For the last few years, the entertainment industry has gone through a massive upheaval, chasing after a brand new online based revenue stream.  This “streaming war” involved a huge amount of capital being poured into creating the infrastructure as well as the exclusive content that would draw audiences to these new platforms.  For the longest time, Netflix was alone as a streaming provider, and Hollywood was taking notice of just how much money they were making on monthly subscriptions.  Netflix continued to grow even more as they had gained the ability to form their own production wing, and were not as reliant on all the licenses that they were paying the movie studios for in order to play their movies and shows.  As Netflix continued expanding, the movie studios (in particular the Big 5 of Disney/Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal and Sony) began to consider that it would be in their best interest to take Netflix’s formula and repeat it under their own umbrella.  The expense of setting up all of these streaming platforms was not unsubstantial, but Hollywood believed that it was an investment worth making for the long term, as it seemed that streaming was the future of entertainment.  But, what ended up happening was that the pool of potential subscribers was split up among the separate streamers and many of them couldn’t reach the lofty growth projections that they hoped to reach.  Even with the assist of the pandemic forcing many people to turn to streaming as a sole outlet for entertainment over the course of that turbulent year, many of the streaming platforms struggled to find their footing.  Now, over half a decade in and only one of the studio run streaming platforms (Disney+) has managed to reach profitability, and just barely.  What Hollywood failed to see was that another factor in the streaming content market was also affecting the viewership patterns of the audience pool that the studios were hoping to capitalize on.  The user generated video streaming site YouTube has not only emerged as a primary player in the streaming wars, but possibly also it’s victor.  And the truth behind it’s dominance all comes down to economics; particularly when it comes to the audience itself.

YouTube of course existed long before there was any concept of streaming entertainment.  When it launched in 2005, home entertainment was still dominated by the likes of Blockbuster Video.  Netflix had only just started it’s DVD by mail service, and it would be another 6 years before they would make their first jump into streaming.  And yet, YouTube would instantly make an immediate splash in the online world.  The concept of “Viral Video” stemmed from the way user uploaded videos would suddenly gain attention not just in the online community, but in the whole pop culture zeitgeist itself.  Google, which clearly saw the potential of YouTube’s ability to generate buzz worthy content, purchased the platform for a then substantial $1.6 billion.  With Google’s backing, YouTube was able to expand it’s revenue through advertising monetization program, which enabled people who uploaded to the platform to make money off of the content they created.  Being a YouTube content creator could actually help people earn a living, and in some cases, people who were able to gain a massive subscriber base could become multi-millionaires.  But, to get to that place is difficult, and a large part of YouTube content creation is trying to figure out how to manage the algorithm and get noticed in a competitive market.  That’s why so many YouTubers are working a hustle in all their videos, asking people to like and subscribe to their channel.  The constant pressure to meet quotas for viewership in order to make money off of the platform has also led to a lot of creators burning out over time.  But, even with all that, YouTube still has managed to evolve into something that not only provides plenty of material for broadcast on a daily basis, but many of the creators on the platform has improved the quality of their content so much that it rivals much of what we see on linear television itself.  One big factor that helped to make YouTube even more of a worthy competitor to television itself was in 2010 when they removed the time limit for video uploads.  Before then, all content creators were bound by a ten minute ceiling, but afterwards the sky was the limit.

Now people regularly go to YouTube for any kind of entertainment they desire, and creators could take advantage of the creative freedom allowed on the platform.  YouTube became a place for underground outlets of journalism and experimental film-making.  Of course, terms and conditions set by YouTube and their parent company Google applied, but YouTube content creators found that this platform afforded them an outlet that could reach a totally different audience than they would’ve through traditional media.  The barriers to getting noticed were also smaller, as it didn’t matter if you had a foothold in the entertainment business beforehand; you could reach a massive audience and become famous if you managed to stick out in the algorithm.  Even Hollywood was taking note.  While viewership numbers for linear TV shows have been declining for years, those same shows can still retain relevancy if the clips on their YouTube channel still get a lot of views.  The Nielsen ratings, once the major barometer for judging the success of television show, now only tells half of the story.  The viewership patterns for NBC’s Saturday Night Live are a good example of this, as their TV ratings make it look like the show is falling off every single season due to dwindling broadcast numbers.  And yet it’s cultural relevance still has not waned, because it also enjoys a massive following on YouTube.  It has a 16 million large subscriber base, and their clipped videos almost continually do millions of views even in the course of a week after airing.  And in case of some of their more viral videos, like the “Lonely Island” music videos they’ve put out, they can reach far more viewers than they ever would’ve during their late night broadcasts.  YouTube has significantly changed the way that people consume television, with a lot people opting not to check out these shows live when they were originally scheduled, but instead on their own time, and repeatedly if they are viral enough.

But there is a much bigger factor in what has ultimately made YouTube the true king of streaming; that it’s free to use.  Where all the other streaming platforms derive revenue from monthly subscriptions, YouTube is primarily funded through ad revenue.  Sure, there is a YouTube Premium service available where people can subscribe to watch their content ad-free, but for the most part, people have largely accepted the ad service model as a way of getting content at no cost to them.  This is why YouTube is the second largest trafficked website on the planet, because there is no barrier to logging in and watching.  And as stated before, the quality of the content has risen so much over the years that YouTube channels are now competitive with what we see on television.  Sure, network television is still made free for the public, and also supported by add revenue, but the number of stations is limited to just a handful of networks; ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW, and Public Broadcasting.  Cable Television was created as a paid alternative to give viewers more choices in programming, but the fact that it’s pay walled has diminished it’s value over time, especially in competition with what streaming provides.  One thing that we have seen the big studios struggle with in the last couple of years is what to do with linear television, as the ad revenue they can generate from their holdings have shifted to other places like YouTube.  Advertisers have learned that more eyes are going to streaming instead of the networks and cable channels, so that’s where they are putting their money now.  Disney, whose holdings include ABC and ESPN, has had to reshuffle their corporate structure in order to meet the new reality in broadcasting; so much so that many have speculated that Disney may be looking to offload their linear television channels in the future in order to focus on streaming instead.  The tolerance for ad breaks has been one of the biggest surprises to come from the streaming wars, largely due to the fact that YouTube’s ad support model is getting the most traction in the online space.  That’s probably why so many of the streaming platforms have created their own ad-supported tier as a more budget minded alternative; including Netflix.

