They’re already trying to with Saw X and Paw Patrol

Saw Patrol

It's going to be like movies that has similar concept but made by different studios (A Bug's Life & AntZ, Finding Nemo & Shark Tale) all over again, but in reverse, and questionably intentional.

@@andrewfeistner3384Yeah I’m pretty sure they’re coming out on the same day, that is insane. I cannot be convinced this was intentional, “Alr guys let’s watch some Barbenheimer” “Okay boys let’s head out to watch Saw Patrol” We need some really dark movie to match with FNAF

What Hollywood doesn’t understand is that situations like these can’t be replicated. It’s lightning in a bottle. Every attempt at replicating it will feel forced and fake because it will be.

1. Oppenheimer problabyt cost sabout 250 if you include the budget for marketing. 2. Marketing. You may think you heard about it through a friend, but you didn't, you heard about it through thre marketing channels. There are tens of thousands of youtube channels alone that had something to say about the movie, and yes probably half of them only did it to catch aride on the hype train. 3. Oppenheimer is good if you like Nolan movies. I don't, so I coujld not care less about all the hype and lies spread about it (and there are LOT of lies) Barbie is... well a barbie movie. It's probably fun if you like barbie,... I guess...

​@@vinny142whatever dude

since when is 100m a modest budget? geeez. + Barbie was shit and if you disagree you are a tool

@@vinny142 Even if Oppenheimer cost 250 with marketing, that would still be less than Mission Impossible, Dial of Destiny & Little Mermaid without even considering their marketing budgets. Also while you might not hear about a film from a friend, they will certainly tell you if they thought it was bad. Finally the third point is entirely subjective and fair. While I can't argue it, I am curious what lies you were told?

Haven’t seen Barbie yet but Oppenheimer wasn’t that good

Agreed - I saw it when it came out and I was more entertained and invested than I have been in any James Bond movies in a long time - that's been the case for me and the MI series and any Bond flick since Skyfall, really.

The story wasn’t good tbh

MI:7 had 2 big problems. 1. Bloated budget 2. It lost a lot of theaters to Barbie and Oppenheimer

I'm going to see it this week. F Barbie. Plus, tenet was garbage so I'm not paying to see Oppenheimer.

​@jinstinky501 Agreed, Barbie is woke garbage. But you shouldn't skip Oppenheimer. It is WAY better than Tenet.

That's exactly right. They always want to follow up with something similar, while in fact the lesson should be: people just want more original stuff. And that's something hard for them to follow.

I hope they get the other wrong lesson instead, that is "people want movie pairs that stupidly contrast each other's tone".

Looking forward to the Ken prequel opening against the Hirohito biopic in 2025

@@ArifRWinandar Saw Patrol is already a thing they're trying to make work. I think they miss that Barbenheimer took off because both fandoms had mutual respect and agency. A Barbie Fan might not intuitively think to see Oppenheimer, and visa versa, but it's a lot more likely they can appreciate each others films than Paw Patrol and Saw fandoms. Which is bizarre. Everyone growing up knew intuitively that things that were trying hard to be 'cool' or 'with it' were always the lamest things. Studio executives were part of everyone, but they seem to have forgotten this.

The studios learned the lesson not to make modestly budgeted movies (like Oppenheimer) because people stopped going to those movies, even when they were good. Instead, they rewarded giant tent poles with ticket sales, and tiny quality movies with awards. The middle.. well, no one seemed to want the middle anymore. But if more modestly budgeted movies get rewarded, then we might get collectively rewarded with the return of a great type of movie.

true

How far deep exactly?

"Good" carries that whole sentence.

Problem is, people always overthink things when talking about making good movies.

Well, they're both Intellectual Properties with decades of built up momentum behind them. It helps that Barbie was both a really creative and interesting film while Mario was . . . honestly I'm not gonna say it was bad because it wasn't . . . But it was basically what it needed to be for the brand to do its job well. I'm not sure a second mario movie, for instance, would do quite so well now that the idea has already been done. Unless it brings something more than competent and well animated to the table.

stop saying "inflation" when you really mean corporate profit gouging

@@daltonbedore8396 That too.

I saw MI:7 in ScreenX (projector "extends" the movie sometimes) and it was stupid, bottom mention the movie was a preachy, boring mess. It disappointed me so badly that I feel done with the theater.

@@Balthazar2242 bro mi7 was so good tho

@@daltonbedore8396 You could probably argue that it's both. Inflation isn't driven by too much money, it's driven by too much money getting into a bidding war on too few goods and services. And right now, the consumers aren't exactly the ones flush with the cash to drive inflation. If anything, I'd be happy with less stuff, that I can actually afford, rather than more stuff that's exorbitantly priced.

