CinemaCon: 3 Major Issues Facing the Movie Business

Spider-Man Homecoming

Hollywood is taking the party to Sin City, hoping that theater owners will feel like there’s a lot to celebrate.

CinemaCon, the annual exhibition industry trade show, kicks off on Monday at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. Over four days, in between trips to the slot machines and blackjack tables, movie theater owners and executives will get a sneak peek at the blockbuster hopefuls that will be hitting theaters over the next 12 months. Every major studio will be on hand, a group that includes Warner Bros., Universal,  Sony, and Fox, as well as Focus and Amazon, ambassadors from the indie world. Disney, which commanded more than a quarter of the domestic market share last year and just scored a massive hit with “Beauty and the Beast,” will also make an appearance. The studio, however, tends to save most of its footage for D23, its fan expo, and usually offers up trailers that have already premiered elsewhere. This year Disney will use the event to gin up excitement for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales,” premiering the fifth installment in the long-running family franchise for theater owners.

By the time the curtain falls on another CinemaCon, exhibitors and members of the press may get a better sense of what to expect from some of the year’s most-anticipated titles — a list that includes “Alien: Covenant,” “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Wonder Woman,” and “Justice League.”


Theatrical Distribution Window cracking

Studios Flirt With Offering Movies Early in Home for $30 (EXCLUSIVE)

This year’s gathering commences with the wind firmly at the movie business’ back. The domestic box office is up 5.5% thanks to such hits as “Get Out,” “Logan,” and “Split.” Many analysts expect ticket sales to continue to climb given that the coming months will host sequels to Tiffany franchises such as “Star Wars,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” and “Transformers.”

“Theater owners and studios always love to go into CinemaCon riding a wave of good news,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore. “We’re on track to have the biggest box office year ever. We’re looking at what could be the first $40 billion year globally.”

Despite the splashy numbers, not everyone is feeling bullish about the state of the industry. Even supporters acknowledge that there’s a growing divide between the films that work, such as “Beauty and the Beast,” a fantasy romance that could hit $1 billion globally, and the list of duds that vanish almost instantly. Last weekend, for instance, the science-fiction thriller “Life” and the cop comedy “CHIPS” opened to just over $20 million combined while costing more than $80 million altogether to produce.

“The abyss is getting bigger,” said Greg Foster, CEO of Imax Entertainment. “When something doesn’t work, it’s not working to a much greater degree than it used to. When something works, it seems like there’s no ceiling.”

There are other challenges, most of it coming from competition from cable TV  and streaming services. Moreover, much of the box office growth, at least domestically, can be attributed to inflation and higher ticket sales. Attendance in the U.S. and Canada is essentially flat. This is all while consumers are showing a greater affinity for streaming content that they can watch on mobile devices or computers. The days of sitting in a darkened theater, a bucket of popcorn in hand, may be waning for a younger audience.

“I like the canvas of a big screen,” says David Permut, the producer of “Hacksaw Ridge.” “But the reality is that some people may not want that — they want to watch it on their iPhone or their iPad. As long as they pay for it, it’s all okay.”

Those who make the trek to the desert aren’t just there for the previews. They come to check out new technologies, from 4D seating that vibrates along with the onscreen action, to virtual reality platforms that offer the promise of enabling theaters to attract crowds of gamers. They also hit the Vegas Strip to debate the issues roiling their business and to get a sense from colleagues about what strategies are effective for keeping seats filled.

“I love the ability to connect with peers and to see what they’re doing so we can stay in the loop,” said Tim League, founder of Alamo Drafthouse, an independent theater chain. “It’s great to get a look at all the studios’ slates and see what they’re planning, because that informs our marketing decisions.”

Here are three topics that are sure to be on theater owners’ and studios’ minds at CinemaCon.

1.) Release Windows Rear Their Head — Again

Last year, the talk at CinemaCon was all about Screening Room. Backed by Sean Parker of Napster and Facebook, the startup wanted to release movies in the home at the same time they debuted in theaters for $50 a rental. It boasted anti-piracy technology and the promise of cutting theater owners in on a slice of the digital revenue, but, for the most part, exhibitors weren’t interested. They feared that what Parker and his partner Prem Akkaraju were proposing was too radical. If it became popular, it might make people think twice about going to the movies, persuading them to skip the multiplexes for the convenience of home.

Screening Room did help convince theater owners to sit down with studios to try to cobble together a compromise. Studios have long wanted to shrink the amount of time between a film’s theatrical debut and its home entertainment launch. Currently, there is usually a 90-day period in which a film is exclusively in theaters, despite the fact that most major releases have made the bulk of their money in their first month of release.

