Connect with us

Business

Gen-Z has no nostalgia for the big screen—unless it’s the ‘Minecraft Movie’

Published

on



Americans are more likely to watch newly released movies from the comfort of their own homes instead of heading out to a theater, according to a new poll.

About three-quarters of U.S. adults said they watched a new movie on streaming instead of in the theater at least once in the past year, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including about 3 in 10 who watched new movies on streaming at least once a month.

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of Americans said that they’ve watched a recently released movie in a theater in the past year, and only 16% said they went at least once a month.

The results suggest that, on the whole, American moviegoers are more likely to stream a film than see it in the theaters, a shifting tide that was only accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Convenience and cost are both factors for many people who can’t find the time to go to a theater or pay the increasingly high price for a ticket.

Sherry Jenkins, 69, of New Jersey, turns to streaming for all of her moviegoing needs.

“It’s much more convenient,” Jenkins said. “I can watch anything I want, I just have to wait a month or two after the movies are released because they usually go to streaming pretty quickly.”

Streaming is more convenient

In the post-pandemic era, films end up on streaming services more quickly. In 2017, a 90-day exclusive theatrical window was common. Now, theaters are fighting for an industrywide standard of 45 days. For studios, the strategy seems to be different for every movie. This year’s best picture winner, “Anora,” had a 70-day exclusive theatrical window“Wicked,” meanwhile, was available to purchase on demand only 40 days after opening in theaters — and that was a case in which the film was, and continued to be, a box-office hit. It was also profitable on streaming.

There is some overlap between theatergoers and people who opt for streaming — 55% of U.S. adults have seen a new movie in a theater and skipped the theater in favor of streaming at least once in the past year — but only watching new movies on streaming is more common than only going to the theater.

Some in the film industry believe that movies that start in theaters still have more cultural cachet, but Jenkins doesn’t see it that way.

“The studios now are so closely affiliated with the streaming services,” Jenkins said. “There’s really no logic behind why some skip the theaters.”

The last time she regularly went to the movie theaters was, she thinks, about 20 years ago. But as a tech-savvy retiree, there just hasn’t been enough of a reason to make the trek to the theater. A subscriber to Acorn, BritBox, Paramount+, Peacock, Netflix and Hulu, Jenkins doesn’t even see the need for cable anymore.

“People tell me, ‘Oh, you have to go to the theaters and see ‘Top Gun: Maverick,’ ” Jenkins said. “But my TV is 75 inches, and I’m comfortable. I’m at home.”

The cost of movie tickets is a factor

Maryneal Jones, 91, of North Carolina, said she likes to go to the movies but finds them too expensive.

“There’s some movies I would like to see, and I say to myself, I’ll just wait until they show them on TV or I’ll go visit a friend who has those apps,” Jones said. “But I just don’t want to pay 12 bucks.”

The average cost of a movie ticket in the U.S. is $13.17, according to data firm EntTelligence. In 2022, it was $11.76.

Jones does not subscribe to any streaming services, but she also sees more movies in theaters than many others. She estimates she sees about six to eight a year. Recent films she’s watched in the theater include “The Life of Chuck” and the French romantic comedy “Jane Austen Wrecked My Life.”

The AP-NORC poll also indicates that streaming may be a more accessible option for lower-income Americans. Higher-income adults are more likely than low-income adults to be at least occasional moviegoers for new releases, but the gap is smaller for watching movies on streaming instead of going to the theater.

Younger adults watch more new movies, especially on streaming

New movies are more popular among young adults, regardless of how they see them. But streaming is more of a go-to for the younger generation.

Slightly less than half of adults under age 30 say they watched a recently released movie on streaming instead of going to the theater at least once a month in the past year, compared with about 2 in 10 who watched a movie in the theater with that frequency.

Eddie Lin, an 18-year-old student in Texas, said he mostly watches movies at home, on streamers like Crunchyroll, Hulu, HBO Max and Prime Video, but will go to the theaters for “bigger things” like “A Minecraft Movie,” which is the biggest movie of the year in North America.

“A couple of my friends wanted to see it,” Lin said. “And there were the memes. I felt like the audience would be more interactive and it would be enhanced by being there with, like, a bunch of people.”

While streaming will continue to be formidable competition for audience attention and dollars, there has also been rising interest in the value of seeing certain films in IMAX or on other premium format screens, whether it’s “Sinners” or “Oppenheimer.”

