Spoilers ahead…
In trying to make films for global audiences, some kind of uniqueness is lost. I guess action movies are now content to be “watchable”.
In concept, Anthony and Joe Russo’s The Gray Man is a welcome change from their Avengers films. In an age of incessant computer-generated visual effects and combats, The Gray Man is more in the tradition of the Bond and Bourne and Mission: Impossible movies. It’s a relief. We actually hear bones break. We actually see blood from a face that’s been smashed. We know the hero – Ryan Gosling – will win, but he doesn’t have any superpowers except a sharp mind and sharp reflexes and a lot of training. So when I say The Gray Man is essentially a series of action set pieces, it is not a complaint. As a concept, we could use more of these movies where the action is not faked. Whether it is Ryan Gosling or his stunt double, someone is kicking ass or getting his ass kicked. This is a very primal pleasure. It’s like watching a gladiatorial spectacle in the comfort of a theatre.
You can read the rest of the review here:
https://www.galatta.com/english/movie/review/the-gray-man/
And you can watch the video review here:
Copyright ©2022 GALATTA.
Baradwaj Rangan 
brangan
July 19, 2022
Madan, transferring your comment here, as a review will be up this weekend….
Madan: Unrelated, but good grief, talk about biting the hand that feeds:
https://www.avclub.com/russo-brothers-gray-man-theater-elitist-expensive-1849186673
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
July 19, 2022
Lol, what a time for me to write that!
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 19, 2022
@Madan – You’d have probably read it, but here goes the full interview link that they gave to THR. In context, what they mean by elitist is the fact that a digital account can be shared within people as opposed to say a ticket in a theatre.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/anthony-and-joe-russo-the-gray-man-netflix-marvel-1235180430/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 19, 2022
I didn’t read the full interview, actually, thanks! That said, as pointed out in the comments on FB, elitist is still a strange word to apply when not everyone, maybe not many, can afford a home theater and cannot necessarily get a great viewing experience at home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cholan Raje
July 19, 2022
Certainly one of the movies of all time.
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 19, 2022
@Madan – Haha, indeed. That too, coming from them seemed a bit too, I dunno, elitist 😝
But that being said, I also liked how they acknowledge the fact that even Netflix post-pandemic has been forced to re-think their model and might as well eventually end up creating IPs and build wealth.
What I don’t agree is Joe Russo’s statement about how Disney is conservative post Bob Iger. True, they’re milking the MCU and Star War Cows dry, however even Netflix for that matter isn’t really ‘bold’ with their choices when it comes to big ticket content.
Thought I’d reserve my opinion about The Gray Man, their previous outings like Extraction, Red Notice, 6 Underground have been middling at best and very ‘conservative’ at most with storyline, plot-points, writing etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karishma
July 19, 2022
Am I the only one who can not read anything here? Just the picture and the spoiler warning, that’s all!
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 19, 2022
@Karishma – The review is yet to be put up since the movie has not been released in Netflix yet (only limited release in West since July 15).
I guess BR created this thread to pin Madan’s comment.
LikeLike
Spandana
July 19, 2022
Can somebody explain to me what the purpose of a placeholder link like this is? Does anybody forget to upload a review/interview after painstakingly putting efforts into it? If the link only has a preview to an interview, shouldn’t the title indicate that until the full content is made available? May be I am an idiot missing something obvious, but I’ve opened these empty links many times. A film journalist of BR’s stature doesn’t need it, but I can’t help wonder whether it is a cheap trick to garner clicks.
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 19, 2022
@Spandana – As per the holy tradition of BR’s wordpress blog, we’ve pledged steadfastly to always read the first comment which has been blessed, baptised and cleansed by none other than the man himself 😉
LikeLike
Spandana
July 19, 2022
@karzzexped: Yeah, I would read the comment too after opening the link. Is there a way (that I am not aware of) to read the comment without opening the link. In any case, BR only comments after the full video/review is up. I want to know whether a link is empty before clicking on it.
There is a link to an interview with Adivi Sesh. Why not add ‘preview’ to the title and remove it once the video is up? Folks might still be interested in the 1-2 minute preview when it is clearly put in the title, instead of finding out after clicking on the Youtube link. I might be the only person, but it does feel cheap to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
karzzexped
July 19, 2022
@Spandana – Valid point. But don’t you think it would be a duplication to put in two different posts (which if I am not wrong was the case before) – One for a Promo and the other for the interview itself.
I guess it makes sense to put up a combined post – both for the promo and the actual interview. The link of the interview would be updated once it arrives.
But if we are debating the point of putting the promo link, then I think it’s promotion 101. Shameless or not, it helps drive traffic and create a little bit of expectation for the interview.
I personally don’t mind it.
LikeLike
Spandana
July 19, 2022
@karzzexped: Sure, I am not against making previews of videos or sharing them on this site. Promote all you want. I’m only asking to make it clear that is what it is (a preview, not the entire interview) before I click on the link. The page we are currently on is completely empty. Why not say something like ‘Coming up’ in the title? Enough expectation can be generated for the upcoming content with promos or placeholders like this, provided they respect the followers with clear communication.
