10 ms·

Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than

Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or something like that. What do you think? At some point I assume they will also become the channel that VR content could be sent through as well, maybe in partnership with Facebook?

macspoofing 11y ago
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.
- shortstuffsushi 11y ago
  Unless they move to a model where you have to PPV for new / premium content like box office movies.
  - jsmeaton 11y ago
    That's the model that I think would actually be acceptable to all parties in the short to medium turn. I'd be happy to fork over $5-$10 ppv for a cinema release over the $23 I'd pay at the cinema. I'd still go to the cinema for bigger movies that I wanted to watch for the experience/sound/screen.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Here's an idea your comment made me think of: I wonder when are we going to see DLCs for movies? Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.
    - unwiredben 11y ago
      They've been doing this for years with deluxe editions on DVD and Blu-ray, providing things like deleted scenes, extended versions, and commentary tracks. You can pay one fee (or get a rental) for a bare-bones experience or pay more for a better one.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      That's called "The Unrated Director's Cut".
    - danielki 11y ago
      I could see it being more like the DVD/BluRay Extras model - $5 for a pack of commentary tracks, $2 for deleted scenes, another $2-4 for the behind-the-scenes featurette, etc. It would be similar to the more successful DLC implementations, where a handful of enthusiastic users would make up a significant amount of the revenue. It would be interesting to see how this would/could be applied to both rentals and purchases - rent the bonus features for $0.50-2 each, purchase them for $2-5 each or something like that.
    - 72deluxe 11y ago
      I sincerely hope not. If you bought a book but were told you could get an extra chapter of storyline added in for extra money, you'd wonder "Does it contribute to the story in any way?" Ultimately, no. Or "will the story make sense if I do not buy this extra chapter?". Hopefully yes; hopefully the story makes sense without this extra chapter. I wouldn't want to watch a film with extra fluff that added nothing to the story, just for a cash-grab by the maker of the film. Extra add-on features are always pointless: look at the Dreamcast and the add-on packs you could put into the controller. As it was entirely optional, none of the games could depend on it being there so had to cater for controllers without it, so this little LCD on your controller just ended up showing Rayman walking or dancing, and contributed nothing to the game. The same is happening with Macbooks and iPhones, where developers cannot rely on the user having a "force touch" touchpad or iPhone 6nnnn (whatever it is), so cannot rely on that hardware feature being available; because of this, they cannot say "feature X is done by using force touch" because if you have a Macbook without that hardware, you can't use that feature. So it must get ignored to cater to everyone. In the case of stories and films, the story must still make sense without the extra scenes. This makes the extra scenes pointless.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Force Awakens is probably not a great example though. Maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, while traditional big-budget blockbusters scramble to find an alternative release method? Also: > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great. From what I hear, that's not true, but it's all hidden through magical "Hollywood accounting" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)
  - smackfu 11y ago
    It's already started happening. Netflix has been at the film festivals buying up movies, especially documentaries.
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    >maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?
    - lmm 11y ago
      > Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run? If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. But if Netflix can deliver high enough production values (coupled with higher quality home equipment) then it may put theatres out of business. Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.
      - macspoofing 11y ago
        >If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. I think that's what it comes down to. >Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did. But that's been a trend for a long time. There is some evidence that high-quality AV equipment with digital content did impact ticket sales. But I don't know if it's going to kill it. The one thing that cinema has going for it is it's a destination when you want to get out of the house. And we do have a good thing going. If you want to see a new release RIGHT NOW, you pay $15/person/view. If you don't, you wait a few months to rent it for $5 or wait a little longer and watch it for 'free' on Netflix or TV. That's eco101 price discrimination.
- brandon272 11y ago
  $10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive content. I pay $130/mo. for a cable package that provides almost no content that I enjoy and includes a DVR that frequently craps out when recording the few shows that I do watch. I'd rather pay Netflix an extra $30/mo. (or more, depending on what they can offer) for that premium content and ditch my cable package altogether.
  - pcurve 11y ago
    Shhh..... remember my cable bill used to be 40 bucks 22 years ago. That includes hbo.
    - brandon272 11y ago
      Mine includes 8Mbps internet access. I'd love to "cut the cord" but I don't want to give up regional sports and live network news.
      - CodeCube 11y ago
        > regional sports and live network news Precisely the things I don't watch :P
    - geodel 11y ago
      I think it would be interesting to see rise of actors' fees over that period of time. Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors.
      - petke 11y ago
        Most of the cost of blockbusters is marketing. > Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million (probably towards the lower end of that scale). Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much and that releasing cinema to streaming services will correctly adjust the price of new release films. For context I watched the force awakens last night at iMax (premium recliner chairs which was nice!) for $43. But you can't see a movie in Australia for less than about $23 these days. We're directly funding hollywood's lifestyle.
  - munificent 11y ago
    > Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.
    - jmathai 11y ago
      There are 2 sides to the transaction and it comes down to margins. If the margins don't exist to pay Harrison Ford $40M then either he takes less $ or another actor is found.
      - ponyous 11y ago
        Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?
        knicholes 11y ago
        We end up with YouTube?
        corin_ 11y ago
        If the industry shifts to paying its top stars smaller but still large sums of money then maybe Harrison Ford won't accept that, but the best actors in the next generation who weren't used to getting paid todays rates will.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
  Someone has already mentioned Hollywood Accounting. Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema. And I don't watch big budget movies all the time. I can see them getting customers to keep paying the monthly subscription for the cheaper to make content and then they have enough money left over to film a few huge movies every year. Especially if they use relatively unknown talent that won't get paid tens of millions a film.
