Movie stars have been on a journey this fall, and it hasn’t been especially big, bold or beautiful. Actually, on second thought, maybe there is something bold about the way audiences have rejected, in quick succession, new movies collectively starring Margot Robbie, Colin Farrell, Dwayne Johnson, Emily Blunt, Channing Tatum, Kristen Dunst, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts, Andrew Garfield, Keanu Reeves, Seth Rogen and none other than Daniel Day-Lewis. This group of actors that would constitute an especially star-studded Oscars broadcast couldn’t muster a single hit among them. Even Leonardo DiCaprio must accept his status as the exception that proves the rule: his movie One Battle After Another is heading toward a respectable $200m worldwide – and all it took was one of the biggest stars in the world with support from familiar faces Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro, a multiple-time Oscar nominee directing with an Imax-sized budget, and almost universally rapturous reviews. Put all that together in an adult-driven drama and maybe you can outgross, and lose somewhat less money than, Disney’s Snow White remake. (One Battle is unlikely to turn a profit on its theatrical release.)
Meanwhile, movies such as A Big Bold Beautiful Journey, The Smashing Machine, Roofman, After the Hunt, Good Fortune, Kiss of the Spider Woman and Anemone had no such constellation of exciting elements forming in their orbit alongside their stars. Some of them couldn’t even manage particularly great reviews. But that used to be what movie stars were there to provide: some kind of baseline level of interest in a movie, even if it wasn’t getting best-of-year reviews or boasting cutting-edge spectacle. None of the aforementioned stars are expected to perform with the superhuman consistency of Tom Cruise between 1986 and 2006 or Will Smith between 1996 and 2016. But there used to be a certain number of dramas and comedies that would make $50m or more in the US every year as a matter of course, the ones with stars tending to have an advantage in that respect.
My god, are those some long grafs. It’s at least tangentially brought up later in the piece that seeing a movie is really fucking expensive when you’re also paying $7/pound for 80/20 ground beef.
Who honestly wants to go to the theater anymore in America? I don’t watch many movies but for me it’s the worst way to experience one. Ads before the previews, crazy prices for tickets and snacks. Having to deal with other people. Ugh, no thanks.
If I’m spending $80 on two people for a couple of hours, there better be quality fucking steaks involved.
I wish I could get two good steaks for $80 here. I know it’s cheaper south, but where I am you can barely find a single steak at $80.
As for theaters? Well, if a good steak costs $80 here…
I’ve only had an $80 steak once, at Canlis. And it was a Wagyu ribeye. My college roommate was in Seattle at the time, and it turned out my passport had expired, so he took care of that for me, so after the honeymoon in St. Lucia, the wife and I said, “You know what? Fuck it, we’re flying up there and taking you out for the best dinner you’ve ever had.”
And we’re looking at the menu, and Scott says to me “dude, we can split this. Do you really want gestures broadly this experience and not get the good shit?” So we both got the Wagyu. We stayed past close, not even realizing it, as the servers continued to be attentive, and the bill came to some $400 for four in 2007. I think that’s like $12,000 in 2025 dollars. 🤣
You can get a decent high-end steak here for about $60, but it’s not like Texas is keeping all the cattle to itself. We’re also getting fucked on the low end. Like, midrange is $30 sted $13. I’ve not had a steak in over a year.
Who honestly wants to go to the theater anymore in America? I don’t watch many movies but
Sort of answered your own question. Who still wants to go to the theater? Cinephiles, people who are happier when they are watching at least one movie a week. I’m friends with a few, and in my experience, these folks prefer a public movie theater, even though they know that home-viewing is a better experience. The cinephiles in my life are broke, they hate people who talk in the movie theater, they get stressed about getting to the movie on time, and they dislike intense bass. All of these are problems that can be easily solved by just watching the movie at home, where even a modest TV can provide superior contrast compared to a theater projection screen. Yet the cinephiles still prefer the theater, because there is something about the vibe that just speaks to them.
I think this is the sort of person that will keep theaters alive into the future, and moviegoing will become a niche hobby for exactly this reason. Indie theaters are already a thing, and I’m inclined to believe that they are the only theaters that will survive this shift. Cinephiles don’t care to see most of these A-lister movies that are coming out now, and mainstream moviegoers are increasingly preferring streaming. The only thing i’m uncertain of is how many younger folks are becoming cinephiles.
It doesn’t help that movies are guaranteed to be on streaming a few months after they are in the theaters.
Within a very short period after debut. Hollywood really shot themselves in the foot on that one.
I’m old enough to remember that it was a huge deal that you could buy the VHS of Batman the Christmas after it opened in the theaters. Superman 2025 is already on HBO.
Here’s a clip from the Popeye movie we never got, because the folks in charge are so intelligent.
“Wait, they remade Kiss of the Spider Woman?” *looks for it* *it’s a fucking musical* *grossed 5% of its budget* *happy noises - fuck musicals*
