Are Theatres Dying?

I recently watched this video from Films&Stuff:

Hmm… (Courtesy of Films&Stuff.)

I love this channel. I don’t agree with everything Jonathan says, but he’s able to make compelling enough arguments anyway. The same can be said here, a video that’s well thought-out despite its short length. However, one key detail’s missing. And no, it’s not about Elemental being slow to recoup its budget. Rather, it’s about why audiences aren’t showing up for movies like before: we’re experiencing COVID fatigue.

Some of you are probably rolling your eyes. How could a virus that’s no longer causing mass deaths still be a concern? Ignoring how China had over 150 million positive cases last year, scientists are predicting another wave in August and September. It might be milder than before, but we shouldn’t be careless. Especially not with COVID.

I could prattle on about how the world hasn’t been taking this virus seriously since its inception, but I’d rather focus on the pandemic’s impact on the box office. Because it’s had an impact. Much like inflation, unionization and various illnesses currently in the public eye, so too have movie theatres been impacted over the last few years. More than budgets, franchise fatigue and a lack of creativity, the pandemic’s played a part in how audiences experience movies. To explain why, let’s rewind the clock.

In the early days of the pandemic, theatres were in total lockdown. They opened temporarily to accommodate Tenet, but that didn’t last. For the most part, theatres weren’t operating. And most movies were shoved out onto streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. Streaming services actually saw boosts in subscribers during this time! It was a win-win for consumers, who didn’t have to leave their homes to watch movies, and the studios, who got to show off their new toys.

Unfortunately, that was a double-edged sword. While streaming made it convenient, when restrictions lessened and theatres opened again, the damage had already been done. We saw it partly with Scarlett Johansson and Black Widow, but also theatre attendance being down. Cinemas, which’d already been a hassle to venture to, were now an afterthought, with trekking to them becoming optional. There were exceptions, but most of the moviegoing magic was now nonexistent. It was no longer about going to a packed room, especially with a risk of getting sick.

So it’s no wonder why many big releases no longer make big bank. And while Jonathan’s right that swelled budgets don’t help, especially since the target for profit’s now higher, the audience also isn’t biting as frequently. After all, why go and buy overpriced tickets when you can wait and watch a movie on your computer or TV in a few weeks/months? Doesn’t that make more sense?

This should be a wake-up call for studios too. Movies in the past relied on people seeing them and telling friends, but that isn’t working anymore. We’re now more reluctant to venture outside our comfort zones, hence films are taking longer to gain word-of-mouth. That isn’t to say movies aren’t making any money, they are, but it requires patience. Especially with movies like Elemental, which are original IPs.

You know what’s not helping? The reduced time between theatrical releases and home releases. It’s helped streaming, but harmed theatres significantly. A movie used to have a whole year in theatres before moving to video, allowing time to resonate with audiences. Lately, however, the window’s shrunk, as executives lack patience to let their releases speak for themselves. This, when coupled with audience reticence to risk their health, is a recipe for movies bombing financially.

Now, there’ve been exceptions. Avatar: The Way of Water made more money than its predecessor in a shorter period. Both Spider-Man movies released since the pandemic have seen record returns. Even Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and The Super Mario Bros. Movie have done well! But these movies all relied on brand recognition, nostalgia or familiarity with the IP, and sometimes all three. It’s much harder with movies that don’t have any of that, original stories particularly.

Is there a way to remedy this? Yes. The solution would be stepping back to breathe, instead of huffing and puffing over immediate results. Remember that we’re still suffering from pandemic trauma, and that takes time to disappear. Like the 1919 flu, life won’t return to normal immediately. People need to rebuild trust, and patience is necessary. We need to heal before we resume life.

I get it: it sucks that movies aren’t cash cows like they used to be. Despite my gripes, I like the energy of the movie theatre! There’s a vibe of sitting in a packed auditorium that isn’t replicated with streaming! But my health comes first. And when tentpole releases are being accused of “bloated runtimes”, I have to weigh the pros and cons of going to see new releases. Especially when tickets aren’t cheap!

So yes, Jonathan didn’t take this into consideration. I also think it’s not being acknowledged by everyone else.

