Wag
Member
The day when I can have an IMAX theater in my home is when I'll be OK with this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christopher Nolan criticizes Netflix's digital distribution model for movies
- Thread starter inm8num2
- Start date
The day when I can have an IMAX theater in my home is when I'll be OK with this.
Chainsawkitten
Member
The fault there is the theaters', not Netflix's.
I love the movie theaters but with children it is difficult to find the time.
Watching at home (either streaming or BD), i can pause the movie to attend to kids, and i can come back to it at a later time.
Also the quality of the experience at home is significantly better than it was say a decade ago. Large TV screens (or projectors) are more than affordable, as are speakers and components. You can get a very decent home theater experience at home for under $3,000.
I love the theatre experience for big blockbusters, but I have a damn good 4K TV and speaker system at home with a 1 year old. The end result is I don't go to the cinema now and wait for things to hit Netflix or rent them on a streaming service (or not at all).
The market and technology has changed. Theatres still have their place, but consumers should have choice. This archaic system of people having to wait up until 6 months to watch a movie after it releases at the cinema is ridiculous. I would gladly pay up to $40 or $50 to stream a day one release movie at home, if it was a movie I really wanted to see. Instead studios are missing out on that money to people forgetting about movies or piracy.
The market and technology has changed. Theatres still have their place, but consumers should have choice. This archaic system of people having to wait up until 6 months to watch a movie after it releases at the cinema is ridiculous. I would gladly pay up to $40 or $50 to stream a day one release movie at home, if it was a movie I really wanted to see. Instead studios are missing out on that money to people forgetting about movies or piracy.
Not my experience. Here in The Netherlands even very small films usually get a pretty sizeable run. Sure, the big cinemas like the Pathé will drop films if they're not successful after two weeks or so, but in the smaller local theaters these films run for ages and keep drawing people to these films. Okja is not a multiplex film obviously, but I can see it doing very, very well in the arthouse circuit, but now it won't because Netflix bought it up and it's already in the Netflix Original films cementary.
Netherscourge
Banned
Nolan is basically going for the double-dips.
1. Make people buy a ticket first when it's only available in theaters for a while.
2. Then see if they will buy it again on DVD/BD/digital/stream when it's no longer in theaters.
He doesn't care about the comfort of your own home or the atmosphere of a grandiose theater experience. He wants your money in the comfort of his own wallet.
There's nothing wrong with a theater, but it does suck you don't have the option to choose one or the other right off the bat.
In the end, it's all about $$$$.
1. Make people buy a ticket first when it's only available in theaters for a while.
2. Then see if they will buy it again on DVD/BD/digital/stream when it's no longer in theaters.
He doesn't care about the comfort of your own home or the atmosphere of a grandiose theater experience. He wants your money in the comfort of his own wallet.
There's nothing wrong with a theater, but it does suck you don't have the option to choose one or the other right off the bat.
In the end, it's all about $$$$.
Mushroomer25
Member
Netflix is giving theaters an objectively raw deal that would be completely poisonous to the cinemas. Theater real estate isn't free. Having screens set aside for a film that is drawing a segment of the total audience turns it into a bad investment for the theater operator.
Netflix is the one being irrational here. They're giving up guaranteed theatrical revenue for these films, because they can't stomach even a short exclusivity window. They just need to ensure enough people actually come to them so the theaters aren't wasting money on the deal.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
So do I, and I literally went to the movies last night to see the new Planet of the Apes film.
The fact is that the world is changing and the cinemas just don't want to. As has been said if the product really was good enough it would not be a problem to show the film in theaters at the same time it goes to streaming. But the only reason most people pay for the ticket is because it's the only way. It's basically a monopoly that Netflix has now started to break down and the old players are angry because they lost their free cash cow.
Gotcha, I was kinda using the US timing as a template and I got a bit too generalized. My bad!
dl77
Member
My understanding is that it did make a profit, albeit modest. The thing is that Snowpiercer was developed with video on demand in mind as the profits are a lot higher than the traditional cinema route, hence it only played on a handful of screens. In that respect VOD probably ensured that the makers weren't left out of pocket and may well have led to the confidence to push on with Okja, which let's be honest is not something a lot of studios would be keen on.
