This is topic Apple In Talks To Collapse Video Release Window Down To Two Weeks 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=003010
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-21-2016, 01:32 AM:
Collapse of Video Window
From what I understand the carrot to get the major theatre chains to agree is to offer those major theatre chains a portion of the video rental revenues - at least for a period of time.
From Bloomberg
Apple is pressing Hollywood studios for earlier access to movies, according to people with knowledge of the matter, a move that would bolster the company’s iTunes business.
21st Century Fox Inc., Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. and Comcast Corp.’s Universal Pictures all confirmed over the past week that they are looking to offer high-priced, home-video rentals of new movies shortly after they open in theaters. Some studio executives have been pushing to allow home rentals as early as two weeks after theatrical debuts and are considering a deal with iTunes as one option, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.
The most recent talks are part of longer-running efforts by Cupertino, California-based Apple to get new movies sooner, two of the people said. Such an arrangement could help iTunes stand out in a crowded online market for movies, TV shows and music. While the iTunes store helped Apple build a dominant role in music retailing, the company hasn’t carved out a similar role in music and video streaming.
Christine Monaghan, a company spokeswoman, declined to comment.
The studios could end up choosing another technology platform instead of Apple to deliver movies more quickly to households.
Hollywood studios typically give theaters exclusive rights to new movies for 90 days or more before issuing them on DVD or making them available for online purchase. With cinema attendance mostly stagnant and home-video revenue flat in recent years, film companies are under pressure to find new areas of growth.
Shares of movie-theater chains fell. AMC Entertainment Holdings dropped as much as 2.8 percent, while Regal Entertainment Group slid as much as 1.9 percent. Cinemark fell as much as 1.1 percent.
Earlier availability of new movies could satisfy a growing consumer appetite and deter piracy, Warner Bros. chief Kevin Tsujihara said last week.
One option is a premium-priced online rental for new movies, at prices of $25 to $50, a possibility under consideration at the studios, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
Theater chains have battled to keep their exclusive hold over new movies, in some cases boycotting films that were released too soon for home viewing. But Cinemark Holdings Inc., the No. 3 U.S. exhibitor, said recently it’s looking for solutions that would benefit both sides and held preliminary talks about creating a so-called premium window for home entertainment. Such a service is likely within the next 18 months, one of the people said.
Those talks may have gained momentum after Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, said in March he was trying to create a new home-video service, called Screening Room, that would offer viewers movies on the same day they were released in theaters. The company has also discussed offering movies at home after 14 days in theaters, two of the people said. A spokeswoman for Screening Room declined to comment.
One of the concerns about iTunes is whether it will be a secure platform for delivering movies that are still in theaters, the people said. While Apple encrypts iTunes video files so they can’t easily be duplicated, it’s possible to use a camera to record a movie playing on a TV screen. A leak of picture that’s still in theaters would jeopardize returns for the studios and cinema owners.
Screening Room uses a watermarking technology that’s supposed to prevent piracy by making it possible to track down the source of a leak.
To compete with popular music streaming services such as Spotify Ltd., Apple acquired Beats Music in 2014 and built its own streaming music service. Yet the maker of iPhones and Mac computers wasn’t part of the surge in streaming video propelled by Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president for software and services, has taken small steps toward developing video content with a series of app- and music-based shows, while efforts to obtain streaming rights to films and TV shows have thus far been unfruitful. This month Apple will release a new app, dubbed simply TV, that will serve as a hub for users to watch content from a number of different apps. Netflix is notably absent.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2016, 09:12 AM:
Are these executives taking stupid pills or what?
I can sort of understand Apple floating a turd of an idea like this. They've gotta do everything they can to boost those stock prices and remain the center of attention in the computing and consumer electronics markets. It makes no difference to them if their concept is a poison pill for the entire movie industry.
I can't understand any theater chain executive warming up to this idea at all. It doesn't even make any sense for any movie studio executive or media company executive to entertain the idea either. A 2 week window is NOTHING.
We all know simultaneous "day and date" release of movies in theaters and on home video at the same time would immediately kill the movie theater business. These morons in Hollywood, Cupertino and Wall Street fail to realize there will be no movie business at all without theaters. The movie studios would never recover all the money they stand to lose from a dead theatrical platform in the home video market. The home video market is actually shrinking, not growing. There may be more options for viewers to choose how to watch their movies but the viewers are gravitating to the CHEAPEST options available. It's race to the bottom economics, man!
The notion that this would be a means of thwarting piracy is a laugh out loud joke. That would only work under a few conditions: 1. get rid of all screener discs/downloads for critics and VIPs, 2. put the movie theaters out of business, and 3. pray that encryption technology is completely hack-proof. If anything, new movie releases on iTunes could lead to more choices of pirated movies to download, and maybe with better quality too! It might cut down the ratio of camcorder bootlegs on torrent sites.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-21-2016, 10:37 AM:
If NATO doesn't start actively working against proposals like this, it's not going to have any members. It baffles me that they're not front and center in this. Maybe they're fighting behind the scenes...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2016, 11:06 AM:
It's all a bunch of bean counters and business guys trying to make a fast buck for themselves. They'll keep sucking blood out of the golden goose, flagrantly disregarding any concern the goose will eventually end up dead.
The game seems to be this: make as much money as you can for your own fat wallet and then get out just before everything goes to shit. That's American big business for you. Screw the future. Get paid now.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2016, 11:44 AM:
The ability to play a movie in the privacy of someone's home will never stop piracy no matter how incredible the technology is.
Just look at all of the youtube videos where people simply point their videocamera at the tv screen. As long as we can see it, a videocamera can record it (watermark or not). Then the studios would be spending millions paying companies to try and analyze watermarks and then spend more money on their legal teams to go after individual people (who will likely not have any money to pay such a fine anyway).
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-21-2016, 02:17 PM:
After reading this article last night, I looked back at ticket sales trends. After trending upward through the 90's, the number of tickets has started to trend down since the peak in 2002. Although correlation does not prove causation, this is about the same time video windows started to collapse.
If you look at the top movies ever year, they are grossing more than ever, so I think the loss in ticket sales is coming from the bottom to middle of the releases. This would kind of make sense since these are the movies that don't necessarily demand to be seen on the big screen. IF this is the case, then the "stagnate" theatre attendance is actually a problem of the studio's making.
Yearly Grosses from BoxOfficeMojo.com
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2016, 03:47 PM:
A friend of mine told me he had been at another guy's house a few nights ago and their kids had "Moana" playing on their TV screen, which of course as of today is not out on any form of home video. He asked the guy how the kids got that movie and he said, "I just turn 'em loose on the computer...I don't ask questions."
This is what we're dealing with. This and a bunch of idiot movie studio executives.
What I don't get is how they're going to "split the profits with theaters." I suppose that'll boil down to them knocking a point or two off of the rental and thinking that's going to make up the difference.
One thing I don't agree with Bobby on is "immediately kill the theater business." It won't be immediate, because the word won't spread that fast. It will start slowly, and grosses will stay about the same for a while...leading the studios to go "See! It's not hurting the theaters at all" and then the boulder will be rolling down the hill and it will be too late to stop it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2016, 05:26 PM:
The visible effect may not be "immediate," but it will sure seem like it once the paradigm shift really gains momentum.
Video rental stores and retailers specializing in books, music and movie disc sales had all been struggling to some extent since the mid 2000's at least. Then one by one they all started failing. The overall process took years, but the final effects of it have really seemed fast.
Big theater chains haven't been huge generators of profit. Remember all those bankruptcies 15 or so years ago? IIRC, both Carmike and AMC were in and out of bankruptcy court during that period. Now AMC is buying Carmike. Margins can be pretty slim in the theater business. Some day and date scheme or 2 week release window scheme might do a lot more damage in a faster pace than we might predict.
quote: Justin Hamaker
If you look at the top movies ever year, they are grossing more than ever, so I think the loss in ticket sales is coming from the bottom to middle of the releases. This would kind of make sense since these are the movies that don't necessarily demand to be seen on the big screen. IF this is the case, then the "stagnate" theatre attendance is actually a problem of the studio's making.
