Entertainment
We Could Save Movie Theaters If Studios Just Did One Simple Thing
By Robert Scucci
| Updated
I’m probably dating myself here, but does anybody else remember when a three-hour movie coming out felt like a cultural event? James Cameron’s Titanic was so long, 3 hours and 14 minutes to be precise, that it was sold for home viewing on double VHS sets. It was a cultural phenomenon, costing $200 million to produce and earning over $2.2 billion at the box office. But it was also the exception, not the rule, when it came to cost and scale of storytelling.
These days, ever since the MCU and DCEU became the cultural juggernauts that they are, movies have gotten longer and exponentially more expensive, which makes me wonder why studios stopped putting out 90-minute movies with budgets at or around $50 million. When you look at the box office returns for so many doomed projects, they tend to have two things in common: they’re too long, and they cost too much to make.
Don’t believe me? I brought receipts.
Make Them Cheaper And Shorter!
While I’m not totally averse to long movies, I’ve always been a strong advocate for the 90-minute runtime. It’s a simple three-act structure that lets filmmakers tell a complete story. They’re also cheaper to make, and you can have more movies in rotation at your local theater on any given day. A three-hour movie occupying multiple screens cuts into revenue potential because we’re putting all of our eggs in one basket.
2024’s The Flash cost $220 million to make and runs 144 minutes. It earned $271.4 million at the box office. That might seem like it at least broke even and secured a small profit, but it didn’t. Factor in marketing and distribution, and it’s a box office failure.
2025’s Weapons cost $38 million to produce, with a runtime of 128 minutes. Still a little long for my taste, but it earned $270 million, almost exactly the same as The Flash, for a fraction of the cost. That’s a financial success.
Of course, there are other variables at play. Superhero fatigue had fully set in by 2024, while a strong horror flick from a rising filmmaker is usually a reliable moneymaker. But the core takeaway still stands. The longer, more expensive movie performed worse than the shorter, cheaper one.
2024’s Joker: Folie a Deux cost $200 million and runs 138 minutes. It earned $208 million, barely recouping its production budget. That’s a failure. Compare that to 2019’s Joker, which cost just $70 million, runs just over two hours, and earned over a billion dollars. The pattern is hard to ignore.
Let’s push it further. 2025’s Anaconda runs 99 minutes, cost $45 million, and brought in $135 million at the box office, earning three times its production budget. If you need more proof, just look up the financials for any movie to come out over the past decade, and tell me what you see.
The John Wick Method Works For Scaling An IP
I’m going to lay out something I’m calling “The John Wick Method,” because it perfectly illustrates the point. I’m not against long films. I’m not against expensive films. But films that are both long and expensive need to earn their keep. Superhero movies learned this the hard way when Marvel and DC kept cranking out epics nobody asked for, forcing them to course correct, reconsider their release schedule, and how much money they’re dumping into projects that don’t necessarily guarantee a return on their investment.
The John Wick franchise, on the other hand, started small and scaled up. The first film topped out at $30 million and earned $86 million. It runs 101 minutes. The concept was proven, audiences wanted more, and the sequel followed with a $40 million budget, a 122-minute runtime, and $174 million in box office receipts. Chapter 3 runs nine minutes longer than Chapter 2, cost $75 million, and earned $327 million, and so on. People wanted John Wick to be bigger and badder, that’s exactly what they got, and the numbers prove that this is the way to properly scale towards a film like Chapter 4, which is nearly three hours long, but doesn’t feel like a total slog to get through. It’s exactly why it earned $447 million against its $100 million budget.
You know what didn’t perform well? 2023’s Napoleon, which had a $200 million budget, barely broke even at $222 million, and comes with a 205-minute director’s cut that hit streaming because the 157-minute version apparently wasn’t punishing enough. Think about how many Anaconda and Weapons-type films we could have cycled through theaters if Ridley Scott didn’t have such a hard-on for historical epics.
