|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fox Film Chief Stacey Snider Says Current Theatrical Windows Are ‘Anachronistic’
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-27-2017 04:50 PM
Tyler - you don't seem to understand economies of scale. If there are only a few multiplexes left, it won't make sense for companies to keep building machinery for them. It won't be worth it -- or if they do build stuff, it'll be so expensive as to be non-affordable. The used equipment market will only last for one generation of hardware -- after that it'll have to be all new stuff, especially if performance upgrades keep happening, which they will.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Think of it this way, if I called my friends and said, hey for $10 bux do you wanna see the new Star Wars movie without having to go to the cinema? They'd be at my house in 10 minutes and they'd gladly pay.
Hmm, so let's see...sounds like you're going to turn your home theater into a commercial enterprise. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that it's probably illegal to charge people to watch a video in your house. You're going to set a showtime, provide snacks, clean up after everyone, etc. And you're going to do this weekly? Or are you going to rotate among your friends, with each of you starting his own little mini-movie-theater?
How many friends are you going to cram into your home theater...15? At your area's prevailing ticket price of $16, that's $176 in ticket sales that the studio would lose out on...they lose $88 if you figure half of the money goes to the exhibitor. If you pay $50 "bux" for the movie, and the studio is paying 15 or 20% of that money to "the theaters" to make up for their lost sales...that means the studio would collect, at most, $42.50 out of your 50 bux. That means they LOST over $40 just on your house alone what they would have made with a theatrical release.
Multiply that by all the thousands of other houses around the country doing the same thing, and you can see why that model will never produce the kind of revenue they're hoping for. Especially when you consider that not everyone has 15 friends willing to pay $10 to see a movie on opening day in their house, like you do. Lots of people are just a couple, or they're a family with 2 or 3 kids on a budget and they would just as soon wait a month to get the $4 rental rather than pay 50 "bux" to see a movie on day one.
Of course some day they'll probably deploy the eyeball-scanning technology that'll allow them to charge you for everyone in your house, and remember they are all about raising revenue, so very likely you'll eventually be paying $10 to $15 per person....just like you would have at the movie theater! And you still have to make your own popcorn!
If the studios forge ahead with their silly plans, they'll kiss half of their revenue goodbye just like the music industry did; they'll destroy the very concept of the blockbuster movie, and they'll cost thousands of ancillary jobs, not just in the theaters, but in the candy suppliers, warehouses, shipping companies, seating and concession equipment etc. manufacturers, etc. etc. etc. Like Bobby said, it'll be a domino effect.
The worst thought is, it's going to be a slow, agonizing domino effect. It's already happening due to the shrinking windows. Makes me wish I was closer to retirement.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-27-2017 09:33 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
Remember, Los Angeles and New York, are the two biggest demographics for media consumption in the entire country. Trends generally are set in those two places first and then move to the rest of the country.
While metro NY and LA both have giant populations when both are combined they comprise only about 12% of the nation's entire population of nearly 330 million. So they're not reflective of the nation's average demographic or economics. There are other highly populated zones in the nation which influence popular culture. Thanks to technology it's no longer mandatory for someone to be located in NY or LA to get anywhere in arts and entertainment. But! The suits running the mere handful of global holding companies that own movies, music, TV, news, etc. aren't really interested in new trends. They're only interested in re-selling stuff based on old trends.
quote: Tyler Purcell
When I say cineplexes will go out of business, I'm not really referring to "all" of them, I'm referring to the vast majority of them. Big chains like AMC and such, where they've got so much invested, they simply can't stay above water. This will allow smaller theaters, who already have equipment, to be the providers of entertainment.
It's not easy for independent operators to get the capital needed to open a new movie theater, especially one that will be up to date in terms of equipment and amenities. Companies like Wanda have gone on a buying binge gobbling up all sorts of small chains like Showplex and Starplex and then moving up to bigger ones like Carmike. All of those chains were vulnerable for takeover or just plain going out of business. In this environment some big resurgence of indie art house theaters is very unlikely. Even if a lot of indie guys gained a bunch of momentum they wouldn't do it with art house and revival fare.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Infrastructure is not a concern, it already exists. If theaters go out of business, there will even be more great used equipment for sale, so I don't see it as being a problem.
You must not be all that familiar with the always on-going need for replacement parts for both film-based and digital-based theater projection equipment.
The film-based stuff is damned near finished for good, even with tens of thousands of theater screens still in operation. Nearly all the film projection equipment in the field is used. No one is making new components for that stuff. Currently operational 35mm and 70mm setups are having to cannibalize parts from other systems. Some of these existing systems are only one part failure away from being turned into a giant door stop. There's only so much usable parts and equipment to go around since a great deal of projection systems went to the land fills. Studios aren't lending out their film prints anymore. New movies may get a run of a few prints, but those prints will go to a very select number of theaters, not just any theater.
