Streamers and Theaters in 2021 – Netflix The First To Pass 200 million subscribers, Talks About Disney+ To Analysts

Netflix will continue to buy new movies for exclusive streaming release, a good strategy?

Unsurprisingly, Netflix continues to do well amidst the pandemic. They were the first streamer to start spending en masse on original content and that foresight is paying back huge dividends.

Stay with this longer post. A lot to digest and think about in 2021 and am very curious what you think might happen.

Most of us are cocooned, waiting for the virus to subside. Some, hopefully continuing to increase, are working, but there isn’t much else to do outsides in the movie sector anyway. Plenty to do for those who unplug and use nature for solace.

I read one article that predicted rather stupidly 6-7 years for the bulk of the population to be vaccinated. Years? No. I don’t think it will be 6-7 months either, so the smart money is that 2021 is largely going to replay 2020. Theaters aren’t doomed, so don’t drink from that fountain of despair, but they aren’t going to be anything close to 2019 numbers. Probably a small to medium improvement over 2020 is about the best they can hope for.

We just want to be able to see more than the 44+ new movies in theaters we watched in 2020. So far, with January almost gone, we’ve watched a goose egg in theaters. That’s not a promising start. No idea when theaters in our area will be reopened again and the closest theater remains almost 250 miles away. We’re not driving that far — at least regularly — to watch new movies in theaters. When the weather improves in spring and summer, maybe we’ll do that a few times. Again, it all depends on what’s going on with the virus. Our regular movie theater coverage will continue as soon as theaters reopen — whenever that will be …

Next month we’re going to Vegas again. We’d like to do that once or twice a year, and there are movies open there, so we will be sure to catch at least one movie in our short sojourn there. We were last there in March 2020, when the pandemic seemed to hit its stride.

Enough of theaters, as there isn’t much positive to discuss there. Let’s get back to Netflix and what’s happening across streaming in 2021.

They are promising investors that they will be cash positive going forward, which for any business is sound. Assuming that’s true, we’re going to have to drop the narrative that they are a business running in the red. If you hold onto the lead in eyeballs and interest long enough, like they have — and congrats to them, because they are doing it — you will make money.

In 2020, we watched more Netflix than any other streamer, but close behind was Amazon Prime Video, which oddly isn’t mentioned. Netflix is clearly more worried about Disney+.

Despite mounting competition, Netflix added 8.5 million subscribers in the period and 37 million in 2020, well ahead of forecasts. That brings it to 203.7 million, well ahead of the 86.8 million for Disney+, but nevertheless executives were a bit more forthcoming than usual about seeing mouse ears in the rear-view mirror.

Netflix Brass Reacts To Disney’s Streaming Strides: “Super-Impressive” But Not Quite ‘Bridgerton’ Buzz – Deadline

Is Disney a sleeping giant with all that juicy IP? Most of their IP is still in the underutilized phase. Subscribers aren’t getting any new Mandalorian in 2021. We are getting that Boba Fett series at the end of 2021. December isn’t exactly soon.

On the Marvel front, there’s the Wandvision series that just kicked off. Movies? There should be a few of the MCU movies that make it to the service in 2021, maybe. Black Widow is probably the most notable, but there’s a few more.

So, with Star Wars and Marvel not exactly killing it with content on Disney+, what’s the play? They can only hang around on legacy content so long. With parents and grandparents like us with little ones to show animated movies, Disney remains king, but Netflix is surely trying to nibble on this bucket full of apples.

The area Disney could make some moves with is better integration with Hulu, which seems more like an overall competitor from a content perspective. Instead, Hulu is remaining a largely domestic offering, instead focusing on Star for international streaming of more adult-focused content (see: Disney Putting International Muscle Behind Star India instead of Hulu Global Launch?)

But what about Amazon? Why aren’t Netflix saying anything about Amazon? Maybe, the silence is more telling. Amazon at any time seems poised to flex its financial muscle and go full on production studio mode. There’s the whole Lord of the Rings prequel series and a string of originals under development. Will their LOTRO have Game of Thrones juice? Jeff Bezos sure hopes so. Never count out the richest person in the world.

