Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Netflix Boss Suggest How To Save Movies

This is topic Netflix Boss Suggest How To Save Movies in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002720

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-26-2013, 11:23 PM:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/theater-owners-might-kill-movies-warns-netflixs-sarandos-1200765818/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breakingnewsalert

quote:
Content chief calls for big movies to bow on Netflix day and date with theaters

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos launched a blistering attack on theater owners for stifling innovation, warning in a speech Saturday that they “might kill movies.”

What’s more, the exec called on the owners to allow big movies to open via Netflix day and date with their release in theaters, in his keynote at the Film Independent Forum in Los Angeles.

Addressing the ill-fated premium VOD model, Sarandos (pictured above, right) said theater owners were the problem.

“Theater owners stifle this kind of innovation at every turn,” he said. “The reason why we may enter this space and try to release some big movies ourselves this way, is because I’m concerned that as theater owners try to strangle innovation and distribution, not only are they going to kill theaters–they might kill movies.”

Sarandos was alluding to exhibitors’ resistance in previous years to any digital release of movies that would impinge on their own windows, as when Universal nearly changed the traditional distribution strategy for the 2011 movie “Tower Heist,” only to back down after considerable pressure. Studios have since largely disavowed premium VOD, though smaller independent films have been released day-and-date with increasing frequency in recent years.

But he stopped short of criticizing the studios. “I don’t blame the studios for what they’re doing and I don’t fault them, because the studios are always trying to innovate,” he said.

Sarandos turned to statistics from this summer’s box office, pointing out that though more movies with a budget of more than $75 million were released this summer than any summer before, theaters saw only a six percent lift in attendance.

Just days after indicating on Netflix’s third-quarter earnings call his interest in getting into the movie Sarandos went a step further today when he suggested releasing “big movies” on Netflix the same day they appear in theaters.

“Why not premiere movies on Netflix the same day they’re opening in theaters? And not little movies. There’s a lot of people and a lot of ways to do that. But why not big movies?”

“Why not follow with the consumer’s desire to watch things when they want, instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to advertise to people who may not live near a theater, and then make them wait for four or five months before they can even see it?” he added. “They’re probably going to forget.”

This comes after Monday’s third quarter earning’s call, where Sarandos, seeing the success of original series like “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black,” said Netflix expects to double its original programming spending in 2014 and include original movies. Though he couldn’t quantify how much original series helped boost business, he said “it definitely helped.” Netflix currently has more than 31.1 million customers.

Sarandos also hinted plans at a third season of “House of Cards,” which is currently in its last week of shooting season two.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-26-2013, 11:56 PM:

By linking movie budgets to attendance, he completely invalidates his argument. It's well established that people will not turn up to a crap movie regardless of whether the budget was $20 million or $200 million. Just as a good movie will draw people in, even if it was made for just a few thousand dollars (and is picked up by a studio for distribution).

Setting aside all other arguments, the problem I have with the day and date argument is that theatres have a finite period of time to play a movie before having to move on to the next title. Where Netflix will be able to make money off the movie more or less forever.

I would also argue that the compacting of the home video release window has been an overall bad thing for the movie industry. Because so much emphasis is placed on seeing a movie NOW, the studios have to be constantly putting out new product. This results in more scripts from the reject pile getting made. This has also resulted in more actors getting roles who have no business being in movies.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-27-2013, 01:10 AM:

The basic truth that people like Ted Sarandos, who have never worked in the exhibition industry a day in their life, simply do not understand is that home video in all its forms needs the theatrical promotional engine to get the word out about the new titles. They need the tens of millions of promotional dollars distributors spend to promote these movies. They need the word of mouth that films build to become the Gravitys and Slumdog Millionaires and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragons of our industry. Does Ted Sarandos really think people will pay PVOD prices for something like Shaun of the Dead or Saw or Paranormal Activity or Napoleon Dynamite or Juno, in order to see them at home the same day they opened in theatres?

The guy is simply talking out of greed. He has a big piece of a pie, and he wants more. And he thinks he can do that by taking a piece of another person's pie. He's just not satisfied with what he has now. Which shouldn't be surprising. That's what us Americans do. Consume and consume. Try to take more and more.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-27-2013, 10:11 AM:

And anytime they want, the big studios can say "No more new product for you, Netflix, we're starting our own VOD service." We'll see how he feels about day and date then [evil]

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-27-2013, 10:45 AM:

Maybe this is a good idea. Theatres have a monopoly right now. They don't have competition from home sources during the release window and they often don't have competition from nearby theatres because of the non-compete contracts. As a result, they have no real incentive to do a good job.

If every movie came out in theatres and home video at the same time, what would happen?

Many people would say I'm not going to pay extra to see this in a cinema that:

Has a screen that barely looks bigger than my set at home.
Doesn’t stop people from talking or using their cell phones.
Projects at a resolution that isn’t any better than what I have at home.
Doesn’t bother keeping all of their speakers in working order.
Blasts me with commercials before the show.
“Other”
(pick all that apply)

No one would bother going to a crappy theatres, and all of the crappy theatres would close down.
Theatres would be required to compete if they wanted draw people in. They would have to provide something special. Attendance would rise at the places that got it right.

Or maybe not.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-27-2013, 01:57 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Just as a good movie will draw people in, even if it was made for just a few thousand dollars (and is picked up by a studio for distribution).

And if you have a good movie that is drawing decent demand, the studios usually in most cases will not offer it to Netflix on when released on video.

Netflix is just trying to get some attention from this.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-27-2013, 01:58 PM:

quote:
Many people would say I'm not going to pay extra to see this in a cinema that:

Has a screen that barely looks bigger than my set at home.
Doesn’t stop people from talking or using their cell phones.
Projects at a resolution that isn’t any better than what I have at home.
Doesn’t bother keeping all of their speakers in working order.
Blasts me with commercials before the show.
“Other”
(pick all that apply)

You forgot "is too cheap to install proper masking". I will ALWAYS pass on any movie or even a Dolby Atmos presentation if my only option to see it is on an unmasked screen. That pulls me more "out of the movie" than anything you listed above (except possibly the cell phone thing).

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-27-2013, 02:39 PM:

I pick and choose which movies to see "on the big screen." Many movies don't warrant it.

Even so, if going to the movies was more fun and less of a hassle (and less expensive) I might not be so picky.

Thing is, by the time a movie comes out on video, I'm not thinking about it anymore. So day-and-date VOD would probably be a good thing for me, as a consumer -- and for the studios, because they'd end up getting more of my money.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-27-2013, 02:52 PM:

quote:
Many people would say I'm not going to pay extra to see this in a cinema that:

Has a screen that barely looks bigger than my set at home.
Doesn’t stop people from talking or using their cell phones.
Projects at a resolution that isn’t any better than what I have at home.
Doesn’t bother keeping all of their speakers in working order.
Blasts me with commercials before the show.
“Other”
(pick all that apply)

I would probably go out to see a movie more often if there were more THX auditoriums, most of the multiplex theatres are not very good. Watching digital cinema is not that great either.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2013, 09:27 PM:

quote: Geoff Jones
If every movie came out in theatres and home video at the same time, what would happen?

Many people would say I'm not going to pay extra to see this in a cinema

You are forgetting one big thing: There is a huge number of people who (1) ONLY want to see the movie the day it comes out, or very quickly at least, and (2) don't care what kind of device they watch it on. They would be just as happy watching it on a phone as a theater screen.

The problem is the theater industry NEEDS that group of people. There are lots of people who like the theater experience as the best way to see a movie, but many who don't really give a crap HOW they see it; what matters to them is WHEN they see it. So if a movie came out on Netflix, that group is just as likely to watch it on their smartphone as in a theater. (Probably more likely, since they're going to go with the cheapest option since they don't care about quality.)

quote: Edward Havens
home video in all its forms needs the theatrical promotional engine to get the word out about the new titles. They need the tens of millions of promotional dollars distributors spend to promote these movies. They need the word of mouth that films build to become the Gravitys and Slumdog Millionaires and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragons of our industry.

Correct. If a movie came out on all-platforms at once, the video industry would get part of the pie and exhibition would get a smaller part than it gets now. The video people would be paying less money than the theatrical people, because who knows how many people are over at Joe's house watching the movie he paid $20 for. Therefore the studios would get less money, and the theaters would get less money. Eventually marginal theaters would close down and the studios would get even less money. And so on. Next thing you know, the movie industry is a reiteration of the music industry, which despite the huge "popularity" of downloads, is a shadow of what it was just 15 years ago.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-28-2013, 04:43 PM:

Ted Sarandos has nothing to lose and everything to gain from making such comments. He was careful to target his competition (exhibitors) and not bite the hand the feeds him (studios).

It would be a major detriment to my business, but I do forsee a day when a major release is done simultaneously in theaters and to homes (as I have stated before in related discussions). I think it's inevitable, and it's just a matter of "when" not "if."

Currently, theatrical releases are the primary marketing vehicle for a movie's home release. This is indisputable... right now. All it takes is for the numbers to swing enough where it makes sense for a studio to try doing a day-and-date. "Tower Heist" was a trial that didn't work (as far as I know), but my guess is that it still provided some critical data to make the next attempt more successful.

The idea that a movie is not good if it doesn't go to full theatrical release isn't accurate. We would like it to be true, because it maintains the current status quo of sending worthy movies through the theatrical pipeline, but how different is a limited theatrical run (a few weeks in a few dozen theaters) to a non-theatrical run for an independent movie? If it's good, it's good, no matter how many theaters it played in.

The difference is in how many people can be reached to attract them to see it, and then generate some word of mouth and other buzz. That challenge can be overcome quality product with an effective marketing campaign.

Take a look at original programming on cable for an example. Eight years ago, who would have guessed that AMC would have garnered the popularity it has gotten with Mad Men, The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad? How about HBO and Showtime with their original programming? Then take a look at what Netflix has done with shows like House of Cards. Before they happened, few people would have thought that those organizations had it in them (HBO might be an exception because of their time in the trenches).

Getting back to movies, Lincoln almost went direct-to-video. If it had, it wouldn't have been eligible for the 12 Oscar nominations that it received, as well as the two wins. Would Daniel Day-Lewis' performance been any less good if it had premiered on HBO or Netflix instead of doing a theatrical run?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-28-2013, 05:40 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
"Tower Heist" was a trial that didn't work

Tower Heist was a trial that didn't happen. Not that a PVOD release would have helped that P.O.S. film any.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-28-2013, 07:08 PM:

I once read a comment somewhere (maybe here?), "A movie company without theatres is just a television company without a channel."

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-28-2013, 08:45 PM:

What if they also flipped it around?

What if local cinemas had regular showings of things that are normally on TV?

Breaking Bad...Game of Thrones...Sporting Events...Jeopardy...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-28-2013, 10:59 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I do forsee a day when a major release is done simultaneously in theaters and to homes (as I have stated before in related discussions). I think it's inevitable, and it's just a matter of "when" not "if."

Come on, you're starting to sound like Richard Greenfield here. Sure, it might happen. Then when they find out they've killed the goose that lays the golden boxoffice grosses, then what?

quote: Scott Jentsch
Currently, theatrical releases are the primary marketing vehicle for a movie's home release. This is indisputable... right now. All it takes is for the numbers to swing enough where it makes sense for a studio to try doing a day-and-date.

You say "right now." It's been the same way ever since the invention of TV. The only thing that's changed is the ancillary streams. The engine pulling the train has never changed and there's no indication it will.

And, it's not just the marketing. It's the money too. People aren't going to watch movies day and date on TV en masse until the price is ridiculously low, say five bucks...not the $50-60 that studios keep touting. But nobody is going to get rich selling a blockbuster stream at a $5 price point. The studios need more money than that.

And whether the price is high or low, the massive piracy that will follow on Day 2 of the release will make today's piracy problems look like a walk in the park.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-28-2013, 11:12 PM:

Well put Mike.

If the studios ever DO go through with the day-and-date thing, they won't know what hit them until it's too late for all the reasons Mike wrote in the previous post.

Of course I frequently find the people at the very top who make such decisions are typically the kind that wants to be told repeatedly how wonderful they are. They are also of course surrounded by upper level corporate people who are overpaid, and as such therefore afraid to say anything negative to their bosses (for fear of losing their cushy job)...and that my friends is when BAD things happen.

Sure at the end of the day the guy at the top has the final say so on what to do, but if he is surrounded by "yes men", things are doomed because negative and/or cautionary feedback is VASTLY more useful for a business to be successful than "wow what a great idea Mr. Big Boss Man!"

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 10-29-2013, 07:55 AM:

There are just so many things wrong with this VOD crap I don't know where to begin. It's nothing but corporate greed...plain and simple. Day and date releases would surely be a box of nails in the theatre's coffin.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-29-2013, 09:06 AM:

Why listen to a wimpy exec filing a mediocre 31 million potential clients when cinemas worldwide boast a hundred times more ;-)

I mean, honestly, who believes this jerk is after 'saving movies'? He is trying to extend his market. Within two years, he might be selling frozen chicken and telling more or less the same thing at industry meetings.

- Carsten

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 10-29-2013, 11:51 AM:

If netflix wants to open movies day and date, maybe they need to start a chain of movie theatres.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2013, 12:37 PM:

Also I wonder how they would feel about paying back 70% of their "take" to the studios.

Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 10-29-2013, 03:48 PM:

if Netflix have 31.1m customers (is this total or US only?) then they take about $250m a month. theatres in the US alone take an average of about $850m a month.

bit of a difference.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-29-2013, 03:50 PM:

Ted Sarandos's attack on theater owners, claiming they're "stifling innovation" or that they'll "kill movies," is nothing more than a short-sighted ploy aimed at boosting Netflix' stock prices. Hollywood movie distributors and their global media parent companies would be crazy to follow Sarandos' advice.

We all know "day and date" simultaneous release in movie theaters and on home video (or "premium VOD") would be a very bad thing for commercial movie theaters. I believe it would be fatal for much of the theater business. Theaters would be far from the only victim. The destruction would spread across the rest of the entertainment industry like a domino effect. The consequences would spread farther into the electronics industry.

quote: Frank Cox
I once read a comment somewhere (maybe here?), "A movie company without theatres is just a television company without a channel."

I've said something along those lines before. If there were no movie theaters the movie studios would be reduced to something like that.

There's already lots of movies that are released direct to DVD because they're not good enough to play in theaters. Commercial movie theaters let the legit movies distinguish themselves from all the direct to DVD junk. Without theaters that boundary no longer would exist. Funding on big movie productions would plummet. The money people would get a lot more conservative with chances they're willing to take on funding new content. They're not going to put $100 million into a 2 hour movie made for direct to DVD release. Same thing goes for the big marketing budgets. DVD/Blu-ray sales on their new home viewing only projects wouldn't be nearly as good as the theatrical release stuff. The biggest names in acting, directing, etc. would flee to premium cable or even Broadway. The traditional movie distributor/studio would shrink and then get swallowed up by its parent company's cable TV networks.

The cable networks would also suffer. Premium channels and regular networks like AMC, TNT, etc. all depend heavily on Hollywood movie content to fill their programming blocks. If all the new content went to low budget, made for home only junk, viewer ratings would go into the toilet. The networks would grow even more dependent on crap like reality TV than they already are now.

This market contagion would spread into electronics hardware sales. Who is going to bother buying a 70" flat screen TV or new surround sound system just to watch the latest Cuba Gooding Jr. direct to DVD release? Play movies on a new iPad? Why bother if all the movies are low budget made for TV crap?

quote: Geoff Jones
What if local cinemas had regular showings of things that are normally on TV?

People would stay away in droves unless it was something the theater was able to run exclusively -as in something not available in the home.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Take a look at original programming on cable for an example. Eight years ago, who would have guessed that AMC would have garnered the popularity it has gotten with Mad Men, The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad? How about HBO and Showtime with their original programming?

I think that's more of a statement of how bland, predictable, re-done, regurgitated, etc. traditional Hollywood movies have become. The 2 hour Hollywood movie story telling model is already pretty limited. And the limitations have grown far worse with the "let's sell the same familiar idea over and over again" thing being dictated by Wall Street.

Cable TV, particularly premium cable, is already outdoing Hollywood movies in terms of producing edgy, new & not so predictable content. Day and date theatrical/VOD release would make matters for the traditional movie industry far worse. It would elevate premium cable TV series, such as Game of Thrones for example, into top tier status above traditional Hollywood movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2013, 06:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Cable TV, particularly premium cable, is already outdoing Hollywood movies in terms of producing edgy, new & not so predictable content.

That is true, and it is partly because TV production by its very nature is much cheaper. It's easy to be more free with your content when you're not risking 200 million dollars or more.

It's unfortunate that the general audience doesn't flock into the theaters when "edgy, new and not so predictable" content is offered... they do sometimes, but not reliably. That is why so much generic crap is produced today. It's more of a sure thing.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-29-2013, 08:37 PM:

Mike, you couldn't be more right on that last point. Just look at how The Counselor did this weekend. Given a good cast and a decent story, it should have done better. But since it wasn't a repackaged and recycled concept, general audiences just weren't interested. I didn't really love the movie, but it was far more interesting than the average movie we get.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-29-2013, 09:13 PM:

I lost interest in The Counselor when I read the reviews, not because of its content.

It currently has a 20% "Top Critics" score on rotten tomatoes. That's out of 100.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-29-2013, 09:54 PM:

The cost of distributing movies to cinemas is no longer a significant factor. More screens can now be reached for very few dollars. So there is no need to look at new ways to strangle theatrical.

Subrun is now less constrained and more predictable. Earlier dating is feasible in this sector. Extending a successful run is now just a matter of checking the KDM date. The cost and restrictions of film prints do not apply.

So film companies should be looking at expanding the success of theatrical. This could involve smarter promotion to give the product longer legs rather than concentrating on the opening weekend. Perhaps some encouragement for improved presentation to enhance the appeal of seeing a movie in a cinema. Everybody gains.

Video outlets, online, cable and network should be regarded as valuable additional revenue sources, not fast replacement of theatrical revenue.

The success of new DCPs of older titles is proving that quality product has an extended life when carefully handled.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-30-2013, 11:02 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
That is true, and it is partly because TV production by its very nature is much cheaper. It's easy to be more free with your content when you're not risking 200 million dollars or more.

TV has its advantages and disadvantages.

The obvious disadvantages: lower budgets and shorter production schedules. Productions don't have the time or money to create epic scale action set pieces. However, new technology has greatly improved creative abilities. The "digital backlot" technique is used on many TV shows.

The advantages: series TV isn't constrained by the 2 hour story telling limit imposed on movies. Most TV shows don't have an "A-list" name above the title actor hogging up a big chunk of the production budget. TV shows have more freedom with regard to how happy or unhappy a storyline resolves itself. Hollywood movies are too predictable in how nearly all have to have completely rosy endings (and hence a lot less dramatic suspense).

Premium cable TV series can do a lot more in terms of pushing limits with sex, violence and other adult-oriented content than Hollywood movies for theaters. I regularly see things on cable that would get a Hollywood movie an NC-17 rating if it included the same thing. I'm not talking hardcore porn. The MPAA lords itself over movie studios, particularly independents, greatly limiting what boundaries can be pushed. This is especially true with sexual content.

quote: Ron Curran
The cost of distributing movies to cinemas is no longer a significant factor. More screens can now be reached for very few dollars. So there is no need to look at new ways to strangle theatrical.

I'm sure the movie distributors are saving a pretty serious amount of money versus what they were spending 10 years ago. Of course, they would be very resistant to show the savings in a truthful manner in their books. The accounting departments of movie studios are masters of the "rolling break even."

Obviously studios are saving millions of dollars with every movie release by not having to order and ship thousands of 35mm film prints. Movie studios and theaters are increasingly connected via computer. There has to be some kind of savings in terms of "efficiency" by automating certain booking tasks.

Advertising still costs a lot of money. The bulk of a movie's ad campaign budget is obviously going into TV. I don't know if studios are reducing TV commercial ad buys. TV advertising doesn't have the value it did 20 or 30 years ago. Audiences are increasingly split between more channels. In 1980, a network needed at least an average 21 share of the evening Nielsen ratings to win the week. Today a network can win with less than a 10 share. So many people have DVRs and simply skip past TV commercials. More are watching shows online and not seeing local commercials.

Newspaper advertising has far less value since circulation numbers have plummeted for most newspapers. Here in Lawton I've seen movie ads and theater directory ads reduced to microscopic size or even eliminated most days. Most people read news online the same day the news happens. More are looking up showtimes online. I can't remember the last time I looked in a newspaper to see what time a movie was playing. It could be 10 years or more.

That's putting the studio's marketing muscle more and more online. But even there the studios aren't doing as much as they did 10 years ago. Back in the late 1990s and into the 2000s most movie releases had a big, Flash-driven web site along with all the banner advertising at so many other web sites. Today, a movie release might have a Facebook page or Twitter handle and a few video clips & trailers thrown up on YouTube & Apple's trailer park.

So when I hear "$100 million marketing campaign" I have to wonder how the studio is spending that $100 million. It makes me wonder if they're just pulling an accounting trick to hide profits.

quote: Ron Curran
The success of new DCPs of older titles is proving that quality product has an extended life when carefully handled.

You also have to have the right kind of theater in the right kind of market, typically big city arts district or big college campus kind of market.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-30-2013, 03:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
More are looking up showtimes online. I can't remember the last time I looked in a newspaper to see what time a movie was playing. It could be 10 years or more.

Yep. We used to "go get a paper" when we wanted to go to a movie somewhere, but now we check our phone or computer, whichever is handier.

I remember getting burned by the paper route a few times when I would buy a paper and...no movie listings!

Just for fun, this morning I put a question on our Facebook page asking people how they find out our showtimes. Most people are responding "website" or "marquee" (we are located right on the main drag of town so you pretty much can't miss our marquee). Out of all the responses so far, only 2 have even mentioned the paper and they are saying 'Paper or website.' So it probably wouldn't hurt us to quit the paper ads...but I hate to pull the support for the paper, too. They've given us a lot of free publicity over the years with articles. So it's becoming a PR thing as much as an advertising thing. But if we ever need to cut back I'll know where to start, for sure.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-30-2013, 03:57 PM:

From the day that I opened the door here, I always had an ad in the local weekly paper. That's what you do, right? Advertise in the paper.

Back when the first Spider-man movie was released (2002, I just checked) the folks at the paper screwed up and had Now Playing Spider-man in the ad one week too soon. Oh hell, I thought when I saw that. I'll be telling people all week that Spider-man won't be here until next week and hearing about how "I drive 40 miles to see this" and so on.

Imagine my surprise when I had a grand total of absolutely nobody coming in to see Spider-man that week.

Since then I've never put an ad in the paper again. My advertising consists of my website, the "automatic email" that people can sign up to receive, and the now playing announcement on my phone line. I used to mail out a monthly flyer but discontinued that when I got my digital cinema and started playing newer material.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-30-2013, 04:24 PM:

I've had a couple of instances where the paper had the wrong info, and nobody has said a word about it....but a mistake on the website, THAT I hear about.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-30-2013, 04:26 PM:

Many local newspapers, TV stations and radio stations are suffering badly because they don't do nearly enough to "be local" and really show what's going on in the community. Many of those entities cut costs to the bone, which often means cutting the very staff able to create all the local oriented content.

I haven't subscribed to our local newspaper in over a decade due to this problem. The paper changed owners and let go even more staff, some of whom had been there for many years. The local radios stations are okay, but could be better. They run a lot of syndicated content and playlists are very repetitive regardless of music format. Our local ABC affiliate is fine, just as long as we don't have the slightest bit of severe weather. The weather warning cut-ins, watch boxes and crawls can make a lot of TV content unwatchable.

Online tools make movie-going more convenient. If I drive to Oklahoma City to watch a movie in a better quality venue I'll usually buy my tickets online.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-30-2013, 09:12 PM:

So the studios that demanded that theatres spend $60K to $80K per screen, a good third of that cost is for super-security to prevent their product from being pirated, but they are going to stream it out to homes all over the country where there is relatively zero security and where it can be easily copied and out on the street Next Day and Date?!!

Hey, Netflix basked in the glow of the critical praise House of Cards garnared, but EVERYONE I know watched every episode for free. Well, sure, I had Netflix service already, but I didn't plunk and extra money down to watch that series. They keep doing that and they will wind up with great reviews all the way to bankrupcy court. How much money did they loose on that production? There were copies of it all over the office within weeks. If the studios are paranoid about piracy happening in theatres, imagine the situation if they go thru with D&D on the blockbusters. It's insanity.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-30-2013, 10:16 PM:

quote:
So the studios that demanded that theatres spend $60K to $80K per screen, a good third of that cost is for super-security to prevent their product from being pirated, but they are going to stream it out to homes all over the country where there is relatively zero security and where it can be easily copied and out on the street Next Day and Date?!!

To be perfectly fair:

- The studios aren't the ones proposing this nonsense, just the guy from Netflix.

- The exhibition industry didn't spend that much per screen. The VPF programs paid by the studios are covering much of the cost (except for the really small places that really needed the help, of course, but that's another topic).

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-31-2013, 11:58 AM:

Regarding being local, Carmike does not even list their phone numbers in the phone book (to be fair, they do have the numbers of theatres that have been closed for years). AMC does run its phone number, and for some reason (maybe a long term contract) they also run the Rave number that they used to be.
For whatever reason, we are the theatre that gets all the calls asking what time Bad Grandpa is playing. It's probably because we are the one that picks up the phone.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 11-02-2013, 09:51 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Also I wonder how they would feel about paying back 70% of their "take" to the studios.

Mike, Netflix has a cost of goods last year of 72.7%. The split to studios on VOD is the highest of all revenue streams. Which is why you need to take this guy seriously. He would easily give 80% of a $19.99 Premium VOD to the studios. $16 to the studios would be the equivalent to about $29 in ticket sales (assuming a 55% film rental.

The lowest was from video stores at around 35-45%. Wonder why there are not many video stores around?

What theater pays 70%?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2013, 10:14 AM:

quote: Mike Frese
$16 to the studios would be the equivalent to about $29 in ticket sales (assuming a 55% film rental.

$29 in ticket sales is no big deal. A person who has booked a "blockbuster" movie in his home entertainment room could have a dozen people in to watch it, or more. And, the studios would have no idea how many people were seeing the movie.

A city movie theater can get more than $29 from 3 patrons. Heck on a 3-D movie even WE get more than that. That's why the studios want to charge $50 or $60 or more for a VOD of a brand-new movie, but people won't pay that much because the "perceived value" of home video is $19.95 (or much less).

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-02-2013, 12:06 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
Which is why you need to take this guy seriously. He would easily give 80% of a $19.99 Premium VOD to the studios. $16 to the studios would be the equivalent to about $29 in ticket sales (assuming a 55% film rental.

Whatever the case is, this is all about trying to make money and legitimizing Netflix. If the studios feel they can make money, then they would do it. Selling a movie that cost the studio $50 million for $100 million to Netflix does not sound like such a bad idea. You never really know if a movie will take off in theatres. The studio wins in this scenario but if the studios has a hot movie that plays well in theatres, then that movie will demand money from someone who would be willing to pay for the streaming rights.

I don't see a problem with premiering a movie on Netflix and skipping the cinema if the studio knows they are going to make up front money on the movie, on the other hand, I doubt Netflix is going to pony up money for a big blockbuster so they can skip the cinema, I can't see that happening.

Netflix has become a bigger internet success than I ever thought it would, they have something like 40 million subscribers which is very impressive. What they did with House of Cards was pretty interesting.

When he says there is a lack of innovation on the part of cinema owners, I think he is right and he is also wrong at the same time. People are not going to flock to the cinema because of interesting innovation at the cinema, they flock to the theatre because of the content that is playing at that theatre. No amount of IMAX or Dolby Atmos is going to make people pay and watch a movie that they do not really want to see.

A good question for Netflix would be this. Produce and finance a movie yourself and premiere it on Netflix and show me how you will recoup the cost?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2013, 04:04 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
When he says there is a lack of innovation on the part of cinema owners, I think he is right and he is also wrong at the same time.

The only thing he's talking about here is the video window. Theaters have done nothing BUT put in new innovations ever since stereo sound went mainstream in the 70s.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2013, 08:04 PM:

All the movie studios will be doing is making less money and then ultimately going out of business by listening to the Netflix' guy's suggestions.

The proponents of day and date release conveniently ignore just what has happened to the home video rental industry in the past few years with similar race to the bottom economics stunts.

Outlets like Redbox and even Netflix have ultimately been a negative development for the home video rental side of the movie business. Customers have flocked to both of those release platforms for only one thing: saving money and paying a lot less to movie studios. If movie studios knew just what would happen in advance, how the brick and mortar video store would be virtually destroyed and revenues greatly depleted, they never would have went along with it in the first place.

Those guys foolishly said "yes" to Redbox and Netflix, thinking that both would offer new sources of revenue in addition to regular video stores rather than being things that would destroy most video stores.

Now we have the movie theater angle where the same stupid shit can happen. I'm telling you anyone who thinks the commercial theater model can survive when put alongside a cheaper home-based product running head to head is a stupid, ignorant fool. There won't be any revenue growth for movie studios from this. Just far less revenue period. Ultimately it will put them out of business. A studio like Paramount or Columbia will be reduced to a made for TV movie production company hoping to sell its wares to the friggin' Hallmark Channel.

With the day and date release model I can see people running their own black market living room movie theater businesses by buying a residential VOD ticket for a new release and charging neighbors $5 a head to fill up a living room and chomp down popcorn, beer & hot wings for a fraction of what it would cost at a real movie theater.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2013, 08:58 PM:

Agreed on all counts. The amazing thing is how many people who are highly paid studio "suits" who don't understand all the points Bobby made above. It's so freakin' obvious!!

As for the "black market theater in the living room" idea, maybe that's what theater owners will do. If theaters get put out of business by the idiots at the studios, we can just get a Netflix account, plug the DV output into the digi-projector, charge 5 bucks a head and keep 100% of the money.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2013, 10:06 AM:

It's not like the FBI, Interpol or whoever will have a lot of time trying to bust VOD customers for letting friends and neighbors fill up a living room and chip in for the cost of the rental, food, drinks, etc. It's standard business for all other PPV events. I've been to plenty of house parties to watch a UFC event or championship boxing match. Watching a first run movie wouldn't be any different.

The proponents for day and date VOD release alongside theatrical foolisly think the theatrical release model will endure and that day and date VOD will just be a convenient new option. That's just not true. It will be a market destroying option. The new VOD option will kill the old theatrical option and turn the movie business into a home viewing only thing.

In the past 20 years we've seen all kinds of technology and news/entertainment mediums either die off completely or at least fall into the endangered species category. In some cases few, if anyone, saw the trouble coming. Movie theaters can wind up in the same terrible position if the balance is altered just enough to make the business unprofitable. Day and date VOD will do just that.

We all know what has happened to newspapers & radio in recent years. Local TV stations are up next to get squeezed.

Do any telephone booths still exist in the United States? I can't remember the last time I saw one. I don't personally know many people who still have a "land line" telephone. It's all mobile now.

10 years ago Nokia & Blackberry were the envy of the telecom industry; I'm sure no one at that time could have accurately predicted how both companies would be on the verge of ruin today. Sony, a company previously seen as invincible in the consumer electronics market, is hemorrhaging cash at a rate that can't be sustained for long at all.

Look at how many data storage formats have come and gone in the last 30 years. And now we have a new trend of computers being released with no removable storage drives at all. 10 years ago if someone released a notebook computer model with no optical disc drive, floppy drive, etc., it would have been considered a bare bones entry level device. Now certain companies (Apple) are selling such notebooks at a premium price. Go figure.

Anyway, paradigm shifts, even those that are destructive to a business or technology that has endured for decades, seem to be getting more common. Commercial movie theaters don't have any sort of magic halo preventing them from falling into ruin.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-04-2013, 01:13 PM:

And the other shoe drops:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/ted-sarandos-backs-away-from-day-and-date-movies-with-netflix-1200794822/

quote:
Ted Sarandos Backs Away From Day-and-Date Movies with Netflix

Ted Johnson
Senior Editor
@tedstew

DIGITAL 09:04 AM
Netflix Enters Oscar Race with Documentary Acquisition ‘The Square’

Days after floating the notion of Netflix releasing movies simultaneously with their theatrical bow, the streaming service’s chief content officer seems to be having second thoughts.

In a keynote Q&A held Monday at a Bloomberg-sponsored event in Los Angeles, Ted Sarandos appeared to back away from his original statement on the matter.

“I wasn’t calling for day and date with Netflix,” he said. “I was calling to move all the windows up to get closer to what the consumer wants.”

The sentiment was quite different than the one he made Oct. 26 at an Independent Film Forum event in which he suggested, “Why not premiere movies on Netflix the same day they’re opening in theaters? And not little movies. There’s a lot of people and a lot of ways to do that. But why not big movies?”

Sarandos was also sharply critical of theater owners in his Oct. 26 address, saying, “The reason why we may enter this space and try to release some big movies ourselves this way, is because I’m concerned that as theater owners try to strangle innovation and distribution, not only are they going to kill theaters–they might kill movies.”

That statement drew a harsh rebuke from John Fithian, the president of National Assn. of Theater Owners, who made clear that exhibitors would not cotton to sharing their window with Netflix.

Sarandos acknowledged having since spoken with Fithian, but not other exhibitors, though he didn’t specify what they discussed.

However, Sarandos may not be out of the woods yet; his suggestion that he’s still interested in “moving all the windows up” could still mean the theaters will find their own window crowded. He didn’t specify what he meant by that.

In other Netflix movie news, Sarandos discussed his company’s first-ever acquisition of a documentary, “The Square,” which details the unrest in Egypt. Asked whether he though the film had chances to snare an Oscar, he replied, “‘The Square’ is a great, great film. That is a hard thing to call but that would be phenomenal. “

Variety

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-04-2013, 11:37 PM:

Here is some more of that article, which was sent to me by NATO.

quote:
“Netflix is innovating on behalf of the consumer, getting the consumer closer and closer to what they want. I think that is a better business, giving consumers what they want, than creating artificial distance between the product and the consumer,” he said.

Since he gave his address on Oct. 26, to the Film Independent Forum, he said that he had received “mostly great feedback from people who say we have had this discussion [about windows] for a long time, but no one wants to say it out loud.” He said that the point of the speech to independent filmmakers was to show the “simple contrast to what is happening in TV” and what is happening in film.

“Figuring out a way to skim the market is healthy for the studios, but doing it in a way that breaks consumer enthusiasm for the product itself is taking it too far,” he said. “So that is why I am a big proponent of being much more progressive about premium VOD early in the life cycle. Just trying to move all the windows up before people just decide they are going to steal it. So I think all these kind of windows that were built well before the technology, well before people had the Internet in their homes, would serve the market well because you could actually skim the market, let it sit and come back out again. That just doesn’t exist anymore. So I think trying to cling to that is just going to do nothing but promote piracy.”

Sarandos’ speech on Monday was to the Bloomberg and Tribeca Film Festival’s Business of Entertainment breakfast at the Soho House in West Hollywood.

I was struck by this quote of his:

quote:
I am a big proponent of being much more progressive about premium VOD early in the life cycle. Just trying to move all the windows up before people just decide they are going to steal it.

This just shows he doesn't understand real people. Hey Mr. Sarandos: The people who steal movies DECIDE THEY'RE GOING TO STEAL THEM BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN RELEASED. You are NEVER going to stop them stealing. Even if you gave the movie away on the internet for free on Day 1, those same people would STILL steal it by pirating it before release day, just so they could say they did it.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-05-2013, 02:07 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Come on, you're starting to sound like Richard Greenfield here. Sure, it might happen. Then when they find out they've killed the goose that lays the golden boxoffice grosses, then what?

I didn't say it was a good idea, I just said that I think it will happen. The indications are there, the dogs are barking at the door. It's just a matter of a spreadsheet somewhere hitting the right numbers for it to happen.

That may take a long time, who knows? I've been thinking it will happen for the last 10 years, and so far the furthest they've gotten is a few SuperTicket attempts.

And it may be a colossal failure that will go down in the history books. But it might not. A wise man prepares for both outcomes. To those with very deep pockets, a failure is often just a rehearsal for the next attempt. Try, learn, adjust.

Oh, and speaking of SuperTickets...

The SuperTicket for Anchorman 2 has just been pre-announced. No details yet.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2013, 11:04 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
And it may be a colossal failure that will go down in the history books. But it might not. A wise man prepares for both outcomes. To those with very deep pockets, a failure is often just a rehearsal for the next attempt. Try, learn, adjust.

Here's the big problem with that. If the idea, experiment or whatever it is turns out to be a colossal failure there's no going back to learn and adjust. Once a specific paradigm of entertainment delivery is destroyed there is no restoring it.

For instance, Redbox was an extremely destructive experiment. Redbox kiosks replaced brick and mortar video stores instead of supplementing their business. They didn't "grow revenue" or "develop new streams of income" like the business guys predicted. Instead, the kiosks turned out to be a much cheaper alternative for customers. Thousands upon thousands of traditional video stores were cannibalized as a result. Mail order & online services like Netflix, Gamefly, Amazon, etc. added to the damage.

Today, very few traditional video stores remain. The bulk of those are ones who have diversified, such as Hastings, into buying & selling used books, movies & games as well as offering a wider selection of movies & games to rent compared to the limited range offered at Redbox kiosks. Still, I wonder how long companies like Hastings can hold on. I can rent Blu-ray movies real cheap there, but they have to make enough money to pay that light bill. I worry I'm going to pull into their parking lot one day soon and find the place closed for good.

The same scenario applies to movie theaters. Once the theatrical release paradigm is contaminated by day and date premium VOD, there's not going to be any "putting the genie back into the bottle." Customers won't like going back to paying more for something once they get used to paying less.

With all the short term minded schemes these business guys keep floating they sound more and more like a teenager wanting to try heroin for the first time. They'll get a huge rush at first and then put on a fast track to oblivion.