[whartung]

Isn't this because the mid range is going straight into the streaming services, rather than through (an I assume expensive) distribution process into theaters?

Theater going is expensive (I think it's expensive), the alternatives are "pretty good", so that impacts overall theater presence.

Having a "block buster" that can justify the expense of marketing and distributing to the now weaker theater market seems like a prudent thing for the studios and it's just part of the current reality of entertainment.

I know I don't see many movies in the theater. I don't know if I've seen anything since Top Gun. I was hoping to see Dune 2, but it's delayed. I will be seeing the Ferrari bio-pic, simply because I'm a Mann nut. Otherwise, we rented Barbie. We rented GoG3, we'll be renting Oppenheimer.

And whatever other random stuff I sleep through from Netflix.

[smileysteve]

Theater going is expensive relative to watching at home.

Examples;

Theater: $6 discount discount tickets, $12-$20 normal tickets, $20+ Imax (light) ticket; $10+ in refreshments per person.

At Home: $13/month streaming service, $20 purchase, $2.99->$5.99 rental for 2-6 people. Soft drink; $1, Popcorn $1

Then consider the comforts: No drive; no other patrons on cell phones or making noise, can pause a 2hr+ (more commonly 3) for bathroom and refreshment breaks.