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    >Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema. Which means you're spending $180 on movies per year. $120 for a legacy catalogue of hundreds of movies, and $60 for six new releases. So why would they give up that extra $60?
    - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
      Well, you originally questioned how they would recoup the cost of making a big movie. And I replied thinking it was entirely possible. As for your next question, maybe making their own movies does not exclude theatrical releases and getting another $60 from me. I think their bigger concern is not having to deal with expiring streaming rights and regional distribution rights. They want their own library of quality content.
- briandear 11y ago
  The margins in Hollywood are actually really great. It's the accounting that makes them seem like a break even business. Less 'profit' means fewer points that have to be paid out from net. A $200 million film that grosses a billion worldwide.. Those margins aren't bad.
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    Margins on the Force Awakens aren't bad. Margins on Waterworld, probably not nice. On average? Haven't looked it up by I'm thinking they are OK but nothing to get really excited by.
- gordon_freeman 11y ago
  Don't you think that the humongous scale of Netflix customers combined with the ease of access will compensate for that? For ex: (10 million movie-goers * $10 tkt price =$100 m rev) (100 million Netflix users * $1(considering that Force Awakens title in Netflix library is being accessed by 1/10th of total library and N'flix is paying Star Wars accordingly) =$100 m)
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    I don't understand your example. Force Awakens grossed over a billion. In a few months it'll get a DVD run and make more money and then it'll end up on Netflix (maybe) and make more money there. ... So why would the studios ever bypass the cinema money for streaming when they can have both?
    - gordon_freeman 11y ago
      because you are analyzing the situation at this moment and my prediction is 5-10 years in the future when -- -- there will be 100-200 m Netflix subscribers who can access all the content anywhere in the world -- there won't be any physical media drive in existence in which you can slot your DVD. -- economies of scale for Netflix with dirt cheap internet will force people to consume content cheaply and easily. -- there will be so much advancement in Televisions and Home theater systems that it would make cinema screen inferior. Won't these reasons be good enough?
      - aianus 11y ago
        I don't know about you but I go to the cinema almost exclusively for the amazing popcorn. Otherwise, I'd rather watch movies at home.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  Maybe the calculus works if they make movies with indie budgets? It could work and we can get to know some very good non-famous actors. Also, they could unveil some kind of 'Netflix Theater' service where, if you pay a one-time fee, you get to watch the movie the minute it's online or alternatively you could just wait a month and it will be made available to every netflix user. That one could prompt some internet fury though...
- dynsrv 11y ago
  Agree, It could disrupt Cinema too. When you have a baby and you couldn't go to cinema for years. Netflix should be an alternative for family. It did happen to me when my daughter was born, I couldn't go to cinema but still wants to see new movies.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great Avatar production cost: $237,000,000 USD Avatar global revenue : $2,787,965,087 USD 91% of Avatar's total revenue was pure profit... practically unheard of in most industries. Sure, Avatar is a unicorn, and sure studios often produce strike-out movies... but the occasional home-run more than makes up for them. > How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? Perhaps the $200 million production cost is unreasonable. We've all seen how many people and companies are involved in producing a single movie. The actor assistants have assistants that have assistants who have paid interns. One company will do a single character model while another goes a different character. There's so much waste in the movie industry... it's ripe for the typical "SV" disruption (come in cheaper, and same or similar quality, and make it more easily accessible to the masses).
- massysett 11y ago
  This is exactly why Netflix gave up on movies and now emphasizes its TV reruns and originals. The streaming movie catalog has always been sparse.
burkaman 11y ago
They have released two films so far (with mixed results), and they're working on quite a few more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix#Films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix#Specials.2C_films.2C_miniseries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...
xg15 11y ago
If "disrupting cinema" in this context means abandoning cinema altogether and switching the big screen with a regular HD TV, then I as a consumer hope this future won't happen. "Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.
- rhaps0dy 11y ago
  What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell? You do not really talk to the rest of the audience other than those you went to the cinema with, and that can perfectly be replicated at home. The surround sound is indeed better, but that can be replicated with headphones or, if you're dedicated, with speakers around the room.
  - orbitur 11y ago
    So you have a 40+ foot screen in your living room with blacked out windows, 7.1 surround sound to match?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell? A 10+ meter screen plus great sound. A chance to get out of the fucking couch/house. Getting to see a movie along with lots of other people (the mere fact of sharing the experience with a whole audience is important to a lot of people and a frequently written about part of the cinema experience, even though some people --introverts, touchy etc-- can't stand others next to them).
  - Radim 11y ago
    Not the OP, but my guess is "nostalgia". I'm sure there were people who insisted on using horse driven carriages, long after automobiles took over. "It's just the proper, cultured thing to do. And you can tip your hat to other passing carriages! The shared feeling!" Although note that sentimental items can have a value of their own. Cinemas could perhaps even increase the ticket price dramatically in that world, making it a "luxury item" on purpose. "Tell her the depth of your feelings with a real cinema ticket". Remember diamonds?
agumonkey 11y ago
Abrams 'mystery box' will probably keep Cinemas alive for a while. Even with an unlimited access card I'm still not jaded enough to watch movies home. It's not the same experience (a crowd, the room, the size of things, the room).
thirdsun 11y ago
Oh yes, please. The current state of cinema for me means that I have to put the name of a film on a list and check back in a year or two to see if it's actually available to me by then. Particularly for more obscure releases or documentations: When I see a movie website and the screening section shows ca. 5 cinemas in New York and L.A. I have to wonder who the hell are you trying to reach? Just offer a digital download for a fair price and let me watch the movie.
prostoalex 11y ago
Why would they be in better position to disrupt cinema as compared to iTunes, Google Play or YouTube? All of those players have worldwide name recognition and require no immediate upfront membership. "The Interview" went online directly, and from what I recall the box office results were kinda meh. Of course, we have no access to a parallel Universe where it would've been released through traditional channels, so it could had been a relative success fwiw.