If I were expecting to watch a movie and find it on Netflix, it would suck if the video I clicked on were a trailer with no indication in the title and no mention of when the movie would be released.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spandana
July 19, 2022
It is one thing to write nonsensical matter with clickbait titles, but having nothing at all (even temporarily) under a link is worse IMHO. Even if I read the first kind of fluff against my better judgement, I will not repeat it. This will require multiple clicks, because it is never clear when the actual content is available. Anyway, it is not like I expect BR to change policies over my outbursts. But it is irritating, hence the rant.
LikeLike
brangan
July 20, 2022
Spandana: I do not do this all time time, and it’s certainly not to “garner views” 🙂
Maintaining a blog is a bit of a logistical pain. Each new post means you have to source an image, resize it to fit the page, load it into WordPress (in case I am travelling and only have my phone), format the rest of the post with placeholders so I just can bung in the new content…
The next few days are going to be really hectic, and I thought people would be interested in talking about GRAY MAN anyway, so I just created an empty post just so that all the GRAY MAN comments could come under that. Nothing more.
I felt the Vikram thread was already getting long and Madan’s GRAY MAN comment would be missed, and I did not want to wait until Friday (when the review goes up (to search fro his comment and then cut-paste into this new thread).
But point taken.
In future, I will say “placeholder” or “promo” so people’s time is not wasted.
LikeLiked by 3 people
TamilThanos
July 20, 2022
@Madan. I disagree with your opinion. Elitist is actually assuming an average joe with a family of 3/4 will regularly be able to go to movies all the time having to pay for parking tickets and all the confectionaries on top of the steadily rising movie tickets. You don’t need a home theatre for watching the movie and most people don’t.
LikeLike
Madan
July 20, 2022
” You don’t need a home theatre for watching the movie and most people don’t.” – Sure but you then only get to watch it on computer alone, on a decent but not amazing TV screen or on phones. Which doesn’t give you the movie experience. Also, everyone doesn’t have a broadband connection with decent speed either. There is a reason there are still plenty of single screens in small town centers in India, THE places where a movie like Pushpa ran like nobody’s business. We make the mistake of assuming that metropolitan level of convenience is available everywhere else in India and it often isn’t. But again, the comment was made in the American context by Americans. So…
We are relatively insulated from this in India but in America, movie offerings are getting divided among a plethora of streaming services so streaming is all set to get very costly too. IF that is, you want the option of watching any movie from any production house (which was why streaming was so attractive when it began). In that scenario, watching it in theater will begin to make sense again. Even in India, you now need a separate Lionsgate subscription for what used to be Amazon Prime offerings before. I haven’t junked my DVDs but those who have done so may come to regret it a few years down the line.
LikeLike
Spandana Vaidyula
July 20, 2022
@BR: Thanks
LikeLike
Madan
July 20, 2022
I will add to my earlier comment – pitting movies against ott is a false choice (which is why guys working in the industry making that argument surprised me). Movies WILL find their way either to TV or streaming after theatrical release as they have before. Assuming that the post theatrical distribution models would suddenly disappear is bizarre chicken little stuff. BUT when you don’t offer the movie on theater, only those having home theaters can get an experience approximating the theatrical experience. You are essentially telling the rest to lump it and be happy with watching it on the phone. IDK THAT sounds elitist to me (if made as a conscious choice and not as a decision made due to financial considerations). If releasing direct on OTT gets a bigger ask for the film than theater plus OTT, by all means go for it. But there’s nothing elitist about releasing it on theater.
LikeLike
Madan
July 20, 2022
Maybe elitist in this context is also an Americanism that I don’t understand. There is a cardio workout video where the instructor says something like if you are ready for round four, you are an elitist. That’s clearly in a light hearted vein but I can’t imagine English speakers in any other part of the world using elitist in that context.
LikeLike
Enigma
July 20, 2022
I agree with the Russo brothers, watching a movie in the cinemas is bloody expensive. A ticket in the small local cinema in the Sydney suburb where I live costs $16, for a family of 4 that would work out to $64. Plus petrol, parking, eats etc. you are looking at $100 per movie. The $16 monthly Netflix subscription is peanuts in comparison. Of course with the number of streaming platforms around, the chances of catching all the major releases in one or two is next to impossible. But I do hope that more big movies find their way into our TV screens immediately after release.
LikeLike
kaizokukeshav
July 20, 2022
Would like to see this review as part of Rotten Tomatoes list
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 20, 2022
@Enigma – While your argument is spot on, upon reading their interview once more, I could see what ‘notion’ they were challenging. The ‘experience’ one has at a theatre vs the ‘cost incurred’ are two different things in my opinion.