There are still lots of people who love seeing big event movies on a huge screen. But it costs so much to see those movies, especially when you throw something like IMAX in the price. The economics forces people to see fewer movies at the theater and watch the "regular" dramas and comedies on the TV screen at home. It's easy for those "regular" movies to get lost in the huge crowd of content once can see at home. And then you have all the sequels, remakes, etc. I guess enough people keep paying to see these derivative shows. Hollywood only seems to be making more and more of them. But I do thing audiences are getting pretty tired and annoyed of those kinds of movies.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2016, 05:30 PM:
They are getting tired of the regurgitated same-old kinds of movies for sure....but a sequel or whatever can still be a worthwhile experience if it's any good. The current Star Wars movie "Rogue One" is a case in point. Young and old are coming out of that and declaring it "awesome." But there are audible groans when the current Spider-Man trailer hits the screen.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-21-2016, 06:10 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
What I don't get is how they're going to "split the profits with theaters." I suppose that'll boil down to them knocking a point or two off of the rental and thinking that's going to make up the difference.
Remember back in 2015 when Paramount brought out Paranormal Activity and Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. They said that they would split the revenue from video sales with the theatres that played both of those movies.
I played both of those movies and promptly forgot about that until I got a cheque in the mail from Paramount at the end of last September for $32.45.
Posted by Donald Brown (Member # 5427) on 12-21-2016, 07:03 PM:
If one takes a look back at the adult entertainment industry and its transition from filmed entertainment to video and eventually to other mediums, there are many similarities with the exhibition industry today. By the late 1980s, the theatrical exhibition of adult motion pictures was primarily a marketing tool for that product on home viewing media. That is essentially the same as what is sought by a narrowing release window. The result of that transition is that adult entertainment is gone from the theatrical environment.
With today's leaderless exhibition industry, where will theatrical exhibition be several decades from now?
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-21-2016, 07:28 PM:
If the modern role of the movie theatre is going to be an advertising medium for the video release, the theatres should start charging the studios. ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2016, 09:04 PM:
quote: Donald Brown
If one takes a look back at the adult entertainment industry and its transition from filmed entertainment to video and eventually to other mediums, there are many similarities with the exhibition industry today. By the late 1980s, the theatrical exhibition of adult motion pictures was primarily a marketing tool for that product on home viewing media. That is essentially the same as what is sought by a narrowing release window. The result of that transition is that adult entertainment is gone from the theatrical environment.
Porn and traditional movies may have some similarities in how both industries have done well over the past 30+ years in the home video market. But there are very important differences too.
Porn was never going to be a mainstream product for movie theaters. Regular movies are usually most entertaining when viewed with an audience in a big movie theater. Porn is usually best viewed in private. Lots of people watch porn, but not nearly as many would ever set foot in a theater showing porn for obvious reasons.
The porn industry grew by leaps and bounds in the 1980's once people could start buying or renting the tapes and watching them at home. The transition from film to video helped the porn industry produce a lot more types of content and grow its audience, but it also lowered the bar of production quality standards and paved the way for things like amateur porn. Today the "establishment" side of the porn industry (the side that generates money) is in bad shape, thanks in part to all the free porn people can stream on various YouTube style web sites.
quote: Donald Brown
With today's leaderless exhibition industry, where will theatrical exhibition be several decades from now?
If current trends are allowed to continue unchecked, such as the ever shrinking window between theatrical and home video release, the movie industry will be gone within 10 to 20 years. Commercial theaters will be all but gone. Without theaters the movie studios will no longer be distributors, but rather much smaller production companies working as an arm of TV networks. The big budget movie productions so many of us love will be a thing of the past. The business model for giving a tent pole movie a $200 million production budget and $100 million advertising budget will be destroyed. The theatrical release platform is the only thing that makes it possible. If theaters are allowed to disappear TV series will be the only things getting relatively big production budgets after that.
Several decades from now (when many of us will be long since gone) entertainment like music and dramatic productions may be quite a bit different and much more technologically sophisticated. People will always have a need for entertainment. But the question is what sort of business will be able to produce and deliver it yet still be a viable, profitable business?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-21-2016, 09:14 PM:
To Brad's point, I think that the argument about reducing piracy is mostly about the idea that making it easy and relatively inexpensive to watch a current movie at home reduces the desire to pirate it. The people who are pitching this "service" would probably make the argument that people pirate current movies now because there is no legitimate way to watch them at home and that, if this changes, the perceived "need" to pirate the material is lessened. I believe that this sort-of actually worked with the record industry and that the emergence of Itunes as a legitimate way to buy recorded music online reduced piracy, at least in the beginning. Whether or not this will hold true for the movie industry is a different question, however.
I agree with the others' opinions here that this is a horrible idea for the movie industry (both the production and exhibition sides) and for consumers (since it would eventually take away the option for most viewers to see movies properly in cinemas).
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-21-2016, 10:13 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
I believe that this sort-of actually worked with the record industry and that the emergence of Itunes as a legitimate way to buy recorded music online reduced piracy, at least in the beginning. Whether or not this will hold true for the movie industry is a different question, however.
The reason it "worked" in the music industry is that iTunes launched songs for 99 cents. It made it cheap enough that somebody was less likely to illegally download a bootleg vs. when you had to buy a $17 CD to get one or two songs.
People don't watch pirated movies because they "demand" to see it at home or on their mobile device. They do it because they want to watch it for free. Maybe you would stop a lot of it if you charged $2 a movie.
If you put movies out for home release sooner, you will just get more pirated copies floating around.
The way to put a dent in piracy is to eliminate the sources of high quality bootlegs (screener DVDs, etc) and make it so all the bootlegs are camcorder off of screen versions. Then pretty much anybody that really wants to see something will either see it in a theatre or pay for it when it is available for home viewing.
The "profit sharing" angle is designed to dupe moronic exhibitor executives. At the beginning, they will put the profit sharing into the exhibition contracts to allow the new window on the new releases.
However, once they reach critical mass of people willing to pay $50 to watch at home, they'll just stop offering the profit sharing on future title with the short window, then don't play it.
The home video profits are plummeting due to Red Box and Netflix devaluing home viewing. The price point got to where it no longer makes sense to people to buy DVDs or Blueray or digital downloads.
If the studios want to increase profits they should make less movies (try to choose the ones to make carefully so they can be better), extend the windows and do everything possible technically to encourage more people to go to theaters at high prices. 20 years from now, the end result of pushing home viewing will be that the price paid per set of eyeballs to watch a movie will be the same (or lower than) the price people pay to binge watch a season of a TV show. At that point, movies will no longer be economical to make.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-22-2016, 01:14 AM:
The times they are a changin'. I've got my home theater set up and ready to go! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
For me though, it's not necessarily that I want to only watch movies at home. For me, it's the incompetence of so many theaters lately that make me not want to go to them anymore. ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-22-2016, 02:42 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
The reason it "worked" in the music industry is that iTunes launched songs for 99 cents. It made it cheap enough that somebody was less likely to illegally download a bootleg vs. when you had to buy a $17 CD to get one or two songs.
There were more factors that helped iTunes' business.
The government fought to shut down various mainstream file sharing applications like Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc. Some people know how to use torrent clients to get all sorts of pirated software or entertainment, keep their activity anonymous and avoid many of the pitfalls involved in that activity. Those people are in a small minority. For most people it was simply easier to pay 99¢ for a tune than do all sorts of tech-head stuff to get the music for free.
The general public started worshipping the Apple brand in a big way once Steve Jobs returned to helm. Music via iTunes was just another part of the Apple "halo."
The closing of so many brick and mortar retail music stores has forced more customers to buy music discs online at places like Amazon or download the songs one at a time from Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. The falling sales of physical CDs has cut down on the sharing of entire albums via torrents or in person via dubbed CDs and the "sneaker network." Many new computers don't have any optical disc drives to play music CDs. So many people are listening to music primarily on their smart phones. It's all the more reason to click a song in iTunes, Google Music, etc. and buy it instantly.