The Barminheimer Train

With the writer’s and actor’s strikes taking up people’s time and energy, it’s easy to forget that there’s a triple-whammy this week in the form of two movies and a video game. Let’s discuss “Barminheimer”, as it’s jokingly referred to:

I’ll admit that this is the last scenario the entertainment industry would want. Not because these titles are bad, they’re not, but because each release cuts into the attention of the other two. However, since no one could negotiate release date changes, perhaps it’s best to talk about my hopes for them. Because I’m interested in all three. And I’ll start with Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer didn’t need much advertising. That’s because it’s a Christopher Nolan movie that’s over 3 hours and uses black-and-white IMAX footage for parts of its runtime. Centring on the granddaddy of The Atomic Bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, the movie’s about the time period leading up to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s also Nolan’s second WWII movie, after Dunkirk in 2017. I thought Dunkirk was okay, but I’m the person who also considers Nolan’s Batman trilogy his best work.

Despite the trailers revealing little about the movie proper, I hope the film delves into Oppenheimer’s mindset pre/post-creation of said bombs. It’d be great to see how his genius is manipulated by The US government, as well as how it drains him. I know emotion isn’t Nolan’s forte, his movies are usually heavily-calculated, but it’d be interesting to see something different there. Basically, think The Wind Rises without the sentimentality. It’d definitely be new for Nolan.

Another aspect I’m curious about is the movie’s practical effects. Nolan’s no stranger to CGI, he uses it for crowd shots, but he prides himself on practical perfectionism. The bombs exploding, in particular, will have to be sold to me, given how expensive it’d be to do them without computers. Then again, I’m of the opinion that CGI isn’t inherently a problem, contrary to what many would claim. But that’s for another day…

That said, I’m worried about this being a vanity exercise. Christopher Nolan’s last few movies have gotten bigger in ambition and budget, and it’s been a mixed-bag qualitatively. On one hand, a bigger scope allows him to flex his IMAX prowess, and that’s made him a better filmmaker overall. On the other hand, his ambition often comes with a lack of focus, made obvious with Interstellar and Tenet. Oppenheimer, judging by reviews, appears to not have this problem, but looks can be deceiving.

One last concern involves casting. It’s a problem with Hollywood generally, but I’m not a fan of downplaying Oppenheimer’s Jewishness. It may seem secondary, but the real Oppenheimer would’ve been offended that he and his Jewish scientists, many of them refugees from Nazi Europe, aren’t acknowledged as such. The easy remedy would’ve been casting Oppenheimer with a Jewish actor, but it’s too late now. I’m still bummed, though.

Moving on to the other big movie, there’s Barbie. This wasn’t initially on my radar. After all, it’s based on a toy that wasn’t meant for me, and it’s directed by someone who hasn’t appealed to me prior. Barbie also had the potential to be a lazy cash-in on nostalgia, but it’s been getting excellent reviews. I guess that shows how I should never underestimate an IP? Being a comedy helps…

The selling point is its wackiness. The first trailer paid homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the follow-up trailer sold me on its sincere silliness. If the actual movie keeps that energy, I guarantee it’ll be on-par with The LEGO Movie. I already see it doing that, I won’t lie. It merely has to follow-through.

Speaking of trailers, the jokes in there alone have me sold. Barbie having flat-feet? Check. Barbie contemplating mortality during a dance sequence? Check. Ken and Barbie getting arrested? Probably the funniest part.

This manic, nonsensical energy the movie’s striving for is a step in the right direction. It helps that Will Ferrell’s the big baddie. Say what you will about his comedy, but Ferrell’s strength lies in villains. He was the best part of The LEGO Movie, and I’m hoping that translates to this film. He was born to play stereotypical CEOs!

I also hope that the movie broaches Girlboss Feminism. For as much as Barbie was a feminist icon in the 40’s and 50’s, showing that it was possible to enter the “man’s realm”, the core conceit of her is no longer profound. Add in that Barbie’s physique has led to many eating disorders, and it’d be great if this movie addressed the unintended consequences of its own IP. I’m sure it’ll pull it off, especially given the director, but I’m hoping it does so earnestly.

Most of all, I hope the movie’s fun. And I hope it’s funny! The jokes might not land all the time, but that’s the downside of comedies. Especially when they have so many jokes, often simultaneously. I can’t fault this movie for failing constant bullseyes, but I’d be content with enough jokes landing. That’s the sign of a comedy clicking.

The “under the radar” release, and the only video game, is Pikmin 4. Despite the 10-year gap since its predecessor, Nintendo’s been overhyping this game since its announcement last year. It’s strange because the Pikmin franchise has never been a big-name, despite having a dedicated fanbase. So its fourth mainline entry being hyped like this is odd. Still, as someone who’s beaten and enjoyed every entry save the first, I’m more excited for this than the movies.

It helps that I’ve already played the demo, courtesy of The Nintendo Switch eShop. It’s an appetizer for the game proper, even though it transfers your save data, but what little I’ve played I’m in-love with. I especially love the inclusion of Oatchi. Oatchi’s my favourite new addition, and his presence makes for additional puzzle solving absent in previous games. He’s also a good boy, and really cute!

