I wonder if the better financial play for some of these movies would be to negotiate a deal with a large streaming service. People won’t be going to theaters, but they will be wanting to see something at home.
It seems inevitable that this crisis will finally speed along Day 1 streaming at home, even though the price will probably be around $50. I’d definitely pay that, at least occasionally, so see some of the big releases.
Every couple years there’s talk about rolling something like that out, but it never comes to fruition. I think the studios don’t hate the idea, but then as soon as they start talking about it the theater owners give them a call and threaten to never carry their movies again.
Maybe this crisis will push things over the edge. $50 seems fair for day-and-date availability at home.
There are enhanced piracy issues though. I mean right now it’s trivial to get a shitty hand-held cam version of most movies on day one (or even before), but if you’re delivering them to homes in digital format we’d see that advance to high quality.
Much like the videogame industry was stupid to destroy arcade gaming, the film industry would be stupid to destroy theatres. I think they’re smarter than gaming. It won’t happen.
Wait, what? You’re saying that it would have been better to not have home consoles? I mean you realize that gaming is like 1000x bigger than it was during peak arcade, right?
Yes it will. They have to adapt to evolving tastes and desires, and this crisis will significantly reduce theatre traffic, even after it’s over.
No, I’m saying that arcades were the first run location for games much like theatres are still that today.
That still doesn’t make sense. In a world with arcades, there’s room for like 100 total games, maybe less? And your “first run” is selling 5,000 units, maybe, in a perfect world for HUGE hits.
I don’t think you’re doing the math here. Switching away from arcades to home consoles was the best thing that ever happened to gaming.
Not to mention that the reason arcades went away was because home consoles existed. People shifted their habits. I don’t think you could ever have both, though I guess Dave and Busters is one example.
A lot of games today would be nightmarish/impossible to play in an arcade. You’d also need to constantly plug quarters into the machine.
Arcade games were great for their time, but gaming evolved quickly once you could settle down with a game for hours at a time on your couch.
I’m not sure even day-one in-home releases would completely kill theaters, honestly. The great screen and sound, the social experience…hell, the popcorn. Plus, the at-home day-one cost would likely make some people head back to the theater.
Although I guess people with great setups for movies could just have their friends over. Would retain the social aspect. Hmmm. I dunno, I haven’t ever really given it much though. I can’t imagine NOT having theaters.
Well…
Fair enough.
I wouldn’t pay $50, maybe $20. But then, I wouldn’t pirate it or otherwise invite 20 people over to my house to watch it, either. There would only be three of us.
Since we are talking James Bond a bit and now we have to wait. Let’s revisit Pierce Bronson’s JB.
Watching Die another Day now.
He is part of the historical Bond movie history, even f we sometimes disregard it.
Plus Virus +12 and netflix so whateves.
sigh and yes I will look back at the comments… I dunno I don’t hate pierce.
Pierce was my introduction to James Bond, and while I think Goldeneye was fantastic, his later films began to remind me of the post-Keaton 90s Batman movies. I never hated Pierce, but I just figured the whole series was a bit of a parody of more series spy movies, and that Austin Powers was a parody of a parody.
It wasn’t until after Craig’s movies changed the tone that I revisited some older flicks and learned what the JB universe was really all about.
In the end I think Pierce was dealt a bit of a raw deal with a couple movies, but I like his take on the character nonetheless.
My problem with the Brosnan Bond films have zero to do with Brosnan himself. He has certain qualities for a great Bond.
The scripts for the films are largely dreadful, capped with the nadir IMO of Die Another Day.
I felt that brosnan might have been the best bond put in the worst movies.
I have argued this before, but his best Bond role has to be the Thomas Crowne Affair, a non Bond film, but very Bond like character.
If we could have gotten that level of script, I think Brosnan would have been better served.
I would like Brosnan’s Bond more if I could forget my mother’s massive crush on him.