Support NeoGAF

[Hexxen-Panda]

Hmm, while I like the convenience of watching at home, I feel like there are way more distractions at home than at the cinema that I can't really get sucked into the movie because of phone calls, neighbours, airplanes, etc.


I think the theatre experience benefits more than just big, loud blockbusters.
For instance, I can't even imagine watching Martin Scorsese's Silence for the first time at home, because so much of it's power comes from not being able to look away or pause the movie.

 

[kevin1025]

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.

Definitely! But when you have someone on their phone texting two rows down and the light is affecting your sight, someone else having a coughing fit, someone else opening a pack of Twizzlers for five straight minutes, or just outright talking... it does make that $17 IMAX ticket feel less worth it.

But for me, that sort of stuff is rare. But that Twizzler thing happened to me during Spider-Man two weeks back.

 

[Mushroomer25]

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.



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!"

Netflix is actively out-bidding other studios for projects now. Stuff like The Irishman would absolutely be seeing a theatrical run if Netflix hadn't made their bid.

 

[newsguy]

I have my little home theater set up in my house and I don't miss the movies at all. My kids love it, we don't deal with the fuckery, and 99% of the time my 4K image looks better than the poorly set up projectors at my local cinema.

 

[Netherscourge]

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.

The production company could always hike up the price on their Netflix deal to compensate. Maybe Netflix could add a PPV option for brand new movies, that's outside of their regular service and not a Neflix original. Or they could do what HBO does and just make their own streaming service and skip the middle-man altogether.

Also - Maybe spending $50 to $70 for a family to have 1 viewing of a movie is wrong and monopolizing?

I support competition and options.

I don't believe they would take much of a hit at all going direct-to-stream or doing the co-streaming/co-theater thing. In fact, I think they'd make more money long-term.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

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.

Did actually you read what he's saying? He's not against digital distribution. He's against cutting out theatres altogether. He literally says he likes what Amazon is doing, where they give films theatrical runs before immediately putting them up digitally. In other words, he thinks the same thing as you: there's a place for both.

 

[dl77]

I'd also say that for the up and coming generation the cinema isn't as important as it one was. I remember when the difference between seeing a film at the cinema and then on VHS was often around a year, sometimes more. Nowadays people know they can wait three months and catch it at home. Yes it's not the same AV experience but it's cheaper, more convenient and you don't have to leave your house. I see people happily watching films on their phones these days, the convenience clearly outweighs the negatives of a small screen and I think it's a case of Netflix giving people what they crave rather than dictating to them.

 

[Anung]

Nolan loses me here a bit.

"If you can find a way to work in the system, it’s a very powerful machine, with a lot of resources, and excellent distribution mechanisms.”

Films like Okja and Beasts of no Nation wouldn't exist without netflix. The studio system would never take the risk. I'm sure if you've made WB a couple of billion dollars then the system is very lucrative for you. But Nolan's an exception, not the rule. It sounds out of touch.

I'm not a huge cinema-goer anymore. I usually try and see stuff at the independent theatre because it's a good experience with excellent atmosphere but other than that cinema's suck and I usually just wait for a home release.

 

[mjc]

Did actually you read what he's saying? He's not against digital distribution. He's against cutting out theatres altogether. He literally says he likes what Amazon is doing, where they give films theatrical runs before immediately putting them up digitally. In other words, he thinks the same thing as you: there's a place for both.

That would be up to the service providing the film, as well as the director and producers I'd imagine.

 

[Moff]

If cinemas survive only because people are forced to go there when they actually preferred to watch it at home, then I don't see why there is a need for them to survive. But I don't think that's the case. Some sure will close, but there are already plenty of small cinemas around that show small movies in a nice atmosphere.

 

[bengraven]

I just hate their aversion to keeping movies longer than they are. I want a service where I pay monthly one flat cost but if I need a movie it's immediately at my fingertips. I'm not a monster, I get that newer movies are harder.

 

[Dusktildawn48]

I don't have time to go to a movie. I work.

Dumbest comment I've read in quite some time.

 

[_Ryo_]

Wrong. Much rather watch movies at home than have to deal with annoying people in the theatre. Also I shouldn't have to feel guilty about not buying over priced snacks and sneaking food in. At home I don't have to worry about it being too cold either.

 

[VeeP]

I don't have time to go to a movie. I work.

So watch the movie when it comes out in 3 months like how Amazon does there movies?

 

[wisdom0wl]

6 dollars per ticket

The dream right there.

 

[KalBalboa]

Short and simple: I agree with Nolan.

 

[CloudWolf]

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.

This is simply not true, it started that way, but now Netflix is a very active bidder on films and they demand exclusivity. They also do this with television shows. A show like Fargo is a "Netflix Original" in the Netherlands. Do you think that's because nobody wanted to show Fargo? No, it's because Netflix paid for the exclusive rights to "air" the show.

Films like Okja and Beasts of no Nation wouldn't exist without netflix. The studio system would never take the risk. I'm sure if you've made WB a couple of billion dollars then the system is very lucrative for you. But Nolan's an exception, not the rule. It sounds out of touch.

Eh, I can imagine that quite a few independent film distributors would want to release Okja, but Netflix beat them to the punch.

 

[Good Job Bob]

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.

Snowpiercer did fine.

 

[LFMartins86]

Amazon's system is release it on theaters, release it on digital and only on streaming much later. Manchester By The Sea has yet to hit their video streaming service in most regions.
Nolan is so against because he is one of the very few directors who is given free reign over his movies.
Every other director has praised Netflix for their hands off approach. They don't have to cut their movies runtime so the theaters can fit more screenings on a day.
Theaters won't die, Netflix won't finance every single movie out there, they just give consumers a choice of how to watch it.
It's the theaters who are against having the movies out on Netflix at the same time than the theatrical.
Why should it be exclusive to the theatres? Why not give the costumer the choice?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Movies are flat out not worth my time. Even Nolan movies. The upgrade in sound and video quality is not worth the massive amount of additional time investment involved in going to see it in the theater. Dunkirk is probably going to be a great movie, but I would rather watch something shittier AND with worse quality than spend the additional 2 hours it would take to go and see it. Not having a simultaneous digital release is leaving my money on the table.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

That would be up to the service providing the film, as well as the director and producers I'd imagine.

...

No shit it's up to the service? I don't understand this response, lol. Because Netflix has the right to do so, one can't voice their criticism of the choice?

 

[mjc]

Snowpiercer did fine.

Did just over $4mil domestically, certainly not a barn burner. (Although internationally it did modest numbers)

...

No shit it's up to the service? I don't understand this response, lol. Because Netflix has the right to do so, one can't voice their criticism of the choice?

Whoa there shooter, put down your guns. I was going along with your train of thought and just made a comment. Easy does her.

 

[harSon]

I've got a quality projector, 150" screen and a nice 7.1 Dolby Atmos sound setup. I also have a popcorn machine, flavacol and legit theater butter. Outside of the free Advanced Passes I regularly get, if I could watch every theatrical release at home, I gladly would - and I wouldn't feel like I was sacrificing too much to do so.

 

[Divvy]

At this point I only goto theatres for movies I especially want to see since I'm only willing to go to the 2D VIP screenings which cost 20 dollars a pop.

I'd vastly prefer if movies were available for streaming at the same time, sorry Nolan

 

[Sotha_Sil]

Its gotten to the point where I only watch select movies in theater. I will always want to watch Nolan's films in IMAX first. Dark Knight, Inception, and Interstellar was awesome experiences. Cant wait for Dunkirk this weekend.

 

[Mihos]

I have a kick ass home theater, but we still go to the movies a lot. It is only $7.50 per ticket on Sundays, even for the reserved recliner chairs through fandango. Usually we meet up with a few extended family and friends there.

I love my house, but I got to get of here sometimes.

 

[Lights and Waves]

I love movie theaters. I'd hate to see them go away.

 

[number11]

Nolan loses me here a bit.

"If you can find a way to work in the system, it’s a very powerful machine, with a lot of resources, and excellent distribution mechanisms.”

Films like Okja and Beasts of no Nation wouldn't exist without netflix. The studio system would never take the risk. I'm sure if you've made WB a couple of billion dollars then the system is very lucrative for you. But Nolan's an exception, not the rule. It sounds out of touch.

I'm not a huge cinema-goer anymore. I usually try and see stuff at the independent theatre because it's a good experience with excellent atmosphere but other than that cinema's suck and I usually just wait for a home release.

But Beasts of no Nation did exist without Netflix. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they just buy the distribution rights? The film was already funded before they got involved. I'm sure another studio like A24 would have no problem distributing and promoting the movie for theatres.

 

[dl77]

Netflix is actively out-bidding other studios for projects now. Stuff like The Irishman would absolutely be seeing a theatrical run if Netflix hadn't made their bid.

Just shot yourself in the foot there. The reason we'll get to see The Irishman is because Paramount backed out when the budget rose to $100m and Netflix stepped up to fund the film.

 

[reKon]

No thanks.

I mean home theater has evolved in the past decade but I'd still rather see Dunkirk on a huge 70mm IMAX screen (or even regular theatre screen) than streaming it on my TV at home.

This and it applies to the film Gravity as well. That film demanded to be seen in 3D on a big screen. Watching it on a big screen at home wasn't even close to the same experience.

 

[adj_noun]

no thanks

because of movie theaters I'm able to see movies 4 days after release for 6 dollars per ticket with a giant screen and surround sound

Good lord.

It's getting to where I don't think my theater sells concessions for six bucks.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Snowpiercer did fine.

Snowpiercer spent a year in limbo because the studio wanted to cut it into something more palatable to US audiences. By the time it actually released in the States, I felt like people had been discussing it for years.

 

[HStallion]

I've got a quality projector, 150" screen and a nice 7.1 Dolby Atmos sound setup. I also have a popcorn machine, flavacol and legit theater butter. Outside of the free Advanced Passes I regularly get, if I could watch every theatrical release at home, I gladly would - and I wouldn't feel like I was sacrificing too much to do so.

Legit movie theatre butter isn't even butter

 

[MrPink93485]

Just shot yourself in the foot there. The reason we'll get to see The Irishman is because Paramount backed out when the budget rose to $100m and Netflix stepped up to fund the film.

I think part of it was wrong place, wrong time. Paramount is in trouble as of late and they just got a new guy leading the studio after Brad Grey's exit.

It's cool that Netflix is stepping in, because they clearly have the resources to do so. But it's a shame that a Scorsese film is unlikely to see much of a wide theatrical release.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Just shot yourself in the foot there. The reason we'll get to see The Irishman is because Paramount backed out when the budget rose to $100m and Netflix stepped up to fund the film.

And you really think nobody else would've stepped in to fund a new Scorsese picture?

Regardless, my point stands. Netflix is actively competing with studios for aquisitions. The idea that they're just elevating films that wouldn't have survived elsewhere is misleading & outdated.

 

[faridmon]

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

The price will drop and your average guy will have one at home

 

[Ashhong]

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.

Not sure what is so wrong with having a delay on the movie. It could have a limited theater run, and then everyone can see it on Netflix for "free" in 2-3 months. What is the big deal? For these small movies, they probably wouldn't even know they were missing out on it until it's already been released.

 

[CloudWolf]

Snowpiercer spent a year in limbo because the studio wanted to cut it into something more palatable to US audiences. By the time it actually released in the States, I felt like people had been discussing it for years.

The problem with this is that we're not just talking about the US here. While Snowpiercer had a ridiculous delay in the US, it was released just fine in other countries and did fairly well. Netflix's distribution deals are global, so even in countries where Okja would probably do great, it's fucked because it's on Netflix to be forgotten in a week.

 

[Doikor]

no thanks

because of movie theaters I'm able to see movies 4 days after release for 6 dollars per ticket with a giant screen and surround sound


i would have paid 6 dollars to see beasts of no nation in theaters, I wish while netflix released movies digitally they also put them in theaters if possible

I think the problem is more that theaters won't show films that are already available some other way not that Netflix is actively blocking that from happening.

 

[mreddie]

It least Amazon will give the film a limited release but Nolan sounds a bit old fashioned here.

 

[Syriel]

i would have paid 6 dollars to see beasts of no nation in theaters, I wish while netflix released movies digitally they also put them in theaters if possible

They release it in theaters only because they want to be considered for awards. They don't give a shit about theatrical release otherwise.

Netflix makes its films available to theaters. The only reason they are not in theaters is because the chains (like AMC) are explicitly choosing NOT to show them.