macspoofing 11y ago

>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.

shortstuffsushi 11y ago
Unless they move to a model where you have to PPV for new / premium content like box office movies.
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  That's the model that I think would actually be acceptable to all parties in the short to medium turn. I'd be happy to fork over $5-$10 ppv for a cinema release over the $23 I'd pay at the cinema. I'd still go to the cinema for bigger movies that I wanted to watch for the experience/sound/screen.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Here's an idea your comment made me think of: I wonder when are we going to see DLCs for movies? Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.
  - unwiredben 11y ago
    They've been doing this for years with deluxe editions on DVD and Blu-ray, providing things like deleted scenes, extended versions, and commentary tracks. You can pay one fee (or get a rental) for a bare-bones experience or pay more for a better one.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    That's called "The Unrated Director's Cut".
  - danielki 11y ago
    I could see it being more like the DVD/BluRay Extras model - $5 for a pack of commentary tracks, $2 for deleted scenes, another $2-4 for the behind-the-scenes featurette, etc. It would be similar to the more successful DLC implementations, where a handful of enthusiastic users would make up a significant amount of the revenue. It would be interesting to see how this would/could be applied to both rentals and purchases - rent the bonus features for $0.50-2 each, purchase them for $2-5 each or something like that.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    I sincerely hope not. If you bought a book but were told you could get an extra chapter of storyline added in for extra money, you'd wonder "Does it contribute to the story in any way?" Ultimately, no. Or "will the story make sense if I do not buy this extra chapter?". Hopefully yes; hopefully the story makes sense without this extra chapter. I wouldn't want to watch a film with extra fluff that added nothing to the story, just for a cash-grab by the maker of the film. Extra add-on features are always pointless: look at the Dreamcast and the add-on packs you could put into the controller. As it was entirely optional, none of the games could depend on it being there so had to cater for controllers without it, so this little LCD on your controller just ended up showing Rayman walking or dancing, and contributed nothing to the game. The same is happening with Macbooks and iPhones, where developers cannot rely on the user having a "force touch" touchpad or iPhone 6nnnn (whatever it is), so cannot rely on that hardware feature being available; because of this, they cannot say "feature X is done by using force touch" because if you have a Macbook without that hardware, you can't use that feature. So it must get ignored to cater to everyone. In the case of stories and films, the story must still make sense without the extra scenes. This makes the extra scenes pointless.
CaptSpify 11y ago
Force Awakens is probably not a great example though. Maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, while traditional big-budget blockbusters scramble to find an alternative release method? Also: > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great. From what I hear, that's not true, but it's all hidden through magical "Hollywood accounting" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)
- smackfu 11y ago
  It's already started happening. Netflix has been at the film festivals buying up movies, especially documentaries.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?
  - lmm 11y ago
    > Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run? If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. But if Netflix can deliver high enough production values (coupled with higher quality home equipment) then it may put theatres out of business. Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.
    - macspoofing 11y ago
      >If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. I think that's what it comes down to. >Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did. But that's been a trend for a long time. There is some evidence that high-quality AV equipment with digital content did impact ticket sales. But I don't know if it's going to kill it. The one thing that cinema has going for it is it's a destination when you want to get out of the house. And we do have a good thing going. If you want to see a new release RIGHT NOW, you pay $15/person/view. If you don't, you wait a few months to rent it for $5 or wait a little longer and watch it for 'free' on Netflix or TV. That's eco101 price discrimination.
brandon272 11y ago
$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive content. I pay $130/mo. for a cable package that provides almost no content that I enjoy and includes a DVR that frequently craps out when recording the few shows that I do watch. I'd rather pay Netflix an extra $30/mo. (or more, depending on what they can offer) for that premium content and ditch my cable package altogether.
- pcurve 11y ago
  Shhh..... remember my cable bill used to be 40 bucks 22 years ago. That includes hbo.
  - brandon272 11y ago
    Mine includes 8Mbps internet access. I'd love to "cut the cord" but I don't want to give up regional sports and live network news.
    - CodeCube 11y ago
      > regional sports and live network news Precisely the things I don't watch :P
  - geodel 11y ago
    I think it would be interesting to see rise of actors' fees over that period of time. Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors.
    - petke 11y ago
      Most of the cost of blockbusters is marketing. > Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...
jsmeaton 11y ago
Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million (probably towards the lower end of that scale). Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much and that releasing cinema to streaming services will correctly adjust the price of new release films. For context I watched the force awakens last night at iMax (premium recliner chairs which was nice!) for $43. But you can't see a movie in Australia for less than about $23 these days. We're directly funding hollywood's lifestyle.
- munificent 11y ago
  > Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.
  - jmathai 11y ago
    There are 2 sides to the transaction and it comes down to margins. If the margins don't exist to pay Harrison Ford $40M then either he takes less $ or another actor is found.
    - ponyous 11y ago
      Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?
      - knicholes 11y ago
        We end up with YouTube?
      - corin_ 11y ago
        If the industry shifts to paying its top stars smaller but still large sums of money then maybe Harrison Ford won't accept that, but the best actors in the next generation who weren't used to getting paid todays rates will.
2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
Someone has already mentioned Hollywood Accounting. Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema. And I don't watch big budget movies all the time. I can see them getting customers to keep paying the monthly subscription for the cheaper to make content and then they have enough money left over to film a few huge movies every year. Especially if they use relatively unknown talent that won't get paid tens of millions a film.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema. Which means you're spending $180 on movies per year. $120 for a legacy catalogue of hundreds of movies, and $60 for six new releases. So why would they give up that extra $60?
  - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
    Well, you originally questioned how they would recoup the cost of making a big movie. And I replied thinking it was entirely possible. As for your next question, maybe making their own movies does not exclude theatrical releases and getting another $60 from me. I think their bigger concern is not having to deal with expiring streaming rights and regional distribution rights. They want their own library of quality content.
briandear 11y ago
The margins in Hollywood are actually really great. It's the accounting that makes them seem like a break even business. Less 'profit' means fewer points that have to be paid out from net. A $200 million film that grosses a billion worldwide.. Those margins aren't bad.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  Margins on the Force Awakens aren't bad. Margins on Waterworld, probably not nice. On average? Haven't looked it up by I'm thinking they are OK but nothing to get really excited by.
gordon_freeman 11y ago
Don't you think that the humongous scale of Netflix customers combined with the ease of access will compensate for that? For ex: (10 million movie-goers * $10 tkt price =$100 m rev) (100 million Netflix users * $1(considering that Force Awakens title in Netflix library is being accessed by 1/10th of total library and N'flix is paying Star Wars accordingly) =$100 m)
- macspoofing 11y ago
  I don't understand your example. Force Awakens grossed over a billion. In a few months it'll get a DVD run and make more money and then it'll end up on Netflix (maybe) and make more money there. ... So why would the studios ever bypass the cinema money for streaming when they can have both?
  - gordon_freeman 11y ago
    because you are analyzing the situation at this moment and my prediction is 5-10 years in the future when -- -- there will be 100-200 m Netflix subscribers who can access all the content anywhere in the world -- there won't be any physical media drive in existence in which you can slot your DVD. -- economies of scale for Netflix with dirt cheap internet will force people to consume content cheaply and easily. -- there will be so much advancement in Televisions and Home theater systems that it would make cinema screen inferior. Won't these reasons be good enough?
    - aianus 11y ago
      I don't know about you but I go to the cinema almost exclusively for the amazing popcorn. Otherwise, I'd rather watch movies at home.
rpgmaker 11y ago
Maybe the calculus works if they make movies with indie budgets? It could work and we can get to know some very good non-famous actors. Also, they could unveil some kind of 'Netflix Theater' service where, if you pay a one-time fee, you get to watch the movie the minute it's online or alternatively you could just wait a month and it will be made available to every netflix user. That one could prompt some internet fury though...
dynsrv 11y ago
Agree, It could disrupt Cinema too. When you have a baby and you couldn't go to cinema for years. Netflix should be an alternative for family. It did happen to me when my daughter was born, I couldn't go to cinema but still wants to see new movies.
Alupis 11y ago
> Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great Avatar production cost: $237,000,000 USD Avatar global revenue : $2,787,965,087 USD 91% of Avatar's total revenue was pure profit... practically unheard of in most industries. Sure, Avatar is a unicorn, and sure studios often produce strike-out movies... but the occasional home-run more than makes up for them. > How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? Perhaps the $200 million production cost is unreasonable. We've all seen how many people and companies are involved in producing a single movie. The actor assistants have assistants that have assistants who have paid interns. One company will do a single character model while another goes a different character. There's so much waste in the movie industry... it's ripe for the typical "SV" disruption (come in cheaper, and same or similar quality, and make it more easily accessible to the masses).
massysett 11y ago
This is exactly why Netflix gave up on movies and now emphasizes its TV reruns and originals. The streaming movie catalog has always been sparse.