I just don't see what the compromise would be. I think the idea that having an additional theatrical run would just be a case of adding to the cash pile is ridiculous and at best overly simplistic.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
I don't think a short window for theaters is a big deal. is it really gonna kill you to wait a couple months? I mean you're already usually doing that since movies technically premiere to limited audiences well before their wider release. And theaters are not a dead novelty. They are a fun, social activity and experience that gets you out of the house for once. I wouldn't say anything Netflix is making really needs to be there though. I go to the theater for audio/visual spectacle. More artful movies don't get as much benefit from giant screens and crazy sound systems. But if Netflix made a Nolan film, yeah, that shit needs to be in theaters.
But it's Netflix funding the production of these movies for their platform. It's not like Netflix is out there mandating that Avengers Infinity War will stream day and date with theatres or only on Netflix. What's wrong with Netflix paying for content for their own platform? Content that likely wouldn't exist anyway if they didn't pay/have interest in it?
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
The other way to look at this is he wants your money because he wants to make movies with large budgets and Netflix's model would not pay for a movie like Dunkirk.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
lol, come on. It's Nolan. You know why he, of all people, would be defending theatres, and it's not because of some cynical cash grab. The dude specifically tailor-makes his films to be experienced on the best screen with the best sound system possible because he genuinely believes that's the best way to experience them. Which is why he's doing crazy shit like filming the majority of a blockbuster on 65mm IMAX film.
And yeah, this.
Mushroomer25
Member
Nolan turned down 3D conversions for his films because he thought it harmed their quality. In other words, he turned down a free 20% bonus to box office revenue because he didn't like what it did to the product.
The Faceless Master
Member
nice theater back in NY > home viewing > the 'theater experience' here in GA
i guess i could just drive 3 hours to Atlanta for a good theater experience
They are spending like a 100 million on that Scorsese film. I'm not sure that is the case any more
The Faceless Master
Member
it's like saying you shouldn't be able to get a car until you've ridden a horse for the 90 day exclusivity window
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
I agree to a point. Some movies don't belong in theaters and Netflix has revived the Made for TV movie in a sense
PersonAndStuff
Member
Theaters are great. I want to see movies in theaters.
Fancyarcher
Member
Yup Nolan is all about the theater experience, doing whatever he can with the budgets he can afford right now. The money is almost secondary to him, it's just something that he likes, because it means do whatever he wants, like any good director would.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I wouldn't say that about Nolan. Being an artist, a director, he's obviously taking great advantage of the theater going experience with the physical film viewings, and the large IMAX screens. With Dunkirk I'm sure a large part of its impact would be lost with home viewing. A lot of directors hold this opinion based on what they feel best conveys their work. Its increasingly becoming antiquated but lets be honest, home viewing is purely about convenience.
Yep, this is what people saying "well, the theater can show the film just fine" are probably forgetting. Screening a film isn't free, you pay for the rights to screen a film and most of the times you also have to pay per screening and/or have to give a percentage of the sold tickets to the distributor. Most people will, if there is a choice, choose to watch a film at home or *shudder* on their tablet/phone instead of the theater because it's faster and it's easier (and depending on what theater you go to more comfortable I guess).
Ergo, most theaters (probably correctly) figure that paying to screen a Netflix film and then screening the Netflix film will result in a net loss. And yes, that's on the theaters, but can you really blame them for not wanting to lose money on a deal?
PersonAndStuff
Member
What exactly do you think would cause them to be good enough for people not to just stream?
Yes, the business model depends on exclusivity. But that doesn't mean there's some new model that wouldn't. If anything theaters would have to raise ticket prices and spend less money on projection hardware... but.. then even less people would go.
Name a few things you think cinemas could change?
The Faceless Master
Member
if it's so exciting and fun, why is simultaneous release a problem? shouldn't the fun and excitement cause people to go watch it in theaters anyway? or maybe most theaters are a shitshow and most movie theater operators just abuse the exclusivity window. that's why they fear the simultaneous release. they'd have to actually make the experience exciting and fun.
Theaters are great, but their collapse is of their own doing. They're under no obligation to consider how bad a deal it is for cinemas. If they think the message that their exclusives are streamed quicker than Amazon's is worth losing out on a paltry theatrical run, then it's not worth wringing your hands over.
If the only thing drawing people to the theater is artificial scarcity then the theater is adding zero value.
The theater experience used to be a massive step up over the home experience. Today, that's not there in a lot of places.