I also like the different Pikmin. This game brings back all seven species from prior games, and it introduces two new ones. I haven’t played the nighttime sections, though I hear they’re fun, but the Ice Pikmin are already impressive. My only gripe is that you’re capped with the number of Pikmin you can have on the field, but that’s easily forgiven with the ability to move your Onion to various locations. That’s pretty cool.

The biggest selling point, aside from being able to play at night, is traversing homes and backyards now. The planet of PNF404 was always hinted to be Earth, and this game confirms it. It also now has everything to-scale, further emphasizing how scary this world is. After all, what are the odds that you’ll be squished by a human? Definitely not impossible!

There’s so much I can mention. Like how Oatchi’s skills are upgradable. Or how massive the maps are. Or even the Dandori Battles this game introduces! But that wouldn’t do the game justice. There’s too much to talk about here, and unlike Oppenheimer and Barbie, both of which I won’t get to see right away, this is something I’ll have access to immediately. I can’t wait!

That’s about it for the “Barminheimer” train. Let me know which of these you’re most-looking forward to, and I’ll see you next time!

Hollywood and Striking

So the inevitable finally happened.

Honestly, I can’t say I’m surprised. Streaming, despite its conveniences, hasn’t made life easy for actors and writers. Additionally, Hollywood executives and studios have been hemorrhaging money on big-budget releases, yet the performers and writers haven’t been treated well when it comes to profits. It’s, therefore, less a matter of “why” than “when” with The WGA and SAG-AFTRA striking. The only shock is it not happening sooner. I guess it took a global pandemic…

There’ve been many bad-faith responses to this situation, and, acknowledging my outsider status, I’d like to share my thoughts on them. The first is the claim that Hollywood performers and writers are all rich and greedy. This isn’t true. While there are definitely those who are well-off, more in the former category, most of the members of both unions are trying to make due. For SAG-AFTRA, many don’t even meet the minimum of $26k a year after taxes needed for benefits. This isn’t some number I pulled out of thin air.

It’s tempting to think of everyone in Hollywood as being a big-name. It doesn’t help that we hear so much about the wealthy few and their shenanigans. But those we know about are a small fraction. In most cases, they only got their breaks after years, sometimes decades, of small-time gigs. They’re also not much different than the average person trying to make a living.

Another misconception is that this is “karma” for garbage movies and scripts. For one, there’ve been plenty of great movies recently, even big-budget ones. And two, so what? People deserve to be paid! I wrote clickbait for a big website for about a year, even though I now write for The Whitly-Verse for free. I put a lot of time into my content, even when it’s trash! Guild members are no different.

Then there are the studio executives. There was an anonymous comment that went viral about how executives would prefer to let union strikers go homeless before negotiating with them, to the frustration of the strikers. Actor Ron Perlman even hinted that Disney CEO Bob Iger might’ve said that, especially given Iger’s public statement. Far be it to validate that hearsay, but it reiterates how little WGA and SAG members are valued by executives. I say that knowing full-well that Iger’s preferable to Bob Chapek when it comes to shareholders.

It's especially hurtful because people deserve to be valued, irrespective of their spot on the totem pole. It’s true that not everyone striking’s a saint, as we’ve seen with Chris Miller and Phil Lord. It’s also true that Ron Perlman’s worth millions of dollars. But those realities don’t invalidate the frustrations of the strikers. You can recognize that some people who are undervalued aren’t so great themselves. As can you recognize that Perlman was a nobody before getting his big break.

Finally, there’s the misconception about how the strike itself. People have been using the word “scab” to describe Disney employees promoting Disney content, even though they’re not part of The WGA or SAG-AFTRA. People have also been saying that watching content on streaming services is scab-like behaviour, when it’s not. Not only was there no call to boycott streamers, but doing so hurts strikers even more. Especially when streamers rely on viewing data to determine success.

I find this especially hurtful because it ignores the real issue. Yes, scabbing is a problem. And yes, scabs have hurt strikers before. But watching Netflix isn’t the same as Ronald Reagan having secret business interests in 1960. If anything, not watching Netflix in solidarity is worse! That distinction couldn’t be more pressing.

The real question is: “What do we do to show support?” Remember, no one wanted to go on strike. Strikes are time-consuming, costly and often lead to animosity. In some cases, the situation ends up being worse once the strike’s over! Speaking as someone whose work union narrowly avoided a strike last year, negotiating a compromise is better than striking. Especially given the aforementioned points.