But one thing that YouTube has decided is not in their wheelhouse is the idea of creating their own original content to compete with the likes of Netflix.  Not that they didn’t try.  Before YouTube Premium became an ad-free only option, YouTube had another paid service called YouTube Red.  YouTube Red was going to be ad-free like Premium ultimately ended up being, but it was also going to offer original shows and films made by YouTube’s own in house production company.  YouTube Originals would create a string of original shows and movies that not only would compete with the likes of Netflix, but would also be useful in spotlighting the brand of YouTube itself.  One thing that YouTube Originals did was tap into their own pool of content creators to develop shows and films that would be extensions of their own channel content, only with a more substantial budget.  Creators like gamer PewDiePie and others were among the people tapped to start up this new phase of YouTube’s programming, with a large emphasis on reality based content.  But, there were scripted programs made too, including a couple of buzz-worthy programs.  It may surprise many to know that a hit show like Cobra Kai, a spinoff series based on the Karate Kid films, started it’s life as a YouTube Original.  YouTube produced the first two seasons of the series, and for those seasons it became the driving force for YouTube Red’s subscriber growth.  But it clearly wasn’t enough.  In 2018, YouTube announced that they were phasing out YouTube Red in favor of growing their Premium service, and this included the shuttering of YouTube Originals.  The majority of the original shows that premiered on YouTube Red were quietly cancelled, but a couple were allowed to be shopped out to other interested parties.  In the case of Cobra Kai, it was picked up by Netflix, which kept the show running for an additional four seasons, all of which were wildly successful for the streamer.  In the end, YouTube saw their value as a platform for content creation rather than a production outfit themselves.

This has helped YouTube to stay ahead of so many other streamers in the race for attention from potential viewers.  So many of the studio run streamers cater to such a specific kind of audience, while YouTube is literally a place where you can find anything to watch.  Sure, YouTube can’t run movies and television shows from the major studios (and they have strict rules about uploading pirated movies onto their platform as well), but they are the place where everything else is available to see: how-to tutorials, video podcasts, highlight reels, and tons of videos about cute pets.  What YouTube has done in it’s 20 year existence is change the viewing habits of the average consumer.  One phenomenon that has come from consuming programming on YouTube is the “rabbit hole” binge watching habit that so many people have developed.  It comes from people choosing one video to watch on YouTube, and then clicking on one of the algorithmic selected suggestions that are attached to that video, and then repeating the same function after watching that.  Some people can spend hours just watching the random stream of videos that are suggested to them through YouTube’s algorithm, and that’s the thing that Hollywood is trying to compete against.  Of course all the streamers operate on some kind of algorithmic programming that caters to the subscriber’s viewing habits, but their suggestions are often confined to the niche selection that they have curated from their own libraries.  Meanwhile, YouTube literally contains billions of random types of videos on their platform, with countless more added each day, so those who go down the YouTube rabbit hole are far more likely to encounter something new they haven’t seen before when they are given suggestions from the platform’s algorithm.  This is why so many people are giving their time over to YouTube; the variety of options and the simple interface of YouTube’s platform that makes it easy for viewers to continue watching.

The streaming wars as a result has become less of a race to the top and more of a contest for third place.  Netflix had a ten year head start on all the other wannabe competitors, but even Netflix has to compete for time with what YouTube has to offer.  The bad news for Hollywood is that there doesn’t seem to be any alternative path to being able to do what YouTube is able to do.  It really is an entity without peers.  Disney or Universal is not going to suddenly launch a competitor to YouTube, where users can upload videos onto a site they run.  With YouTube, it’s better to find ways to work with it than compete against it, and all the major studios have their own channels on the platform where they launch movie trailers, as well as a couple YouTube exclusives of their own.  But just like everyone else, they are subjected to the ebb and flow of how YouTube’s algorithm works, so it’s not exactly the place where they can launch one of their multi-million dollar projects.  The problem Hollywood faces now is trying to figure out how to maximize their audience reach in a market that clearly has been shaken up by streaming.  With YouTube pulling in millions of views daily, and Netflix showing little signs of weakness, the studios are searching for new ways to drive engagement on their own platforms.  For the longest time, exclusive content was the thing to bring in subscribers, but that required an insane amount of capital to produce, especially in the early days of the streaming wars when these new platforms had so little to offer.  What we’ve seen happen is a lot of these traditionally powerful media giants face some hard financial pitfalls due to their ramp up of production to feed these streaming monsters.  But, because of the large amount of offerings out there (with every studio jumping in) the potential audience was splintered and the amount or revenue coming in was not countering the investment it took to put it all together.  That’s why so many mergers and acquisitions are happening, as the studios are trying to shore up their financial burdens due to the amount of money they burned through in such a short amount of time.  Meanwhile, YouTube and Netflix have continued to maintain their leads in the streaming race, with their already firmly established hold on their audiences allowing them to weather the stormy seas of the streaming wars.

YouTube may not be a powerful player in terms of production, it still is the place where most people go to for quick, easy to digest entertainment.  Hollywood is learning more and more that their goal should be to offer audiences entertainment that is special enough to get people to click of their computers and phones for an hour or two.  For a long time during the streaming wars, the studios were under the Field of Dreams belief that “if you build it, they will come,” but as we’ve seen building isn’t enough.  You need to make people want to actively go out and see something, whether it be in a theater or on a separate platform.  One of the biggest problems facing streaming right now is the rising cost of everything.  The low price points at launch were a big help in getting people to subscribe to these new streaming surfaces, but all the incremental price increases since then have caused a lot of budget conscious people to tune out.  Moving to streaming was a big part of the whole “cutting the cord” movement that drew people away from subscribing to cable, but now the costs have risen to the point where streaming is now on par with cable TV and possibly even more depending on how many services people have signed up for.  While streaming can be a good value overall depending on how robust their libraries are, people are becoming more picky about which ones they want.  And that audience churn has become the biggest problem facing the market today, especially for the studios that have seen their growth stagnate even after spending billions creating exclusive programming for it.  All the while, YouTube is free to use, easy to navigate, and offers a lucrative creator incentive structure that enables a higher quality of entertainment than just simple home videos.  At the same time, there is truth to there being too much of a good thing, and YouTube’s monopoly on people’s attention is not exactly healthy in the long term for the future of entertainment.  Hopefully Hollywood discovers a way to deal with the competition that they face with YouTube and manage to build something special that either competes strongly against the pull of YouTube, or manages to survive alongside it.  In the face of television and home video, Hollywood has always managed to find ways to bring audiences back to the movies and prestige entertainment.  In the meantime, enjoy the best that YouTube has to offer, but in good moderation.  There are plenty of good content creators on YouTube that are deserving of your attention.  But just remember to come out of that YouTube rabbit hole before it consumes too much of your day and support the arts in far more direct and personal ways beyond it.

