#Theater Market Revenue

[bottlewatersblog]

Top Trends Shaping the Theater Industry Share in 2024

The world of theater, a timeless form of artistic expression, has faced numerous challenges and transformations over the centuries. From the grandeur of ancient Greek amphitheaters to the intimate settings of modern black box venues, theater has continually evolved to reflect societal changes and technological advancements. In recent years, particularly post-pandemic, the theater industry has witnessed a significant resurgence, embracing change and innovation to captivate modern audiences.

Latest Trends and Statistics

1. Post-Pandemic Recovery: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the theater industry, with many theaters worldwide shutting down temporarily or permanently. However, as restrictions have lifted, the industry has shown remarkable resilience. According to the Broadway League, Broadway theaters in New York City experienced a 92% increase in attendance in the 2022-2023 season compared to the previous year, signaling a robust recovery .

2. Embracing Digital Platforms: Theater companies have increasingly adopted digital platforms to reach a wider audience. The National Theatre in London reported that its NT at Home streaming service attracted over 13 million viewers globally in 2023, a significant increase from previous years. This shift to digital has made theater more accessible, breaking geographical barriers and offering performances to those who might not have had the opportunity to attend in person .

3. Diversity and Inclusion: There has been a growing emphasis on diversity and inclusion within the theater community. In 2023, 45% of Broadway shows featured leading roles played by actors of color, up from 28% in 2019. This shift reflects a broader societal push towards representation and equity in the arts .

4. Innovative Productions: Innovation in theater production has reached new heights with the integration of advanced technologies. The use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) has enhanced storytelling, offering immersive experiences to the audience. A recent survey by the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) found that 60% of theaters are exploring the use of AR and VR in their productions .

5. Financial Performance: Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, the financial performance of theaters has shown improvement. In 2023, the global theater market was valued at approximately $40 billion, a 15% increase from the previous year. This growth is attributed to both a return to live performances and the monetization of digital content .

Conclusion

The theater industry is experiencing a dynamic resurgence, marked by increased attendance, technological innovation, and a commitment to diversity and inclusion. The post-pandemic recovery has highlighted the resilience of theaters and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The integration of digital platforms and advanced technologies has expanded the reach and appeal of theater, making it more accessible and engaging for modern audiences.

[narwatharsh01]

Global Theater Industry Trends, Players, and Future Projections

The magic of the silver screen endures, and the theater market continues to captivate audiences globally. In 2024, the industry is not just surviving but thriving, navigating challenges and evolving with the times. Let's take a deep dive into the current state of the theater market, examining its size, growth trajectory, notable trends, key players, and future outlook.

Market Size and Growth:

As of 2023, the theater market was valued at an impressive USD 69.78 billion. it is set to reach a staggering USD 95.66 billion in 2029, reflecting a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.24%. Despite the surge in home entertainment options, the theater market is evidently expanding.

Technological advancements, including 3D, 4DX, and IMAX, contribute significantly to this growth. These innovations provide audiences with a more immersive cinematic experience, attracting those seeking a break from the ordinary. Rising disposable income, particularly in developing regions, further fuels the growth, allowing audiences to indulge in leisure activities such as moviegoing. The popularity of blockbuster releases also plays a pivotal role, with audiences flocking to theaters to witness the grandeur of big-budget franchises.

Theater Market Trends:

The global theater industry is witnessing several trends that are shaping its future:

Focus on Premium Experiences: Theaters are differentiating themselves by emphasizing premium formats such as luxury recliners, in-seat dining, and personalized services, offering a unique experience not easily replicated at home.

Experiential Marketing: Creative marketing strategies are employed to generate excitement around films. Interactive events, themed concessions, and engaging social media campaigns are becoming integral to the moviegoing experience.

Evolving Distribution Models: The traditional windowing system, where movies are exclusively released in theaters before hitting streaming platforms, is undergoing changes. Studios are experimenting with different release strategies, impacting traditional theater attendance.

Theater Market Players:

Key players dominate the theater market:

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.: The largest movie theater chain globally, boasting over 900 theaters across 11 countries.

Cinemark Holdings, Inc.: A major player with a strong presence in the United States and Latin America.

Comcast Corporation: Owner and operator of the Universal Pictures movie studio and various theater chains under the NBCUniversal umbrella.

The Walt Disney Company: Operates Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and owns several theater chains, including Disney Theatres.

Theater Market Research Reports:

Understanding the theater market necessitates insights from research reports, providing:

Market Size and Growth Forecasts: Offering a comprehensive snapshot of the current market state and predicting its trajectory.

Consumer Trends: Identifying audience preferences and evolving behaviors, aiding businesses in adapting their offerings.

Competitive Landscape: Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of key players, enabling businesses to develop effective competitive strategies.

Prominent research firms publishing reports on the movie theater market. These reports are indispensable for investors, businesses, and stakeholders seeking a nuanced understanding of the theater market.

Theater Market Outlook:

While the theater market faces competition from streaming services, the allure of a unique social and immersive experience remains strong. With increasing disposable income, technological advancements, and strategic marketing initiatives, the industry is poised for continued growth. The ability to adapt to changing consumer preferences and distribution models will be crucial for the theater market's long-term success. The flickering flame of the theater market continues to burn bright, promising a compelling future amid the evolving entertainment landscape.

[destinyc1020]

Box office expetations are usually attached to the Production Budget (PB) of the movie.

*It End with Us: with a PB of $25 M., getting $340 M at the box office is a huge/unexpected success. This movie can't be compared to the following blockbusters.

*Twisters 2: with a PB of $155 M and getting $371 M. at the box office is a disappointment and probably not profitable. The first movie cost $92 M. and earned $495 M.

*Furiosa: with a PB $168 M and $174 M at the box office is a huge flop.

Then you have Uncharted, Budget $120 M, Box Office $407 M. : The critics reviews weren't good, dumped in february, compared to these movies released in the summer. Uncharted didn't have a proper press tour because of Covid was a thing again, some countries put limited seatings again in theaters, Tom was wearing mask, the movie didn't have a red carpet premiere. Against all odds the movie was a success.

Important to remember that the Production Budget doesn't include the marketing costs that are around 40-to 50% of the PB.

Some had said that because there are streaming revenues and VOD revenues, box office don't tell the complete story, but people has to remember that when studio spends millions in marketing is because they expect Box office results, movies that goes to streaming doesn't have weeks of promo and in different countries.

VERY good points Anon on all of this!👏🏾

Y'all are bringing out receipts and numbers! I love it lol 😆

And I do agree that the more it costs to make a movie, the more the studios hope (or are relying) on that film to be a success.

I actually think films should cost LESS to make (even if you have to cut some corners and do things on a cheaper budget) and then that way more films would be box office successes, and Hollywood would be gaining money instead of losing it.

But hey, what do I know? 🤷🏾‍♀️

[omamervt]

I know there's all the Normal Factors regarding more movies being seen as theater flops these days - less people who can safely go to theaters due to the effects of an ongoing deadly pandemic, theaters jacking up ticket prices, anything that isn't an existing IP being treated as more and more of a risk and getting less marketing, even if it's the kind of film that typically does well - but I think The Fall Guy really demonstrates that standards surrounding theatrical releases have gotten absolutely insane. It's only been in theaters for 2 weeks and the studios are ready to cut their losses after a worse-than-expected opening weekend and are releasing the film to streaming services early.

Like, I know theaters start to pull films when they stop meeting a certain revenue threshold, I get that, I really do. But like. It came short of projections for opening weekend, but theaters haven't even started pulling it yet, it's still showing at every theater within an hour's drive of me, and that's at least 10 theaters. That means it's still making them money, which means people ARE seeing it, they just weren't prioritizing it because it wasn't The Next Big Blockbuster or whatever.

Like, are we seriously at a point where a film is declared a flop if it doesn't make back its budget and then some on just opening weekend? We can't wait until the end of the theatrical run? 4 weeks is too long these days? Like, is that seriously where we're at? We can't have faith that a movie based on a novel that sold well enough for its movie rights to be worth anything, an action comedy starring Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, with a classic "actor is suddenly expected to do their character role in real life to save the day" setup? We can't just wait and see if it makes its money back even at the global box office? Is that seriously where we're at?

[theonlyblackcanary]

Abigail has made only 28.5 million, it made it's budget back so it's a success right? No!

The marketing cost 30 million and theaters back roughly 50% of the revenue so it's only made about 16 million. And will need to make 116 million to be considered a success. It is a big flop

It's hilarious to me because Melissa stans kept saying it was gonna make more money than Scream 7 and look at what happened. Karma is a real thing.

[celtalks]

Breaking Barriers: "Manjummel Boys" Captivates Tamil Nadu and Redefines Regional Cinema Success

Manjummel Boys Shatter Box Office Records in Tamil Nadu

The Malayalam cinema industry has reason to celebrate as the movie Manjummel Boys emerges as a sleeper hit, shattering box office records in Tamil Nadu. This motion picture, helmed by the proficient Soubin Shahir, has swiftly ascended beyond the illustrious 15-crore mark, underscoring its commercial success and audience appeal beyond linguistic barriers. Drawing crowds with its unique blend of humor and heartwarming narratives, Manjummel Boys showcases an impeccable ensemble cast, enacting a storyline that resonates with a wide audience. The film's triumph at the box office isn't just a win for the creators but also an indicator of the quality and potential reach of regional cinema.

Critical Acclaim and Audience Fervor

Critics have lauded Manjummel Boys for its engaging script and the superb performances by the cast, particularly celebrating Soubin Shahir's nuanced portrayal of his character. Audiences too have been swept up in the film's charm, flocking to theaters and sharing their praise on social media platforms, contributing to a robust word-of-mouth promotion that has undoubtedly played a role in the film's impressive box office journey. With such a potent mix of critical and commercial acclaim, the film has proven that content-driven cinema has the power to transcend regional boundaries and language differences, reaching into the hearts of movie-goers from all walks of life.

A Milestone for Regional Cinema

The runaway success of Manjummel Boys vindicates the dedicated efforts of regional filmmakers to craft universally appealing stories. The film’s earnings have set a new benchmark for Malayalam films within the competitive Tamil Nadu market, once dominated by local giants and occasionally Bollywood titles. The newfound fortunes at the revenue counters speak volumes of the shifting dynamics within the Indian cinematic landscape, where variety and relatability in storytelling are gaining unparalleled momentum. With the film industry often focused on star-studded vehicles, Manjummel Boys serves as a refreshing reminder that at the core of any successful movie is a good story, relatable characters, and the kind of authentic touch that resonates with viewers.

The Road Ahead

While it is still too early to predict the full extent of this film's impact, what's certain is that Manjummel Boys has carved a niche for itself, potentially opening doors for more films from the Malayalam industry to venture into and captivate adjacent markets. The film's performance is a testament to the timeless appeal of well-told stories and innovative storytelling techniques, coupled with potent marketing strategies. As Manjummel Boys continues its cinematic run, one thing is clear - the landscape of Indian regional cinema will never be the same again. In closing, this blockbuster from the south reminders creators and investors alike that good cinema knows no borders, and given the right platform, can leave a footprint in areas hitherto uncharted. As for movie enthusiasts, it's time to revel in the diverse cinematic experience that Manjummel Boys promises - a highlight in regional cinema's evolving storyline. Read the full article

[nancydrewwouldnever]

No, they shouldn't because the math simply does not math. So, say the production budget is about 300M... that's before you tack on the budget for promo/advertising. For the big releases lately those campaigns are clocking in at about 200M(!) on their own. So, you're already in the hole HALF A BILLION DOLLARS US before you sell a single ticket. In order to make a profit off that you'd have to hope for about 1.5B in box office revenue, and that's simply not happening much these days. For instance, the leading money maker this year so far is still Dune part 2 with a worldwide box office take of $711M. It's getting harder and harder to break the 1B mark at the box office. //

Why are they continuing to make movies that cost this much then? Why aren’t they budgeting better? Is it to sell stocks?

I recently watched the documentary ‘MoviePass, MovieCrash’. For about half of the documentary, I screamed at my tv ‘how are they making money?? This makes no sense’. MoviePass was that subscription service back in 2018. Like $10 a month for unlimited movies at the theater. It made no sense how they could sell a monthly subscription service for a product they did not own. Especially because the math didn’t math: one time purchase of the product costed more than the monthly subscription. In the documentary they eventually get to the fact that the data of their subscriber base was very valuable and that they will use it to make profits by marketing products to their subscriber base. But then they did so bad. FINALLY, they get to the point: the value for profits wasn’t to sell movies to customers. It was to drive up the share price by faking they had a successful soon-to-be-profitable business to sell stocks instead, which is illegal to do so.

So based on watching this documentary recently, why are studios spending 300 million in production costs + 200 million advertising when the successful movies are only making about 700 million? That’s a huge risk for spending so much.

Is it because of merchandising and licensing deals help them to recoup the production costs? Anymore it feels like they make movies as commercials for merchandising and licensing. What’s your thoughts?

In the case of Gladiator 2, we do have to give the caveat that the production budget ballooned that much because of a fire on one of the filming sets, and the strikes that shut down production. To stop and start a film like that eats a lot of money and you have to add more in to get it going again.

And, while box office is very important, we're not seeing how much the production companies get paid for the streaming rights to films, or the residuals off that. I think that's where the money is these days.

[gothicprep]

one thing that happens when you get a little more literacy in a topic, is that when you see a monocausal explanation for a phenomenon, you realize that it's almost certainly wrong. in the case of disney studios, for example, one phrase that's often invoked to explain everything that's going on with the company right now is "go woke, go broke". people aren't showing up to the movies because they went woke. the streaming service is losing subscribers because they went woke. traffic to disney parks is down because they went woke, etc etc. the problem with doing everything either through the lens of disney's fight with ron desantis or their diverse cinematic releases is that it obscures all the market forces at play.

so, when bob iger cancelled a planned development plan in FL, that cost thousands of jobs and billions in planned spending, iger was pretty happy to let the press spin it one way or the other. truth is, iger hated the development and wanted to cut that out of the bottom line. or if you look at disney plus subscribers, they lost low revenue accounts in india because they didn't want to drop billions on cricket rights. and people love to point to the box office sales, but that's they're fault for poisoning the well and promoting disney plus so heavily and pivoting a lot to streaming over the pandemic and its aftermath. why would you spend $100 to take you and your family to a theater when it will be on disney plus, which you already pay for anyway, in a month and a half?

it just drives me nuts when all these facts are on the ground and yet still think their personal political preferences influence every business decision made in hollywood.

[imagitory]

So I realize I'm late to talking about this, but...

Although I personally find Snow White (2024) to be just as pointless as all of the other recent Disney live action remakes -- even the ones I think have some value like The Little Mermaid (2023) -- I haven't hated everything I've heard about it. I really like Greta Gerwig's work overall -- I mean, heck, she worked on that recent Barbie movie that everyone's gone gaga for, and I also loved her take on Little Women. Gal Gadot is a striking choice for the Evil Queen. Even Rachel Ziegler herself I had no problem with, considering she previously was in the remake of West Side Story playing Maria, which means she has the vocal range to perform the role of Snow, unlike some of the other actors chosen to play the leads in these remakes. *side-eyes the hell out of Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, and Mena Massaud*

That being said...I hope Snow White (2024) does finally spark a real conversation about how to truly embrace a film's legacy. Because here's the thing -- there are issues one can point out with the original Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that could be addressed in a new adaptation. The Prince is woefully underdeveloped as a character, to the point that the Dwarfs honestly are the real heroes of the story. You could give the Dwarfs more depth and backstory, so as to give the actors playing them more to work with. (As much as Peter Dinklage’s comments about the original Seven Dwarfs were controversial and arguably resulted in other actors with dwarfism being shut out of the parts, I would like to write roles that can really showcase these actors’ abilities outside of comedy, so they like Dinklage can score more roles besides just as fairy tale Dwarfs.) And Snow is a bit young to be thinking about a committed romantic relationship if she's truly 14, let alone a romance with a full-grown man.

Even with these critiques, though, the idea that this film is somehow antiquated and unrelatable to modern audiences because it came out in 1937 is just flat-out not true. This film has been re-released to theaters seven times since its initial release, oftentimes when Disney was in financial trouble. 1944? Used to raise revenue during WWII when Disney was only able to release pro-American propaganda projects. 1952? Three years before Walt's expensive Disneyland project was opened. 1958? One year before one of Walt's most expensive films, Sleeping Beauty, was released. 1967? One year after Walt's death and arguably the beginning of Disney's "Dark Age." 1983? In the midst of Disney's "Dark Age" -- it wouldn't release another animated film until two years later, and that film was The Black Cauldron. 1987? Once again in the midst of Disney's Dark Age -- Disney's hand-drawn animation studio was on its last legs, with its heroic release of The Little Mermaid still two years away. Even Snow White's final release in 1993 made it the very first film to be entirely scanned to digital, restored, and then re-recorded to film. And every single time it came back to theaters, this film made bank. It was profitable every single time, even after over fifty years. And this doesn't even touch the home video/DVD/Blu-Ray or streaming markets.

On a personal note, I recently unearthed an old home movie of myself at age three, on Christmas. I was so excited about one particular present I'd received that I wouldn't let go of it for a good chunk of the home movie. You want to know what that gift was? A VHS copy of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which had only just been put out on home video two months prior. My mum presumes that I'd known Snow White only as one of our storybooks and/or as a CD, and I was so, so excited to finally get to watch the full movie. The following year at a dance recital, I was asked to talk about myself, and when asked about my favorite movie, I boldly said Snow White, and when I was asked who my favorite dwarf was, without skipping a beat I said, "Grumpy!" This is all -- for the record -- coming from a child who was never as much into romance as magic, music, and adventure and would eventually come out as asexual (though still romantic) as an adult. I certainly never saw the original Snow White as just being about waiting for a Prince or True Love's Kiss. I saw it as being about a girl who has to go through some really scary stuff, but gets through it by being kind and befriending creatures and people who help her, and the wicked woman who takes her jealousy out on her and ultimately pays the price for choosing cruelty over kindness. And I don't think I was the only one who saw the story that way.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with taking a new angle on a classic story, let alone offering good-faith criticism to an older, classic film. But I think the best way to honor Snow White's legacy is not to just take the original film and rip it apart in order to prop up a "new and improved" version. I look at how Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio doesn't take pot-shots at Disney's Pinocchio, or how the multiple TV movie productions of Rodgers' and Hammerstein's Cinderella or the film Ever After don't take cheap shots at Disney's animated film. Sure, I think one would be foolish to act like those filmmakers weren't at least somewhat inspired by Disney's work in places -- the 1997 version of R&H's Cinderella was even produced by Disney -- but they still did their own thing, often taking a completely different direction than Disney's film in places, even despite any possible inspiration. They didn't try to copy Disney's work. They didn't try to "fix" these already beloved films. They just tried to stand on their own merits. They told the original story the way they wanted to tell it, with their own characters, plots, music, themes, and distinctive tone, rather than take someone else’s adaptation of the material and pick and choose what they wanted to copy from it so as to leech off that adaptation’s fanbase. And I truly wish more Disney "remakes" would do that, as opposed to taking these pre-established films and then either ripping them apart and putting them back together Frankenstein-style or adding a whole bunch of insubstantial, fluffy whipped cream to an already perfect sundae. Then maybe we could have two special, unique films to enjoy as two separate entities -- the way we can enjoy films like Disney's Peter Pan and Peter Pan (2003), or Tangled and Barbie as Rapunzel, or (most relevantly of all) Disney's Cinderella and Rodgers' and Hammerstein's Cinderella simultaneously -- rather than having to act like we're "fixing" or even "replacing" old classics that a lot of people still really love and Disney clearly doesn't want to stop marketing.

[lenbryant]

(Long Post, Sorry) Hitting Theater Hard: The Loss of Subscribers Who Went to Everything

The subscription model, in which theatergoers buy a season’s worth of shows at a time, had long been waning, but it fell off a cliff during the pandemic.

As a group of stagehands assembled train cars for the set of “Murder on the Orient Express,” Ken Martin looked grimly at his email. His first year as artistic director at the Clarence Brown Theater in Knoxville, Tenn., was coming to an end, and the theater had missed its income goals by several hundred thousand dollars, largely because it had lost about half its subscribers since the start of the pandemic.

“I’ve already had to tear up one show, because of a combination of cost and I don’t think it’s going to sell,” he said. “I’m in the same boat as a lot of theater companies: How do I get the audience back, and once I get them in the door, how do I keep them for the next show?”

The nonprofit theater world’s industrywide crisis, which has led to closings, layoffs and a reduction in the number of shows being staged, is being exacerbated by a steep drop in the number of people who buy theater subscriptions, in which they pay upfront to see most or all of a season’s shows. The once-lucrative subscription model had been waning for years, but it has fallen off a cliff since the pandemic struck.

It is happening across the nation. Seattle’s 5th Avenue Theater had 13,566 subscribers last season, down from 19,770 before the pandemic. In Atlanta, the Alliance Theater ended last season with 3,208, down from a prepandemic 5,086, while Northlight Theater, in Skokie, Ill., is at about 3,200, down from 5,700.

Theaters are losing people like Joanne Guerriero, 61, who dropped her subscription to Paper Mill Playhouse in Millburn, N.J., after realizing she only liked some of the productions there, and would rather be more selective about when and where she saw shows.

“We haven’t missed it,” she said, “which is unfortunate, I suppose, for them.”

Many artistic leaders believe the change is permanent.

“The strategic conversation is no longer ‘What version of a membership brochure is going to bring in more members,’ but how do we replace that revenue, and replenish the relationship with audiences,” said Jeremy Blocker, the executive director of New York Theater Workshop, an Off Broadway nonprofit that has seen its average number of members (its term for subscribers) drop by 50 percent since before the pandemic.

Why do subscribers matter?

“No. 1, it reduces your cost of marketing hugely — you’re selling three or five tickets for the cost of one,” said Michael M. Kaiser, the chairman of the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the University of Maryland. “No. 2, you get the cash up front, which helps fund the rehearsal period and the producing period. And No. 3, subscriptions give you artistic flexibility — if people are willing to buy all the shows, some subset of the total can be less familiar and more challenging, but if you don’t have subscribers, every production is sold on its own merits, and that makes taking artistic risk much more difficult.”

There’s also a strong connection between subscriptions and contributions. “Most donors are subscribers,” said Maggie Mancinelli-Cahill, the producing artistic director of Capital Repertory Theater in Albany, N.Y., “so there’s a cycle here.”

Theaters are simultaneously trying to retain — or reclaim — subscribers, and also reduce their dependence on them. Many are experimenting with ways to make subscriptions more flexible, or more attractive, but also seeing an upside in the need to find new patrons.

Programming is clearly on the mind of lapsed subscribers around the country. Even as subscriptions have fallen sharply at regional nonprofits whose mission is to develop new voices and present noncommercial work, they have remained steadier at venues that present touring Broadway shows with highly recognizable titles.

“There’s so much going on with the ‘ought-to-see-this-because-you’re-going-to-be-taught-a-lesson’ stuff, and I’m OK with that, but part of me thinks we’re going a little overboard, and I need to have some fun,” said Melissa Ortuno, 61, of Queens. She describes herself as a frequent theatergoer — she has already seen 17 shows this year — but finds herself now preferring to purchase tickets for individual shows, rather than subscriptions. “I want to take a shot, but I don’t want to be dictated to. And this way I can buy what I want.”

But there are other reasons subscribers have stepped away, including age. “We’re all old, that’s the problem,” said Happy Shipley, 77, of Erwinna, Pa., who decided to renew her subscription at the Bucks County Playhouse, but sees others making a different choice. “Many of them don’t stay up late anymore; they’re anxious about parking, walking, crime, public transportation, increased need of restrooms, you name it.”

Arts administrators say that many people who were previously frequent theatergoers remain fans of the art form, but now attend less frequently, a phenomenon confirmed in interviews with supersubscribers — culture vultures who had multiple subscriptions — who say they are scaling back.

Lisa-Karyn Davidoff, 63, of Manhattan, subscribed to 10 theaters before the pandemic; now she is far more choosy, citing a combination of health concerns and reassessed priorities. “If there’s a great cast or something I can’t miss,” she said, “I will go.” Rena Tobey, a 64-year-old New Yorker, had at least 12 theater subscriptions before the pandemic, and now has none, citing an ongoing concern about catching Covid in crowds, a new appreciation for television and streaming, and a sense that theaters are programming shows for people other than her. “For many years, I’ve pushed my boundaries, and I’m just at a point where I don’t want to do it anymore.”

And Jeanne Ryan Wolfson, a 67-year-old from Rockville, Md., who had four performing arts subscriptions prepandemic, is just finding she likes an à la carte approach to ticket purchasing; she kept two of her previous subscriptions, dropped two, and added a new one. “I was paying a lot of money for the subscriptions, and some of the productions within those packages were a bit disappointing or might not have the wow factor I was looking for,” she said. “I think what I want to do is pick and choose.”

Martin said the Knoxville theater’s staff has spent much of the summer discussing the drop in subscriber numbers — the theater had about 3,000 before the pandemic, but 1,500 last season — and hired a marketing firm to study the situation.

Then comes “Kinky Boots,” the kind of uplifting musical comedy many of today’s audiences seem to want. (“Kinky Boots,” with a plot that involves drag queens, also makes a statement for a theater in Tennessee, where lawmakers have attempted to restrict drag shows.) There will be more adventurous productions, but in a smaller theater: “The Moors” by Jen Silverman, and “Anon(ymous)” by Naomi Iizuka.

But selling tickets show by show, instead of as a package, is challenging and expensive.

“It takes three times as much money, time and effort to bring in someone new,” said Tom Cervone, the theater’s managing director. He said the theater is trying everything it can — print advertising, public radio sponsorships, social media posts, plus appearances at local street fairs and festivals where the theater’s staff will hand out brochures and swag (branded train whistles to promote “Murder on the Orient Express,” for example) while trying to persuade passers-by to come see a show.

The theater, which is on the flagship campus of the University of Tennessee, is less dependent than some on ticket revenue, because, like a number of other regional nonprofits, it is affiliated with a university that subsidizes its operations. Still, the money it earns from ticket sales is essential to balancing the budget.

“It’s been scary some days,” Cervone said, “like, where is everybody?”

Michael Paulson is the theater reporter. He previously covered religion, and was part of the Boston Globe team whose coverage of clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. More about Michael Paulson

[russburlingame]

The Strikes, and How the Studios Created This Mess On Purpose

A rant I made on Bluesky the other day:

Here's the thing about Hollywood's payment system: it was working for everybody, and executives saw streaming as a way to fuck everyone else over and make it work exclusively for them. Because that's what executives do. And they convinced everyone to take a bad deal to "test out" the new system.

Then, they threw everything into streaming and, in doing so, eviscerated traditional revenue streams like reruns and home video, both of which had better deals for talent. And they were hoodwinked by tech bros who convinced them the path to profitability was MUCH shorter than it is.

Now those execs, who went all in on streaming SPECIFICALLY as a predatory scheme to take more money, are crying poverty because they say it's a losing proposition. And they want people to take a bad deal to underwrite their recovery from self-inflicted wounds.

But at this point, the talent have been living with the previous bad deal for so long a lot of people are being starved out of the industry. So they strike for a fair deal, and what do execs say? "We're going to starve them for this!" You complete fucking CHUDs, what did you think you did before?

Okay, sorry. Got a little off-track there.

Yeah, numbers for streaming are ROUGH. Just like basically every tech startup in the last 15 years, most streamers are nowhere near profitable and living on the largesse of VC money with the promise that if they decimate the market enough that they're the only option, they'll start to make money...but that's really hard for your employees to believe or sympathize with, when they have seen you dump hundreds of millions of dollars into it for a decade. Executives insist they're the smart ones. Why would they throw good money after bad for YEARS?

Meanwhile, stockholders and VC douchebros have been rewarding the gamble for years, living on promises of "we'll be profitable soon" and approving massive CEO pay packages to reward them for finding a way to pay the talent less.

This is all exacerbated by the long history of "Hollywood accounting." Long before the strikes were happening, Ed Solomon was tweeting about the HIGH-larious joke Sony has been playing on talent for years that insists they somehow lost money on 'Men in Black' and so don't owe any residuals.

So when you see companies pouring tons of money into a system, and executives being handsomely rewarded for that system, but you aren't getting paid? Well, it's hard to believe it isn't profitable. After all, these same companies have said for years theaters aren't profitable. VHS isn't. DVD isn't.

This history of obscuring the numbers so that those at the top can sneak away with an ever-growing slice of the pie is epitomized by streamers that refuse to give anyone ANY kind of clarity when it comes to their numbers. There's only one reason to hide that kind of data, and people know it.

I think this is the end of my rant for now. I just feel like one of the things reporters have not done well is communicating clearly what's going on, and why they should care about white collar workers striking. The answer for me is, they're striking against employers who are stealing them blind.

[back-and-totheleft]

Stone's indictment of the majors focuses on two types of crimes, which, to use his terms, might be divided into Thievery and Thuggery, although there seems to be some overlap. In the Thievery category is the formula the studios use to apportion the vast new millions that come from the videocassette market. The dastardly formula which perpetrates the thievery, Stone says, is called the "videocassette override."

"Major, major thievery," he says. "It's $12 million on [my film] Wall Street."

Twelve million dollars is a large sum to have been lost to "theft," even by Hollywood standards. I ask him how he calculated that.

"The majors declare that only 20 percent of a film's videocassette revenues are allocated back to the film's gross."

"I thought gross was gross," I say, relieved to have seen Speed-the-Plow.

Gross isn't gross when it comes to tape revenues because of the override formula, he says. "They keep 80 percent," which means that profit participants on the creative end—like the director and screenwriter, who start collecting only if the gross is massive—can end up shut out of the tape-revenue windfall. "They say they're treating videocassettes as a separate entity. It's been going on for years, but it's a complete misunderstanding of the way that videocassettes were originally supposed to be distributed. Wall Street's video revenues were more than $16 million in sales. They will allocate around $4 million. Ripping off $12 million." (Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, calls this account "confused." He says that "the formula is an industrywide negotiated figure which is the minimum and can be negotiated higher. The economics of the marketplace—marketing costs and the like— have justified the formula.")

Stone calls the other category of crime committed by the cocksucker vampires at the major studios Thuggery: using monopolistic muscle to strangle the once promising growth of nonmajor independents and boutique studios such as Hemdale (which brought out Salvador and Platoon when no one else would). "It's an incredible struggle that's going on," he says. "It's very subtle. Critics don't pick up on it. In 1985-86, the independent films started to break through. The Salvadors, the Room with a Views, the Platoons."

He contends the majors reacted to this by increasing the quantity of the films they release, which resulted in the independents' being squeezed out, because they're locked out of distribution to movie theaters. "Hemdale, Cannon, Dino [De Laurentiis], all of them have been hurting. They're hurting because they can't get the theater time." (In fact, a recent Variety story confirmed a "screen crunch'' for indies, although collusion is another question.)

-Oliver Stone to Vanity Fair, January 1989 [x]

Commenting on the ongoing 11-week WGA strike, Stone suggested the roots of the current industrial action lie in the deal brokered to end the five-month writers strike in 1988. “There was a basic miscarriage of justice way back when, when Brian Walton was the head of the WGA, when we gave in. I wasn’t on the front line, but I supported that strike,” said Stone. “We gave in to the producers. They got away with murder on one of these deals where all that DVD money was deferred. They claimed they were in the hole, in the red, and that they had to get their money back from DVD. “I forgot what the percentage was, but they took something like the first 75% off the top. The DVD business was huge, especially for my films. So, the gross was never divided fairly.” Stone said this trend had continued with residuals and profits. “Not so much residuals, as profits really. Residuals are important for some of the writers who don’t make as much money. But people who do make money, they don’t touch the profits from the film, the studio does,” he said. “The studio is always telling you that they’re losing money, but they always find a way to make a new level of profit for 10, 15 years. … It’s that perpetual industrial problem with a capitalist group that pays its executives more and more money and screws the average writer.”

-Oliver Stone to Deadline, Jul 14 2023

[parallelunivrses]

[Video Description: Matt Damon sits across from an interviewer with several hot sauces in front of both of them.

Interviewer: A scenario lots of viewers can relate to is sitting on a couch on a Friday night, going through the streaming services, cycling through the movies and thinking to themselves, “They’re not making movies for me anymore.” As someone who’s been intimately involved in movie-making for 30 years, what are the macro-Hollywood conditions behind that sentiment?

Damon: Well, so what happened was, the DVD was a huge part of our business, of our revenue stream, and technology has just made that obsolete. And so, the movies that we used to make, you could afford to not make all of your money when it played at the theater because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release, and 6 months later, you’d get a whole other chunk. It’d be like reopening the movie almost. And when that went away, that changed the type of movies that we could make. I did this movie Behind the Candelabra. And I talked to the studio executive who explained, it was a $25 million movie, I would have to put that much into print and advertising, to market it, what we call P&A, so I’d have to put that in P&A, so now we’re in $50 million. I have to split everything I get with the exhibitor, the people who own the movie theaters, so I would have to make $100 million before I got into profit. And the idea of making $100 million on a story about this love affair between these two people -- yeah I’d love everyone in the movies -- but that’s suddenly a massive gamble in a way that it wasn’t in the 1990’s when they were making those kind of movies and the kind of movies that were my bread and butter. End Description]

Matt Damon explains why they don't make movies like they used to. Pls watch.

[kvibestudios]

"5 Game-Changing Trends in Indie Film Distribution"

The independent film distribution scene is undergoing a significant transformation, spurred by technological advancements, evolving consumer tastes, and shifting economics in the industry. Let's dive into five crucial trends that are reshaping this field and their implications for filmmakers worldwide.

1. Emergence of Streaming Services and OTT Platforms

Platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ have revolutionized how films are distributed. They provide a direct line to consumers, allowing filmmakers to circumvent traditional avenues like film festivals and movie theaters. This process democratizes the distribution of content, giving independent filmmakers a more extensive audience and greater flexibility.

Global Coverage: Services like Netflix can reach over 190 countries, enabling indie films to access global markets without geographical barriers.

Diverse Content Offerings: These platforms are increasingly embracing varied and inclusive narratives, offering indie filmmakers opportunities to explore niche stories and themes that are often underrepresented.

2. Hybrid Release Strategies and Shortened Theater Runs

Hybrid release models are becoming more common, a trend that has been accelerated by the pandemic. This strategy includes simultaneous releases in theaters and on digital platforms or reducing the gap between the two, proving effective and popular.

Direct-to-Consumer Strategy: Studios use D2C releases to gain more control and engage directly with audiences.

Cross-Platform Releases: Movies are launched across various platforms—cinemas, streaming services, and home video—maximizing their revenue potential.

3. Advanced Data Analytics and AI Utilization

Data analytics and artificial intelligence are becoming central to film distribution. They allow distributors and platforms to make informed decisions about release schedules, marketing, and even film production. AI also enhances post-production processes like editing and CGI.

Predictive Data: Data analysis helps forecast box office and streaming outcomes, facilitating more tailored marketing and production approaches.

AI in Editing: AI tech speeds up editing, automates repetitive tasks, and assists in creating compelling visual effects efficiently.

4. Digital Marketing Techniques and Social Media Interaction

Creative digital marketing is crucial for the success of indie films. Social media, online campaigns, and augmented reality engagements are tools filmmakers use to attract and retain viewers.

Social Media Initiatives: Platforms like Instagram are used to cultivate audiences, as seen with the promotion of "Emily The Criminal."

Interactive Content: Real-time fan interactions through live streaming and content like Q&A sessions boost audience engagement.

5. Global Influence and Expansion into International Markets

Globalization is transforming film distribution, pushing studios to more actively engage with international markets by creating films with global appeal, diverse casts, multilingual releases, and culturally rich storylines.

Diverse Cultural Themes: Films increasingly incorporate varied themes to resonate more broadly with international audiences.

Streamlined Technology: Cutting-edge technology simplifies global distribution logistics, allowing films to reach international audiences more quickly and efficiently.

The evolving landscape of independent film distribution presents filmmakers with numerous opportunities:

Utilize streaming platforms to access a wider audience beyond traditional constraints.

Explore hybrid release models to maximize revenue across different channels.

Leverage data analytics for strategic marketing and predictive insights.

Invest in innovative digital marketing to engage creatively with audiences.

Focus on globally appealing themes and diverse casts for broader reach.

By adopting these strategies, filmmakers can successfully navigate the changing landscape and seize new opportunities in independent film distribution.

#FilmDistribution #IndependentFilm #StreamingPlatforms

Discover more about transforming your film distribution strategy at: https://www.kvibe.com

[dkaufmandevelopment]

Central Florida's Real Estate Industry Faces Significant Challenges in 2024

The vacation rental market near Florida’s Disney World is facing significant challenges, presenting both risks and opportunities for real estate developers and investors. As the market cools, landlords are investing heavily in themed decor to attract visitors, but the return on these investments is becoming increasingly uncertain.

The Competitive Landscape

In Kissimmee, the self-proclaimed Vacation Home Capital of the World, landlords are spending up to $150,000 on elaborate Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter-themed decor to stand out. These properties, often located on palm-fringed streets near golf courses and water parks, feature unique interiors such as Star Trek-themed theater rooms and bunk beds modeled after Harry Potter’s Hogwarts Express. Despite these efforts, the market is cooling, and rental income is falling.

Market Saturation and Economic Pressures

Kissimmee boasts over 30,000 short-term rentals, more than any other city in the US, according to AirDNA. However, many homeowners who purchased properties with the expectation of high rental income are now struggling. The slowdown in domestic travel and the oversupply of rental properties are leading to increased home listings and falling rental income.

This trend is not isolated to Florida. Vacation hotspots across the US, from the Carolinas to California, are experiencing similar issues. The real estate boom, driven by low interest rates during the pandemic, has left many vacation-home landlords squeezed between rising costs and weaker-than-expected demand.

Financial Strain and Foreclosures

The pandemic-era logic of investing in Florida was straightforward: families, flush with stimulus payments and eager to escape lockdowns, were traveling in groups to maximize economies of scale. Platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo thrived, but now, many property owners are falling behind on their mortgages. In Kissimmee, foreclosure filings reached 1,088 in the 12 months ending in July, the highest level since 2019, according to Attom Data Solutions.

Investor Insights

Investors who bought at peak prices with high mortgage rates or adjustable-rate financing are most at risk. However, those who purchased before the pandemic likely have enough equity to weather the storm. Many investors are now focusing on offsetting costs rather than maximizing profits.

Market Outlook

Home listings in Kissimmee have more than doubled over the past three years, driven by a decade-long boom in short-term rental construction. Despite the appeal of Orlando’s subdivisions, recent reports from Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp. indicate slowing growth in theme park revenue. Additionally, soaring insurance premiums in Florida, exacerbated by climate change, are increasing costs for homeowners.

The vacation rental market near Disney World is at a crossroads. For real estate developers and investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. While the market presents challenges, there are also opportunities for those who can navigate the complexities of supply, demand, and economic pressures.

[fishmech]

pg-13 got invented so you no longer had to choose between a "high school seniors and up" R and a "this better be acceptable for weird conservative parents taking their 10 year olds" PG

this took a while to shake out but it was very clear that the newly open space for "all teenagers can see this and most adults will too" was blatantly a profitable angle to go to

separately it got way easier and cheaper to issue "special unrated edition" versions of movies so that a studio could double dip with more mature audiences who'd buy the vhs/dvd/whatever uncut versions of an otherwise cut-down-for-pg-13 movie, which tons of people were willing to put up with.

lastly, total ticket sales in the domestic market peaked in 2002. that's also the high water market for box office earnings, inflation-adjusted, for all time - even tho nominal box office take has risen since 2002, it's risen slower than inflation the whole time, so theater attendance and revenue have been declining for 21 years now. every movie seeking wide release is in a consistently shrinking market with shrinking real revenue.

at the same time all of this is happening in the theatrical biz where you have to worry about ratings, we have the rise of first cable/satellite tv and then the internet as places where you can get sizable budgets, and can deal with subject matter that would be rated R or even nc-17 depending on your particular tv/streaming venue. you get increasing attention on film projects that mostly see festival/arthouse release before going home video, no wide release where ratings really interfere.

why bother having to push hard to get into the wide release market with a challenging film? you have so many other options for where that can go. that's why it's declined. heres a graph and a chart that illustrate the theater decline btw:

note that figures given for 2023 on both images are based on projections from how things have progressed so far this year, and since we're not even a full 2 months in they're currently pretty unreliable.

lets also examine the distribution of wide release movies at all:

the "big 6" (though of course now its really big 5, since disney bought fox) make up a decreasing amount of what actually comes to theaters each year.

the peak year for total wide release movies (since 1995 anyway, significantly more movies were released each year in the midcentury heyday) is 2007: 168 movies. 2022 saw 109 and 2023 is supposed to receive 118. even before the pandemic hit and cancelled/delayed a lot of releases, we were only getting 130 in 2019.

finally heres some random other stats:

despite R movies rarely topping the charts anymore, they do whole a solid second place. 2020 had a particularly outsized presence, since R rated movies were more likely to at least try for a presence in the greatly reduced operating times. Incidentally, it's the only year since before 1995 where an R rated movie was also the top in the box office for the year, with Bad Boys For Life!

We can also see that R rated films are the second most released type after not rated (not rated films are usually documentaries played at museums and the like, or foreign films). PG-13 films are less frequent but tend to sweep up the money. Traditional G rated films are increasingly rare, and PG films are kinda uncommon, even though they do make substantially more per film than R does.

Kinda interesting the spread between what movies they make the most of and what movies are more likely to make a lot of money, isn't it?

movies used to be rated R and make so much fucking money man what happened