Yes, we do have a problem.
But the decline in cinema viewership is not a phenomenon unique to our country. All over the world there are still so many countries which have not yet fully recovered from the effects of the pandemic. Audiences have not yet returned to cinema in the same numbers that they did in 2018.
In our region, only Indonesia and Malaysia are doing well. Even Korea has a major backlog. First World countries like Germany has not yet recovered from the nearly three year hiatus brought by COVID.
However this does not mean that our problem is but normal. The fact that local movie productions are struggling because of imminent loss of revenue in cinema exhibition has resulted to even more dire problems.
Why would a producer invest so much money in a project when the chances of return of investment --- or even profit --- are practically close to nil? The only option is to produce projects at a much lower budget --- nay, the lowest budget possible --- to minimize the damage of loss. The logic behind this is that cinema exhibition only becomes a side bar because the greater bulk of recovery comes from selling the ancilliary rights ( television, streaming platforms or, if lucky, finding a distributor abroad to screen in certain territories) within and outside the country.
Lowering the budget means diminishing the production value. Whereas years ago movie budgets range from P15 - 25M with grand scale projects hitting as high as P40 - 60M, nowadays the running rate for films (to give a stronger chance for recovery and lesser damage of loss) ranges from P6 - 12M. With this sort of budget, the number of shooting days have been greatly diminished and, as one colleague said jokingly, "It is the return of the pitu-pito!" since the number of shooting days have been drastically cut from a normal eighteen (18) to twenty-five (25) calendar days to ... uh, six (6) with a maximum of ten (10) to live within the budget.
Then there is the complex taxation of films in our country. To explain the mathematics involved would take an entire blog, so it is best to simplify the computation. Bluntly put, for a movie to make money for the producer, it must earn three times the amount spent in the production. This means from pre-production (conceptualization, preparation for filming), production (principal photography), post-production (editing, color grading, sound engineering, musical scoring, etc.) and marketing and distribution. For every P100 paid for a movie ticket, approximately one third goes to the goverment (for taxes which include VAT and income tax), another third goes to the theater owner and only the final third goes to the producer.
Solutions have been made to exempt Filipino movies from the amusement tax posed by local governments. This has been agreed upon earlier this year with certain cities in Metro Manila: this is a moratorium requested by the movie producers and facilitated by the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) to ease if not alleviate the financial burden left on the shoulders of certain stakeholders.
But still, the problem is not only the price of ticket ... or the taxation but the movies themselves.
Why are Filipinos not watching their own movies?
The Waiting Game
In the earlier blog, explanations were given about the very short window between a movie's cinema exhibition before it migrates to the platforms.
Because of the very limited window between public screening and private streaming, audiences tend to wait for the products until they are made accessible to their homes or even their cellphones and tablets. There are certain mainstream movies that have lukewarm box office performances but achieve astounding popularity the moment they are streamed. And, as mentioned before, return business in cinemas is practically gone because people would rather wait for the movie to be seen on Netflix or Amazon Prime rather than to pay another P350-400 to catch another screening of something they have already seen before in a cinema.
A recent survey commissioned by FDCP revealed that certain genres are preferred to be seen in cinemas by Filipinos. These include action (understandably so because of its need for an immersive experience ), horror (who wants to watch a horror movie alone at home or much less on a phone?) , comedy and romance. However, one thing is most noticeable: the once highly sellable romantic comedy has been relegated to streaming --- which means because of the overload of romcoms coming from all sources (including Korea), the genre is no longer prioritized for cinematic viewing: it has been pigeon holed for the small screen.
Moreover, so much change has happened in understanding who are still watching movies in cinemas nowadays.
Perhaps a good indication is to review the top grosser of the 2022 Metro Manila Film Festival: the winner was a millennial horror movie ( Mikhail Red's Deleter) and not the usual comedy movie that would usually lord over the festivals. This year the same observation can be made about the quality of production and themes of the movies that made it to the top of the heap in the December fest: a family movie, another horror movie and a historical piece. All shared one thing in common: evident production value, significance of theme but most of all relatability to a specific demographic of the audience.
It is predominantly if not exclusively the Filipino middle class who is still capable of allocating money for watching films in cinemas which points out how and why they choose or where they will spend for entertainment.
