Connect with us

Entertainment

Is ‘Blue Dot Fever’ a real problem for the concert industry?

Published

on

Is ‘Blue Dot Fever’ a real problem for the concert industry?

Over the last few weeks, acts like Post Malone, Zayn, Meghan Trainor, the Pussycat Dolls and Kid Cudi have canceled major tour dates. Whatever their reasons behind the scenes (they range from finishing new music to spending time with family), some have cited “Blue Dot Fever” as a possible cause — a tour staring down too many unsold seats to make the numbers work.

It’s a tough environment for all but the biggest acts right now — gas is eye-wateringly expensive, fans’ concert habits changed post-COVID, ticket prices are higher than many would like, and social media fame doesn’t guarantee a crowd in person.

The Times spoke to Michael Kaminsky, the founder of music management firm KMGMT, Inc, a partner in the Vans Warped Tour and an instructor in USC’s music industry program, to gauge if “Blue Dot Fever” is real, what expenses acts are facing on the road now, and how a digital audience is no guarantee of a packed house anymore.

Is this phenomenon of “Blue Dot Fever” real, or is it just a coincidence for specific artists amid a tough economy?

I’ve represented artists for 20 years, and a lot’s changed. There used to be a lot of steps up the ladder — you’d play clubs at your band’s start, then theaters, then go onto bigger things. What I see now is the middle class eroding, and it’s harder for everyone there. Expenses are way up, some have tripled from even a few years ago.

Advertisement

For a lot of artists, it’s increasingly difficult to tour and have a healthy business. A lot of this is fans’ sensitivity to ticket prices, but kids also have a lot of options now, and going to concerts is not as ingrained in their culture.

Is this in part a generational shift for kids that grew up in the pandemic?

I meet a lot of 18- to 21-year-olds at my university. Growing up, kids going to concerts was a rite of passage. As a teen, friends took you to shows and it was cheap to learn to love live music. Over COVID-19, kids were not able to have that experience. Instead, it was making friends online.

Now, for lot of people, they’ll go to one or two big events a year, it’s like going on vacation for them. I’m a small part of a big festival (the Vans Warped Tour), and I’d say a third of people tell us it’s their first concert they’ve ever been to.

What feels different about the calculations acts have to make about touring now?

Advertisement

What I’m seeing is a lot of bands deciding not to tour in the first place. It’s too expensive, too risky, and there’s not as much upside as there used to be. You see some acts canceling tours, which is a bit systemic, but you’re also not seeing all the things behind that decision — the erosion of the middle class of artists and higher expenses.

Gas prices spiking has to play a role there.

It’s not just gas. A bus used to be $1,000 per day to rent, now it’s $3,000 per day. If you take one night off, for a midsized band, that’s very difficult to absorb now. You see bigger artists playing just 10 cities, but doing multiple nights. They’re essentially saying “If you want to see us, fly out.” That traditional way of thinking about touring is changing or has already changed.

You hear a lot griping about high ticket prices, but artists and promoters set those prices as a reflection of what their costs are. Is there a disconnect with fans’ expectations there?

It’s complex. If you’re Taylor Swift or Beyoncé, there’s still lots of profit to be made. But a big dilemma for artists is that fans feel like art needs to be accessible and valued as such, and tickets should be priced below what their value is to be fair. Then they watch tickets get bought by scalpers and flipped for multiples, so the person making the most money on a ticket is the scalper. But as soon as an artist charges fair value, fans get upset and say they’re being greedy.

Advertisement

It’s hard to watch the person doing the least work, who has not contributed anything to the tour, reaping the biggest rewards. You’re finally seeing artists saying “I can’t price a ticket just because it’s fair. I can’t price it below what someone will pay.”

At the advent of streaming, everyone said that you can make your money on tour. If touring is no longer profitable, how will artists survive? Is every band just a T-shirt company now?

Everyone wants to move to the superfan model. Everyone already pays $10-$15 month for streaming services, so there is new emphasis on merch and VIP experiences. What’s more exciting to me is seeing a whole new subculture develop — all-cash shows at nontraditional venues, and releasing your own music offline. We’re seeing a lot of analog consumption and fashion come back, which ties to an overall broader need for artists to endear themselves to fans, so they find more ways to appreciate meaningful art. We’re seeing the fringes of electronic music rise, and very heavy rock music rise. There’s a tidal change happening in youth culture that is tied to inaccessibility, a response to the devaluing of making art, that’s exciting to see.

