I hope the film being such a dud doesn’t kill the TV series.
This is all so stupid. Dark Tower should’ve been the next Game of Thrones. And they never would’ve had the problem of running out of material that GoT is facing currently.
Personally, I blame Akiva Goldsman. That guy has been writing nothing but mediocre to terrible scripts since Batman Forever, and he’s still in as big a demand as ever.
The first I heard of him was his credit on Batman Forever and I’ve tried to avoid his work since. He should cop as much blame as Schumacher whose career never really recovered.
I liked ‘A Beautiful Mind’. ‘Cinderella Man’ works fine, a lot of people liked ‘Fringe’.
He’s got an approach, and I think it works better for some projects than others.
Seeing the push/pull that happens on projects I’m reluctant to assign too much blame to any one person anyway.
I watched Annabelle: Creation this weekend. It was actually pretty good. There wasn’t an original bone in its body, but it kind of played out like a greatest hits of moments from other horror films.
A lot of this was down to David Sandberg’s direction, which was really quite excellent, as it was with Lights Out. He has a nice sense of visual storytelling and how to frame a shot, and an excellent sense of timing—when to satisfy audience expectations, and when to toy with them.
Watching this movie gives me high hopes for the Shazam movie, assuming it still happens and he remains attached as director.
As movie theaters struggle with tepid sales, Mitch Lowe has an extreme proposal for how to get more people into seats: Let them come to all the showings they want for about the price of a single ticket each month.
Lowe, an early Netflix Inc. executive who now runs a startup called MoviePass, plans to drop the price of the company’s movie ticket subscriptions on Tuesday to $9.95. The fee will let customers get in to one showing every day at any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards. MoviePass will pay theaters the full price of each ticket used by subscribers, excluding 3D or Imax screens.
MoviePass could lose a lot of money subsidizing people’s movie habits. So the company also raised cash on Tuesday by selling a majority stake to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., a small, publicly traded data firm in New York. The companies declined to comment on terms of the financing but said MoviePass intends to hold an initial public offering by March.
Ted Farnsworth, chief executive officer at Helios and Matheson, said the goal is to amass a large base of customers and collect data on viewing behaviors. That information could then be used to eventually target advertisements or other marketing materials to subscribers. “It’s no different than Facebook or Google,” Farnsworth said. “The more we understand our fans, the more we can target them.”
Not sure about that.
Cheap tickets and season passes make sense to me, but he’s not getting any help from the theatres on this. Maybe he’s hoping it’ll be like gym membership; people buy it, then never use it?
It does seem a risky proposition. If someone goes once a week (and assuming a ticket price of around $10) he’s paying $30 for data which Google and Facebook get for next to nothing. There will be some that sign up I’m sure that end up not going too often but we’ll see, he must have worked out a business plan.
Either way if I were in the US I’d sign up and take advantage for as long as it lasts.
That is a bit odd for someone outside of the theater system to be launching it. I can see it working for a theater who would possibly make it up on concession sales.
Yep, I signed up with that exact mentality. Not sure how long it’ll last, but it’s worth giving it a shot.
Cineworld Unlimited tickets let you see unlimited movies in their chain for around the price of two tickets a month. A friend of mine had one, and saw at least one movie a week, often more (sometimes two in an afternoon, when the timings worked).
I can barely find one movie a month I want to see. So even if the price dropped to that of a single ticket, this still wouldn’t be worth a monthly subscription for me.
So I guess the company is relying on most customers being like me but not realising that they are like me
Maybe a dumb question but what is keeping you from sharing your pass?
That’s a great question, and I’m not sure how they check it. Once I receive my pass I might have a better idea.
Looks like MoviePass is very much a 3-way model. I’ll be interested to see if it works. I tried to access their site last night and it was having technical difficulties.
I do agree with the AMC spokesman that if this expectation is created and then the company goes under, it has disastrous potential for the film industry.
Even the moviepass CEO is aware that the model is unsustainable long term. The prices aren’t going to stay this low forever. But it’s an interesting experiment to see if you can get people back into the theaters. After that it’s about finding a model to keep them wanting to come back and pay a more reasonable subscription. Not sure they’ll be able to pull it off, but we’ll see how it shakes out.
In any case, theaters really do need to come up with some way to attract audiences. Ticket sales have been on the decline for many years and all most theaters have done to combat it is offer more non-standard movie options (3D and IMAX) and higher ticket prices. It’s been, I think, a detriment to Indie cinema because it means I have to be more picky about what is actually worth seeing in a theater and that’s usually the big blockbusters. It’s especially important for theater chains now that streaming services like Netflix are in the movie production business.
What’s also funny, it I could see Moviepass leading to a theater making more money off me. I never buy any concessions at the theater because tickets are already expensive. With movie pass subsidizing the cost of the ticket for me, I’m more likely to buy some popcorn. And concessions are the bread and butter of any movie theater.
I don’t think that is what he is saying. What he is saying is that they’re not selling movie tickets. It’s a 3-way model similar to magazines and newspapers. You only ever pay a small portion of cost to produce a newspaper or magazine. The person who really pays for the newspaper or magazine is the advertisers who are paying for your eyeballs. So what they’re really selling targeted adds. For that to work, they need a certain critical mass of subscribers to sell to potential clients. If that doesn’t happen then it all crumbles.
Yeah, that makes sense. I was just going off a news segment where they talked about the CEO saying this was likely a limited time price point, but if you sign up now they’d guarantee a year at that price.
Apple Sets $1 Billion Budget for Original TV Shows, Movies
Is Apple ready for its big Hollywood debut?
The tech giant has targeted $1 billion in spending for original television series and films over the next year, looking to establish itself as a buyer of premium entertainment, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous individuals.
With its checkbook whipped out, Apple may be poised to acquire up to 10 TV high-caliber series, and company execs have begun scouting out prospects with agencies, according to the Journal.
Already, Apple has signaled its aims to become a significant Hollywood player with the hiring of Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht — longtime presidents at Sony Pictures Television — in June. The duo behind such hits as “The Blacklist,” “The Goldbergs,” and “Breaking Bad” are tasked with building a slate of world-class content for Apple. And this week the company revealed that it has tapped Matt Cherniss, ex-G.M. of WGN America and Tribune Studios, to head development for the original entertainment group.
Still, even with an annual budget of a billion dollars, Apple would trail Netflix, Amazon and HBO.
Netflix, the subscription streaming-video leader, plans to spend $7 billion on content next year (up from $6 billion in 2016), while analyst peg Amazon’s spending on programming for Prime Video at around $4.5 billion for 2017. Time Warner’s HBO spends around $2 billion per year on content.
To date, Apple’s forays into original video have been in support of Apple Music subscription service. It bowed unscripted competition series “Planet of the Apps” this summer and launched the “Carpool Karaoke” spinoff from James Corden’s CBS late-night show last week — neither of which impressed critics.
For Apple, a $1 billion outlay for original entertainment would barely make a dent in its balance sheet: The company reported $261.5 billion in cash, cash equivalents and long-term investments as of July 1, 2017.
I honestly have no idea where people are going to get time to watch all this stuff.
Which is a nuts concept. It’s pretty amazing that there is so much good tv that you just have enough time to watch it all.
But with the delivery system for viewing all these show splintering torrenting is going to make a big come back.
Apple have a huge inbuilt user base but they seem a little late to the game and despite their mountain of cash they are spending one seventh of what Netflix are. Are they going to charge one seventh of the subscription fee? Maybe if it’s $1.50 a month people will say who cares as it is so cheap (and yes I know in the arts that spend doesn’t equal value necessarily, there are expensive shows that are rubbish and low costs ones that are great).
There’s a service here in SE Asia called iFlix that I don’t really use that much but is so cheap to subscribe to (less than US$2 a month) I may as well carry on with it for the odd show here and there.
A huge user base isn’t always a guarantee of success, look at Microsoft that have failed repeatedly with most of their consumer products outside of about 3 of them (Windows, Office and X-Box). We shall see.
I will stick to my prediction that a lot of these efforts will fail and we’ll consolidate back after a couple of years.