There are some theaters that have put in effort and do make it worthwhile to see something on the big screen. But it took years for theaters (as an industry) to start making that investment and adding value.
Theaters that do add value will always draw people. They can show new films, or they can show old films, and still pack the house. Hell, good theaters can still sell out (at a premium) when showing TV shows. That is a thing.
Something that is free on TV, yet people will still pay to see it on a quality big screen, with a large audience.
While it's not a theater directly, tickets for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone at the symphony hall are currently selling out at $150+ here in SF. They had to add additional showings.
That is an old film, that anyone can easily rent or purchase to watch at home, but the symphony is packing seats for an exhibition because the score is being performed live. THAT is a value add.
I'm not saying that theaters need to have live music, but the ones that want to survive long term need to offer real value beyond "exclusivity" to continue to draw crowds.
Mihos
Gold Member
We still have drive in's around here. I love those also. $11 per person and you get three movies, and straight up tailgate like at a football game.
The three movies right now are Spider-Man Homecoming, Planet of the Apes, and Despicable Me 3. When the kids were little, we would go more often since they have a playground and they had a lot of friends there.
The parks here show movies in the ampetheaters sometimes also, but I haven't been there in awhile. A lot of the college kids go there from what I hear..
The three movies right now are Spider-Man Homecoming, Planet of the Apes, and Despicable Me 3. When the kids were little, we would go more often since they have a playground and they had a lot of friends there.
The parks here show movies in the ampetheaters sometimes also, but I haven't been there in awhile. A lot of the college kids go there from what I hear..
They are already changing. Reserved seating, reclining leather seats, much better food and service at your seat through the movie, even adding beer and liquor.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, that should be a loud and clear message that most people do not want to go to a theater to watch movies. Netflix is doing right by its customers. Movie theaters are sure to go the way of video game arcades, where only a few specialized locations continue to exist. They haven't been the main place to watch movies for most people for quite some time now.
Chainsawkitten
Member
If that's the case they should just stop existing, which I think they will unless they find things to draw an audience. A business model that depends on artifical scarcity doesn't sound sustainable.
It certainly isn't, but I didn't make up the terminology!
dl77
Member
That the same Chris Nolan who's apparently getting $20m + 20% of the gross for Dunkirk? I think he's a great director but let's not kid ourselves that he's only there for the art.
family of 4, 4 movies per month... 4*4*6*12 = 1152 dollars per year. There goes a nice big 4k HDR TV plus a decent sound system. Not including parking costs, your cocacola, chocolate and popcorn a the cinema, and, ofc, the time spent going and coming back from the theather. Even if its a 2 people, its almost 600 only on tickets per year.
You can prefer theater, but I dont see how you can include 'cheap' as being an advantage over home watching.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Yup. Alamo is increasingly becoming a big deal and even the big regional chain from my area (Harkins) opened their first premium theatre with the release of TFA. Hell, even AMC's got some.
Psychoward
Banned
because I don't have a family of 4?
and I bring my own snacks and don't have to pay for parking lol
I also never claimed it was cheaper than using a streaming service, but I think the value of 6 dollars to see a movie I want to see in theaters is great
I live in Indiana and if i want to be cheap i can see an imax film for around 5 bucks. I have problem going to the first showing of the day. I think around 1pm the ticket jumps to 8 bucks. Not sure when it jumps to full price.
I also did the same when i lived in palm springs, cali.
johancruijff
Banned
True but unless you're going to a Drafthouse or Night showing, it's gonna get ruined by assholes such as parents who couldn't hire a babysitter, phone jerks, loud talkers, etc.
Giant Panda
Member
Seriously? Watching major sporting events in stadiums have been some of best experiences of my life.
I don't know if we're just more polite in the UK, but I have only once had a bad experience in a cinema like that in my entire life.
dl77
Member
I'd also say that it's pretty much guaranteed that Netflix have looked into various models for theatrical releases of their films and clearly they can't make the numbers work rather than some Machiavellian scheme to ruin cinemas. Does anyone think a content producer would turn down "free" money if the figures added up?!
unpopularblargh
Member
That's a nice man made of straw you built there. I'm pretty sure very few people do this.
Messofanego
Banned
Yup, which is doing well for The Big Sick (financed by Amazon).
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/26/entertainment/the-big-sick/index.html
What? $1 billion in ticket sales doesn't tell you anything?