Rewind was well-made melodrama. Mallari was a technically-polished piece while Gomburza carried the heaviest gravitas among all the entries as it eventually looked like a prequel to Marilou Abaya's Rizal. Firefly, deemed as the Best Picture of last December's festival, also carried a theme of family and resilience: the awards received by the movie dramatically boosted its sales.
But even if December has become the best (if not the safest) dates to release Filipino movies in cinemas, there is still such a great risk that the movie will not make money for the producer. Truth: not all the MMFF entries make money. It was and will never be that way: more than the trophies handed out two days after Christmas, there are only a few winners as far as the box office results are concerned.
Times may have changed but some things remain the same.
Again, unlike before, the pangkaraniwang manonood would not watch one ... or even two ... but three or more entries in the festival with some others aspiring to watch all eight of the Christmas movies. With the present price of tickets, the enthusiasm of the moviegoer has been sedated by the practicality of economics: it requires a certain thickness of the wallet to watch more than one movie ... much less, all the entries.
Not only has the repeat business been squelched but the potential of the market has shrunk because people watch fewer movies within the duration of the festival.
Is it Really About the Ticket Price?
The most common complaint is that the price of movie tickets has become untenable.
The usual moan and groan of filmmakers, producers and the audiences point to the price of movie tickets which have literally cut off the masa who used to be the very cornerstone of Filipino cinema consumption. It is assumed that as long as ticket prices remain within the existing range, audiences will opt to find their happiness in streaming or the internet.
But wait ---- let's rethink this argument.
Just last Wednesday ... when Inside Out 2 harvested close to P90M, there was a quiet but significant change in the price of movie tickets. The two Filipino films were selling at a much lower ticket price compared to the foreign movies! At P230 per ticket, this was a price that approximated if not revived the 2018 rates of seeing a film in a cinema house.
If that is so, then how come people still preferred to watch the more expensive foreign movie? How come they still chose a Thai movie with subtitles over two Filipino movies being sold at a cheaper price?
So it could not possibly be just the price of tickets alone, right?
Yes, yes ... not too long ago, a mall celebrated its sixty-fifth anniversary and all movie tickets were sold at P65 ... and near chaos ensued.
What was evident was the hunger of the audiences to experience cinema again. All the screenings, regardless of what was showing, were filled to the rafters. Then again, this was another unique situation. Realistically speaking, operating a moviehouse cannot be sustained if ticket prices are drastically slashed to levels below P100 considering the overhead required daily to keep the cinemas going.
Then you have the Independence Day results that showed the ticket-paying audiences willing to dole out more money for the foreign movies rather than the lesser-priced Filipino films. Again, the audiences opted for a Thai film on its third week than two brand new local films with relatively marketable stars on the marquee.
Could it be because of the so-called negative publicity attributed to the lead star of one of the local films as to why the cinemagoers refrained from watching? Could it be that impressive ensemble of the other movie was not maximized because of the lack of publicity and promotions of the movie?
Or could it be the core branding of Filipino movies that has completely thrown our products off the radar because of the pre-conceived notion of many --- or maybe a hasty generalization for that matter --- that if it is a local production, then it must not be worth the money?
The Negative Brand
Is it possible that the mere mention of Filipino movies elicits an automatic negative reaction brought about by what has already become an embedded prejudice?
Filmmaker Jason Paul Laxamana came out with a most interesting reel expressing his take on the present scenario.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1540632766532516
Laxamana offers an interesting insight into what he proposes as the case of a "damaged brand" brought about by a consistent output of inferior movies thereby resulting to an aversion of the audiences. And he is very correct,
In other words, because of a rather exhausting experience of being given particularly inferior movies, the audiences have come to a question that all Filipino films are not worth their money. Of course the generalization is so damaging --- but denying that (well, yes) we have given the public subpar works will not and can never solve the problem.
Blaming just the ticket price and not assessing what the stakeholders have given the audiences is being in denial.
Yes, audiences automatically equate Filipino films inferior to their foreign counterparts which was most likely why they would rather pay a higher price of a foreign film (especially part of a popular franchise or a movie retaining its clout because of thunderous word of mouth) than see a local one --- thinking that what is Pinoy is bad and can never be any good.
So where does that lead us? How can we possibly reverse this negative branding that has become the major burden of all those who make a living out of this industry?
TO BE CONTINUED
