|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Day and Date Update
|
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler
Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-12-2016 02:56 PM
I am intrigued at how many people are trying this sort of thing right now. As everyone on this forum knows, there has forever been a mechanism for Hollywood A-List types to get day-and-date (or even pre-release) movies for their private home screening rooms. This was done, not as a business, but as a sort of courtesy, a perk of being a studio executive or a movie star (and also helps with awards consideration - you *want* Steven Spielberg to watch your movie).
In the 35mm era this was easy to keep under control - almost by definition the potential audience was small and exclusive - the patron needed to have a film projector, the prints had to be physically delivered, and a union projectionist was required to run the show.
Once the digital era dawned, the number of people requesting "prints" started to increase, because of the lower barrier to entry. The studios still kept the distribution list quite small, but several people and companies have been looking at ways to monetize what had always been just a marketing expense. You have Prima Cinema with their $500-a-pop day-and-date releases with a digital file (but alas not much studio support). I think there are at least two companies trying to negotiate day-and-date rentals at high prices for the billionaire set (so basically the same thing as the courtesy prints, but extended to rich people willing to pay rather than the merely well-connected). I've also heard Prime Cinema themselves are going to move away from their proprietary file format and just use the DCPs. And now this company.
I think $50 is too low a price to make this palatable to exhibitors, and I also don't see any way to fairly divvy up that exhibition slice amongst all the interested exhibition parties.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-12-2016 04:43 PM
I'm quite certain most studio execs know that the exhibition industry still is a fundamental part of their revenue model. It's not like they can turn a blind eye on their financial statements. Also, the fact that, besides some misguided experiments, there still aren't day and date releases of feature releases for plebs, could also be seen as an implicit proof.
But it's not like there are some parties with different agendas that keep on trying to convince them otherwise.
Only if e.g. Netflix would produce a $100M+ feature film, release it as a streaming only affair and still make a profit on this adventure, the Genie would be out of the bottle.
But for now, I don't see them taking that risk, probably also because they know it wouldn't fly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-13-2016 03:21 PM
The Hobbit-Meister weighs in (and we know he nailed it with HFR):
quote:
Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju- backed startup offers day-and-date releases in the home for $50
Peter Jackson said he is backing Screening Room, the controversial start-up that wants to deliver new releases to the home while they are still in theaters, because it captures an audience that does not go to the cinema.
“Screening Room will expand the audience for a movie – not shift it from cinema to living room,” Jackson said in a statement.
Jackson isn’t the only big name backing the venture. He is joined as a shareholder by Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and J.J. Abrams.
Screening Room, the brainchild of entrepreneurs Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, offers movies for $50 at the same time as they open in theaters. It plans to charge $150 for access to the anti-piracy equipped set-top box that transmits the films and will give customers 48 hours to watch the movies. The hope is to capture middle-aged audiences whose family responsibilities prevent them from routinely going to the theater.
After Variety broke the news of Jackson’s involvement, some questioned whether he was back-tracking on his earlier support for theatrical release windows. In 2011, Jackson was among more than 20 directors who signed a letter decrying a deal that several major studios made with DirecTV to rent several releases eight weeks after they landed in theaters. Other signatories included Michael Bay, Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, and Guillermo del Toro.
But in a statement to Variety, Jackson explained that he believed that the DirecTV deal would imperil the theatrical business, while Screening Room will grow overall revenues for the industry.
Here is his full statement:
I had concerns about “DirecTV” in 2011, because it was a concept that I believe would have led to the cannibalization of theatrical revenues, to the ultimate detriment of the movie business.
Screening Room, however, is very carefully designed to capture an audience that does not currently go to the cinema.
That is a critical point of difference with the DirecTV approach – and along with Screening Room’s robust anti-piracy strategy, is exactly why Screening Room has my support.
Screening Room will expand the audience for a movie – not shift it from cinema to living room. It does not play off studio against theater owner. Instead it respects both, and is structured to support the long term health of both exhibitors and distributors – resulting in greater sustainability for the wider film industry itself.
Variety
I'd like to see more evidence for that last paragraph.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-14-2016 12:44 AM
quote: Variety article
Screening Room, the brainchild of entrepreneurs Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju, offers movies for $50 at the same time as they open in theaters. It plans to charge $150 for access to the anti-piracy equipped set-top box that transmits the films and will give customers 48 hours to watch the movies. The hope is to capture middle-aged audiences whose family responsibilities prevent them from routinely going to the theater.
I'm wondering where these guys got their market research for this bullshit.
First of all, younger people in their 20's and 30's tend to be burdened with "family responsibilities" more often than middle aged people. Usually when parents are in their 40's or 50's the kids have long since grown out of diapers. They're often heading out of high school, on to college, etc.
