Video Recordings, Downloads and Streaming

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Beetlejuice Beetlejuice’ Hands Warner Bros. a Lifeline

      by

      The movie has made roughly $190 million in its first 10 days, giving the studio a needed hit after a summer of misfires.Warner Bros. managed only a 4.7 percent share of domestic movie-ticket sales over the summer. By that measure, it was Warner’s worst performance since analysts started to compile seasonal box office data in 1982.A haze of despair had settled over the studio by mid-August. Warner Bros. Discovery, the studio’s parent company, had announced yet another round of layoffs. Then it botched the renewal of a crucial television rights deal with the National Basketball Association, prompting investors to flee. Shares were trading in the $6 range, down 90 percent from March 2021.So the horror comedy “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” which arrived in theaters from Warner on Sept. 6, in some ways became a flash referendum on the studio’s future. Some people in Hollywood were starting to wonder aloud if there would even be one, at least without a merger with a competitor.Talk about the undead: “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” collected $111 million in its first weekend in North America, one of the best results on record for September. The PG-13 sequel, directed by Tim Burton, has now been No. 1 for two weeks in a row. It took in another $52 million over the weekend, for a 10-day domestic total of roughly $190 million.Worldwide ticket sales will total about $250 million through Sunday, according to box office analysts. The film cost $99 million to make.“Dancing in the hallways, smiles on faces,” said Michael De Luca, one of Warner’s top film executives. “There is really nothing better for morale than a hit.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Music

      What if Orchestras Were More Like Netflix?

      by

      As subscriptions face an uncertain future, classical music could look to the membership models of streaming services and gyms for inspiration.Perhaps you spend your mornings at the gym, working out with the help of a playlist on Spotify. In the evening, you wind down with Netflix or a movie on Max. As you go to bed, you might even open a meditation app to help you fall asleep. Then you wake up, and do it all again.A routine like that is built on memberships that provide unlimited access to something for a monthly fee, and are tightly woven into our lives in part because they’re convenient. (Dangerously so: I’m far from alone in having realized too late how many free trials have turned into valves quietly hoovering up money from my bank account.) Why, then, have they not caught on in classical music performances?The model could go something like this: You pay a monthly membership fee to your local symphony orchestra that entitles you to attend however much you’d like. As with a gym or a streaming service, some people may go often; some, not at all. Regardless, the orchestra receives steady revenue, and you have full control of your calendar, with the ability to make plans even the day of a performance.While a handful of orchestras have experimented with this model, it hasn’t become standard because most institutions already have a long-established ticketing program they prefer: subscriptions. In that system, people are sold packages for a season, which involves planning evenings out up to a year or more in advance. This works for those who like to go on the same night of the week, or sit in the same seat. Orchestras, in turn, are provided with financial security.According to the League of American Orchestras, subscriptions have bounced back from a pandemic slump strongly enough that they grew by 7 percent from 2019 to 2024. Administrators, however, have long been anxious about the future of the subscription model. Less than a decade ago, the League itself commissioned a study that revealed subscriptions were not only in decline, but also out of touch with how people plan and purchase entertainment today.The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, shown performing in April, was an early adapter of the member model. “There just aren’t that many people in April who want to commit to concerts from September to June,” the ensemble’s leader said.Claire Loes for the St. Paul Chamber OrchestraWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      Apple Rethinks Its Movie Strategy After a String of Misses

      by

      “Wolfs,” a new film starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt, was going to get a robust theatrical release. But the company is curtailing that plan.When Apple won a bidding war in 2021 for the rights to make the action comedy “Wolfs” with George Clooney and Brad Pitt, it did so in part because it promised the stars it would put the movie into a large number of movie theaters.“Brad and I made the deal to do that movie where we gave money back to make sure that we had a theatrical release,” Mr. Clooney said last year in an interview with the Hollywood trade publication Deadline.But this month, just six weeks before the film was set to show up in thousands of theaters around the United States, Apple announced a significant change in plans. “Wolfs” will now be shown on a limited number of movie screens for one week before becoming available on the company’s streaming service on Sept. 27. (Internationally, it won’t appear in theaters at all with the exception of the Venice Film Festival, where it will premiere on Sept. 1.)“‘Wolfs’ is the kind of big event movie that makes Apple TV+ such an exceptional home for the best in entertainment,” Matt Dentler, the head of features for Apple Original Films, said in a statement. “Releasing the movie to theaters before making it widely available to Apple TV+ customers brings the best of both worlds to audiences.”The film’s director, Jon Watts, told Vanity Fair that he had found out about the change in plans only days before the announcement. “The theatrical experience has really made an impression on me, of how valuable this thing is and how important it is,” Mr. Watts said. “I always thought of this as a theatrical movie. We made it to be seen in theaters, and I think that’s the best way to see it.”Despite the filmmakers’ desires, the about-face follows a middling run at the box office for Apple, which began releasing films into theaters around the country via partnerships with traditional studios in October.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      I ❤️ a Hate-Watch. Don’t You?

      by

      When it premiered in 2017, I quite liked “The Bold Type,” a television series about three 20-something women working at a fictional magazine called Scarlet. Although the show could tend toward after-school special, with the characters learning important lessons about speaking your truth, facing your sexuality or getting regular gynecological examinations, its heartwarming conventions — young women living their editorial dreams in the big city — worked their magic on me.My love began to curdle during the third season. That’s when a new guy is brought into the office to spearhead Scarlet’s weirdly late foray into online publishing (it was set roughly in 2019). For reasons I couldn’t fathom, he referred to the magazine’s website as “The Dot Com.” Over and over and over again.To someone who’s spent her career in digital media, this was a bridge too far. It suggested that the show’s writers hadn’t ever worked in this world, hadn’t talked to anyone who did, maybe had never read a magazine. My annoyance grew in the fourth season, as the star columnist (a fount of bad ideas) got “her own vertical,” by which the show meant “a blog.” What was going on?I found myself declaiming to friends and colleagues about how deranged this turn of events was. I kept watching, but only to get annoyed at the things that I used to excuse as creative license: plot holes, improbable couplings, messed-up New York City geography. What I’d once enjoyed, I now hate-watched.Hate-watching is a weird thing. There is so much to see, do, hear, read: Why spend precious time, in an age of nearly infinite media, plopped in front of a bad show to pick it apart? It’s like gorging yourself on a disgusting meal not because you’re hungry, but because you want to gripe about it later. Or taking a vacation with someone you find excruciating, not because you don’t have any actual friends, but because you want to bellyache afterward about all the stupid things they said and did.Yet hate-watching is now part of the cultural conversation and arguably contemporary life. Chalk it up to morbid curiosity: We start watching a show because it looks appealing, but we keep watching because we want to complain about it at happy hour. It’s fun to be the person who describes a particularly terrible story arc or performance to our friends’ disbelief. Besides, it’s better than whatever is on the news.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Television

      Judge Blocks Joint Streaming Service from Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery

      by

      The planned service from Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery was slated to cost $42.99 a month and aimed at fans who had abandoned cable TV.A judge issued a preliminary injunction against Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery on Friday over a planned sports-focused streaming service from the companies, saying the joint venture would most likely make the market for sports viewership less competitive.The 69-page ruling from a federal judge in New York’s Southern District effectively halts — at least for the moment — the companies’ ambitious plans for the service, called Venu, which was aimed at sports fans who had abandoned cable television.The service, which had been expected to become available this fall and cost $42.99 a month, promised to offer marquee games from the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball.But the idea raised alarms with rivals, most notably a sports streaming service called Fubo, which sued to block the new service’s formation after it was announced this year. In a statement accompanying its complaint, filed on Feb. 20, Fubo alleged that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery had “engaged in a long-running pattern” of trying to stymie its business through anticompetitive tactics.The complaint led to a hearing this month that focused on whether Fubo should be able to obtain a preliminary injunction against Venu, essentially stopping the sports-media venture from proceeding.In her ruling, Judge Margaret Garnett said Fubo was likely to prevail in its claim that the new service would “substantially lessen competition and restrain trade.” She added that refusing to grant the injunction could limit the effectiveness of any court order reached after a trial.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Television

      When I Get Anxious, These Videos Help Calm My Mind

      by

      Tunnel through time with vintage B-roll.It was a grainy video, autoplaying in my Facebook feed, that first grabbed my attention. It seemed vaguely familiar — like a home movie from my childhood in suburban Boston but without the main characters, leaving only a warm, generic 1980s ambience. In the clip, kids in wide-collared shirts amble around a school cafeteria with burgers, tater tots and little square boxes of chocolate milk served by lunch ladies in those big buglike eyeglasses my grandmother used to wear. The video ended after about two minutes. Next, I watched a street glide by from the window of a moving vehicle: Kenmore Square, Boston, January 1977. The camera panned across storefronts — Strawberries, Paperback Booksmith, College Donuts — but I didn’t recognize anything until it zoomed out and the famous Citgo sign was revealed, perched atop the building where it still sits today.Discovering these videos felt like time-traveling back to some precise moment when nothing of note happened. They are just short, contextless clips of old B-roll — the background film cut into broadcasts to break up the main footage — culled from the collections of WGBH, a 69-year-old Boston public-television station. In 2018, James Auclair, a station employee, began regularly posting the videos to social media. They infiltrated my own Facebook algorithm in the fall of 2023, which, it turns out, was just when I needed them. That August, I eagerly applied for a dream-job faculty position at a university, and I knew I was in for months of consistent, nagging anxiety about my professional future. When I came across the footage Auclair was posting under the handle GBH Archives (they dropped the “W” a few years ago), I was hooked: Here, finally, was a reprieve from the swirl of negative thoughts in my head.I’ve devoured, by now, countless hours of B-roll. I’ve watched shoppers peruse CDs at the long-shuttered Tower Records on Newbury Street in the ’90s, transporting me back to Saturdays in high school when my friends and I browsed the rap and hip-hop racks for hours. Cars as big as boats — station wagons, sedans and vans like my parents drove — roll over the Tobin Bridge in 1979; drivers reach out their arms to pass cash and coins to toll attendants. I’ve watched ice skaters gliding over the frozen Charles River in the late ’70s and hairsprayed teenagers in leather and oversize sweaters smoking cigarettes outside their high school in the ’80s.I’m not the only one hooked on these B-roll clips: YouTube is full of “retro B-roll” material, and GBH Archives alone has more than 200,000 combined followers on Facebook, X and Instagram. For some viewers, the appeal is pure nostalgia — many comment wistfully on the absence of cellphones or the predominance of suits and ties and dresses. Others note changes in the ever-evolving cityscape. Every so often, someone recognizes their younger self in a video.Where the format of television news can crowd out thought, these videos create space for it.What I love most is that the videos contain no narrative; they feel like ambient music — hypnotic, meditative. Rather than tell you what to think or fear, they just show you things. There’s a funny intellectual twist here: Television is an entertainment medium, and the primary purpose of these B-roll clips was to keep viewers visually engaged so they wouldn’t get bored watching a single shot of a newscaster talking. Watching this remediated B-roll subverts that purpose. There are no quick shots and snappy edits, no breaking news alerts or sensational chyrons, just slow and boring slices of life. Where the format of television news can crowd out thought, these videos create space for it. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Blair Witch Project’ Brings Up a Riddle That Looms 25 Years Later

      by

      Twenty-five years ago, the indie horror blockbuster compelled audiences to ask, “Was that real?” The question now permeates our age of misinformation.“In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary. A year later their footage was found.”Audiences packed elbow-to-elbow into theaters in the summer of 1999 saw that shaky white text on a black background during the first moments of “The Blair Witch Project.” What followed was 80 or so minutes of growing dread as three 20-somethings — Josh, Heather and Mike — tried to uncover the truth behind the legend of a supernatural entity called the Blair Witch. It does not end well for the trio.Initially shot for just $35,000, “The Blair Witch Project” grossed almost $250 million, then a record for an indie film. It became a pop culture phenomenon, one that foretold the found-footage horror boom and left one uneasy question hovering over moviegoers: “Is this real?” It’s an existential riddle that looms larger than ever 25 years later, compelling us to apply that exact question to nearly every image, sound or nugget of information we encounter.Back then, creating that air of uncertainty took some strategic work by the directors, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez. Marketed as a documentary, promotional materials included missing posters for its largely unknown lead actors — Joshua Leonard; Heather Donahue, now known as Rei Hance; and Michael C. Williams — who had to keep ultralow profiles in the lead-up to the film’s release.A separate faux documentary called “The Curse of the Blair Witch,” which aired on cable TV shortly before the film’s premiere, had an eerily convincing true-crime approach: It incorporated candid-seeming photos of the characters including childhood snapshots, as well as fake newspaper articles and interviews with actors posing as Heather’s film professor and Josh’s girlfriend, among others, to round out the alternate reality.Joshua Leonard and his “Blair Witch” co-stars filmed all the footage used in the movie.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Television

      Colin Jost Will Host the New ‘Jeopardy!’ Pop Culture Spinoff

      by

      “Pop Culture Jeopardy!” is expected to begin production in August and will stream only on Amazon Prime Video.If you have enjoyed Colin Jost’s dispatches from Tahiti for the Olympics surfing events and are hoping to see more of him, you’re in luck: On Wednesday, Sony Pictures Television announced that he will be host of the new game show “Pop Culture Jeopardy!”Jost, 42, is a veteran writer for “Saturday Night Live” and has anchored its Weekend Update segment since 2014 alongside Michael Che. “Pop Culture Jeopardy!” — a spinoff of the juggernaut “Jeopardy!,” which has run for decades on broadcast TV and in syndication — will stream only on Amazon Prime Video.Jost was selected for his “sharp wit and intelligence,” Suzanne Prete, president for game shows at Sony Pictures Television, which produces the show, said in a news release. “He’s smart and quick, like our contestants, and we know he’ll be able to keep up with them while making this new series his own.”“What is: I’m excited,” Jost said in the statement, riffing on the “Jeopardy!” answer format.In the pop culture version of the show, contestants will play in teams of three in tournament-style events, racing to answer questions in a variety of categories like alternative rock, the Avengers and Broadway. Production of the show is expected to begin in August.The spinoff is part of a yearslong expansion of the “Jeopardy!”-verse, as the show’s producers have called it, which will also include special tournaments. The flagship show also has seen plenty of change since Alex Trebek, who had hosted “Jeopardy!” for 37 years, died in 2020. A lengthy, revolving host audition resulted in Mike Richards, then the show’s executive producer, being chosen to host, only to be pushed aside after revelations that he had made offensive comments on a podcast. Then the role was shared between the actor Mayim Bialik and the former “Jeopardy!” champion Ken Jennings until last year, when Bialik announced that she had been removed from the show. Jennings has since settled in as the sole host. More