burkaman 11y ago

They have released two films so far (with mixed results), and they're working on quite a few more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix#Films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix#Specials.2C_films.2C_miniseries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...

xg15 11y ago

If "disrupting cinema" in this context means abandoning cinema altogether and switching the big screen with a regular HD TV, then I as a consumer hope this future won't happen. "Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.

rhaps0dy 11y ago
What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell? You do not really talk to the rest of the audience other than those you went to the cinema with, and that can perfectly be replicated at home. The surround sound is indeed better, but that can be replicated with headphones or, if you're dedicated, with speakers around the room.
- orbitur 11y ago
  So you have a 40+ foot screen in your living room with blacked out windows, 7.1 surround sound to match?
- coldtea 11y ago
  >What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell? A 10+ meter screen plus great sound. A chance to get out of the fucking couch/house. Getting to see a movie along with lots of other people (the mere fact of sharing the experience with a whole audience is important to a lot of people and a frequently written about part of the cinema experience, even though some people --introverts, touchy etc-- can't stand others next to them).
- Radim 11y ago
  Not the OP, but my guess is "nostalgia". I'm sure there were people who insisted on using horse driven carriages, long after automobiles took over. "It's just the proper, cultured thing to do. And you can tip your hat to other passing carriages! The shared feeling!" Although note that sentimental items can have a value of their own. Cinemas could perhaps even increase the ticket price dramatically in that world, making it a "luxury item" on purpose. "Tell her the depth of your feelings with a real cinema ticket". Remember diamonds?

agumonkey 11y ago

Abrams 'mystery box' will probably keep Cinemas alive for a while. Even with an unlimited access card I'm still not jaded enough to watch movies home. It's not the same experience (a crowd, the room, the size of things, the room).

thirdsun 11y ago

Oh yes, please. The current state of cinema for me means that I have to put the name of a film on a list and check back in a year or two to see if it's actually available to me by then. Particularly for more obscure releases or documentations: When I see a movie website and the screening section shows ca. 5 cinemas in New York and L.A. I have to wonder who the hell are you trying to reach? Just offer a digital download for a fair price and let me watch the movie.

prostoalex 11y ago

Why would they be in better position to disrupt cinema as compared to iTunes, Google Play or YouTube? All of those players have worldwide name recognition and require no immediate upfront membership. "The Interview" went online directly, and from what I recall the box office results were kinda meh. Of course, we have no access to a parallel Universe where it would've been released through traditional channels, so it could had been a relative success fwiw.