Why Cannes Was Explosive for Some — and Quiet for Others
- Gato Scatena
- 5 hours ago
- 8 min read
Cannes 2026 was one of the busiest and strangest markets I’ve attended.
The Croisette was packed. Completely packed. The reported 16,000+ attendees absolutely felt real. Restaurants were slammed. Hotels were overflowing. The Palais was crowded from morning through evening. Asia and Latin America were heavily represented. Meetings ran nonstop. Buyers were active. Acquisitions were happening.
And yet, simultaneously, there was a growing online narrative that Cannes felt “quieter,” “slower,” or somehow less productive. Perhaps it’s just because journalists prefer doom-and-gloom for clicks, or perhaps those are the only stories being reported to them by those of us on either side of the deals. After all, the loudest boos come from the cheap seats.
But in truth, both observations are correct.
What’s missing from the conversation is why the market felt wildly successful for some companies and painfully unproductive for others.
Because from our side at Scatena & Rosner, this was probably our busiest Cannes ever. Potentially our busiest market period. Coincidentally, I barely attended any parties or social functions beyond the already-booked private dinners and lunches.
There were plenty of parties, of course – as always. So, the idea that Cannes social life disappeared is exaggerated. But personally, I only went out once — and that was for a very small, personal hang with friends and the team at Ashland Hill. The rest of the nights were spent on laptops until 1am and 2am preparing for meetings scheduled the following day.
That distinction matters more than people realize, because I think Cannes is increasingly rewarding preparation and precision rather than pure attendance. The days of show up, present your film and close a deal are gone. Markets today feel more like: let’s confirm our relationship face-to-face, discuss projects that were shared over email weeks ago, highlight some others for interest, then talk numbers.
I don’t think enough people fully understand this shift yet.
The Myth Of “Being There”
In our Cannes prep article before the market, I strongly emphasized the importance of scheduling meetings in advance. Some people listened. Many didn’t.
Since returning home, I’ve already received multiple emails from subscribers discussing how difficult it was to get meaningful face-time with targeted companies and executives. Some felt completely frozen out. Others spent huge portions of the market wandering between meetings that led nowhere, and I’m unfortunately not surprised.
But what I failed to mention previously — frankly because I didn’t fully realize how critical it had become — was that scheduling meetings alone is no longer enough.
What mattered this year was strategic buyer targeting.
At S&R, we instinctively approached the market by deeply analyzing what each buyer currently needed, what their recent release slates looked like, what genres appeared underrepresented in their libraries, what their regional strategies suggested, and what prior conversations had already hinted at.
In other words, we didn’t just schedule meetings. We curated conversations. And that completely changed the outcome of the market for us.
Why Some Companies Had “Dead” Markets
One thing became painfully clear at Cannes: The market no longer rewards generic pitching. I mean, we knew this from the past couple years, but the horror stories I heard about DOA meetings highlighted this.
You cannot walk into meetings today with a random slate and expect buyers to magically discover value inside it.
The companies that seemed busiest this year generally had one thing in common: they understood exactly why their films belonged with specific buyers.
For us, we entered the market with diversified product and very little direct genre overlap among our new releases.
We had an awards-worthy dramatic comedy with an Oscar-winner and Tony-winner, a high-7-figure YA sci-fi film appropriate for family audiences, a straightforward action film with a rising genre lead, a mockumentary already validated by nearly $1MM domestic box office, additional sci-fi action, a horror, and an adapted IP tied to a New York Times bestselling novel.
There was something for nearly every buyer, and little competition between our titles directly.
But more importantly, we strategically led buyers toward the titles most aligned with their immediate acquisition needs. That opened the doors. Then, once the meetings started moving, we introduced the rest of the avails.
Interestingly, many of the films that ended up generating the strong reactions or unexpected offers were not necessarily the titles we originally led with; they were the “downstream titles” we didn’t see as obvious plugs to the buyers. And that’s how you learn about changing taste.
The hook created the momentum, and the catalog illuminated current needs beyond.
That’s something filmmakers still underestimate: buyers are overwhelmed with options and time for meetings is finite. Having a rep with multiple titles acts as gravity to draw buyers into negotiations that might not seem obvious. For filmmakers, it’s opportunity; for buyers it’s time management.
Cannes Is Becoming More “Strategic” — But That’s Not Necessarily Bad
One thing the trades did get right is that the word “strategic” was everywhere this year. But I think many people are interpreting that too negatively.
Yes, buyers are more cautious. Yes, fewer blind acquisitions are happening. Yes, risk mitigation is real.
But another way to interpret “strategic” is this: Buyers are becoming more honest about what they actually know how to sell.
And frankly, filmmakers need to become more honest too.
The Harsh Reality Some Filmmakers Still Don’t Understand
Truthfully, we have clients who have been making films for a long time and still struggle to understand why certain projects are not being well received.
Sometimes the issue is positioning. Other times it’s execution. And sometimes it’s both.
There are filmmakers making genuinely well-executed movies that still face brutal commercial realities because the genre itself is difficult, unclear, or hard to market internationally without major cast support.
Distributors cannot force audiences to watch a movie.
That sentence sounds obvious, but a surprising number of filmmakers still operate as though a large brand name distributor alone can create demand.
On the other side, there are films with strong concepts or commercial packaging that simply fail in execution, and that matters now more than ever. Platforms can measure everything: watch-through rates, abandonment, completion statistics, recommendation conversion, audience retention, and long-tail engagement.
A mediocre film with a good poster used to survive longer in the ecosystem. Today, algorithms expose weak execution quickly.
In a world flooded with content, buyers increasingly ask themselves: “Why spend money supporting this film when there are twenty similar films with stronger long-tail potential?”
That’s the real competitive environment now.
The "briefs" portion ends here.
Inside the Premium section, we break down:
why buyers are beginning to expand outside their traditional territories,
how AVOD and FAST are materially changing international acquisition models,
why the “mid-tier indie” trap is becoming financially dangerous,
what Gen Z actually responds to (versus what the industry thinks they respond to),
why aggregators still cannot replicate true distribution infrastructure,
how AI localization could reshape worldwide licensing over the next several years,
and the blunt advice filmmakers need to hear before AFM, TIFF, Berlin, and Cannes 2027.
Most importantly, we unpack the actual psychology driving today’s market — not the version of the industry many filmmakers still emotionally wish existed.
Because despite the doom online, real opportunities are emerging for filmmakers and companies that understand where the business is actually heading.
That’s what the premium tier of Below the Line is built for: real-world market intelligence from inside the business — not recycled trade headlines after the fact.