Six of the seven biggest studios — a group that boasts Lionsgate, Paramount, Fox, Sony, Warner Bros., and Universal — are all having separate meetings about a new model that would allow films to come out on premium video-on-demand between 17 days and 45 days after they premiere. These movies would rent for between $30 and $50 a pop. As with the Screening Room, theater owners would get a taste of the rental money. The terms are still being hammered out and sources in both camps stress that a deal is far from being reached. This time, at least, both sides are talking.

2.) Power Vacuum at the Studios

Three of the seven top studios are undergoing massive shakeups. By the time 2017 ends, Warner Bros. could be looking at a new corporate parent. Time Warner, which currently owns the studio, is in the process of selling itself to AT&T in a $85.4-billion deal that still needs to receive government approval. If that takes place, it will give Warner Bros.’ films a direct pipeline to AT&T’s millions of subscribers, potentially shaking up its business model. These movies could be seen as an inducement for subscribers to keep their phone service, making box office one part of a larger value proposition. Often, a merger means a shakeup in the corporate ranks, so it remains to be seen who from Warner Bros. will be making the trip over to AT&T.

Then there’s Sony and Paramount, both in the throes of leadership shifts. Last month, Paramount ousted its chief Brad Grey, after a dozen years and a string of flops. A deal is still being negotiated, but it looks increasingly likely that it will fall to Jim Gianopulos, the former head of Fox, to try to revive the studio’s slate. It’s no small task. Paramount lost $455 million last year, and aside from this summer’s “Transformers: The Last Knight,” the studio doesn’t have many movies coming up that look likely to mint money.

Sony is also looking to make changes. Michael Lynton is stepping down as head of the entertainment division, and Sony has yet to name a successor. Everyone from former Hulu chief Jason Kilar to former Fox Networks Group head Tony Vinciquerra have been mentioned as a possible new head of the division, but until a decision is made, life at the studio remains uncertain. Whoever takes the reins may want to assemble their own team. That could spell the end of the line for Tom Rothman, the brainy, but temperamental studio head who has clashed with staffers while trying to find hits. To be fair to Rothman, when he took over Sony’s motion picture business in 2015, the unit was in tatters. The studio had just been through a hacking from North Korea that became an international news event, and the films it had in production consisted largely of duds such as “Ghostbusters” and “Pixels.” Rothman’s had time to begin to make his mark. He’s hoping that upcoming releases like “Jumanji” and “Spider-Man: Homecoming” snap the losing streak and prove he’s an indispensable component to any revival.

As Sony and Paramount have struggled to find their footing, it’s unclear if the movie business can support this many major studios. A period of consolidation seems likely. Theater chains have already undergone their own wave of mergers. Just last year, AMC, the country’s second-largest chain, swallowed up Carmike, its fourth-biggest, to become the top exhibitor in the world. Other chains, from Regal to Cinemark have snapped up smaller circuits, looking to increase market share and making the industry one that is ruled by fewer and fewer companies. Will the same thing happen with the studios?

3.) The Trump Effect

The movie business has grown increasingly international in scope and complexion. At the same time, the election of President Donald Trump was fueled by an economic populism that is insular and protectionist. President Trump has openly flirted with the idea of having a trade war with China and is considering imposing high tariffs on imports. His administration has made toughening immigration laws a staple of its agenda, from erecting border walls to instituting travel bans on immigrants from certain Muslim-dominated countries.

Trump’s presidency is still in its infancy, but his rhetoric and actions have already unnerved some sectors of the business. Foreign markets comprise roughly 70% of ticket sales. Movies are shot around the globe, and rely upon actors, directors, and top talent from around the world to get made.

That’s not all. Hispanics, an ethnic group that Trump has enraged by saying that many Mexican immigrants included rapists and criminals, attend movies with greater frequency than any other demographic. China, another of the president’s favorite targets, is the second-biggest movie market, while Chinese companies own theater chains and movies companies, and invest in Hollywood films.

In a globalized world, movies are made to transcend barriers and unite people in disparate parts of the globe. What will Trump’s ascent mean for that mission?

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 15

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. silasdogood1 says:

    Its not just cable and streaming, Ticket and concession prices caused patrons to be much more selective. Plus, blockbusters are in their element whereas Indies come across fine for todays audience on tv and laptop.

  2. Andrew Costello says:

    I don’t want to upset everybody, but the simple truth is that original films are less and less frequent, because very few people watch them, and studio’s are businesses. They need to make money to keep going.

    I do not like the blockbusters, and prefer independent film and original stories. But every time I go to one, there are less and less people there. “LIFE” is a really good example of an interesting, thought provoking original film. But when I went on opening weekend, there were only about 20 people in the audience. Three other screens were jam packed with families going to what must be the thousandth remake of Beauty and the Beast.