This isn’t an indictment of long, expensive movies. But when 2000’s Gladiator was released, it felt like an event, not standard practice. We wanted to see what $103 million looked like on the big screen. And because it was a great movie that fully justified its 155-minute runtime, it felt like a special occasion. That’s why it earned nearly half a billion dollars. It was spectacular, and people wanted to see it again.
We Want Movies, Not Events
When every single film is treated like an event, audiences have to be selective. The last time I went to a regular, non drive-in theater, four tickets, a large popcorn, and a large soda cost me $100. If it’s also going to cost me three hours of my time for a movie that isn’t even good enough to recoup its budget, then why aren’t studios cranking out shorter, cheaper films?
We’ve reached the point where it’s obvious you don’t need hundreds of millions of dollars to make something worth watching. And nobody wants to burn an entire afternoon or evening on something that’s just “meh.” It will deter them from making a night at the movies a regular family outing, especially when you consider how much it costs to go to the movies these days.
The John Wick franchise did it right. It proved demand with a tight runtime, and a relatively inexpensive concept, then scaled up once it was proven that audiences were invested. Unless studios can consistently capture lightning in a bottle like that, it’s time to cut runtimes, cut budgets, and make movies people actually want to sit through instead of self-indulgent endurance tests. Do that, and you’ll see more asses in seats. Suddenly, 10 screens can show 10 different movies. Suddenly, people care about going to the theater again.
Entertainment
Star Trek’s Most Ambitious Villain Helped Create The Franchise’s Most Complex Hero
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
When Star Trek: Voyager first came out, the most fascinating character was the Doctor. While Robert Picardo’s performance was superb, it’s fair to say this character was mostly fascinating on a conceptual level. We had seen things like hypercompetent Starfleet captains and exotic aliens before, but what we hadn’t seen was a fully holographic chief medical officer. Voyager’s Emergency Medical Hologram seemed like the perfect embodiment of the Star Trek ethos. He’s a technological strange new world and new life, all rolled into one.
However, what casual audiences didn’t realize is that the Doctor wasn’t completely unique. Long before Picardo’s character ever sawed bones in the Delta Quadrant, Captain Picard dealt with another extraordinary hologram: Moriarty, the brilliant foe of the famous investigator Sherlock Holmes. Over on The Next Generation, Geordi LaForge accidentally created this villain as a sentient hologram when he asked the holodeck to create a challenge worthy of the android Data. Later, Star Trek: Voyager executive producer Jeri Taylor revealed that, in-universe, the holographic Doctor was created because Starfleet took advantage of the same accidental breakthrough that created Moriarty!
It all started in “Elementary, My Dear Data,” the Next Generation episode in which the titular android and Geordi LaForge recreated Sherlock Holmes’ adventures on the holodeck. Thanks to his positronic brain and his encyclopedic knowledge of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes novels, Data is able to easily solve every mystery that is thrown at him. That’s when Geordi makes a seemingly simple request. He asks the Enterprise computer to develop a holodeck foe that could actually defeat Data, one of the smartest beings in the entire galaxy.
The computer obliges and creates a sentient version of Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes’ greatest foe. Following Geordi’s instructions, the Enterprise computer included much of Data’s vast programming, which resulted in the holographic character becoming self-aware. Moriarty ended up threatening the Enterprise on two different occasions, and Picard eventually got rid of him by trapping the unknowing villain in a simulation where he thought he had left the holodeck and could explore the stars. This was meant to be a happy ending for Moriarty, but in the show’s typically bleak fashion, Star Trek: Picard later showed us a different, more hostile version of this character created by a malevolent Section 31 AI.
How A Villain Created A Hero
What does all of this have to do with Robert Picardo’s holographic Doctor on Star Trek: Voyager? Elementary, my dear reader! Very early in Voyager’s development (the show didn’t even have a name yet), executive producer Jeri Taylor was inspired by Moriarty to create a new character. As reported in A Vision of the Future-Star Trek: Voyager, Taylor wrote down notes for a holographic doctor “who, like Moriarty, has ‘awareness’ of himself as a holodeck fiction. He longs for the time when he can walk free of the Holodeck.”
