It’s Time to Defend Theaters From Tech

PLUS: The Return of the AI Slop Podcast Company

Author

Steve
November 18, 2025

Hello Hollywood tech nerds!

In this week’s post:

Subscribe to get Hollywood Tech Nerds magically delivered to your inbox every Tuesday!

It’s Time to Defend Theaters From Tech

On Friday The New York Times published a story headlined 25 Movies, Many Stars, 0 Hits: Hollywood Falls to New Lows, which contained some particularly dire details of the fall’s box office returns:

[N]ot one of the 25 dramas and comedies that movie companies released in North American theaters over the past three months has become a hit, certainly not in the way that Hollywood has historically kept score. Some have played to near-empty auditoriums, including “After the Hunt,” starring Julia Roberts; “Christy,” with Sydney Sweeney; and “Die My Love,” featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson…

The dearth has added to what has already been a troubled year for Hollywood. The summer season — filled with fantasies and science-fiction sequels — was the least attended since 1981, after adjusting for inflation and excluding the Covid-19 pandemic years…

[T]he box office is hurting as a whole. Theaters in the United States and Canada collected $445 million across all titles in October, the lowest total on record, after adjusting for inflation and excluding 2020, when the pandemic darkened screens.

For context, October ticket sales in 2019 totaled an adjusted $1 billion, according to Comscore.

Pretty bleak stuff!

HOW HAVE MOVIE COMPANIES RESPONDED?

There’s a lot of finger-pointing:

It’s the audience’s fault. Americans love to complain about a deluge of superhero sequels and big-budget fantasies. And what do they do when a bunch of dramas arrive? They ignore them.

It’s the news media’s fault for reporting on opening-weekend box office grosses; films are declared dead before they have a chance to find their footing.

Theaters are at fault for raising prices and bombarding audiences with ads and trailers before films start.

Regular readers know this topic is one of my hobbyhorses, and as such I find the finger-pointing enumerated above very simplistic. Naturally the movie companies do not include what is likely the biggest reason moviegoers avoid theaters:

During the pandemic, Hollywood largely ended the long-held practice of giving theaters an exclusive window of about 90 days to show new movies. Instead, movies started to become available for digital rental or purchase after as little as 17 days.

This diminished the incentive to see movies in theaters — especially dramas and comedies, which play just fine on living room TVs.

Frustrated theater owners have lately been trying to persuade studios to backtrack, perhaps changing the 17-day policy to something closer to 45 days. The effort has gone nowhere, although talks are continuing.

I mean, this is so obviously a huge part of the problem, particularly for original dramas and comedies. Why would a busy person go see the R-rated, 2.5 hour After the Hunt in the theater where they have to pay premium admission fees and concession prices, sit through a 20-30 minute ad/trailer pre-show next to someone on their phone if they know they can just stream it from the comfort of their home in two weeks for significantly less than the theater price?

The studios have allowed tech and media conglomerates to completely break their formerly-lucrative business model in order to chase fast cash, while also training the next generation of potential moviegoers to just stay home.

A perfect example is the upcoming Netflix release Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew. The film’s director Greta Gerwig has just come off the massive theatrical blockbuster Barbie. Yet the new film is only getting a 2-week release exclusive to IMAX before heading to Netflix. As Vue Entertainment CEO Tim Richards writes:

The outcome? IMAX and Netflix may enjoy a short-term gain, but the industry and audiences around the world — will lose. Millions of families who would love to watch Narnia at a theatre, will be needlessly deprived of the opportunity.

As the head of an IMAX competitor, Richards obviously has a financial interest here, but his comment points to the larger problem: future moviegoing consumers are grown by having early experiences attending movies in the theater. Continuing to erode the theatrical experience for short-term reasons will result in the films’ and filmgoing’s import continuing to decay.

Just as a reminder, here is my multi-point plan to reconfigure the film business’s theater woes:

  • Extend theatrical windows to 30/45/90 days over time

  • Reduce theatrical pre-shows to 15 minutes

  • Expand matinee-pricing hours

  • Increase repertory screenings

  • Build more large format venues

  • Budget for cheaper films that can take bigger swings

Will any of this happen? No! We’ll continue to let tech rot our business from the inside out until nothing is left!

The Return of the AI Slop Podcast Company

Almost exactly two months ago I took a critical look at The Hollywood Reporter’s absurdly credulous article on the “AI podcast company” Inception Point AI. In sum: THR published what amounted to a press release for an AI slop-generating podcasting network that insisted it wasn’t actually slop. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

I can only speculate, but I would have to assume that these podcasts serve a similar function to the Asylum’s video mockbusters: tricking consumers into selecting their shoddy product instead of the real thing. I’m not saying these shows are scams, of course. I report, you decide!

You’d think that would be the last we heard from Inception Point AI, but sadly no! This time it’s The Wrap, writing almost the exact same article 2 months later!

Its podcasting network Quiet Please has generated 12 million lifetime episode downloads and amassed 400,000 subscribers — so, yes, people are really listening to AI podcasts.

Just as I wrote last time, if this is true why does neither article feature anyone who actually listens to such shows? Where are you getting these numbers? How have they been verified? Did you just get them from Inception Point itself? How do you know they haven’t also set up an automated subscribing and downloading network to boost their numbers?

The Wrap concludes its piece with this:

On track to produce nearly 150,000 episodes by the end of the year, Inception Point AI has already made a large splash in the podcasting market, but will the company burn bright and fast or make a lasting impact in the space?

The Wrap proclaims that “Inception Point AI has already made a large splash in the podcasting market,” but on what evidence is that based? All the information in the rest of the article indicates otherwise:

The company noted on its website that it monetizes with iHeartRadio as a partner, but representatives for the audio platform were unfamiliar with it…

[L]isteners can get the latest gossip from “Celeb Confidential” host Vivian Steele. Her tone is not quite as peppy as you may expect. The intonation sounds robotic as she discusses Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco’s wedding weekend, and is devoid of the kinds of opinionated hot takes pop culture podcasts have been known for…

Nearly every host speaks in a similar, monotonous rhythm throughout the episodes, barely pausing between sections and sometimes even sentences…

Five of these personalities have an Instagram presence, all with less than a thousand followers…

How does this suggest that the company has made a “big splash” in podcasting? Its product is a collection of robotic voices reading ChatGPT summaries, its self-proclaimed “partner” iHeartRadio denies any knowledge of said partnership, its download and subscriber numbers are self-reported, and its audience cannot be found anywhere in two completely separate articles about it. The only big splash Inception Point AI has made is with gullible entertainment reporters.

The last time I wrote about Inception Point, I specifically cited its Jason and Travis Kelce - Football Brothers podcast as an example of the company’s scammy strategy of tricking consumers into thinking its podcasts were other shows with actual celebrities. The Wrap sees this differently:

Your eyes do not deceive you, the caption from TheWrap actually reads “Inception Point’s podcasts are more biographical, and are more about factual information about figures like the Kelce brothers, rather than employ their voice.” Give me a fucking break! With these two artworks side by side, the point is CLEARLY to trick people into thinking “Football Brothers” is the Kelce Brothers’s show “New Heights.” Come on!

This is like finding out your grandmother was the victim of a celebrity romance scam and having someone insist “Actually it was just a kind-hearted stranger pretending to be Keanu Reeves in order to assist an elderly woman deal with her loneliness.” No! Your grandma got robbed! Inception Point is pretending they have the Kelce Brothers to trick consumers into playing their podcast so they can show inflated download stats to their advertisers! Stop giving them free PR!

Here’s a round-up of cool and interesting links about Hollywood and technology:

Where have all the TV cameras gone? (link)

WB and Cosm extend partnership, will show new version of Harry Potter. (link)

What IS AI psychosis exactly? (link)