Lately the "all you can eat" music streaming services have been eating into Apple's iTunes business model. Paid subscription services like Amazon Prime cut out all the ads. Music labels are getting hurt by this since it's yet another thing to further erode their income. The music performers seem pretty quiet about it. But that's only because the music labels have been screwing them out of royalties for the longest time, forcing the performers to make their money touring and selling merchandise. Why should an artist fight for a recording label to get paid fairly when it's money the artist will never see?
People are still on the lookout for an easy way to get movies or music for free. The MPAA and others have been trying to kill off the Popcorn Time torrent client. Every time they shut it down it seems to re-appear elsewhere, even with updated software. Now there is a piece of ransomware in the wild using the Popcorn Time name as bait to trick unsuspecting users into installing it.
quote: Eric Hooper
For me though, it's not necessarily that I want to only watch movies at home. For me, it's the incompetence of so many theaters lately that make me not want to go to them anymore.
I sure hate visiting crappy theaters. But I still feel obliged to find the best theater I can and support it. If theaters don't have enough customers to keep them in business there also won't be any new big budget movies getting released either. All of that will come to a stop. At least here in America. Maybe the movie industry could continue elsewhere in the world, but I think we're trying very hard to bring it to an end here in the United States.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-25-2016, 05:57 PM:
Here is the problem... The studio's are banks, no more, no less. Their business is loaning money and they expect high returns on their investment. They want their money back ASAP, so they've resorted to raising the prices on everything, so they can achieve this goal. Prices this year alone have gone up 2 dollars here in California. I personally think we're finally reaching critical mass where a $16 ticket for normal showings and a $20 ticket for 3D are the absolute cap. Ticket sales are DOWN, yet profits are up. So to recoup, they will continue raising prices because they're just pencil pushers who don't understand the industry what so ever.
I said years ago, the SAG/AFTRA deal would be the end of the cinema as we knew it. Prior to the SAG/AFTRA deal, SAG productions needed to be captured AND distributed on motion picture film. This means, very little piracy because when you're working in an entirely "film" workflow, it's nearly impossible to make digital copies of elements. Camcorders in movie theaters look horrible due to the flicker and getting anything but theater speaker audio, was nearly impossible. It also meant the studio's had less control over what the theaters did. Theaters could get one print and cycle it through multiple screens if they wanted. Also, the investment theaters made in their equipment and staff 20 years ago, would have continued paying off for decades to come. The "theater" was a special place with a look that could not be recreated at home.
Once the SAG/AFTRA deal was made, the studio's were looking for ways to save money and thanks to James Cameron, they pushed for everyone to switch over to digital. This cost the theaters LOTS of money, which raised the prices of ticket prices and that will never stop. With new innovations coming out every few years, theaters will constantly be forced to continue upgrading in order to keep up. This was all part of the strategy from the very beginning. It's no different then the move to digital television, forcing everyone in the world to buy a new TV. These forceful technology booms are the only reason the technology companies are in business. Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, these guys were dying on the vine and these forceful technology pushes, reset the clock. Then after all that money was spent, the studio's forced theaters to pay 3D movies, which means they have to charge more for tickets. Worst off, the content in theaters is now officially no different then the BluRay or digital download. It looks the same, it sounds the same, there is nothing "unique" about the cinema anymore. As a consequence, since the SAG/AFTRA deal, the studio's have single handedly started the downfall of cinema as we know it. Now academy members get DVD screeners that they pass out to family and friends. Now movies are easy to pirate because there is no flicker on digital screens, so the ol' camcorder trick works great. Heck, there is even in-house pirating more now then ever because all of the assets are entirely digital.
The future of cinema is a model that I've discussed many times with friends. A company like AMC will have an app available for devices that allows users to stream theatrical content at home. It won't be day and date right away, there will be at least a week delay. However, they will charge a premium to see the movie at home, maybe upwards of $50 dollars. This way, families with kids don't have to pay for a babysitter, don't have to pay for a "night on the town" they can stay home and watch new content. This will expand the viewership of content and that's what the studio's are after. They see the dwindling ticket sales and a lot of people simply can't go to the cinema for those aforementioned reasons. This new distribution method will start soon and by 2020 I feel the prices will stabilize and that will be how everyone watches new content in the next decade.
Of course the next big steps which will be coming at CES 2017 are 8k HDR televisions and 4k laser home theater projectors. Both of which will be reasonably priced by 2018. With .h265 streaming technology and bigger servers and faster internet speeds, we will have real 10 bit 4:2:2 4k streaming by 2018 and 8k streaming by 2020. Theaters will be simply uncompetitive in the home theater market. I assume big theater chains in cities will still exist, but they will push the gimmicks hard because otherwise, what they offer will be substandard compared to what you get at home. I predict by 2020, we will start to see theaters closing as day and date internet releases become more and more profitable. I think the small independents will stay alive for a while, but they will probably switch to the budding "revival" cinema market. That's where the money is at these days, showing BluRay's on a big screen for people who just don't have the fancy internet speeds and/or simply want to get out of the house. I'm hoping influential filmmakers will try to repress this new distribution model, but the studio's can simply not fund their next projects. It's a loose-loose model for the filmmakers and the history of cinema as we know it.
The only good thing that COULD happen is that after the dust settles, maybe film will come back in a big way again, as that "unique" experience the retro loving millennials need so much. With record players being the #1 electronic gadget in 2015... I do think there is something to be said about cinemas returning to their grass roots.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2016, 02:25 PM:
Very few people, if anyone at all, will pay $50 for a one time viewing of what would be a made for TV movie. It just isn't going to happen. This is why the entire movie industry as we know it would implode if commercial movie theaters were to disappear. There would be no way to fund big budget movies.
Commercial movie theaters are indeed at a technological disadvantage to home theater. It's so much cheaper (relatively speaking) to install Dolby Atmos and a high end OLED TV in a home theater system than it is to install Dolby Atmos and laser projectors in a commercial theater. The price difference is staggering.
Still, Hollywood is screwing these advancements in technology with their own cheap-ness in production. The Ultra HD Blu-ray format is a flat out joke since nearly all the movies available in that format are blow-ups from 2K source material. Why even bother releasing a UHD BD version of a 2K movie in the first place!? I guess the bean counters figure we the customers are just that stupid.
So even if new 8K TV sets start becoming common that extra resolution and color bit depth support will be about as useful as tits on a bull without native 8K content. The TV might work great as a giant computer monitor, but that's about it.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-26-2016, 06:15 PM:
Well, we're talking first run movies at home, day and date for $50 bux. There is an astronomical market for that business model. Right now it costs me and a friend $40 to visit a movie theater when you include everything; gas, parking, popcorn/beverage and tickets. For an additional $10 bux, we'd just invite a friend over and split the cost 3 ways. Just think about families, people who NEVER get out to the cinema because they're stuck at home watching their kids. $50 bux is nothing when you have to pay for babysitter, dinner, gas, parking, popcorn/beverage and movie ticket. Most couples will spend over $100 bux for a "night on the town" in order to see a first run movie. With this service, they will pay $50 bux and their kids can watch too!
The way to run the online service is just like a movie theater. There will be mandatory commercials, trailers and everything that goes along with a standard theater presentation. Part of the revenue stream will be generated from that marketing content. Plus, the viewer will not be allowed to fast forward or rewind the movie. Users will log into the system at a certain time and the movie will start just like at a cinema. It's not "on demand" you can't just watch it over and over again, it's just like a cinema release, you watch it once and it's over.
Every stream will have a watermark somewhere in the image that's undetectable by the human eye, that can be decoded for anti-piracy purposes. There will be a warning about it before the movie starts and it will be crackable. It will be rendered on the fly as the video is being streamed, using the decoder engine within the playback device.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-26-2016, 06:51 PM:
And you won't get out of the house for a "night out", you won't have any reason to have dinner out, and you still have the phone ringing and the dog barking and everything else going on that you have going on all day, every day, anyway.
So what makes that special over just switching to channel 18 and watching a random serial instead, and keeping the $50 in your pocket to boot?
You're missing the fact that the theatre is a night out and something that you don't do every night of the week.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2016, 09:46 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
Well, we're talking first run movies at home, day and date for $50 bux. There is an astronomical market for that business model.
IF there is a market to support such a thing it absolutely would survive at the expense of commercial movie theaters. The more successful the home-based 1st run business is the more it will eat into the ticket sales of commercial movie theaters. With the kind of overhead today's movie theaters have it won't take much of a downturn in ticket sales to put the viability of movie theaters at great risk.
There are lots of families with very young children who don't go to commercial movie theaters. They do avoid movie theaters out of concern for having to get a babysitter. But they also avoid the theaters over price since having kids these days will bust the living hell out of most any household budget. Many of these families are content with waiting for a movie to show up on DVD or Netflix to save all that extra money.
quote: Tyler Purcell
The way to run the online service is just like a movie theater. There will be mandatory commercials, trailers and everything that goes along with a standard theater presentation. Part of the revenue stream will be generated from that marketing content. Plus, the viewer will not be allowed to fast forward or rewind the movie. Users will log into the system at a certain time and the movie will start just like at a cinema. It's not "on demand" you can't just watch it over and over again, it's just like a cinema release, you watch it once and it's over.
Forced trailers, forced commercials, no pausing and no rewinding are all deal breakers for me. There's no way in hell I would ever pay $50 to watch such a thing, even if I'm chipping in as part of a group.
One of the key things about home movie/TV viewing is being able to pause the show in order to go to the bathroom, get a snack, take a phone call, etc. People time-shift TV shows on their DVR just to be able to fast forward past all the damned commercial breaks. It's easy to understand why a movie in a theater cannot be paused. Customers won't put up with a no stops allowed policy in home viewing. The only way home viewers accept such a thing is when they're watching a live pay per view event, such as a UFC fighting event.
As short as release windows have become I would have no problem whatsoever to simply wait a couple or so months and be able to buy a Blu-ray of that movie for $20, or rent the movie for much less. Wait a couple or so months after that and it will be on premium cable or Netflix. And when you play a movie on Netflix the movie itself starts when you hit the play button. No trailers, commercials, etc.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Every stream will have a watermark somewhere in the image that's undetectable by the human eye, that can be decoded for anti-piracy purposes.
So far every anti-piracy measure for home based content and mainstream computer software has been thwarted by hackers. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if hackers have managed to break the encryption present in theatrical DCPs. If home-based 1st run movies become a big thing, I would expect dupes of those streams to show up quickly on movie piracy web sites.
quote: Frank Cox
You're missing the fact that the theatre is a night out and something that you don't do every night of the week.
I think the general public is so short sighted it would not miss commercial movie theaters until they were suddenly gone and their abscence adversely affecting the local economy.
All this shit in recent years of romanticizing online business as a new paradigm of business over "old-fashioned" brick and mortar retail really needs a harsh reality check. Many local economies across this nation depend on real brick and mortar based business. Commercial movie theaters actually employ real people in a city or town. Some online-based viewing thing would employ no one locally.
Commercial movie theaters are often a key "anchor" in many shopping centers, be it an older enclosed mall or one of these new "town center" designs. Neither concept works well without plenty of outlets for dining and entertainment. Retail stores are suffering badly as it is, thanks to online merchants not having to charge sales tax at the time of purchase. That horribly unfair inequity is causing many retail stores to close. I've seen a lot of closures in my town and it makes me pretty damned angry.
Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 12-26-2016, 09:52 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the general public is so short sighted it would not miss commercial movie theaters until they were suddenly gone and their abscence adversely affecting the local economy.
This is something that I worry probably the absolute most about. Especially for small towns such as ours.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-27-2016, 03:23 PM:
In response Bobby, I'm NOT an advocate for any of this. I thought it was a HUGE mistake to make HD BluRay and switch from SD to HD television. Once you deliver content at quality equal to cinema's at home, you then negate the reason for going to cinema's in the first place.
However, I'm also pragmatic about the whole thing and understand this new future of 1st run movies being available at home, is coming very fast. The studio's see huge dollar signs from it and I do as well. Imagine cutting out the middleman and selling movies direct to customers. This makes the studio's far more money then they already make and they can do it with LESS viewership! There are 310 million people in this country. If they get 3 million of them, so we're talking 1 percent of the population, to pay $50 bux for each movie they release, they will make $150 million dollars right there, without involving the theaters at all. Then they continue doing theatrical runs, which brings in even more money.
The encryption problem is easy to fix, it's called a "roving key", one that is associated with every user, that changes per viewing. This is why DCP's can't be hacked, because the key changes per copy. You can easily do the same thing with software and have a constantly changing key for decoding based on the specific user and region if you need. However, it doesn't stop someone plugging an HDMI cable into a recorder and capturing the image. It also doesn't stop someone shooting the screen with their camcorder, something that's hard to do at a cinema. So those are two issues that would need to be addressed through invisible watermarking.
In terms of being locked into viewing it like a cinema, the moment you can pause, rewind and fast forward, is the moment you get corruption in the system. You can't allow the system to buffer very much and you certainly can't allow it to be paused overnight or something like that for re-watching the next day. Now maybe for $50 they'll let people do that, but I think it's a huge mistake. People who want to watch the next XYZ movie without leaving their house, most of them will hit the "buy now button" and simply watch it.
No matter what we do or say, I do think the movie theater is doomed. Attendance is low in the US, though profits are up thanks to higher ticket prices. Audiences are bored of the content and going less and less. As you pointed out Bobby, they're simply waiting for home video. People don't even buy anymore, they simply rent from Red Box or pay for that Netflix subscription. Even though the home-video market is huge, it too is dying on the vine, BluRay and DVD's are almost gone outside of discount retailers like Walmart. So I don't know the solution, but what I do know is if the current business model continues, things will just get worse. The studio's know this, the big theater chains know this and I think everyone is waiting for someone to make the leap. Maybe it's the new itunes system, maybe it's the day and date release system run by theaters, who knows.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2016, 09:02 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
I thought it was a HUGE mistake to make HD BluRay and switch from SD to HD television. Once you deliver content at quality equal to cinema's at home, you then negate the reason for going to cinema's in the first place.
HDTV was going to happen regardless of the effect it had on the movie industry. The consumer electronics industry and computing industry are both far bigger than the movie industry. They're going to pursue their own best interests even if it comes at the detriment of the movie industry. If the movie industry didn't up their standards on the quality of home video product they were selling it would not have taken long for ordinary TV shows to look a whole lot better than Hollywood movies on home video.
The huge mistake the movie industry has been making, and keeping making worse, is shrinking the exclusive window between a movie's theatrical release and its release on home video. There is hardly any wait anymore. Compound that with derivate, predictable content that doesn't stand up well against the glut of series TV available from cable and streaming services. Theatrical box office ticket sales are down. The near extinction of video rental stores and mass disappearance of video/music retail stores have sent physical movie and music disc sales on a very dramatic downturn. But the movie studios just keep doubling down on shrinking release windows further, thinking that's somehow magically going to grow revenue or at least increase positive cash flow. They're ignoring the past 15 years of history showing the strategy clearly does not work.
quote:
However, I'm also pragmatic about the whole thing and understand this new future of 1st run movies being available at home, is coming very fast. The studio's see huge dollar signs from it and I do as well. Imagine cutting out the middleman and selling movies direct to customers. This makes the studio's far more money then they already make and they can do it with LESS viewership!
I'm sure that's how the bean counter sales pitch sounds in various board meetings where they float this day and date idea. I still contend it would be a suicidal step for the movie industry.
First of all, this standard is still very present in the minds of consumers: a movie isn't a real movie unless it plays in movie theaters. It's a made for TV movie otherwise. The home viewing market is already a very crowded space. Netflix and Amazon are both producing their own long form, uncensored TV series and standalone movies of their own. Manchester by the Sea is generating Oscar buzz; Amazon gave commercial theaters an exclusive first run of the movie.
In the end, some $40 or $50 single viewing of a 1st run movie on ordinary TV is not all that great a deal, not when there's no wait at all to get the "HD Digital" or Blu-ray version and not much wait after that to just stream it on Netflix.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of being locked into viewing it like a cinema, the moment you can pause, rewind and fast forward, is the moment you get corruption in the system. You can't allow the system to buffer very much and you certainly can't allow it to be paused overnight or something like that for re-watching the next day.
Baloney. Streaming a 1st run movie isn't going to work worth a damn without the system being able to buffer the content. Playback would be horribly erratic and even prone to glitches on the fastest Internet connections if buffering was not allowed. Either way, no pausing, rewinding, etc. is just an out and out deal breaker.
Watching movies in a commercial theater and at home are two entirely different things, both with their own pros and cons. In giving up the pros of watching a movie in a theater I would fully expect to still utilize the advantages of watching at home, like being able to pause the movie to take a piss break. I don't need all the cons of the theatrical movie viewing experience if I'm just going to be watching on the ordinary TV screen. It's a whole lot easier to wait a few months, save a shit load of money and watch the movie how I want to watch it.
quote: Tyler Purcell
No matter what we do or say, I do think the movie theater is doomed. Attendance is low in the US, though profits are up thanks to higher ticket prices. Audiences are bored of the content and going less and less. As you pointed out Bobby, they're simply waiting for home video. People don't even buy anymore, they simply rent from Red Box or pay for that Netflix subscription.
With as short as the wait is for a movie to show up on Netflix I guarantee $50 rentals to watch 1st run movies on ordinary TV will go nowhere. And if it does gain traction it will indeed do so at the expense of commercial movie theater business.
If movie theaters are doomed, so is the movie industry itself. Without commercial movie theaters all you have is TV. It doesn't matter what intros play in front of the feature, how it is packaged, etc. If the feature never plays in a theater it is just a TV show.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-27-2016, 10:32 PM:
All great points Bobby, good stuff. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I will just mention a few things. One of them is the buffering comment I made. Yes the video would be buffered, just not enough to allow rewinding and fast forwarding. I'm not sure how they do this currently, because this system already exists and is working flawlessly in rich people's homes. The price tag for admission is $500 bux and it uses thumb print identification. Not a big deal for rich people, but it's the same tech that will be used for the consumer version.
So far this year, none of the movies I want to see are available on video yet. So the window isn't THAT short, some of them have been out of theaters for months. Yes, certain distributors push for quicker releases on video, that's true. But the vast majority of them are still 4 - 6 months after initial release. I think what's happened is that some distributors want "exclusivity" and pay for it. So that's why you see some new stuff on Netflix and other distributors quicker then DVD/BluRay for instance.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2016, 12:00 AM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
I'm not sure how they do this currently, because this system already exists and is working flawlessly in rich people's homes. The price tag for admission is $500 bux and it uses thumb print identification. Not a big deal for rich people, but it's the same tech that will be used for the consumer version.
It's one thing to sell a unique playback hardware/software system to a douchebag in Hollywood who can't stomach the idea of watching a movie in a theater with mere commoners. IMAX was floating the idea of a home version of Lie-MAX, yours for like a million dollars or something if I remember right. It's another thing altogether to expect regular middle class people to buy new playback gear just to play $50 1st run movie rentals on a very infrequent basis. If Apple and Hollywood studios can't get their idea to work entirely within a software app, with no hardware purchase required, it won't have the first chance of getting anywhere.
quote: Tyler Purcell
So far this year, none of the movies I want to see are available on video yet. So the window isn't THAT short, some of them have been out of theaters for months.
Which movies specifically?
There could be exceptions, but as far as I can tell every major Hollywood release is now taking no more than 4 months after theatrical debut to arrive on "HD Digital" and then Blu-ray/DVD. Many are taking only 3 months or even less in some cases. That's a very short wait compared to how long the window used to be. Combine that with the fact everyone has some "catch up list" of shows they have yet to find time to watch. So even if you have to wait 5 or 6 months for some new movie to arrive on Blu-ray, you're still going busy trying to get caught up on other shows that it will be a chore squeezing that movie into the viewing schedule.
I remember being amazed when The Matrix arrived on DVD September 21, 1999, just 6 months after its March 31, 1999 theatrical release. The disc was priced cheap and became the first DVD to sell over 1 million copies in the US. Back then viewers could wait upwards of a year before a movie arrived on VHS or DVD. Hell, many of us were still waiting for Saving Private Ryan to finally arrive on DVD. The movie was released in July of 1998, but appeared on DVD in November of 1999.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-28-2016, 11:25 AM:
Yea, the rich people get all the toys.
Kubo and the Two Strings was the movie I missed and it JUST came out on BluRay few weeks ago, right before the holidays. It was released initially in August, so 4 month window.
I use to work at a Laser Disk store as a kid and remember releases taking more time for sure, but that was mainly because movies back then stayed in theaters longer. I remember movies being in theaters for months, not weeks. Today, movies come and go so fast, if you aren't at the theater in the first weekend, you may not even get to see it at a big theater. The studio's pressure theater owners to push, even well selling content, to smaller theaters in order for their new/big release to come out, especially this time of year.
Now I'm a filmmaker, so I also want to see the smaller movies, which are nearly impossible to find at normal theaters, even during awards season.
It's true, most people watch TV over movies anyway. However, a lot of that is convenience. If first run movies were at home, they would be watched, almost no matter what the price. So even if they don't get the numbers off online sales they expect, at least it's an option. I for one would use it on a regular basis because the consistency of theaters is all over the map and people are disgusting pigs these days with no respect for those sitting next to them. It's a real problem and it's killing the theater business for people like myself.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2016, 01:04 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
Kubo and the Two Strings was the movie I missed and it JUST came out on BluRay few weeks ago, right before the holidays. It was released initially in August, so 4 month window.
Kubo and the Two Strings was released theatrically August 19. It arrived on Blu-ray November 22. That's only 3 months from debut on theater screen to store shelves on disc. I don't know when the "HD Digital" download version was available to buy, but it's a good bet it preceded the Blu-ray version by at least 2 to 4 weeks.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I use to work at a Laser Disk store as a kid and remember releases taking more time for sure, but that was mainly because movies back then stayed in theaters longer. I remember movies being in theaters for months, not weeks.
I think movie studios first started over-doing it with print inventories in the 1990's. During the 80's and 90's a movie considered a "wide" release would send 2500 to 3500 prints to first run theaters in North America. Then some studios started flooding the market with upwards of 6000 prints or more for some releases. It was all about trying to get bigger and bigger opening weekend grosses, regardless of how wasteful it was of 35mm film prints. And these guys had the audacity to whine about film costs while pitching "digital."
Attention spans are so short now that barely anyone even looks up a movie's final domestic box office haul. After opening weekend movie fans move on to something else. This probably makes it easier for movie studios to play accounting games, like the "rolling break even." The bean counters do want all the money now, not later. They look at a movie like Forrest Gump that hangs out in first run for several months as something that is costing them money, not making them more money.
Movies these days can go from the theater screen, to disc, cable and then forgotten in under a year. The whole operation has a very throw-away feel to it anymore. And some good movies get dumped in that list of forgotten shows.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Today, movies come and go so fast, if you aren't at the theater in the first weekend, you may not even get to see it at a big theater.
That's the hidden penalty of the "premium screen" business model. You have the one or two "good" screens in the complex and the rest sorta suck.
For the longest time I've been guilty of snubbing movies much of the time if I missed them when they were playing on the best screen in the complex. In the 80's and early 90's it was about catching the 70mm version of the movie. Then it was about seeing it in the THX-certified house equipped with DTS. Back then there wasn't an extra premium to pay for that. And a big movie might hang out on that "good" screen for weeks. Now we have the alphabet soup of acronym labeled auditoriums where they all charge you extra, even if it's just the same old 2K/5.1 experience but with the sound cranked up.
Most movie goers don't care about that technical crap. Likewise, they're just as ambivalent about seeing a certain movie in the theater at all. This is essentially why day and date release would murder the movie theater business. Audiences by large have no loyality, much less any love, for movie theaters. If a cheaper way to see a movie is available customers will gravivate to it.
quote: Tyler Purcell
If first run movies were at home, they would be watched, almost no matter what the price.
Price still matters a great deal. And so does time. Pay $50 to watch a movie on TV that I can't pause or rewind now versus wait three months and rent it for $3? That's a pretty damned easy choice.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I for one would use it on a regular basis because the consistency of theaters is all over the map and people are disgusting pigs these days with no respect for those sitting next to them. It's a real problem and it's killing the theater business for people like myself.
I think this problem varies from theater to theater and city to city. It also varies when you visit the theater.
Nevertheless, commercial theaters are trying pretty hard to cater to changing customer tastes. Some chains put themselves into bankruptcy with the building binge of stadium seated theaters. They're now sacrificing seat counts and max ticket sales by installing recliners while upping their maintenance costs. Theaters have done the industry-wide conversion to digital. It's rare to find a theater auditorium that doesn't at least have 5.1 digital surround sound. Now they're being asked to do more upgrades for 3D, Laser projection, next-gen surround sound, etc. Movie studios aren't doing shit to help theaters absorb these extreme high costs. Movie studios also aren't doing shit to help theaters afford higher staffing numbers to better police disruptive customer behavior either. The movie studios are only looking out for themselves.
I don't know how my habits compare with other customers, but I have actually seen by far more movies in theaters over the past few years than I have bought on Blu-ray. But that's only because my Blu-ray buying habits have dropped off to near nothing. Anymore, I just rent a Blu-ray or maybe catch it on HBO or Netflix. I have no urge to buy a 4K UHDTV or UHD Blu-ray player.
If these studio guys really want to kill off the theatrical side of their business they had better realize the home video side of their business is not doing well either.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2016, 01:23 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I have actually seen by far more movies in theaters over the past few years than I have bought on Blu-ray.
I have found, that if I don't get a chance to watch a movie in the theater, then I just miss it completely. If it shows up on Netflix, then I "might" watch it, but I don't subscribe to the DVD service, I'm just connected to their rip-off streaming, so 90% of any movies I would want to see aren't available anyway. So I'm left with the choice of buying them.
Here's the full list of movies from this year I am interested in buying:
Sully
That's it. I haven't seen any others that I care to see again, and even "Sully" is iffy because I didn't love that movie to the point of wanting to see it over and over...I just only got to see it once and wouldn't mind seeing it again, plus I'd like to see some kind of "behind the scenes" that you normally get on a BluRay.
It just baffles me that the studios are using this thought process:
Theatrical is doing steadily well -> Home video is tanking -> Instead of doing something to help theatrical, let's make things worse for them, in the hopes home video will get better
IT WON'T WORK, you studio idiots! Home video is in the tank because people have plenty of options to watch, so they don't need your dumb movies. Media purchases are down because streaming is easier/faster/cheaper. People will balk at paying $50 for a new movie. They'll watch other stuff in their "queue" and wait till the price drops, if they even watch the movie at all, so if you want "big numbers" you'll need to drop the price sooner. Then home video will be....that's right, tanking again.
I don't even have a college degree and only run a single-screen theater and yet I understand this stuff...how come all these highly paid MBA-types can't get it?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2016, 02:45 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't even have a college degree and only run a single-screen theater and yet I understand this stuff...how come all these highly paid MBA-types can't get it?
The MBA types can't figure it out because they're myopically fixated on short term cash flow schemes. Make money come in as much of a single big burst as possible. Minimize interest payments on borrowed production and ad money. Make the company's stock price jump a bit. Collect a fat bonus check. The MBA types aren't the slightest bit interested about the long term health of the company, much less the long term health of an entire industry. A bunch of these guys pick up and move from company to company like gypsies.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I haven't seen any others that I care to see again, and even "Sully" is iffy because I didn't love that movie to the point of wanting to see it over and over...I just only got to see it once and wouldn't mind seeing it again, plus I'd like to see some kind of "behind the scenes" that you normally get on a BluRay.
This brings up another sore spot with Blu-ray. The movie studios are not putting in nearly as much work on new disc releases as they did in the past. On average new Blu-ray releases have fewer (if any) extras and bare bones packaging. Pull out some old 2-disc special edition DVD, such as Fight Club, and it will look like a labor of love compared to this bare bones crap. Blu-ray discs rarely contain the movie's trailers, TV spots and other marketing stuff (unlike DVDs of 10-15 years ago). But that's not a big loss since the trailers for new movies tend to suck anyway.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-29-2016, 11:09 PM:
The revenue streams are diminishing quickly. In 2016 alone, I've witnessed major chains like Best By, Target and Costco, slash BluRay and DVD inventory in half, even more at some locations. This is not simply because the retail business model is failing, it's mostly because people don't want to own anything anymore. People want to watch content on ALL devices without a stupid disk to playback.
The final hold out for all of this is Walmart, they have single handedly kept DVD's alive somehow. I bet the moment they give up, the whole disk industry folds and the only disks available will be limited runs of new content. Even Criterion are doing online streaming because they've had difficulty selling disks. Unfortunately ease of use is more important then the content itself in a lot of ways. The industry is realizing people will watch stuff they normally wouldn't watch, if it's inexpensive and instantly available.
Now, back to your earlier comments Bobby. The studio's could care less about theaters that aren't doing well, it's not their business to care. They only make product and big chains like AMC distribute it. This is why big studios, don't make "indy" films that aren't going to sell well at AMC. The indy industry is it's own world and we as filmmakers, are struggling to survive without these massive theatrical deals the studio's and theaters have worked out.
There are literally a thousand feature films released every year world wide and only a very small percentage is at theaters and only a small fraction of those are at main stream theaters. So "home video" is doing very well right now, if you account for all viewing of content at home. This is why the studio's are trying to capitalize on it, more then ever before.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2016, 12:12 AM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
The final hold out for all of this is Walmart, they have single handedly kept DVD's alive somehow. I bet the moment they give up, the whole disk industry folds and the only disks available will be limited runs of new content.
That's probably because Walmart's constituency is still using DVD players.
I agree physical media is in a decline but it still accounts for a hefty percentage of sales. Millions and millions of CDs and DVDs and BluRays are still sold every year. They still make LP records, which are a tiny fraction of the total. So I think physical media will be around for quite a while. If volume gets low enough for mass manufacturing to not make sense, there'll be a healthy market for on-demand manufacturing. This is already happening, in fact. Amazon and a couple of the major industry rack-jobbers have MOD departments. (Manufacturing On Demand)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2016, 03:46 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
The revenue streams are diminishing quickly. In 2016 alone, I've witnessed major chains like Best By, Target and Costco, slash BluRay and DVD inventory in half, even more at some locations. This is not simply because the retail business model is failing, it's mostly because people don't want to own anything anymore. People want to watch content on ALL devices without a stupid disk to playback.
I don't agree with that. First of all, I haven't really seen the amount of shelf space for DVD and Blu-ray shrink at stores like Target and Best Buy. It looks about the same to me. But stores that specialize in selling movie and music discs have been dying off rapidly. I'm still pissed about Hastings going out of business. These failures have nothing to do with people not liking discs. They got put out of business by online merchants like Amazon that don't charge sales tax. Those specialty stores couldn't discount their movie and music discs much. Mall-based stores like Sam Goody's and fye were often charging full MSRP; gotta pay that high mall rent. Video rental stores got put on death row by Redbox kiosks and then executed by Netflix. Again, this was about VERY LOW PRICE, not convenience.
For watching movies at home, I still very much prefer using Blu-ray discs and watching on a huge TV screen. The audio-video quality is far better than cable or streaming options. That still holds true even with my Internet service upgraded to a 25 megabit connection. The thing killing off my movie buying habits is all about the quality of the movies themselves, not how they're viewed. I couldn't care less about watching a movie on my smart phone via "the cloud." I'll use my portable device to watch short videos like Fail Army on YouTube.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Now, back to your earlier comments Bobby. The studio's could care less about theaters that aren't doing well, it's not their business to care. They only make product and big chains like AMC distribute it. This is why big studios, don't make "indy" films that aren't going to sell well at AMC. The indy industry is it's own world and we as filmmakers, are struggling to survive without these massive theatrical deals the studio's and theaters have worked out.
It isn't just "little guy" theaters being hurt by this nonsense of shrinking theatrical windows. All of the big theater chains aren't operating on big profit margins. They try to incorporate new things like stadium seating and nearly go broke doing so. AMC went bankrupt in 1999. The chain we know as Regal Entertainment Group was built on other bankrupt or struggling chains (Act III, Edwards, Cobb, RC, United Artists). Even Regal itself filed Chapter 11 in 2001 due to being badly over-extended. Philip Anschutz bought up everything in 2002. Carmike Cinemas went bankrupt in 2000 and exited bankruptcy in 2002.
The conversion to digital would have bankrupted these big chains if not for the profit-sharing programs the studios implemented for several years to help subsidize equipment purchases. The studios aren't doing that anymore. Yet new, expensive trends are already rolling through movie theaters: dine-in movies, big recliners, laser-based projectors, next-gen surround sound.
quote: Tyler Purcell
There are literally a thousand feature films released every year world wide and only a very small percentage is at theaters and only a small fraction of those are at main stream theaters. So "home video" is doing very well right now, if you account for all viewing of content at home. This is why the studio's are trying to capitalize on it, more then ever before.
I define doing well as making more money and selling more product. That is not happening on home video. The home market is only doing well in terms of content choices for viewers. There is a glut of content available to watch on TV, and far from just movies either. If anything it looks like Hollywood movies are taking a back seat to original TV series. That's certainly the case on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and HBO GO. Binge watching is a household term, but you don't binge watch a movie.
With the glut of content available to watch some premium service of high priced $50 movie rentals is going to get lost in the crowd pretty easily, especially when there's so much other good stuff to watch for next to nothing.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2016, 06:30 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
The studio's could care less about theaters that aren't doing well, it's not their business to care.
Oh they care very deeply if you owe them money.
Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 01-03-2017, 03:30 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Oh they care very deeply if you owe them money.
I actually had a print put on hold because i owed a Studio less that a dollar
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-15-2017, 09:47 PM:
quote:
This brings up another sore spot with Blu-ray. The movie studios are not putting in nearly as much work on new disc releases as they did in the past. On average new Blu-ray releases have fewer (if any) extras and bare bones packaging. Pull out some old 2-disc special edition DVD, such as Fight Club, and it will look like a labor of love compared to this bare bones crap. Blu-ray discs rarely contain the movie's trailers, TV spots and other marketing stuff (unlike DVDs of 10-15 years ago).
I predicted this a long time ago when Blu-ray didn't grow as fast as it should have. Blu-ray was actually down in 2015 as compared to 2014. It grew very slightly in 2016 (+2.28% in revenue and +2.63% in units), but there was an extra selling week. Blu-ray (in the U.S.) had only a 37.1% physical market dollar share and a 24% unit share. It's incredible after all this time that DVD still does 76% of the units. Only about 8 titles a week sell more Blu units than DVD units. Because of that, I knew that the studios would reduce investment in Blu when it came to deluxe packaging, extras, restorations, etc.
The fact is that the masses don't give a crap about quality. Yes, they buy their big screen 4K TV's, but they keep them in store blast mode and watch DVDs on them. I probably posted this before, but I help people out in my apartment building with their installations. Up until the cable companies started auto switching to the HD channel, most were watching the SD channel. We have Time-Warner and RCN in the building and RCN doesn't auto-switch or even put up a message stating that there's an HD channel. I proudly show people the HD version of a channel and say, "see what it's supposed to look like?" and most don't give a crap. I then use a calibration disk to visually set color, contrast, etc., and they hate it. They're too used to the over-bright, over-contrasty and over-saturated image of store blast mode.
I do agree with Bobby on most other points. If you reduce windows, you kill the theaters. Oh sure, a few will survive just like most cities still have one or two legitimate theatres. Those will play the comic book movies and Star Wars. Once you kill the theaters, everything becomes "made for TV", as Bobby says. Want to see what's that like? Look at what's available on Netflix or Hulu.
The execs want day and date because it improves cash flow and they think it reduces marketing costs. They think it will up the stock price, which ups their bonus. But it will kill their businesses in the long run. They don't care because no movie exec expects to have their job for very long. But their Boards should be recognizing that this will really hurt them in the long run. And if the theaters permit this (and they could stop it easily by first not showing any film that has a short or no window and later by not showing any film from a studio that has any film that does this) they're completely nuts, although many are doing so badly, they might not care.
Think media businesses can't be killed? The U.S. record business (including downloading and streaming) is now less than one third its former peak size, adjusted for inflation. And in spite of the hype of streaming and vinyl, it's still declining.
In the first quarter of 2016, AMC had a record quarter. How did they do? The net earnings per location per day was $808 (up from $176 in Q1 2015). They only sold an average of 105 tickets per screen per day (up from 91 Q1 2015). That seems disastrous to me. No wonder they're putting lounge seating in so many theaters. No one is showing up anyway.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2017, 04:28 AM:
Martin, do you also disable that hideous 120Hz mode? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-16-2017, 06:24 AM:
Martin's experience with building mates is typical. All kinds of stories from friends that go into their neighbors house and find them watching SD on HDTVs. There are a lot of restaurants that have SD stretch-o-vision running on HDTVs.
The vast majority of people don't know and/or care about image quality as long as it looks better than Super Mario Bros. on a Super Nintendo.
4k at home is stupid because at the size and viewing distance of 99% of TVs, a human can't see the difference. Any perceived quality improvement with 4k material is due to less "effective" compression. Essentially, if 2k was produced at the same data rate with the same compression scheme as 4k, the 2k would look just as good in 99% of situations.
And HDR is really pointless for the general public. An uprezzed DVD looks more than fine for at least 70% of people. Brad pointed out the 120Hz mode. Almost every home I walk into is watching that crap. I normally grab the remote and turn it off. I don't know how anybody thinks that looks good. It makes everything from movies to The Weather Channel unwatchable.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-16-2017, 09:49 AM:
quote: Martin Brooks
The fact is that the masses don't give a crap about quality.
I think the real fact is most people are seriously illiterate when it comes to working with digital technology. Some HDTV sets can be a bit of chore to set up properly due to poorly designed menu screens. But most users don't even bother digging into those menus in the first place. They don't understand any of the technical aspects of digital imagery. Terms like "native resolution" or "aspect ratio" go right over their heads. Just look at all the vertical video we see from mobile phones posted onto YouTube or social media. That's a clear sign of the widespread technological illiteracy present in our society.
quote: Lyle Romer
4k at home is stupid because at the size and viewing distance of 99% of TVs, a human can't see the difference.
I disagree. When you actually see properly photographed material played in native 4K resolution the difference is pretty noticeable. I think the difference is comparable to the resolution bump you see with a movie filmed in 5/65mm and presented on 70mm film versus that of a 35mm presentation.
Sure, if the TV screen is too small and/or the viewing distance is too far then it will be tough to tell the difference between 2K and 4K. I've heard these same arguments a long time ago regarding 1080p and 720p.
The main failing of 4K is lack of truly native 4K content. Most of the titles on the new Ultra HD Blu-ray format are mere blow-ups from 2K material. Lowering compression levels or sprinkling in some "HDR" doesn't make the content "4K." It's still just 2K material.
I'm struggling to see the point of adding HDR, other than it just being another sales bullet point to convince someone to upgrade to a new TV set. When you look at how movies and TV shows are color graded, often with color levels seriously desaturated, degraded and dirtied up with some harsh looking "style" it runs counter to expanding the gamut range of a TV monitor. These days HDR seems to be mostly about adding more shades of gray.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-17-2017, 08:27 PM:
To chime in -- I've changed quite a bit in what I watch and where I watch it. I saw hundreds of movies in theatres from summer 1997 to spring 2006 and loved the large high resolution image that I could not get at home. My first HDTV in 2002 was one of those 57 inch rear projection sets that operated at 1080i and is now considered to be large and clunky (I had to give it away to get rid of it!). In spring 2010 I got a 55 inch Samsung 8000 flat panel and it, within a month, totally changed how I used the TV and how I watched things. I no longer wanted to mess with discs and just wanted to make everything into a file to be placed on the computer hooked to the screen so I could just click a file to play without dealing with inserting and removing discs, waiting for annoying menus, etc., especially for TV show episodes and music videos. After my movie watching slowdown of 2006, the main thing I collected on DVD were TV shows of interest and many music video compilations. As for Blu-Ray, I never invested in it as I did DVD because I did not want to suddenly have the urge to buy all my best-loved movies yet again on another type of media, especially since in 2006, my brain was becoming a bit "untuned" to watching movies. I have only bought 3 Blu-Ray discs that have never been played (Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, and Velvet Goldmine). I bought a Blu-Ray drive for a computer back in 2012 and I've never even bothered to put it in a machine yet. That's how high it is on my priority list. Most of the stuff I watch at home on my TV and computer screens are music videos (I have a random player script that will play them randomly, which is great for background since the collection is large) and TV shows that I liked as a kid and young adult: The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, tons of classic cartoons, Monty Python's Flying Circus, and some others. The TV doesn't get used that much and I'd say it spends 80 or 90 percent of the time playing music videos from the 80s and 90s which aren't even HD (they are all converted to 480p or 576p25 as appropriate).
As for people being ignorant about technical things, I think it's even worse than it was in the 1990s when I saw stretched video everywhere on widescreen sets. More often now, I see vertically squished video (16 by 9 squished to approximately scope ratio with black at the top and bottom with everything looking fat). Why? I see this in restaurants and bars everywhere. How do you even do this and why don't they notice it and fix it?
I hate the default settings on TVs. I calibrated the inputs on my set that I used and a couple of months ago, used the 4th HDMI input that I'd never used before, and was watching a Three Stooges episode and something just seemed very off about it. A zoom in or out was unbelievably smooth but it hesitated along the way. The epidode was inverse 2:3 detelecined to 24 fps for encoding into H.264. I checked the menu and sure enough, everything was set to default and I had to quickly adjust everything to be like the other inputs. That smooth zooming and panning gets my attention in a very bad way (the 120 Hz mode that Brad mentioned earlier). I never want any of that crap turned on, but all of the fake smoothness and flesh tone correction and crap is on by default.
I really have no idea how movie resolution and appearance in the theatres compare to home because I've only seen 3 digital presentations that I'm aware of: Borat, Penelope, and Tron Legacy (3D). With Penelope, I could see the pixels if I tried because the screen was large and I was about 1 height away. With the other movies I was farther back. On my home set (1080), I cannot see the pixels unless I get really close. The grading scheme I had for theatres on my web site is pretty much irrelevant for digital and I never plan to evaluate theatres again that way.
YouTube is another competing source of videos. Hours can be spent watching videos on so many different topics. They tend to be short, which matches the attention spans of most people nowadays. There is something to be said for that, and I believe many people these days just don't want to commit to watching a 90 minute to 2 hour movie in the days of availability of tons of 1 to 15 minute videos to watch. It's a different world and the younger generation seems to have little time to commit to anything that takes a long time to watch.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-18-2017, 05:37 PM:
quote: Evans A Criswell
As for people being ignorant about technical things, I think it's even worse than it was in the 1990s when I saw stretched video everywhere on widescreen sets. More often now, I see vertically squished video (16 by 9 squished to approximately scope ratio with black at the top and bottom with everything looking fat). Why? I see this in restaurants and bars everywhere. How do you even do this and why don't they notice it and fix it?
That would be one of the worst examples of "Stretch-O-Vision." I agree it is pretty common. The ingredients: the chosen TV signal is 4:3 SDTV, but it down-sampled from a 16:9 HD source. The TV station chooses to letterbox the down-sampled result. Shown normally this image would be window-boxed, a 4:3 letter-boxed image bracketed by black pillars. But the end user just applies whatever stretch setting is available, and voila! You have what sort of looks like a 'scope ratio image, but one that is stupid looking stretched and very soft. It pains me to see people accepting that kind of crap as "normal" for TV viewing.
I personally think we're at the point where SD TV signals just need to be eliminated. There's no need for them anymore. They're a complete waste of bandwidth.
I also hate the default settings on HDTV sets. They usually have all the 120Hz motion-flow crap turned on at full blast. The color, contrast and brightness settings are often set at "torch" mode. I've had to fart around with settings on all the inputs for every HDTV set I've owned. Here's an idea. Since these devices are intended to be sort of disposable (investors want us buying a new one every couple or so years) maybe we could create a user profile in "the cloud" storing the settings we prefer and instantly apply them to a new "smart" TV set. It would be similar to signing into one's Google account.
Smart phones have really dumbed down the public in how video is treated. Most people just suck at it. They shoot vertical video and then don't understand why it won't fill their computer screens or TV screens. And then they have the audacity to blame the problem on the phone manufacturer when the problem is 100% their own damned fault! YouTube isn't helping this. I think social media apps are making matters worse. I've never tried using the Facebook Live feature, but I was told you can't shoot horizontal video with it. That just makes the feature a piece of shit.
quote: Evans A Criswell
I really have no idea how movie resolution and appearance in the theatres compare to home because I've only seen 3 digital presentations that I'm aware of: Borat, Penelope, and Tron Legacy (3D). With Penelope, I could see the pixels if I tried because the screen was large and I was about 1 height away. With the other movies I was farther back. On my home set (1080), I cannot see the pixels unless I get really close. The grading scheme I had for theatres on my web site is pretty much irrelevant for digital and I never plan to evaluate theatres again that way.
My frequent complaint is way too many theaters have SOFT focus. The specs for d-cinema may be superior to Blu-ray disc. But if the picture is knocked a little out of focus it kills the extra color depth and contrast. When I watch a movie via Blu-ray disc on my 65" TV set it usually looks great. I can see lots of fine, very sharp detail. 4K is even better, provided you can actually get some real 4K material to play.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-18-2017, 05:59 PM:
I have never in 40-odd years bought a computer monitor that didn't come with its brightness set to "boil". Any time I replace my monitor I end up spending a week cranking settings up and down until I eventually get it perfect. But I don't think most people would put in that kind of time. They must need sunglasses to read their screens.
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-18-2017, 06:00 PM:
Physical media is off to a really bad start this year: DVD is down 21.14% in revenue (in the U.S.) and Blu-ray is down 27.39% in revenue and 19.25% in units as compared to last year.
I don't have streaming and downloading numbers so I can't tell whether this is a big shift from physical to virtual or whether people are starting not to give a crap about movies in general and are watching YouTube videos and web-only TV shows instead. I know that I sometimes have trouble finding a film to see theatrically because there's so much crap playing.
IMO, the ubiquity of movie content is destroying its perceived value. But I have to admit that my own Blu-ray purchases have declined substantially as well because if I don't think I'm going to watch a movie more than twice, I won't buy it on Blu unless it's a bargain basement price and sometimes not even then because I am out of room.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-18-2017, 07:46 PM:
quote: Evans A. Criswell
To chime in --
Please tell me you still look the same and wear that same shirt. And if you don't, please never change your avatar.
The loss of physical media makes me sad. If I don't pay an internet bill, I can't watch stuff. I like owning stuff that I can watch without connecting to the internet. UHD Blu-ray or whatever they're calling it is a horribly realized format. Like Bobby says most of it's just upscaled 2K. It's also horribly marketed. Nobody knows about it. I'm sure it's probably too expensive as well. As I type this Jen is in the room on the other side of the house watching The Accountant starring Ben Affleck that she rented from Redbox and the subwoofers are shaking things. Sounds like being an accountant is full of action and adventure. I have no interest in the movie because accountants are boring and Ben Affleck even more so.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2