I still quite like going to a theater, the experience is much different than watching a movie at home. In a theater I am much more focused on the film being shown, the screen is large and crisp, the speakers overwhelm – it's much more a celebration of the artwork than almost any typical home environment. On the other hand, I also like watching movies at home because I like sitting with my dog and being comfortable.
In that sense, it's almost ridiculously obvious why Hollywood doesn't like Netflix... it minimizes the "big screen experience". Imagine if we all replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps. Would anyone be surprised if masterworkers of paint and sculpture got upset about that? Of course not! They work on mediums that are designed to be experienced in a very specific spacial context. A director like Christopher Nolan, whether you like him or not, designs his movies specifically to be seen on 80ft wide projections with 100 speakers all around you. Anything less than that and, in his eyes, your mission is now to render his movie meaningless.
All this said, I really think the directors' gripes are misplaced. Netflix didn't kill theaters... theaters killed themselves. Rising prices, gouging on food, maintaining massive floorplans that require massive leases of land. If going to the theater to see a movie wasn't, by and large, a $50+ excursion for a family of 4 to eat garbage food and struggle to find seats then maybe we wouldn't all be staying at home?
It doesn't help that virtually the only way for theaters to make money is to sell that food. They make virtually nothing on the tickets themselves - almost all of the ticket money goes back to the studios for the first few weeks.
How do you keep a theater running as a business when you need to have huge floorplans, when you need to make money some way other than via ticket sales?
I'm not an expert in film finances, but this is my sense too. If studios want people to see their movies in theaters, they need to take responsibility for keeping theaters alive and affordable by sharing more of the ticket sale profit.
Sure, customers pay a huge markup. But even with such a huge markup, it's only around $4-5 per bucket sold. And in my exceptionally limited experience, only around one in five moviegoers buys popcorn.
This is why the theaters are transitioning into more of an Alamo Drafthouse style setup with a kitchen and alcohol. While the theaters have to be reconfigured and actually lose seat count, the type of customer drawn in by food, booze, and reserved larger reclining seats will net more per showing than a cramped theater full of buckets of popcorn.
Source: I know a manager at a theater chain whose location underwent the conversion -- his store's profits went up. But the location at the mall stuck with the higher seat density because it had more foot traffic and removing seats would decrease profits
Surely they've worked out (with far more information than we have) what they think is the optimum price on the supply-demand curve to maximize profits.
You're likely correct, they probably did some a/b-like testing to see how high they could raise concession prices before profits from concessions began to drop.
What I think they failed to look at was the long-term effects overpriced concessions had on the ticket sales. Concession prices have absolutely contributed to the long-term decline in ticket sales. I know lots of people that stopped going to movies because they knew their kids/SO would want that $15 drink and popcorn.
I only started going back when a theater that offered real food opened up. I won't pay $10 for a bucket of popcorn, but I'll definitely spend $15 on a decent burger.
If there are N people who would still buy at BIG_PRICE and M people who would buy if it's LESSER_PRICE and below, even if M > N, you would still be losing money if NBIG_PRICE < MLESSER_PRICE.
There's a demand curve, and if you lower below it you don't get more profit, you just sell to more people -- search for product elasticity curves, maximum willingness to pay, etc., for more info.
Vendors, and vendors like cinemas even more so, have experimented to find the price that maximizes those curves.
This is ridiculous the more you watch movies the more you want to watch more and in different setup. Here in France pirating is known to have brought back people to theaters (mainly because theaters stroke back with $20 monthly subscription for unlimited entry).
Netflix is an even better vector than piracy because people actually pay royalties to Hollywood to watch movies at home. How can they be so blind?
I’m pretty sure that if they could come up with a combined subscription Netflix+Theaters for around $30 sales would skyrocket.
Actually I think it’s what will happen anyway, depending on how it turn out it will be a cross deal or Netflix will just start to buyback theaters at some point.
> Netflix will just start to buyback theaters at some point.
I like this idea a lot. Netflix subscribers can
pay a fixed premium ($4?) per showing of new/exclusive films that are held off of Netflix for a week or two.
One could buy a "Comedy" pass for a specific theater hall that will only air comedies back-to-back with schedules published in advance. Given pure digital distribution, Netflix could even set up a local CDN and refresh content every day if they wanted to.
Or old movie could be rescheduled on theater based on local wishlist of nearby Netflix subscribers. Could be a way to reintroduce a form of midnight movie formula:
"Alert: This item on your wishlist will play in theater near you on Wednesday night at midgnight! click here to book your seat !"
It is implausible that Netflix, or piracy, brings people to theaters. If so, given that there is massively more piracy, and streaming, than there was 30 years ago, you’d expect an increase in theater attendance, not a massive decrease. Pretty clear that streaming and piracy are substitute goods for theater attendance.
If theater attendance disappeared, it would help Netflix as those ex theater goers sought replacement content. Therefore, it makes little sense for Netflix to try and save theaters. Also, saving theaters send money to competitors like Disney who are going to be competitive in the streaming space in the future.
I don't think that cinemas are much more competition to Netflix than books or bars would be. Maybe for some, but for me it's definitely not "I want to get entertained by moving pictures, Netflix or cinema?". If I want to relax on the couch, Netflix competes with books, videogames, linear TV and, of course, other streaming services (and with scrolling social media feeds). If I want to go out for entertainment, cinemas compete with bars, actual theatres, all kinds of music venues. They only ever register in the same decision as part of the aggregates facing off in the general couch or out decision.
I think it would be awesome for Netflix to release some movies in theater first and then release on Netflix 2 weeks later while its "still in theaters".
Plus, seeing the Netflix logo on the big screen would boost their brand imo and double as an advertisement.
If all the money is going to the studios anyways, why are theaters charging so much for tickets? They should naturally be charging just enough to satisfy studios, and high prices on food/drink.
But now I'm paying $15 just to get into the damn building, let alone anything else. Where the hell did dollar theaters go?
>If all the money is going to the studios anyways, why are theaters charging so much for tickets? They should naturally be charging just enough to satisfy studios, and high prices on food/drink.
And who said they don't do exactly that?
In other words, that the prices asked for the tickets aren't just barely above what the studios demand and get?
I don’t know about you, but nearly all theatres I go to have evolved over the years to have reserved seating and full bars with alcohol. Theatres do need to double down on the artistic experience, becoming more like art galleries and less like a place for people to enjoy a big screen.
Maybe introduce micro theatre rooms with superb audio and visual clarity and niche movies too, for a smaller audience.
Yeah, but the alcohol thing isn't all sunshine and roses. The last time we went to the theater a woman kept having to get up and walk in front of us on her wait out of the theater (presumably to the bathroom). On one of her ways back in she stumbled (she was clearly inebriated) and spilled beer all over my wife. She slurred an apology and stumbled back to her seat. We haven't been back since.
That's not really an alcohol issue, it's an anti-social behaviour issue. And movie theatres (and their customers) have had to deal with that for a long time.
Sounds like the regal here. Hey have leather recliner rooms with only four rows of seats, maybe 60 people total. It’s insane how much more immersive the smaller rooms are.
Netflix is not replacing Christopher Nolan's films anytime soon. This isn't a battle for the blockbusters, it's a battle for the little and medium sized films. The bigger movies will have a place in cinemas for a long time because they have wide appeal. For smaller, niche, films that have a potential audience of 2 million people that are spread across the world, there is no way to make good content for them and deliver it to theaters. It makes absolutely zero sense economically. Netflix can make that same movie and recommend it to the 2 million people that they know will like it. Movie theaters that show movies to hundreds of people at a time can't ever compete with that. Medium sized movies are the true battleground right now, which is and the Academy is trying to put a stake in the ground to help the movie theaters. It is not going to work because the economics are not as compelling, and they will only get less compelling over time.
This move will mean that comic book movies will rule the Oscars one day. At least until the Academy realizes they are just being a bunch of old fogies.
You would think that in the age of digital cinema niche films would have a boost. If you are creating a film for distribution, creating a dcp for cinema is trivial. The dcp can be shipped to cinemas on a physical copy, via satellite or over the internet and be delivered straight into the cinemas system.
For the cinema owner there’s literally zero effort involved to schedule a few shows of a niche film. For the bigger chains most of it is automated anyway. All you have to do is schedule the shows in your point of sale system and the backend systems does the rest like building the playlist transferring content to the correct auditoriums and so on.
Zero effort, but also next to zero reason. You are assuming that people will seek out these films and go out of their way to see them at odd times. The cinema is missing out on the money it would make showing a blockbuster. There is a reason why the big movies show on a ton of screens at once, they bring in more people than all the other movies combined on big weekends.
We take it for granted now, but it wasn't that long ago that theaters deliberately degraded the experience by deciding to show advertising prior to a film. Movie trailers are one thing, but when I see the same ads that I see on TV, I think I'm better off staying home.
I remember I was all up in arms about it when it first happened (showing advertisements before the movie). It makes sense though, you are a totally captive audience and those opportunities are more and more rare for companies trying to advertise. I guess I got used to it and now I just kind of space out when the ads are playing, or talk to my companion.
I still really enjoy the movie going experience; it's a bit more special now that I have kids and I don't get to see grownup movies in the theater all that often.
There are a few theaters in my city that have started offering a "VIP experience" which I think is well worth the few extra dollars they charge. The seats are much larger and more comfortable, and assigned when you purchase your ticket. There is a small table where you can put the food and drinks that the staff bring to your chair, and because they serve alcoholic drinks the entire theater is restricted to ages 19+.
It is a night and day difference compared to the usual theater experience.
all of the theaters in chicago near me basically only offer VIP experiences; Decent prices only exist at university-run theaters, or 30min/1hr drive out of the city.
I'm a student, and now I'm essentially banned from watching any recently released movie except as a significant luxury. And I liked watching movies; I've been gentrified right out of the theater.
And probably in the future, 10 years from now, with large disposable income, having lost all habit in watching in theaters, and the prices knocked up another $10 per movie, I'm still not going to watch movies in theaters.
The market is trying as hard as it can to make sure I find a suitable alternative before then; I don't know what my kind did, but clearly the theaters are fed up with it
I'm in the other camp that prefers watching at home. My tv screen is higher image quality resolution and contrast than most theatre screens. My speakers aren't as loud but they also aren't as aggressive. I don't enjoy hearing people chat during the movie. I don't like sitting in sticky seats.
I do agree with your point on Nolan and his are the few times I will get the IMAX 70mm ticket and see his movie on a screen that is 10 stories tall or whatever.
You've described a lot of the reasons I loath going to the theatre. The sounds are overwhelmingly, painfully, intolerably loud- the screen is large enough to cause motion sickness unless you can manage to get a seat near the very back of the theatre, the entire experience has migrated toward such an extreme that many people I know have just given up on even trying.
I suppose it makes a kind of sense- if sales are flailing and more people are skipping the theaters, then doubling down on your differentiator in order to try to attract more dollars from your base makes a kind of sense- but I get the impression that over the last couple of years they've hit an inflection point where they've just put too many people off the experience.
Your points in terms of the art are sound. But... it's much bigger than that. You must consider how the movie industry actually works. How it makes money.
There is no way to produce a reliably successful film. None. There's not even any way to improve your chances. For every film filled with star-studded actors that is a success, there is one which is a failure. For every big-budget blockbuster, there is a big-budget flop. For every formulaic success, there is a formulaic failure. On the balance, and it has been extensively and exhaustively studied, it's random. The public audiences response to a film is truly, 100%, random. Only very recently have some strides been made in predicting the future success of a film before opening - and that only based upon tweets in the 48 hours prior to its opening. Quite a bit shy of the years of notice necessary to actually inform funding decisions of projects.