It’s astounding, time is fleeting.  Madness takes its toll.  50 years ago, a little movie based on a small experimental play performed on the stage in London made it’s way to the big screen for the first time.  It’s initial release was met with plenty of indifference from audiences and critics at the time, but what came next took everyone by surprise, including the people who made the movie.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) became a cult hit with audiences who were made up of what society would consider outsiders.  People of the LGBTQ community, punk rockers, and just people who defy societal conformity of any kind were drawn to the unashamed and in your face campiness of the film, and it’s enduring message about living open and free.  But, Rocky Horror is more than just any cult film; it is “The Cult Film.”  The very idea of “cult movies” exists because of Rocky Horror, mainly because of how the movie set the standard for creating a subculture all on it’s own.  The audiences who go to see the movie are not just there to be viewers; they are active participants.  Screenings of Rocky Horror have turned into ritualistic events, where people dress up as their favorite characters, bring their own props to imitate what they see on the screen, as well as make call backs to the movie itself with what has evolved into a whole secondary script just for the audience.  Since it’s re-release in 1977, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has remained in continuous exhibition all over the world.  No matter what day it is, there is likely some theater out there playing The Rocky Horror Picture Show; most likely around the midnight hour.  Now, even after 50 years, Rocky Horror not only has maintained it’s subversive edge but it seems even more essential for our world today than ever before.  But why this movie?  What was it that made this movie the film that would launch a subculture of it’s own that makes this more than just a movie?  The strange journey that The Rocky Horror Picture Show has taken over this half century is certainly a peculiar story on it’s own.  So, let’s do the time warp again and see how this movie became the cult hit that it is today.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show began as an idea from a struggling actor in London named Richard O’Brien.  As a fan of science fiction and B-Movie horror, he drafted a concept where he combined all the elements he loved into a rock and roll musical.  While O’Brien was briefly appearing in a London staging of Jesus Christ Superstar, he shared his concept script with the show’s director Jim Sharman.  Sharman liked O’Brien’s play so much that he decided he would make it his next project.  They managed to secure space at an experimental theater stage above the Royal Court Theater.  The mish-mash of B-movie camp and rock and roll music proved to be a hit with the London counter culture scene and it quickly outgrew the tiny 60 seat venue.  It later expanded to larger venues and eventually it crossed over the pond to be staged in America.  While the show drew in audiences everywhere it went, it still remained a bit of an underground production.  But, it did reach the attention of one very key fan of the show.  The theatrical run of the show in Los Angeles played at the Roxy Theater in West Hollywood, which was owned by a very successful music producer named Lou Adler.  Adler was the man who produced the hit albums of the Mamas & the Papas and Carole King, and now he was looking towards producing for the big screen as well.  It was fortunate timing that Rocky Horror would fall into his lap at the Roxy.  Thanks to Adler’s connections, he was able to get financial backing for a big screen adaptation of the show from a major film studio; 20th Century Fox.  Though the production was going to be financed by a major American film studio, Adler still believed that it was important to still keep the English roots of the show intact, so Jim Sharman was hired to direct the film while Richard O’Brien would adapt the play into a film script.  The production would also operate out of England, with most of the production happening at the Elstree and Bray Studios.  For the stately manor house that serves as the main location for most of the movie, the gothic style Oakley Court was chosen, mainly due to it being a favorite shooting location for the fame B-movie horror studio Hammer Films.

Most of the actors from the original stage version were carried over, except for a couple of noteworthy replacements.  Perhaps to please the American studio backers, the parts of Brad and Janet were re-cast with American actors, and rock singer Meat Loaf was also added to the cast in a small role.  In the end, the casting change worked to the movie’s advantage, because Brad and Janet were meant to be send-ups of bland, clean cut American archetypes seen in the B-Movies of the 1950’s that the show was parodying.  The production managed to find the right duo for the parts, casting stage actor Barry Bostwick as Brad and Susan Sarandon (in her first film role) as Janet.  Their sweet natured innocent performances perfectly fit the tone that the movie need to set with the two, especially in how they clash with all the other characters we meet.  Though initially reluctant to appear in the film himself, Richard O’Brien eventually gave in and brought to life the hunchbacked caretaker of the spooky manor, Riff-Raff.  Two other key roles, Magenta and Columbia, were also filled with veterans of the original stage musical.  Veteran character actor, Charles Gray, was also cast to play the omniscient narrator role of the Criminologist, lending the movie it’s only air of stateliness.  But, when we think of Rock Horror, there is one person above all who comes to mind.  The role of the diabolical Dr. Frank-N-Furter, the mad, transvestite alien scientist, will be forever linked with the one and only Tim Curry.  Curry originated the role on the stage, and despite some rumors of rock singers like Mick Jagger being eyed for the role, there was no doubt that Curry would also play the role on film as well.  From the moment that Curry first makes his descent down that iron elevator and onward, he takes command of the film.  He is nothing but swagger and indomitable confidence.  And given that he presents himself as this pansexual dynamo dressed in the most flamboyant of outfits, he was really unlike anything we had ever seen in a movie before, or really ever since.  Curry’s unique voice also helps to make the character stand out, with his smooth drool combined with a refined way of speaking which Curry purposely took inspiration from Queen Elizabeth herself in creating.

What set The Rocky Horror Picture Show apart at the time was not because of the shocking, sexualized nature of the movie.  John Waters had been making a name for himself for years that continually pushed the envelope with regards to “bad taste” in his movies (which Rocky still feels pretty tame compared to).  No, what made Rocky Horror stand out was that this was a mainstream production made by a Hollywood studio.  20th Century Fox was really taking a chance by putting their logo on this film, and initially they may have regretted doing so.  Rocky Horror was a big financial flop when it first released.  Critics didn’t know what to make of it, and audiences stayed away, forcing many theaters to pull it quickly from release due to poor attendance.  After a couple years, Fox began tossing the movie aside, allowing it to be licensed for screenings at a steep bargain.  This led to it being put on the roster for midnight screenings across the country, as various art house theaters were looking for movies that fit the kind of cheap, B-movie thrills that midnight audiences desired to watch.  Over time, audiences at these midnight showings began to realize how much a hidden gem Rocky Horror was.  The showings began to fill up more and more and pretty soon, Rocky Horror became a small cult hit.  But it would evolve to be something even more than that.  It’s hard to say when the audience interaction part of the Rocky Horror experience began, as it seems to organically grow out of so many individual showings across the world with their own contributions.  Where it seemed to be first observed was at the Waverly Theater in New York around a year into the movie’s midnight screenings run, when people at one of the screenings overheard someone else in the theater react to Susan Sarandon placing a newspaper over her head in a rainstorm by yelling, “Buy an Umbrella, you cheap Bitch.”  Overtime, more and more “call outs” as they call them were being heard at the screenings, and over time, it became part of the reason to go see the movie.