I have kids who come through our school and their aspirations are not to play club shows. They want to play backrooms at record stores with 500 kids paying $15 and it’s only prominently advertised in a Discord group. They’re listening to music on cassette. Kids are sick of this AI-accelerated push, and they want to enjoy real art again, and see an appreciation for it as political and subversive.

Is it damaging for artists’ careers to pull down dates over low sales? You see some acts being more candid about that, which is surprising and honest.

Advertisement

When artists are having these problems, they know why these tickets come down. That’s OK, the economy has changed, culture has changed and there’s not much you can do about that. They’re pushed into it.

I’m sure it’s embarrassing, but I don’t know if fans think so. Yet a big part of being famous is people acting like they’re famous. You need momentum and hits to stay famous.

These are obviously fraught times politically and economically. How do these macro-level challenges impact on touring?

It’s getting very hard. I have a lot of tours on sale now, and the day the Iran war started, my daily ticket counts took a huge dip. Gas was up, and even for low-priced tickets it was difficult for people to say that three months from now they’ll have money, so they’re not gonna buy a ticket.

Even with all these new digital metrics and tools, is it getting harder to know what an act’s real, ticket-buying audience is?

Advertisement

It’s extremely difficult to tell what will move tickets. You can have a hit song or be huge on TikTok and sell zero tickets, but I’ve got artists who have played for 20 years, and put them in the right rooms and price appropriately, they’ll sell out.

Tickets are more disconnected from album sales than ever before. Some artists stream like crazy and can’t sell, others stream low numbers but super-serve a touring audience and have fans that want to come back over and over. Data can make you informed, but it takes a smart, dedicated team with history and knowledge.

There are lots of new tools, but there’s still an old-school mentality that’s resistant to new tools. I’m excited by whats happening with the next generation that communicates differently, and you can go to where they are.

All these seem like compounding trends for all but the biggest acts. How do you keep a fan base invested in seeing you live?

At the end of the day, people value art and artists need to value fans equally. More than ever, it’s very important to build and find unique relationships. It isn’t just putting out a song and having them perform. Be respectful, be appreciative. You have to find new ways to speak to them. All my artists make 100% of their living from being artists. Part of that job is understanding the fan base and showing that you value them, and every time you show up you knock their socks off and keep them coming back.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Masters of the Universe (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

Published

on

Masters of the Universe (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

There’s a photo of me (below) from the mid-1980s, when I was around age 5, standing on the hood of an old Plymouth in the overgrown field behind my childhood home. I’m holding He-Man’s shield in one hand and his sword, made of yellow plastic, in the other. (Unrelatedly, I’m also wearing an Incredible Hulk shirt in the picture.) And I’m grinning with pride because I have thoroughly conquered the jalopy. The vehicle never ran again, probably because I fucking destroyed it with my sword and shield. Around that time, I also had a He-Man birthday cake and a sizable collection of Mattel’s Masters of the Universe action figures. They were my first foray into toys of this kind, later replaced by G.I. Joe, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and X-Men. However, my nostalgia for He-Man remains almost nonexistent today, perhaps because, looking back at the material, the mythology remains at once weird and unmemorable, and neither the popular animated series nor the 1987 film, Masters of the Universe, starring Dolph Lundgren and Frank Langella, holds up well. 

Over the years, Mattel has tried to revive the toy line and cartoon, but the company’s biggest effort thus far is the new feature from Amazon MGM Studios, which reportedly spent upwards of $200 million on a blockbuster-sized Masters of the Universe. If the 1980s versions of this franchise unabashedly targeted the preadolescent boy demographic, the new iteration has been reconfigured (by a sausage fest of credited screenwriters: Chris Butler, Aaron Nee, Adam Nee, and David Callaham) to adopt a more conventional mold. The movie also incorporates the last three decades of ironic reassessment: the series’ very 1980s obsession with bulging muscles; the loincloth-centric costumes, all of which look like rejected designs from Zardoz (1974); the vague eroticism between He-Man and several characters, including his nemesis, Skeletor; and the eccentricities of the cartoon, from the many heads thrown back in laughter to the bizarre characters—all of which started first as action figures (Stinkor, Mantenna, etc.), around which the writers built a lame storyline.

Despite its origins, Masters of the Universe sets out to become a four-quadrant feature, appealing to everyone, and in that, no one in particular. The story is too bloated for little children, with a 142-minute runtime that challenged the attention spans of the kids in my prescreening, who became restless after an hour. Admittedly, so did I. The material’s self-awareness and humor aren’t memorable enough to distinguish it from other, better examples in this genre, such as Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)—a movie that I enjoy more with each subsequent viewing. And director Travis Knight can’t decide whether the audience should take these characters seriously or laugh at their inherent silliness. He attempts both and does neither very well. The result did not rekindle my nostalgia for this chapter of my childhood; it didn’t create an exciting new take for audiences of all ages, either.

A protracted opening establishes the distant realm called Eternia, where sword-and-sandal heroes stand alongside robots and flying ships with laser guns. Eternia’s resident baddie, Skeletor (voiced by Jared Leto, doing an R-rolling master-thespian thing), wants the Sword of Power, which imbues its wielder with, as you might guess, power. But it’s kept in Castle Grayskull, home of King Randor (James Purefoy), who’s disappointed by his son, Adam (Artie Wilkinson-Hunt), a young boy more interested in goofing around than learning to fight. When Skeletor attacks the castle and proves victorious, the Enchantress (Morena Baccarin), the magically inclined protector of Grayskull, sends Adam away to Earth along with the coveted sword. What happens then? Did a couple of farmers adopt him à la Superman? Or did he grow up in the foster system? The writers ignore such practical questions, picking up the story years later, when the adult Adam (now a hulking Nicholas Galitzine) works in corporate human resources. After Adam finally locates his sword, which was lost when he was transported from Eternia to Earth, he eventually finds his way home with the help of his childhood friend, Teela (Camila Mendes), to retake Grayskull from Skeletor. 

Advertisement

Knight’s main source of inspiration, besides the cartoon and earlier movie, seems to be the similarly themed cult classic Flash Gordon (1980). Masters of the Universe’s music features identical-sounding Howard Blake-style guitar riffs and, to echo the original songs Queen wrote for Flash Gordon, the production uses Queen’s “Princes of the Universe” on the soundtrack. In other areas, Knight directs a conventional franchise movie with choppily edited and CGI-heavy battle scenes full of anonymous violence, lifeless chase sequences, digital backdrops resembling video-game environments, and shameless product placements for Coca-Cola and Amazon. The VFX sometimes look impressive; at other times, they look cheap and generic. Fortunately, Knight’s production also offers practical effects and prosthetics for some characters, most memorably the cyborg Trap Jaw. Knight’s secret weapon is costume designer Richard Sale, who visualizes the inherently absurd look of these characters, for better or worse, in tangible garb. The actors inhabiting the excellent costumes don’t have much to do, though. Ask yourself why they hired Kristen Wiig to voice Roboto, a bland robot character whose dialogue could have easily been performed by anyone else, or even just replaced with the beeps and boops of a Star Wars droid. When you have Kristen Wiig, use her.

Masters of the Universe movie still 2

Elsewhere, Masters of the Universe attempts to be self-aware in its irony and sexually suggestive underpinnings. There’s a running gag about how practically everyone can’t keep their eyes off Adam after he becomes his heroic alter-ego, He-Man, given his oiled-up muscles and blonde locks. But under Adam’s pink shirt, he still looks buff, making his eventual Hulk-like transformation into a muscle-bound barbarian unremarkable. Elsewhere, I liked the detail of Adam growing up on Earth and forgetting everyone’s names on Eternia, so he makes up their names based on their physical characteristics. A man with a big metal hand becomes Fisto (Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson), and another with a metal head-butting helmet becomes Ram-Man (Jon Xue Zhang). The writers take advantage of this with veiled dirty jokes about fisting and Ram-Man “giving head” to Skeletor’s goons. That’s about as clever as the movie gets. As for character development, there’s almost none. Skeletor, for instance, wants to be bad for the sake of being bad. His motivations are nonexistent, resulting in an obvious, uninteresting, and one-dimensional villain.  

A key series in the conservative, Reagan-era 1980s, the Masters of the Universe cartoon and previous movie valued strength and power, muscles and might. Today, that message has negative, regressive associations with the political right, which often looks at this period from a fond standpoint. To avoid alienating any part of their audience, the filmmakers desperately try to please everyone with a mild progressive commentary to counter the franchise’s original themes. Adam’s character must learn to “be a man” to please his father, King Randor, and his makeshift father figure, Man-at-Arms (Idris Elba, in a chummy reformed drunk role). But there’s also a half-hearted message that Adam, having worked in human resources, knows the value of empathy and emotional intelligence. For a while there, the movie even claims you can’t solve every problem with muscles—that is, until He-Man resolves the conflict by pummeling Skeletor with his fists. The movie’s message is ultimately nonexistent. The committee making this movie has carefully avoided any line-in-the-sand worldview, all in an attempt to manufacture a box-office hit that will please everyone and offend no one. 

That’s exactly the problem with Masters of the Universe. It’s so afraid to have a perspective or be about something that nothing onscreen has an impact. This is not to say every movie must have a substantive message. Sometimes, a mindless adventure is enough. However, even on those terms, there’s no tension or danger here because Skeletor is never all that menacing, and Adam alternates between self-parody and earnest heroism. None of the emotional beats land, not the many father-son dynamics nor the hero’s journey. And the production’s competing tones, from its intentional camp to its sword-swinging adventure, lack the balance of wit and scope that Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves so delightfully captured. For much of the runtime, I felt bored and, aside from a few chuckles at the childish humor, disengaged from everything happening. Perhaps Roboto describes the movie best when referring to life as “a series of absurdities leading to infinite nothingness.”

Photo: Brian the Barbarian

Advertisement

Masters of the Universe movie still 4

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Scott Pelley fired from ‘60 Minutes’ after accusing CBS News bosses of ‘murdering’ the program

Published

on

Scott Pelley fired from ‘60 Minutes’ after accusing CBS News bosses of ‘murdering’ the program

Scott Pelley, a signature on-air talent for “60 Minutes,” was ousted from CBS News a day after he blasted the division’s top management over the firing of the program’s executive producer and two correspondents.

“We have parted ways with Scott Pelley,” the newly installed executive producer Nick Bilton said in a message sent to staff Tuesday.

The network announced Pelley’s departure after a meeting with top CBS News management late Tuesday, where the veteran correspondent continued to ask for answers on why “60 Minutes” executive producer Tanya Simon and correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecila Vega were let go last week, according to people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak publicly. Editor in Chief Bari Weiss would not address the matter at the meeting.

Shortly after the meeting, Pelley received a letter stating he was terminated with cause.

Pelley’s departure follows a contentious “60 Minutes” staff meeting on Monday where he accused Weiss of “murdering” the country’s most-watched news program.

Advertisement

Pelley also raised doubts over the credentials of Bilton, the former New York Times journalist and documentary filmmaker named last week to run the venerable newsmagazine, citing his lack of experience in TV news.

Bilton was named to replace Simon on Thursday, an unexpected move that also came with the firings of the correspondents. The moves were made by Weiss, who has targeted the prestigious program for changes since she arrived at the network in the fall.

Bilton attempted to defend Weiss, who was not at the meeting, and asserted that CBS News management was committed to guiding “60 Minutes” into the digital future.

“She is murdering ‘60 Minutes,’” Pelley said of Weiss at the meeting held at the program’s Manhattan headquarters. “She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that.”

Pelley’s stunning remarks at the meeting were applauded by his colleagues. But veterans in the division — who were shocked by the confrontation — took it as a sign that he was ready to leave the program.

Advertisement

Pelley is the fourth correspondent to depart “60 Minutes” since Weiss joined CBS News. Anderson Cooper, who also anchors at CNN, chose not to sign a new deal, citing family reasons, although many insiders said he was not comfortable with the direction of CBS News. Alfonsi and Vega were severed last week.

Those vacancies mean “60 Minutes” will have to line up new talent quickly to fill the correspondent roles. Production on segments for the 2026-27 season is already underway.

In the termination letter sent to Pelley and obtained by The Times, Bilton said he attempted to meet with the correspondent last week to discuss the future of “60 Minutes” and was rebuffed.

“It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush,” Bilton wrote. “Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt.”

Bilton said in the letter that he hoped he could find “a path forward” with Pelley at a meeting Tuesday.

Advertisement

“You made clear that you are not interested in such a path,” he added. “Your antipathy to the future of the show is loud and clear.”

Pelley issued a lengthy statement accusing CBS News management of currying favor with the Trump administration by instructing him to put “falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story.”

“I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified,” he said. “To date, in every case, I have ignored these instructions or refuse them.”

Pelley also accused CBS News management of incompetence and unprofessionalism. “In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all,” he said.

Pelley, 68, started his career at CBS News in 1989. He covered the Gulf War for the network, traveling in Iraq and Kuwait. He later became chief White House correspondent during Bill Clinton’s turbulent second term.

Advertisement

Pelley became a correspondent for “60 Minutes II,” a midweek edition of the program that ran from 1999 to 2005. After the program was canceled, Pelley moved to the Sunday flagship edition. He also served as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” from 2011 to 2017.

The fate of “60 Minutes” — which saw a 9% audience increase and massive spikes in viewing across social media platforms this past season — has been an ongoing saga since President Trump sued the program over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent former Vice President Kamala Harris.

The suit was settled just ahead of the Federal Communications Commission clearing the way for the takeover of Paramount by David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

Ellison acquired Weiss’ digital start-up the Free Press, which established itself as a voice critical of so-called woke politics. She was given a mandate to move CBS News to the political center, which created a perception that her role is to placate the Trump White House as Paramount seeks regulatory approval to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

The actions at “60 Minutes” have put the staff at CBS News in a dark mood. Bilton acknowledged their trauma in his note.

Advertisement

“I realize this is a great deal of change in a very short time, and I wouldn’t pretend otherwise,” he wrote. “I won’t relitigate the last week here. What I will commit to is this: My unyielding support for each of you, the journalism that you do and what we will do together going forward”

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Masters of the Universe’: What Critics Are Saying About the He-Man Movie Starring Nicholas Galitzine and Jared Leto

Published

on

‘Masters of the Universe’: What Critics Are Saying About the He-Man Movie Starring Nicholas Galitzine and Jared Leto

He-Man lands in theaters Friday, and reviews for Masters of the Universe are now in.

The film, a live-action adaptation of the Mattel franchise from director Travis Knight, follows Prince Adam of Eternia, who crash-lands on Earth as a child and is separated from his Sword of Power. Raised as an ordinary man named Adam Glenn, he eventually recovers the sword and returns to save his homeland, where he faces off against Skeletor.

Nicholas Galitzine stars as He-Man/Prince Adam/Adam Glenn, while Jared Leto plays the villain Skeletor. The cast also includes Idris Elba as Man-at-Arms, Camila Mendes as Teela, Alison Brie as Evil-Lyn, Morena Baccarin as Sorceress and Kristen Wiig as Roboto.

Masters of the Universe celebrated its Los Angeles premiere last month, where the original He-Man from the 1987 film, Dolph Lundgren, praised Galitzine’s performance while speaking with The Hollywood Reporter: “You need a guy who is a leading-man type, and the muscles and the strength are secondary. You can always create that, and I think Nicholas did that. He built himself up. When I did it, it was a little more like I had the physique and had to access my boyish side to find the character.”

As of Tuesday, the movie holds a 74 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. To find out what critics are saying, read on.

Advertisement

THR’s Frank Scheck wrote, “The film winds up feeling so much like one of those fringe festival musical theater parodies that you find yourself waiting for the characters to burst into song … Masters of the Universe touches all the fan-serving bases, with a fun cameo by a certain star of a previous film incarnation and enough post-credit sequences to guarantee several sequels. But it all comes off as terribly forced, as if everyone involved was already trying to figure out exactly how much they’ll earn signing autographs at future Comic-Cons.”

IGN’s Clint Gage wrote, “Masters of the Universe is so much funnier than I expected, and the fight scenes are choreographed and photographed in a way that gives the sequences just enough flair to make them stand out (even if they’re not revolutionizing superhero style fisticuffs on screen). While Nicholas Galitzine and Idris Elba provide the thematic structure to the film, Jared Leto’s Skeletor gives a delightfully weird and cartoonish energy to every scene he’s in.”

YouTube critic Jeremy Jahns also highlighted Leto’s performance in his review, “Standout performance and character in Masters of the Universe: Jared Leto’s Skeletor,” Jahns said. “He was the most fun happening on screen at any given time.” He also added, “It does feel like a few different movies crushed into one. A few different ideas of what a Masters of the Universe movie should or would be. And most importantly, it had these moments of heart and life lessons that I actually liked that didn’t always land because sometimes the comedy is just there to eclipse it.” 

Inverse’s Ryan Britt wrote, “The idea of navigating your childhood hopes and fears, and incorporating those things into your adult life, is — somewhat appropriately for a movie based on an old cartoon — at the heart of the film. Not everyone who goes to see Masters of the Universe will have grown up with He-Man, but this film will make you wish that you did. And, at the same time, it’ll make you feel grateful that he’s back and quite literally, better than ever.”

The Guardian’s Benjamin Lee had a less favorable take on the film, writing in his review, “Amazon’s head-scratching $200m-budgeted misfire fails to explain why so much time, money and effort has been wasted on a movie based on a toy that kids just don’t play with any more … There’s just too much distracting confusion here — from Galitzine’s unsure performance to the script’s swirl of competing tones to the very question of why this needed to exist — for it to transport us as we both hope and expect.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending