And you can always get to Hot Blog via moviecitynews.com.

So... in the meanwhile...

mp3 of the conversation

The trajectory of The Last Exorcism is pretty classic, opening stronger than the rest of the weekend would be. On the other hand, the trajectory of Takers, going up on Saturday, is a little bit of a surprise. According to Len's numbers, they'll be battling into "actuals" for first place. Both companies will see $20m openings for this product as a win.

The Expendables will become Lionsgate's #2 all-time domestic grosser by this time next week, behind only F9/11.

The Other Guys becomes Will Ferrell's 4th $100m comedy in the last 5 years and #5 overall in his career, crossing the line tomorrow or Tuesday. Three of the last four were at Columbia. Perhaps Paramount will let Sony make Anchorman 2, since they don't seem to want to do so.

Inception continues to chug along, overseas in particular. It's closing in on $650m worldwide this weekend. So profits, while all coming out of post-theatrical revenues, will be significant, pushing past The Twilight Saga: Eclipse to be the #3 film of the summer and #1 for the year without 3D.

Sometime this week, Despicable Me will pass Shrek 4 to be the #2 animated film of the summer. Toy Story 3 won't pass Shrek 2 to be the biggest domestic animated film of all time - at least, not without a serious re-release, which is likely precluded the DVD release -and it seems highly unlikely to pass Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs for biggest international animated film of all time. But by being so strong in both domestic and foreign... and having a 3D bump... it is/will be the biggest worldwide animated film by 14% - $17%

Sneaking of 3D and re-releases, very solid numbers of the Avatar re-release.

As MCN changes, so changes The Hot Blog. And for the better, I hope. Sometime Sunday night or Monday morning, the new MCN site will launch... sure to have its quirks and corrections to come... with some of our past and future still in the process of being settled in, whether because of complex coding or a deep well of material from the past. But here we go...

I think the new URL for this blog will be http://www.moviecitynews.com/category/mcn-blogs/the-hot-blog, but until we're live, I won't even be 100% sure of that.

What I do know is that content has been and will be king at Movie City News. And while we will continue to do everything we currently do - DP/30 will be streaming, after all these years - there will be a lot of new ways to get more information from pretty much everyone who covers the movies. And we're still doing it all without turning OPC (Other People's Content) into our own.

Anyway... I hope that you all enjoy what's new and what's old. I'm sure we'll hear from you about it, one way or the other.

This site will be here until the switch. So feel free to hang around if you like. I know you'll all miss the heck out of Movable Type, but what can ya do? If you can't find the blog, it will be easily found on www.moviecitynews.com

See you on the other side.

And with that, here is a look at the visual history of THB... and a small glimpse at what's next...

AND NOW...

The Last Exorcism should end up in the low 20s, which still will make it only the 17th $20m opener in Lionsgate history. It's starting out just a little behind the company's The Haunting in Connecticut, which creepy-advertised its way to a $23m start in March of last year. Ironically, they are using Eli Roth's name to open this film to more than any Eli Roth movie has ever opened.

Of the current 16 LGF $20m domestic openers, 7 are Tyler Perry (which is why For Colored Girls... is a lock to end up in this year's Oscar race come December), 4 Saws, then Bloody 3D, Forbidden Kingdom, Haunting in CT, F9/11, and The Expandables. Perhaps this parade of success with cheap is why Mr. Icahn doesn't want the company expanding into more expensive product. The most expensive Liosngate film to gross oevr $50m domestic was 3:10 to Yuma... and that was, basically, an output deal with Relativity. This year's most expensive pick-ups - From Paris with Love, Kick-Ass and Killers - didn't crack $50m.

So, excellent job with Exorcism... congratulations to Sarah Greenberg for having baby Sarah Jr exorcised from her womb... and settle this war by knowing what LGF does best and most profitably, not just trying to tell Icahn Daddy that he's wrong and you're right.

Takers is classic Screen Gems. Pretty cheap, not to pretty, opened to over $20m. That's teh way they roll over there. It is possible that this one will end up just short of $20m... but not in the estimates tomorrow morning.

Screen Gems' highest grossing film is the $80m domestic for Dear John, which doesn't seem to fit the profile. Normally, it would be Got Johnned, The Exorcism Of John, Underjohn or Resident Death March. But Mr Culpepper is clearly stretching out a bit. And next month, the company has a real chance of breaking its record with another unexpected Screen Gems title... though still at a price. Interesting times.

The third "new" picture in the marketplace is Avatar: The Re-Release, which even taking the 3D bump in consideration (all screens are 3D or IMAX 3D this time) will likely be the #3 per screen wide release of the weekend, with nearly $5000 per or $3500 per if you take 30% off for 3D pricing. That's still more than a quarter million people leaving their homes to see a film recently released on DVD at premium prices in the weakest box office part of the year. Not bad.

I should say here that I am a little sick to death of the endless whining about 3D and the overstated screeds about 3D slowing going down the toilet. These pieces use the false logic of the Fake Box Office Slump of 2005, in which the survey was so dramatically skewed by The Passion of The Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 the year before (not to mention Shrek 2's outlying success... oops, mentioned it) that comparisons the next year were terribly misleading. Now it's that 3D grosses are down... versus Avatar and then Alice In Wonderland, 2 of the 7 billion dollar grossers of all time.

Wow... Step Up 3D didn't do Avatar numbers. Shocking. But trying to pin it all on 3D is about as stupid as claiming that a mosque being built near WTC will not upset people... or that it is not in the spirit of this nation to allow it regardless because this nation aspires to being bigger than our differences or our fears. (Yeah... we fail... a lot. So goes the nation.)

It is equally true that relatively big numbers for Resident Evil 3D, Saw 3D and Jackass 3D will not make 3D "happening" again. These may be fun, but basically, they are Star Wars Christmas Specials... stunts with familiar, strong-base franchises.

The real show that 3D as oversized phenomenon is over is the decision not make Sucker Punch a 3D film. I suspect it may have had more to do with ruining the film, which is already a giant visual stunt, so doing a cheap 3D layover would probably diminish the quality significantly. But, still...

I would not be shocked to see Pirates 4 downplay the 3D aspect. Sell the movie. Then let people know, by the way, the film can be seen in 3D. And watch the billion dollar mark fall for the second time in the franchise history. But by then, in spite of Harry Potter, there will be some dead 3D bodies piled up on Hollywood Road... movies that spent the $5m and didn't get a real return on that money.

Speaking of which... Piranha 3D will be right on the cusp of "was it worth it?"

This is the last Friday box office piece on what will shortly be "the old site." (Of course, everything is being moved over, including your comments) Weird feeling...

#2 and #4 happened to be the #9 and #10 films of this last weekend.

Twitter trends tell you.. what is trending on Twitter.

It's nice to be talked about. Both films had $5m+ weekends. But both would prefer to have the $12m+ of Vampires Suck or The Expendables than to e trending so well on Twitter. Ya?

I love Netflix on my iPad and on my TV... but as you can see, this cartoon that RJ Matson did for us in 2008 still captures the fundamental truth about movies on phones.

Then again, the immediacy and fragile lifespan of a live sporting event...

Fox continues to Blu up its library for its 75th birthday, this time going in for the Baz Luhrman pair... and it's hard to imagine too many other films that are more meant for Blu. Visual feasts, bigger, brighter, betterer.

I'm looking forward to Oct 19.

Of course, there is the media-glutton, Richard Greenfield of BTIG, stirring the pot, even when he is missing the point. His last media grab is still resonating as media still throws out rising ticket prices as a serious issue when they are 3D driven and a tiny blip on the radar of a much bigger series of issues facing the movie business.

But the most breathtaking quote of all was: from Viacom Inc. Chief Operating Officer Tom Dooley in regard to the Netflix deal. "The deal clearly demonstrated that these new players are going to represent significant revenue streams to studios," said Mr. Dooley. "There is a new market developing that's beginning to replace the physical DVD business. This may not be as elegant a transition as some of the industry's previous transitions because consumer technologies move so quickly these days, but it will happen."

I hardly know where to start when there are this many dangerously false notions offered by an important executive in one quote.

He starts with something that is clearly true - "The deal clearly demonstrated that these new players are going to represent significant revenue streams to studios."

New players... yes. New players often overpay to break into a business area.

But, "There is a new market developing that's beginning to replace the physical DVD business."

Uh... kinda... but in the context of the quote, it sounds a lot like Mr. Dooley, like others, has convinced himself against all logic that the "new market" will replace the revenues of the DVD sell-thru bubble of the last decade.

Thing is, it's not actually a new market... it's the same market with a wider variety of delivery systems with a lower price point per unit.

"This may not be as elegant a transition as some of the industry's previous transitions because consumer technologies move so quickly these days, but it will happen."

Actually, this is very similar to the transition as the industry had from VHS to DVD, in that the VHS market was coming down from its peak and with a clearly superior new technology, the industry scrambled to figure out how to handle the transition. It has nothing to do with the speed of consumer technology, as the issues being faced are still much the same as they were 3 years ago... the main difference is that the studios are opening their vaults, not that the technology has stormed the gates.

What is also significantly different in that last transition is that The Industry decided to make DVD a sell-thru business and not a rental business. The reason for this was to create a price point that was higher than rental, that they had to share less of with brick & mortar, and that was still seen as a bargain for consumers. HUGE win... until the business matured. That's when the industry pathetically started giving up on price point, chasing the ghost of DVD sell-thru. That is when pay-TV really got out of the movie premiere business. And the bottom fell out of all pricing, making the possibility of a $10 (or in their dreams, a $40) home digital delivery price point attractive.

What we are seeing now is a change - digital delivery - with only one point of increased value, but a number of ongoing issues with decreased value. That is to say, the new value proposition is all-access... the downside is still delivery. Cable/Satellite HD is inferior to Blu-ray as well. But as good as streaming is, it still has glitches and vulnerability to the whims of wireless.

The Big Question... the difference between this being a "new market" and just an extension of the current market... is price point. Can studios get the price point back up with digital delivery?

The answer seems to be "no." And as a result, we are seeing serious reconsiderations of The Model.

In the meanwhile, you have Netflix trying not to become the next Blockbuster, throwing 30% - 40% more than pay-tv for content. As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is not a business model, this is a gamble on a significant business expansion based on this new kind of content availability. The goal is to solidify Netflix's position so that, in five years, they can start negotiating lower fees that will allow the business to be profitable. (In the meanwhile, don't be shocked when Netflix eliminates DVD rentals or charges a premium for DVD rentals in 2012. It will not signal the end of DVD, but the model being a drain on the new Netflix model when they need to cut costs to the bone as they evolve through this transition.)

My point is... Netflix's current spending spree is a blip, not a new model. The strategy may work for Netflix, but if The Industry sees that as The Next Thing, it will be creating another bubble, not a reliable future for revenues. At the same time, as so often happens, a certain carelessness about opportunity costs being expended is involved.

If, let's say, the Netflix buy is $200m per studio per year... and let's say that IS the model. It seems like a LOT to studios that have been squeezed down by pay-tv in recent years. But it doesn't start to match the revenues of the DVD boom. What AREN'T studios doing to build the future numbers because they are being paid to stream on Netflix? Hmmm...

Disney, for instance, seems to be moving forward with testing of anything/anywhere On Demand for their family library at a price slightly lower than Netflix's monthly price. What happens when/if the two services compete using the same library? How much value does Netflix deliver if they only have a window for limited Disney product, which starts later and ends sooner and costs more, if your family TV is dominated by your kids? And is this a viable $200m annual investment for Netflix?

Anyway...

Dooley is right, the transition will happen. But I get very nervous when I read someone powerful being quoted with this kind of, "We have it under control" kind of quote. They don't.

Right now, you cannot add up all of the pieces, including Netflix buys, and match the revenue stream of just 3 years ago. The genius of the DVD play was that it replaced VHS by being a sell-thru system.

What it appears we are moving into is a no sell-thru future. The two models are subscription and rental. Rental will be dominant for a while... and then fall to subscription, in my view. And that fall will come when subscription becomes ubiquitous. Not 20 million or 30 million units, but 100 million... cable/satellite level penetration.

Even then, if the cost of delivering to all formats is, say, 10% and the price for a monthly subscription is $10, the return to the studio on 100 million subscribers is still "just" $1.08 billion a year... which still doesn't match post-theatrical revenues of an entire studio slate from the height of the DVD boom. (Note: I don't think that, say, Lionsgate, will be able to charge monthly the same way that, say, Sony can. As they are now, on a number of projects, they will probably team up for subscription models... so while a billion would be a lot for them, as it would not for the majors, they probably won't be able to see that whole figure.)

And this is why Hollywood is darkening its shorts right now. No one can see what The Solution is... because there is no solution other than spending less on making movies so these reduced revenues will still make for profitable businesses.

There is a What's Next... but it's not WHAT'S NEXT... it's a place where consumers get more for less... and The Industry has no one to blame but itself and its infantile attraction to bubbles.

mp3 of the conversation

mp3 of the interview

(Wed, 10:57a - link to video corrected)