The resurgence of blockbuster movies in cinemas has become crucial for Hollywood studios to break even in an era dominated by streaming services. The key question remains: what makes a film worthy of a theatrical release? James Cameron's Avatar: Fire and Ash, the latest installment of his beloved franchise, is expected to be a box office darling, with several years of absence from theatres weighing heavily on its success.
With the pandemic largely behind us, cinemas are facing stiff competition from streaming giants like Netflix. The traditional studios are under increasing pressure to get their films on digital platforms, and the 45-day "theatrical window" has become a mere suggestion. It was Universal that broke the mold in 2020 by releasing films with low box office returns directly to premium video-on-demand (PVOD).
Tom Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick proved that stunt-driven blockbusters can still pack a punch at the box office, but other franchises have not been as fortunate. The Mission: Impossible series has struggled with bloated storytelling and excessive sequels, losing its edge in the process.
The streaming market, however, is beginning to realize that success in theatres contributes positively to a film's overall performance on platforms like Netflix. Amazon's Red One, for instance, benefited from a lengthy marketing campaign, which propelled it to become the streamer's top debut.
As cinemas look to revitalize their appeal, a broader range of releases with varying budgets is becoming increasingly important. Studios are taking more risks by allowing smaller-budget films to turn a profit in theatres rather than dumping them on streaming as loss leaders. This willingness to diversify and control costs has brought success stories like Smile, which excelled in test screenings before raking in $217 million at the box office.
While recapturing the glamour of cinemas is a long shot, their unique USP – community and shared experience – remains essential. The movie-going experience should continue to prioritize storytelling that resonates with people's lives, fostering an appreciation for cinema as a medium.
With the pandemic largely behind us, cinemas are facing stiff competition from streaming giants like Netflix. The traditional studios are under increasing pressure to get their films on digital platforms, and the 45-day "theatrical window" has become a mere suggestion. It was Universal that broke the mold in 2020 by releasing films with low box office returns directly to premium video-on-demand (PVOD).
Tom Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick proved that stunt-driven blockbusters can still pack a punch at the box office, but other franchises have not been as fortunate. The Mission: Impossible series has struggled with bloated storytelling and excessive sequels, losing its edge in the process.
The streaming market, however, is beginning to realize that success in theatres contributes positively to a film's overall performance on platforms like Netflix. Amazon's Red One, for instance, benefited from a lengthy marketing campaign, which propelled it to become the streamer's top debut.
As cinemas look to revitalize their appeal, a broader range of releases with varying budgets is becoming increasingly important. Studios are taking more risks by allowing smaller-budget films to turn a profit in theatres rather than dumping them on streaming as loss leaders. This willingness to diversify and control costs has brought success stories like Smile, which excelled in test screenings before raking in $217 million at the box office.
While recapturing the glamour of cinemas is a long shot, their unique USP – community and shared experience – remains essential. The movie-going experience should continue to prioritize storytelling that resonates with people's lives, fostering an appreciation for cinema as a medium.
I'm not buying it... I mean, what makes this film "worthy" of a theatrical release? Is it just because the franchise is beloved or 'cause the pandemic made us forget about movies in theaters 
? I need to see some numbers and stats on how much those streaming services actually paid for Avatar: Fire and Ash vs. other films released straight to PVOD. And what's with this 45-day "theatrical window" thing? Is that just a suggestion or are studios really going to start following it? 
. I mean, I'm not saying all blockbuster movies need to be huge successes in cinemas but some do. Like Avatar: Fire and Ash has been years in the making... we want to see that magic 
. But for films like Smile, which didn't break a million bucks in test screenings 
. It just goes to show that there's more to cinema than just explosions and fancy effects 
. If studios can find that balance between art and commerce, I think we might see some real growth for cinemas again 
.
. Like, what even is special about Avatar: Fire and Ash? It's just another installment in a popular franchise. Can't they just release it straight to Netflix like everyone else does? 
I mean, we all know that Top Gun: Maverick made bank, but did you see the way it got panned by critics afterwards? "Oh, it was just a fun ride" doesn't cut it for me 
. The whole point of going to the movies is to experience something unique and memorable, not just another rehashing of what's already been done. Give me some indie films or smaller-budget flicks any day – they're always way more interesting 
. and, tbh, smaller budget films r getting more recognition now cuz studios r realizing u don't gotta break the bank 2 make a splash in theatres 
cinemas are all about that communal vibe - you can't replicate it on streaming services no matter how much money you throw at it