Will COVID-19 end theatrical movies

[Joker]

That might be a lot of it on here. I think the average age on these boards might be older than some expect.

I get both sides of it, though. Some movies, sure you want a big IMAX screen. Some ****, though, I'd just rather watch it at home, and not deal with that dick who's texting. The person talking. Sticky floors etc.

Though it pissed me off, I get the argument Nolan was making about Tenet (haven't seen it) needing a theatrical experience. Interestellar was awesome on a real IMAX screen. But most movies aren't Interstellar.

[Kirby101]

I do agree that it is an open question on what theater going will look like when this is over later next year.

[ComicJunkie21]

The movie theaters are ticked and I understand both sides, the theaters and the studios. Movie theaters aren't going anywhere but how they are structured will be different in the future, the open question is how will they look. Unfortunately, I think in all of this chaos that the consumer ultimately loses. Imo we see the Netflix model of quantity over quality across the board which isn't good. Not to mention what the streaming services will do to the business relationships between the studios and theaters. Let me be clear that streaming itself is not bad and the I see the cause of the tension as being the poor communication and tactics of the studio heads, simply put they've been tacky at best in their announcements of their strategies. I don't think many will disagree that the studios have not treated the theaters very respectful recently and even in times of crisis and uncertainty that is not how you do business.

I believe universal didn't even tell the theaters that they were streaming trolls 2 and apparently Warner told the theaters not even 10 minutes before the announcement to the media. It will be interesting on the future structure of the theater and streaming models because it will be interesting to see what future contracts between the studios and theaters look like.

[Powerboy]

I said earlier in the year on a few sites that the current generation raised on the internet doesn't have the aversion to watching movies on iPhones, tablets, laptops and TVs that older people might, and was usually met with skepticism and resistance. There are a lot of people who feel because they don't like home viewing, nobody else does either.

I think you're right. Back in the 1990s, I remember someone insisting that reading books on a computer would never catch on because people want the feel of the book in their hands. I gave the same argument, that he felt that way because that's his early life experience. I think the exact words were, "And don't tell me people will ever accept reading a book on computer". Ironically, this was someone much younger than me. Yet, here we are with on-line stuff badly hurting the print market. The only time I ever read a print book anymore is if it's one I already own or an old book like the original Sherlock Holmes stories where I want a musky old book feeling to sort of attune to the era it was written.

I don't quite want to watch movies on a phone- a bit too small- but on a portable computer is just fine. In fact, a lot of older people prefer that to going out to a theater.

[Powerboy]

I do agree that it is an open question on what theater going will look like when this is over later next year.

I think one factor is people adapting to watching on-line and whatever deals may be made. Just watched "Enola Holmes" on Netflix though it was originally intended for theatrical release. My guess is it might actually do better on Netflix.

[Jim Kelly]

It's not like spending huge amounts of money and running what amounts to a full industrial production for several months--to produce something as ephemeral as a movie--was the standard practice for most of the history of movie making. The greater part of that history had directors making movies on slim budgets--often with a barebones crew. The pre-pandemic Hollywood model was something that developed in response to what else was happening in the market. Movie theatres had to give audiences huge spectacles to win them back into the cinema--and justify their high ticket prices.

But now, if everyone is watching their content on smaller screens at home (or on their phone while riding the bus)--is it really worth it to spend so much money on creating visuals that no one is going to notice? I think there will be an averaging out. Where series produced for streaming will improve in visual quality--movies, which would have appeared in theatres in the beforetimes but now appear on streaming, will cut back on visual quality.

[Maestro 216]

If theaters wanted to prevent this can they "ban" WB movies from theaters?

[Kirby101]

If theaters wanted to prevent this can they "ban" WB movies from theaters?

And get there asses sued off.

[numberthirty]

If theaters wanted to prevent this can they "ban" WB movies from theaters?

Can they?

Why wouldn't they?

[regnak]

And get there asses sued off.

Not unless they have a contract with the WB to show all their movies which is highly unlikely. Not every theater shows every movie.

[numberthirty]

Not unless they have a contract with the WB to show all their movies which is highly unlikely. Not every theater shows every movie.

Never mind that it is pretty unlikely that theaters/chains would sign contracts that would essentially leave them in a position where WB are in a position to seriously alter the existing working relationship with theaters/chains having no recourse once it happens.

[Killerbee911]

If theaters wanted to prevent this can they "ban" WB movies from theaters?

The Studio have contract with Theaters but we have seen AMC threat to not play Universal movies, and believe Regal and couple others said they were doing the samething. So apparently there is some level of flexibility in those contracts.

[Joker]

But now, if everyone is watching their content on smaller screens at home (or on their phone while riding the bus)--is it really worth it to spend so much money on creating visuals that no one is going to notice? I think there will be an averaging out. Where series produced for streaming will improve in visual quality--movies, which would have appeared in theatres in the beforetimes but now appear on streaming, will cut back on visual quality.

This acts like most people don't own gigantic televisions. Just because you watch some **** on your phone doesn't mean it's the only way you watch things.

I have Netflix on my phone. I don't watch big spectacle movies on it. I save that for the living room TV.

[Kirby101]

If the theater chains got together to ban WB, that would be restraint of trade and they would get their asses sued off.

[Amadeus Arkham]

If theaters wanted to prevent this can they "ban" WB movies from theaters?

Well, as others have pointed out they are contractually obligated to release them, but even if they could they really wouldn’t seeing as Warners slate is still one of the most tantalizing for moviegoers along with Disney and Universal. It’d be like trying to swim underwater without a breathing mask. They need their content to survive and not suffocate and drown in closures. Furthermore, what if other big studios like Disney follow suit, and do the same thing Warners is doing? There’s no way any sane theater chain worth their salt is going to actively refuse to show a new Marvel or Star Wars movie in protest over their decision making. That’d be financial suicide. Theaters nowadays are in their last legs in terms of health. It’s like they’ve taken a near fatal gunshot, and they’re bleeding profusely. Movie chains need anything they can to cauterize the wound and stop the bleeding or they will die. Which means they need studios like Warners to survive. The aren’t going to refuse something that can help them recover from the crisis they’re facing under any circumstances.