7 ms·

I don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar companies started. First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to

by chomp 9y ago

I don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar companies started. First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them. They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to. The only way to legally watch these movies like Okja is to subscribe to these companies. If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. I completely side with Cannes on this fact. You can't celebrate film by promoting the distributor (and in this case, their subscription model). Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business. If Netflix and Amazon want to start their own awards, then they can go ahead and do it. I'll make sure to stay away from it.

doorbumper 9y ago
You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.
- chomp 9y ago
  It is an advantage because it's independent of the producer. They don't have a lockdown on the content. You can only watch a Netflix movie, on Netflix. You can't watch it on Amazon, nor Google Play. Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing.
  - jonreem 9y ago
    And paying more to see the movie just once in a controlled theater that isn't your own is so much better? You still have absolutely no control over the media and you are paying more money to more middlemen.
    - chomp 9y ago
      The experience might not be always better. An 8K (~IMAX, usually 4k though) screen and Dolby Atmos beat out what I have in my house that's for sure, but I concede that's usually overridden by noisy neighbors. But, I can chose any theater. The large players like AMC, Edwards, or even some smaller cinemas like iPic, or even Alamo drafthouse. And you know what? When it leaves that theater, it's available on DVD or Bluray. It's available sometimes on iTunes, Netflix, or Amazon. I (usually, if it's popular enough) don't have to pick and choose what distribution channel I need to subscribe to so that I can actually watch the darn thing. If it's in theater, I can at least usually get it on DVD. None of that applies with anything Amazon or Netflix create. (EDIT: crysin informed me that yes, Netflix has released a couple TV shows on Bluray; I didn't know that! Thanks!) It's locked down to only their platforms. I can't get the DVD to watch independent of their platforms. If they pull the content one day, it's gone, forever. If they want to one day charge an extra surcharge to watch these movies, I'll be forced to pay. If one day Netflix decides to sell the distribution rights for Okja to Amazon, well now I have to leave Netflix to go watch it. No one benefits from these walled distribution platforms, except Amazon and Netflix. The consumer gets screwed, and judging by a lot of the comments on this site, not many people seem to mind, probably because they're already subscribed to both.
      - crysin 9y ago
        Netflix does release their popular original series on Blu-ray. I don't know if any of their movies have had that luxury yet, but they are starting to release them independent of their streaming service. As an example Daredevil and Stranger Things are both available on Blu-ray.
  - jasonpeacock 9y ago
    Have you noticed that some movies are only available at AMC theaters, or Cinemark, or Cineworld theaters? Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new. True independent theaters play smaller, independent/art-house movies because they aren't allowed to play big-production movies without signing up for exclusive access. Licensing and distribution is a big mess that keeps control and profits in the studio. It's also why you rarely see international movies outside their country of origin. The sooner the industry dies and gets rebuilt, the better.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ernesth 9y ago
      > Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new. Not in France. A seller (here distributor) has no right to choose its clients (here theater).
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing Is there some significant difference between me paying $9.99 for a month of Netflix to watch a movie versus me paying $11.50 to an independent movie house for a single viewing? Is that single viewing at a movie house somehow more open than a month of streaming?
amarkov 9y ago
It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also streaming the movies for subscribers.
- guelo 9y ago
  That's right, France actually has a law that after a movie is shown in a theatre it can't be streamed for 36 months.
  - robotpony 9y ago
    This is the crux of the issue: that cinema hasn't caught up with streaming services. There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie, i.e., they could show movies and stream simultaneously, maximizing consumer choice (rather than maximizing cinema profits).
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      > There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie Wait, what, really? > maximizing cinema profits Ah, no, there it is. This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.
      - robotpony 9y ago
        I should have said that there is no technical reason for delaying a streaming release, nor does it really affect the quality of the watching experience (assuming people have good streaming setups).
dorfsmay 9y ago
Cinemas will die anyway. I'm personally shocked they still exist. I rent movies from google and Amazon an watch series on Netflix. Used to rent DVDs before that. Cinema made sense in the early 20th century, but not today.
- shanghaiaway 9y ago
  Cinemas will be fine. I don't want to go to your house to watch movies.
  - johnmaguire2013 9y ago
    Why do you want to leave your house to watch movies?
    - guelo 9y ago
      Because I'm not a hermit. I like to meet up with friends, have a shared experience, go to dinner and talk about it.
      - dorfsmay 9y ago
        I do that, discovered lots of good movie that way, and discussed different perspectives etc... Why would you need a cinema or watch a movie together? Do you only discuss books you have read with and at the same time as your friends?
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        You sound like an antihermitite. Are you an antihermitite? Do you have some kind of a problem with me watching a movie at home in my mountaintop retreat, next to my bearfriend, who is watching a completely different movie on another screen? Does it disgust you that we enjoy each other's company without ever having a single conversation? If I wanted to go to dinner and talk, I'd hang out at roadkill point with the crows, and make fun of the redtailed hawk behind her back.~ I remember back when going to the movies at a cinema was a great way to date someone without letting them know exactly where you lived--in case they turned out to be both wrong for you and obsessive--and without revealing immediately that you can't hold up your end of an unprompted, free-form conversation for four whole hours. It's a lot better value when you don't have to pay for your kids' tickets and meals, too.
goostavos 9y ago
> Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas A noble quest! Cinemas are just about the worst possible way to consume a movie (in my humble opinion!).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- telchar 9y ago
  Worse than having it forced on you from fifty small poorly calibrated TV's in the seat-backs of fellow airplane passengers who are too lazy, ignorant or oblivious to turn them off while you're trying to sleep on the first of two red-eye flights before your layover in O'Hare International Airport before work the next day?
pwinnski 9y ago
> They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to. Unless they show their movie in at least six French cinemas, preferably more, and also not make it available for streaming for at least three years after that.
ap3 9y ago
>If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. Why must you be able to see the movie in an independent theatre? Instead of paying the $10 ticket isn’t it the same to pay the $10 monthly subscription?

by chomp 9y ago

doorbumper 9y ago

You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.

chomp 9y ago
It is an advantage because it's independent of the producer. They don't have a lockdown on the content. You can only watch a Netflix movie, on Netflix. You can't watch it on Amazon, nor Google Play. Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing.
- jonreem 9y ago
  And paying more to see the movie just once in a controlled theater that isn't your own is so much better? You still have absolutely no control over the media and you are paying more money to more middlemen.
  - chomp 9y ago
    The experience might not be always better. An 8K (~IMAX, usually 4k though) screen and Dolby Atmos beat out what I have in my house that's for sure, but I concede that's usually overridden by noisy neighbors. But, I can chose any theater. The large players like AMC, Edwards, or even some smaller cinemas like iPic, or even Alamo drafthouse. And you know what? When it leaves that theater, it's available on DVD or Bluray. It's available sometimes on iTunes, Netflix, or Amazon. I (usually, if it's popular enough) don't have to pick and choose what distribution channel I need to subscribe to so that I can actually watch the darn thing. If it's in theater, I can at least usually get it on DVD. None of that applies with anything Amazon or Netflix create. (EDIT: crysin informed me that yes, Netflix has released a couple TV shows on Bluray; I didn't know that! Thanks!) It's locked down to only their platforms. I can't get the DVD to watch independent of their platforms. If they pull the content one day, it's gone, forever. If they want to one day charge an extra surcharge to watch these movies, I'll be forced to pay. If one day Netflix decides to sell the distribution rights for Okja to Amazon, well now I have to leave Netflix to go watch it. No one benefits from these walled distribution platforms, except Amazon and Netflix. The consumer gets screwed, and judging by a lot of the comments on this site, not many people seem to mind, probably because they're already subscribed to both.
    - crysin 9y ago
      Netflix does release their popular original series on Blu-ray. I don't know if any of their movies have had that luxury yet, but they are starting to release them independent of their streaming service. As an example Daredevil and Stranger Things are both available on Blu-ray.
- jasonpeacock 9y ago
  Have you noticed that some movies are only available at AMC theaters, or Cinemark, or Cineworld theaters? Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new. True independent theaters play smaller, independent/art-house movies because they aren't allowed to play big-production movies without signing up for exclusive access. Licensing and distribution is a big mess that keeps control and profits in the studio. It's also why you rarely see international movies outside their country of origin. The sooner the industry dies and gets rebuilt, the better.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ernesth 9y ago
    > Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new. Not in France. A seller (here distributor) has no right to choose its clients (here theater).
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing Is there some significant difference between me paying $9.99 for a month of Netflix to watch a movie versus me paying $11.50 to an independent movie house for a single viewing? Is that single viewing at a movie house somehow more open than a month of streaming?

amarkov 9y ago

It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also streaming the movies for subscribers.

guelo 9y ago
That's right, France actually has a law that after a movie is shown in a theatre it can't be streamed for 36 months.
- robotpony 9y ago
  This is the crux of the issue: that cinema hasn't caught up with streaming services. There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie, i.e., they could show movies and stream simultaneously, maximizing consumer choice (rather than maximizing cinema profits).
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    > There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie Wait, what, really? > maximizing cinema profits Ah, no, there it is. This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.
    - robotpony 9y ago
      I should have said that there is no technical reason for delaying a streaming release, nor does it really affect the quality of the watching experience (assuming people have good streaming setups).

dorfsmay 9y ago

Cinemas will die anyway. I'm personally shocked they still exist. I rent movies from google and Amazon an watch series on Netflix. Used to rent DVDs before that. Cinema made sense in the early 20th century, but not today.

shanghaiaway 9y ago
Cinemas will be fine. I don't want to go to your house to watch movies.
- johnmaguire2013 9y ago
  Why do you want to leave your house to watch movies?
  - guelo 9y ago
    Because I'm not a hermit. I like to meet up with friends, have a shared experience, go to dinner and talk about it.
    - dorfsmay 9y ago
      I do that, discovered lots of good movie that way, and discussed different perspectives etc... Why would you need a cinema or watch a movie together? Do you only discuss books you have read with and at the same time as your friends?
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      You sound like an antihermitite. Are you an antihermitite? Do you have some kind of a problem with me watching a movie at home in my mountaintop retreat, next to my bearfriend, who is watching a completely different movie on another screen? Does it disgust you that we enjoy each other's company without ever having a single conversation? If I wanted to go to dinner and talk, I'd hang out at roadkill point with the crows, and make fun of the redtailed hawk behind her back.~ I remember back when going to the movies at a cinema was a great way to date someone without letting them know exactly where you lived--in case they turned out to be both wrong for you and obsessive--and without revealing immediately that you can't hold up your end of an unprompted, free-form conversation for four whole hours. It's a lot better value when you don't have to pay for your kids' tickets and meals, too.

goostavos 9y ago

> Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas A noble quest! Cinemas are just about the worst possible way to consume a movie (in my humble opinion!).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
telchar 9y ago
Worse than having it forced on you from fifty small poorly calibrated TV's in the seat-backs of fellow airplane passengers who are too lazy, ignorant or oblivious to turn them off while you're trying to sleep on the first of two red-eye flights before your layover in O'Hare International Airport before work the next day?

pwinnski 9y ago

> They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to. Unless they show their movie in at least six French cinemas, preferably more, and also not make it available for streaming for at least three years after that.

ap3 9y ago

>If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. Why must you be able to see the movie in an independent theatre? Instead of paying the $10 ticket isn’t it the same to pay the $10 monthly subscription?