We’re at a cinematic crossroads, folks. Movies no longer have the power they once had when Jurassic Park and Star Wars captivated audiences for months despite being shown on full-size cinema screens. With the advancement in technology allowing the average consumer to own an 85 inch TV and an incredible 7.2 surround system, only the most grandiose event films can tempt us to leave the comfort of our homes and immerse ourselves in popcorn, Trash and goo littered movie theater floors.
We’re at a cinematic crossroads, folks. Movies no longer have the power they once had when Jurassic Park and Star Wars captivated audiences for months despite being shown on full-size cinema screens. With the advancement in technology allowing the average consumer to own an 85 inch TV and an incredible 7.2 surround system, only the most grandiose event films can tempt us to leave the comfort of our homes and immerse ourselves in popcorn, Trash and goo littered movie theater floors.
Sure, we experience numerous record-breaking blockbusters. Top Gun: Maverick surpassed $700 million in the US, while James Cameron’s Avatar: The Way of Water grossed a staggering $2.5 billion in ticket sales. Most recently, Universal/Illumination’s Super Mario Bros. Movie grossed a whopping $1.33 billion worldwide, and Sony’s Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse has already grossed nearly $500 million in less than a month US dollars earned worldwide.
Still, I think these films could be even more successful if they were given more time to flex their muscles. Top Gun performed exceptionally well, but its impact was diminished when Jurassic World: Dominion stole some of its success a few weeks later. Imagine if the runway had been cleared for a few more weeks so that the Tom Cruise epic could be seen on big screens like the IMAX a little longer.
Avatar and Super Mario Bros. reached unprecedented heights, largely because the competition was as dry as Gandhi’s flip-flops. “Avatar” in particular enjoyed such a strong hit at IMAX that people had to wait a few weeks before returning to the enchanting world of Pandora.
This summer, films will collide, vying for a fleeting moment in the spotlight before being relegated to cheaper seats or dumped on video. Across the Spider-Verse only had a two-week stint at IMAX before Transformers: Rise of the Beasts supplanted it. Then came The Flash a week later, pushing Optimus Prime into the darker corners of theaters. Hopefully you got a chance to see it on IMAX during its opening weekend because opportunity came and went faster than a minnow can swim with a dipper.
And it’s getting worse.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is in theaters now, closely followed by Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One, Oppenheimer, Barbie and The Haunted Mansion. There has been some controversy surrounding Cruise’s action thriller and highly anticipated Christopher Nolan biography. Both urged viewers to see her on the biggest screens possible to fully appreciate her awesomeness. However, there are only a few weeks between these two big-budget features. They will no doubt make money, but slower viewers looking to avoid the crowds will be left behind and forced to spend their hard-earned cash to watch Dead Reckoning on regular formats.
Ditto for Oppenheimer, which faces stiff competition from Barbie and whose IMAX screens may be invaded by Haunted Mansion, The Meg 2, or any of the other August releases on the schedule.
But why is there such a traffic jam?
Mission: Impossible was originally scheduled for release on July 23, 2021 before COVID caused numerous delays. I’m sure at this point the studio just wants the damn thing to make money. So why not wait until October for Cruise to be able to drive the IMAX screens without glitches?
This still doesn’t explain why Fast X, The Little Mermaid, Spider-Man, Transformers, The Flash, and Indiana Jones were released so close together. I understand that summer is cinema season, but if Hollywood wants people to experience these event films on the biggest screens possible, they need to be given more time to do so. Rather than releasing five films aimed at the same audience, why not stagger the big tentpole releases and offer counter-programming? Release Spider-Man and two weeks later Jennifer Lawrence’s comedy No Hard Feelings, a film that doesn’t require bigger screens. Then release Transformers along with Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City. Let them simmer for a while before revealing The Flash and Indy.
Hollywood used to be more strategic. Now it seems to me like a premium, high-budget release pops up every week.
And what about the limited cinema window? “Almost no wonder it was a flop in the US. If Vin Diesel had had more than a week to show off his skills at IMAX, maybe more people would have given the sequel a shot. Nobody wants to bother, Fast
Quality is certainly an issue. The Flash did not live up to the high expectations. By all accounts, Mission: Impossible is amazing enough to warrant repeat viewings, but it has to be squeezed into a short 14-day timeframe, a problem Cruise is trying to solve. Oppenheimer will probably have the longest run at IMAX, but even then we’re talking maybe three weeks instead of two, and that’s only if the performance is good.
Perhaps the answer lies in doing away with regular screens altogether and building more IMAX locations to create more opportunities for the premium format. Can theaters afford that?
Or maybe Hollywood should manage its blockbusters better.
In 1993, “Jurassic Park” premiered in early June and ran in theaters for a year. Only two other high-profile films were released that same month – Last Action Hero and Sleepless in Seattle. All three played for months. Of course, IMAX didn’t exist in the early ’90s and we accepted whatever quality our local theaters had to offer.
The times have changed. If Jurassic Park hit theaters today, there would only be a two-week period before three more major productions would hit theaters. Then, whether it’s a blockbuster or not, we’d have to spend the rest of the summer days watching Steven Spielberg’s classic on a small screen at the back of the cinema. By then it would probably also be available digitally on demand.
I’m not a businessman, but that doesn’t seem to be a sustainable formula for success. Almost the audience was spread too thinly and none of the films had the opportunity to linger in the public consciousness for more than a week. In 1993, we continued to talk about Jurassic Park well into the holiday season, maybe even longer. In comparison, The Little Mermaid disappeared from the face of the earth a week after her debut.
Hollywood has a problem. It puts out far too many expensive movies and doesn’t give audiences enough time to enjoy them. Studios need to slow down and stop making so many damn movies! Give us a tent pole or two each summer that calls for the IMAX experience, followed by a healthy offering of smaller productions designed for regular cinema screens. Like in the good old days.
Maybe this model doesn’t work anymore, especially with the flood of TV programs demanding our attention. Would you rather compete against the crowds for The Flash or stay home and watch Extraction 2?
Hollywood has a major problem. It releases an inordinate number of expensive films without giving audiences enough time to enjoy them. Studios need to slow down and stop making so many damn movies! Instead, they should offer a tentpole movie or two every summer that truly warrants the IMAX experience. They can then offer a diverse range of smaller productions, intended for regular cinema screens and reminiscent of the good old days.
It’s possible that this traditional model is no longer effective, especially with the flood of television programming demanding our attention. Would you rather endure the crowds at The Flash or stay in the comfort of home and watch Extraction 2?
Regardless, the current approach is clearly flawed. Studios are suffering significant financial losses and moviegoers like me are in a race against the clock, trying desperately to catch the latest blockbuster before it disappears from IMAX screens.
Something has to change.