with atmosphere.
You basically just described my favorite type of Bond film. My favorites are movies like Dr. No and The Living Daylights. I mostly get bored by action but you show me Bond as a sniper in the shadows of some rain soaked Eastern European city and I’m all in.
I guess fans like us would definitely pay to watch that kind of Bond movie.
But will mass audiences?
And the budget will be high nevertheless because everything is much more expensive. That’s why all these brands are needed for cooperations, all the product placement.
Bond is a powerful brand by itself - but the big action and the big stunts have become part of it.
Will mass audiences accept a more FRWL like Bond these days? Or will they then say: oh, I don’t need to see that on a big screen, I wait for the streaming?
The lower, in some cases nonexistent, box office receipts of these movies could similarly suggest the nostalgia phase, that gave Spider-Man: No Way Home and Top Gun Maverick such impressive runs, has passed. How well Oppenheimer and Barbie do in comparison to the rest of this years films will be hopefully more of an indication of what general audiences are responding to and what they’re not.
Something I feel is that the marketing shows way too much. If you’ve seen a trailer you’ve essentially seen the whole movie in chronological order, chopped up into bite sizes. There’s not much really left for the cinema going experience other than slightly extended segments of what we’ve already seen. I wish productions resisted the urge to show all their cards so early and instead kept more up their sleeve. Creating a sense of intrigue as to what a film actually will contain could be a strong lure, I think.
Just saw the Mission Impossible yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed it! High action, fancy settings, interesting plot…
All in all, exactly what a James Bond should be, instead of the latest trend of the pretentious dark artsy ego-driven Craig era.
That’s the way they should go. Adventurous fun. Like Flemming intended.
Very true!
I keep hearing directors saying “this is meant for watching in theatres only” and all this patronising babble. But I trust they actually never go to Average Joe’s theatre, with the questionable hygiene, queues, smartphone screens lighting the rows, unbearable popcorn bags noise, neighbours talking aloud…
Granted, the screen is larger than at home so it’s technically way more enjoyable. But it is humanely and socially an ordeal. One I can tolerate only for “big show” movies like Mission Impossible or Bond. For the other movies, I’m much cosier (and safer) at home, thank you very much.
Cruise was right when he feared the release of „Oppenheimer“ one week after „Dead Reckoning“ would eat into the grosses. IMAX screens with much pricier tickets would be lost, causing a steep drop for the 2nd weekend grosses. Also, people will want to check out „Barbie“ and „Oppenheimer“ this weekend, but rather not go to the cinema for a third time.
Maybe there is a chance for all three movies to run and collect much longer than previous summer movies since there are no other big attractions in the upcoming weeks. Or even months, if the release dates for the big films are postponed and moved to the next year, due to the strikes.