If the movie studios really want to get "empty nest" customers back into movie theaters they probably should start trying to make more movies that appeal to that age group. Not everyone likes action spectacles made for young males who like to indulge their inner man-child psyche.
I've talked with a lot of people over the years who don't visit movie theaters anymore. Some of these people are friends, coworkers, etc. Fundamentally they just don't see much value in paying a lot of money to see a movie. Price is the main reason why they don't go to theaters. Very few movies have must-see appeal to them either. They have no problem waiting until a movie arrives on Netflix, HBO or even basic cable where its content is sanitized and broken up with dozens of commercial breaks. Getting these people to pay $150 for a set top box and $50 a pop to watch a movie just isn't going to fly. My own "research" isn't scientific. But I think my own guessing might turn out to be very accurate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-14-2016 06:44 AM
Lets see...$50 to watch a movie in the home (plus start up costs for the equipment of $150 or so)...hmmm.
What does it cost to go to a typical cinema, particularly the ones putting in these new comfy chairs and such? For just a mere couple to drive to a theatre buy a couple of tickets and get some minimal concessions (popcorn/soda)...you are going to hit and probably exceed that $50. How is this NOT pitting commercial cinemas against home cinemas?
And if that is true, this does NOT expand the market but shift it. Furthermore, it likely reduces revenues since we don't know how many eyes are watching it in the home. If it is a family of 4, then it is absolutely a "deal" to stay at home.
The article makes it sound like they are finding a lost market but in fact it is a market already being captured. The convenience market that does not go out for whatever reason (cost, time, interest...etc.) STILL has access to movies just not on day-and-date releases. You can watch Star Wars VII and all of the Peter Jackson movies right now in your home without having to drive to a theatre or purchase a piece of plastic and shove it into a player. That market is already served (too well, in my opinion...I want release windows back to over a year and longer based on boxoffice to ensure sub run cinemas have a crack at the movie). Once a movie hits the home, thats it, except for a very small revival market.
Any exhibitor that gets "on board" with this is a fool with suicidal tendencies. Studios still don't get (except for maybe Disney) that movies have a longer shelf life than the initial theatrical release and there is no need to rush them into the merky world of home cinema where they lose their value nearly instantly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-14-2016 03:08 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
What's the latest research on how many times per month/year that the average person goes to a movie theater?
Well the US has a population of about 320 million. According to this website which gets its data from the MPAA, there were 1,340,918,470 tickets sold last year, so doing the math, it averages out to 4.19 cinema visits per US citizen per year.
I have a guy here who works with me at my day job. He is a single dad with 3 kids. He does not go out to the theater, as a rule. I asked him, if you had a chance to watch a brand new movie the same day it gets to the theaters, but it would cost $50 and you have only 48 hours to watch it, would you be on board with that? He said "No. Too expensive."
Thanks to Netflix and Redbox, people value movies at about a buck or less now. Pretty sad for a product that can cost $200 million or more to produce.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 03-16-2016 05:20 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Oh, they know it all right. They just HATE IT. That's why they keep trying to figure ways to get around it.
Yeah, I'm also looking for a get-rich-quick-scheme which doesn't involve customers or potential jail time. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Paul Mayer
And in other news, Amazon Studios announces their release strategy will now feature a 90-day window for theatrical release prior to Amazon Prime's streaming release.
Back to the day-and-date discussion already in progress..
Well, I think this hits the core of this whole discussion, doesn't it? Apparently, Amazon, the poster child of the "I want it now" mentality, figured out they're getting more bang for the buck if they release their movies exclusively in proper cinemas first...
Besides the whole argument of cannibalizing their own market, another argument probably has been overlooked in this discussion and that's piracy.
While they might claim to use some super-strong encryption, none of those schemes has ever survived the test of time and scale. The reason why DCPs continue to be reasonable safe, is because they've effectively eliminated the scale factor. DCP releases are rather limited and nobody in his or her right mind is going to offer their expensive equipment for some reverse engineering for shady purposes.
But at about $150 per box, this argument no longer holds and even if they managed to create the perfectly safe box, nobody is going to stop you to record the content otherwise, using a HDMI capture device and an HDCP stripper or maybe even using one of the remaining analog loopholes, ultimately nothing will stop you putting a camera at your screen at home...
So, the whole super-encryption argument they bring forward is moot. If Hollywood wants their all their movies all over the Internet in HD quality day and date, then just follow on with this plan...
All in all, I only see further devaluation of the very product Hollywood is producing in this approach.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 03-16-2016 10:15 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Of course their argument is going to be "they capture the audience that doesn't go to the movies anyway."
That's it though, isn't it. Either they are right, in which case the studios increase their income and exhibition keeps (or grows?) it's audience, or they are wrong, and in which case the golden goose is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucked.
That is one really big gamble, and a gamble with a really large number of venues, companies and employees. A gamble with a bit of an upside, and one hell of a downside.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic