Jason Blum: This Is the Biggest Shift in Hollywood History

When I called up Jason Blum for my article on the future of film, the successful producer of low-cost genre movies like “Get Out” and “Paranormal Activity” did not mince words: “This is the biggest shift in the content business in the history of Hollywood,” he told me. Though many of his peers are anxious about the future of theatrical movies, Blum said he felt lucky to be working now: “It makes you use different parts of your brain.” Here are edited excerpts from our conversation.

Is it possible that in 10 years, the only films distributed theatrically will be big tentpoles and whatever low-cost genre films you’re making?

I think that’s accurate! Everyone talks about how all young people do is spend time on their screens, but young people show up to horror movies. When James Wan is crafting a scare, there’s a 10-minute buildup to that scare, and if you look down at your phone during the run of that 10 minutes, the scare doesn’t work. If you’re in a theater where you can’t look at your device and you have to look at the screen, the movie becomes infinitely more scary.

You’re making the case for why your horror movies deserve theatrical releases, but let me make the case for two other movies you produced. I remember how the audience audibly reacted during the final few minutes of “BlacKkKlansman” and “Whiplash,” and that’s a feeling you only get in a theater.

See, I would put “Whiplash” in the exact opposite category. It was a disaster theatrically! A disaster. It was one of the lowest-grossing Oscar-winning movies of all time. It was a huge missed opportunity. What I wanted for that movie was for students and kids to see it, and they eventually saw it on TV, but they didn’t come to the movie theater to see “Whiplash.” The people who paid to see “Whiplash” were like me: too old. [He’s 50.]

All things being equal, would I much prefer the experience of seeing “Whiplash” in a movie theater? Absolutely. But I would also prefer the experience of driving through Los Angeles with no traffic. And that’s not realistic, either.

So in 10 years, movies like “Whiplash” will be thought of as a better bet for streaming services, rather than as a prospect for theatrical distribution?

I think for low-budget dramas, yes. They may have a theatrical life, but it will be small and cursory, and it will support the distribution they get on streaming.

When you talk to people younger than you about the way they watch movies and consume pop culture, what do you find striking?

How much they’re watching pieces of things: “I saw some of that movie.” They’re multitasking while they’re watching the things that we’re making. That’s not what we want, but by the same token, I don’t subscribe to the notion that you should mandate how young people watch what you’re doing. That’s an arrogant position to have. If they watch half of my horror movie, I’m glad they watched half as opposed to not watching any of it!

Could that shift the traditional notion of how long a movie is supposed to be?

I think that’s possible, but the two- to three-hour storytelling format has existed since the beginning of time. That’s how long the plays were that the Greeks were going to see. If a story is two hours and has a beginning, middle, and end, I can’t see how that becomes obsolete. By the way, I may be a dinosaur.

What other changes do you foresee in the next 10 years?

I don’t think streamers are going to be able to continue to pay everyone the same no matter how many people watch your movie. That has to change. Eventually, compensation is going to be different for people who make something that 20 million people see as opposed to 1 million. Currently, it doesn’t reflect that at all.

Disney just bought Fox. Are we heading toward a future where even more studio consolidation will affect competition?

Half yes, half no. There are going to be a handful of quote-unquote studios-slash-platforms in competition with each other, but those studios and platforms are going to be utterly different than they were five years ago. That’s radical. Hollywood is going to be dominated by Northern California, who’s going to have 50 percent of it. My guess is Apple, Netflix and Amazon are going to have at least 50 percent of that market.

I don’t think of change as good or bad. It’s great to be a producer of content right now because a lot of people are buying, but it’s bad because you don’t get paid more if your show is a hit.

I’ve never felt the nervous energy in Hollywood that I’ve felt over the last 12 months, and it increases every day. There’s an uncertainty about the future because the change is happening in an incredibly dramatic way and very, very quickly. Overall, the change that’s happening more excites me than bothers me.

This is the biggest shift in the content business in the history of Hollywood. It’s bigger than moving to color. I think it’s as big as the advent of television.

If we’re moving to a future where films are distributed by streamers and those companies don’t release their viewing numbers, how does that change the way people are compensated?

With Netflix, it’s extraordinarily easy to figure out how many people saw it. They just have to decide to [release the numbers]. But with Amazon and Apple, they don’t ever have to be just in a profitable business on movies and TV shows. That’s crazy! And it makes people go nuts, because people have worked so hard to put a business model around content, and now they’re competing with people who don’t need to make that profit. It’s apples and oranges, and it’s really unsettling. I make a show for Apple, they sell a million more phones — how are you ever going to connect those two things?