SecondWindGroup
patreon
[COLUMN] Event Cinema Sees a Renaissance | by Darren Mooney
🕑 Added 2023-12-01 15:51:01 +0000 UTC
This weekend sees the release of Renaissance: A Film by Beyoncé, a concert film chronicling the artist’s Renaissance World Tour. The film is tracking for a global opening weekend of between $30m and $40m. This is an impressive figure for a concert film under any circumstances, but it is particularly notable Renaissance is the second major concert film of the season. Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour is arriving on streaming the week after next, having grossed $249m worldwide in theatres.
That haul would be impressive on its own terms, but The Eras Tour has outperformed several of the season’s major would-be blockbusters, pulling ahead of The Marvels ($187m and counting), The Creator ($104m) and The Exorcist: Believer ($135m). At the moment, The Eras Tour sits just inside the domestic box office top ten for the year. One of the upcoming potential blockbusters like Wonka or Aquaman 2 could displace it, but that is still a tremendous accomplishment.
The Eras Tour swept into cinemas, bringing an enthusiastic audience with it. Fans attending screenings were encouraged to engage with the concert film on a much more active level than with most releases, exchanging friendship bracelets or dancing in the aisles. Theatre chain AMC encouraged this behavior. Given the enthusiasm of the “BeyHive”, it seems safe to assume that the Renaissance screenings will be similarly energetic.
The reflexive response here might be to condemn such behavior in the sanctity of the movie theatre, as audiences should be respectful of the experience. However, there have always been films where – through mutual consent – those norms can be violated. It’s accepted practice for the audience to get up and dance to Stop Making Sense, Rocky Horror Picture Show screenings have their own rules, and the “rowdy” screenings for Cats suggest another tradition in the making.
What is particularly interesting about both The Eras Tour and Renaissance is that they are not being released by a major studio. Swift reportedly shopped The Eras Tour around the major studios, but eventually settled on a distribution deal with AMC theatres. Beyoncé and her team apparently initially negotiated with studios and streamers, before also opting to make a deal directly with AMC. In doing so, these artists bypassed the middlemen.
They also made an argument for the value of the theatrical experience and communal moviegoing, which has been a challenge for the major studios. In hindsight, it feels perfect that Swift and Beyoncé dealt directly with theatres. For fans of these artists, The Eras Tour and Renaissance are films that demand to be experienced on the big screen in the presence of other fans. It is not an experience that can be replicated on even the most high-end home media system.
This has been a rough year for most of the major studios. Allowing for the pandemic, this year will be the first year since 2014 that Disney has not had a billion-dollar release. The superhero genre, which has been the industry’s bread-and-butter for over a decade now, is in clear and demonstrable decline. Even seemingly surefire hits like Fast X and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, Part I have struggled to break even. Nostalgia is no longer cutting it.
There is a sense in which studios can no longer rely on the model that has sustained for the better part of a decade. The big push into the modern era of sprawling franchises and shared universes was built on a simple business assumption: if audiences buy into the larger franchise, they'll turn up to any release associated with the brand. This may explain the unlikely success of movies like Ant-Man and the Wasp or Captain Marvel, movies buoyed by the popularity of the larger Marvel brand.
There is an argument that the Marvel Cinematic Universe was best understood as a television show that happened to release blockbuster episodes. It’s not a perfect metaphor, but it does capture some of the sense of its popularity. Some audience members did go to films they would not otherwise care about because they were invested in the larger story. This made moviegoing something of a routine or a commitment. It was a force of habit.
In some ways, this was a progression of how movie-going used to work. People used to go “to the movies” and would see whatever happened to be on regardless of genre. As theatre manager Cara Ogburn recalls, “A lot of people used to go to a movie a week or multiple movies a week, and they’d be like, ‘Hey, I’m just going to stop by.’” At some point, that stopped being the case, with blockbusters being the exception. These days, it seems like those exceptions no longer apply.
It's easy to understand why this happened. While ticket prices have increased in line with inflation, incomes have not. This creates an impression that going to the cinema is more expensive than it used to be and a real challenge for those who want to attend. Many theatre chains are facing bankruptcy, leading them to fire projectionists and ushers, which degrades the experience itself. Plus, narrowing release windows mean most movies end up on streaming quite quickly, so why not wait?
However, while things are undoubtedly grim, the past year has demonstrated that audiences will turn out for specific releases. Avatar: The Way of Water grossed over $2.3bn upon its release last December, not bad for a sequel to a movie that many claim has no cultural footprint, with over $1bn of those being 3D tickets. This year, audiences flocked to see the twinned releases of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie and Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, under the catchy portmanteau “Barbenheimer.”