You can't survive in a space where the return on investment is random. Unless... you can rig the game. If you can control what films the public has access to at any given time, and you make sure to yank poor performers out of the theater after their first weekend, while keeping the successes around for far longer... then you can get an edge. You can make a profit. Without that ability to control and manipulate distribution, and restrict availability, they would be left with the randomness again. And they would quickly falter in the face of that.
The book 'A Drunkard's Walk' includes a whole chapter on the public's response to media, the research which proves it is purely random (down to the audience never being the same group of people twice among other factors), and the way the big businesses in those industries deal with that fact. Without those tactics, which online distribution completely robs them of, it really is an existential threat. Of course, Netflix is showing us that we don't need them at all and there are entirely different ways to handle the problem.
When you consider alternative outings for a family of four, $50 isn't so terribly bad. Where else do you get two to two-and-a-half hours of entertainment for four people including food? If you're having a hard time getting good seats and getting garbage food for your money, that's a sign that you need to scope out some better theaters. In my area, we have theaters with pretty posh, reserved seating, near-gourmet food (although there's still a lot of room for improvement there) and even alcohol service. If no theaters like this exist in your area — business opportunity!
There are theaters and theater chains that aren't functioning competitively, and there are those that are actively exploring new ways to get asses into seats. From what I can tell, those ideas seem to be working.
I'm not sure where you get food and movie for a family of four at $50. Just tickets, drinks, and one snack for my wife and I is almost $40.
But to answer your rhetorical question, it isnt hard to get a few hours of entertainment and food for less than $50. It's hard to get PASSIVE entertainment that everyone agrees upon at the same time at that price. Junk food is super cheap, but substantive food isn't. (If you want variety - I'm not counting getting large bags of beans and rice since we are talking luxury not subsistence )
The $50(+) number came from the post I commented on:
> by and large, a $50+ excursion for a family of 4...
As for the difficulty in entertaining a family on a budget, it's generally true that as soon as you step outside the door to your home, entertainment costs will skyrocket. Public parks, publicly-funded museums, community-led events and national parks/wilderness activities will get you there — and with a bit of savvy these can be your go-to opportunities — but minigolfing, theme parks and kid-focused venues (thinking along the lines of Chuck-E-Cheese) will usually come in at a higher cost.
In comparison to a lot of commercial entertainment, movie theaters range from either being fairly competitive to very competitive, in my opinion. When theaters fail to meet that bar, that to me is a sign that they're being poorly-operated, but I don't see that as a industry-wide failure.
Nothing prevents you from having a large screen and powerful speakers at home!
I just finished configuring a full 5.2.4 Atmos setup at home (Klipsch Reference Premiere + Onkyo) along with a TV much larger than should go in that room.
Quite a lot actually! I paid a bit under 10 grands Canadian, but the total value is much higher (got everything on sale.)
But when considering I use it every day (netflix, spotify, 4 game consoles, 2 computers) it still costs much less than going to the theaters every other day for 2 years yet the experience is better; always got the best seat, no crowds, no commute, high-end quality :)
The way I think about it is in the long term. I'd rather have high-end stuff thats a one-cost expense I'm going to use for decades, than cheap stuff I constantly replace or upgrade. In the end I pay less and enjoy myself more on the way. I also set money aside when planning such purchases instead of using credit, while looking for sales in the meantime.
>I still quite like going to a theater, the experience is much different than watching a movie at home. In a theater I am much more focused on the film being shown, the screen is large and crisp, the speakers overwhelm – it's much more a celebration of the artwork than almost any typical home environment.
For me the main attraction of the cinema is the shared experience. There's something in that that goes beyond personally watching the movie (some of cinema's biggest directors and critics, at least the ones in Europe, have alluded to that).
In the place I live there is a lot of small theaters around. Like 30-40 persons only. It is a nice idea. The big cinema is a nice idea too. It has nothing to do with Netflix though. In my opinion, it just happened that old hollywood still have control of most of the theater business.
If people are interested in going to theater, I'll guess it is just a matter of time before netflix deploys its own theaters.
> Imagine if we all replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps
Somewhat off topic, but arguably, the apps being developed and provided for archives and museums are providing a better viewing experience for the arts. The ability to essentially "touch" the works can make the interaction better than actually visiting a museum.
I have an enormous TV, stereo system, luxurious couch, and a popcorn machine. It is rare that a film in the theater outperforms my home experience. Even the very nice Angelika theater is nice by dint of replicating my home couch experience.
We bring everything but popcorn in my girlfriend's purse (assuming we want any). The prices are absolutely insane. It makes baseball game food look like a bargain.
VR movie-watching is interesting, but I don't know of any headphones that can produce chest-rattling bass. Maybe in tandem with a SUBPAC or something, that might be more compelling.
I guess I just hope both Netflix and Hollywood step up their game, I'm pretty bored with both of them. I don't really care about super heroes, or watch kids dancing, or another stupid Adam Sandler movie. But I burn through the handful of Netflix shows I really like in a day or two, and then spend months in between them hoping they bring Futurama back.
but you, like me (with the exception of super hero movies... my guilty pleasure. They've taken the place of Star Wars) are probably old (Futurama was a tip off). And by the very definition of old, not the future.
To quote Invader Zimm, "Go die now." =)
I love new things in arts and entertainment, but I feel like we're in a bit of a shovel-ware/and also moment in film where there's one hit and 100 crappy imitators. This isn't a problem per se, but it reminds me of some moments in music or video games in the last 20 years. I'm bullish on the Netflix model more or less, but I can't say I love their content lately.
Mind Hunter was the last new show that I kind of liked, and I do think it's worth watching. But I also think the bar is really set low for these shows. Most of them feel like good movies that are stretched out into a series of shows. The beauty of great television is a show that has a great arc, but also where the episodes can stand on their own. You could watch one episode of the first couple seasons of the Sopranos, and be moved by it without ever watching the rest of the show.
Something has to change. Hollywood movies are just so receipt oriented. I kind of like super hero stuff, but I hate most of the super hero movies coming out. I loved kick-ass, and I think the various super hero series on Netflix such as Jessica Jones has been quite good.
Other than that I realize I want to see more movies from other cultures. I am Norwegian myself but have tended to gravitate towards Hollywood, because the production and is higher quality and selection of actors is better.
However I have noticed that some of the stuff that I have enjoyed the most and which has felt most fresh such as Skam, has been from my own country.
There is a lot of foreign films I never get access to because they are not really distributed. I notice when recommending Norwegian series or movies to friends abroad, that they are really hard to get hold of and even harder to get subtitles for.
The teen drama Skam only worked because fans made the subtitles themselves for the foreign audience.
Netflix shows a path forward here in that they are opened up for more diversity and allow more foreign series. E.g. you got Norwegian Viking comedy series "The norsemen" on Netflix.
It was made in a way that I think is a great solution going forward for foreign film/series makers. The creators of the Norsemen filmed every scene in Norwegian and English successively so that the show could be shown easily to both a domestic and foreign audience.
Several posters are talking about theater sound being a great thing, but I think it's miserable: basically a volume war, which my ears are going to lose. How can theaters get by with such loud volumes, when a work site would be shut down by OSHA if the workers didn't have hearing protection.
There is obviously an issue of how long you're exposed, but no theater should be allowed to push the volume into the range where hearing loss could possibly occur.
And in the case of Netflix... it's never an issue because I control my volume.
My local AMC plays movies so loud that I can hear the dialog for some movies through the walls in an entirely different theater. It's kind of the ubiquitous theater experience for me now to just have some kind of foreign noise going on -- people crunching popcorn, talking to each other, or, the most absurd, another movie that is not the movie I'm watching.
So, yeah, bring on the death of the theater, please.
I laughed pretty hard after reading this blog post.
Netflix movies have been on a horrific downhill trend in quality (though their documentaries have remained great). After the Adam Sandler flicks, Bright, The Cloverfield Parodox, and especially Mute, it's become clear that Netflix's film department has no fucking clue what they're doing. It's getting to the point where people I know who are avid Netflix bingers would literally rather rewatch a show or film they just saw than watch the latest Netflix film.
What I don't understand is how Netflix ended up this way. They attributed the success of a show like House of Cards to their data science capabilities - why would they produce bad movies unless that's what the data points to. Then maybe no matter what, the truth is that the content that gets eyeballs, and why Hollywood makes shallow broad movies is the same: they make money.
If you want to watch some actual quality filmmaking, visit a film festival or watch some Criterion films. Everything else will be "trash". If you want to expand your cinematic palate, explore American noir (The Maltese Falcon), melodrama (Douglas Sirk), musical (Singin' in the Rain), Western (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly), epic (Lawrence of Arabia). Italian neorealism with The Bicycle Thief, French New Wave with Jean Luc Godard (Breathless). Want to go modern international, City of God, Gomorra, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan Wook's Oldboy (advisory warning), or my favorite Japanese auteur Yasujiro Ozu.
Any of the above films are considered cinematic gems. Recommendations brought to you by my degree in Cinema and Cultural Studies. The true beauty of filmmaking is conversation over time. Films and directors talk to each other like authors and artists, they write love letters. They become self-aware of their medium (Fellini), "postmodern".
Great film can not fall in the limited boundaries of popular filmmaking. That's why Hollywood films tend to be so broad and shallow, to be palatable by all, no alienation, unless when it comes to race or gender. On the other hand, that problem is not unique to Hollywood or filmmaking.
This seems like a short-term problem. It would be like saying Netflix doesn't have content worth streaming, besides documentaries. A lot of people originally had this opinion of Netflix streaming services, and over time they fixed it.
Fixing movies is a bit more difficult. It requires in some cases larger and maintained budgets, and possibly even eventual increased subscriptions costs, or new revenue models to sustain it. However, all indications seem to indicate this is a path they are willing to go down.
In terms of quality material though, or gaining knowledge in how to improve it, or updating the interface to highlight bigger must watch films vs smaller films, I don't think this is an unsolvable problem for them.
What is wrong with Mute? I actually really liked how they captured the feeling that goes with living with the kind of liberal arts studiers (it's a bit of a generalisation, but I think it holds) that make a group of people like that. They pretty much nailed the ambiance and the personal interactions, even if they were occasionally a bit overblown. That is something movies do.
Oh, many things. Bad acting, bad dialogue, bad directing, bad editing, undeveloped characters, inconsistent characterization, tonally inconsistent, logically nonsensical. It wanted to be film noir, or some sort of bizarre satire about immigration, but did neither well. The sci-fi aspect of the film was also shoe-horned in at the last minute.[1]
The visual effects were good though.
[1] Per the post-premier interview by Rian Johnson, this was apparently the first script Duncan Jones wrote. It went undeveloped for 15 years because no studio would touch it. After Netflix agreed to produce the film, Duncan updated the film to a sci-fi setting because Netflix wanted a followup to Moon and was also shopping around for sci films. Originally, Mute would have been set in the 1980s or roughly modern day.
Holds for some of the first shows too. House of cards was a disaster even before the Kevin spacey thing, Orange is the new black has been going downhill (I blame that on Jenji Kohan), etc.
They are making up in volume with new shows though.
I would say that Netflix is making up for anything with volume, the quality of their own shows seem to be rather low in general. Their plan seems to be to make as many shows as possible and kill them of as soon as possible if they don't become sufficiently popular.
Other may disagree, but to me "Netflix Original" is a warning that the show is going to be poorly written. Production quality is usually pretty good though.
Sure, I come from a point of view that the inaugural seasons House of Cards and orange is the new black were terrific. If you disagree with me on that, then Netflix is an even lower bar for you.
I also think Black Mirror, while still good, dropped a notch after moving to Netflix.
It's been my experience that the first season of a Netflix show is usually worth watching, but each season the quality of the show declines.
However, I would agree with you that their drive for quantity has resulted in a very low-quality slate of new shoes over the past two television seasons.
The article is missing the forest for the trees. Hollywood isn't snubbing Netflix (in my opinion, anyways). Hollywood is all about the cinema and the theatrical release. It is a completely different experience streaming a movie at home than going to see it in the theatre.
Netflix makes movies to keep people subscribed. Hollywood makes movies to get people to the cinema. On the surface, it looks like they're in the same business, but the products are engineered differently for different purposes. It makes sense to keep these in separate buckets; they are rated by different metrics.
I will be honest the only draw of going to a theater is to see a new release. If they let me stream it form $30 one time to my home I would much rather do that.
I don't enjoy the movie theater experience, kids being noisy, 25+ minutes of previews, and most importantly not being able to pause the movie to go to the bathroom!
>most importantly not being able to pause the movie
OTOH, not being distracted. I actually mostly like seeing movies in the theater now and then, albeit not enough to actually go out and see something more than once in a blue moon. But, yeah, it's mostly when there's some new release that I want to see without spoilers.
I completely disagree. I see Hollywood and Netflix producing the same product but having different business models. I do make conscious decisions about seeing movies in theaters versus at home - but in that case, it's not Hollywood competing with Netflix, as when I make that decision, I'm still paying the movie studio, as I pay to stream just that movie. All I'm doing there is cutting out the physical theaters.
Watching a movie in the theater is different from streaming it at home. But the two experiences are in direct competition with each other. As I said above, I make conscious decisions about which movies I will watch in theaters and which I will wait to watch at home. Hollywood is fine with that process still keeps the specialness of a theatrical release: if I want to be a part of the hype and see it "at release" I need to go to the theater. What Netflix is showing is that we can just cut out the theatrical release part; it's not necessary. That threatens Hollywood's business model, and, I think, is emotionally hard on some Hollywood creators because it makes their work feel less special.
But I actually think there's a more interesting tension showed by Netflix and HBO: the limitation of the movie as a medium. Both Netlfix and HBO have put movie-studio level investment into what we call "tv shows" but are really more like long-form movies. And people like it. A lot. It's an experience which can't be had in movie theaters, and I actually think that may be the longer-term threat to the current Hollywood, movie-studio to theater business model.
Personally, having been going to theaters since Return of the Jedi, the experience has lost novelty and is easily summarized as “been there done that over and over” for me
My experience is definitely different from normal because I live in Tinseltown a few blocks from one of the theaters where they hold movie premieres and from an Alamo Drafthouse, but I could never see Netflix replacing Hollywood.
The business models are fundamentally different. All Netflix cares about is eyeballs and giving customers the barest reason to continue subscribing. This means that they focus on quantity over quality, as evidenced by their last 3 years of films: each worse than the one released the week before it, with extremely rare exceptions like Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound. (It's curious that their films are so horrifically bad when their TV series are generally watchable, though Lost In Space and the recent seasons of OitNB and HoC suggest that the malaise affecting their film department has spread to the show department.)
Hollywood, for all the moaning about sequilitis and mass-market crap, at least makes crap that's good enough to draw people out of their homes, drive a few miles, and plop down a few dozen dollars for seats and maybe food. There's a strong incentive to maintain at least a minimum baseline of quality and a stronger incentive to make a commercially viable movie.
Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all.
> Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them.
Films, maybe not. But House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, Black Mirror and The Crown have just as much cultural significance as Hollywood movies. And if we expand to HBO, then we can call in Game of Thrones, which has had far more cultural impact than La La Land. This is related to a cousin comment of mine: films are no longer the most important cultural medium. Long-form shows with high production values are.
It's also worth noting that Icarus, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, is from Netflix.
Right, and I am differentiating films from TV/shows because they're completely different markets.
However, with respect to Icarus, it was not produced by Netflix; only distributed by it. Hollywood studios also bid on the distribution rights but Netfix simply outbid them. (Per reports, it was the most ever paid for a documentary.) Similarly, both Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound, the only two well-regarded films in Netflix' lineup, were both produced by indie studios. Netflix simply outbid Hollywood studios for the distribution rights. Netflix has never actually made a good movie on its own. (Though in Netflix' defense on my thesis about the crap quality of their movies, Cloverfield Paradox was a Paramount production; Paramount got the better end of the deal.)
I don't differentiate long-form shows (like House of Cards or Game of Thrones) from movies because I think they hold the same place in culture. They pull in A-list actors, directors and writers. I don't think they are different markets because of that. For example, most movie studios would not release a fantasy movie (I'm including Star Wars in that) the same weekend the final episode of Game of Thrones airs. People only have so much time and head-space for the things they watch.
I would disagree about the cultural significance of TV shows and movies. They occupy very different places in culture.
TV shows aren't just long-form narratives; people develop relationships with the show and its characters similar to the relationships they develop with friends they see regularly and learn about over time. People's experiences with the show differ based on whether they started watching from when it first aired or binged it after the end of a season. Moreover, shows change, often as a result of the cultural response to the show or viewership (see, e.g., Walking Dead's latest season, L&O SVU, daytime soaps).
Movies are essentially one-time events and distinct unalterable shared experiences They don't change (directors' cuts notwithstanding). The cultural response to the movie may change over time, but the movie itself doesn't. (For example, Gone with the Wind is the same movie it's always been, but people now view its depiction of minority characters far less favorably.)
Movies have sequels - the Fast and Furious franchise is built on the same audience-character relationship development that you attribute to shows. And there are one-off long-form shows that are very unlikely to have sequels (such as Godless) which are more like 10 hour movies.
I don't get the point here - you're saying "All Netflix cares about is eyeballs" and then imply 'people go to the movies so they must be good', it's basically the same point.
You could argue that going to a movie takes deliberate effort, but sometimes I find myself going to the movies even if I'm not that interested in the movie, I just want to go to a* movie*. And I (as a Netflix subscriber) have never watched a Netflix original movie.
No, it's not the same point at all. Netflix doesn't care about quality, it cares about the apparent size of its library, so it focuses on shoveling crap out as fast as it can. If they don't start focusing on quality really soon, all that crap isn't going to matter.
Hollywood cares, at least a little bit, about quality because each movie lives or dies on its own. In the end, that's going to be the differentiator that keeps Hollywood alive: the theater experience for good movies, and the Netflix experience for when you just want to kill brain cells.
Netflix knows their customers very well. It's likely that most of their original movies are crap because that's what their customers enjoy. People binge-watch engrossing series, but put movies on for background noise while hanging out with friends.
So it makes sense to invest in series like Stranger Things and movies from Adam Sandler.
> you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all.
You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either..
when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising..
also much less working class/rural/elderly people aren't plugged in to netflix, so you don't have the same level of 'total' market penetration either..
You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either..
There were plenty of late night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazine articles, radio spots, entertainment news, and quite frankly excessive social media influencers fawning over House of Cards,Orange is the New Black, or Stranger Things in their first two seasons. HoC especially is single-handedly responsible for Netflix's status today as a destination for shows (and the people who make them)
when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising..
Hollywood doesn't determine what is culturally significant, people do. Netflix produces culturally significant shows...but not movies.
I think one of the big issues with the film industry today, and one thing Netflix addresses tangentially, is that all films should not be the same price. It's strange to me that a movie like 'Avengers Infinity War' is the same price as 'Super Troopers 2' or 'A Quiet Place'.
I consider myself a movie buff and I remember in the 90's, friends and I would go to movies as something to do. We wouldn't necessarily plan to go, but movies were a reasonable price < $10, we were bored, and you'd just go, see what piqued our interest, and give it a try. Now-a-days, movies are so expensive that it's almost an event and something you have to save for like concert tickets or sports tickets. Why would you take a risk on movie X, with middling reviews, when it costs so much? That's why so many middle of the road films seem to crash and burn so much more starkly these days, because people can't afford to take a chance on a potential stinker.
I think movies should have a scale for pricing, Infinity War costs $20 to see, but Super Troopers 2 costs $10 to see. Maybe they both start at $20, but over time, the price slowly declines until it leaves theaters based on how it's performing. After all, the goal for theaters is get butts in seats so they can sell concession food anyway.
Where Netflix really stands out is their incentive is entirely different. They have one goal, to keep subscribers from unsubscribing for another month. As a result, they hope that when you're bored and you turn on Netflix, something in their library catches your eye. Netflix has replaced the 'randomly going to a theater' experience and as a result, many movies that perform poorly in the theaters can thrive on the platform. Who cares if a movie is a 30% Rotten Tomatoes candidate, when it cost you nothing at the moment to watch it, and you have nothing better going on anyway. It's not an event, it's a way to pass some time. It's the new channel surfing...
All the film makers who end up being snobby about Netflix are missing the point entirely. Not all movies are suited for the $20, monster screen experience, and you can clearly see that with many experimental films crashing and burning hard in recent years. The cinema price is so prohibitive these days that a family doesn't take any risks, they save their money for huge tent poles where the rating is virtually guaranteed. That's a losing formula for experimental films who were never going to have broad appeal and it's a shame that a segment of the film industry seems hell-bent on standing in the way of that alternative outlet. They should embrace it with open arms.
I stopped going to the theater for a long time until the local theaters put in large recliners, reserved seating, and cheap-ass Tuesdays. All seats for all showings on Tuesdays are $5-7 (depending on the theater). So we have started going back to the theaters on Tuesdays for spectacle movies like Star Wars and Marvel.
That's a problem with every system that tries to become optimized. You have a medium functioning system, it can sustain on average and random rate of users. When that thing starts to or wants to go big, everthing become tight, siloed, pricey. It's a recurrent thing in most societies I believe. Things start wild and mild but quite enjoyable then when to scale up and lose their spirit on the way.
Apart from content, what hollywood movies offer is some competition on viewing experience. The netflix content is 'fine', but the UX is hateful and activates every anxiety center that exists in my brain. I get anxious just thinking about looking for content I might actually like on Netflix (and I'm not the anxious type!).
HBO/Hulu/Amazon are better in this regard for now. But it's a sure bet that they will also go the netflix route of trying to push you to WATCH SOMETHING NOW versus mindfully choose something. (E.g. HBO-Go rarely has previews now - why would they show previews when you can just waste 20 minutes deciding you don't like it?)
This says nothing of there being a half-dozen walled-garden services. You basically have to subscribe to all of them to see new-releases. Hollywood content: you pay per viewing. It's annoying to pay $15+ for a movie (or be forced to buy it online when you just want to rent it for the weekend), but at least you don't have to pay for a service every month that's full of B-rate content that you hate to dredge through.
We're on the edge of a dystopian version of "the golden age of television."
Try http://instantwatcher.com as an alternative interface to Netflix. Simple lightweight text oriented page with better search and filters than Netflix offers.
The issue here is not is the theater still relevant, but can the economics continue to support theaters.
If the trends in ticket sales continue, it seems like theaters by and large could be a thing of the past. It really is not about whether a large group see it as still relevant, its can the theater business maintain a profitable industry if it loses x% of its patrons.
If ticket sales decline, profits shrink or losses grow. Changing the model another way might increase revenues for theaters (say a all-you-care-to-watch pass, which would likely increase food sales), but only if Holywood changes its revenue model as well. If they continue to charge theaters the same rates, that model likely wouldn't work well. Further, if Holywood had to lose revenue, would it be more interested to work with other streaming services first, or create a competing service, versus go to the theaters?