    People keep complaining about a lack of good films, but then fail to buy tickets to the ones that do come out. It’s the audience who are the problem. Not the studios.


  3. Marco says:

    Good article.

    I knew there was a strong business angle to why most of the entertainment industry despise the Trump Presidency. Of course these multimillionaires will nevertheless hide behind false virtue and concern for the less fortunate, but as always it ultimately comes down to self-interest, and Trump’s anti-globalist, America-first agenda is bad for the movie biz, whose top players are super-wealthy internationalists, rather than the types of small town, small business owners who tended to back Trump.

    By the way, I’m a staunch left-winger and the antithesis of everything Trump represents, before any of you insult me. The difference is, my ideals are sincere and not capitalist self-interest masquerading as humanitarianism.

  4. mjweir0317 says:

    Sigh. If Hollywood could just go back to telling a story and making interesting pictures they might see a revenue boost. I did not and will never see Beauty and the Beast. I don’t care. I don’t like actors and the story is just fine in animation. Was there something else for me to see? Why no. Because a film MUST open to a 100 million dollar weekend or it’s no good. Nothing matters but the money. It’s the beginning and end of the equation. Good film? Who cares as long as we can dupe a bunch of rubes into seeing it at least once. Nothing has legs because most of the pictures made today suck. As soon as word gets out it’s all over. No one is going to be rhapsodizing over this junk in 50 years.

    Can we just go back to telling interesting stories and have more than one enormous steaming pile of crap every single weekend throughout the summer?

    Hollywood like most giant enormous business, doesn’t give a rip about the people paying to see its films or in this case the people NOT paying to see its films. As long as they can raise the price of admission and delude themselves they are doing great then things are fine.

    The emperor is naked. He has been for decades. The only question left is how long it’s going to be before his dick falls off from frost bite.

    • Diggy says:

      Well said. Very rare to see good stories anymore. Just the skeletons of stories with effects & animation strewn all over them. It’s brand over substance because, without brand recognition, it’s too big a risk for the studios to invest. For a while, the interesting storytelling was on TV but even that medium has become so glutted with content that it’s hit or miss.

  5. Mark says:

    The theater owners could double what they make if they made movies for all audiences. The 25-64 crowd are not getting an eclectic mix – it’s just stupid animated movies, stupid super-hero movies – no selection. And when they do have an unknown movie, no one hears about it and it’s gone after one week. So the only people coming to the box office are the dolts who gladly pay. The rest of America stays at home.

    • You know, it would actually if you didn’t just dismiss all animated movies and superhero movies as ‘stupid’. There are plenty that are quite good. Just because you don’t enjoy them or even give them a chance doesn’t make them ‘stupid’.

    • mjweir0317 says:

      Well said, Mark. And as long as they can keep ginning up profits with gimmicks like 3-D and IMAX they can pretend revenue is up. Tell me how many people went to the movies in the golden age of cinema versus today? I love to go. But now that I no longer live in LA, if I don’t want to see a tentpole mega-glob of crap, I don’t get to see much.

  6. Brian says:

    @alliehanley It’s a very legitimate business concern, especially in regards to the now-global cinema model. In reporting basic facts, should we pretend economic realities don’t exist because the fragile little Trump supporters who don’t want to hear that their anti-humanist, anti-American agenda may also affect their movie quality and choices? They still don’t seem to understand that they don’t live in a white supremacist vacuum, and that their actions will have both widespread and global ramifications.

    • I think that the problem is that this piece failed to make its case that Trump has had any effect whatsoever. Perhaps the rhetoric is having an effect, but none of Trump’s policies are specifically directed at the entertainment industry. If Variety were able to point to specific cases where China or South American countries saw a decline in ticket sales due to Trump’s trade rhetoric, that world serve as proof. But the author offers none. This after a weekend that saw Kong: Skull Island make more in its opening weekend in China than it did in the US. That final “point” felt like a gratuitous bit of hyperbole unsupported by facts.

  7. alliehanley says:

    Fascinating article and well written article until I got to the end and the Trump Effect. Why’d you have to go there and slap in the bias opinion?

    • Alfred says:

      Cinema attendance was in steady decline years before Trump was even rumored to be considering a run for office. Are economics a factor? Of course, and have been since at least the housing market crash in 2007. The economic recovery over the last eight years has been anemic at best, and people make their entertainment choices with consideration of their finances. Changing technology, and increasing competition from overseas studios and independent filmmakers, have decreased American big studios’ market share percentage. Times change.

      • Alfred says:

        Sorry Allie, my comment was intended for Brian. I agree with your statement completely. Hollywood’s problems are not political, they’re cultural.

More Film News from Variety