Top movie theater lobbyist calls for a minimum of 45 days before films hit streaming

Los Angeles Times - Apr 1st, 2025

At CinemaCon in Las Vegas, Michael O’Leary, head of Cinema United, advocated for a minimum 45-day theatrical window for movies before they transition to home video and streaming. This proposal aims to counteract the pandemic-era trend of shortened release windows, which he argues has distorted box office results and diminished consumer demand. O’Leary highlighted the need for a clear, consistent policy to support theatrical exclusivity and to set proper expectations for moviegoers, addressing theater owners and industry professionals at the event.

Prior to COVID-19, films typically enjoyed an 80 to 90-day theater run. However, this average has decreased to approximately 32 days post-pandemic, with some studios like Universal Pictures going as low as 17 days. O’Leary warned that shorter windows harm smaller and medium-sized films, fostering a misconception that theaters are only for blockbusters, thereby threatening the industry's long-term viability. He also cautioned against overinvestment in large-format screens, which, though popular, account for only a small portion of global box office revenue, potentially narrowing the appeal of the cinema experience.

Film Industry Streaming Services Movie Theaters Cinema Con Michael O’leary Cinema United Theatrical Window

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the ongoing debate over theatrical windows in the film industry, with a focus on the perspective of theater owners and industry lobbyists. It accurately reflects the concerns of these stakeholders and the historical context of windowing practices, supported by credible industry figures like Michael O’Leary. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation by including the studios' perspective and more diverse sources to enhance credibility. While the topic is timely and relevant, particularly for those within the industry, its impact on broader public opinion is limited. The article is clear and readable, making it accessible to a general audience, though it primarily engages readers with a specific interest in the entertainment sector. Overall, the article effectively highlights a significant issue within the film industry, though it could improve in areas such as balance and source quality.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate portrayal of the current trends in the film industry regarding theatrical windows. Michael O’Leary's proposal for a minimum 45-day theatrical window aligns with industry discussions and is supported by credible sources. The historical context of pre-pandemic theatrical windows being between 80 to 90 days is consistent with industry norms. The article accurately reflects the shift during the pandemic to shorter windows, with specific examples like Universal Pictures' 17-day window, which is a documented strategy they employed. However, the claim about premium large-format screens accounting for only 9% of the global box office would benefit from direct citation of industry data to enhance verifiability.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the perspective of theater owners and the cinema lobbyist, Michael O’Leary, highlighting their concerns about shorter theatrical windows. While it effectively communicates the industry's viewpoint on the necessity of longer windows for the health of theaters, it lacks a comprehensive exploration of the studios' rationale for shorter windows, such as maximizing marketing efficiency and responding to consumer habits. Including perspectives from studio executives or data on consumer preferences for streaming versus theater viewing could provide a more balanced view of the issue.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly communicates the main arguments and concerns regarding theatrical windows. The language is straightforward, making the content accessible to readers unfamiliar with industry jargon. The logical flow from problem identification to proposed solutions helps maintain reader engagement. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more background on why studios favor shorter windows, which would help readers understand the complexity of the issue.

Source quality

The article references credible industry figures and trends, such as Michael O’Leary and CinemaCon, which lend authority to the claims made. However, it does not directly cite specific studies or data sources, such as box office statistics or consumer behavior research, which would strengthen the credibility of the information presented. The reliance on a single industry spokesperson could introduce bias, and the inclusion of diverse sources would enhance the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article provides clear statements from Michael O’Leary and outlines his position on theatrical windows, yet it lacks transparency in terms of the underlying data and methodology used to support these claims. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or detailed explanation of how conclusions were drawn. More explicit context about the motivations of different stakeholders in the industry would improve transparency.