Producing : How long can we keep cinema on life support? by Patrick Kovács

That's a great question, buddy. And I have a very easy answer for you: they can't do it much longer. Film stars used to lead Forbes and now YouTubers make twice as much and there isn't enough money to go around and employ people.

It does not take a rocket scientist to look at film today and the history of it and see that it's entirely Democratic. Almost 100%. I can't tell if they're being paid to promote politics, or if they're really that deep into politics that they're willing to sacrifice profit to send a message...but it's pretty clear they're not going to stop anytime soon.

Shall we make a list starting with Snow White on the type of money it takes to be political, what happens when you are, and what the numbers look like after? There's no point. It's clear when it becomes political that it becomes bankrupt as well.

Listen, people in charge of film aren't stupid, but they're not backing down, either. No matter how much money they lose. I don't think they realized how much of their audience was actually conservative, but it was, and it's gone along with the money.

It's very simple and they just don't want to admit it: you get political--no matter who you support--you will lose half your audience that leans the other way.

Make it unbiased and keep your views to yourself or lose half your money.

It will come back, though. Here's a good example: McDonald's.

The snack wrap went away, yes? So did the money for customers who only came for a snack wrap. But years later, they announce it's coming back, and guess what? Here comes that lost audience you thought would never come back.

Film is the same. Those hot-headed conservatives left theaters because of the current political landscape and what Hollywood had to say, but they will be back when things aren't so crazy and heated.

That's just how money works. A guy who spent it before will come back and buy that snack wrap again because he misses how good it was. You just have to literally...not press his buttons with his politics...

It could all be so easy.

I have this strong feeling that politics is about to reach its peak in the film world. But I’m already hardened to it.

Here, there aren’t two idiotic sides anymore — just one. Imagine this: they’ll fund your film if it shows how heroic their side is (or rather, portrays the opposite side as villainous). If you rewrite history to suit them, you get 10 times the money. The films are unwatchable. Truly. You physically can’t sit through them. Snow White would win an Oscar next to these.

And all of this is pushed through by a so-called “development team.” And I always ask: “Okay guys, you’re developers, but… what have you actually developed?”

Propaganda pieces?

Andy Vajna, for example — by the end of his life, he’d clearly forgotten where he came from and why he started. It got to the point where his wife had to appear in the opening scene of one of the films — riding a jet ski down the river. And one of his friends had to direct it. I’m pretty sure it ranks in the global top 20 worst films of all time.

Now there’s a new medieval historical series that just came out. Cost: 40 million dollars. (Which, here, is an unspeakably large amount of money.) The whole thing is packed with lies, and most of it is laughable soft porn. It aired on state TV, and people were outraged — “our eyes are full of boobs!”

But ironically, that was the best part of it.

And get this: by ministerial order — yes, ministerial — they cut all the boobs out for the following week’s broadcast. We were laughing, like, what happens to the story if you chop out 10–20% of a series in a week?

Well… nothing. :)

This should never happen to Hollywood. It must never get to this point. I’m not afraid of politics — I’m afraid of this kind of system taking hold.

Where films are no longer made by filmmakers.

Where it doesn’t even matter anymore if a director is actually a director, as long as they “know someone.”

No, American cinema must not fall.

But Hungarian cinema can still be saved.

There’s massive potential in it —

but first, we need to salt the earth.

All films are the same because are Democratic... is the dead of Art and Different thinking.. look at ''Reddit'' same people you can't just have another opinion, the left problems.. is show soon or late also in films... people know when art is controlled and art supposed to be free a human ideas and spirit

The logic to why cinemas fundamentally work is really simple. No one has a 80-foot TV in their house. As long as that's the case, they won't be going away. There's a lot of doom and gloom going around recently about the profitability of cinemas. Entirely driven by wall street corporate greed via profit growth mandates and such. That doesn't change the fact that cinemas operate as an important third space for many. Somewhere to go get mesmerized with no distractions while watching the largest TV possible. There's really no beating that feeling. Ever. It's always awesome. YouTube and TikTok and AI slop aren't going to replace that anytime either. Sure, the studios need to do a slightly better job at promoting original programming, but great "indie" movies this year like Eddington and Friendship barely made a dent at the box office, while also being two of the most original and amusing movies of the year. Meanwhile, F1, Superman, etc. dominate because of built in audiences. So what's gotta give? If audiences continue to not show up more for auteur driven hits, but do show up for schlock like Minecraft, what lesson is that teaching the studios? More schlock, less Sinners, which they can then more easily right off as a one-off. For me, audiences aren't stupid either. They want original prestige movies, but they don't always exhibit that fact - by constantly pumping money into bad franchise movies at the box office.

Pat.... The cinema, as a space, is a wonder in itself. But riding a horse carriage is exciting too — and yet, there are barely any left. In Hungary, since 1990, 1,808 cinemas have closed down. This is the topic our upcoming film, Dear Mr. Spielberg, explores.

The principle of cinema isn't that simple, and in my opinion, its magic doesn’t lie in the physical space. Sure, some people retreat into the darkness to escape, others use it to kill two empty hours — but the masses approach it like they do theater. They expect a significant experience — and increasingly so, because it’s expensive.

People are overwhelmed — visually, too — and they’ll think ten times before choosing what to watch. You need company for it, you need to coordinate, you need to travel. It’s an event. And that fact is not respected. I’m not saying we should wear suits and dresses to the movies — but almost. If cinema was treated accordingly — as it deserves to be — it would be something you could plan for. Not something you have to pray for: “Please let them see it on opening weekend, or else I’m doomed.”

Let’s stop right there: Opening weekend? It’s absurd to burden viewers with such expectations. Going to the cinema is not mandatory (although for political reasons, in some places, it kind of is). A film should be allowed time to grow. Not just for marketing’s sake — but because people are free. Let the viewer decide when they’re ready. In three months? Why wouldn’t their money be welcome then?

I know, streaming... But don’t blame streaming. There wasn’t even image transfer on the internet yet when cinemas were already being treated this way. So cinema’s essence isn’t the screen itself — it’s the magic projected onto the screen. Without that, the screen means nothing.

Like the masses, I don’t enjoy watching indie films in cinemas — despite seemingly making those kinds of films myself. The reason is that cinema is best suited for special films. It really helps if you can fully utilize visual spectacle. Since cinema is expensive, of course audiences expect spectacle — especially since they’ve come to learn they’ll likely get nothing else. That’s why making films for cinema is a responsibility, too.

Yes, there are generations who go out of habit — but it would all function much more naturally if audiences were offered real competition. If on the release day of Superman 119, actual alternatives were in theaters, would people still choose that one? That’s the F1 effect — the circus. There’s a fan base and they expect speed. Though let me pause here — Top Gun: Maverick, for instance — people expected major flight experiences, and yet we barely got any of that. It was nostalgia that sold it. I say this as someone who loves sequels — just like most audiences.

We want sequels — but often they don’t come when and where they should. The Devil Wears Prada sequel is a great example — it’s awesome that it’s happening, but it took 19 years. Star Wars — billions waited for it, and it took 15–35 years. And in that form, it was already too late.

Cinema is theater — and as such, it demands relevance. Casablanca was shot in August 1942 and premiered by November — because there was a war. Take James Bond — Cold War beginnings. These films were about us. E.T. too — it speaks to us. And audiences reward that.

In Hungary, there was a time when you couldn’t even get tickets to major premieres. Lines snaked for 100 meters — just like they did in the U.S. for Jaws. And it’s not streaming or TikTok ruining that — it’s the lack of magicians. Sure, I and many others were spoiled by Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis... Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi. I don’t think people realize we’re contemporaries of Mozart. But audiences feel their absence.

Yes, cinema is business — and that’s fine. But if it’s business, shouldn’t there be competition? Including against streaming, while also partnering with it?

And it’s never the film in the cinema that’s the problem — I’m fine with 110 superheroes showing at once. The problem is what’s missing. And it’s not the audience deciding that Superman is the one playing — someone else decides that Superman is what the audience should be watching.

Pat... After all, why did indie films come into existence in the first place? Not to be separated — but to be distinguished. We were trying, and still are, to make the same kind of films that big studios make with insane budgets. Or at least that’s how it should be. Not buying into the idea that this is just some little orphan genre, and it’s perfectly fine if it’s just three actors in one room.

Sure, it can be that — but that’s not cinema. It’s moving images, but it’s not cinema.

I, for example, spend years working on a film — and even if there’s no money, I want the audience to still feel the magic.

What does that mean?

The viewer doesn’t separate films into categories. They don’t care if it’s studio-made or indie.

They just want to be enchanted, that’s it.

And most of them don’t even want a circus.

Pat Alexander Good points. Megan 2.0 is a good example of why you still need to take promotion seriously. I read quote "Well, we can't explain Megan 2.0 failing! Nobody knows anything!" The first one was great, and I literally sit on my movie apps every day and don't remember this thing being promoted one time across any app until it was available for purchase, which means it left theaters and then promotion started. They thought the first success guarantees the next one, but you still need to advertise it like the first one. People don't magically go to the theater you still have to promote, promote, and promote often in a unique way for each film. Nobody can buy something if they don't know it's available.

Eddington what is it about? Where was it promoted? Commercials, apps? I have no idea what it's about never saw a trailer on social media or anything. I am a film nerd who watches for this stuff therefore I am your audience so where was the marketing pitched to people like me?

Superman is different. That's a brand name. Remember Denzel Washington? "Blue Magic, that's a brand name. They know that like they know the chairman at General Mills." Same point. Superman is so big and so successful so many times that all it takes is an announcement and people will at least give it a chance based on the previous Superman they liked. Megan 2.0? Nowhere near the success nor longevity of Superman. Those are two different animals that need to promote themselves as such.

Movies like Megan 2.0 should be promoting themselves 4-5 times more than Superman to even consider competing.

For people like us who haven't made it yet, our projects need to be so loud and promoted so well that you don't remember the promotion of anything else at the time. It's very hard to do, but it's possible. Just need to understand how important that promotion is for anything you're trying to sell.

If you're not taking promotion seriously, don't expect lots of views.

I keep reading how there has to be a need for sequels, sure it's great if something can turn into a sequel but for producers to say that is what they are looking for like it's almost required, this eliminates a lot of great opportunity to make 1 very good film.

Phil.... The reason producers chase sequels is because ideally, audiences want to continue following the journey of characters they connected with. But let me be clear: it’s a big misconception that audiences are demanding sequels. What they’re really interested in is what happens to the characters next — and that’s only exciting if the original film truly earned that curiosity.

It’s great when a sequel comes from a genuine creative impulse.

But it’s ridiculous — and sadly more common these days — when a bad film gets a sequel just because it sold tickets. This happens more and more because frankly, there aren’t many strong mainstream films being made. So what do studios do? They just double down on the weak ones… and often the sequel turns out even worse.

I could easily name 200 films that should be continued — or rebooted — because they have real potential.

They’re rich, exciting titles worth revisiting.

But let’s be honest: when a Marvel movie gets a sequel, that’s a totally different beast. That’s not storytelling anymore — it’s running a content circus. And hey, even that could be done brilliantly… if they really wanted to.