The North American box office is currently up more than 4% from last year, but the industry has struggled to reach pre-pandemic levels of business. Compared with 2019, the annual box office is down more than 22%.

“I used to go more when I was younger, with my family, seeing all the Marvel movies up to ‘Endgame,’ ” Lin said. “I like movie theaters. It’s an experience. For me, it’s mostly a time thing. But I do feel like a certain charm of watching movies in theaters is gone.”

___

Bahr reported from Pittsburgh.

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,182 adults was conducted Aug. 21-25, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jensen Huang says AI bubble fears are dwarfed by ‘largest infrastructure buildout in human history’

Published

on



Pushing back against growing skepticism regarding the sustainability of artificial intelligence spending, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued against the mountain backdrop of Davos, Switzerland, that high capital expenditures are not a sign of a financial bubble, but rather evidence of “the largest infrastructure buildout in human history.”

Speaking in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, the interim co-chair of the World Economic Forum, Huang detailed an industrial transformation that extends far beyond software code, reshaping global labor markets and driving unprecedented demand for skilled tradespeople. While much of the public debate focuses on the potential for AI to replace white-collar jobs, Huang pointed to an immediate boom in blue-collar employment required to physically construct the new computing economy.

“It’s wonderful that the jobs are related to tradecraft, and we’re going to have plumbers and electricians and construction and steel workers,” Huang said. He noted the urgency to erect “AI factories,” chip plants, and data centers has radically altered the wage landscape for manual labor. “Salaries have gone up, nearly doubled, and so we’re talking about six-figure salaries for people who are building chip factories or computer factories,” Huang said, emphasizing the industry is currently facing a “great shortage” of these workers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has been warning for months about the labor shortage in what he calls the “essential economy,” exactly the type of jobs mentioned by Huang in Davos. Earlier this month, Farley told Fortune these 95 million jobs are the “backbone of our country,” and he was partnering with local retailer Carhartt to boost workforce development, community building, and “the tools required by the men and women who keep the American Dream alive.” 

It’s time we all reinvest in the people who make our world work with their hands,” Farley said.

In October, at Ford’s Pro Accelerate conference, Farley shared that his own son was wrestling with whether to go to college or pursue a career in the trades. The Ford CEO has estimated the shortage at 600,000 in factories and nearly the same in construction.

Huang dismisses bubble fears

Fink brought up the bubble talk for a good reason: Fear of a popping bubble gripped markets for much of the back half of 2025, with luminaries such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, and, just the previous day in Davos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, warning about the potential for pain. Much of this originated in the underwhelming release of OpenAI’s GPT-5 in August, but also the MIT study that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing to generate a return on investment. “Permabears” such as Albert Edwards, global strategist at Société Générale, have talked about how there’s likely a bubble brewing—but then again, they always think that.

Huang, whose company became the face of the AI revolution when it blew past $4 trillion in market capitalization (a bar recently reached by Alphabet on the positive release of its Gemini update), tackled these fears in conversation with Fink, arguing the term misdiagnoses the situation. Critics often point to the massive sums being spent by hyperscalers and corporations as unsustainable, but Huang countered the appearance of a bubble happens because “the investments are large … and the investments are large because we have to build the infrastructure necessary for all of the layers of AI above it.”

Huang went deeper on his food metaphor, describing the AI industry as a “five-layer cake” requiring total industrial reinvention, with Nvidia’s chips a particularly crunchy part of the recipe. The bottom layer is energy, followed by chips, cloud infrastructure, and models, with applications sitting at the top. The current wave of spending is focused on the foundational layers—energy and chips—which creates tangible assets rather than speculative vapor. Far from a bubble, he described a new industry being built from the ground up.

“There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built out,” Huang said, noting that the world is currently only “a few 100 billion dollars into it.”

To prove the market is driven by real demand rather than speculation, Huang offered a practical “test” for the bubble theory: the rental price of computing power as seen in the price of Nvidia’s GPU chips.

“If you try to rent an Nvidia GPU these days, it’s so incredibly hard, and the spot price of GPU rentals is going up, not just the latest generation, but two-generation-old GPUs,” he said. This scarcity indicates established companies are shifting their research and development budgets—such as pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly moving funds from wet labs to AI supercomputing—rather than simply burning venture capital.

Beyond construction and infrastructure, Huang addressed the broader anxiety regarding AI’s impact on human employment. He argued AI ultimately changes the “task” of a job rather than eliminating the “purpose” of the job. Citing radiology as an example, he noted that despite AI diffusing into every aspect of the field over the last decade, the number of radiologists has actually increased. Because AI handles the task of studying scans infinitely faster, doctors can focus on their core purpose: patient diagnosis and care, leading to higher hospital throughput and increased hiring.

Fink reframed the issue, based on Huang’s pushback. “So what I’m hearing is, we’re far from an AI bubble. The question is, are we investing enough?” Fink asked, positing that current spending levels might actually be insufficient to broaden the global economy.

Huang appeared to say: not really. “I think the the opportunity is really quite extraordinary, and everybody ought to get involved. Everybody ought to get engaged. We need more energy,” he said, adding the industry needs more land, power, trade, scale and workers. Huang said the U.S. has lost its workforce population in many ways over the last 20-30 years, “but it’s still incredibly strong,” and in Europe, pointing around him in Switzerland, he saw “an extraordinary opportunity to take advantage of.” He noted 2025 was the largest investment year in venture capital history, with $100 billion invested around the world, mostly on AI natives.”

Huang concluded by emphasizing this infrastructure buildout is global, urging developing nations and Europe to engage in “sovereign AI” by building their own domestic infrastructure. For Europe specifically, he highlighted a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to leverage its strong industrial base to lead in “physical AI” and robotics, effectively merging the new digital intelligence with traditional manufacturing. Far from a bubble, he seemed to be saying, this is just the beginning.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’

Published

on



While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes. 

“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated

“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”

So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.

The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.

The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”

“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.

Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous 

As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence. 

“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance. 

Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through. 

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”

Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise 

There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium. 

In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide. 

While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve. 

Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump fast tracks ‘three-week’ nuclear approval for big tech to fuel AI race

Published

on



President Donald Trump offered Silicon Valley an extraordinary deal on Wednesday: Build your own nuclear power plants to fuel AI, and his administration will approve them in just three weeks.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump addressed a room of tech executives struggling with an aging U.S. electrical grid.

“I came up with the idea,” Trump said. “You people are brilliant. You have a lot of money. You can build your own electric generating plants.”

Trump talked for about 10 minutes about energy in his speech, making it clear Trump views a straining electric grid as a central economic risk of 2026. As artificial intelligence pushes electricity demand to record highs, the administration is framing power shortages as an existential threat to growth and national security. Slashing approval timelines, Trump argued, is a necessary response to an energy system he said he believes is fundamentally unprepared for the AI era.

“We needed more than double the energy currently in the country just to take care of the AI plants,” Trump said. 

The proposal marks a radical departure from the traditional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) process, which historically requires four to five years for environmental and design approvals as well as rigorous site selection. Trump claimed that while tech leaders initially “didn’t believe him,” he assured them the government would deliver approvals for oil and gas plants in just two weeks, with nuclear projects following in three.

Trump said he wasn’t “a big fan” of nuclear power before, but now sees it as a newly viable solution due to safety improvements. 

“The progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable,” he said. “We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe.” 

While the potential upcoming wave of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) could receive regulatory approvals in less than two years, there is little basis for going through an approval process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in closer to three weeks, and such an expedited process would trigger widespread concerns about safety and environmental risks.

Trump also touted a new energy alliance with Venezuela, noting the U.S. secured 50 million barrels of oil last week following the “end of an attack” on the nation that led to the deposition of President Nicolás Maduro. He said the new cooperation between the two nations would make Venezuela “fantastically well” while driving U.S. gasoline prices toward $2.00 a gallon.

Gasoline prices are the main inflationary measure by which costs have fallen during the first year of the new Trump administration. But they’re nowhere close to $2.00 per gallon. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is $2.76 per gallon this week, down 32 cents from a year ago, primarily because of rising OPEC oil production.

But Trump drew a sharp contrast with Europe’s energy landscape. Trump mocked the “Green New Scam,” citing a 64% spike in German electricity prices and the “catastrophic” decline of energy production in the United Kingdom. He targeted the North Sea and the proliferation of wind farms, which he labeled “losers” that “kill the birds.”

“Stupid people buy” wind farms, Trump laughed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.