These screenings were events. Attendees wore costumes. Many audiences saw both films over the same weekend, with some even seeing them on the same day. These twinned releases generated enthusiasm and excitement for cinema, turning moviegoing into an experience. The joy was palpable, to the extent that studios inevitably tried to find ways to inorganically cash in on that success by proposing successor events like “Saw Patrol.”
There were reports of a similar reaction to another of the year’s surprise breakout hits, Five Nights at Freddy’s. There were reports of fans attending the screening in cosplay and of audience behavior comparable to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. For fans of the property, this wasn’t just a movie; it was an event. Appropriately enough, given the success of The Eras Tour and the looming release of Renaissance, comparable to attending a concert.
The key seems to be that audiences don’t want the same thing that studios have been providing for the past decade. Audiences seem to respond to events, to movies that stand out from the crowd and offer a singular viewing experience. In this context, it is perhaps worth acknowledging the recent releases of both Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon and Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. These are movies that stand quite apart from the popular blockbusters of the past few years.
Although both were expensive movies, they were both made by the streaming giant Apple TV+. The theatrical release of Killers of the Flower Moon was not originally intended to be as significant as it eventually became. Apple avoided a festival launch for Napoleon, raising questions about their long-term distribution plans. It seems safe to concede that any money that these movies earn in their limited theatrical release is “found.”
To date, Killers of the Flower Moon has earned $152m at the global box office, placing it ahead of more conventional blockbuster fare like Blue Beetle ($129m) and outperforming comparable recent prestige plays like West Side Story ($46m) or The Fabelmans ($76m) by several orders of magnitude. Napoleon grossed $79m on its opening weekend alone. These are impressive numbers for movies that were produced primarily for streaming. They also suggest an enthusiastic audience.
The common thread here seems to be that these movies are events. Killers of the Flower Moon is a sprawling epic that runs well over three hours. It’s a major work from a major filmmaker. Napoleon is a period war epic, offering battle scenes that justify the big screen. These are movies that stand apart from so much of the season’s offerings. For many movie-goers, particularly those who came of age during the pandemic, this was their first chance to see movies like this in a theatre.
Apparently, younger audiences are turning out to these films. 44% of the opening weekend audience for Killers of the Flower Moon was under 30. Even a more modest success, like Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City, attracted an opening weekend audience where 65% of attendees were 35 or younger. There is, perhaps, something hopeful in this. It suggests an appetite for movies that exist outside the narrow framework of contemporary franchise filmmaking.
There are a few caveats to note here. The most obvious is that it seems like streaming is a factor. Five Nights at Freddy performed well considering it was released simultaneously on Peacock, but experienced a massive drop in its second weekend. In contrast, delaying the home media release of Oppenheimer and The Eras Tour seems to have built up demand. Oppenheimer proved to have tremendous legs, grossing $950m worldwide and completely sold out on 4K just days after its release.
While Netflix tends to announce streaming dates for movies like The Killer or Rebel Moon before releasing them in theatres, Apple has yet to set a streaming date for Killers of the Flower Moon or Napoleon. As such, for moviegoers with any serious interest in watching those films, there is no incentive to wait for the inevitable streaming release. This would seem to be self-evident, but it is good to see it borne out in the data. Part of making a movie an event means making it exclusive.
The second thing to note is that theatres seem to be leaning into this trend. Not only are they actively encouraging audiences to embrace the experiential nature of such screenings, they have begun embracing methods more familiar to concert promoters, such as variable pricing depending on a seat’s location. It is entirely possible that this movement might accelerate the trend that is already pushing theatres towards a more luxury-based model. Cinema may get more expensive.
Finally, this poses an obvious challenge to studios. It is very hard to manufacture an event. There is no formula for it that can be easily replicated. It has to develop organically and spontaneously. However, studios can encourage these possibilities by increasing the variety among their major releases so audiences can try something new, embracing filmmakers who offer something singular or distinctive, and by widening the exclusive theatrical window.
Of course, even these decisions won’t guarantee a potential event movie, but they will create an environment where such an organic success is more likely. These are challenging times for studios and for theatres. It feels like a profound change is taking place, like the ground is shifting underfoot. There’s no telling how things will end up, but there remains potential for a true renaissance.
