Night Swim (2024)

[MazeRunner]

Originally Posted by AspiringMinimalist

This isn't surprising at all. Universal was the first studio during COVID to bypass theatrical exhibition for it's big releases and ended up doing a "compromise" of 17 days exclusivity.. but Blumhouse has also put some releases day+date on Peacock... and outright releases stuff straight to streaming.

This is a studio that has zero problem quickly throwing things on demand for maximum profit.

When Nolan was a "free agent", he made sure to get it written into his contract that Universal exempt him from the 17-day window to PVOD and got a 100-day window.

WB just threw Color Purple on digital after 22 days.

Who knows what’s going to happen this year.

At least with Universal we all know to wait 17 days if a movie just looks okay-ish.

Universal used to be if the movie made over $50M opening weekend it wouldn’t be on digital for 30 days, but they didn’t stick to that for Fast X last year, putting it on digital 21 days later.

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Well, studios don't stay in business if they don't make a profit, so...

I'm not saying that isn't the case. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I grew up seeing films in the cinema... I still refuse to watch things on streaming services. If I can't see it projected or on a disc, it doesn't exist to me.

If that makes me old fashioned so be it but that's why I go out of my way to support filmmakers like Tarantino and Nolan. It's why I still mostly watch films from a bygone era, stuff like Lord of The Rings, Star Wars...

I do not like the 2:1 aspect ratio, can play on a TV or streaming service all the same. But again... that's just me. I just saw Oppenheimer, a 3 hour, half black-and white drama about nuclear physicists make $1 billion. They are prioritizing streaming over theatrical. If they withheld stuff. people wouldn't be conditioned to just "wait and see it" at home in two weeks.

I am not even that old, I'm not even 30 yet... but the streaming/binge culture has definitely hurt movies. I'm glad for their wallets.. but sad for the artform of creating massive movies for a big screen.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by AspiringMinimalist

I'm not saying that isn't the case. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I grew up seeing films in the cinema... I still refuse to watch things on streaming services. If I can't see it projected or on a disc, it doesn't exist to me.

If that makes me old fashioned so be it but that's why I go out of my way to support filmmakers like Tarantino and Nolan. It's why I still mostly watch films from a bygone era, stuff like Lord of The Rings, Star Wars...

I do not like the 2:1 aspect ratio, can play on a TV or streaming service all the same. But again... that's just me. I just saw Oppenheimer, a 3 hour, half black-and white drama about nuclear physicists make $1 billion. They are prioritizing streaming over theatrical. If they withheld stuff. people wouldn't be conditioned to just "wait and see it" at home in two weeks.

I am not even that old, I'm not even 30 yet... but the streaming/binge culture has definitely hurt movies. I'm glad for their wallets.. but sad for the artform of creating massive movies for a big screen.

Maybe, just maybe, creating profits is part of what helps movie studios keep the theatrical operations going?

So you should be happy if they make money, because part of that money will be used for future projects, which may end up playing in theaters.

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Maybe, just maybe, creating profits is part of what helps movie studios keep the theatrical operations going?

So you should be happy if they make money, because part of that money will be used for future projects, which may end up playing in theaters.

Sure. If you want to totally talk in simplistic concepts.

But there's an entire conversation to be had about oversaturation, self-imposed market shifts and expectations, increasingly risk-averse decisions (Universal took a risk on Oppenheimer, many studios would not), shifting the focus from art to supplying audiences with "infinite content". Animation utilizes a house style... now live-action movies all utilize a "house style" of filmmaking (2:1 aspect ratios) so that they can be easily sold to Netflix OR a theatrical company.... and no audiences don't need to accept that.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by AspiringMinimalist

Sure. If you want to totally talk in simplistic concepts.

But there's an entire conversation to be had about oversaturation, self-imposed market shifts and expectations, increasingly risk-averse decisions (Universal took a risk on Oppenheimer, many studios would not), shifting the focus from art to supplying audiences with "infinite content". Animation utilizes a house style... now live-action movies all utilize a "house style" of filmmaking (2:1 aspect ratios) so that they can be easily sold to Netflix OR a theatrical company.... and no audiences don't need to accept that.

I sometimes have to use simplistic concepts to get points across without exhausting the limited attention span of certain individuals

OK, so if that's not you, fine. I'm not saying the current system is perfect and I could name many things I don't like about it. But I don't waste my time because I know it's not going to change anything. Sure, I vote with my wallet and I stay away from certain companies when they really haven't earned my business. But at the end of the day any one of us is just ONE person against billions of potential customers in the world for the entertainment conglomerates.

So, yeah, I keep that in mind.

[HorrorBlu]

This is the thread for Night Swim, a cheap Blumhouse movie about a haunted swimming pool. It does not need a 100 day theatrical exclusivity Oppenheimer / Top Gun: Maverick release, lol.

[Member-866753]

Originally Posted by HorrorBlu

This is the thread for Night Swim, a cheap Blumhouse movie about a haunted swimming pool. It does not need a 100 day theatrical exclusivity Oppenheimer / Top Gun: Maverick release, lol.

You somehow missed the boat entirely.

It is neither the 100 day window or a cheap streaming Blumhouse movie (those go straight to streaming on Peacock and Amazon Prime)

But rather the conversation we were having was about Universal's 17 day window. So it is entirely relevant.

What's your reason why Fast X was out on streaming in three weeks? Exorcist was 17 days.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by Member-866753

If I can't see it projected or on a disc, it doesn't exist to me.

If that makes me old fashioned so be it

I don't think this makes you old fashioned but it certainly doesn't make sense to me. Purposely limiting what you can see seems foolish.

[Britnasty]

Originally Posted by Member-866753

What's your reason why Fast X was out on streaming in three weeks? Exorcist was 17 days.

Not OP but I understand Universal’s logic completely. After 3 weeks, Fast X was already making under 10M and dropping like a rock. It only lasted 8 weeks in theatres.

They probably maximized profits by putting it onto PVOD when they did.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Britnasty

They probably maximized profits by putting it onto PVOD when they did.

No, telling people they could watch it at home so quickly made the box office tail off even FASTER. Even MASSIVE box office bombs from just over five years ago still took a minimum of three months to hit disc/VOD, and studios certainly didn't tell people exactly when the home release date was on opening fricking weekend.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Member-866753

I'm not saying that isn't the case. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I grew up seeing films in the cinema... I still refuse to watch things on streaming services. If I can't see it projected or on a disc, it doesn't exist to me.

If that makes me old fashioned so be it but that's why I go out of my way to support filmmakers like Tarantino and Nolan. It's why I still mostly watch films from a bygone era, stuff like Lord of The Rings, Star Wars...

I do not like the 2:1 aspect ratio, can play on a TV or streaming service all the same. But again... that's just me. I just saw Oppenheimer, a 3 hour, half black-and white drama about nuclear physicists make $1 billion. They are prioritizing streaming over theatrical. If they withheld stuff. people wouldn't be conditioned to just "wait and see it" at home in two weeks.

I am not even that old, I'm not even 30 yet... but the streaming/binge culture has definitely hurt movies. I'm glad for their wallets.. but sad for the artform of creating massive movies for a big screen.

Im with you on being a physical media or theater guy if at all possible. Any content I really like is 100% purchased on disc, no question. Streaming is fine for "rentals" or one and done type of stuff. Works well for TV shows too.

But, discs rule.

[sbyers49]

I caught a showing of this yesterday because I typically like horror. The same way that superhero fans will bypass the genre's cliches, I can forgive cliches more than non-horror fans can and...

it wasn't the worst January horror movie, but it certainly wasn't the best. When Night Swim comes to your streaming service or is rentable for $5.99, then I'd see it if you're absolutely curious. Spending $30 on this film when it becomes available for purchase is just criminal for a mediocre film like this one.

[HorrorBlu]

Did anyone else find it more than a little bit racist that

[Show spoiler]they had an Asian mother killing her perfectly healthy daughter to save her son?

Imagine how many people that had to go through to make it to the screen, and it wasn't subtle.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by HorrorBlu

Did anyone else find it more than a little bit racist that

[Show spoiler]they had an Asian mother killing her perfectly healthy daughter to save her son?

Imagine how many people that had to go through to make it to the screen, and it wasn't subtle.

You may not be aware but China had a one child policy for population control at one time. This caused many families to abandon babies that were female. I didn't consider that scene to be racist but more based on the reality of a patriarchal society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

[HorrorBlu]

I don't think this movie was intelligent enough to be intentionally making any sort of commentary on that. Maybe casually throwing out the word racist wasn't the right way for me to phrase it, but that entire scene just struck me as especially cringe-worthy.

[KManX89]

I’ll probably watch this when it hits Peacock or something when I’m bored and have nothing better to do just for the hell of it, but the fact that they announced a VoD date in its opening weekend on top of it being a January horror movie should tell you everything you need to know about their faith in this thing. If they don’t have any faith in their own movie, then why should I? Everything I’ve heard about this movie seems to reflect that.

Then again, the idea of writing a 90 minute movie about a haunted pool sounds like a foolhardy task in and of itself. Hardly original, either, we all know where anything featuring a haunted ghost pool drew inspiration from. I even heard

[Show spoiler]a realtor closed the pool down after a family drowned in it many years earlier only for an unsuspecting family to take it up and renovate it after buying said house

in the movie. Yeah, that’s totes not stealing pages from AYAOTD’s most infamous episode (which still gives me the creeps to this day), like at all.

It’s not even the first movie to explore such a concept, It Follows did it a decade earlier and, by all accounts, did it much more effectively.

[MazeRunner]

What an awful, generic movie. This has to be one of the worst wide release January "horror" movies of all-time.

People got paid to write and direct this? And act in it? The father's acting was hilariously bad.

The 2nd trailer really put the entire movie in there. Typical Universal move.

This should've been a Peacock release.

Imaginary looks just as bad too. Blumhouse has lost their touch.

[rooboy78]

I actually didn’t think this was all that bad. The family drama is quite good and the acting is stronger than what we expect to see in these typical January dumps (the kids were strong). It sharply directed too. I didn’t hate it.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by MazeRunner

Imaginary looks just as bad too. Blumhouse has lost their touch.

Imaginary looks much worse to me. I'm not a fan of child actors in general and Pyper Braun isn't very impressive in the trailer. I'll still go see it as sometimes trailers can be misleading.

[VictoryAtNight]

Watched this @ my sister’s house. Yeeessshh….this wasn’t good. Glad I saw it for free.