Sure, to ‘get the experience’ we are necessitated to incur the cost – A minimum of $100 or even upwards of $120 if you’re in the US. And that kept in comparison with even a ‘bundle of steaming platforms’ is definitely peanuts.
But at any given point, I’d still want to watch a Doctor Strange Multiverse movie or a Top Gun 2 at the cinemas purely because of the ‘experience’ I gain watching it in the big screen. Call me a purist, but watching Doctor Strange Multiverse in Disney + Hotstar even with a 4K LED TV with decent acoustics pales in comparison.
This is exactly why the Big Movies in Big Screens versus OTTs are a raging debate.
As far as big movies finding their way to the TV screens sooner, it’s going to be hard since they need a specific amount of a cooling period to recover their budget + marketing costs.
And what’s the with the Russo brothers comparing 100 millions views of Extraction with a movie’s gross ($2 billion). It’s a childish comparison since it doesn’t really paint a clear picture as to how Netflix benefitted from the watch hours. It makes for a cool quarterly deck to the shareholders, but in terms of user retention and new user penetration, we are still in the dark and for that matter even Russo Brothers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rambo
July 20, 2022
@karzzexped Spot on about the Extraction comparison. There is 0 marginal cost to watching extraction once you have paid for Netflix. I had it running in the background one day while cooking! If you had to pay even an extra $1 to watch it, i doubt it would have anywhere that kind of viewing figure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 20, 2022
Let’s suppose the 100 million views of Extraction did help Netflix. Even so, a film that grossed $2 bn probably reached at least twice as many people…in just the theatrical run (so that’s essentially 200 million PPVs if you translate it into TV/OTT terms, and not the same person/account watching twice or more). When said film reaches OTT and TV, it will therefore reach a much bigger audience in toto than Extraction ever will.
Honestly, that whole argument put forward by the Russo Bros is pretty disingenuous when you take it apart. The straightforward question is if watching in theater is indeed so elitist, how come so many people still watch. Even considering it does pinch the pocket of moviegoers, it is nevertheless still the most lucrative model there is for cinema. Unless RB’ve got better ideas, perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
karzzexped
July 20, 2022
@Madan – It’s gonna be interesting to see what their stance would be when they opt to go for a wide theatrical release 😬
LikeLiked by 1 person
Voldemort
July 20, 2022
They’re just being hypocrites. In an interview I saw a month or so ago they said they’d be open to directing another Marvel movie (X Men I believe) for Disney. This is just one of those release time stunts that are done these days to publicize the film – say something controversial, have op-eds written about you, and draw a lot more attention to your film.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Voldemort
July 20, 2022
Also I tried for a long time to post a comment on the Halitha Shameem interview post but was unable to. Are the comments there turned off?
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 21, 2022
I thought all that the Russo Brothers were saying is that Netflix brings in diversity in reach and an ease of doing business but at the same time also be able to make money. That’s where the Extraction example came in.
I think it’s an oversimplification to argue this either way. I am not sure that 200 Million people will watch a movie paying $10 if they know it will be on an OTT in a few weeks’ time vs not having that option. So saying $2bn theatrical revenue reaches twice the audience of 100 Million Netflix views is also a stretch. This is without considering the fact that tickets are often more expensive than $10.
Personally, I wouldn’t go to the movies except in few cases if I know I can catch the film on OTT. As others have pointed out, a single trip to the movies for a family is $120. A decent at home TV set will be $500-$800. Yes, I lose on theatrical experience but I also gain convenience in exchange. For many years now footfalls in the theatres have been trending lower in the U.S. and there are no signs of a reversal. So, it’s reasonable to assume that at some point it will likely reach an inflection in terms of being lucrative vs digital platforms.
Also, they did say this -“You know what might make everybody happy is Netflix starts doing 45-day windows and they have their giant digital distribution platform. Everybody wins. That feels like where it’s going.”
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2022
” I am not sure that 200 Million people will watch a movie paying $10 if they know it will be on an OTT in a few weeks’ time vs not having that option.” – But they do. Tentpole movies do make their way to OTT. Spiderman Now Way Home is on Netflix for eg. It’s the same here in India. So irrespective of what you may personally choose, there are still evidently many who choose to watch on the big screen knowing that they could still watch it on OTT. Because they do value the theatrical experience, even if not for all movies, certainly for some.
While the economics of streaming are not nearly as locked in as you all imagine (and how attractive exactly will Netflix be if it starts showing ads?), let’s suppose it’s true that in five years time OTT drives theaters into extinction. Where in that event do Russo Bros propose to get the lost revenue from? This is why I said it’s like biting the hand that feeds. A distribution medium that offers brilliant simultaneous reach across the globe as well as an audio visual experience you cannot replicate at home without investing in a home theater yourself and they call it ‘elitist’, really? How many movies and series per year do they think the streaming platforms will acquire each year? As we hit the ceiling in terms of subscriber growth (which Netflix seems to have already), that will be a diminishing number (of new acquisitions) each year.
And isn’t elite supposed to be about what the privileged few rather than the majority want? So why is it that Marvel films have brilliant theatrical runs while Irishman goes straight to OTT? There are many reasons why OTT is extremely convenient, all those being the reasons why I have subscriptions to three OTT platforms. That’s not what I am arguing. I am simply saying Russo Bros set up a false choice. There is no need to actively get rid of the theatrical experience and I doubt anybody who expects to make a billion or upwards from the theatrical run is thinking it is ‘elitist’ and needs to be done away with.
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 21, 2022
“But they do. Tentpole movies do make their way to OTT.” – I was not commenting on whether tentpole movies will have massive numbers despite OTT releases. I was merely responding to the analysis that RB’s claim of 100 Mn views on Netflix translates to $2Bn is disingenuous because it translates to 200 Mn theatre views. My point was that both these arguments are an oversimplification as a number of other factors are at play. This comment was also for Extraction.
“let’s suppose it’s true that in five years time OTT drives theaters into extinction. Where in that event do Russo Bros propose to get the lost revenue from?” This may not be an option, the industry will have to recalibrate its economics and have smaller budgets, cut star fees etc. I think for good or bad, for a number of years now theatre footfalls have declined in the U.S and pandemic has accelerated that. User habits have changed. So, unless we’re saying movie makers must act deliberately and earmark only certain releases for OTT (in essence some sort of a OTT boycott for big movies), we may not be able to reverse the trend.
The Netflix subscriber loss story cannot be read in vacuum when comparing against theatre sales. You’ll have to see if any other platform gained vs Flix or there was a universal loss of subscribers across OTTs. Also, Netflix has a unique problem in the sense it’s essentially a tech company in media business and is feeling the pinch of rising rates. Its competitors can all absorb losses better – either $trillion tech companies or large content creators such as HBO/Disney etc.
I am not sure why the term elitist offended you so much. $120 for an evening is a lot of money. Ticket prices with FnB in movies has been often quoted as a reason for falling footfalls for many years. So, RBs were not saying anything new here. Maybe they could have said expensive instead. Also, they are saying they’re platform agnostic and don’t seem to be dissing theatres all together. That’s where the 45 day window comment came in.
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2022
“I am not sure why the term elitist offended you so much” – Pretty simple, because the word elitist inherently implies exclusion and snobbery and the movie theater at least advertises itself as a venue that offers a shared and communal experience. As long as you pay the ticket price, you are not going to be turned away so how is it elitist? As I also mentioned above, maybe this is also an Americanism but I would never conflate ‘elitist’ and ‘expensive’. And expensive, again, is relative. If it is that expensive as to be super-exclusionary (aka elitist), chains would have gone bankrupt before the pandemic.
I cannot and will not be able to convince you of what is going to happen in the future and neither will you convince me. But all I am saying is the pricing model as it stands necessarily reflects the co-existence of theaters and streaming as well as satellite television. If people actually wanted to get all the movies direct on OTT, the subscription fee would have to go up (or some movies will be offered on PPV). OTT feels cheaper to you than theater precisely because the movie makers have the option of making one chunk of revenue from theaters. When big ticket movies like Marvel products move to PPV, OTT is not going to feel so cheap anymore.
To address only two other points:
“The Netflix subscriber loss story cannot be read in vacuum when comparing against theatre sales. You’ll have to see if any other platform gained vs Flix or there was a universal loss of subscribers across OTTs.” – In either event, it implies that the days of a rising tide lifting all boats in streamworld are now over and growth will be a zero sum game. That means consolidation is up ahead and on the other side of consolidation lie higher prices. This happens in any business. Possibly theaters being so expensive (just like Comcast) in the US is also a function of extreme consolidation.
“This may not be an option, the industry will have to recalibrate its economics and have smaller budgets, cut star fees etc” – So let the economics play out. There is no need to play out this false drama of theater v/s OTT. Who other than the RBs themselves are having this culture war they speak of? They seem to be assailing a strawman and that’s why I am calling it out.
LikeLike
Rambo
July 21, 2022
Comment thread on fire – going to be such an anti-climax when BR eventually uploads a review here
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
July 21, 2022
Looks like Dhanush’s ‘Bloodstone’ moment..forgotten by everbody except your hardcore fan base a few years from now..
LikeLike
Enigma
July 21, 2022
@Karzzexped, you make perfectly valid points. I agree with you, You are not going to get that ‘movie watching experience’ on OTT. But speaking for myself, I don’t care much for that experience. I saw the first two Avengers movie in the cinemas and the last two on DVD. It didn’t make much difference to me – I enjoyed them all the same. I would be happy if the blockbusters make their way to the TV screens sooner than it is now. Anyway, that is me. I imagine there will be millions who prefer watching the blockbusters on the big screen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akhilan
July 21, 2022
Completely agree with you Enigma. I too don’t care too much for watching movies in the theater anymore. I very rarely have that urge/sense of excitement to see movies on the first-weekend, as deep down, I’m already aware that sooner rather than later, they will make their way to OTT/Satellite TV. I prefer the comfort of my bedroom/living room, being able to pause/rewind/forward as and when I please. If I missed a dialogue for instance, didn’t understand something, or want to revisit a particular scene, it is quite helpful. Not to mention, watching in solitude, without being disturbed by say someone coughing, munching popcorn, or a baby crying. Sure, I might make an exception for the big tentpole movies on a rare occasion and watch it the theater, but I’d much prefer these movies came on OTT/Satellite TV ASAP.
LikeLike
Rahini David
July 21, 2022
Those who prefer OTT, how many OTTs are you subscribed in apart from the big 3?
LikeLike
Akhilan
July 21, 2022
Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, and Disney+ in my case Rahini.
LikeLike
Enigma
July 21, 2022
@Akhilan, exactly. It is so much more comfortable watching movies at home. I went to the cinema couple of weeks ago to watch Jurassic World (was just using up the vouchers offered by the New South Wales state government, otherwise wouldn’t have bothered), desperately wanted to pause and take a break. I have a Netflix subscription and rent movies on Prime Videos or Youtube.I am thinking of subscribing to Disney Plus too. Want to watch Vikram, but we don’t get Hotstar here. Hopefully it should be on Youtube movies soon.
LikeLike
vijay
July 21, 2022
Netflix is the worst of the lot..when it comes to latest Tamil movies..pretty much nothing I wanted to see..Maanadu, Writer etc. was on Netflix..seems like the collection stays the same for months together. That will be the downside of OTT. cant suscribe to half a dozen OTT channels just to catch that one film..you have now Aha, sonyLIV etc. etc.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
July 21, 2022
vijay: I am already skipping a number of movies that I might have watched but which made it to Netflix rather than ones I have a sub for (Amazon/SonyLiv/Hotstar). Probably also means I won’t be able to watch either Extraction or Gray Man. I guess that’s so ‘elitist’ of me. 😉
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2022
Thank God Hastings (Reed, not Arthur) couldn’t lay his hands on the Get Back series. That would have forced me to cave in and get a Netflix sub.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
July 21, 2022
@Rahini – Only the big 3 of Prime, Disney and Netflix. More than 3 is difficult to manage. A pay per view may have a few takers I think.
LikeLike
Jayram
July 21, 2022
What did you think about Get Back, Madan? Perhaps a Readers Write-In or post on your blog might suffice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 21, 2022
Jayram : I liked PARTS of it. The best of all was the rooftop show. But to get there one has to get through a lot of chit chat which is initially interesting but starts to drag after a while. I think those who have rummaged the details of the backstory around the sessions and the albums as such would have enjoyed it more than I did. It’s typically Brit – polite and understated. Nobody got to foul language, let alone fisticuffs. So with so much passive aggressivity, it actually becomes difficult at times to understand the depth of the disagreements that were pulling them apart because it can feel like they could have still got along had they just tried harder. They just didn’t want to anymore, other than Paul and maybe Ringo who didn’t really have a post Beatles agenda unlike Lennon or Harrison.
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2022
Watching Paul write songs was also a lot of fun. He had the whole arrangement worked out in half an hour or so (though the final versions went through much more ornamentation). It was Raja like, his speed and creativity.
LikeLike
karzzexped
July 21, 2022
@Rahini – Albeit being a theatre nut, my parents unfortunately despise the ear-screeching sound systems. As a result, I’m subscribed to almost all the OTTs out there.
Apart from the Big 3s, I have SonyLIV, ZEE5, Aha Tamil & Sun NXT subscribed over here in India.
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 21, 2022
Madan – I kind of feel you’re doing what you’re accusing RBs of 🙂
It’s beginning to sound a bit too rich to say movies are a communal space as far as tickets can be bought. That’s precisely the issue, tickets are very expensive and precludes sections of people – to put a $100-$120 spend into perspective, an iphone 13 stands at $700. This is well known and no one is rushing to invest in the theatres, in fact they are closing YoY. Are you really saying these prices are accessible by everyone many times over in a year?
“OTT feels cheaper to you than theater precisely because the movie makers have the option of making one chunk of revenue from theaters.” – I wouldn’t say this, it has more to do with streaming companies subsidizing losses via cheap funding or otherwise. Look, we can’t really speculate how high OTT prices are going to be in future and claim it’s as expensive as theatres are now etc. Even just for argument sake, Apple and Amazon can keep subsidizing losses for a long time.
All we know is OTTs are a tech disruption and they’re here to stay unless something drastic happens. We have seen this already play out in other areas like retail. No one is pitting one against the other in a winner takes all type of situation, that ship has sailed. Just moving along with changing times and seeing what distribution model makes most sense is all that RBs were saying IMO.
LikeLike
Madan
July 21, 2022
“Are you really saying these prices are accessible by everyone many times over in a year?” – Yes, they still are. You are looking at trends for theaters and the present for OTT while I am doing the opposite. In the present, the numbers are indisputable. Lots of people are still turning up to theaters. Otherwise Top Gun wouldn’t have already grossed $600 mn in the US alone (with 12.3 last weekend, in its eighth week!) and Thor wouldn’t have passed $200 mn in just two weeks. This is with high inflation and people are still paying for the same ticket prices you and RB seem to claim are elitist. Because YOU have personally decided that the cost-experience equation doesn’t work for you in theater doesn’t mean EVERYONE has decided likewise and more than enough people still watch movies in the big screen to make it viable. Otherwise producers and distributors would have already agreed with the Oracle of Russo and stopped bothering with theatrical release. Now coming to…
“I wouldn’t say this, it has more to do with streaming companies subsidizing losses via cheap funding or otherwise.” – And yet, they are already tightening their belt. There hasn’t been an interest rate spike in the US since briefly in the mid 00s when Greenspan and Bernanke rapidly tightened the economy into meltdown. But that was a demand shock and went away with the 2008 crisis. Today’s inflation is a supply shock and will be with us for a long time. And as more and more boomer VCs pass away, the gravy train of easy money will dry up even more. Ultimately, any business model based on loss-leading must eventually find its cash cow. You can’t reinvent economics. The Great Moderation permitted it for a while but there must be a reason why Google is actually freezing hiring in spite of the hunky dory picture you are painting.
“Just moving along with changing times and seeing what distribution model makes most sense is all that RBs were saying IMO.” – But who’s not changing and who’s not adopting new distribution models? If most movies that get a theatrical release do become available on OTT already, what exactly is the RB’s problem? Why does it bother them if some people want to see movies on the big screen? Who is setting up one against the other except the RBs themselves who invented a culture war that didn’t exist because, as somebody said upthread, they simply fed a clickbait to promote this latest movie.
You as well are simply not acknowledging where I have myself said I use OTTs and am not against them by any means. I am simply objecting to dissing theaters and am arguing that they need to be milked for all they’re worth as long as they make commercial sense. Where’s the problem with that exactly? Yes that means those who do not wish to see movies in theater at all have to wait a few weeks to get it on OTT but that can’t be helped. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. Either pay the ‘elitist’ ticket price to soothe your FOMO or delay gratification and wait for it to drop on OTT. Nobody’s unsubbing from OTT because the movies don’t drop in on the same day as theatrical release, that’s just chicken little stuff.
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 22, 2022
Madan – I have to ask, did you actually read the entire interview or you went by the elitist comment alone? I am saying this because I feel this discussion is going all over the place and you seem to be assuming a lot of things. Ex: “there must be a reason why Google is actually freezing hiring in spite of the hunky dory picture you are painting.” I didn’t say anything to really merit that comment. Recession is coming is literally the beat everyday 🙂
One thing that’s clear is you don’t think movie tickets in U.S are THAT expensive. Let’s agree to disagree but I have to point out that YOY stats and accompanying survey responses don’t support your view. No one has actually responded to this thread saying they are okay with the pricing or find it easy on the pocket. Also, using Maverick sales to make a point is a bit like pulling the highest percentile in a distribution and claiming the average population is representative of that sub-set.
I also don’t agree with your take on the economics behind this. Initially your point was $1 equals 1 OTT view but 2 theatrical views. I objected to that as an oversimplification. Next, you said that theatre sales subsidize OTT prices – again there is no evidence to support this. OTTs were absorbing losses just like a lot of other tech companies due to low rates. It’s well known that markets/investors price in before the regulators change the rates. So, you can’t say that rates haven’t risen enough yet so that can’t be the reason. Your own point is that we were in an era of great moderation and still you’re pinning inflation down to ONLY supply shock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 22, 2022
Nappinai : Er, I very much did read the full interview. I have to ask have YOU? Did you read their reference to culture wars around theater vs OTT (which don’t exist in the real world)? Actually this discussion is going nowhere because you are so much in agreement on the point of expensive ticket prices that you have chosen to ignore everything else they have said on the issue, in spite of my drawing attention to those remarks many times. So maybe start acknowledging that at least some parts of their arguments are flawed and that they haven’t actually said anything that the industry isn’t doing but curiously add theater bashing to their comments.
Theaters do subsidize OTT because the budget of a large Marvel production isn’t going to magically go down just because theaters shut down tomorrow. Instead they will command a higher price from streaming platforms. And from whom do you think they will recover the costs but the consumer? An OTT subscription model works best when the platform doesn’t have to take on the production cost themselves and are only buying distribution. But in that scenario, the makers are depending on the theatrical run to recover the production cost. The fact that OTTs are already loss leading doesn’t mean that theaters don’t enable OTTs to provide their offerings at a lower rate. Both things can be and are true at the same time.
As for box office numbers, Top Gun’s 600 million gross represents something in the region of 60 million unique viewers. You are going to have to tell me exactly why they are all either the protege of billionaires or wealthy C suite guys. Something tells me those are exactly the kind of people who wouldn’t have the time to go to a theater and it would be the middle class that’s buying these tickets. By the way nobody is actually saying a trip to the movies isn’t expensive. Some of us would simply not mind making that spend once in a while. You are trying awfully hard to make it sound like it’s S Class EMI expensive which it isn’t. There is a difference between expensive and prohibitively expensive. What is prohibitively expensive for Nappinai isn’t for others until the numbers agree. The numbers and not merely the trends. Book shops never made a potload of money in the best of times but they were still, even with declines, marginally profitable when Amazon began to decimate them. An incumbent model is going to take time to finally collapse and shut shop so until then you are going to have to allow that enough people would watch movies in theaters to make it worthwhile for the producers. The producers are increasingly the same as the streamers – Disney and Paramount for eg. So I am sure it makes commercial sense at this point for them to release a tentpole first in theaters. And it wouldn’t make commercial sense without people turning up to watch, no matter how convinced you may be that it is insane.
I have next to no idea why Great Moderation CANNOT be followed by a supply shock when in fact a supply shock was almost the only thing that could have made QE untenable. Maybe you can explain why this somehow doesn’t make sense to Ray Dalio, Jeremy Grantham or Hildebrand of BlackRock.
As for investors pricing in before a rate increase, I am sorry but since when has the US stock market (or most exchanges in the world) been grounded in reality? You have Cathie Wood on YouTube swindling the millennials and Jim Cramer on CNBC swindling the boomers, telling them to buy Tesla right where the descent began. So stock price isn’t an indication of much of anything. But moving on, where rates are TODAY doesn’t indicate where they will be a few years from now. So investors are not going to price in THAT right now. Relying on what investors have priced in today to make the assumption that OTT rates won’t go up at all doesn’t make sense to me. The price rises will happen when consolidation begins which it will soon enough. Netflix caving in and deciding to run ads means nothing but consolidation on the horizon.
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 22, 2022
See again – “I have next to no idea why Great Moderation CANNOT be followed by a supply shock” – Where did I say this? All I did was object when you said inflation IS a supply shock (meaning that’s the only reason) after acknowledging an era of artificial low rates. My argument if not clear was that monetary policies, geo politics, supply shocks have all contributed to inflationary pressures. The result of inflation IS rising rates. That end result is all that is relevant to this discussion really.
“The numbers and not merely the trends.” – Are you suggesting trends don’t have underlying data or that data is meaningful without assessment? How can you even get a trend without numbers to support it? I am talking of YOY trend, not the latest IG trend to make it clear.
“Theaters do subsidize OTT because the budget of a large Marvel production isn’t going to magically go down just because theaters shut down tomorrow” – This is essentially a theory because you think this is how it will go down eventually. In reality though what we have actually seen so far is that streaming providers have subsidized theatrical losses to production companies!
I am sorry but since when has the US stock market (or most exchanges in the world) been grounded in reality? – I can’t in anyway respond to this.
” Relying on what investors have priced in today to make the assumption that OTT rates won’t go up at all doesn’t make sense to me” – it won’t because it doesn’t to me either and I didn’t say or imply this. You came up with it, attributed it to me and decided to rebut it 🙂
And yes, all along my argument has been just this – that tickets are expensive, OTTs are here to stay, theatres are declining and possibly on their way out, so there’s nothing wrong in being platform agnostic. I don’t think I have said or implied anywhere that movies should diss theatres or should have straight to OTT releases. That’s your OWN assumption or interpretation. It looks like a culture war that you created in your head essentially 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
July 22, 2022
Once again, I didn’t introduce the term culture wars. It is there clear as daylight in the full interview. This is the third or fourth time I am mentioning this so the fact that you want to make it about me tells me that you are for some reason reluctant to accept that RBs simply made a meal of saying something as simple as they are format agnostic and wouldn’t mind either theater or OTT, by adding a lot of extraneous stuff to their arguments. And since you are not ready to fess up about the problems in what they said anyway, I think we have taken this discussion as far as it goes. It does puzzle me why you are so defensive on behalf of the RBs but that’s not for me to break my head over. Adios!
LikeLike
brangan
July 22, 2022
The review is up…
LikeLike
Madan
July 22, 2022
BR, this is a brilliant review that arrives at a ‘brilliant’ time just as the forum says it’s been missing your written reviews. Last para could have been said by Scorsese. And you may not have been thinking of his theme park quip when you wrote but your metaphors better articulated what he was going for.
It’s not just that Holly went global in the 80s but that the Reaganites completely took control (and with it, the room for guilt about project america became verboten in the mainstream). After that, a senator like Mike Gravel would either never get elected or not be permitted to wield the kind of influence he could. A nice novel (which got made into a series) riffing on similar themes w. r. t Britain (the collapse of Atlee’s Britain and the taking over of a hard Toryism)is Rotters Club albeit the Hatfield and The North album by the same name beats the daylights out of it anyday as per this avowed proghead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Voldemort
July 22, 2022
X-Rays of a nation’s paranoia – Love this phrase.
LikeLike
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
July 23, 2022
Looks like BR did ask about the elitist comment to the Russo Brothers 🙂 It’s around 0.36:
LikeLike
rsylviana
July 23, 2022
Was really looking forward to the movie but was thoroughly underwhelmed at the end. Not sure what made a string of A-listers interested in this one except maybe Chris Evans. He might have felt it interesting to play a villain for the first time but big whoop otherwise. I felt even the CGI effects in the flight action scene was sub-par.
Nevertheless, felt really amazing hearing Chris say “Tamil” in the movie ! 😀
LikeLike
KayKay
July 23, 2022
Sorry…I didn’t hate it….enjoyed parts of it…but for a movie fundamentally about a super assassin being hunted by scores of other super assassins…this should have been at a JOHN WICK-ian level of bat shit crazy…instead you get some FAST & FURIOUS vibes throughout, with overly CGI-ed, and frantically cut PG-13 action sequences most of the time. I never realized a torture sequence involving pulling off a man’s finger nails with a plier could generate zero tension, but the Russos pull it off with aplomb.
Chris Evans is a lot of fun and Dhanush gets a brief but cool role (but his character’s about-face is deeply stupid) . But the BRIDGERTON dude and THE IRON FIST chick are wasted. Ana De Armas is always watchable but provides further proof this movie’s over-stuffed with characters (based on the 1st of 11 GRAY MAN books to date, the novel was a lean, stripped down affair.).
The problem is Gosling. Having read a few of the books, he’s woefully miscast for me. The movie doesn’t attempt to harness Gosling’s brooding persona to a cold, calculating killing machine, it attempts to sand off Court Gentry’s lethal edges to fit Gosling’s no doubt considerable sex appeal and laidback charm. It’s an Assassin Thriller meant to bring in THE NOTEBOOK crowd.
Book Gentry is the the 80s/90s definition of an Action Hero. He’s taciturn, cold, brooding and hyper focused but with a strong Moral Center. Film Gentry is that now familiar Creature of 21st Century Action movies: He’s glib, sardonic, skilled but sensitive and 2 quips away from nailing a Marvel Audition. Other items on the Politically Correct Checklist are present and accounted for. Interrogation Sessions between people who plan and execute the taking of human lives on a daily basis have references to Sexual Harassment and removing oneself from someone’s Personal Space, because what Stone Cold Masterminds of Subterfuge, Espionage and Mass Murder fear most is a HR disciplinary hearing.
I counted 2 decent fight scenes and 1 okay-ish shoot out. But the rest is strictly “One Time Watch” stuff.
LikeLike
brangan
July 23, 2022
Double Kay: Have you seen DRIVE? One of the great action films of the millennium. And Ryan Gosling is as cold as they come – he is much more than the NOTEBOOK dude. 😁
LikeLike
Satya
July 24, 2022
The film was fun, and somewhat refreshingly old school. But boy, I found Chris Evans a badly miscast one in the ensemble. He is neither menacing nor charming as this sociopathic villain, and ends up looking like a bulky and in-shape Fuhrer imposter. He is a fine actor, yes, but this role needed someone more hardened. Having said that, I also cannot deny this casting decision because of the pull he has now, thanks to the post-MCU stardom.
LikeLike
Enigma
July 24, 2022
I thought that Chris Evans was brilliant; Gosling somehow was not believable as the cold assassin.
LikeLike
KayKay
July 29, 2022
B, yes I ABSOLUTELY have seen DRIVE! Great movie! But just felt Gosling was channeling more of a NOTEBOOK/CRAZY,STUPID, LOVE vibe here:-)
Also, and this is my problem, having read a few of the GRAY MAN books, an image of Court Gentry has formed in my mind. He’s more Jason Statham than Ryan Gosling in the books. Had the same issue with Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher having read practically all the books. But in the recent Amazon TV Series, they cast an actor who very closely resembles Book Reacher in physicality and so it was an easier fit in my mind.
LikeLike
Thupparivaalan
July 29, 2022
Haven’t catched this yet but count me in as a huge fan of Drive – beautifully made film. And the music – 12/10. Gosling is so cold and handsome in that one.
LikeLike
Kaushik Bhattacharya
September 8, 2022
I think the major issue I had with the film is not the casting of either Gosling or Evans but as BR says, the fact that the writing was so wretched and that you didn’t really know anything about any of the major characters.
Gosling has done plenty of action films in which he’s been really good, Drive is an all time great as BR mentions, but A Place Beyond The Pines, Gangster Squad, and Blade Runner 2049 are all very watchable and use his abilities and persona very well.
Also this is Evan’s second go as a villain, after (spoiler alert) Knives Out, not first time around as someone else said.
LikeLike