It's more about movie theaters expanding what an experience is when you go to the theater.

This. If the theater experience stands out, then it is worth the premium. If it is just the same old crappy seats and sticky floor, who cares?

Competition from streaming and better home video options has pushed local theaters to upgrade. AMC here now offers reserved seating and reclining chairs.

If a theater wants my $$$ it needs to give me an experience that is better than I can get at home. It shouldn't get my $$$ just because of artificial scarcity.

Interesting that Nolan talks about a 90 day window when the same window before Netflix was more like 180 days and most films today are more like 30-60 before paid VOD. I wonder if this number will go up or down over time and whether people should invest more or less in theatres going forward. Hmm.

Netflix wants simultaneous releases for everything.

I'm starting to think that Netflix's aversion to even very limited theater runs is just to avoid the critics tearing their films apart.

Netflix films screen for critics before release, the same as other films.

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.

And theaters can show those films if they want to. It's just that theaters think no one will bother paying for the theater experience if they can watch it at home. And if theaters don't value their own product, why should consumers?

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.

You can do this today with a $30k outlay and a rental cost of $500/film.

 

[firelogic]

Good lord.

It's getting to where I don't think my theater sells concessions for six bucks.

Same here. A small popcorn with no butter is $6.75. A ticket for one of the good auds with the biggest screen and assigned seating is $18-$20 depending on if it's 3D or not. I personally only go 3 or 4 times a year now.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Sooner cinemas die the better.

Yuck. I like the choice.

With Amazon I'd actually go out of my way to watch their produced films in theaters. I'd watch Beast of No Nation in theaters too if given the choice.

There's something about theater viewing, its engrossing, meditative. Its literally all youre there for and it envelopes your field of view. Its hard to replicate at home.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

I love movie theaters. I'd hate to see them go away.

I don't, $30+ dollars for a pair of tickets before anything from the concession to sit in a theatre with a bunch of noisy and rude people is not my idea of fun. Especially when we can just stay home with our UHD and Blu Ray players and watch movies on our 75" Bravia X900E tv with a Jamo Dolby Atmos 7.1 surround system.

 

[mjc]

The problem with this is that we're not just talking about the US here. While Snowpiercer had a ridiculous delay in the US, it was released just fine in other countries and did fairly well. Netflix's distribution deals are global, so even in countries where Okja would probably do great, it's fucked because it's on Netflix to be forgotten in a week.

I mean, most movies are forgotten after about three weeks in theaters, so the gap isn't too large there. We just aren't bombarded by advertisements of Netflix movies like we are with theatrical releases.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

He can criticize it all he wants, but claiming its a bad business decision is wrong. Netflix doesn't want people to watch in the theater; they want them to watch on Netflix.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

To be fair, while I agree with him, I do appreciate that Netflix saved me from actually spending money on Okja.

Whoa there shooter, put down your guns. I was going along with your train of thought and just made a comment. Easy does her.

Ah, I apologize then, lol. I didn't intend for my post to sound overly aggressive though, hence the "lol" (lol), just bewildered because I completely misread what you were going for. I admittedly have a problem with my verbal speech style carrying over poorly to text, haha.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

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.

They can't do that everywhere.

For exemple due to french law if Netflix released Okja or Beasts of no Nation in theatre they would have to wait about 4 years to be able to release them on their platform.

 

[firelogic]

The problem with this is that we're not just talking about the US here. While Snowpiercer had a ridiculous delay in the US, it was released just fine in other countries and did fairly well. Netflix's distribution deals are global, so even in countries where Okja would probably do great, it's fucked because it's on Netflix to be forgotten in a week.

In Korea, it was the theatre chains that refused to screen Okja in protest. It wasn't Netflix that mandated no theatres.

 

[riotous]

Releasing a movie in theaters does not stop it from eventually releasing for streaming.

Whereas going streaming first pretty much kills off that movies ability for a theatrical run (and beyond that they just aren't generally releasing to theaters
.)

People calling Nolan an old man are acting like hes saying movies shouldnt be streamed. This is not analogous to the horse salesman yelling at a car salesman that is being quoted.

That analogy would only fit if Nolan was saying films should only come out on physical formats and never be streamed.