In some respects the digital-based gear is in an even worse situation. The parts are far more costly and have a considerably shorter life span. Lamps have to be changed like clock work. You can't risk letting one explode inside a projector and take out a very expensive light engine and Lord knows what else. There's lot of other mission critical parts in these systems, like boards loaded with lots of computer chips. All of those parts are made in large production runs, not a couple or so at a time. If companies that make lamps stop making them for theater projectors every d-cinema theater will go dark permanently. And that's regardless if the theater is an ordinary multiplex or a beloved art house in a huge city.
quote:
Of course some day they'll probably deploy the eyeball-scanning technology that'll allow them to charge you for everyone in your house, and remember they are all about raising revenue, so very likely you'll eventually be paying $10 to $15 per person....just like you would have at the movie theater! And you still have to make your own popcorn!
If the movie studios tried deploying some kind of eye scanning system to see how many people were in a living room and charge a rental fee according to that I guarantee the system would be met with very fierce backlash. Customers would be angry over the pricing setup and angry for what they would perceive as an invasion of privacy. I still remember how pissed home theater fans were over the DiVX format that screwed with the new DVD format. This would be far worse.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-01-2017 12:18 AM
Ba Ba Ba But...
It's coming guys. Everything I've mentioned is on the horizon.
People will FLOCK to the $50/viewing model. No if's and's or but's about it. Right now the studio's share the profits with the theaters, with the $50/viewing model, no DCP, no sharing with theaters, nothing. They keep all the money. So for them, it's a complete win-win. They're greedy bastards and they could give two shits about theaters.
Again, this model only pertains to people who are literally going to the movies to see something and decide to watch from home. Since again, most households contain more then 2 people and most tickets are $14 - $20 for first run, the added cost is negligible. I don't understand how people don't see that... it's FAR more money to step out of your house then it is to watch something at home.
Again, ticket prices are $14/person average. So you only need 3 friends to come over to be cheaper then going to the cinema. 4 people (including you) times $14 is $56. I don't see how that math is so confusing to people. It's no different then buying a bunch of pizza's and splitting the bill.
The whole eye ball scanning technology thing is never going to happen. This system will be an app you download and install on your device and thats it. They aren't going to try and stop piracy, it won't make any difference. By the time the pirated copies are out, the people who wanted to see it, will have already seen it. The problem is theaters dictate the time and place to see it, where if it's available at home, it won't be dictated. So those "I must watch XYZ friday night" people, will simply order take out and watch at home.
In terms of equipment... guys guys guys, theater projectors are used for other things besides cineplexes. Plus, it's already developed. Laser projectors are dropping in price and becoming more available. Wait two years, they'll be a lot better and they don't need frequent lamp replacements. Plus, there will be PLENTY of theaters, they'll just be "speciality" houses... not common every day cattle call cineplexes. So yes the infrastructure won't be going anywhere.
Also, projectors? They're mechanical. You got a problem with a part? Make a new one. Boston Light and Sound did it for the Hateful Eight rollout, so what's the big deal? You can ALWAYS fix a film projector, they will be working for another 100 years + at this rate. It's part of the reason why I see film as the solution to the problem, but that's another topic for another thread.
What I want is the cinema to be a special place where you see a SHOW, not a stupid movie you're going to forget about in 5 minutes. Thats the only way to differentiate it from television and that's what will save the cinema. Agree with me or not, but this future I depict above is here and we will see the end of the cineplex in a few short years.
Remember 150,000 people lost employment over 5 years during the switch from film to digital. What's another 150,000 when the cineplexes go away? The studio's don't care, they only want cash and they want it now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Montes
Master Film Handler
Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-01-2017 01:45 AM
This is such a sadly romantic viewpoint when in actuality the opposite is going to happen. People are not going to flock to a $50 day/date release on home video because there have been tests and as the studios have seen, it really doesn't work. Yes I get that with a family it would be more expensive sometimes to go out (or to go out with my friends) but the difference is that you don't account for the fact that most people are social beings and not cave dwellers who want to never leave their house. We go out for the experience, for the shared thrills, scares, laughs, etc. I think you'll see a decrease in movie-going and a lot of small mom and pop places won't be able to weather the decrease and close but eventually we as an industry will find equilibrium and balance out.
Also the big 3 aren't going anywhere, you say they have "too much invested" but fail to account for the fact that they also have a great supply chain and can balance their losses out over 300+ locations instead of the single twin theatre that is going month to month. The chains (besides AMC) are not aggressively expanding and actually have been making very good financial decisions regarding their theaters and have seen increased profitability by adding in expanded menus, seatside service, liquor, beer, wine and reclining seats.
While I'd love to agree with you that art houses are going to make a revival, we simply haven't seen it on any large enough scale. As a side note, as much as alamo tries to be an arthouse they really are mainly first run multiplexes with a more independent feel, but they do not run arthouse in any majority of their auditoriums. Film is dead (except for as an archival medium), digital is here to stay, laser is upcoming, day and date is a studio wet dream but so far has not yet shown any promise in any of the testing they've done.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-01-2017 12:42 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
with the $50/viewing model, no DCP, no sharing with theaters, nothing. They keep all the money.
The studios have proposed that they will give 15 to 20% to theaters to make up for lost sales and to get theater chains to sign on to the program. Whether that will actually happen remains to be seen. And given the studios' expert wishy-washy calculating methods, combined with the video industry's reluctance to release real numbers, there's no way of knowing how that idea will play out.
quote: Tyler Purcell
most households contain more then 2 people and most tickets are $14 - $20 for first run, the added cost is negligible. I don't understand how people don't see that... it's FAR more money to step out of your house then it is to watch something at home.
Of course it's more expensive to go out. It's more expensive to do ANYTHING outside your house. What I don't get is the big problem people have with that. Sure you're spending more money, but you're not just getting the movie....you're GETTING AN EXPERIENCE for that money. You're "renting" all the equipment and people the theater uses to provide you that experience. If you're at home spending $50, for that you are getting the movie. That's all. You have to pay for everything else, including your TV, your snacks, your video service, and even the couch your butt is sitting on. None of that is free. Of course you might say "I already have all that stuff." Doesn't matter, you still had to pay for it at some point and when you wear it out, you'll pay for it again. Everything has a cost.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Again, ticket prices are $14/person average.
Wrong again. Maybe that's in your world. In my little world, ticket prices are $7.75 for adults, $5.25 for kids. Some small theaters near here charge even less. In Billings, it's $10 or $11 for adults depending on what day you see a movie. The national average is around $8.50. All of which makes spending $50 for a first run movie even less attractive to those outside "big cities."
quote: Tyler Purcell
The whole eye ball scanning technology thing is never going to happen.
If it becomes feasible for the studios to charge by the person for watching their precious content, you bet it will happen.
quote: Tyler Purcell
They aren't going to try and stop piracy, it won't make any difference.
That's probably the silliest thing in your whole post. The only REASON for this whole $50 thing is to curb piracy. They spend millions of dollars trying to stop piracy.
I stand by my original math in my post above. Again, you have to look at the big picture and think of the whole, not just your little part.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-01-2017 03:42 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
People will FLOCK to the $50/viewing model. No if's and's or but's about it.
Tyler, is the smog in Southern California altering your perception of reality? $50 is too damned much money to watch a movie one time on a TV screen. Maybe $50 is cheap for some people living in L.A. I just read an article about a Twitter employee in the SF Bay Area complaining that he can barely support his family living in a tiny 2 bedroom apartment on his $160,000 per year salary. That kind of crap is not remotely "normal" for the rest of the United States. I could live pretty comfortably in the Dallas, Houston and Austin areas on a $160K salary. My ends would be meeting like a motherfucker here in Lawton on that salary.
The simple fact is you're putting far too much value in watching a movie at home on a TV screen. You're also putting way too much value in seeing the movie early, during its theatrical run. Maybe a small army of douchebags in SoCal might be into blowing $50 on a PPV movie. You won't get many takers elsewhere.
Another fact is you're completely ignoring the value people put into getting out of the house. I can grill steaks at home for me and my girlfriend at a mere fraction of what it costs to eat out at a good steak house. But we're still eating at home. Doing that 100% of the time gets very boring. The same thing goes for watching movies. If you only watch movies at home the experience is no different that watching other TV shows. It's all the same and ultimately not worth much money.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of equipment... guys guys guys, theater projectors are used for other things besides cineplexes. Plus, it's already developed. Laser projectors are dropping in price and becoming more available. Wait two years, they'll be a lot better and they don't need frequent lamp replacements. Plus, there will be PLENTY of theaters, they'll just be "speciality" houses... not common every day cattle call cineplexes. So yes the infrastructure won't be going anywhere.
Laser projectors remain horrendously expensive. It's very unlikely they'll drop to price points comparable to conventional Xenon lamp based d-cinema projectors. There's not a big enough install base of "speciality" houses to give manufacturers the economy of scale they need to make projectors and replacement parts at cost levels that aren't laughably ridiculous. Add to that the fact a few different companies are making these projection systems, lamps, etc. The situation wouldn't be quite as bad if every movie theater used the same exact types of equipment. But they're not doing that.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Also, projectors? They're mechanical. You got a problem with a part? Make a new one. Boston Light and Sound did it for the Hateful Eight rollout, so what's the big deal? You can ALWAYS fix a film projector, they will be working for another 100 years + at this rate.
Bullshit. First: only a limited number of parts in a film projector can be re-created in a machine shop. Boston Light and Sound got many of the projectors used in the Hateful Eight release up and running by cannibalizing other existing machines. Second: studios are all but finished with distributing film prints to theaters. These revival houses you're talking about can only get existing prints on loan from collectors, and even collectors aren't keen to letting just anyone run an irreplaceable print.
quote: Tyler Purcell
What I want is the cinema to be a special place where you see a SHOW, not a stupid movie you're going to forget about in 5 minutes. Thats the only way to differentiate it from television and that's what will save the cinema.
Many customers will only pay to see a movie in a theater when it is a big event release. Nevertheless, movie theaters stay in business via customers who are willing to see the stupid movies you forget about in 5 minutes in a movie theater. Commercial theaters will go broke if customers only show up in early Summer or during the holidays.
quote: Mike Blakesley
If it becomes feasible for the studios to charge by the person for watching their precious content, you bet it will happen.
I'll laugh if the studios try using web cams, eye scanners or some other tech to "see" how many people are in a room watching a movie. The public backlash would be entertaining to watch.
Here's another problem with the studios' PPV fantasy: all of the movie studios would have to unite together and agree on a single premium PPV home movie viewing system. They would have to pose a totally united front to theater operators. That's not likely. Worse yet, the parent media companies rarely agree on anything either. Past format wars in theaters and on home video prove this. If movie distributors can't agree on a single standardized delivery system then they would have no chance dealing with the retaliatory actions from big movie theater chains. AMC, Regal and Cinemark are all very big in the United States. AMC's owner, Wanda, has considerably farther reach internationally. These chains have been consistent at boycotting specific movie releases that tried releasing onto home viewing formats simultaneously.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-01-2017 09:31 PM
OHH Doggy! Got some replies off that one eh? LOL
Few things... yes I do live in a different planet then most of the country. Most of the population of this nation lives in the big cities... Los Angeles, New York, Austin, San Francisco, Chicago, etc... So when I use Los Angeles as an example of things like prices and what people do with their spare time, it's at least HALF the population I'm talking about. These are people with money because you can't live in these places without money. I've also traveled the country and seen movies in many places, I have yet to go anywhere the tickets for new movies are less then $12 in the last few years.
In terms of getting out of the house... Umm, ever heard of sports? People gather at houses to see 3 - 5hrs of sporting, sometimes every other day? I don't see any difference between that and once a month pay per viewing of a new movie. Football and NASCAR alone, bring home a greater audience viewership then movies do. I know it's a different business model, but if you're talking simply about people wanting to leave the house, that's a great example of people simply wanting content at home.
Besides, Netflix is making barrels of money through home distribution and they have less then 100 million subscribers paying peanuts. So the business model of watching NEW, first run content at home, is VERY much alive. There is no argument to be made about this. Most people are lazy and would rather watch something at home then go out.
Now this whole thing about laser projection... So far there is only ONE home theater projector on the market, it's 4k and laser for $8k. However, everyone is going that way and it won't be long until the market is flooded. I'd say CES 2018 will bring Sony and Panasonic to the table for similar prices and of course 4k image quality. Theater grade laser projectors are dropping in price as well. If you want, I can copy and paste some numbers from google, but I think you guys already know the skinny.
In terms of film projectors... my earlier statement about remanufacturing wear parts for projectors is completely correct. I don't know why you think it's so difficult. Only reason people don't do it right now, is simply due to the cost and availability of used components. Once the used market is dried up, it will be time to make new parts and just like other "old" things, there will be a new and budding market of people making critical replacement parts. Today it doesn't exist, but it will in my lifetime because film projection ain't dying.
This leads me to my final point... film is making a slow comeback. It will never be what it once was, but neither will the cinema. So as megaplexes die off, which will happen... there will be a push to attract people back to the cinema and like they're testing now, things like 70mm prints which are very special, will slowly make their way back into the main stream. In 2017 there are already 4 70mm feature films slated (king kong, Vox Lux, Dunkirk and Murder on the Orient Express) I assume PT Anderson will strike 70mm prints of his new movie when it's done and I also assume Warner Brothers will do another digital to film release this year like King Kong. These are baby steps guys and the popularity of film will increase as people get tired of paying $14 for the same quality they can see at home. Film will never come back to the level it was even a few years ago as it was dying, those days are gone. I think 35mm over-all is going to be a dead format for projection very fast. I do think large format will stick around and that's the future of the cinema anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-01-2017 10:14 PM
Film isn't coming back in the scale you suggest. Why would it? Almost nobody cares what "format" they see a movie in. Maybe 5% of people do, if that. The rest don't care, as long as they see the image on the screen. There are a few film "purists" but certainly not enough to keep a manufacturing infrastructure in place. There are a ton of people around the country who are interested in old steam tractors, but have you tried to buy parts for one of those lately?
If "large format" is the theater of the future, it'll still be digital. Anything else just doesn't make economic sense.
The whole "population" argument. Sure, half the population lives in the large cities. (Maybe more than half, I dunno.) Do you really think the movie studios would like to lose up to HALF of their potential market? You are living in some sort of a bubble if you think they don't care about that.
The prices you are citing aren't realistic for at least half the country. I gave you one example of movie ticket prices being much lower than $12, maybe you didn't see it, but that was Billings, MT which is the biggest city in the state and thus most likely has the highest ticket prices in the state. I just checked the Carmike website and weekend price for a regular movie is $10.75. Less for kids. As I pointed out, the average ticket price in this country is under $9.
Sports is another item altogether. A group of people gathering to watch sports is NOTHING like watching a movie. With a movie you're involved in the story, you want everybody around you to shut the F up. In sports it's more like a party. Nobody listens to the words from the screen, it's just background noise. It's a completely different environment -- and it has 10,000 commercial breaks and you aren't likely to miss any major plays if you take a bathroom break, blah blah. And live sports....forget it. It's not even a valid comparison to movies. It costs way more and is far less "available." It's apples and oranges.
Netflix is making barrels of money, yes, but that's just because they have a lot of subscribers. Have you ever heard of a "blockbuster Netflix movie?" No, because they don't exist. Netflix makes TV shows. They are a small blip on the cultural radar compared to a huge movie. (I'm not talking about TV "series" here, but movies.) There is a reason why the Movies section always comes first in entertainment magazines; movies are a bigger thing than TV shows, but Netflix movies are just made-for-TV diversions that get lost in the streaming pile. Or maybe I should say "steaming" pile, it's more accurate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Montes
Master Film Handler
Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-02-2017 01:56 AM
Not sure where you're getting a $12 ticket average, in 2016 the average ticket price was $8.61
Also as for places that you "can't" find tickets below $12. Lived in Miami for 10 years, ticket prices were $10.75 when I left last year, here in south carolina even in Charleston or Columbia they're around $10-$10.50 for evening shows.
Yes NY or CA is more expensive but everything is more expensive there and the average income is also higher.
And yeah netflix is booming, i've got a netflix account but as you probably are aware, it's mostly TV shows, old movies or direct to TV movies on there. I love watching it but I usually turn it on when I have nothing to do. As someone above said, I could cook at home every day of the week, hell I wasted 2 years in culinary school and probably would enjoy cooking for myself that much. But humans are social beings and getting out of our homes is something that will always happen whether it is sporting events, movies, etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-02-2017 09:54 AM
quote: Tyler Purcell
Few things... yes I do live in a different planet then most of the country. Most of the population of this nation lives in the big cities... Los Angeles, New York, Austin, San Francisco, Chicago, etc... So when I use Los Angeles as an example of things like prices and what people do with their spare time, it's at least HALF the population I'm talking about. These are people with money because you can't live in these places without money. I've also traveled the country and seen movies in many places, I have yet to go anywhere the tickets for new movies are less then $12 in the last few years.
Big cities in the United States are not all alike. It costs a shit ton of money to live in any Californian city. The cost of living in big cities of Texas isn't dirt cheap, but it is a bargain compared to anywhere in California. That kind of explains why cities in Texas are among the fastest growing areas of the nation (far ahead of anywhere in California by the way).
Current median household income in the United States is $51,759. That's multiple earners under one roof. Median personal income of all workers over age 15 is $30,240. That's poverty wages for SoCal.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of getting out of the house... Umm, ever heard of sports? People gather at houses to see 3 - 5hrs of sporting, sometimes every other day? I don't see any difference between that and once a month pay per viewing of a new movie. Football and NASCAR alone, bring home a greater audience viewership then movies do. I know it's a different business model, but if you're talking simply about people wanting to leave the house, that's a great example of people simply wanting content at home.
First of all, I don't know anybody who has house parties every other day to invite people over to watch a sporting event on TV. Even when people are watching sports on TV hardly any of the content is pay per view. It's either FREE to watch on over the air broadcast channels, or on a cable TV channel. Some niche sporting events on TV are pay per view, but again the prices are usually cheap. Major UFC events and high profile boxing matches are the only events that can command a high PPV price tag. And those events get only so many takers.
Next thing: have you ever heard of sports bars? I wonder.
Quite a few people will get out of the house to watch an event like the Super Bowl, taking it in at a sports bar restaurant hybrid like Buffalo Wild Wings if they're not going to a house party to watch the game. The event is an opportunity for people to socialize.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Besides, Netflix is making barrels of money through home distribution and they have less then 100 million subscribers paying peanuts. So the business model of watching NEW, first run content at home, is VERY much alive.
Netflix shows very little in the way of first run movies. The bulk of its "first run" content is the TV series productions it funds directly, such as House of Cards. The service carries a bunch of other TV shows too. There's so many TV series in their content line up that it's a pain in the ass to find a good movie to watch on Netflix.
Netflix is making money (not as much as you think by the way) in subscriber fees. The service spent its first several years of life losing money, only turning things around in 2013 due to an adequate proliferation of broadband Internet access. Their stock has shot up from $8.26 per share in the Fall of 2012 to a record high of $142 per share now. Some investors are now talking about shorting the stock. Netflix' content costs are continuing to rise, now to nearly $7 billion per year. Add in R&D and marketing costs ($1.3B and $1.0B). They're bringing in a little over $2 billion in revenue per quarter. In the end that equals a narrow profit margin. As content costs grow Netflix will be forced to raise prices, just like what happened with the cable TV companies.
quote: Tyler Purcell
There is no argument to be made about this. Most people are lazy and would rather watch something at home then go out.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe some nerd who lives home alone can do that. Wives and girlfriends will put up with the staying at home all the time shit for only so long.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Now this whole thing about laser projection... So far there is only ONE home theater projector on the market, it's 4k and laser for $8k. However, everyone is going that way and it won't be long until the market is flooded.
The consumer market for projectors of any kind is very limited. Flat panel TV screens have grown gigantic and relatively cheap. Most consumer electronics video projectors are actually getting sold for board rooms in offices and meeting spaces in hotels and conference halls. Those customers don't really care about buying top of the line stuff either. They're more geared on buying cheap cheap cheap.
The professional theatrical market is a different animal. Commercial laser projectors are not making a big dent in the current install base of Xenon projectors. Most commercial movie theaters are just going to keep using the projectors they have until they break and can no longer be repaired. IMAX with Laser and Dolby Cinema screens make up a very tiny percentage of the overall install base of d-cinema projectors. There's very little install activity taking place with laser projectors outside of those two premium theater concepts.
Even if Laser could take over the movie theater industry, the whole product has a limited life span. Just like a regular Xenon-based d-cinema projector, laser projectors are loaded with all sorts of proprietary computer chips, IC boards and other parts. Any of those can fail at any time. If you don't have an adequate install base of movie theater screens keeping the projector company in business your laser projector won't get any new replacement parts when something breaks.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of film projectors... my earlier statement about remanufacturing wear parts for projectors is completely correct. I don't know why you think it's so difficult.
Do you think you can make a new reflector or other specialized parts in a projector's lamp house in a machine shop? There's lot of parts in a film projector that depend on a supply chain from a lot of different kinds of specialized manufacturing lines. Today, nearly all of the supply chain for film projector parts is DEAD. Those manufacturing lines are not going to start up again because there isn't nearly enough screens equipped with film projectors to make the effort profitable at all.
quote: Tyler Purcell
It will never be what it once was, but neither will the cinema. So as megaplexes die off, which will happen... there will be a push to attract people back to the cinema and like they're testing now, things like 70mm prints which are very special, will slowly make their way back into the main stream.
The problem with that is nearly all Hollywood movies are 2K rendered TV shows. There's no point in laser recording that crap to a 70mm film print. If you shoot a movie on 65mm film, use a 100% analog post production process and output to 70mm film that's one thing. But hardly anyone is doing that. Christopher Nolan is the only one making such movies with any mainstream hit potential. Quentin Tarantino's movies have a limited fan base for obvious reasons. Paul Thomas Anderson's movies are very much an acquired taste. I've liked some of his work but found others, like The Master (filmed on 65mm but oddly framed at 1.85:1) dreadfully boring.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-02-2017 01:21 PM
Well just wait and see! Everything I've talked about is happening, it's coming very fast and when it hits, don't be shocked.
Few side notes...
Projector lamp housings have nothing to do with the projector mechanics, which is what I'm talking about. There are so many used lamp housings on the market, I can't imagine components of them being irreplaceable anytime in my lifetime. My comments were on "wear" items like the intermittent and gate components.
With lower-cost home theater laser projectors hitting the market, industrial projectors pricing will drop soon after. Right now you can get a 4k theater laser projector for 100k. IMAX charges 1.5 million for their solution. So yea, the pricing is dropping super fast and like all technology, once it's available to the public, there is no reason for the public to leave their houses. I agree that most people have TV's, but OLED is far superior to any projection system and it's about a year away from being main stream.
In terms of "film" making a comeback. Guys, this is my business, I have a foundation dedicated to promoting film and re-building infrastructure. Right now I'm working on a few things that will turn the industry on it's head. It's happening and its coming very fast. Before you know it, those hateful eight projectors will be back up and running on a more regular schedule. Sure, its only 90 - 100 screen's, but it's a start and it's just the beginning.
Again, people who live in the middle of nowhere, they don't care about these things. However, in the big cities, people see 70mm and they know what that means, they know its special. I've been to dozens of sold-out 70mm screenings where the digital theater next door is practically empty. Warner Brothers see's the validity of releasing big movies in 70mm because honestly, it's cheap. It probably costs them half a million to strike an interpositive and make a dozen prints from it. They'll make around 2 - 4 million off those prints though. People like me come out of the woodwork to see something special and Hateful Eight broke all the records on 70mm print viewing and it was an unwatchable turd. Just imagine if the THREE big 70mm movies to come out this year, entirely shot on 70mm, are more "general audience" and do really well on film?
I know you guys hate film, I know you never want to see it again, but people never thought Kodak would have the best year they've had in decades in 2016. Brining back an all new super 8 camera? What? Heck the prices of used film cameras are going up! People are realizing, holy shit we can use this stuff to make art with. The film movement is happening guys and you should support it because it's what will keep you working. Digital ain't gonna keep you working, film will! So I don't know why ya'll so negative about film's resurgence.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-02-2017 03:01 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
Projector lamp housings have nothing to do with the projector mechanics, which is what I'm talking about. There are so many used lamp housings on the market, I can't imagine components of them being irreplaceable anytime in my lifetime.
The reality is many thousands of film projectors, consoles and platter systems have gone to the dump. There are many different makes and models of film projectors, all with only a limited supply of usable parts. No one is making new parts for these machines. As film print availability continues to dry up more of the still-working projectors will be headed for the land fill.
quote: Tyler Purcell
My comments were on "wear" items like the intermittent and gate components.
Those components still have to be manufactured at extremely precise quality levels. If anything is off the slightest bit the penalty is a damaged film print.
quote: Tyler Purcell
With lower-cost home theater laser projectors hitting the market, industrial projectors pricing will drop soon after. Right now you can get a 4k theater laser projector for 100k. IMAX charges 1.5 million for their solution. So yea, the pricing is dropping super fast and like all technology, once it's available to the public, there is no reason for the public to leave their houses.
Professional level digital projection systems and those sold in the consumer space are two completely different product lines. The only thing they have in common is throwing light at a screen. The parts inside and power requirements are very different and far different in cost.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of "film" making a comeback. Guys, this is my business, I have a foundation dedicated to promoting film and re-building infrastructure.
Your business is not on the theatrical end obviously. And you're in a forum where a bunch of the people here make their living in movie theaters, working "in the trenches" serving the movie-going customers. People on the production and distribution side of the movie business have far far less contact and interaction with movie-going customers. The consequence of that is being woefully out of touch with what kind of product customers actually want and what they're willing to pay for it.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Before you know it, those hateful eight projectors will be back up and running on a more regular schedule. Sure, its only 90 - 100 screen's, but it's a start and it's just the beginning.
I would love for 70mm to make a come back. Unfortunately the best case scenario for those 70mm film projectors is movie productions using the latest 6K and 8K d-cinema cameras at their full resolution capabilities, rendering finished product at those resolution levels and outputting it to 70mm film prints to get past the 4K limit of d-cinema projectors. Now there's about as much chance of that actually happening as me hitting a $400 million Powerball jackpot. The bean counters just love finishing a movie in 2K, even if the original footage was recorded with a 6K Arri Alexa65.
Not enough of the general public even cares about this stuff. Most can't even shoot video from their phones correctly, doing the vertical video thing instead. When so much of the public can't even grasp the simple concept of aspect ratio how are they going to understand resolution? It's going to take a lot more than just people living in L.A. to support a film-based infrastructure.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I know you guys hate film, I know you never want to see it again, but people never thought Kodak would have the best year they've had in decades in 2016.
Best year in decades based on what? They filed chapter 11 five years ago. The company is still loaded with debt and being forced to sell off pieces of itself. It's putting more focus into commercial printing and packaging while trying to keep its film business alive. I think that Super 8 camera will amount to nothing more than a passing curiosity. The general public is addicted to shooting vertical video with their damned phones.
Most people in this forum actually love film and are fully aware of certain advantages it has over d-cinema. Nevertheless, the infrastructure of photographing movies, post producing them, distributing them and showing them to the public has ditched film in favor of digital. The genie is out of the bottle.
Day and date release is another genie>bottle equation. Get rid of the multiplexes as you say and you'll see the movie industry blend into the TV industry. In many respects it has already turned into TV on the production and post production end. The same camera systems and production pipe lines are used. The only difference is the distribution model.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-02-2017 03:41 PM
quote:
I know you guys hate film, I know you never want to see it again,
This shows that you don't know to whom you're speaking. Almost everybody here loves film. But most of us are not in the "film" business, we're in the "theater" business and today's mainstream theater business is digital-based, not film-based. My theater went digital not because I hate film, but because I knew if I wanted to actually be able to book movies, I had to have the equipment to show them on. We kept our film projector operational for three years after we installed the digital equipment; in those three years it got used zero times, so we took it out.
Your discipline is obviously in the specialty market - which is fine, that'll always be there. But if you think film is going to make a comeback outside of a niche market, you're dreaming.
Full houses for a 70mm screening in L.A. are not a big thing...first of all, there are so many people in L.A. that you could stir up a full house for just about anything. I'm sure the reason that the "digital house next door" was empty was that the 70mm screening was promoted more as something special... and/or "film fans" were courted with advertising. I guarantee you if the same thing was tried out here in the hinterlands (translation: 95% of the country) the results would be different. Most people are looking for the most convenient showtimes, and their second criteria is the biggest screen they can find. Beyond that, they don't care how the picture gets there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-02-2017 04:06 PM
But don't you see, the movie industry is already TV, there is no difference!
The moment SAG and AFTRA joined, that was the end of the industry.
Digital technology is television
Film technology is "cinema"
So we're using 100 year old distribution methods for something that's no different then what we see on TV.
There are 7 billion people in the world ok? Lets say 3 billion of them consume media on a regular basis, as in go out of their way to pay for consumption. If only 500 million of those people paid $10 a month... you're looking at 60 billion dollars a year. That's 10 billion more then the entire film industry made in 2016.
The mere idea of having movie theaters and overhead for those theaters, is just flat out stupid when the content you make looks the same anywhere you present it, at home or at the cinema. As someone who works in production, there is very little difference today between how a TV show is shot and how a feature is shot. It's all the same equipment, it's even the same schedule, it's just the budgets per minute of finished content are lower. Studio's can't keep up with television thanks to Netflix, Amazon, HBO and Cinemax making great programming that blows the doors off most theatrical products. The studio's are learning, that business is the future and they are joining that bandwagon and you will see more features being distributed via those channels only, with limited theatrical release for "awards" purposes.
The solution is to get more people hooked on paying a monthly fee and it's happening fast. The problem is that Netflix, Amazon and the rest, aren't banding together, they're all charging individually and that doesn't work. There needs to be one payment for everything, even if it's more money... say $30 a month, people will pay for it if they get everything. Then you add commercials before the shows, then you add special hardware purchases of which a small percentage goes to the distributor... the whole thing adds up to a 180 billion dollar business, if 500 million people subscribe for $30/month. That's the future guys... because right now, nobody is making that much money a year.
The distributors have to band together and make this model a reality and it will happen once they realize how powerful it would be, how they'd have complete control over the distribution network. People won't own anything, they will simply stream what they want, so the whole notion of day and date is negated. If you want something, you click the button and watch it.
Theatrical will be a side show and nothing more, which is all it is today anyway. Shitty digital 2k projection that's flat and uninspiring to watch. Theaters over run by horrible human beings who talk constantly, use their phones and are pigs. I have to sit in the handicapped seat by myself to watch movies today, people are so disgusting. Every time I go, I'm sitting next to someone with a huge soda, hot dog covered in crap and they're eating like a pig the entire movie. The floors are sticky, if I have to go to the bathroom, I'm disrupting an entire row of people. All of this is a huge turn off, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because they don't want to deal with any of this. It's one thing to pay $7.75 which is what I use to pay 15 years ago... it's another to pay $20 which is how much 3D movies cost here in LA today and that price is going up.
So don't give me this nonsense about the theater somehow being a great place. When you work somewhere, of course it's a great place, but you aren't the problem, your customers are. You can't change customers, they'll be assholes no matter how many times you tell them. Remember, half the population lives in the cities, so half the population deals with these problems and attendance is at an all-time low, even though profits are up, thanks to the studio's charging more for speciality content.
Sorry for the rant...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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