During the pandemic, when we were all “stuck” at home, a discussion that had been gaining momentum for years before – what is the future of Cinema – took on epic proportions. It is still too early to say for sure, but everything has come together to heat up a dispute that is far from over.

Changes in behavior and consumption are still at the heart of the equation. There has always been a dilemma between generations, where the target is always the young and the filmmakers the older ones, but digitalization and gamification have had such an impact that communication has become binary, aggressive, and inconclusive. The “kids” like shorter, more realistic, or real content, they need to find, take part, and interfere, without worrying at all if the screen fits in the palm of their hand. The “mature” ones insist that they listen to what the public wants, but that they have the autonomy to tell the story as they wish and that it must be on larger screens (if possible the largest of all) before entering the multifaceted universe of social networks.

It is a very simplistic summary, but one that an average observer can quickly find. So, it is no surprise to still come across pre-millennial filmmakers complaining about the current situation. Returning to the pandemic, there is something else.

With the growth of Netflix over the last 10 years, studios have tried different strategies to “interrupt” the growth of digital platforms that before did not produce content. Also, the largest, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple TV Plus were gaining momentum and the solution for channels and film producers was to first withdraw their products from them, and secondly launch their own platforms. So, when the cinemas were closed, they had a place to make their films available, displeasing actors and directors who contractually do not earn the same if there is no box office to share the profits.

Yes, people, we can hear that the fight is for Art, but it is not: it is about financial issues. Valid and fair issues, by the way. Actress Scarlett Johanson was one of the main agents to denounce the abuse and problems with Disney; Tom Cruise sat on Top Gun for two years to wait for the release of projection rooms and Christopher Nolan fought so hard for Oppenheimer in the cinema that in the credits he explicitly states: “written for the big screen” instead of just a script. Another one who has been kicking up a fuss for some reason is director Doug Liman.

In early 2024, he wrote a rant against MGM and Amazon Prime Video and the treatment given to his re-recording of The Road House, intended for the cinema but released directly on the platform. “I made a great movie, a ‘massive hit’ – Amazon’s words, not mine, by the way. Road House did better than my biggest box office hit, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. It tasted better than Bourne Identity, which spawned four sequels,” Liman wrote at the time, complaining that skipping theaters would reduce the film’s profits. It’s August 2024 and the numbers, he says, prove his fears.

Personally, I didn’t think the film deserved all the fuss, sorry Doug Liman, even though I support him in all his arguments about what it means. On the eve of releasing a new film, also straight to the platform, but now on Apple TV Plus, the director once again slams Amazon Prime Video for The Road House. And what is the issue? “No one was compensated,” he accuses.

The Variety article clarifies some points. For example, when he said that Amazon Prime Video told him to “make a good movie” to decide what to do for release, he was coming from a scenario where the original plan with MGM, which was acquired by Amazon early in production, had changed. Liman had to choose between a budget of $60 million for a theatrical release or $85 million for a straight-to-streaming release. That wasn’t clear.

If Amazon executives thought the director would be calmer after the public op-ed and the (unfulfilled) threats of a boycott, they were wrong. He’s being specific: The problem with the market isn’t streaming, it’s the business model that doesn’t share profits based on streaming views.

“We need streaming movies because we need writers to work, directors to work, and actors to work, and not every movie should be in a theater. So I’m a big advocate for TV shows, I’m a big advocate for streaming movies, I’m a big advocate for theatrical movies, we should have all of those things,” he told IndieWire. “50 million people saw ‘Road House’ and I didn’t get a dime, Jake Gyllenhaal didn’t get a dime, [producer] Joel Silver didn’t get a dime. That’s wrong.”

At least, he says, the deal with Apple, which is where his new work, The Instigators, is based, is different. “From the beginning, we said we were doing this for streaming, our contracts paid for streaming, we’re all competing for “We are very keen to be in streaming — there is something called streaming acquisition — so Apple has been honest from the beginning,” says the director.

Is there a solution to the dispute?

Pesquisar

Pesquisar