Halloween midnight screenings offered their own contribution as people started coming to the theater dressed as their favorite characters from the movie.  Dr. Frank-N-Furter was an especially favorite costume for a lot of people, particularly those who really wanted to get in on the gender-bending thrill that the character represented.  All the while, the original Rocky Horror Show continued to be performed on the stage.  While the movie was still playing in theaters, the same cast could be seen on the Broadway stage, though sadly it too had a short life span and lasted only 45 performances.  But, somehow, the movie itself would give the live show an unexpected new life of it’s own.  As the midnight screenings began to attract more an more people who dressed up, a few of those audience members went even further and began to imitate what they were seeing on the screen itself, putting on their own performance.  This evolved from just a spontaneous interaction between people in the audience and the movie itself into a stage presentation in it’s own right.  This spawned what we know now as the “Shadow Cast” phenomenon, where a group of actors will literally reenact the entire movie in front of the screen while the movie is playing.  Many people who don’t know what they are getting into when they first see one of these Shadow Cast shows may find the gimmick distracting, but for long time fans of the movie, it’s become another fun addition to the overall experience.  It’s without a doubt one of the most unique things you’ll see in any movie theater, as you’ll feel like you’re getting both a play and a movie for the price of one ticket.  There are several theater troupes across the country whose main focus is just to perform as Shadow Casts at midnight showings of Rock Horror, which apparently is a high demand gig as there are so many of those happening all over the place.  This would eventually reflect back well on the original stage musical as well.  The Rocky Horror Show would have a much longer revival on Broadway in the year 2000, which itself would embrace the raucous interactive nature of the film with audience call backs being encouraged throughout the show.

Over the years, Rocky Horror  has gone on to have a major influence on both the movies and cinema culture at large since then.  In terms of style, it helped to mainstream the glam rock aesthetic, which artists like David Bowie would continue to lean into more over the coming decade.  And of course it popularized the very idea of cult movies in the pop culture lexicon.  Many films have tried to stir up the same kind of cult status that Rocky Horror enjoys, but few have ever come close.  The only movie that seems to have come any where near what Rocky Horror has become as an audience involved experience is Tommy Wiseau’s so bad it’s good cult hit The Room (2003).  Just like with Rocky Horror, The Room has become a classic due to it’s embrace of audience call backs shouted during screenings.  But, the call back participation itself has spawned it’s own long lasting legacy in the form of a little gimmick called riffing.  In the late 80’s, the show Mystery Science Theater 3000 launched, and it’s appeal was due to the hilarious comedy that would arise from it’s characters watching very bad movies and cracking jokes the whole time while commenting on what they are seeing.  Joel Hodgson, the co-creator of Mystery Science Theater has cited Rocky Horror and it’s audience “call backs” as one of the inspirations for the comedy on the show.  Beyond just Mystery Science Theater, riffing on media has become something of a comedy staple over time, and it stands to reason that we have the rowdy audience members of The Rocky Horror Picture Show to thank for taking out all of the politeness of media consumption.  Rocky Horror’s influence even extends into the Halloween season that it very much feels at home in.  Most Halloween parties are bound to have “Time Warp” on their playlists.  It’s also got a very strong influence on several horror films over the years, including Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses (2003), which the death metal performer turn filmmaker directly cited as a major influence.

But, perhaps the most profound influence that this film has had is the effect that it had on the LGBTQ community.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an unapologetic queer movie and that’s probably what has helped it to retain it’s relevance over so many years.  It’s a movie all about sexual liberation and more importantly about finding yourself in a community that embraces you for who you are.  Frank-N-Furter even has a song in the film called “Don’t Dream It, Be It,” which itself has become something of an anthem in the queer community.  The movie became a lifeline for many queer people particularly during the ultra-conservative Reagan/Thatcher administrations in America and Britain.  As society began to ostracize people for their differences in sexual orientation, especially during the scourge that was the AIDS epidemic, the midnight screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show became something of a safe haven for outcasts.  There, being queer was not just normal but also celebrated, and it was a great place to meet other people in the queer community who also weren’t afraid to let their flame burn brightly.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show may not have been the thing that helped to make camp entertainment such a key part of queer culture, but it definitely helped to give it some mainstream credibility.  And given the state of the world we are in now, where the transgender community in particular has been under attack, Rocky Horror’s message of inclusiveness and liberation feels like it’s need now more than ever.  Richard O’Brien, who himself identifies as non-binary, always intended for Rocky Horror to have this deeper meaning about letting go and being yourself regardless of what everyone else thinks.  The transgender community especially holds Rocky Horror and Dr. Frank-N-Furter in particular in high regard.  It’s almost a certainty to see any drag performance include a performance of the song “Sweet Transvestite” at some point; even from cisgender straight performers who just want to indulge a little bit in some gender-bending.  The fact that Rocky Horror has been safe harbor for a queer community that has gone through some very hard times over the years has been probably the most fulfilling legacy this movie has enjoyed in it’s 50 years.

It’s strange to think about where Rocky Horror stands now.  In 2019, 20th Century Fox was merged into the Walt Disney Company, meaning that the family audience centered “House of Mouse” is now the current steward of this film.  Though there were some worries about how this movie was going to be treated by it’s new owners, Disney has thankfully treated Rocky Horror respectfully enough.  It refrained from putting the film into the Disney Vault like it has with so many other Fox properties and has kept the record-breaking streak of the movie’s 50 year limited theatrical run still going.  For it’s 50th anniversary, Disney has even given the movie a 4K restoration, helping to preserve the movie for the next 50 years and beyond.  And now that it’s reached that milestone, people are reflecting on just how meaningful and important the film has been.  It’s been singled out for preservation by the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress for “cultural and historical significance.”  It’s impact on the LGBTQ community alone is something that certainly is worth celebrating.  In that regard, it was way ahead of it’s time, and we are only now starting to recognize how influential it has been.  For the cast and crew of the movie the film is something that everyone involved looks back on fondly.  Tim Curry went on to have a prosperous career both on screen and as a voice actor, and even continued to be a beloved presence on stage, including in musicals like Spamalot.  Unfortunately he suffered a major stroke in 2012 that left him partially paralyzed, which hindered his abilities as a performer, though he still maintains work as a voice actor.  Richard O’Brien attempted to make a sequel to Rocky Horror in 1981 with the movie Shock Treatment, and while it too has a small cult following, it still pales compared to the legacy of the former.  Still, Rocky Horror has helped to keep him in the spotlight over the last 50 years and given him consistent work as an actor in both film and on the stage.  As an experience, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is really a one of a kind.  From personal experience, I actually came to this pretty late, only getting my first true Rocky Horror midnight experience this very year at the TCM Film Festival of all places.  And it was the first time where I truly got what all the hype was about.  It’s more than any movie; it’s an experience.  For anyone interested, find yourself a midnight showing with a shadow cast performance because you really haven’t seen the movie until you’ve watched it in that way.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show is everything a movie can be rolled into a one-of-a-kind experience, so take the plunge and let the movie fill you with ANTICI…PATION.