Comments
Darren Mooney
Hey, if you enjoyed it and didn't make anybody else's movie-going experience unpleasant, I'm all for it!
Sharkke Koffee
I feel I've been caught, I only go to cinema for that reason, it's an event not for the movie, started when "The Room" was rented out for a rewatch and we grabbed our spoons and joined the crowd, to make jest of it. Barbenheimer much the same, but they are interesting movies for their subject, so even as joke to dress in pink to the Oppenheimer movie and sorta "noir" for the Barbie movie, it was fun and different experience.
Darren Mooney
Cheers!
Will Cooling
Hahahahahaha. I wouldn't go that far. I think economists are doing an important job, but yeah its a difficult one, with a high dosage of "art" to go along with the "science"
Will Cooling
Yeah. And I think it speaks to a bigger issue in society, that Freakonomics actually first picked up on, that we've became so highly aspirational that "cheap and cheerful" can't survive as a brand proposition because it because associated with poor people, and that makes people want to avoid it lest they be seen as poor.
Darren Mooney
Yep. The one case over the past few years where a seemingly self-destructive decision has actually worked out best for everybody involved.
Jonny C
Thank you as always.
Wills
Which, if true, would be the best worst decision ever made.
Darren Mooney
It's almost as if economics is a weird nonsensical pseudo-science that is a mess of contradictions!
Darren Mooney
Fair, but I do also think there's an argument that cinema has historically been a more populist and accessible medium - "the nickelodeon", the fact that popcorn became the favoured treat because it was cheap. The medium had a certain cultural cachet because you could just rock up to a cinema and say, "That looks good." I think that's changing. And I accept that it has to change. But I'm still sad to see it.
Darren Mooney
Yep. Fun fact: if you believe various sources, including "Hollywood Reporter" veteran Matt Beloni, the only reason "Barbenheimer" happened was because Warner Bros., in a fit of pique, wanted to "crush" Nolan for his perceived insult.
Darren Mooney
Yep, "Top Gun: Maverick" is a great example - like "Way of Water", a movie where home media really can't replicate the theatrical experience. (Indeed, I had a section in the first draft of this piece pointing out that most manufacturers have simply stopped making 3D televisions, making it impossible to watch "The Way of Water" at home the way you did at the theatre.)
Darren Mooney
@Will Cooling: Yep. Whenever people seem shocked by the high budget of, say, Norah Efron's Netflix movie or the price Amazon paid for "AIR", it's because they are effectively buying out profit participation on the front end. (Zack Snyder reported earned over $10,000,000 on "Rebel Moon", for exactly that reason. That amount goes in the budget.)
Darren Mooney
@erakfishfishfish: Yep, but they're streaming movies and so completely independent of the theatrical model - any money they make in theatres is "found money", as the piece puts it. I think this model is nonsense, to be clear. But the issue is the model, not the individual movies. Still, given that the expectation for them is to "simply exist in theatres for the purposes of qualifying for those big shiny awards we want", any money they make while in there is essentially "free." And that's *a lot* of "free" money.
Darren Mooney
Yep. I'm lucky enough that Dublin has a couple of lovely boutique cinemas. But it's going to be a rough couple of years.
Darren Mooney
Yep. I think it's fairly undeniable and self-evident. I liken it to cutting three legs off a four-legged stool. What you have left can't stand.
Darren Mooney
@William Alexander: Oh, I would argue "Saw Patrol" was an early proof of concept of studios misunderstanding the appeal. Next year, I think we have "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes", "Furiosa" and "The Garfield Movie" on the same day, we'll see if they try to do something similar with those. ("Garfuriosa? Furriousa?")
Wills
Your last point is spot on as Barbieheimer happened organically. It was a coincidence that these two disperate movies were released at the same time that would not have happened had cinimas not taken a chance. I suspect if the suits try to manufacture Barbieheimer (or the gaming version, Doom CRossing), it won't work as well.
Captainflake99
It's been noticeable over the last few years that cinema screens have been getting emptied and emptied. The last film I can remember going to which was nearly 5 years ago. I still prefer going to watch a film in a cinema first as you can't quite replicate the experience of the big screen and the surround sound. I'll never watch top gun maverick again and watch the screen shake when the jets take off like I did in the cinema. It's not a perfect experience by far, but both the cinemas and the studios need to work on improving the quality of what is getting released and the cinemas making it worth while to attend in person. And as always great article Darren
erakfishfishfish
Good call. I hadn’t considered that aspect of streamers.
Will Cooling
Worth remembering that streaming-first movies have inflated budgets because they can't offer stars points on the backend
Will Cooling
Incidentally, I do think video games are an interesting example of the danger of talking about inflation too glibly. How do you factor the advances in technology and expenditure in producing a modern video games vs the advances in hardware production. The former suggests todays video games have more intrinsic value than their primative predecessors, the latter suggests today's video game should be cheaper than in the past
Will Cooling
Great article as always Darren. I would however push back on the presentation of inflation statistics. Using the 70s as baseline really skews them because its before married women working full-time was fully normalised, with the expectation still being that a household could survive on the man's salary. That is obviously not the case now, which means two-adult households now have two incomes rather than the one that was the norm previously. Likewise whilst cinema ticket prices have risen (slightly) more than general inflation, this doesn't take into account that the price of key staples has massively reduced, with the proportion of household income spent on food or clothes being much less than used to be the case. This has freed up money for people to spend on entertainment, hence the much greater price inflation for concert or sporting tickets. I think there's a strong argument, as you hint towards you article, that movies made a mistake in keeping their prices too low for too long which undermined their cache as date night or birthday treats.
erakfishfishfish
Something that should be noted of Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon is that they cost $200 million each. They both still have a ways to go towards profitability (particularly Killers of the Flower Moon which seemed to have a much bigger marketing push).
W. Fry
Yep, the movies are going the way of TicketMaster, and the CEO of AMC is giddy. Personally, I have struggled going to an AMC theater for years. There used to be a Sundance theater in my neck of the woods. Had many pivotal life moments there--the biggest being first date with my partner of over 12 years, Melancholia. AMC procured the theater, and it went belly up last year. I can't wait for independent theaters to have their "vinyl" moment. Seems like we are going to have to trudge our way through seating section pricing, consolidation and implosion before that happens though. I blame James Cameron.
hitman_2
There is this trend of just pushing stuff out that fills up the space but isnt worthy of engagement. It just lowers the "average" bar for everyone, who will just follow the established trend and their creations will eventually be around that same average level.
hitman_2
Series of "weird, unnatural" events around the globe, captured in 80 min movie parts, that create a sort of an event puzzle for the final act. There we get the characters interact with eachother, based on their own development in their part of the whole.
aaaaa
Interesting read. I never went to the cinemas much but had a similar reaction when sports became easier to see at home. I would only go to games that were “events” (i.e a stadium I hadn’t been to).
William Alexander
Ooh I can't wait to see how the studios will fundamentally misunderstand and attempt to commodify this trend. Anyone have any guesses? "People loved Oppenheimer, so what about a series of 3 hour movies, each focusing on a real life physicist, that builds to a climax where they all meet in a shared universe?" (hint: it's our universe).
GayBearDaddy2
I respect that, but for any film I'm not translating in real-time (Japanese or Italian films without subtitles), that's my literal hell. I also tend to watch things at 1.5x or 2x speed because they seem so slow and drawn out to me. It's why video games are my preferred method of entertainment, but not games like the walking simulator or visual novel genres.
Darren Mooney
Interesting. I actually really like that the cinema is like a Faraday Cage, in that it forces me to shut off (literally and figuratively) anything but the movie I am watching.
GayBearDaddy2
I'm in the camp of people who cam't really sit around for a whole movie in one try unless I'm eating for about 60% of it. There are exceptions to the rule for movies that are wholly engrossing and entertaining like "Everything Everywhere All At Once," but I've just found I'd rather watch a movie in parts during lunch or while walking on the treadmill. For that reason, I really don't care for movie theaters, especially with how expensive it is to go nowadays. While I can appreciate other people's admiration of film, I just can't keep myself engaged enough without some form of physical engagement (which includes laughing my ass off at films I find way funnier than they probably are).
Darren Mooney
And, to be fair, like "Guardians, Vol. 3", "John Wick 4" has the luxury of being sold as "the last of these, we swear." (Which Lionsgate are pushing back on, but is clearly the intent of Stahleski/Reeves.)
Kai
Looking back over the last year or two yeah almost all the big excitement seems have been for films not attached to existing film series. The buzz around Marvel, Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, Avatar and everything else has seemed really muted, even the big tentpole Disney & Pixar releases seem to be fading in people's enthusiasm. The only film I can think of off the top of my head that was both part of an existing series, seemed to have a lot of excitement around it, and turned out very good, was John Wick 4. Otherwise it's been the reign of the original property. Been a good year for cinema trips for me
