I think I misread your comment. My bad.

Glad i saw Tenet at the imax at my regal before it closed

I was getting excited because they were building a new Regal theater five minutes from my house in the Houston area. Now that they're not opening, I'm assuming that all the new shops going in right around it will also hold off on opening for now.

Made me sad driving by the Greenway Plaza Edwards last night and seeing it dead.

Studio Movie Grill is filing Chapter 11, but not sure if that means closures yet.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/23/studio-movie-grill-bankruptcy.html

Quote:

---

Dallas-based dine-in theater chain Studio Movie Grill and several affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Oct. 23.

---

Quote:

---

Studio Movie Grill has three Houston-area locations in CityCentre in west Houston, the Copperfield area in northwest Houston and Pearland. The company's website says the CityCentre and Pearland locations are open.

"Today's actions will allow us the opportunity to position Studio Movie Grill for long-term stability as we recover from the unparalleled impact of Covid-19 and will give SMG the opportunity to reemerge for all of our valued stakeholders," CEO Brian Schultz said in a prepared statement.

---

That doesn't make sense IMO. If everyone endorses VOD 3 weeks after first release, then many people will just say screw it, I'll wait 3 weeks.

The three-week window will mostly be for mid-budget, run-of-the-mill movies; movies that make a decent amount in theaters, but don't set the box office on fire. It's these movies that, yes, a good chunk of people will likely wait to watch on VOD. But the key caveat, and a big point of the AMC/Universal deal, is that most BLOCKBUSTERS won't go to VOD after three weeks. They can, if for some reason one of them bombs in theaters, but most blockbusters will stay in theaters exclusively for many weeks and even months. The only difference going forward is that they'll then go VOD after, say, 40-60 days instead of the current 90+ days.

It's a more flexible business model, that's all.

The same goes for certain mid-budget movies as well. Take Get Out, for instance. If released in 2021, under this new deal, Universal likely would assume Get Out would go to VOD after three weeks. But when it ends up catching fire, like it did, under this new normal Universal could then keep it in theaters exclusively for as long as it was making a killing at the box office.

In other words, the three-week window is the minimum. It's merely the point at which the studio can make a call as to whether they want to keep a movie exclusively in theaters or go ahead and release it to VOD.

The only thing propping up theaters under that paradigm are the handful of blockbusters made each year and the only guarantee is if the movie is really damn good. What happens in months like January and February? Tent pole films tend to wait to cash in on a willing audience in the summer months and months preceeding the Oscars. Theaters won't be around anymore with more months like that.

I still think the only way to save theaters at this point is to give them stability via a subscription based system and throw away the old paradigm of big budget, large gamble films.

With subscription, you could cut the pie based on attendance by counting heads of who is seeing what (your garden variety ticket sales). This will encourage the indie film market as all a studio needs is a hit regardless of cost and they would be more apt to create varying stories to capture lightning in a bottle. To give you an example, last year a big film for landmark was Judy. A year before that a huge moneymaker was The Big Sick. We never made money off the big tent pole films. The only ones who really made it big on those were theater chains that cast a wide net. All those theater chains are going out of business.

By making tickets merely only a tracking method and reducing the overall cost of seeing movies, it will increase butts in seats and thereby, increase soda and popcorn sales (as well as alcohol) which is really all the theaters get out of the deal anyway. More disposable income in moviegoers pockets would inherently go to the food options provided. You may even see a reduction in food costs if the end goal is vertical integration via an Amazon theater chain.

Theaters need a shot in the arm and they need stability. If you think about it, there has never been stability in the theater business. It's always wildly different as far as attendance per month. January and February are notorious ghost town months. The summer and winter basically have to pull all the weight and it doesn't have to be that way if guaranteed monthly income is always flowing.

It honestly would open the door for even older films, exclusive content, TV show premieres, sporting events, concerts, etc. Whatever entertainment people would want to watch and whomever garners the most eyes garners the bigger piece of the guaranteed pie. If a concert series from the Pixies gets the most butts in the seats, well, they get the loot.

It would reduce the barriers to entry and return cinema back to an era like the 90s where studios made movies that took great chances, told great stories and did so with young actors and directors as it was a cheaper option. They spent less, made more challenging films and took ****ing chances.

I love theaters and the movie business in general and this terrible time may actually being a blessing in disguise as it would kill the current paradigm of big tent pole movies carrying all the weight.