A few days later, she wrote down additional notes that contain a startling bit of Star Trek lore. “The Holo-Doctor represents a new, state-of-the-art technology which has capitalized on the serendipitous incident which created Moriarty, and has programmed a holographic character which has self-awareness of his situation and limitations.” While Moriarty is name-dropped on Voyager a couple of times, the show never mentioned what Taylor’s notes seem to confirm: that Lewis Zimmerman could never have created the Emergency Medical Hologram program if not for Geordi LaForge accidentally creating Moriarty on the holodeck.
From Villain To Leading Man?
If that’s not strange enough, there was a period of time when Voyager’s producers were considering making Moriarty a mainstay character on the show. As reported in Star Trek–Where No One Has Gone Before, Taylor’s notes mentioned that “everyone agreed that was a little too broad, and we couldn’t figure out why anyone would take him along.” After dismissing the idea, they decided “that having a holographic doctor with the full consciousness of being a hologram might be fun, and we’d never done anything like that before, except for Moriarty.”
There you have it, gentle reader. Without the character of Moriarty on Star Trek: The Next Generation, we’d never have the Doctor on Voyager. In this way, Trek’s most ambitious villain helped create the franchise’s most complex hero. Thanks to Jeri Taylor’s notes, we also know that, in-universe, Lewis Zimmerman would never have been able to create the Doctor if not for Geordi accidentally creating a sentient Moriarty so Data could have fun. In retrospect, this does make Zimmerman’s arrogance that much weirder. After all, he has a lot of attitude for someone who owes his entire career to the two biggest book nerds in the galaxy!
Entertainment
Moon phase today: What the Moon will look like on April 19
After days of almost (and complete) darkness, the Moon is finally starting to reappear. We’re currently in the Waxing Crescent phase of the lunar cycle, which means each night until the Full Moon we’ll see it get more illuminated from the right side.
What is today’s Moon phase?
As of Sunday, April 19, the Moon phase is Waxing Crescent. Tonight, 5% of the moon will be lit up, according to NASA’s Daily Moon Guide.
Despite more of it now being illuminated, the percentage of surface is still too little to be able to spot any surface details. Check again tomorrow.
When is the next Full Moon?
The next Full Moon is predicted to take place on May 1, the first of two in May.
What are Moon phases?
NASA states that the Moon takes about 29.5 days to orbit Earth, during which it passes through eight distinct phases. We always see the same side of the Moon, but the amount of sunlight reflecting off it changes as it moves along its orbit, creating the familiar pattern of full, partial, and crescent shapes. We call these the lunar phases, and there are eight in total:
New Moon – The Moon is between Earth and the sun, so the side we see is dark (in other words, it’s invisible to the eye).
Mashable Light Speed
Waxing Crescent – A small sliver of light appears on the right side (Northern Hemisphere).
First Quarter – Half of the Moon is lit on the right side. It looks like a half-Moon.
Waxing Gibbous – More than half is lit up, but it’s not quite full yet.
Full Moon – The whole face of the Moon is illuminated and fully visible.
Waning Gibbous – The Moon starts losing light on the right side. (Northern Hemisphere)
Third Quarter (or Last Quarter) – Another half-Moon, but now the left side is lit.
Waning Crescent – A thin sliver of light remains on the left side before going dark again.
Entertainment
Ryan Gosling’s R-Rated Netflix Thriller With An MCU Budget Is Worth Its Weight In Shootouts
By Robert Scucci
| Published
After watching 2021’s Kate, the almighty algorithm threw 2022’s The Gray Man onto my radar, and I can’t say Ryan Gosling has ever disappointed me, so I figured I may as well give it a shot. He has a built-in level of charisma that lets him do his thing, and most of the time it lands. Going into the Russo brothers’ film expecting to see $200 million well spent on action sequences, with the added bonus of Gosling in the mix, I didn’t quite know how things would play out, but I had a hunch I wouldn’t feel let down.
But here’s the problem with straight-to-streaming action thrillers. Films like The Gray Man never get much time on the big screen, and they kind of need it if you want to enjoy them at the highest level. Across roughly 400 theaters, the film only brought in $454,023, which isn’t really its fault. It had a very short run across a disproportionately small number of screens, meaning it was never meant to recoup its budget this way. It’s a Netflix Original, designed to pull huge numbers on streaming.
The reason I see this as a bad thing is because this is an expensive movie. MCU expensive. Waterworld expensive. When that much money goes into blowing stuff up in spectacular fashion, I want to see it on a giant screen. Living in an apartment, I don’t have a fancy audio setup because my neighbors would murder me if I did, and my 44-inch TV is fine for most things, but less than stellar when entire city squares are getting leveled with all guns blazing.
Long story short, The Gray Man is a lot of fun, but it would be even more fun if you could watch it the way it was meant to be seen.
Let’s Not Get Bogged Down By The Details
The Gray Man also has an extremely convoluted plot. Not in a “too many twists” kind of way, but it’s a “load up the guns, spray and pray” kind of movie that would have been better served by simplicity. It’s executed well, but as side characters keep getting introduced in the second and third acts, part of me gets annoyed that I can’t fully shut my brain off because there’s always a new name or face to keep track of after the blasting has already started.
Ryan Gosling is a black ops agent known as Sierra Six, formerly Courtland Gentry. He was locked up as a minor after murdering his abusive father, and CIA officer Donald Fitzroy (Billy Bob Thornton) decides he’s the perfect candidate for a second chance. The deal is simple: Courtland works for him in exchange for his freedom, knowing he’ll be dealing with some very dangerous people.
Once things get rolling, Sierra Six teams up with Agent Dani Miranda (Ana de Armas), and the first mission we see involves assassinating a target named Dining Car (Callan Mulvey). Complications arise when the job goes sideways and Dining Car reveals he’s also part of the Sierra program before succumbing to his wounds. A flash drive gets passed off with vague instructions, and the wild goose chase begins, centering on CIA officer Denny Carmichael (Regé-Jean Page), who sends a swarm of operatives after Six and Dani to retrieve it.
Along the way, we get more backstory on Six’s relationship with Donald and his niece Claire (Julia Butters), who Six previously worked security detail for. This obviously becomes important later because more collateral has entered the equation. The scenes between Six and Claire offer a surprisingly wholesome break from the chaos in Prague, and they’re a welcome addition.
From here on out, you pretty much know the deal. Double crosses stack on top of double crosses, things explode, and there’s so much inter-agency confusion over who’s good and who’s pulling the strings that you almost wish they’d ease up on the exposition and just keep blowing stuff up.
Solid, Pulse Pounding Action Thriller
The Gray Man’s budget absolutely shows on screen from start to finish. The action sequences are gorgeously shot (something that’s not always consistent across Netflix Originals), and at one point Sierra Six is standing on top of a moving tram, firing through the roof while tracking targets through reflections in nearby windows as the city flies past. This comes after he’s handcuffed to a railing in a town square, picking off attackers before they even get a chance to take him out.
Ana de Armas wielding a shotgun after throwing hands is also worth your time because she fully commits when the moment calls for it.
The only real issue I have is the film’s tendency to overload its premise with complexity for the sake of it. Most people don’t turn on action thrillers to do mental gymnastics. At least I don’t. I love psychological thrillers when I want things to get murky, but with action movies, I just want to sit back and watch things explode.
The convoluted plot isn’t a dealbreaker, just a nitpick. Some people enjoy sprawling shadow government conspiracies. It’s just not really my thing, so take that with a grain of salt. It’s still a great watch, just not one you can fully sink into the couch for and completely turn your brain off.
The Gray Man is a Netflix Original, and you can stream it with an active subscription.
Minnesota United blank Timbers for 3rd straight win
Troy Johnston's clutch double leads Rockies' comeback win over Dodgers
