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

Epstein grand jury documents from Florida can be released by DOJ, judge rules

Published

on



A federal judge on Friday gave the Justice Department permission to release transcripts of a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls in Florida — a case that ultimately ended without any federal charges being filed against the millionaire sex offender.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith said a recently passed federal law ordering the release of records related to Epstein overrode the usual rules about grand jury secrecy.

The law signed in November by President Donald Trump compels the Justice Department, FBI and federal prosecutors to release later this month the vast troves of material they have amassed during investigations into Epstein that date back at least two decades.

Friday’s court ruling dealt with the earliest known federal inquiry.

In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, where Epstein had a mansion, began interviewing teenage girls who told of being hired to give the financier sexualized massages. The FBI later joined the investigation.

Federal prosecutors in Florida prepared an indictment in 2007, but Epstein’s lawyers attacked the credibility of his accusers publicly while secretly negotiating a plea bargain that would let him avoid serious jail time.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to relatively minor state charges of soliciting prostitution from someone under age 18. He served most of his 18-month sentence in a work release program that let him spend his days in his office.

The U.S. attorney in Miami at the time, Alex Acosta, agreed not to prosecute Epstein on federal charges — a decision that outraged Epstein’s accusers. After the Miami Herald reexamined the unusual plea bargain in a series of stories in 2018, public outrage over Epstein’s light sentence led to Acosta’s resignation as Trump’s labor secretary.

A Justice Department report in 2020 found that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in handling the investigation, but it also said he did not engage in professional misconduct.

A different federal prosecutor, in New York, brought a sex trafficking indictment against Epstein in 2019, mirroring some of the same allegations involving underage girls that had been the subject of the aborted investigation. Epstein killed himself while awaiting trial. His longtime confidant and ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was then tried on similar charges, convicted and sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison.

Transcripts of the grand jury proceedings from the aborted federal case in Florida could shed more light on federal prosecutors’ decision not to go forward with it. Records related to state grand jury proceedings have already been made public.

When the documents will be released is unknown. The Justice Department asked the court to unseal them so they could be released with other records required to be disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The Justice Department hasn’t set a timetable for when it plans to start releasing information, but the law set a deadline of Dec. 19.

The law also allows the Justice Department to withhold files that it says could jeopardize an active federal investigation. Files can also be withheld if they’re found to be classified or if they pertain to national defense or foreign policy.

One of the federal prosecutors on the Florida case did not answer a phone call Friday and the other declined to answer questions.

A judge had previously declined to release the grand jury records, citing the usual rules about grand jury secrecy, but Smith said the new federal law allowed public disclosure.

The Justice Department has separate requests pending for the release of grand jury records related to the sex trafficking cases against Epstein and Maxwell in New York. The judges in those matters have said they plan to rule expeditiously.

___

Sisak reported from New York.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Miss Universe co-owner gets bank accounts frozen as part of probe into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking

Published

on



Mexico’s anti-money laundering office has frozen the bank accounts of the Mexican co-owner of Miss Universe as part of an investigation into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking, an official said Friday.

The country’s Financial Intelligence Unit, which oversees the fight against money laundering, froze Mexican businessman Raúl Rocha Cantú’s bank accounts in Mexico, a federal official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the investigation.

The action against Rocha Cantú adds to mounting controversies for the Miss Universe organization. Last week, a court in Thailand issued an arrest warrant for the Thai co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization in connection with a fraud case and this year’s competition — won by Miss Mexico Fatima Bosch — faced allegations of rigging.

The Miss Universe organization did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment about the allegations against Rocha Cantú.

Mexico’s federal prosecutors said last week that Rocha Cantú has been under investigation since November 2024 for alleged organized crime activity, including drug and arms trafficking, as well as fuel theft. Last month, a federal judge issued 13 arrest warrants for some of those involved in the case, including the Mexican businessman, whose company Legacy Holding Group USA owns 50% of the Miss Universe shares.

The organization’s other 50% belongs to JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., a company owned by Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip.

A Thai court last week issued an arrest warrant for Jakrajutatip who was released on bail in 2023 on the fraud case. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Nov. 25. Since she did not notify the court about her absence, she was deemed to be a flight risk, according to a statement from the Bangkok South District Court.

The court rescheduled her hearing for Dec. 26.

Rocha Cantú was also a part owner of the Casino Royale in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, when it was attacked in 2011 by a group of gunmen who entered it, doused gasoline and set it on fire, killing 52 people.

Baltazar Saucedo Estrada, who was charged with planning the attack, was sentenced in July to 135 years in prison.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk’s X fined $140 million by EU for breaching digital regulations

Published

on



European Union regulators on Friday fined X, Elon Musk’s social media platform, 120 million euros ($140 million) for breaches of the bloc’s digital regulations, in a move that risks rekindling tensions with Washington over free speech.

The European Commission issued its decision following an investigation it opened two years ago into X under the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Services Act, also known as the DSA.

It’s the first time that the EU has issued a so-called non-compliance decision since rolling out the DSA. The sweeping rulebook requires platforms to take more responsibility for protecting European users and cleaning up harmful or illegal content and products on their sites, under threat of hefty fines.

The Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, said it was punishing X because of three different breaches of the DSA’s transparency requirements. The decision could rile President Donald Trump, whose administration has lashed out at digital regulations, complained that Brussels was targeting U.S. tech companies and vowed to retaliate.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on his X account that the Commission’s fine was akin to an attack on the American people. Musk later agreed with Rubio’s sentiment.

“The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” Rubio wrote. “The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

Vice President JD Vance, posting on X ahead of the decision, accused the Commission of seeking to fine X “for not engaging in censorship.”

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage,” he wrote.

Officials denied the rules were intended to muzzle Big Tech companies. The Commission is “not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin,” spokesman Thomas Regnier told a regular briefing in Brussels. “Absolutely not. This is based on a process, democratic process.”

X did not respond immediately to an email request for comment.

EU regulators had already outlined their accusations in mid-2024 when they released preliminary findings of their investigation into X.

Regulators said X’s blue checkmarks broke the rules because on “deceptive design practices” and could expose users to scams and manipulation.

Before Musk acquired X, when it was previously known as Twitter, the checkmarks mirrored verification badges common on social media and were largely reserved for celebrities, politicians and other influential accounts, such as Beyonce, Pope Francis, writer Neil Gaiman and rapper Lil Nas X.

After he bought it in 2022, the site started issuing the badges to anyone who wanted to pay $8 per month.

That means X does not meaningfully verify who’s behind the account, “making it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and content they engage with,” the Commission said in its announcement.

X also fell short of the transparency requirements for its ad database, regulators said.

Platforms in the EU are required to provide a database of all the digital advertisements they have carried, with details such as who paid for them and the intended audience, to help researches detect scams, fake ads and coordinated influence campaigns. But X’s database, the Commission said, is undermined by design features and access barriers such as “excessive delays in processing.”

Regulators also said X also puts up “unnecessary barriers” for researchers trying to access public data, which stymies research into systemic risks that European users face.

“Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a prepared statement.

The Commission also wrapped up a separate DSA case Friday involving TikTok’s ad database after the video-sharing platform promised to make changes to ensure full transparency.

___

AP Writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.