Ready Player One Author Talks Spielberg Directing His Film Adapation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLZSB-5Dyf8

It's still early in the "nothing is 100% confirmed but people are talking" stage but it may have only taken 3 movies for NETFLIX to kill the idea of the Cloverfield brand being one fo the few safety nets for mid-to-low budget idea/concept driven horror movies to get a theatrical release.

http://deadline.com/2018/01/netflix-cloverfield-sequel-the-god-particle-paramount-pictures-jj-abrams-1202267849/

Pretty certain if this goes through the chances of another Cloverfield movie being a theatrical release is zero. Which would be a bummer.

I think this would leave only Blumhouse Productions, The Conjuring Cinematic Universe & the oncoming horde of IT-inspired Stephen King re-adaptations as the ones pushing to give horror movies a theatrical release.

What about Happy Death Day? Didn't that do pretty well?

That's from Blumhouse.

What's wrong with streaming?

This thing again....

Nothing is wrong with streaming by itself. Its perfectly fine. It’s the erasure of options that’s the problem. Whatever Cloverfield 3 ends up being will be available for home viewing for the entire duration of history once available. But, the chance to see the movie in a theater on the big screen with a packed audience - how it was designed by the filmmakers who signed up for a theatrical release - will be gone because Netflix doesn’t do theatrical releases unless they absolutely must for Oscar consideration.

Once available to the public for the duration of history Cloverfield 3 will be readily available for viewing however the viewer seems fit (though you’ll need a Netflix account because they kept their content wall strong and will never release one of their movies on disc) but for one short moment in Time - matter of months or even weeks - the movie would have been available to catch in a theater on the biggest screen possible with a crowd.

I know people are hermits now who never leave their house but some people - myself included obviously - really still enjoy the theatrical experiences. Not against streaming. Just against the steady thinning of theatrical releases to only the biggest and most mainstream of expensive movies that is the downside.

Watching horror movies with a packed crowd really helps make them unique experiences that will never be replicated at home.

Plus if this goes through I also just feel bad for the creative team who have spent years working on this movie with the promise of a nationwide theatrical release and now it’s likeky 99% of their audience is going to watch it on their iPads.

For me erasing the theater is like if someone came out and said “Food is great right? Well look we’re getting rid of all restaurants except the chains. You can still make a nice plate of pasta at home. You just can’t go out with your date and enjoy the experience of sitting in a restaurant... unless if you want TGIF or Chili’s. Those and only those will stay.”

Then again, I'm a huge Stephen King nut, so I actually welcome the coming deluge of King adaptations.

I might be inclined to agree if there were still real theaters but the only difference between going to a theater and streaming nowadays is that going to a theater entails going to see a movie in an expensive candy store with half an hour of commercials and a hilarious ad that describes applying for a minimum wage job shoveling popcorn as "the ground floor in the movie industry". It's one corporation vs another. I only go to them to see the movie sooner.

I will say there's something magical about having just the right sassy black lady in the audience for certain movies. It made Alien: Covenant bearable for me.

"If there were still real theaters...." I expected a lazy non-response. A lazy non-response was given. It's the same lazy non-response people give when they say "no good movies were released last year" and when you ask what did they see in theaters they tell you they saw a Star Wars, a Marvel and and an X-Men movie and nothing else. It's the same lazy non-response people give when they talk about food ("I've tried everything... no I don't like ethnic food"). It's the same lazy non-response they give when talking politics ("They're both the same."). It's the same lazy non-response they give about people . ("Everyone's awful, except me.") It's the lazy non-response of unwilling to engage.
Not to mention it's a lazy non-response that completely disregards the issue I was talking about here.

The issue is removing the of options for viewers. If you don't like the theatrical experience that's perfectly fine because not too long after the movie leaves theaters you can catch it on home video/streaming/TV whenever you like. It will be available for all time. You can wait until it leaves the theaters. The window from theatrical to home is so minuscule now no one has the right to bitch. But, cheering on a corporate decisions that remove giving people any choices whatsoever is not good. (note: Netflix does not run movies in theaters unless they want it to be considered for the Oscars, they never release their movies on disc & they'll likely never give TV rights to anyone for them so the only way you can watch a Netflix project is with an account; zero options) Of course, people are happy cause Netflix brings stuff straight to their bedroom at an affordable price for now but when Netflix after building this strong library of content starts drastically raising their prices people will whine again.

If you only go see movies at an AMC and you're getting the chain restaurant experience. Solid theaters still exist whether it's Angelika Film Centers, Drafthouses, Landmark, art houses or other venues that play all sorts of movies without the minimum wages & 50 minutes of ads. Had a friend who worked at the Drafthouse for a "minimum wage" but with their tips from serving people they often pulled in north of $500 a night.

Find better theaters near where you live. They exist. If they don't exist then see if there is an interest for one. The smaller venues are looking for new markets to break into all the time and they'll offer superior experiences. They'll be willing to carry the smaller films that can still get play in theaters as well as the big dumb blockbusters (Paramount is sorely kicking themselves in the foot since they seem 100% focused on replicating Disney with only theatrical blockbusters all the time)

And if you don't have an interest in this particular issue then just don't engage. I'm never in the video game forum section on here cause I don't care. Again, I have zero problems with streaming. It's a good option for finding something to watch on any given night of the night. It should NOT be the only option. . And theaters should be able to offer people a lot of options on what to watch. Not just a Star Wars, a Marvel or an X-Men.

I don’t like Netflix simply because it’s keeping Godzilla: Planet of Monsters and Little Which Academia from being pretty Blu-Ray discs in my media library. I don’t like having to trust servers that aren’t mine over a long-term period with media that I love.