But it’s sometimes inevitable. And here, the hope is that writers and performers in Hollywood end up with better working conditions. Their demands seem “extreme” at first glance, and I’m not going to sum them up (I wouldn’t do them justice anyway), but they’re not unrealistic. They boil down to equitable treatment, which is what labour union strikes are generally about. I’m not exaggerating when I say that most of the worker protections these days are from union members who were ready to strike for them.

I think we need to listen to the strikers and take their cues. If they tell us to boycott, fine. But they haven’t so far. Instead, they’ve simply asked for solidarity, as well as to not be hasty. We should be calling out executives on misinformation and applying pressure on them to cave to the strikers. It’s the least we can do.

Remember, this is a class war. The people in power want us to fight each other, instead of them. These writers’ and actors’ strikes are no different. Is it fun? No, but it’s necessary if actual change is to occur. It’s also the only way to actually send a message that workers deserve respect, as cliché as that sounds.

SAG-AFTRA and AI

Tomorrow marks a pivotal moment in Hollywood. The Screen Actors Guild, or SAG-AFTRA, is voting to go on strike, much like The WGA did. While the situation in acting’s different than writing, an overlapping concern is about AI replacing the human element. Like how writers are concerned machines will replace them, so too are performers. While this, together with residual cheques, has been years in progress, it’s only now gotten bad enough that people are putting their feet down.

Which begs the question: why aren’t more consumers sensitive to it?

Recently, the voice acting world was faced with said apathy. Erica Lindbeck put out a request on her Twitter account to stop people from using her voice without permission. Rather than respect that request, she received harassment from Tweeters who didn’t think it was a big deal. The attacks got so bad that Lindbeck deactivated her account, leading to other VAs coming to her defence.

This should be a no-brainer: an individual in the entertainment industry requested that she be respected. She wasn’t, and she got attacked. Normally this’d warrant self-reflection, but since Twitter misunderstands consent, it isn’t surprising. As someone who survived GamerGate, I know that all too well. Also, Twitter sucks.

What bugs me more is the aftermath, particularly the fallout. While I appreciate VAs coming to Lindbeck’s defence, I don’t like people not understanding what they did wrong. To be fair, most individuals understood this was a blunder. But the few that didn’t, the loudest voices, acted like they were the victims and continued harassing VAs. It’s a classic case of entitlement, which is concerning in an age when people can anonymously steal someone’s likeness.

This circles back to a growing fear about overstepping boundaries in art. I’m not entirely against AI. I think that it has potential to assist artists when used correctly. Unfortunately, that’s not happening to the degree that it should, hence the concern. Basically, instead of complimenting artists and their work, AI’s being used as a total replacement for them. As an artist myself, that’s quite worrying.

It's also worrying because of the long-term implications. AI, as of right now, is in The Uncanny Valley: it can’t draw limbs properly, it makes blurry copies of other people’s work without their permission, and in the off-chance that it gets someone’s voice right, it still feels too calculated to pass as human. However, that might not last. Technology’s constantly getting better, and we already have near-perfect deepfakes that can be swapped with real actors. If AI ever becomes indistinguishable from reality, who’s to say it won’t replace the jobs of real people permanently?

That’s what Lindbeck’s situation, as well as SAG-AFTRA’s strike vote, is about. I don’t think anyone’s bemoaning AI’s existence. It’s used in many fields, including CGI modelling and rendering, and it’s not going away. But even with that, there still has to be a balance. The AI component can’t, and shouldn’t, override the human one, or we end up with inferior, calculated simulations of reality becoming the norm and drowning out lived experiences. That’s the real problem.

I’m also not happy with living, thinking individuals not comprehending this. Sure, Lindbeck’s one person, and I’m positive sexism also played a part with her. But if the VA response is indication, I doubt she’s an isolated example. And that people are continuing to ignore real artists’ wishes to not have their art replicated without permission because “AI is cool” is telling and naïve. Because who’s to say it won’t one day impact them too? Does it only matter when they’re on the chopping block themselves?

I won’t fix this problem on my own. I’m one person, and I have relatively little clout. I also know that even if I did have clout, it wouldn’t be enough to reverse the damage that shameless AI promoters are causing. However, I know I want my voice to be respected, and I know what it’s like to have it diluted. I’m sure I’m not alone on that.

As for the video that used Lindbeck’s voice without permission? I can’t take it down, I don’t have that kind of power, but I recommend no one watch it. I don’t care how “good” or “funny” it is, it’s a breach of consent. If Erica Lindbeck requests that her voice be respected, we should be sensitive to that. There’s no arguing around this.