To me the MoviePass subscription company is almost a Trojan Horse. While they continue to burn and lose money, and grow subscribers, they are making their subscribers see their experience as the new norm. If they go out of business, these subscribers now have to chose if they want to pay for each pass again individually (very expensive in comparison). Likewise, if theaters and Hollywood make a deal, it cuts their own revenue significantly. Its almost a lose/lose situation.
All this is just some of whats hurting Hollywood and the theaters. You also have personal politics growing sharper, a Millennial generation that doesn't value these experiences as highly, a fundamental change in how reviews are looked at, no longer being as easily controlled (RottenTomatoes), 3D movies not holding peoples interest, etc..
Its a bumpy road that doesn't seem to be getting much smoother.
> And guess what: MoviePass now has 2 million subscribers. People want this service. The bad news is that the company is simply bleeding money.
Seems like they want to become a monopoly, or get to the size that it would be profitable to run the business.
Netflix has a mortal enemy: the Cinemas.
Hollywood/Cannes (movie makers in general) prefer to have the multitude of channels than having Netflix, which can be a monopoly. If Netflix doesn't like XYZ studio it can shut it down if it becomes a monopoly. And by "like" I mean, set/extort/define the pricing.
Having a unique outlet is not the best idea. Netflix wants to be _it_.
I don't think Netflix is the future of film. I will always want to watch Star Trek/Star Wars/Avengers/etc on a 10-20 _meters_ screen, eating popcorn, rather than on the 10-..-50 _inches_ of a monitor/TV/tablet eating pizza.
To be honest I like both. But Netflix wants to change the model.
Heh, moviepass is not killing anyone. I'm a natural customer (1 movie a week at least), and signed up in september or so. They turned around and dropped 3 out of the 4 theaters I watch movies in (one of which was an AMC)
The real problem is that people want to watch movies for free, so Netflix tries to take a little bit of $ from a huge population, while Hollywood tries to take lots of $ from the few patrons left. On the average Netflix movies are better than the average (legacy?) movie, IMO the logical step is that Netflix will suck all the talent by making the movie makers to compete for the few shows distributed by Netflix. Same story as in the ridiculous Gold OA in academic publishing http://archive.is/uYN0I
I love the theater. Working from home, it's actually possible to go see a movie at 2 or 3pm as a break in the work day. Yeah, it's expensive for what it is but I think the value it there. I view it as the tax to see something 6+ months early. $20 for a movie, popcorn, soda, and much better AV quality than I have at home. And going that early in the day means there are no crowds. I saw A Quiet Place the first Thursday afternoon it was out and there were maybe half a dozen other people in the largest theater in the multiplex.
I don't think theaters and Netflix are direct competition, and I think there will always be demand for theatrical releases, if maybe in slightly smaller establishments.
I really enjoyed going to the theater to see Isle of Dogs (at Alamo). Sure, it wasn't cheap but the experience was great and it's not much more expensive than the nice dinner + drinks people do every weekend.
The problem for movie theaters is that while I enjoy the experience, I'll only go max twice a year.
I've only been to an Alamo once, it was amazing. Unfortunately the closest one to me is an hour away and I'm not willing to dedicate the better part of a day to seeing a movie and having some (admittedly very good) popcorn.
I probably only go once every 3 or 4 months so not much more than you. But if there was an Alamo within a short drive I'd probably go more often.
Your thinking from your perspective. I'm looking at kids that are glued to their phone 24/7.
For me it's not necessarily the people, it's the upkeep of the theater, it's the over priced concessions, it's the noise, it's having to hold it should you need to use the restroom, plus the cost of the ticket barely going to the theater at all.
I'm patient, I can just watch it at home comfortably. In fact, significantly more comfortably.
1. You get it to see it when it first comes out.
2. You get to watch it on a giant screen with awesome sound.
#1 might change, however you can never replicate #2 at home (or at least without significant cost). I believe the market will simply shrink/consolidate. Theater's won't be in every town, but will be whittled down to high population centers.
Similarly, my mall visits are 1-2 a year, pretty much the same frequency as my movie theater attendance.
Netflix is thriving outside the US too - and challenging the dominance of traditional TV broadcasters.
For example, the UK and Germany are two of Netflix's largest markets in Europe.
In the UK, Netflix is more popular than the BBC's iPlayer on-demand service. The BBC has released some series with all episodes available at the same time - clearly influenced by Netflix.
Competition from Netflix is a good thing, and it will be interesting to see how broadcasters respond.
"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren’t being well received."
I hear how badly the movie industry is doing, while they keep breaking sales records. I don't believe it at all. It is, and always has been, a hits-oriented business. This means profitability analysis is total nonsense.
Sales records in film are flat values, not inflation-adjusted values. Avatar is the only film in the 2000s to break the top 10 for inflation-adjusted revenue from film. So they aren't breaking sales records, or even close to it, they are breaking "dollars earned" records. Inflation-adjusted costs of going to a movie have remained fairly even, while inflation-adjusted sales figures have plummeted.
Theater owners are both extremely powerful and extremely weak: they have put their foot down on any improvements to the film distribution process out of existential fear of losing their early film run monopoly. The studios still need the distribution power of the theaters so they comply.
In the uk all of the chains have a movie pass subscription deal. The problem is that it is per-chain and nobody cares which theater shows the avengers. And films that you don't care about the spectacle of don't need a 30' screen.
The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value. Nobody likes the shitty experience of crap food and drinks (so smaller, high end chains with good food and experience are doing fine) but the big multiplex experience is a uniform and really expensive cartel.
One knock against Netflix is that I’ve been told they pay-less-than standard wages to non-actor, union workers. This means the prop designers, cameramen/women etc get paid less to work on Netflix productions.
My wife and I give most of the netflix movies and shows a shot but the batting average is unfortunately really low. At least for us. We thought "Bright" and "Titan" were absolutely terrible.
And it's not like we're snobs, we're looking forward to "Infinity War" even though it's silly and dumb. The writing the Netflix movies is mostly really horrible, though.
I hope they make some better movies because the world does not need more bad or even mediocre ones. We have plenty.
I like to be able to see film in a theatre, and as far as I can see the only way of having theatres work out financially is for them to have a short monopoly on screening the film before they go to streaming services. For me the combo of Odeon limitless and Netflix/Prime/Iplayer/BFIplayer works quite well. But I think that Netflix would need to be ok to release their productions cinema first in order for theatres to still have a viable business model.
The theater is ripe for disruption. I cannot stand going and in over 25 years the amount of times I have gone is 2.
I cannot wait until someone brings out VR which immerses the wearer into a theater experience. That is, big screen and thx sound. Plus, for those who "absolutely" need to have other people there. It being VR you can have people from all over the world (who you know) also join and collectively watch it.
I hope netflix also starts creating a worldwide catalogue of films. Which would do 2 things. Downplay piracy and also increase profits.
Praise be, when I read that the last theatre chain has gone under and the way of blockbuster!
Oh and one more thing. There's another revenue stream and 2d fails to realise this. How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience?
With the rise of AI for video and lyrabird for audio. Maybe one day it's just a case of actors signing away their Avatar for their talents, a director AI creates the film and the user consumes it.
That's why I hope Netflix is the future of film. Current film is dead and has no-where to go.
How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience?
I think those are called videogames. People have been using the look and voice of live actors for characters for a long time (at least since 1989, in Prince of Persia).
The second idea sounds like video games, or at the very least some sort of VR experience that will always be niche. Most people just want to watch a movie, not play it.
For VR movie watching in general... I think this should absolutely be an option in the future but I doubt it replaces theaters. Most people go to theaters in groups or on dates - there is a communal aspect to going out together.
I hope not. If people want to hate on hollywood for holding so much share in film, why would you want it to go to ONE company. Netflix is a corporation and we all know corporations are inherently evil. Given enough time, Netflix may murder all people who don't subscribe to make smut for it's subscribers.
God I hope not. The overwhelming majority of their shows are badly produced, drawn out drivel. It’s kind of like paying someone not for the results, but for hours billed: there’s a strong possibility this incentive will become the maximization objective for the payee.
Putting the beauty and power of going to the movie theater aside, I think what is most powerful about Netflix, and something they learned from HBO, is how to give the directors/writers/producers more autonomy over their work. This is something TV execs have failed to do again and again. I think the problem is this does not translate to cinema. Films are a much more tight medium where spreading your wings and entertaining a multitude of ideas fudges the thrust of the narrative. With TV, we are willing to entertain long arches of story that wind and weave without a clear endpoint or direction. Let’s take Game of Thrones, for example, it’s rarely quite clear what is going to happen. We do have the specter of the Khaleesi and the white walkers arriving on the shores of Westeros, but throughout you have an overarching theme of uncertainty with any and all of the characters. Cinema would not allow this kind of uncertainty. And that’s exactly one of the reasons why superhero movies do so well. They have a clear and crisp narrative that we go to the cinema to satisfy. Being nuanced in film is much harder because in film you also have to be blunt. In film, you must pay more close attention to the heroes journey. In TV, you can hack and toy with it.
This is why I think Netflix thrives in TV shows but flounders in cinema. Cinema requires tight thinking and TV requires open thinking. Netflix, by its business model and Silicon Valley culture, is inherently an open culture. They are willing to entertain and support the ideas of creators. Now, you might argue, hey look at A24, they allow their creators a lot of space and still pull off great cinema like Ex Machina and Moonlight. I think Netflix hasn’t quite made it there yet but is inching towards it with movies like Annihilation. Annihilation also tries to do too much but it is succinct as compared to Bright. That’s A24’s strength it picks and guides its creators towards succinct storylines that, in the end, are powerful.
I think the best example of the above points is how weak Netflix superhero shows are overall compared to its big hits like Stranger Things and House of Cards. With superhero stories, they are inherently tight: the hero must win. There isn’t much room for subtlety and so these shows tend not to catch on. It doesn’t play to Netflix’s open-ended storytelling strengths (and granted their production value is usually B level). Whereas with Stranger Things, the open-ended nature of the story keeps the viewer entranced.
Unless Netflix hires some people who understand these fundamental issues at its top levels, it will be hard for them to really innovate on cinema. IMHO.
I doubt there will be enough users who feel the same way to make this a reason why theaters remain. The same argument has been made about sound quality, and overwhelmingly now the sound quality in streaming services has improved, but is no where near perfect.
4k streaming will be more of a norm, and that will likely be enough for most users.
netflix starts it's own high end theaters. Think how rad that would be that maybe they hold back on a season finale of a show and you see the last one in a theater. Then the next day it releases on the service. Get to be around a bunch of people chatting about theories. Or something along those lines. Upgrade your account package to include seeing stuff in their venues. Make it an experience around their flagship shows. I'd go.
It's quite weird for Steven Spielberg. I thought he isn't one of those backwards thinking legacy execs. I guess he is.
All of this has nothing to do with evaluating art, but it's simply a jerk reaction of legacy distribution business to innovative disruption. Film directors should know better.
In that sense, it's almost ridiculously obvious why Hollywood doesn't like Netflix... it minimizes the "big screen experience". Imagine if we all replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps. Would anyone be surprised if masterworkers of paint and sculpture got upset about that? Of course not! They work on mediums that are designed to be experienced in a very specific spacial context. A director like Christopher Nolan, whether you like him or not, designs his movies specifically to be seen on 80ft wide projections with 100 speakers all around you. Anything less than that and, in his eyes, your mission is now to render his movie meaningless.
All this said, I really think the directors' gripes are misplaced. Netflix didn't kill theaters... theaters killed themselves. Rising prices, gouging on food, maintaining massive floorplans that require massive leases of land. If going to the theater to see a movie wasn't, by and large, a $50+ excursion for a family of 4 to eat garbage food and struggle to find seats then maybe we wouldn't all be staying at home?