Las Vegas has done a lot to define itself as the Entertainment Capital of the World.  Started of as a hub for legalized gambling in a dry arid region with nothing else around, the city revolutionized casino operations and on top of that became a resort destination onto itself.  Beyond the slot machines and blackjack tables, Vegas catered to it’s clientele by attracting big name entertainers to come to their city and perform.  Frank Sinatra and his “Rat Pack” associates Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. became almost synonymous with the city after their long time residency.  Later on, Elvis Presley would come to Sin City and many others would follow in the decades to come, including Celine Dion and Adele.  It was also the place where illusionists like Penn & Teller and Siegfried and Roy would become international celebrities.  Vegas was definitely the place to go for live entertainment on the grandest scale.  And there were so many options too, with every Casino Resort on the Strip being home to at least one marquee theater.  But, as big as the live acts were on the strip, there was one form of entertainment that had failed to catch on in Las Vegas; the Movies.  Sure, like any city Las Vegas has it’s fair share of multiplexes scattered around, but there wasn’t a movie theater anywhere in town that fit with the larger than life character of the City.  The closest thing that Vegas could do to create a bigger than average destination for the movies in their town was an IMAX theater housed in the cavernous atrium of the Luxor Hotel; which has since closed and been replaced with a museum.  It just seemed like Vegas was going to just be a beacon for live entertainment and not be a destination for the grandest of movie experiences.  That was until 2023 when the Madison Square Garden Company (MSG) opened up a theater venue unlike anything the world had ever seen near the Las Vegas Strip.  Called “The Sphere,” this new venue was not just going to turn the live entertainment world on it’s head, but also the movie going experience as well.

The MSG Sphere is a true engineering marvel.  The $2.3 billion spherical structure is 366 ft. high and 516 ft. wide and includes enough interior seating for 20,000 spectators.  But, what sets the venue apart from everything else is it’s colossal 160,000 square foot LED screen.  The screen projects at 16K resolution, making it not just the largest LED screen in the world, but also the sharpest as well.  And if the screen inside wasn’t impressive enough, the exosphere of the building is also it’s own LED screen, lighting up the Vegas skyline with a free show for all to see.  The venue is primarily designed for live shows, with the floor in front of the screen set apart from the grandstand in order to provide room for the stage.  But concerts in the Sphere are unlike anything ever seen before.  The MSG company spends months preparing a video package for the bands that perform at the venue to play on the massive screen.  The screen allows for the sensation of being transported away as a part of the show.  For the Sphere’s opening, the band U2 was given a residency and their best hits show had the giant screen display background settings as incredible as a desert landscape, a kaleidoscope of Vegas style icons, the datascape of a computer, and an angelic like dome that envelopes the entire audience.  The concert could pretty much feel like it could be set anywhere, with only what we can imagine being the limit.  After U2, other famous rock bands have come to the Sphere to perform, such as The Eagles and the Backstreet Boys.  And each of their shows includes those custom made video packages that deliver an experience like no other.  But, a year after blowing the concert world away with the capabilities of the Sphere’s screen feature, the MSG company looked towards doing something even more state of the art.  There was always a plan to incorporate film experiences as a part of the Sphere’s rotation of acts.  While U2 had it’s concert program going, the Sphere also had an hour long nature documentary from director Darren Aronofsky called Postcards from Earth (2023).  But, MSG was looking beyond, seeking a movie going experience that already had a built in audience that at the same time would also take advantage of the capabilities of the venue.

Fast forward to this year where the Sphere debuted a new presentation of a beloved cinematic classic, The Wizard of Oz (1939).  One of the most watched movies of all time, Oz is a universally known film that has managed to remain a draw for audiences for over 80 years.  But, presenting it as is on a screen the size of the one in the Sphere is not so easy.  For one thing, as good as the restorations have been over the years to keep Oz looking pristine and sharp, the resolution of the movie maxes out at 4K resolution.  It’s limited by the fidelity of the film stock that was used at the time.  It also was made long before widescreen had gone mainstream, utilizing the standard Academy Ratio of 1.37:1. Blown up to play on a screen the size of the one inside the Sphere would also amplify all the imperfections built in to the original film stock.  The film’s grain, which helps to give it a healthy texture when played on a standard sized screen, would look very blocky on the Sphere’s screen.  So, here is where we get to the controversial side of the Sphere’s presentation.  In order to get the movie to match the 16K resolution of the screen, the movie was upscaled using AI programs to create extra detail in the image.  This is not unusual, as AI has been a tool used before in film restoration, though always with great care to retain the fidelity of the original image.  But, The Sphere team went a step further.  They used AI to not only upscale the movie, but to also add more image beyond the original dimensions of the film.  This was so they could conform the film’s image to the dimensions of the screen, which is much wider and taller than even the average IMAX screen, and also built with a curve to envelope the audience.  So, now audiences are not only watching The Wizard of Oz in a way they haven’t seen before, but in many ways also watching a version of the movie that’s never existed before.

It raises a lot of concerns about how AI should be used in the movie making process.  What is at issue with many people is that there is no one left alive from the making of the 85 year old movie, so none of them have consented to the alteration of their work with this version of the film.  Some of the demos of the making of this Sphere presentation show how AI has been used to add on to the original movie, and some of it is indeed borderline questionable.  One particular demonstration showed how they altered a scene where Dorothy is speaking with her Auntie Em and Uncle Henry inside the farm house.  In the original film, we see the actor who played Uncle Henry walk off screen for a few seconds and return.  We don’t see what he was doing off screen in that time.  In the Sphere experience, the scene from the film, which included a lot of panning around to capture the action has instead been turned into a fixed shot.  In order to keep it fixed, as lot of the shots that panned across the room were stitched together to keep the image fixed in one place using AI.  And this includes the moment when Uncle Henry is out of frame for a moment.  We don’t know what he was doing offscreen, but the AI constructed movement that never existed before of the actor pacing around the room to fill those missing moments.  This is beyond just restoring an old film; it’s putting things in that never existed before at all. You can see why so many actors are concerned about how AI will use their images in the future, because here we have a clear example of new imagery being created using a long deceased actors image out of nothing.  Now, the MSG company’s explanation is that this version of the movie is not in any way intended to replace the original.  More than anything else, they are using The Wizard of Oz as more of a test subject for presenting older films on their record breaking screen, and using it as more of an experience than a true film presentation.

The question is; will what they are doing at the Sphere be the start of a new trend in filmmaking?  Are we looking at the future of cinema with the Sphere’s Wizard of Oz experience?  The one thing we do know for sure is that this presentation in particular has been an enormous success.  With ticket prices that range in the same ballpark of concert tickets (usually higher that $100 per seat on the low end), the presentation is selling out shows and with only one screen, the movie has amassed over $50 million in grosses so far.  People are turning out to see this one of a kind experience and it’s making Hollywood take notice.  It’s been reported that MSG is already starting talks with Disney and Warner Brothers over the possible use of their own catalog titles for this Sphere experience.  It probably won’t be long before we see movies from the Star Wars and Harry Potter franchises getting the Sphere treatment.  At least with those films you still have the original filmmakers still around to approve and maybe even oversee the alterations to these films to conform them to the Sphere’s screen dimensions.  But, a large question arises about if this is where Hollywood sees film going in the years ahead.  Are we going to see more venues like the Sphere popping up across the country, and are audiences willing to pay extra for ticket prices to see films in this way?  Part of the reason why the Sphere in Vegas is doing as well as it is is because of the novelty of it all.  No other venue in the world has created an audio/visual experience on this scale before.  And that largely is why people are paying up to experience The Wizard of Oz in this format, even if it’s a movie that most people have likely seen many times before.  If you build one of these kinds of venues in every city, it will rob the original of some of that novelty, which is something that the MSG company probably is hesitant to do.  As the saying goes, what happens in Vegas is best left in Vegas.

But, we are at a time when movie attendance is down from where it was pre-pandemic.  This is largely due to economic uncertainty coupled with the ever rising cost of a movie ticket and also the dwindling number of movies making it to the big screen these days.  It’s not the first time that cinema has fallen into the doldrums.  Just as streaming is currently threatening the theatrical business there was a time when movie theaters also had to contend with the rise of television.  Theaters needed something more to draw in audiences beyond just a good movie.  They needed to create something that you just couldn’t do with television at home.  Thus came an era in the 50’s and 60’s when cinema tried to liven their movies up with gimmicks that enhanced the film experience.  One of the most famous filmmakers who revolutionized the use of gimmicks in movie presentations was a man named William Castle.  Castle worked primarily with B-movie thrillers and horror, but what he’s most famous for was the wacky gimmicks he would employ in the promotions of his films.  He famously gave out life insurance certificates to audience members in the case any of them would die of fright at one of his films.  He also implanted buzzers inside theater seats to jolt audiences members during the presentation of his horror film, The Tingler (1959).  Despite the mad science of all of Castle’s ideas, these gimmicks were still effective, as it helped to make the movie going experience more of a multi-sensory experience.  You can see the influence of Castle’s gimmicks today in the 4DX film presentations at select theaters across the country.  There were other like-minded gimmicks that also came out of that era as well, like the short-lived Smell-O-Rama.  But there were other gimmicks that managed to last much longer, like 3D, which improved over the years as the technology got better.  You could even say that Widescreen was a gimmick at first before it caught on and became a mainstream tool in filmmaking.  What movie gimmicks do more than anything is allow for innovation and experimentation with the artform of cinema, even if they sometime can come off as crude and distracting.  But, for an artform over a century old as cinema is, it’s also got to go through periods of renewal in order to survive changing times.  And using gimmicks is sometimes the best way to draw people back in after they’ve grown tired of the artform after a while.

There’s no doubt that what the Sphere is doing is another in the tradition of using gimmicks to draw people in to watch a movie.  And there are nods to the in theater gimmicks that William Castle was famous for.  In The Wizard of Oz presentation, the famous tornado scene is accompanied with in theater effects a well.  When the tornado glides across the screen, massive fans built into the auditorium will recreate the forceful winds of the twister, making it feel like a real tornado is blowing through the venue itself.  Not only that, but artificial leaves and smoke will also be blowing through the auditorium, further reinforcing the illusion.  It’s clear that MSG doesn’t merely just want to play the movie on their screen; they also want to make it come alive as well.  It could be something that supplants the theatrical experience as we know it now, or it could become something else entirely separate.  It’s an experience that uses the movie we already know and making it into an experience that we’ve never seen done before.  But, is it something that we should be doing with older movies.  If anything, what the Sphere has created is a new type of film experience that would be better suited for newer films.  The documentary made by Darren Aronofsky doesn’t have the controversy surrounding it as the Oz experience does, mainly because it was made from scratch for the venue and not enhanced with AI.  There are many filmmakers out there who might look at the Sphere and see a creative challenge that could lead them towards creating a whole new era of innovation in filmmaking.  There are also a lot of rising talent who may find the dimensions of the Sphere’s screen perfect for their revolutionary visions that they would like to immerse their audiences in.  Because of how new the Sphere is we don’t quite know how much of a lasting impact it will have on the future of cinema as a whole.  But what we know from history is that filmmaking thrives when the tools break new ground and change the way we look at the movies in general.

Speaking for myself, I have yet to actually see what the Sphere experience looks like with my own eyes.  I can only judge from a distance, and while the scale of the venue is awe-inspiring in of itself, the way they are using it could be disruptive for the art of filmmaking in general, and not all in a good way.  Taking a classic film like The Wizard of Oz, and “enhancing” it with AI as a lot of ethical red flags behind it.  If you are presenting it with a good chunk of the image added on artificially, it robs the original film of its artistic merit.  The brilliance of Oz is the unbelievable craft behind it, and a lot of the artistic intent was determined by the limitations of the film stock that was available to them.  You change things like adding on to backgrounds, removing edits, and crafting additional performances from offscreen actors that never existed before through AI technology, you have to wonder if it’s still the movie you grew up loving anymore.  The best thing for this presentation to do is to stay one of a kind, and be treated as nothing more than a gimmick.  The last thing that should happen is for Hollywood to take the wrong message and believe that the best way to re-release their films is to use AI to add on more movie.  It’s like those awful AI generated expansions of famous artworks that people began circulating on social media about a year ago.  Sure, AI is capable of filling in what could exist beyond the frames of these famous works of art, but without the original artists input to say so the artwork loses impact because their original limited frame of view was as the artists intended.  Filling in what’s not there misses the point of the composition. The same seems true for this Wizard of Oz experience.  It’s impressive looking, but it’s also not Oz.  Even still, there is potential for the Sphere to have a positive influence on filmmaking.  Imagine if other big scale filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve look at the Sphere’s massive screen and see it as a challenge that fits with their visions.  For now, it stands as a true achievement for the city of Las Vegas.  Finally, they have managed to gain the attention of the cinematic world and created a venue that could indeed change the theatrical experience for good.  We’ll see what the future of the MSG Sphere holds, but there is no doubt that it is one massive leap in innovation when it comes to the presentation of movies.  True to the city of Vegas, it’s a gamble of a project, and as is the case with their presentation of The Wizard of Oz, they seem to have hit the jackpot.

It’s difficult to believe that a movie released quietly in the month of June on Netflix would by the end of August that same year the biggest movie in the world, even to the point of reaching the top of the weekend box office in a short 2 day run.  That is the reality we have seen happen with the sudden phenomenon that is KPOP Demon Hunters.  The film made it to the streaming platform after it was abandoned by its original creators, Sony Animation, and right now Sony is probably kicking themselves over relinquishing this film to Netflix.  But success on streaming has come to mean many different things, and a lot of it isn’t exactly clear to most people outside of the business,  To be regarded as a success, a film needs to be measured with different kinds of barometers that assess it’s value.  For most of cinematic history, films have been judged by their box office sales.  The measure of a successful film traditionally has been based on if it can turn a profit in ticket sales, and this is weighed against the cost of making that film.  If the movie makes more than it’s cost, than it has justified it’s existence, and the goal thereafter is to maximize that profit even further.  But, the passage of time can also swing certain film’s fortunes from disappointing to successful, and this is based on ancillary factors like home video sales and tie-in merchandising.  But, streaming is a whole different kind of market that has changed the ways we judge a film’s success.  With streaming, you can calculate the value of a film based on individual sales, because there is no pay to watch factor.  With Netflix, entry is a monthly subscription fee and that opens the viewer up to watching anything they want when they want that’s available on their platform.  And the actual viewership numbers for each program is not independently measured but is instead reported by Netflix itself.  So, in that kind of market of on demand content for one nominal monthly fee, how exactly do we know what is a hit and what is not?

For KPOP Demon Hunters success was not immediate.  It released on June 20th without much in the way of fanfare.  Internally, Netflix was pleased with the viewership numbers that they were seeing, but it was not exceeding what they had gotten from other original animated films on their platform.  Films like Klaus (2019) The Sea Beast (2022) and Orion and the Dark (2024) were just modest successes for Netflix as an original animation producer.  More often, they were more successful being the refuge for small independent studios when their movies were in limbo after the studio either closed down like Blue Sky, which Netflix got the film Nimona (2023) out of, or were the place for more experimental fare, like Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022).  During the pandemic, a big studio like Sony looked to Netflix as the place where they could get their newest film released so they could avoid disaster with the theatrical market shut down at the time.  The film, The Mitchell’s vs. The Machines (2021), made it to the platform in this circumstance, and this likely helped Sony down the line determine where to send their other film that they seemed to have little faith in recovering their investment in.  KPOP Demon Hunters certainly had a built in audience with the rapid pop music fandom that would’ve certainly given it a chance, but Sony seemed more concerned with the direction that their more successful Spider-Verse was heading in.  Spider-Man: Across the Spiderverse (2023) was a massive success, but completing it’s follow-up sequel was becoming an issue and that’s where Sony Animations’ focus was being directed.  KPOP Demon Hunters would’ve been too much of a creative risk for Sony which was trying hard to compete with the top dogs like Disney, Dreamworks and Pixar, and they didn’t want a financial disappointment to derail that.  So, giving it to Netflix would help to shield them in case it didn’t work out.  Maybe there it would find it’s audience.  Little did they know just how much of an audience Netflix would help this little movie find.

It wasn’t immediate.  It premiered modestly at first, bolstered no doubt by KPOP super fans.  But the premiere numbers were not exceptional.  It’s first week viewership, based on Netflix’s numbers, paled in comparison to those of the Disney+ premiere of Moana 2 (2024), a movie that was also a huge success in theaters.  But, what Netflix started to notice that took everyone by surprise was that the viewership numbers for the film weren’t going down; they kept going up, week after week.  After a month, KPOP Demon Hunters had reached the top ten movies of all time on Netflix’s streaming charts and was still climbing.  But, there was another phenomenon that proved that the movie was more than just a streaming success.  The film’s soundtrack was rising up the chart in record sales.  One of the songs from the film, titled “Golden,” had even reached number one on the pop charts.  The last song to do that was Disney’s Encanto’s (2021) “We Don’t Talk About Bruno,” and it was the first movie soundtrack to chart at #1 since Encanto too.  The success of a movie soundtrack is a pretty good indicator that your film is becoming a success outside of it’s streaming boundaries.  But, it also seems that even Netflix underestimated how big this would be as well.  When you know your movie will have broad cinematic appeal, you would want to maximize profit off of it with a lot of tie-in promotions.  But, Netflix didn’t think that far ahead.  There are no tie-in merchandise or cross promotions going on with this movie, and Netflix is having to play catch-up quick so that they don’t miss the opportunity while this movie is still on a hot streak.  But, one thing they could do was break their longstanding rule about not giving their movies a wide release in theaters.  As KPOP Demon Hunters fever was at it’s highest point, the streaming giant relented and put out a Sing-Along version of the film into 1,700 screens across North America for just two days.  And even though it was brief, the end result still gave Netflix their first ever #1 film at the weekend box office.

It wasn’t the first time Netflix had charted in the box office top 10.  Two and a half years prior, Netflix had put out Rian Johnson’s Glass Onion (2022) into theaters for a one week run; likely due to an obligation in their contract with the director.  The film was a modest success in that one week, and many wondered if it would’ve continued to perform well if given a lengthier run over the holidays.  The problem is that Netflix has never allowed themselves to pursue that question even further.  They have been, since the beginning, a streaming centered business model.  They have spent billions on production costs to build up their library of films and shows, but the only revenue that is generated for them is based on their monthly subscription revenue.  Their investment in quality shows and movies has seemed to pay off in the long run, as they are undisputed the kings of streaming, beating out even the competition from the major studios that all launched their own streaming platforms in the last couple years.  But, they at the same time seem to leaving a lot of money on the table by not putting their films out in theaters.  The movie theater owners are not against accepting their movies, even though Netflix has done a lot to drive down their business over the years.  Netflix seems determined to stick with their own business model, which is to make the movie industry conform to them and have their streaming first form of distribution be the new norm of Hollywood.  But, as we have seen play out in the last couple of weeks, there is still an appetite for watching movies in theaters when it’s the right kind of movie.  A movie like KPOP Demon Hunters certainly got it’s start on streaming, but it’s grown far bigger than that and perhaps Netflix is handicapping themselves by still sticking with their own business model.  They put the movie out on their own terms, just for two days, but all it has led to is more questions about their choices.  How much bigger would it have been had they kept it playing in theaters longer than they had?

Part of Netflix’s rationalization for releasing movies they way they have is that they believe that movie theaters are a dying business and that streaming is the future of entertainment.  There is some validity to Netflix’s claim in this sense, as movie theaters have been struggling in the last few years.  Of course Covid was a major factor in the downturn of the theatrical business, but there have been underlying issues that were present long before the pandemic.  The rising cost of tickets has been a particular sticking point with customers.  For many people, they feel like they are being priced out of the movie theater experience, with tickets on the low end costing upwards of $15 dollars in most places now.  This has become especially expensive for for families, with a day out to the movies possibly costing around $100 after tickets and concessions.  Paying Netflix or any of the other streamers a flat monthly fee between $10 and $15 just seems more economical by comparison.  But, there are still movies that are able to draw people to the theater.  The number of them are fewer than it has been before, but they’ve managed to keep theaters afloat in these difficult times.  Netflix makes the case that their platform allows for better visibility for movies that normally wouldn’t have a chance in competition at the movie theaters.  It’s probably why you see a lot fewer mid-budget movies in the theaters, because putting them on streaming has been viewed as a safer bet.  Previous box office titans like Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy almost exclusively premiere their films on streaming now.  But there’s also the argument that the reason movie theaters are struggling is because they don’t have enough in the way of movies that could boost box office, such as the ones that go to places like Netflix.  The slate of films playing in theaters are either low risk indie films like the ones from A24 and Neon, or big studio tent-poles.  What movie theaters need is more variety, particularly with the movies that have since left them for streaming.  Netflix may argue that people who go out to the movies are not the same as the ones that consume movies on their platform, but KPOP Demon Hunters just proved very definitively that there is definitely a lot of crossover that they have been ignoring.

One thing that has been changing recently is the mindset of the major studios regarding where they are choosing to premiere their films.  Disney in particular made a different judgment call with two projects that they initially planned for streaming on Disney+, and it led to some much needed financial success.  Moana 2  started off in development as a six part animated series, continuing the adventures of the characters from the popular 2016 original as an exclusive for Disney+.  But after a string of disappointments for the Disney Animation studios with Strange World (2022) and Wish (2023) falling hard at the box office, Disney needed something with a built in audience to help boost the ailing studio’s image as a box office contender.  The series was whittled down into a 100 minute film and was released in theaters in November 2024, and the result was a billion dollar grossing film.  Some complained that the film was uneven because of it being reworked in the eleventh hour and that it was not as good as the original, but that didn’t matter.  The film was a financial success because it was a movie that people wanted to see in theaters, including a lot of families.  A similar switch in release strategy also happened with the Lilo and Stitch (2025) remake, as that film was also originally developed as a Disney+ exclusive.  The lesson learned by Disney is that they should strategize which movies would have the best chance of bringing families to the theater, rather than trying to bank on just their brand giving them the boost they need.  The downside would be that studios like Disney would bank more on safer bets rather than big risks, but as well as Lilo and Stitch and Moana 2 have done, it’s counterbalanced with failures like Snow White (2025) and Wish.  What these successes have done is show that theatrical grosses are the most effective barometer for signalling how your brand is doing and it’s something that Disney and other studios are returning more often to now for deciding their future directions.  Had they gone all in on the streaming route, they would’ve missed out on $2 billion worth of revenue on those two films alone.  And premiering in theaters first has not cut into their appeal on streaming either, because Moana 2 has been one of the most streamed movies of the year; even in KPOP Demon Hunters territory.

Netflix can certainly think that monthly subscriptions alone can sustain their company.  It’s been a benefit to them so far, as they are one of the most valued brands right now in the entertainment business.  But, as KPOP Demon Hunters record-breaking weekend grosses have shown, they can make even more money if they wanted to.  The theatrical experience, given the right movie, can help a film endure far beyond it’s original release.  A lot of films benefit from audiences reactions, and that’s something that you can’t replicate just in your living room by yourself or with a couple friends and family.  KPOP Demon Hunters‘ brief but explosive run in theaters was a big deal because audiences finally had an opportunity to see this movie with a crowd of fans, all singing along with them.  It was like a concert experience for them.  Keep in mind, many of the people who sold those screenings out had already seen the movie over the two months that it had been playing on Netflix.  They already loved the movie, but they hadn’t experienced it in a way like this, and that was something worth leaving the house and paying a ticket price for.  KPOP Demon Hunters will undoubtedly be remembered far longer in pop culture because of that.  Most other Netflix films, even the ones deemed a success, have short life spans in the public conscious.  This is largely due to way that Netflix’s algorithm works.  Some movies are pushed to the top of the home page, especially the ones that Netflix wants you to see right away, but there are so many films that quickly disappear into the background if there is low interest in them.  Most people probably aren’t even aware that Netflix has had many other original animated movies on their platform, including another one from the same Sony Animation team that made Demon Hunters; The Mitchell’s vs. The Machines (which, personal opinion, I actually like a lot more).  Netflix honestly has nothing to lose and more to gain if they put their movies into theaters first before putting them on streaming; and I mean in wide release.  Something like KPOP Demon Hunters should have been playing on twice as many screens as it had and it would probably been hitting 9 digit figures in grosses by now.  It’s hard to make the argument that it’s the biggest animation success story of the year when the only thing you have to show for it is a single weekend gross and a chart topping soundtrack.

Netflix will almost certainly fall back on what has worked for them before, but I feel like KPOP Demon Hunters has challenged their business model the most out of all the other movies they have made.  There has to be some talk around the studio about what they’ll do when they inevitably make a sequel to the film.  It would be foolish not to give a sequel a wide release in theaters.  They’ll reap the benefits of a huge box office payday and see that same audience follow the film to their streaming platform.  In general, movie studios across Hollywood are definitely looking at theatrical first release strategies as a net benefit for their brands.  Some movies take more time to find an audience, but at least with a theatrical release you get that upfront monetary value to gauge the movie’s initial appeal.  You make a profit in theaters, then the rest is all an added bonus.  And we’ve seen that movies don’t lose their value by the time they make it to streaming.  If you place the movie on streaming first, there is a good chance that the film may get lost in the shuffle and buried in the algorithm.  At least when it’s put out in theaters it has a chance to generate some individual value.  Let’s not forget, Netflix has their controversial money losers too, including this year’s The Electric State (2025), which for some reason the studio poured over $300 million into.  Did Electric State drive any more traffic to Netflix? Unlikely, and after about a couple of weeks it was out of their top streaming chart and buried deep in the algorithm.  Even Netflix’s accounting couldn’t hide the wasteful spending that that movie clearly showed.  Would theatrical exhibition have helped?  Probably not, but at least you would have a clear dollar value on how audiences received the film rather than the internal number of viewership that they keep track of.  As the streaming wars have died down, the movie studios are looking at streaming as an extension of a movie’s life span more and more and not as the thing that’s going to take over the business.  They are diversifying, and Netflix should consider that as well.  They have a great many films that are sadly overlooked by most audiences, and a lot of those films would have generated more buzz if they were properly presented on a big screen from the start.  KPOP Demon Hunter’s phenomenal success could be the thing that shifts the way Netflix looks at exhibition, and hopefully we’ll see that bright red “N” logo on many more big screens in the future.