Let’s not forget just how much book content Amazon has at its disposal. Something like 90% of book publishing goes through Amazon’s sales turnstiles. Ready Player Two is in talks for a sequel, will that be another theatrical release or something Amazon or another streamer scoops up in a bidding war for straight to streaming release? With Steven Spielberg behind the first film, it stands to reason the sequel will garner significant interest, especially if he decides to be part of it again (yeah, even if it’s only and probably likely just producing on the project).

Non-concerns seem to be HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock and Apple TV. I think WarnerMedia’s 17 movies released simultaneously in whatever theaters are open and on HBO Max is by far the best promotion for streaming in 2021 — and that includes Netflix. Will it result in a ton of new subscribers? Maybe. HBO Max is going to need some killer TV series to keep subscribers around, not just movies and whomever is going to rise up to a formidable alternative to Netflix is going to need to understand and embrace retention. That’s an area that Netflix does better at than anybody else in the field, perhaps save Amazon, which keeps people subscribed because it’s included with Amazon Prime.

Walmart has been trying to nip on those heels, so that battle might heat up in 2021. Hard to get too much behind Walmart though, because they tend to dip in and out of stuff historically (ahem, Vudu, see: Walmart Plus launches September 15, maybe they should have kept Vudu). Still, they have a significant retail sector. If you go out shopping somewhere — you know, the real world, offline — for something, there’s most likely a Walmart nearby.

The also rans include CBS All Access, soon to become Paramount+ on March 4, 2021. They’ve officially announced that launch date and we continue to be puzzled why they don’t do more with their legacy content. They still have a paltry amount of movies considering how many they could have. Come on, release the Kraken movie content! They have some great TV shows, but they could do much more. Am curious to see how much they launch with and if it will look more like HBO Max — like it should.

Peacock should probably be last because they seem to have the fewest amount of original content under production. Saved By The Bell, the reboot, is watched first on that service by 3 out of 10 new subscribers. They greenlit that for a season 2. They need much, much more than that reboot to be considered serious competition for the other streamers.

Apple TV+ – It feels like every time we write about them it’s hey, they did this cool and then this long silence waiting for something else to splash. They need to be like a meteor storm in the ocean of streaming content, pelting it all over the place with fresh, original content. I really thought it would be them gobbling up Quibi’s library of content instead of our next and final mainstream streaming player ….

Roku. We need to mention them since they seem to be trying to be more than just a streaming aggregator. A smart move considering Chromecast with Google TV and Amazon Fire are hot competitors in that space. Personally, I just can’t get all that excited about watching movie or TV shows with ads. I know, I know, classic TV had commercials and it’s a space of interest to many people, we aren’t among them. We spend very little of our streaming time watching free, ad-supported channels. What about you?

I mean, if you’re spending on paid streaming channels, why wouldn’t you watch most/all of what you can on those first? It seems like these FREE channels are more for those who are spending very little on streaming channels, maybe only subscribing to Netflix and just using the free channels for everything else? There’s nothing wrong with that strategy and it’s probably a lot more budget conscious.

We don’t spend much on entertainment, especially with theaters currently closed, so a small portion of money we would have spent in theaters is being spent on streaming subscriptions. I don’t think this is going to change that much in 2021.

Where are your movie and TV watching dollars going to go in 2021? Tell us about it in the comments.

Hooray, George Clooney and Tom Hanks Make The Case For Movie Theater Survival

It’s refreshing reading a contrast from a well-known actor saying the movie theater experience is not going anywhere. Thank you, George Clooney.

And let’s be clear that in 1950 everybody panicked that the movie industry would be done because of television, and then it was VHS, and then it was DVDs. The truth of the matter is there’s always going to be a great space for cinema. People have to get out of the house. I can’t keep saying to my wife, “Let’s watch TV tonight.” What [streaming] has done is provide thousands and thousands of new jobs for actors, writers, directors and producers who are making some really interesting content. It’s given new filmmakers, young people and minorities opportunities to work, so there’s nothing but good that comes out of this.

George Clooney on Why the Movie Industry & Theaters Will Survive – Variety

Tom Hanks also has had some optimistic things to say recently about movie theater survival:

Hanks draws a comparison between himself watching Bridge Over the River Kwai on a crummy TV and the current state of the industry: “Now, of course, with Netflix and all of the streaming services, we have the ability to watch a movie any time we want to on our couch. If the movie is really great and engaging you can still come away from that experience thinking, That is one of the greatest motion pictures I’ve ever seen. I experienced that recently with Chernobyl, the five-part thing. I said, “That was one of the greatest motion pictures I’ve ever seen.” It comes across with other films as well. Will movie theaters still exist? Absolutely they will. In some ways, I think the exhibitors, once they’re up and open, will have a freer choice with what movies they choose to play. I’m no Cassandra when it comes down to this, but big, event motion pictures are going to rule the day at the cinemas.”

Tom Hanks on the Future of Movie Theaters: “A Sea Change Was Due”

Glad to see some movie stars, especially bigger ones, aren’t falling into the trap of lamenting the death of cinema.

Movie theaters have survived over 100 years, folks, they’re not going to disappear because of the pandemic and streaming. Will the experience change? Yes. Will some movie theater chains go away? Sure, but the industry have survived TV, VCRs, DVDs and it will survive — in some revised form, anyway — streaming.

What won’t survive are theatrical windows. These just aren’t as relevant any more. Let your customers see movies when and where they want. Yes, this hurts the physical media sales and some early VOD markets like hotels but maybe those avenues for movies weren’t meant to survive? Maybe people don’t want to pay $20 to rent movies for 24-48 hours.

This also means movie budgets won’t be as large. We won’t see as many big budget movies. Again, is this such a terrible thing? Plenty of great movies can be made on lower, tighter budgets. We don’t need to see a dozen Avatar scale movies every year. Maybe 1 or 2 of those type movies is just fine.

It’s going to be OK. When this pandemic ends — and it will subside at some point in the future (hopefully somewhere in 2021) — a lot of what people did before will be happening again. Yes, including movie theaters.

There is no arguing the experience will change and be different going forward, but what doesn’t change over time? If it wasn’t streaming and the pandemic, it would be something else.

Maybe More Should Listen To Vince Vaughn’s Take On Social Media Usage

Freaky ⭐️½

Reading Vince Vaughn’s perspective on why he doesn’t use social media is a reminder to those using too much social media that it isn’t that important.

(admittedly, this piggybacks on Monday’s post on Gina Carano, see: Hey Star Wars Hardcore Fans, Stop Trying To Get People Fired For Being Ignorant on Social Media)

“I’ve never been a big social media person,” Vaughn explained. While he says he has “a lot of friends who enjoy it,” the Old School star admits he’s “never really engaged in social media all that much.”

Why ‘Freaky’ Star Vince Vaughn Doesn’t Use Social Media

Put us in the group that didn’t care that much for Vince Vaughn’s most recent movie, but I like him as an actor. He’s proven to be more versatile than many that would just take the same safe role. He’s taken on some unexpected projects that surprised me. His facial expressions are a bit generic at times and I don’t find his brand of comedy hilarious, but I can see and appreciate his general style. He brings flavor to the roles he’s in that’s noticeable. I like that.

What he’s saying about his use of social media is especially interesting.

If we read between the lines, this is a refreshing reminder that some, predominantly the younger generation today it seems, rely far too much on social media for what’s important in the world. Don’t misunderstand me, there are some grandparent types my age going hog wild on Twitter and Instagram too.

Does it really matter, though? I mean, will you be remembered for what you posted on social media? Who will be? Maybe those with a gadzillion followers. Those influencers that make a living maintaining a huge following. The vast majority of the rest of us? Doesn’t really matter.

Yes, including some celebrities like Vince Vaughn.

Mostly strategically, I’ve used Twitter and Facebook since they were both released. I’ve been on this internet since dial-up days and have blogged, off and on, since 1999. That makes me a dinosaur online. I haven’t used Instagram that much and never used Tiktok. There are plenty of other sites I have used and don’t use that have enjoyed various fad-like popularity. My use of these social media platforms by and large, historically, has been promotional, not personal.

I don’t mean my accounts are spam accounts, they aren’t, but if you look at my Twitter for example, these days it’s mostly posts from this blog. When my last book was published (yikes, almost 10 years ago now!) I wrote more about that project. I figured that information would be interesting and useful to those who were interested in reading my book, or might be interested in me as an author. Sometimes, rarely, I’ll like or retweet something interesting, creative, curious, funny or inspiring some other type of emotion. What emotion that is of mine isn’t always stated. Herein lies the danger of ascribing too much relevance to what somebody “likes” online.

I think what Vaughn was being asked is why he wasn’t using social media to promote projects he’s in. That’s a fair question in 2020. His answer is actually smart. If he gets in for just promotion, then he won’t be as “popular” most likely as other actors who work more personal info into their social media presence.

Of course, by revealing more personal information on his life, he also risks being misunderstood, misquoted and maligned. That’s what brevity on Twitter can do if you say something brief or, gasp, you like something that is unpopular.

Since when did liking a tweet or retweeting something become indisputable evidence of skullduggery on a person’s part? For some, it has. The obsessive social media users need to get outside more. Go offline. Stop obsessing over everything someone says, does, likes, dislikes, etc on social media.

Maybe Vince Vaughn is smarter than we realize. His choice not to engage at all on social media vs. the President of the United States tweeting everything he can think of looks sage-like. Sometimes diarrhea of the mouth becomes diarrhea of the soul.

Will Netflix Price Itself Out Of The Streaming Market?

If your reaction to Netflix raising their monthly subscription prices again is, “didn’t they do that not too long ago?” we’re with you. Raising prices for any streaming channel in the current times is a risky bet.

In fairness, based on the amount of new content Netflix is adding compared to all the other streaming services, they are worth the extra money.

The company’s decision to raise its standard plan by $1 per month, from $12.99 to $13.99, and its premium plan by $2 per month, from $15.99 to $17.99, is an essential part of Netflix’s long-term strategy. It’s why Netflix has a market valuation of $218 billion on just $2.8 billion of net income in the last 12 months.

Why Netflix will keep raising prices with confidence

Of course if you’re #1 already in your field, that will lessen the blow. And Netflix has a pretty good lead over just about everybody else, from a standpoint of a stable of ready new content and existing movies and TV shows to binge-watch.

They just keep adding more, more more, to the point where we questioned not long ago maybe they’re adding too much (see: Does Netflix Release Too Many Originals? Maybe Ask New CMO Bozoma Saint John)

The problem with adding too much is something new usually only gets one chance to be “new.” Then it can get lost in the archives. There are exceptions like TV shows that get to be new every time a new season, special or episode is released. Movie-wise, though, that one opportunity can be fleeting.

We like seeing around 3-5 new movies per week open in theaters. Right now due to the pandemic the number of new releases is one per week, sometimes two.

If I was in charge of organizing new movies for streaming channels, I’d focus on promoting and releasing 1-2 quality new movies (max) per week for the channel. If every streaming channel had one feature new movie per week, that would still be more than most moviegoers could see, but at least it wouldn’t be saturated.

What I mean by “quality” is very subjective. It’s not just a question of the budget, which we can go down a rabbit hole arguing larger budget equals higher quality, something I generally disagree with in concept. Yes, a larger budget can have bigger name actors, more special effects, but it doesn’t mean the story is going to be great. It could also mean a great story without any name actors or decent special effects won’t draw as large an audience. Special effects needed will vary upon the type of films being made of course.

For example, I’d label most of what Blumhouse is producing as “quality.” They shoot for lower budget and not all of their films are good, of course, but there is definitely an emphasis from that studio in getting the bang for their buck. Some other studios making movies on Netflix do not have as high filmmaking standards with similar or larger budgets.

As for a marketing and promotional strategy? Promote these new releases starting with an active campaign 90 days from the release date (release the first trailer, then a second trailer 45 days before) and increasing the amount of promotional activity incrementally until the week before and during which should be at the height of movie lover engagement. Would also buy ads in movie theaters, if allowed, even if it’s during that extended period before the previews begin. The Noovie segment, I think it’s called.

How many new movies would you like to see your favorite streaming channel release per month?

No, Disney Should Not Buy AMC — They Should Cherry Pick Theater Locations

Empty theater seats are breaking major theater chains financially

Motley Fool is posing the question: Should Disney Buy AMC?

It’s linked in the quote below for full context. I’ve seen estimates that AMC is losing double digit millions per month. At that negative cash burn rate — assuming these are accurate figures — no sane business should or would buy them. Even a company as large as Disney.

And here to think Motley Fool is an investment website? The second part of their name applies to anybody at Disney seriously considering this deal.

More after the jump.

Certainly Paramount or Universal, or even Netflix and Amazon, as was rumored earlier this year, could also benefit from buying the theater operator. But Disney’s size, scope, and branding potential would make acquiring AMC Entertainment a blockbuster event.

Should Disney Buy AMC?

I’m on record suggesting that streaming channels should buy some theaters. They just need to wait until AMC goes into fire sale mode or full on liquidation, swoop in and buy up prime locations in key cities and states. Boom, now they’re in the theater exhibiting business, but on their own terms. They buy AMC in the shape its in now, it’s like buying a house that’s already on fire. Who does that?

As for Amazon and Netflix? You bet they should get in on the same deal. I think this is where the future of cinema is headed with studio-branded theaters. Paramount+ Theater, Amazon Theater, Netflix Theater and so on. It’s a great path to giving moviegoers the best of both worlds. They can day and date release whatever they want without a theatrical window. Burn that obsolete window down — except for the biggest of big budget films. In those cases, exclusively show them in theaters for a short window (see: Collapsing Theatrical Windows Are Not The End Of Cinema Life As We Know It)

My opinion is admittedly unpopular with business insiders. Some might even say my recommendations are a little crazy. Like a fox! This is a crazy world in the pandemic and a new theater model will need to emerge. I can see all kinds of reasons that Motley Fool lays out and more for studios to buy up theaters. The main caveat is buy at the optimal price. Not now, not when the assets are seriously distressed. A little patience for your shareholders.

They’ve already pushed off most of the major movies to 2021, which should all but seal AMC’s fate, unless they can get some more cash help. I don’t wish AMC to fail, but don’t see any way that makes sense for Disney, Amazon, Netflix, etc buy into AMC right now.

What do you think?

After Quibi Finally Available To Cast To TV They Are Officially Shutting Down – A $2 Billion Dollar FAIL

Quibi, the streaming dumpster fire now has several cast to TV official options

We promised to say something when Quibi started supporting cast to TV in place of their “mobile-first” launch priority, so for those who have (very patiently!) waited, the time is now.

Now Quibi has launched on select smart TVs including Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, and Android TV. This just leaves out Roku and other smart TVs for the moment. This move is the latest in the short-form streaming service’s effort to reach more viewers amid dwindling performance.

Quibi is Now Available on Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV | Cord Cutters News

Unfortunately that’s the good news. The bad news for Quibi fans is they are “winding down the service” and selling whatever they can.

Whitman reiterated her prior assertions that the company had adequate capital to continue operating for several more months. Instead, she said, “we made the difficult decision to wind down the business, return cash to our shareholders, and say goodbye to our talented colleagues with grace.“ She added, “We continue to believe that there is an attractive market for premium, short-form content. Over the coming months we will be working hard to find buyers for these valuable assets who can leverage them to their full potential.”

Quibi To Shut Down, Ending $2B Streaming Experiment – Update

Quibi does have some content that is worthwhile, so somebody will be interested — when the price goes low enough. I would have picked Apple as the most likely suitor, but apparently others have passed as well (see: Apple, WarnerMedia and Facebook Reportedly Say No To Buying Quibi).

It might sound like we’re dancing on their grave, but the truth is they took a bunch of investor cash and squandered it with an idiotic launch strategy. You don’t launch a streaming movie and TV show app without, well, widespread TV support (see: Quibi is the Cats of streaming services). Duh.

Investors have to be pissed. Quibi has burned through something like a billion dollars for this launch and have only a couple million ~750,000 subscribers to show for it.

Six months since launch, three of those months were offered free as incentive to join and then many bailed when they had to actually pay for the service (see: Less than 10% of Quibi FREE 90 day trials converted to paid subscribers). Yeah, it’s been a horrifically bad launch for this streaming service.

We’re sorry most for the 200+ employees who are losing their jobs. A lot of people are losing jobs out there in 2020 and that is the true tragedy in this story.

And now let the official Quibi Fire Sale begin. Who will buy their content? I still think Apple should jump in, as they have the barest content cupboards, but something tells me they won’t want to nibble on any Quibi leftovers. Netflix? They might do like what they did with YouTube Red (Cobra Kai!!!) and cherry pick some licenses for second seasons. Amazon? Same thing. HBO Max? Peacock? Hulu? CBS, er Paramount+? Let’s hear what you think below.

More People Are Ditching Live TV, And Not Only Cable and Satellite

Drew Barrymore’s new talk show is on Live TV

How much live TV do you watch, really?

About 25% are dropping Live TV according to the study below. It’s not just Cable and Satellite either, subscriptions to the streaming Live TV options are on the downward slide.

These numbers come from The Diffusion Group, a syndicated research company. TDG analysts had previously forecasted US households with pay-TV subscriptions to fall in the 83.5 million to 87 million range by 2020, but the actual numbers are lower than that with pay-TV households falling to 81 million at the end of 2019. And it’s not just cable subscriptions that are falling short of TDG’s projections. Live streaming options like Fubo, Sling, YouTube TV, Philo, and others are also unexpectedly dwindling. It seems like consumers are less concerned with watching TV live as it happens and leaning more toward video-on-demand options.

An Estimated 25% of Households will Drop Pay-TV This Year | Cord Cutters News

We watch very little live TV.

Why we don’t watch more is a more lengthy question and it probably boils down to the amount of commercial breaks. There’s no reason to watch something you can’t fast forward. Yes, you can DVR live TV and we were into that for awhile with TiVo (loved the Tivo many years ago), but if the point is to watch something live, well, fast forward isn’t an option.

Kara watches almost zero and I watch the Seahawks play football on Sunday sometimes, streaming through Locast.org and sometimes other Sunday NFL games. I haven’t watched a professional baseball or basketball game in quite some time. I’ll watch some boxing matches live. Last year, I paid for the boxing match between Conor Mcgregor and Floyd Mayweather. I’m also likely to pay for and watch Mike Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. fight (see: Mike Tyson vs. Roy Jones Jr. exhibition fight needs more time — delayed until November 28).

Beyond watching live sports, I’m also interested in some news programs and election coverage every four years. Since we’re in the election cycle, I’ll be tuning in to live TV a little more over the next 30 days or so. After that, live TV will be reserved for special events here and there.

Maybe the Oscars in 2021, particularly because it’s going to be more than interesting pondering what the Academy will vote for. Something tells me they will delay that until 2022 and incorporate 2020 and 2021 films. There just haven’t been enough award-winning type films released so far this year. Given we’ve just entered the main awards season, but the selection is thin right now and doesn’t appear to be improving much.

Have pretty much 0% interest in watching movies on Live TV. There are a few TV shows that come along that only air live. Recently, watched Drew Barrymore’s new talk show (see: The Drew Barrymore Show promises no “mundane questions” that launched 9/14 – Will it be on CBS All Access?), and while it was pleasant, it wasn’t really my thing.

Am curious what type of live TV you currently watch? How much of your overall entertainment is Live TV vs. streaming vs. movie theaters? Our viewing breakdown is something like this:

85% streaming, 10% movie theaters, 5% live TV. What does it look like for you?

Some Casting Aversions to Gal Gadot as Cleopatra

Let me start this by saying that I didn’t think any actress could ever replace Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman. I mean, she was Wonder Woman in the comics and in live action in the 70s.

Just like I doubted — and still do — that Bill Bixby as Dr. David Banner and Lou Ferigno can be replaced as Hulk. And, all due respect to Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, they have not done a better job than Bixby. Comparable? Sorry, no.

But Gal Gadot changed my mind with her portrayal as Wonder Woman. She could and did successfully fill the giant shoes of Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman and I can’t wait to see WW1984, hopefully on the big screen.

So, when I read that the Wonder Woman combo of director Patty Jenkins and actress Gal Gadot are teaming up to remake Cleopatra, my initial reaction was, “yeah, that fits. I could see her in that role.”

Casting-wise, isn’t this the criteria? I’ve never done casting for a movie, so am looking at this totally without any professional standing. Pure amateur viewpoint. But from an experienced moviegoer, if you will. Someone who wants to see movies with proper casting, of course.

Perhaps a simplification, but you also want to cast an actress that will draw interest to a film, so the more unknown actors/actresses you fill the roles in a film, the less likely it will be to garner initial moviegoer interest. That doesn’t mean a film with unknowns can’t be awesome, it simply means initial interest in the film can be affected negatively by not having a star attached. I think even newbies to the movie business understand this as a basic casting premise.

Gadot is a pretty big name right now for actresses and if you want your film to do well, and want a bigger budget for the film, an all star director and actress for this picture helps. Patty Jenkins might not have a huge portfolio of movies, but the ones she’s done to date have been outstanding. She’s a very skilled director and I look forward to her movies.

Am not sure I’m looking that forward to the actual movie in concept, however — I’m very jaded on remakes, the casting and director have nothing to do with it — yet will hold judgment once more on the story and perhaps a trailer are released. It could be something I’m very, very interested in seeing. Regardless, if it’s a wide release in a movie theater and I’m not somehow prevented from seeing (health, theaters closed, etc), I’ll be watching that movie someday in the future. It’s the movies I’m most interested in, the stories. All I ask of casting is that if it is based on a real person, does the person resemble the person, or could prosthetics make that person look similarly. This helps the suspension of disbelief.

I mean, Gadot goes from a DC superhero character of an Amazonian goddess to Cleopatra? Seems like a fitting role for the actress.

And yet there are detractors to the choice. Some who want the role to go to a black actress.

Even The National in the UAE critiqued the choice of Gadot. In an article about five actresses of Arab descent who could play Cleopatra, the author notes that she was actually of “Macedonia-Greek heritage.” The author notes “it also raises the theoretical question: If Gadot wasn’t in the frame, does the Arab world have stars of its own with sufficient stature to be considered for such an ambitious project?” The article admits that since Cleopatra was of Greek background, “the casting call could have been spread far and wide.”

It seems Jews aren’t allowed to play Cleopatra despite Mideast roots – The Jerusalem Post

This discussion seems out of bounds to me. Can you imagine a job interview in any other job except Hollywood where a person’s race would have anything whatsoever with getting the job? It is making me think of job discrimination in the hiring process.

Lest we forget that acting is a job. It might be at a higher level (not extras, not small supporting roles) a very specialized job with extremely great pay — in high profile cases like Gadot’s anyway (she was paid $10 million for her role in WW1984), but it’s still a job.

Casting decisions are not like hiring someone for long term employment, it’s for a project, but actors aren’t viewed as independent contractors.

They have to show up on set at set times and they have to follow the instructions in the script (yeah, there are exceptions) and the instructions of a director. It stands to reason that normal employment hiring laws should at least somewhat follow casting. I don’t know for certain that’s the case, but when I read “a black actress should be hired” it makes me feel the same as “a white actress should be hired.” Neither statement sounds like a viable or even legal hiring criteria.

Do you like Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra? Why? Why not?

Should Bruce Lee’s Enter The Dragon ever be remade?

Enter The Dragon ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️½ 

It should be noted we are not fans of the vast majority of remakes, especially when it comes to classic movies. If the movie was great to begin with, if it’s a classic, then why to try to redo it … except for money. That’s not a good enough reason to try. There has to be something else gained besides money.

Not saying that no remakes should ever be made. There are cases, a very small percentage, where a remake is justified.

Also, doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a remake like Greta Gerwig’s take on Little Women in 2019, but there are some movies where the star is so utterly iconic that there is no suitable replacement for the role.

Bruce Lee in Enter The Dragon is one of those people.

Seriously, who can possibly ever replace the martial arts sensation? I don’t like to use the word “never” very often, but Lee was an extremely rare individual and there will never be another Bruce Lee.

There is also the time era that the movie was made, the early 70s, the fact that Bruce Lee fought to make his first film to show the Asian culture and fought against Hollywood racism and intolerance. Lee fought to change a ton of things in the film.

There is a really insightful podcast by Lee’s daughter, Shannon with a guest of Bruce Lee’s wife Linda Lee Cadwell where they discuss the making of Enter The Dragon (see: Linda Lee Caldwell: Making “Enter The Dragon” – October 2018). You’ll most certainly learn things, as I did, behind the scenes of this movie that you didn’t know about. It’s quite a story.

The article quoted below is from 2018, so no idea where things are at two years later. Most production of movies have been impacted by the current events of 2020 — and not for the positive. Heck, even Netflix is canceling production of projects that I had previously greenlit. Something tells me if there is an Enter The Dragon remake on somebody’s table, it’s gathering significant dust.

Some films are sacrosanct that ought to be left untouched and for many, Enter the Dragon falls into that category. Despite the purists’ argument that both Fist of Fury (1973) or The Big Boss (1971) probably have better character arcs or narrative, it’s unquestionably Enter the Dragon that brings greater joy. A large part of the audiences’ connection with Enter the Dragon is essentially emotional as this was the film that Lee never lived to see. Irrespective, a remake of the film might ultimately not be as controversial as ‘who would play Lee’s character’ in it.

Remake of Bruce Lee’s Enter the Dragon could get complete overhaul in post-Black Panther world – Entertainment News , Firstpost

This leads to the question asked in the headline: should Enter The Dragon ever be remade?

My answer is no.

Probably not in my lifetime, anyway, am I interested unless some young martial arts sensation comes along that could fill the role not only on talent but also the cultural history, importance and raw passion that Lee brought to the project. Bruce Lee’s name literally means “little dragon” and the title refers to him. It’s not only professional, it’s personal.

Jackie Chan is far too old — and he was already in the original film anyway. Jet Li comes to mind, but not sure he’s young enough either. I think the youth, although this sounds ageist, matters quite a bit. Could Shannon Lee be in it? She says no in the podcast, but that is kind of an unusual and somewhat intriguing concept. Too bad her brother Brandon didn’t survive because he could have been an interesting choice to star in his dad’s place. We’ll never know.

What do you think? Is Enter The Dragon one of those rare films that should probably never be remade?

Robert De Niro is “far and away the best kisser” says Sharon Stone

Casino ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️½

Talk about serious violation of the no kiss and tell covenant.

Stone worked with De Niro in the movie Martin Scorsese’s epic Casino as a whale (large gambler) hustler who earns De Niro’s eye and affection.

“It was the actor that I admired the most and had, my whole career, was like, ‘I just want to sit across the table from Robert De Niro and hold my own.’ And maybe because I just held him in such extraordinary, high regard, and it was the pinnacle of the kissing moment for me. There was so much attached to it,” Stone said. “But I was just so madly in love with him as an actress to start with, that, you know, he probably could have hit me in the head with a hammer and I would have been like, ‘Oh, yeah!’ You know, but it was pretty fabulous.”

Sharon Stone says there is one co-star who was ‘far and away’ the best kisser [Video]

Considering Stone’s history as a sex symbol and the amount of lips she’s kissed throughout her busy career in Hollywood, this is a curious admission.

Then again, it seems like she was more in awe of De Niro’s talent than other many other actors she’s worked with. Almost like student meets idolized teacher. In that sense, maybe this isn’t a fair comparison.

Saw another story this past week about Gene Kelly deep french kissing Debbie Reynolds to her horror in the famous movie Singing In The Rain.

“The camera closed in. Gene took me tightly in his arms…and shoved his tongue down my throat. ‘Eeew! What was that?,’ I screeched, breaking free of his grasp and spitting.

I ran around frantic, yelling for some Coca-Cola to cleanse my mouth. It was the early 1950s, and I was an innocent kid who had never been French-kissed. It felt like an assault. I was stunned that this 39-year-old man would do this to me.”

Debbie Reynolds Said Her ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ Costar Gene Kelly Was a ‘Severe Taskmaster’ With Dreadful On-Screen Kisses

Debbie Reynolds was 19 at the time. Wouldn’t she want mouthwash? Given this is a long time ago, but Coca-cola as mouthwash?

In some ways, this reminds me of the lecherous doctor portrayed in the soap opera inside the movie Tootsie who delighted in kissing all the new women. It was some sort of creepy initiation.

In TV game shows, Richard Dawson was once the king of kissing

When it comes to kissing, probably nobody does it better than Family Feud host kisser extraordinaire, the late Richard Dawson.

Richard Dawson, Family Feud host kisses 200+ women in 1980 season

Those kisses were all for “good luck” according to Dawson.

I’m having fun with this post, in case you haven’t noticed. So much darkness in the movie-related news lately that we need some levity for balance.

Play along with me. Is De Niro really the best kisser in the biz working today? How could we ever validate or invalidate this statement? Thanks Sharon 😉