As for the theater experience, it’s changing, and I don’t like some of the changes. I was watching Blade Runner 2049 in theaters with some old lady smelling like moth balls next to me calling out the old celebrities on Harrison Ford’s hologram as though she were a 4-year-old watching Blue’s Clues. And if you didn’t plan a week (or a month) in advance for that experience, good luck getting a good seat. (Or a seat at all, for that matter.) All of the cinemas in my area are switching to reserved seating formats, which means I can’t have a good theater experience on an impulse anymore.

On the other hand, some of the seating materials used are pretty good as a result. I’m sitting in lounge chairs now, sometimes with a tray for my food. Some of the better theaters are selling actual food and booze too, instead of just popcorn and stuff. If I can land a theater experience like that, it’s worth it. Otherwise, I have a calibrated 55” and a surround sound system with a woofer that puts most subs to shame. The difference between the theater experience and the home theater experience today isn’t as big as it was in the 90’s where I could only watch stuff chopped up into 4:3 and broadcasted over stereo composite cables. And as soon as those UHD HDR OLED screens become more affordable, there will be even less difference between the experiences. (Especially if your local theaters screen their movies digitally instead of in actual film.) The only real part of the theater experience will be the community aspect, which changes from town to town. A good town with good people in it will give you a good theater experience.

I have a hunch that eventually streaming is going to do to movie theaters what home video game systems did to arcades. "When I was your age, you had to drive to see a movie, and you were out of luck if the theater wasn't playing it!"

El Squibbonator wrote:I have a hunch that eventually streaming is going to do to movie theaters what home video game systems did to arcades. "When I was your age, you had to drive to see a movie, and you were out of luck if the theater wasn't playing it!"

You've hit the nail on the head there as streaming is Hollywood's biggest contender and from what I've heard and people are visiting the cinema less and less now due to prices and ticket sales have been falling but they've made there money back through 3D films but this can't last forever theres gonna be a point were Hollywood may have to choose streaming to survive.

https://stephenfollows.com/young-people-watching-movies-in-cinemas/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41161056

Theaters are commercial enterprises that make money. I had to go see Disaster Artist on a day not of my choosing because the next day every single screen in the multiplex was playing Last Jedi.

If you want options besides superhero movies then you should root for distribution from major studios to streaming to work. The limitation on big budget filmmaking is the availability of screens and commercial viability of theatrical releases. Movie studios are run by numbers and film distribution is expensive, so the execs are only going to approve a movie that puts asses in seats and sells skittles. No risks, more bungled entries in forty year old franchises from tired directors.

Bringing the distribution costs down will ultimately open up the market and allow more independent and smaller films to be made and reach audiences.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Bill & Ted Face the Music.

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/01/ ... ls-sequel/

I can't be the only one who thinks this is a Bad Idea. A Very Bad Idea. Bill and Ted are fun. But they belong to a very specific moment in time that you just can't duplicate today no matter how hard you try, they're inherently goofy, inherently ridiculous. Much like the first two Ghostbusters, and the first Two Terminator movies. The fact is the first two Bill & Ted movies ARE, and trying to duplicate that magic almost thirty years after the fact is a ludicrous notion. The Terminator movies found themselves in this exact same position with Arnie coming back to play the Terminator when he's way too old to be doing this!

Also, in a movie where Time Travel is baked into the plot. How are they going to explain away the fact that Rufus, played to perfection by the late great George Carlin isn't in the movie? You'll have to recast him (and who can fill Carlins shoes?), or have to explain why he's not in the movie and replace him with a successor. Which isn't cool either.

Furthermore Keanu Reeves has been trying since the 90's to distance himself from Bill & Ted since before the Matrix he was pretty much typecast as a Surfer Dude Burnout because of Bill & Ted. Do you really want to drag these guys back in for a Nostalgia shot that can never be as good as the original thing?

On the plus side, one of the leads is immortal and ageless.

Ray wrote:I can't be the only one who thinks this is a Bad Idea. A Very Bad Idea. Bill and Ted are fun. But they belong to a very specific moment in time that you just can't duplicate today no matter how hard you try, they're inherently goofy, inherently ridiculous. Much like the first two Ghostbusters, and the first Two Terminator movies.

This is Hollywood we're talking about. If it might make them money, they will rape, pillage, and burn every existing intellectual property they have for even the slightest bit of profit.

Fun fact: the last time an original movie (i.e. not one based on any pre-existing IP) was the highest-grossing movie of its year was Avatar, in 2009. And now that Disney owns it and will likely give it a crapload of sequels, even that hardly counts. Other than that, you have to go all the way back to Armageddon, in 1998, for the last time an original movie held the #1 spot.

You talking Worldwide or domestic?

Cause domestically American Sniper (vomits in mouth) was the biggest release in the US in 2014.

Worldwide Frozen was the biggest release of 2013.

Forgot about Frozen. Though you could argue it, too, is an adaptation, namely of The Snow Queen.

El Squibbonator wrote:Fun fact: the last time an original movie (i.e. not one based on any pre-existing IP) was the highest-grossing movie of its year was Avatar, in 2009. And now that Disney owns it and will likely give it a crapload of sequels, even that hardly counts. Other than that, you have to go all the way back to Armageddon, in 1998, for the last time an original movie held the #1 spot.

I never felt that Avatar was original because its basically the story of the white savour saves Pocahontas in a sci fi retelling which just has added monsters and flying scenes and the premise of a living communicating forest is right out of Alan Dean Fosters book Midworld as is the concept for stealing and pillaging things from the native alien races for your own gain as that's in his other books. (Check out Sentenced To Prism)