Finally, regarding the SAG-AFTRA situation, I wouldn’t worry too much. Yes, it’ll suck to have film sets shut down, especially since no one will be working on new productions, but there’s more than enough content as is that it’s impossible to not have a personal backlog. Plus, people have a right to demand better working conditions, even if they’re famous. Human lives are more important than personal grievances over that new movie you’ve been looking forward to not coming out right away or being put on pause. That includes AI as well.

Remembering Wii Music

2008 was rough for Nintendo. It started great, with high-quality releases like Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, but a few months in the output dried up. This culminated in an underwhelming E3 showing that year, ending with one of Nintendo’s most-notorious reveals: Wii Music. This game made diehard Nintendo fans feel betrayed, causing petitions for Nintendo to “not forget about their loyal fans” to be made. I should know, I remember this!

There’s a lot to say in hindsight about this: it was overblown. It was bizarre. The presentation certainly didn’t help, and the game wasn’t great to begin with. But even ignoring that, the question of whether it was worth getting angry gets overlooked. Because, truth be told, it wasn’t.

To be clear, this a defence of Wii Music. Not only have I not played it, I have no interest. I’m not an instruments person, and I can’t read music. I also have enough on my plate with Wii Sports, Wii Play and Wii Fit, the latter of which I can’t use anymore because my Wii sensor bar’s broken. Trying to salvage the game’s reputation, therefore, would be dishonest.

What I can discuss, however, is the criticism Nintendo received, as well as the reverberations 15 years later. For one, not only was the backlash extreme, it was vile. And two, that backlash was an early red flag for something much more unsettling. But I’m getting ahead of myself. For now, I’ll focus on the reaction to Wii Music, as well as why it was unfair.

Let’s start with expectations. I think everyone had their hopes set too high. It’s not like there wasn’t a precedent, it’s Nintendo, but people can be unrealistic about a company that has to satisfy both their base and their shareholders simultaneously. This was especially true for the Wii, which had been marketed to individuals who didn’t have a lot of time for video games. It’s hard enough catering to your pre-existing base, who expects the same three franchises constantly, without ignoring that.

Nintendo fans were being unfair at the time. They were also being selfish and self-centred, demanding that Nintendo cater to them alone. This fear of the casual gamer that’d permeated the community was a driving factor behind Wii Music’s backlash. Let’s face it: if you overhype something, and it doesn’t meet expectations, whose fault is that? Is it the company’s, or yours?

This leads to my next point, that being the aftermath. Ignoring how overblown the initial reaction was, the subsequent whining and petitions weren’t doing anyone favours. Nintendo, remember, can only do so much. It’s hard enough catering to new fans without forgetting older ones, and Nintendo had a tricky juggling act. Even if they were focusing too much on casual gamers, though I’d argue they weren’t, complaining wasn’t going to fix anything. The game was already made, so being mad did no one favours. If anything, it made gamers look spoiled.

But the biggest consequence was that, 15 years later, the impact of that reveal is still being felt with 1-2-Switch. You know, the game where you play with other people in head-to-head battles? The game that’s perfect for people with vision problems? The game that also had a silly debut? That game?!

I don’t think people appreciate how toxic gaming gatekeeping is. So a high-profile video game isn’t to your liking? Okay, and? No one’s forcing people to play Wii Music, regardless of quality, and not every game is for everyone. I’m not big on sports games, but you won’t see me trashing them left-right-and-centre. That’s not only unhelpful, it’s gross! Wii Music, quality aside, is no different.

It doesn’t help that the backlash, like I said earlier, was an early warning sign of the gaming community’s insularity. Perhaps it’s a generalization saying this, but many of the same people who complained about Wii Music would later attack Anita Sarkeesian and spearhead GamerGate. It’s not hard to connect the dots, especially when these “scandals” were responses to outsiders daring to penetrate the gaming world. Even now you see that in far-right politics, particularly the kind that led to Brexit and MAGA. That, I think, is far more concerning than programmable plastic.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that the fallout of Wii Music, aside from all the above, was unnecessary. So Nintendo made a silly video game about instruments for little kids? Okay, why’s that the end of the world? So the game wasn’t good? Again, why’s that the end of the world? So Nintendo marketed it in an awful way? Why’s that the end of the-you see what I’m getting at?

There are real issues in gaming. Expensive, broken titles that require patches at launch is one of them. A lack of preservation of older titles is another. Anti-competitive behaviour’s a third. But a game not being for you? If that’s really your biggest concern, then you live a privileged life. That, and you should probably get out more.