People are seeing fewer movies, however. They are just being way choosier now. So top gun night do fantastic business, but there is a real death around it. Part of it is pandemic, but it's more how our habits changed during the pandemic (like streaming taking up way more of our entertainment space)

@@ianwestc Exactly. Plus inflation has made going to the movies pretty expensive for families. Streaming services offer huge competition...basically every movie ever made at home, already paid for.

don't worry asteroid city was really good

Ironically, the only thing I went to see was Elemental. I didn't regret it. Most relaxing saturday I've had in years.

Andy Muschietti is also talented.

And that is why Barbenheimer hit. These were things you had to see in theaters and dress up accordingly and go with friends and discuss at work. In the case of Barbie, it is also the hottest music album of the summer and pink is the color of the season, so you can't miss that out. It was an actual event. But all other movies, people really don't care about spoilers anymore, and prefer to wait for streaming. I chose to watch Barbie instead of Spiderverse and I loved Barbie. For Spiderverse I can wait for the Netflix release.

It really depended on your area. I went to the theaters many times during the pandemic.

@@jonathanking9954 Technically, the pandemic isn't over. It's just no longer a global health crisis (though that can always change if another lethal variant pops up.) Also, while you might've been comfortable going to the theatre, many people weren't. That doesn't just change with the snap of a finger now that people aren't dying in large numbers.

@@CaptainRaccoonWhitly well also tbf I wasn’t afraid of Covid like a lot of people were.

Yup

This is why I liked Oppenheimer and I'm really excited for the next films that come after this.

This channel's missing one big point with MI 7 that both parts were filmed in unison so the collective budget is for 2 films, so it will be a success in the long run.

I do not want a mattel cinematic universe

This hits the nail on the head, I think. Studio want one big and surefire movie. But that has limits, as it means making movies that have to appeal to all people at once. I heard that part of why Disney fell in love with the Superhero Formula, and viewed it as such a cash cow, was that Super Hero Films, at least the marvel films, were simple and easily digestible across cultural lines. It's the same reason Fantasy gets pushed so hard. Fantasy, at least superficially, can be divorced from 'our' world. I think there is value in universal messages . . . But there are more universal messages than just 'beat up the bad guy' and more ways to tell them. And at the same time, there are worthwhile stories that come from being aimed at a narrower audience. That's how you get things that are so good you want to watch them even if they star doesn't 'look like you' or 'speak your language' even if you don't really 'get' what's happening in the story the first time you see it. It's how you get to the place where you meet a movie halfway, cuz you want to engage in this dialogue that its creators are offering to you. There's value in discovering that which we wouldn't think to be interested in until we find it. And there's value in finding it for ourselves rather than because an algorithm gave it to us.

I haven’t seen either. And the only one I will see is oppienhimer

@@jonathanking9954 I've seen Oppenheimer and let me tell you it was really great, it's really dense and long, not everyone's cup of tea, but it means a major step up in Nolan's filmography, it's a more mature film.

@@jesustovar2549 yea. It’s not that I don’t want to see it I’m a huge history buff but I just haven’t had the time

Yes, it was very enjoyable.

That was HILARIOUS

Fewer showtimes, and it's not really relevant for cash because the ticketprice reflects the length of the movie.

@SmashBrosInitiative Not really. See, if a film is greenlit by the studio and the exhibitor's booker to have more screens available(the current industry term is "prints"), then you can have more showtimes like in the case of Avengers. However, Avengers was not very contested and there was 10plus years of marketing and films to build that success. Additionally, when you know something is gonna smash, you move heaven and earth to get more showtimes( expand ops hours, delete other film's showtimes that lost protected status, etc). Now the comment was made within the context of this summer. Each flopping film was unwanted, mostly riding on dead horses, and competing with bloated budgets for the same money. There weren't as many films to delete, franchise fatigue, and a lot of factors better discussed by the video maker. After all that, a long movie increases the problem. There are many customers who will not sit through 20 minutes of trailers and 2 & 1/2 hours unless it is worth it, and it works with their schedule. These films weren't worth it. Let's expound by using math. A two and a half hour film means I have four showtimes in most ops hours per print. 100 minute gets me 5 or 6. 25-33% in available showtimes multiplied by all screens in America then divided by 2, assuming 1/2 capacity average is a lot of box office.

@@vinny142 Does the theater charge more based on the length of the film where you are?

@@user-yf4jx6te2b nah bro. When was the last time you missed a movie in theaters cause there werent enough showtimes? Never. You simply went on another day or picked a different time. A 30-40 runtime difference will have no effect on sales unless every single showing was consistently sold out and the person literally could not buy a ticket during the theatrical run.

@@treehavn I missed Indiana Jones 5, The Woman King, and Mission Impossible Fallout due to schedule constraints. The couple days I had available, the showtimes didn't line up with what I had to get done that day. The length of time in a theater isn't the problem. The amount of showtimes and when they are able to be scheduled can leave money on the table. After about 2 hours and 20 minutes, you lose a showtime per day on average operational hours (10:30a to 10:30p). It is a matter of math, my man. Each film has at least 20 minutes of trailers(often more)and most theaters will have at least 30 minutes between each show in a theater for both cleaning and seating needs. That bumps the total time each film takes to over 3 hours, excluding the first film. 12hours/3=4 available times a day. Sure, you only lose 10 customers per screen, but when you multiple that by the 10,000** screens you lose on a 2&1/2 movie, that adds up quickly. Also, when moneymaker films release, exhibitors will cut other films that are not under a protected status by contract with studios. They still want to have these other films play, so often they will do a balancing trick to have a theater share the films. A shorter film is much more forgiving to schedule in an alternating show schedule than a longer film. Fits in more places. ** source: National Associatio of Theatre Owners Total screens in US: 39,007 Assuming average of 3 prints(industry term for the amount of screens) per big release across the country(USA), that leaves us with 13002.33 screens. If you have 4 showtimes per day, that leaves you with 52,009.33 showtimes. 5 and 6 gets you 65,011.66 and 78,014 respectively per day. Now, if you gain 10 customers per screen, which for a lot of locations is less than 10% occupancy, for 5 showtimes that is an increase of 130,023.33 customers at x/ticket and x/popcorn and soda. 6 showtimes has an increase of 260,046.66 customers. If that isn't money left on the table, then I don't know what is. What they need to do is get films that have the pull and aren't riddled with all the baggage and problems exposed in the video essay and bring them in at the 100 to 110 minute mark.

It will just mean more films that are polar opposites will be released at the same time every other week, the studios still don't get that these two films were successful because they offered something different to the usual franchise rubbish

Part of it, I think, is that major studios have used bloated production budgets as a sort of 'moat' for years. Even if the CGI has started to look kind of shoddy, nobody could do CGI on their scope and scale or with as much direct interaction between the effects and the actors. So they used that to sort of push out smaller films and make themselves the must see tent poles. They literally scream louder than anyone else, because the only thing a big established studio has more of today than anyone else is money to burn. You also see this with Marketing. Spectacle films are much easier to market, because you just slap big shiny set pieces into the trailer. Where it used to be that a trailer's job was to create intrigue to make people want to see what the film was about. Now it's almost a reflection of the Studios desire for a 'sure thing' that will plant butts in seats.

Yeah it actually was a good movie. But I personally had to be sold on it since I figured 'uh Harrison Ford is 81 and they put him in an action movie?'. Probably a lot of people felt that way and would have loved to see that movie 30 years ago

Wait, they're actually doing that? O_O There's some things that are magical . . . But only when they stay as fanfiction.

@@Bustermachine Brands and Companies really will see fans doing things and think, "How can we do this, but safe clean and in a way that won't harm brand image?" and then they proceed to make the worst shit ever...

That entire opening could have been condensed to under 10 minutes. I liked dial of destiny but an Indiana Jones movie should never cost more than $200 million to make. Heck, even $150 should been its capped limit.

Cargo culting is a very, very big problem across the business and politics worlds currently. I would provide examples, but it would just kick off an argument... All I'll say is, keep an eye out for it and suddenly you'll begin to see it *everywhere*. Including *your own side* in the political world. Whatever side that may be.

@@Drekal684 we're talking about movies. You didn't need to bring up some cryptic message about politics.

I think a lot of people agree that a shakeup is needed. That's not the same thing as thinking cinema is 'doomed'. Just that it needs to change.

@@Bustermachine My point is that we don't have a big enough sample size to prove that it's an overall issue or just two or three bad movie that bombed.

I wouldn't say a masterpiece. But it came out a time when people were really Jonesing for something like it.

@@Bustermachine 100% agree

Guardians 3 was fantastic though

@@ryanbollinger1759 true… I forgot about that one…

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Meme's are very VERY prone to survivorship bias and selection that mutates them uncontrollably. It's a lot like trying to catch lightning in a bottle relying on meme based advertising.

@@Bustermachine They're also corporate based. All of social media is corporate owned. If it wants to promote your idea it will if not it will bury you pure and simple. People often forget that its not them making content its the corporation that allows such content to spread and if it doesn't like you it can shut it down at a moments notice no questions asked. You can't even complain since its not your product to use.

Why go see a live musical? Yet people who can afford it treat it as a luxury to do so. There's something to the idea of making at least some movies into events. I think the ceremony has value. But that's just me. Plus, I think studios are starting to wise up that the streaming models isn't sustainable as they're doing it now. So I think the gap between cinema and streaming availability is going to widen.