Just tell a good story, with good direction, good acting and forget the super costly cgi driven paradigm that in my opinion does more to dumb down creativity than anything before it. That's probably too harsh but cgi driven films are made for the lowest common denominator. There is nothing wrong with that but they only work when you cast a wide net. That era may be dead and the first theater chain to recognize that may be the victors.

As to your first paragraph, I would urge you and others who are questioning the business model to read articles on the actual deal points. Because under the AMC/Universal deal, AMC gets a slice of the VOD revenue Universal generates from VOD titles that leave theaters after the three-week window. So, once similar deals are inevitably struck, theaters will *still* see revenue from the movies that leave theaters. Overall, the deal is way more symbiotic and flexible than everyone seems to think.

As for the rest of your points, I agree 100%. I don't think we'll see another all-encompassing MoviePass-type company, as they were never going to make money in the end, but I think each chain will offer some kind of exclusive equivalent. Granted, people in big cities who frequent multiple theaters chains will then be in a similar situation as streaming, where they might have to pay for multiple subscriptions to get all the content they want, but most people, who only frequent their local chain, will love it.

A year from now, when we're (hopefully long since) back to normal, the theaters that survived are no doubt going to try everything under the sun to see what sticks. We're going to see deals struck with more studios for shorter windows, we're going to see subscription models, and we're going to see more than *just* movies in theaters, as you described. The current situation no doubt sucks for the theaters, chains, and jobs that will be lost to the pandemic, and I feel terrible for them. But yeah, when all is said and done, I definitely think that this is a blessing in disguise for consumers, that theaters will be better off as well, and we'll have skipped years of marching slowing toward this inevitability anyways.

Good to know about the VOD portion and theaters getting a share of that money as well. With that type of relationship, theater goers would get a lot of choice both in theaters and at home as well. I am very glad we agree TCTTS. We both clearly have a passion for this industry.

I love the idea of theaters showing NFL games. As a Houston fan living in Florida, it would be great to go to a theater to have the "sports bar" experience on Sunday afternoons. Have one theater dedicated per game, and you can even have a little small picture for all the other games on the edge of the screen. It would be a lot of fun to be in the same theater with rival fans and have waiters serving beer/food.

I haven't bought NFL package for home, because watching those games by myself is boring (and the Texans are hot garbage). I'd rather spend my money once a week on this, it would be a good wait to meet other Texas transplants too.

IF Texas ever makes gambling legal, that would be a way for theaters to potentially pivot. They could either dedicate a whole screen to a game, or find a way to show 3-4 games on one screen, like a sports book in Vegas does.

Might drive away familes though

Those are all outside of the box but unlikely to happen. Most sports viewers enjoy watching the game from the comfort of their own home. And Bars/Restaurants aren't going to lose a significant portion of those that like public watch parties.

Honestly, theaters are going to need to shrink. We have 4K tvs today for $500 or less. Great ones for $1500. Sound systems are smarter and need a simple sound bar. Technology has made going to the theater somewhat irrelevant. People go to see content they can't get at home....not always because it's a bigger screen. Any deal to keep content at theaters only is an artificial constraint.

I don't expect theaters to disappear, but the long term prospects are negative, not positive. This was a trend even before COVID. Inflation adjusted Theater revenue has been slowly decreasing since 2002.

If most sports fans enjoy watching at home, explain buffalo wild wings and sports bars. Further, the idea is that you are already subscribed to the theater so the sports going experience is free to you. Think of it like a neat private party where you can go to meet like minded folk.

Further, say you live in a smaller town but really love live music. What if you really want to see a concert but could never afford to go, well, now you largely can and in essence for free to you. Further, you going actually gives the artist more money to continue doing what they do much like listening to an artist on spotify. Support yields a greater percentage of the pie.

Tibbers said:

---

If most sports fans enjoy watching at home, explain buffalo wild wings and sports bars. Further, the idea is that you are already subscribed to the theater so the sports going experience is free to you. Think of it like a neat private party where you can go to meet like minded folk.

Further, say you live in a smaller town but really love live music. What if you really want to see a concert but could never afford to go, well, now you largely can and in essence for free to you. Further, you going actually gives the artist more money to continue doing what they do much like listening to an artist on spotify. Support yields a greater percentage of the pie.

---

Do you honestly think that a majority of sports are watched at sports bars?
Its not, its a small fraction of viewers. This part of the audience (viewers who watch at bars) are who the sports showing theater would be fighting for. It could work, but all of evans points are correct. Most fans want to watch on their bad ass big screen (super cheap commodity) TV at home.

Do you really think that going to a movie theater to see a streamed concert is an experience most people will choose?
I can't really pretend to know if there is an audience for watching live music on a movie screen - ive lived in small towns and large cities and if there's a band I want to see, I'm road tripping to where they are if they aren't playing nearby. Watching sports is fun if you're at the game or its on TV. Live music isn't really the same. Being at a concert is awesome, watching concert footage kind of sucks.

Let all movie theaters close; I'd rather watch any movie at home anyway. Before they shut down theaters I probably hadn't been in 3-4 years, as I would wait until the movie was released on demand or DVD. There is ZERO appeal for me at a theater. Breathing in everyone's air (again, long before Covid, this was just gross); resting my head on the same seat that has never been cleaned; drop something and it's gone - I wouldn't pick up a baby if it was on the floor of a movie theater. I don't need, or want, to hear the reactions of others during a movie; in addition to the people that just talk throughout the movie. Then paying exorbitant amounts of money on food/snacks/drinks is preposterous. What is the benefit of going to a theater? Nostalgia of when going to a movie with family/friends was once enjoyable.

I get it for the individuals who worked on the movie. A big role out with all the people involved going and enjoying the artwork they have completed. Good for them, enjoy it. Then release the movie on demand/DVD for everyone else.

It seems like the Regal near me was struggling long before covid. It felt much bigger than it needed to be. Not very well run.

I'm not a moviephile like most here, so I could be an anomaly. But I don't recall the last time I left a theater thinking "oh wow! that was fun!" Usually I'd be checking my watch, squirming in my chair, waiting for the movie to end. Even for decent movies. Just a more pleasant experience at home.

We are partial to Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, but I couldn't tell you the last time we've been to a Regal, Cinemark, AMC.

The big draw for us was the fact that I could get a good beer on draft, and my wife could order food other than nachos or a hot dog. We'd pay more to do this too, and then complain about how expensive it was afterwards.

I love the theatre experience as well (and will continue going), but sadly have found the depth of quality films to have dwindled noticeably the last few decades. Movies like Patch Adams, Shawshank Redemption, Seabiscuit, Last of the Mohicans seem to get bank rolled less and less these days as movie studios are opting to go with less risky reboots and the profits they are expected to generate.

Affleck recently said that a movie like The Town likely wouldn't make it to the theatre in today's funding climate. I love Marvel movies but I also wish we had more Dances With Wolves, A Good Year, Cinderella Man, American Gangster, A Beautiful Mind type movies making their way to the box office these days.

TCTTS said:

---

I honestly don't understand why people keep expressing this general sentiment. Yes, franchise fare, sequels, and reboots no doubt take up more theatrical real estate than they once did, and original blockbusters are definitely few and far between. But over the past five years alone, the list of generally-well-received, mid-budget action & sci-fi movies, dramas, and comedies not part of a franchise has been incredibly robust and, quality-wise, often as high as any era I can remember...

1917
The Accountant
Arrival
Bad Times at the Royale
Baby Driver
The Big Short
The Big Sick
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Call Me by Your Name
Carol
Darkest Hour
The Disaster Artist
Dunkirk
Everybody Wants Some!
The Farewell
The Favourite
First Man
Focus
Ford vs Ferrari
Game Night
The Gentlemen
Get Out
Hacksaw Ridge
Hail, Caesar!
Hell or High Water
I, Tonya
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Knives Out
The Martian
Moonlight
The Nice Guys
Only the Brave
Phantom Thread
The Post
Roma
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
La La Land
Lady Bird
Logan Lucky
The Revenant
Richard Jewell
Sicario
Spotlight
Steve Jobs
Straight Outta Compton
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Uncut Gems
The Way Back
Wind River

And that's just a small portion. I'm not saying all of those are home runs by any means, but you're really arguing that the above sampling, in general, doesn't compare to or surpass movies like A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, A Good Year, Seabiscuit, and Patch freaking Adams? Ha, I don't know, maybe you just really like Russell Crowe movies?

Overall, I genuinely feel like movies are as good as they've ever been, that we have far more to choose from than any time in history, that they're more convenient to watch than ever, and that a huge portion of them *are* great, original, mid-budget titles that people keep saying aren't made anymore, yet I keep seeing them made, and made well, year after year after year.

---

The 90s are known for their indie classics however. From Fight Club to Edward Scissorhands to Blair Witch Project to Reservoir Dogs to Clerks to Fargo and everything in between. Yes, nostalgia plays a role, but many of these films are timeless and I'm not sure I see that with the current fare. They were original and much like a good book, repeat enjoyment always yields something new. I can only pick a handful even from the good list you generated that even compare: Jo Jo Rabbit, Lady Bird, The Big Sick, Three Billboards, Brooklyn, Wind River, ...among others would rank with what the 90s churned out consistently with new actors and new stories told. Many on your list contain A list stars for example. It was just a different time, but I appreciate the discussion. It's like saying 80s horror wasn't as good as the 90s because there were still horror films being made that were good. It's just not the same.

Here's another list to go down memory lane:

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/the-100-greatest-movies-of-the-nineties-195513/

They just don't make movies like Free Willy anymore.

From Snatch to Snatched, 90s to early 2000 vs. 2010s in a nutshell...

TCTTS said:

---

I honestly don't understand why people keep expressing this general sentiment. Yes, franchise fare, sequels, and reboots no doubt take up more theatrical real estate than they once did, and original blockbusters are definitely few and far between. But over the past five years alone, the list of generally-well-received, mid-budget action & sci-fi movies, dramas, and comedies not part of a franchise has been incredibly robust and, quality-wise, often as high as any era I can remember...

1917
The Accountant
Arrival
Bad Times at the Royale
Baby Driver
The Big Short
The Big Sick
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Call Me by Your Name
Carol
Darkest Hour
The Disaster Artist
Dunkirk
Everybody Wants Some!
The Farewell
The Favourite
First Man
Focus
Ford vs Ferrari
Game Night
The Gentlemen
Get Out
Hacksaw Ridge
Hail, Caesar!
Hell or High Water
I, Tonya
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Knives Out
The Martian
Moonlight
The Nice Guys
Only the Brave
Phantom Thread
The Post
Roma
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
La La Land
Lady Bird
Logan Lucky
The Revenant
Richard Jewell
Sicario
Spotlight
Steve Jobs
Straight Outta Compton
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Uncut Gems
The Way Back
Wind River

And that's just a small portion. I'm not saying all of those are home runs by any means, but you're really arguing that the above sampling, in general, doesn't compare to or surpass movies like A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, A Good Year, Seabiscuit, and Patch freaking Adams? Ha, I don't know, maybe you just really like Russell Crowe movies?

Overall, I genuinely feel like movies are as good as they've ever been, that we have far more to choose from than any time in history, that they're more convenient to watch than ever, and that a huge portion of them *are* great, original, mid-budget titles that people keep saying aren't made anymore, yet I keep seeing them made, and made well, year after year after year.

---

Agree with you. I think part of the "problem" is that we actually get high quality film released straight to video now due to the fractured distribution system we now have. Pre-Netflix and it's clones a movie sent straight to video was DOA because that meant it wasn't good enough for the primary distribution channel - theaters.

There are so many options now it's overwhelming. I think people have analysis paralysis and ease the complexity in their mind by just going back to when we just had theaters and you could pinpoint good movies through one channel. Now we have many channels. Add to that the best all around tv ever made in the last 15-20 years and you have almost an unlimited amount of stuff to watch.

I haven't been too upset with the current movie making hiatus because my backlog of quality movies and shows is so long I could literally watch new stuff to me for at least 3-5 years before I ran out. Maybe longer.

90's Jim Carrey is not the same as 10's Jim Carrey.

Fair enough, fair enough. Either way, I enjoy the discussion. Can we at least all agree that 80s horror was better than 90s horror?

A new Regal was supposed to open up right down the street from our neighborhood. Even with their announcements, they construction crews appear to still be working on it... so I'm hopeful.

No need to halt construction, especially if the landlord has $$$ that's designated for the investment. They'll finish out their agreed upon investment and then hold for either Regal or a competitor to take over the property. Any idea who the property owner is?

jimscott85 said:

---

No need to halt construction, especially if the landlord has $$$ that's designated for the investment. They'll finish out their agreed upon investment and then hold for either Regal or a competitor to take over the property. Any idea who the property owner is?

---

I could see that.... However, they're putting Regal specific parts on the outside. I don't think they'd be doing that unless there was a pretty good chance of them opening up as a Regal cinema in the near future