Support NeoGAF

[jroc74]

I love going to the movies too.

That big screen experience. Until I can get a big screen TV again, I agree with him. Also cant re create the dark atmosphere either unless its night time.

Yea the other stuff can be annoying, loud movie goers, but if you can find a decent theater its great. And just experience a great movie with others....that arent getting on your nerves.

I wish I had saw Training Day, The Matrix in theaters.

 

[geestack]

personally, i love the theater experience. then again, i only go to alamo drafthouse

 

[True Savior]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

Are you some kind of villain?

 

[Toothless]

I don't think that's the problem, more that theaters are refusing to let Netflix movies be exhibited because Netflix refuses to give theaters a window of exclusivity. Their reasoning is that if given the choice to pay $12-$20 to see a film in a theater versus at home, consumers will pick the home everytime. And why shouldn't they? Theater tickets are pricy, refreshments pricier, seats are uncomfortable, people can be rude and ruin the experience, and so on and so forth. There's nothing a theater can do to beat Netflix without cutting into said chain's profit margin.

The theater industry has basically done the bare minimum to get people into theaters because they've had no competition, and now that they do, they're floundering to innovate.

Well, yes, I'm not saying put Okja on Netflix and in theaters on June 28. We've already seen what that would like somewhat with The Interview's theatrical release (since it was put on VOD the day before) with only $6 million total. I'm saying put it out in theaters on June 28 and put it on Netflix in August or early September. That's what Amazon does and it works well for them (they've had about two or three solid theatrical hits). Netflix just doesn't want to delay the film's release and (more likely) pay for the traditional marketing such a release requires, which is a bummer because Okja and Beasts of No Nation would've been sweet to see in theaters, and I can't imagine not seeing The Irishman in a theater although that's the way it's gonna have to be under Netflix.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The Matrix in theaters.

Jesus. What an experience that was.

 

[lightning2k3]

I used to think the theater watching experience was limited to summer blockbusters, and didn't really affect non actiony movies, but then I watched Get Out in theaters. That really made the movie special and is really something that can't be replicated at home, so I defeintely think there is still value in the theater going experience.

 

[thezerofire]

I love all of the "old man yells at cloud" stuff from people yelling about kids in theaters.

Who is dying to watch an arthouse film in a theater anyway?

me? because that's the environment they were made for

Hope you've got a 50' projection setup with Atmos at home.

also this

 

[RBelong2Us]

Can you say with certainty that the only reason people paid to see those movies is because they were in a theater? Would they not have paid a similar price (if not even a bit more) to have the convenience of watching it at home?

Going to the movies is a night out thing....which is why movies make so much during the weekend.

Go on a date, take out the family, etc

It's not the same as just staying at home.

 

[A.J.]

Maybe if I lived near an IMAX theater (or ever seen an IMAX movie for the matter) I'd feel differently, but movie theaters suck. I'd rather watch at home where I can pause the movie for bathroom breaks and watch at my leisure.

 

[serenewarfare]

How can you say with certainty the opposite, though? People like to go outside and do things.

I'm not arguing theaters should go away. I'm arguing for, at best, simultaneous release. Which makes my original question relevant and yours not as much. Because why not give people the option to choose how they want to consume? Why limit them to only the theater? These big movies would make the money they're going to make even if the options were expanded.

 

[Jezan]

Some people here live in a small town with only one theater with the same annoying kid?

Or are they just outing themselves as the complaining fuck that just cause there is a group of teens in the theater the movie is runied forever?

The experience at the theater is nothing compared to home experience.

 

[number11]

Put them on Netflix at the same time they are in theaters, and it would probably make 2 billion worldwide.

How? If Beauty and the Beast released on Netflix, how many people who don't already have Netflix, are gonna sign up for It? Also watching it at home will obviously reduce the amount of people going to the theatre. Instead of paying $50-70 for a family day to watch a movie, I'm just gonna end up spending $10 for a month.. which means I can watch it unlimited amount of times without paying extra.

 

[RBelong2Us]

I cant imagine people have the same opinions of say big blockbuster movies if they just watched it at home comapred to the big screen.

Most of them are that much more shiet just watching at home unless you have some insane set up.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

lol, no.

Going to the cinema is awesome.


And the cinema in our town is pretty cool. 4K, Atmos, Ambient light and a huge screen:

 

[Hari Seldon]

Nothing is stopping movie theater experience fans from going to see a movie in the theater if it has a simultaneous release on other platforms.

 

[MUnited83]

Netflix doesn't and shouldn't give a shit about a movie they've financed getting a theatrical release. They only do small releases so they can get nominated for certain awards. A timed exclusive theatrical release makes no sense whatsoever for them.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Put them on Netflix at the same time they are in theaters, and it would probably make 2 billion worldwide.

Wat.

 

[Crossfader]

He's right. The fact that Netflix barely released Okja and Beasts of No Nation in theaters is an insult to the very films they finance. They should do what Amazon does with a limited arthouse run with possibility of a wide-expansion, but then right on Netflix within a month of leaving theaters.

That's not what Amazon does though. They release them in theaters. Then they wait and eventually release it for purchase digitally on iTunes, Google, Amazon etc. Then two weeks later they release it on disc and digital rental (again on iTunes, Google, Amazon) and then months later it becomes free on Amazon Prime. I'll take Netflix's method over Amazon's adoption of the tired old process any day of the week.

 

[outunderthestars]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

My feelings on the matter as well.

 

[kevin1025]

They have some good tv shows, don't get wrong. My point is that their output is different than cinema level stuff and both are good(for different reasons). We don't need less options like the other guy wishing cinemas would die.

That's true. Their original film library seems to be more about checking boxes, at least originally. Now that they are getting bigger names and bigger projects, movie-wise, I think that Netflix can finally shed their shaky quality issue.

But I hope there's always a two-option system. Theatre and home are different experiences, but I don't think Nolan's criticism is exactly fair. I see it as giving movies like Okja or Beasts or The Discovery more of an audience than a small limited run with the small hope of a wide release.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Okja benefits showing up on Netflix, to be fair.

I feel like Okja is the rare film that actually benefitted from Netflix's policies, because it's the exact scale of film that works on a streaming service. It's risky and odd, enough so that most mainstream audiences are never going to bother. If it was given a theatrical run, it'd be limited to LA/NYC. Critics would buzz about it for weeks, but it'd take ages for a viewer outside the bubble to see it.

Putting it on Netflix day one eliminates that barrier. The very small audience that would have paid to see that film at a cinema doesn't justify the delay for the whole.

But I don't think that applies to most of the other films Netflix produces. Projects like Bright & Death Note could easily see $30M+ opening weekends if given a widw theatrical run. People WANT to see those in theaters. By going direct to streaming, it forces everyone to compromise.

 

[sanstesy]

I'm not arguing theaters should go away. I'm arguing for, at best, simultaneous release. Which makes my original question relevant and yours not as much. Because why not give people the option to choose how they want to consume? Why limit them to only the theater? These big movies would make the money they're going to make even if the options were expanded.

Eh? That post you responded to didn't imply anything about not having a simultaneous digital release. I'm all for both being available.

 

[CopperPuppy]

Nolan is manufacturing conflict here.

 

[JJH]

This is probably a YMMV topic but I would rather watch at home because my local movie theaters are really outdated and have uncomfortable seating. If I lived in a bigger area which at updated equipment and seating I would pay for it but I don't see the value. Also I can pause to use the restroom or get something to eat at home.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The backlash in this thread isn't even about convenience, really. The movie would still be available on home devices after a certain window of time. It's about feeling entitled to watch a movie day one in the Netflix app on your Galaxy while you participate in a raid and browse GAF.

 

[True Savior]

Nothing is stopping movie theater experience fans from going to see a movie in the theater if it has a simultaneous release on other platforms.

Where can I see Okja?

 

[Livingskeletons]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

Nah.

Nothing beats a great cinematic experience for me.

 

[Dysun]

Half the time I'm at the cinema, I have someone checking their phone or iwatch (max brightness) next to me every 30 seconds. Or talking during the movie, or kids crying, or whatever.
I won't lament theaters going away

In a perfect world this isn't a problem, but it's not

 

[johnny956]

Where the fuck do you go for that? Even matinees are like 11$ for me. Are you an employee for a theatre or something?

AMC theater by my house does $5 Tuesday movies with their yearly membership. Full leather recliners, reserved seating. Tickets are $5 before noon every day as well so wife and I usually go Saturday mornings

 

[Warm Machine]

A good theater experience destroys the home experience. I've got a nice 60" TV and it often has me immersed in a movie but a theater has such more grandeur. Even a commercial is more impressive and packed with detail.

I'm going to rent a theater to premiere my short film when I'm done with it. Every director says that the biggest screen possible is the way to watch a movie and I agree with it whether it is a small drama, comedy, or a event picture.

Netflix can do what they want all the same but I agree with Nolan in terms of getting the impact and keeping the business of filmmaking going. There are not many entertainment mediums that have a vibrant market that allows for success.

 

[CloudWolf]

Agreed with Nolan. Netflix is poison to movies. Great Netflix Original films like Okja and Beasts of No Nation are just DOA. They get zero promotion except on Netflix's platforms and they disappear the day after, because Netflix is already releasing the next 'hot' thing and there's like 200 other films and shows to watch. I mean, I use Netflix almost daily to watch shows and the only reason I knew Okja had even released was because of a NeoGAF topic. It just never showed up in the highlighted section on Netflix for me.

Netflix is a place for series that have a longer lifespan than 90 minutes. Films belong in a cinema first, streaming after.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Where can I see Okja?

wtf is that?

 

[fantomena]

I like watching movies at cinemas, but also at home. If I got the chance of watching Dunkirk at home I would perhaps choose that due to convenience. I do not care very much about image quality and sound quality, probably has some reason to do with it.

With that said, options are still great though. If all movies did get a home-digital release the same time they premiere in cinemas I would watch movies on both (home and cinema).

 

[Josh5890]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

Great idea. Let's kill off tens of thousands of jobs in America alone!

 

[Smokey_Run]

I don't think that's the problem, more that theaters are refusing to let Netflix movies be exhibited because Netflix refuses to give theaters a window of exclusivity. Their reasoning is that if given the choice to pay $12-$20 to see a film in a theater versus at home, consumers will pick the home everytime. And why shouldn't they? Theater tickets are pricy, refreshments pricier, seats are uncomfortable, people can be rude and ruin the experience, and so on and so forth. There's nothing a theater can do to beat Netflix without cutting into said chain's profit margin.

The theater industry has basically done the bare minimum to get people into theaters because they've had no competition, and now that they do, they're floundering to innovate.

Theaters don't really need to innovate because studios like to make money and forcing people to go to the theater is the only way to ensure you're making every person pay.

Who wants to fund a movie just to put in on Netflix where 2-6 (or more) people can sit around and watch it (and everything else you might potentially release that month) for $10?

The current studio system and all of these huge movies people want to see likely won't exist or you'll be paying $50+ to stream it at home.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Uh no, if cinemas die then there goes the big budget special effects stuff. We'll just get made for tv movie level stuff going forward.

No. We will get the same things except they will cost much much more.

 

[Dangansona]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

Fuck that noise.

 

[number11]

The backlash in this thread isn't even about convenience, really. The movie would still be available on home devices after a certain window of time. It's about feeling entitled to watch a movie day one in the Netflix app on your Galaxy while you participate in a raid and browse GAF.

Yep.. everyone's complaining about watching a movie outside. If you love your home set up, you can still watch these films once they become available to stream.

For those wanting cinemas to die.. good luck paying $100 for your Netflix subscriptions. Do you think Netflix will fund your $500 million Avengers films and still keep their $10 subscription?

 

[dl77]

My parents took my son to the cinema this weekend. For two adults and one child to see Despicable Me 3 it was nearly £30. I pay £5.99pm for Netflix so that's five months of Netflix for the price of watching one film.

I'd go to the cinema a lot more if it were more reasonable. Hell I don't live in a major city so I imagine that my £10 is cheaper than a lot of other people pay.

Even studios are cottoning onto streaming. I'm sure I read last year that they're investigating releasing films to be streamed day and date with the cinema but at a much higher price i.e. $50. That to me is a good plan, people can watch the film at home with friends and the studio still gets their $50.

It's not streaming that's destroying cinema, it's the studios hedging their bets on a small handful of blockbuster titles each year to make their money. Statistically some will fail, studios will look at what worked, make something similar, see diminishing returns, rinse, repeat. When budgets have risen to the point that summer films need to make over half a billion dollars just to break even then there's something seriously wrong with the model they have.

 

[Syriel]

He's right. The fact that Netflix barely released Okja and Beasts of No Nation in theaters is an insult to the very films they finance. They should do what Amazon does with a limited arthouse run with possibility of a wide-expansion, but then right on Netflix within a month of leaving theaters.

It's not Netflix keeping its films out of theaters.

Theaters can exhibit the films if they want to.

Netflix just doesn't believe in artificial exclusivity. If people want the theater experience, Netflix believes they should have it. It people prefer to view at home, Netflix believes they should be able to do that.

The problem is not Netflix refusing to make films available for theatrical exhibition (it does).
The problem is theaters that don't differentiate themselves from the home experience want Netflix to provide artificial value for them.

 

[Big Blue]

My home theater is good enough that if movie companies implemented a system in which you could watch new releases at home, I would never go to a theater again.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Not really.

I'm sure they make more money if you subscribe for a month than if you buy a $10-15 movie ticket.

Not really. A film is valuable to Netflix if it encourages more people to subscribe to their service. It boosts their catalogue, and rounds out selection. But how many people are really going to get a new Netflix account due to one film? Especially when most people are active subscribers, and would've stayed that way regardless of any one particular movie.

Would Netflix suddenly he bleeding users if they gave their films a 90 day theatrical release? Probably not. They still have the most talked about TV projects around, and serious customer loyalty. But they would gain all of that revenue from the theater run. And still have the film in their catalogue, as it is still culturally relevant.

 

[serenewarfare]

Eh? That post you responded to didn't imply anything about not having a simultaneous digital release. I'm all for both being available.

I felt like it did. Saying "we had two movies make a billion this year" comes off as "they system we have is working, why change it", which I think is a bad attitude. I think more options would always be better.

 

[PanSexual_Peacock]

I'm confused as to what kind of theaters some of you guys are going to that you rather have the experience just die off completely. I love going to the cinemas to see a spectacle on a huge screen with amazing sound. Seeing a film like Interstellar at home for the first time just doesn't compare.

 

[mjc]

The theater experience is definitely unique, but I'm not complaining watching stuff at home either. I have a six month old daughter, and we don't get much opportunity to get to theaters now. I greatly value services like Netflix to provide us with stuff, even if it's supplemental to other services or blu-rays. Evolve with the times.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I think the biggest issue cinemas are facing, is a sharp increase in the quality of TV setups in their audiences' homes. The gap between your experience watching a movie at home and at the cinema is narrowing as time goes on. People are now buying 50 inch 4K HDR TVs with accompanying sound bars, which kinda makes going to the cinema redundant in many cases. Cinemas aren't really doing enough to make it worth the visit, and the increasing ticket prices certainly aren't helping.

That being said, many films which come out are still worth seeing on the big screen. But typically with each one, I stop and think

"Will my experience watching this movie be particularly improved watching this at the cinema on a large screen"

If the movie is a big blockbuster with huge spectacle (movies like The Martian, Guardians of the Galaxy etc), then yeah sure. But for everything else I might as well catch them at home. Therein lies the problem, for the most part cinema is essentially redundant for anything but lavish Hollywood blockbusters. With that said, I particularly appreciate Chris Nolan and the work he does to push cinema. He increasingly makes movies that demand to be seen on a large screen, and rightly so he is applauded for it.

On the topic of Netflix, I actually think they are good for the movie industry overall. For the all the movies which come out and are just as good being watched at home, Netflix provides a new avenue of distribution for them.

 

[Futureman]

I love the movie theater. I also love Netflix. I like Nolan too. He's made some great films.

Honestly I think he's out of touch here though. He can literally make whatever movie he dreams up in his head and WB will distribute it without question all of the world. I'm guessing many of the movies that Netflix is committing money to and distributing wouldn't see the light of day otherwise.

I think the biggest issue cinemas are facing, is a sharp increase in the quality of TV setups in their audiences' homes.

yea... Netflix harming the theatrical experience is only a small, small part of the equation. He could equally go after HDTV manufacturers. "How dare they make TVs with such outstanding picture quality. People are being drawn away from the cinema!"

 

[Nere]

Agreed, fuck people who want movie theaters to die. There is no better feeling than going with your gf to the theater, ordering a 1 litre coca cola, watch a movie while eating popcorn and discuss what you thought about the movie after while going home. I love the experience of going to the theater, it isn't only about the movie but the whole feeling behind it too.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

I think this whole thing is a bit silly really.

There is a place for both. I love going to the cinema, I've gone almost every week this month alone but to just slam Netflix for offering something different is stupid and bordering on pretentiousness, especially when we start to dictate what other people (or filmmakers) should do just because we have a preference.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

The fuck?

How about no?

Why are people acting like seeing a movie on a 30-100 foot tall screen with a sound system that no non-multimillionaire could ever have is some "dated" experience? Literally what the hell?