Kultura / Culture
Bad times for romantics Will streaming devour cinemas? It is a sad fact that great Hollywood movies shot in studios with their own tumultuous and glorious histories, and intended for dark cinema halls, are slowly being consigned to history, left on dusty shelves next to VHS tapes and DVDs In the golden era of MGM, distribution in 350-400 movie theatres was considered revolutionary . Cinema became entertainment for the masses, with people nationwide across America – and not just in Los Angeles and New York – having the oppor- tunity to watch the latest creations. The number of movie theatres grew over the following decades, with the term ‘widespread distribution’ becoming relative. What was 400 cinemas in the 1940s had already reached 1,500 auditori- ums by the ‘50s. And from that period until the mid-1980s, the greatest hits were released in slightly fewer than 2,000 cinema auditoriums across America. The 1996 blockbuster Mission: Impossible became the first film to be screened in 3,000 cinemas in the U.S., a fig- ure that was then considered unobtainable. Back in 2004’s Shrek 2 became the first ever film to break the milestone of 4,000 theatres in the U.S. But only 73 films have exceeded that figure over the subsequent 20 years. Studios often took risks by releasing movies in cinemas across America, only for the move to fail to meet expectations. Meanwhile, stream- ing services had already become increasingly competitive. Despite VHS being a product of the 1970s, it only expe- rienced the peak of its popularity in the ‘80s, becoming com- pletely dominant with the expansion of chains of video rental clubs like Blockbuster, which many expected to destroy cin- ema. However, just as history had shown that the advent of television wouldn’t spell the end of audiences for cinemas, so the ever-expanding chain of Blockbuster Video (which had reached a total of over 9,000 outlets across America by the early 2000s) failed to make a dent in the huge sums be- ing generated by films at cinema box offices. However, the 1997 launch of the first DVD player marked the beginning of the end for VHS. The public might have re- mained loyal to cinemas, but they also wanted to own movies on high resolution discs and to have additional material like trailers, movie making backstories, interviews and other ad- ditions that led to increasing interest in DVDs among fans. By the early 2000s, VHS had fallen off a cliff, but a new rev- olution would come quicker than expected. Namely, in less than ten years, by 2005, Blu-ray discs had entered the mar- ket, and their performance and quality ensured thay started to slowly supersede the DVD format. The first six or seven years of the new millennium saw a general war rage between
cinemas, DVDs, the emerging Blu-ray format and the expand- ing Netflix, which was established in 1997. This famous streaming service introduced “video on de- mand” in 2007, with the expansion of this online model it- self leading to the decline of all physical film formats. DVD suffered the same fate as VHS, while Blu-ray also began to lose its battle against streaming. The option of a monthly subscription that provided access to masses of films and se- ries was welcomed as a much more appealing alternative to individual rentals or buying copies of films in any of the not- ed formats. It was just four years later that Netflix began ex- panding its global streaming network, starting with Brazil, Peru and Mexico, only to begin conquering Europe in 2012. The first and probably most iconic Netflix original was the series House of Cards, which was launched in 2013 and starred Kevin Spacey. Apart from teaming up on co-produc- tions (such as on Narcos with Univision), Netflix also began buying content from other studios to include in its own of- fer. Growth in the number of subscribers prompted Netflix to invest increasingly in original films and series (such as The Crown). With Netflix strengthening, other streaming servic- es also began appearing on the scene, such as Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, HBO Max, Apple TV and Universal’s Peacock. The huge interest in Netflix’s offer also provided motivation for its competitors to offer better content. HBO has long been renowned for its high-quality and extremely popular projects, such as Sex and the City, the unforgettable Succession and the most popular and most highly-awarded show Game of Thrones. HBO subsequent- ly turned to the production of miniseries, such as Big Lit- tle Lies, which brought them many new fans and awards. Opting for a different approach, Disney Plus cleverly took advantage of the acquisition of 20 th Century Fox and Lu- casfilm to create a completely new Star Wars sub-universe, with standout shows like The Mandalorian, WandaVision and Loki. Amazon Prime also penetrated the cinema market with the Oscar-winning film Manchester by the Sea, as well as producing other original content like The Wheel of Time, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (which also hap- pens to be the most expensive TV show ever) and The Mar- velous Mrs. Maisel. Hulu began making waves on the glob- al market with its multi-award-winning series Only Murders in the Building, starring Selena Gomez, Steve Martin and Meryl Streep (who joined for season three). Interestingly, despite Apple’s global dominance as a brand, its streaming service only boasts 30 million subscribers, while the world’s top streamer – Netflix – has a whopping ten times as many. Netflix made an interesting move in 2014, when it be- gan limited cinema releases of certain original films that it considers potential Oscar nominees, releasing them for just two weeks and with a distribution range of 10 to 750 cin- emas (such as with Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman), pure- ly to meet the criteria of the Academy of Motion Pictures that only considers a film eligible for Oscar nomination if it has been screened in cinemas for at least two weeks. Netflix today boasts 302 million subscribers, while Amazon Prime has 205. Amazon Studios is a division that opted to pursue standard production practices and to rely on the traditional
distribution of its films, which it only later makes available exclusively via its streaming service. With the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic that prompted the temporary closures of cinemas, film produc- tion shifted wholesale to the online world. Films premiered either on streaming services or in the form of “video on de- mand” rentals costing twenty dollars each. Despite this ap- parently being a profitable move, all studios still hoped that the reopening of cinemas would spell the return of loyal the- atre audiences, as had been the case in the days of VHS, DVD and Blu-ray. It nonetheless turned out that people had be- come accustomed to spending more time with their families and friends and that they prefer to rent or buy digital copies, which has also been assisted by technological advances in tel- evision sets and accompanying sound systems. U.S. cinema box office returns for 2018 totalled approxi- mately $11.9 billion, while in the post-pandemic period these annual earnings have yet to exceed $8.9 billion (2023), which is equivalent to 2005 results, when America’s domestic box office takings amounted to $8.8 billion. Another difference is the fact 676 films were shown in American cinemas in 2005, while by 2023 that figure had dropped to 592. The following year saw 674 films distributed in cinemas, but takings for the year had fallen by four per cent. The highest number of theatrical distributions came in 2018 – 993 films screened. And while the number of subscribers on all streaming services continues to rise and new streamers, like Mubi, ap- pear on the American market, Hollywood is struggling to overcome a lack of original content that would entice audi- ences, with the whole battle boiling down to the rivalry be- tween the Marvel and DC cinematic universes and the evok- ing of fond memories through the revival of old franchises like Star Wars and Jurassic World. Marketing spending for independent productions, or those that are slightly more “artistic”, is reducing markedly, while – in stark contrast – studios are making the bizarre move of releasing independ- ent films to more than 1,500-2,000 cinemas, which wasn’t a practice prior to a decade ago. These so-called “Oscar films” have had expanding cinema distribution for months, in or-
der for them to experience their broadest theatrical run at the peak of the awards season. Movies are now just being sold down the river, with peo- ple not even being made aware of their existence (Ridley Scott’s The Last Duel is just one example), until they find themselves as a “video on demand” option after 4-6 weeks. Individual studios have a policy not to release any theatrical run film in a digital format for at least 4-5 months, but that period is being shortened in response to the increase in sub- scriptions. One of the biggest hits of 2024, Wicked, which continues to generate major box office takings, was already available in a digital format on 31 st December last year, just over a month after premiering in cinemas. The list of expensive films that flop at the box office is growing every year, and small distribution companies are still striving to find a way to entice cinemagoers, in order to avoid having to rely solely on streaming services. Netflix has also created a hybrid model of cinema distribution be- yond the borders of America. Last year’s releases Maria and Emilia Pérez had regular theatrical distribution in many Eu- ropean countries, around a month or two after their Netflix digital premiere in the U.S. The question that arises is which model will ultimately prove the most profitable: the short- lived Warner Bros. model (films released simultaneously in cinemas and on streaming); exclusive theatrical runs of 42 to 100 days, after which a film becomes available in a digi- tal format; or assessing and deciding on the basis of a film’s initial box office success. It is increasingly the case that stu- dios announce films as being available to rent or buy if they fail to generate the expected returns in the first two or three weeks of their cinema run. It is for all of the reasons cited that distribution compa- nies fear investing in the marketing costs associated with the- atrical distribution, particularly when online marketing for streaming platforms is cheaper and more effective. Will cin- emas finally suffer the fate they feared awaited them during the days of VHS, DVD and Blu-ray, over the decade ahead? That remains to be seen, but we’re keeping our fingers crossed that they survive!
48 | Kinematografija » Cinematography
Cinematography » Kinematografija | 49
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator