14 ms·

Hollywood Is Wrong: Netflix Is the Future of Film

136 points by simulate 8y ago

shmerl 8y ago
It's quite weird for Steven Spielberg. I thought he isn't one of those backwards thinking legacy execs. I guess he is. All of this has nothing to do with evaluating art, but it's simply a jerk reaction of legacy distribution business to innovative disruption. Film directors should know better.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
  - monetus 8y ago
    Remember his character in south park?
justherefortart 8y ago
I gave up on theaters well over a decade ago. To me theaters are like Malls vs the Internet. Your time is coming, quickly.
- levesque 8y ago
  Just stay at home, no need to get out. You could bump into other people.
  - justherefortart 8y ago
    I go out frequently. Going to a movie is not an enjoyable experience for multiple reasons. I'm glad you decided to go full hyperbole though in your comment, great contribution.
- pc86 8y ago
  I love the theater. Working from home, it's actually possible to go see a movie at 2 or 3pm as a break in the work day. Yeah, it's expensive for what it is but I think the value it there. I view it as the tax to see something 6+ months early. $20 for a movie, popcorn, soda, and much better AV quality than I have at home. And going that early in the day means there are no crowds. I saw A Quiet Place the first Thursday afternoon it was out and there were maybe half a dozen other people in the largest theater in the multiplex. I don't think theaters and Netflix are direct competition, and I think there will always be demand for theatrical releases, if maybe in slightly smaller establishments.
  - justherefortart 8y ago
    Your thinking from your perspective. I'm looking at kids that are glued to their phone 24/7. For me it's not necessarily the people, it's the upkeep of the theater, it's the over priced concessions, it's the noise, it's having to hold it should you need to use the restroom, plus the cost of the ticket barely going to the theater at all. I'm patient, I can just watch it at home comfortably. In fact, significantly more comfortably.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      My kids who are glued, like a trip to the movies.
  - sotojuan 8y ago
    I really enjoyed going to the theater to see Isle of Dogs (at Alamo). Sure, it wasn't cheap but the experience was great and it's not much more expensive than the nice dinner + drinks people do every weekend. The problem for movie theaters is that while I enjoy the experience, I'll only go max twice a year.
    - pc86 8y ago
      I've only been to an Alamo once, it was amazing. Unfortunately the closest one to me is an hour away and I'm not willing to dedicate the better part of a day to seeing a movie and having some (admittedly very good) popcorn. I probably only go once every 3 or 4 months so not much more than you. But if there was an Alamo within a short drive I'd probably go more often.
- josefresco 8y ago
  Two reasons to watch a movie in a theater: 1. You get it to see it when it first comes out. 2. You get to watch it on a giant screen with awesome sound. #1 might change, however you can never replicate #2 at home (or at least without significant cost). I believe the market will simply shrink/consolidate. Theater's won't be in every town, but will be whittled down to high population centers. Similarly, my mall visits are 1-2 a year, pretty much the same frequency as my movie theater attendance.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    I also just like going with the kids, who see it as something of a special treat (as do I)
  - vezycash 8y ago
    >however you can never replicate #2 at home (or at least without significant cost). VR or AR like hololens can create giant virtual screens
    - bhandziuk 8y ago
      Is it a problem having your eyes focused on something so near to you for so long? I've never used AR/VR for an extended period of time.
      - callalex 8y ago
        Part of a VR headset is optics that change the focal point to “behind” the screen, so your eyes are actually focusing further away.
        bhandziuk 8y ago
        Cool. I'd like to try watching a movie on a headset like that.
- noitsnot 8y ago
  It's not going anywhere. There is no experience like watching a movie in a theater and most people can't recreate that at home.
- lolsal 8y ago
  That's too bad, I'd encourage you to give them another shot. I've noticed a nice increase in competitiveness and quality: - buy tickets online - reserved seating - aggressive no noise and no screens policies - decently priced (still a bit high) and decent quality brewpub style food - beers on tap - recliner seating
originalsimba 8y ago
Hey I just wanted to let everyone know that the year 2000 called.
grendelt 8y ago
"film"
jbob2000 8y ago
The article is missing the forest for the trees. Hollywood isn't snubbing Netflix (in my opinion, anyways). Hollywood is all about the cinema and the theatrical release. It is a completely different experience streaming a movie at home than going to see it in the theatre. Netflix makes movies to keep people subscribed. Hollywood makes movies to get people to the cinema. On the surface, it looks like they're in the same business, but the products are engineered differently for different purposes. It makes sense to keep these in separate buckets; they are rated by different metrics.
- DamnYuppie 8y ago
  I will be honest the only draw of going to a theater is to see a new release. If they let me stream it form $30 one time to my home I would much rather do that. I don't enjoy the movie theater experience, kids being noisy, 25+ minutes of previews, and most importantly not being able to pause the movie to go to the bathroom!
  - coliveira 8y ago
    That's exactly why Hollywood is not letting Netflix or anyone else to stream these new releases. They know very well what they're trying to sell.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      And they know, people aren't buying it. That's why they try to ban competition, thinking it will slow down the tide.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    >most importantly not being able to pause the movie OTOH, not being distracted. I actually mostly like seeing movies in the theater now and then, albeit not enough to actually go out and see something more than once in a blue moon. But, yeah, it's mostly when there's some new release that I want to see without spoilers.
    - 8y ago
Pigo 8y ago
I guess I just hope both Netflix and Hollywood step up their game, I'm pretty bored with both of them. I don't really care about super heroes, or watch kids dancing, or another stupid Adam Sandler movie. But I burn through the handful of Netflix shows I really like in a day or two, and then spend months in between them hoping they bring Futurama back.
- UnpossibleJim 8y ago
  but you, like me (with the exception of super hero movies... my guilty pleasure. They've taken the place of Star Wars) are probably old (Futurama was a tip off). And by the very definition of old, not the future. To quote Invader Zimm, "Go die now." =)
  - ch4s3 8y ago
    I love new things in arts and entertainment, but I feel like we're in a bit of a shovel-ware/and also moment in film where there's one hit and 100 crappy imitators. This isn't a problem per se, but it reminds me of some moments in music or video games in the last 20 years. I'm bullish on the Netflix model more or less, but I can't say I love their content lately.
    - baby 8y ago
      Check Annhiliation and Mind Hunter. You’re welcome.
      - eanzenberg 8y ago
        Ugly Delicious
      - Pigo 8y ago
        Mind Hunter was the last new show that I kind of liked, and I do think it's worth watching. But I also think the bar is really set low for these shows. Most of them feel like good movies that are stretched out into a series of shows. The beauty of great television is a show that has a great arc, but also where the episodes can stand on their own. You could watch one episode of the first couple seasons of the Sopranos, and be moved by it without ever watching the rest of the show.
irln 8y ago
The Future of Film? I love Netflix, however, isn't the jury still out if their pricing model is sustainable given their debt issuance?
nimish 8y ago
Theater owners are both extremely powerful and extremely weak: they have put their foot down on any improvements to the film distribution process out of existential fear of losing their early film run monopoly. The studios still need the distribution power of the theaters so they comply. In the uk all of the chains have a movie pass subscription deal. The problem is that it is per-chain and nobody cares which theater shows the avengers. And films that you don't care about the spectacle of don't need a 30' screen. The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value. Nobody likes the shitty experience of crap food and drinks (so smaller, high end chains with good food and experience are doing fine) but the big multiplex experience is a uniform and really expensive cartel.
- koolba 8y ago
  > The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value ... What's "fake IMAX"?
  - Phlarp 8y ago
    Somewhere between 30 feet and 80 feet I would imagine. Might also imply curvature of the screen-- or lack of curve
  - blanderman 8y ago
    Smaller than the original IMAX but not branded any differently. There's also the digital vs film debate for IMAX releases. https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-just/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-puni...
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    Also can be called imax is the RPX/XD/etc style showing which are the theaters own in-house large premium formats.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Yes, agreed! I want to attend one of the Alamo Drafthouse theaters. Friends and family, where they currently do business, have reported a great experience! That's what they are supposed to be selling. Hell, I would! Also, anyone who will do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs I'll go just on principle. That's bad ass great, and a service to everyone spending their money on what they want to be a good experience.
hbosch 8y ago
I still quite like going to a theater, the experience is much different than watching a movie at home. In a theater I am much more focused on the film being shown, the screen is large and crisp, the speakers overwhelm – it's much more a celebration of the artwork than almost any typical home environment. On the other hand, I also like watching movies at home because I like sitting with my dog and being comfortable. In that sense, it's almost ridiculously obvious why Hollywood doesn't like Netflix... it minimizes the "big screen experience". Imagine if we all replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps. Would anyone be surprised if masterworkers of paint and sculpture got upset about that? Of course not! They work on mediums that are designed to be experienced in a very specific spacial context. A director like Christopher Nolan, whether you like him or not, designs his movies specifically to be seen on 80ft wide projections with 100 speakers all around you. Anything less than that and, in his eyes, your mission is now to render his movie meaningless. All this said, I really think the directors' gripes are misplaced. Netflix didn't kill theaters... theaters killed themselves. Rising prices, gouging on food, maintaining massive floorplans that require massive leases of land. If going to the theater to see a movie wasn't, by and large, a $50+ excursion for a family of 4 to eat garbage food and struggle to find seats then maybe we wouldn't all be staying at home?
- falcolas 8y ago
  It doesn't help that virtually the only way for theaters to make money is to sell that food. They make virtually nothing on the tickets themselves - almost all of the ticket money goes back to the studios for the first few weeks. How do you keep a theater running as a business when you need to have huge floorplans, when you need to make money some way other than via ticket sales?
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    I'm not an expert in film finances, but this is my sense too. If studios want people to see their movies in theaters, they need to take responsibility for keeping theaters alive and affordable by sharing more of the ticket sale profit.
  - baby 8y ago
EastLondonCoder 8y ago
I like to be able to see film in a theatre, and as far as I can see the only way of having theatres work out financially is for them to have a short monopoly on screening the film before they go to streaming services. For me the combo of Odeon limitless and Netflix/Prime/Iplayer/BFIplayer works quite well. But I think that Netflix would need to be ok to release their productions cinema first in order for theatres to still have a viable business model.
blanderman 8y ago
Submarine article for MoviePass?
larrik 8y ago
"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren’t being well received." I hear how badly the movie industry is doing, while they keep breaking sales records. I don't believe it at all. It is, and always has been, a hits-oriented business. This means profitability analysis is total nonsense.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Sales records in film are flat values, not inflation-adjusted values. Avatar is the only film in the 2000s to break the top 10 for inflation-adjusted revenue from film. So they aren't breaking sales records, or even close to it, they are breaking "dollars earned" records. Inflation-adjusted costs of going to a movie have remained fairly even, while inflation-adjusted sales figures have plummeted.
  - beautifulfreak 8y ago
    Box Office Mojo's inflation adjusted list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
appleflaxen 8y ago
Several posters are talking about theater sound being a great thing, but I think it's miserable: basically a volume war, which my ears are going to lose. How can theaters get by with such loud volumes, when a work site would be shut down by OSHA if the workers didn't have hearing protection. There is obviously an issue of how long you're exposed, but no theater should be allowed to push the volume into the range where hearing loss could possibly occur. And in the case of Netflix... it's never an issue because I control my volume.
- goostavos 8y ago
  My local AMC plays movies so loud that I can hear the dialog for some movies through the walls in an entirely different theater. It's kind of the ubiquitous theater experience for me now to just have some kind of foreign noise going on -- people crunching popcorn, talking to each other, or, the most absurd, another movie that is not the movie I'm watching. So, yeah, bring on the death of the theater, please.
- some-guy 8y ago
  I agree, mainstream theater sound is absolutely awful. IMAX is one of the most uncomfortable experiences out there. Local theaters in my area with smaller screens tend to not be as ridiculously loud.
ryanianian 8y ago
God help us. Apart from content, what hollywood movies offer is some competition on viewing experience. The netflix content is 'fine', but the UX is hateful and activates every anxiety center that exists in my brain. I get anxious just thinking about looking for content I might actually like on Netflix (and I'm not the anxious type!). HBO/Hulu/Amazon are better in this regard for now. But it's a sure bet that they will also go the netflix route of trying to push you to WATCH SOMETHING NOW versus mindfully choose something. (E.g. HBO-Go rarely has previews now - why would they show previews when you can just waste 20 minutes deciding you don't like it?) This says nothing of there being a half-dozen walled-garden services. You basically have to subscribe to all of them to see new-releases. Hollywood content: you pay per viewing. It's annoying to pay $15+ for a movie (or be forced to buy it online when you just want to rent it for the weekend), but at least you don't have to pay for a service every month that's full of B-rate content that you hate to dredge through. We're on the edge of a dystopian version of "the golden age of television."
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Try http://instantwatcher.com http://instantwatcher.com as an alternative interface to Netflix. Simple lightweight text oriented page with better search and filters than Netflix offers.
HenryBemis 8y ago
> And guess what: MoviePass now has 2 million subscribers. People want this service. The bad news is that the company is simply bleeding money. Seems like they want to become a monopoly, or get to the size that it would be profitable to run the business. Netflix has a mortal enemy: the Cinemas. Hollywood/Cannes (movie makers in general) prefer to have the multitude of channels than having Netflix, which can be a monopoly. If Netflix doesn't like XYZ studio it can shut it down if it becomes a monopoly. And by "like" I mean, set/extort/define the pricing. Having a unique outlet is not the best idea. Netflix wants to be _it_. I don't think Netflix is the future of film. I will always want to watch Star Trek/Star Wars/Avengers/etc on a 10-20 _meters_ screen, eating popcorn, rather than on the 10-..-50 _inches_ of a monitor/TV/tablet eating pizza. To be honest I like both. But Netflix wants to change the model.
- baby 8y ago
  What about VR replacing the cinema?
- praneshp 8y ago
  Heh, moviepass is not killing anyone. I'm a natural customer (1 movie a week at least), and signed up in september or so. They turned around and dropped 3 out of the 4 theaters I watch movies in (one of which was an AMC)
no1youknowz 8y ago
The theater is ripe for disruption. I cannot stand going and in over 25 years the amount of times I have gone is 2. I cannot wait until someone brings out VR which immerses the wearer into a theater experience. That is, big screen and thx sound. Plus, for those who "absolutely" need to have other people there. It being VR you can have people from all over the world (who you know) also join and collectively watch it. I hope netflix also starts creating a worldwide catalogue of films. Which would do 2 things. Downplay piracy and also increase profits. Praise be, when I read that the last theatre chain has gone under and the way of blockbuster! Oh and one more thing. There's another revenue stream and 2d fails to realise this. How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience? With the rise of AI for video and lyrabird for audio. Maybe one day it's just a case of actors signing away their Avatar for their talents, a director AI creates the film and the user consumes it. That's why I hope Netflix is the future of film. Current film is dead and has no-where to go.
- baby 8y ago
  How does current VR movie viewing holds? Especially with the latest high wuality headsets?
- icebraining 8y ago
  How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience? I think those are called videogames. People have been using the look and voice of live actors for characters for a long time (at least since 1989, in Prince of Persia).
- sotojuan 8y ago
  The second idea sounds like video games, or at the very least some sort of VR experience that will always be niche. Most people just want to watch a movie, not play it. For VR movie watching in general... I think this should absolutely be an option in the future but I doubt it replaces theaters. Most people go to theaters in groups or on dates - there is a communal aspect to going out together.
jernfrost 8y ago
Something has to change. Hollywood movies are just so receipt oriented. I kind of like super hero stuff, but I hate most of the super hero movies coming out. I loved kick-ass, and I think the various super hero series on Netflix such as Jessica Jones has been quite good. Other than that I realize I want to see more movies from other cultures. I am Norwegian myself but have tended to gravitate towards Hollywood, because the production and is higher quality and selection of actors is better. However I have noticed that some of the stuff that I have enjoyed the most and which has felt most fresh such as Skam, has been from my own country. There is a lot of foreign films I never get access to because they are not really distributed. I notice when recommending Norwegian series or movies to friends abroad, that they are really hard to get hold of and even harder to get subtitles for. The teen drama Skam only worked because fans made the subtitles themselves for the foreign audience. Netflix shows a path forward here in that they are opened up for more diversity and allow more foreign series. E.g. you got Norwegian Viking comedy series "The norsemen" on Netflix. It was made in a way that I think is a great solution going forward for foreign film/series makers. The creators of the Norsemen filmed every scene in Norwegian and English successively so that the show could be shown easily to both a domestic and foreign audience.
- csisvunit 8y ago
  trollhunter rocked. want to see that turn into a franchise.
FreeKill 8y ago
I think one of the big issues with the film industry today, and one thing Netflix addresses tangentially, is that all films should not be the same price. It's strange to me that a movie like 'Avengers Infinity War' is the same price as 'Super Troopers 2' or 'A Quiet Place'. I consider myself a movie buff and I remember in the 90's, friends and I would go to movies as something to do. We wouldn't necessarily plan to go, but movies were a reasonable price < $10, we were bored, and you'd just go, see what piqued our interest, and give it a try. Now-a-days, movies are so expensive that it's almost an event and something you have to save for like concert tickets or sports tickets. Why would you take a risk on movie X, with middling reviews, when it costs so much? That's why so many middle of the road films seem to crash and burn so much more starkly these days, because people can't afford to take a chance on a potential stinker. I think movies should have a scale for pricing, Infinity War costs $20 to see, but Super Troopers 2 costs $10 to see. Maybe they both start at $20, but over time, the price slowly declines until it leaves theaters based on how it's performing. After all, the goal for theaters is get butts in seats so they can sell concession food anyway. Where Netflix really stands out is their incentive is entirely different. They have one goal, to keep subscribers from unsubscribing for another month. As a result, they hope that when you're bored and you turn on Netflix, something in their library catches your eye. Netflix has replaced the 'randomly going to a theater' experience and as a result, many movies that perform poorly in the theaters can thrive on the platform. Who cares if a movie is a 30% Rotten Tomatoes candidate, when it cost you nothing at the moment to watch it, and you have nothing better going on anyway. It's not an event, it's a way to pass some time. It's the new channel surfing... All the film makers who end up being snobby about Netflix are missing the point entirely. Not all movies are suited for the $20, monster screen experience, and you can clearly see that with many experimental films crashing and burning hard in recent years. The cinema price is so prohibitive these days that a family doesn't take any risks, they save their money for huge tent poles where the rating is virtually guaranteed. That's a losing formula for experimental films who were never going to have broad appeal and it's a shame that a segment of the film industry seems hell-bent on standing in the way of that alternative outlet. They should embrace it with open arms.
- irrational 8y ago
  I stopped going to the theater for a long time until the local theaters put in large recliners, reserved seating, and cheap-ass Tuesdays. All seats for all showings on Tuesdays are $5-7 (depending on the theater). So we have started going back to the theaters on Tuesdays for spectacle movies like Star Wars and Marvel.
jo_el 8y ago
One knock against Netflix is that I’ve been told they pay-less-than standard wages to non-actor, union workers. This means the prop designers, cameramen/women etc get paid less to work on Netflix productions.
open-source-ux 8y ago
Netflix is thriving outside the US too - and challenging the dominance of traditional TV broadcasters. For example, the UK and Germany are two of Netflix's largest markets in Europe. In the UK, Netflix is more popular than the BBC's iPlayer on-demand service. The BBC has released some series with all episodes available at the same time - clearly influenced by Netflix. Competition from Netflix is a good thing, and it will be interesting to see how broadcasters respond.
dawnerd 8y ago
I’ll keep going to the theater until Netflix can stream disc quality video and audio.
- nickconfer 8y ago
  I doubt there will be enough users who feel the same way to make this a reason why theaters remain. The same argument has been made about sound quality, and overwhelmingly now the sound quality in streaming services has improved, but is no where near perfect. 4k streaming will be more of a norm, and that will likely be enough for most users.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    Whats sad is netflix's 4k looks worse than their super HD streams. People see 4k and just blindly assume its better which is really sad.
john_wang_doe 8y ago
Not all films are created equal. In the future I see movie studios and netflix bidding on directors to do exclusive releases. Kinda like what Sony and Nintendo do with their consoles
ryanisnan 8y ago
The bit about Spielberg just sounded like an old man complaining about something he doesn't understand.
nickconfer 8y ago
The issue here is not is the theater still relevant, but can the economics continue to support theaters. If the trends in ticket sales continue, it seems like theaters by and large could be a thing of the past. It really is not about whether a large group see it as still relevant, its can the theater business maintain a profitable industry if it loses x% of its patrons. If ticket sales decline, profits shrink or losses grow. Changing the model another way might increase revenues for theaters (say a all-you-care-to-watch pass, which would likely increase food sales), but only if Holywood changes its revenue model as well. If they continue to charge theaters the same rates, that model likely wouldn't work well. Further, if Holywood had to lose revenue, would it be more interested to work with other streaming services first, or create a competing service, versus go to the theaters? To me the MoviePass subscription company is almost a Trojan Horse. While they continue to burn and lose money, and grow subscribers, they are making their subscribers see their experience as the new norm. If they go out of business, these subscribers now have to chose if they want to pay for each pass again individually (very expensive in comparison). Likewise, if theaters and Hollywood make a deal, it cuts their own revenue significantly. Its almost a lose/lose situation. All this is just some of whats hurting Hollywood and the theaters. You also have personal politics growing sharper, a Millennial generation that doesn't value these experiences as highly, a fundamental change in how reviews are looked at, no longer being as easily controlled (RottenTomatoes), 3D movies not holding peoples interest, etc.. Its a bumpy road that doesn't seem to be getting much smoother.
gamblor956 8y ago
I laughed pretty hard after reading this blog post. Netflix movies have been on a horrific downhill trend in quality (though their documentaries have remained great). After the Adam Sandler flicks, Bright, The Cloverfield Parodox, and especially Mute, it's become clear that Netflix's film department has no fucking clue what they're doing. It's getting to the point where people I know who are avid Netflix bingers would literally rather rewatch a show or film they just saw than watch the latest Netflix film.
- praneshp 8y ago
  Holds for some of the first shows too. House of cards was a disaster even before the Kevin spacey thing, Orange is the new black has been going downhill (I blame that on Jenji Kohan), etc. They are making up in volume with new shows though.
  - mrweasel 8y ago
    I would say that Netflix is making up for anything with volume, the quality of their own shows seem to be rather low in general. Their plan seems to be to make as many shows as possible and kill them of as soon as possible if they don't become sufficiently popular. Other may disagree, but to me "Netflix Original" is a warning that the show is going to be poorly written. Production quality is usually pretty good though.
    - praneshp 8y ago
      Sure, I come from a point of view that the inaugural seasons House of Cards and orange is the new black were terrific. If you disagree with me on that, then Netflix is an even lower bar for you. I also think Black Mirror, while still good, dropped a notch after moving to Netflix.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      It's been my experience that the first season of a Netflix show is usually worth watching, but each season the quality of the show declines. However, I would agree with you that their drive for quantity has resulted in a very low-quality slate of new shoes over the past two television seasons.
bdreadz 8y ago
netflix starts it's own high end theaters. Think how rad that would be that maybe they hold back on a season finale of a show and you see the last one in a theater. Then the next day it releases on the service. Get to be around a bunch of people chatting about theories. Or something along those lines. Upgrade your account package to include seeing stuff in their venues. Make it an experience around their flagship shows. I'd go.
isthatart 8y ago
The real problem is that people want to watch movies for free, so Netflix tries to take a little bit of $ from a huge population, while Hollywood tries to take lots of $ from the few patrons left. On the average Netflix movies are better than the average (legacy?) movie, IMO the logical step is that Netflix will suck all the talent by making the movie makers to compete for the few shows distributed by Netflix. Same story as in the ridiculous Gold OA in academic publishing http://archive.is/uYN0I http://archive.is/uYN0I
gamblor956 8y ago
My experience is definitely different from normal because I live in Tinseltown a few blocks from one of the theaters where they hold movie premieres and from an Alamo Drafthouse, but I could never see Netflix replacing Hollywood. The business models are fundamentally different. All Netflix cares about is eyeballs and giving customers the barest reason to continue subscribing. This means that they focus on quantity over quality, as evidenced by their last 3 years of films: each worse than the one released the week before it, with extremely rare exceptions like Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound. (It's curious that their films are so horrifically bad when their TV series are generally watchable, though Lost In Space and the recent seasons of OitNB and HoC suggest that the malaise affecting their film department has spread to the show department.) Hollywood, for all the moaning about sequilitis and mass-market crap, at least makes crap that's good enough to draw people out of their homes, drive a few miles, and plop down a few dozen dollars for seats and maybe food. There's a strong incentive to maintain at least a minimum baseline of quality and a stronger incentive to make a commercially viable movie. Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all.
- cat199 8y ago
  agree with you on alot of this, but: > you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all. You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either.. when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising.. also much less working class/rural/elderly people aren't plugged in to netflix, so you don't have the same level of 'total' market penetration either..
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either.. There were plenty of late night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazine articles, radio spots, entertainment news, and quite frankly excessive social media influencers fawning over House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, or Stranger Things in their first two seasons. HoC especially is single-handedly responsible for Netflix's status today as a destination for shows (and the people who make them) when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising.. Hollywood doesn't determine what is culturally significant, people do. Netflix produces culturally significant shows...but not movies.
caligarn 8y ago
Putting the beauty and power of going to the movie theater aside, I think what is most powerful about Netflix, and something they learned from HBO, is how to give the directors/writers/producers more autonomy over their work. This is something TV execs have failed to do again and again. I think the problem is this does not translate to cinema. Films are a much more tight medium where spreading your wings and entertaining a multitude of ideas fudges the thrust of the narrative. With TV, we are willing to entertain long arches of story that wind and weave without a clear endpoint or direction. Let’s take Game of Thrones, for example, it’s rarely quite clear what is going to happen. We do have the specter of the Khaleesi and the white walkers arriving on the shores of Westeros, but throughout you have an overarching theme of uncertainty with any and all of the characters. Cinema would not allow this kind of uncertainty. And that’s exactly one of the reasons why superhero movies do so well. They have a clear and crisp narrative that we go to the cinema to satisfy. Being nuanced in film is much harder because in film you also have to be blunt. In film, you must pay more close attention to the heroes journey. In TV, you can hack and toy with it. This is why I think Netflix thrives in TV shows but flounders in cinema. Cinema requires tight thinking and TV requires open thinking. Netflix, by its business model and Silicon Valley culture, is inherently an open culture. They are willing to entertain and support the ideas of creators. Now, you might argue, hey look at A24, they allow their creators a lot of space and still pull off great cinema like Ex Machina and Moonlight. I think Netflix hasn’t quite made it there yet but is inching towards it with movies like Annihilation. Annihilation also tries to do too much but it is succinct as compared to Bright. That’s A24’s strength it picks and guides its creators towards succinct storylines that, in the end, are powerful. I think the best example of the above points is how weak Netflix superhero shows are overall compared to its big hits like Stranger Things and House of Cards. With superhero stories, they are inherently tight: the hero must win. There isn’t much room for subtlety and so these shows tend not to catch on. It doesn’t play to Netflix’s open-ended storytelling strengths (and granted their production value is usually B level). Whereas with Stranger Things, the open-ended nature of the story keeps the viewer entranced. Unless Netflix hires some people who understand these fundamental issues at its top levels, it will be hard for them to really innovate on cinema. IMHO.
ebbv 8y ago
The future of bad films. My wife and I give most of the netflix movies and shows a shot but the batting average is unfortunately really low. At least for us. We thought "Bright" and "Titan" were absolutely terrible. And it's not like we're snobs, we're looking forward to "Infinity War" even though it's silly and dumb. The writing the Netflix movies is mostly really horrible, though. I hope they make some better movies because the world does not need more bad or even mediocre ones. We have plenty.
gormz 8y ago
I hope not. If people want to hate on hollywood for holding so much share in film, why would you want it to go to ONE company. Netflix is a corporation and we all know corporations are inherently evil. Given enough time, Netflix may murder all people who don't subscribe to make smut for it's subscribers.
throwaway84742 8y ago
God I hope not. The overwhelming majority of their shows are badly produced, drawn out drivel. It’s kind of like paying someone not for the results, but for hours billed: there’s a strong possibility this incentive will become the maximization objective for the payee.
perseusprime11 8y ago
Netflix will eventually reinvent the theatre experience just like how they got into originals. Going to movies will become fun with AR & VR.

136 points by simulate 8y ago

It's quite weird for Steven Spielberg. I thought he isn't one of those backwards thinking legacy execs. I guess he is. All of this has nothing to do with evaluating art, but it's simply a jerk reaction of legacy distribution business to innovative disruption. Film directors should know better.

mfoy_ 8y ago
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
- monetus 8y ago
  Remember his character in south park?

justherefortart 8y ago

I gave up on theaters well over a decade ago. To me theaters are like Malls vs the Internet. Your time is coming, quickly.

levesque 8y ago
Just stay at home, no need to get out. You could bump into other people.
- justherefortart 8y ago
  I go out frequently. Going to a movie is not an enjoyable experience for multiple reasons. I'm glad you decided to go full hyperbole though in your comment, great contribution.
pc86 8y ago
I love the theater. Working from home, it's actually possible to go see a movie at 2 or 3pm as a break in the work day. Yeah, it's expensive for what it is but I think the value it there. I view it as the tax to see something 6+ months early. $20 for a movie, popcorn, soda, and much better AV quality than I have at home. And going that early in the day means there are no crowds. I saw A Quiet Place the first Thursday afternoon it was out and there were maybe half a dozen other people in the largest theater in the multiplex. I don't think theaters and Netflix are direct competition, and I think there will always be demand for theatrical releases, if maybe in slightly smaller establishments.
- justherefortart 8y ago
  Your thinking from your perspective. I'm looking at kids that are glued to their phone 24/7. For me it's not necessarily the people, it's the upkeep of the theater, it's the over priced concessions, it's the noise, it's having to hold it should you need to use the restroom, plus the cost of the ticket barely going to the theater at all. I'm patient, I can just watch it at home comfortably. In fact, significantly more comfortably.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    My kids who are glued, like a trip to the movies.
- sotojuan 8y ago
  I really enjoyed going to the theater to see Isle of Dogs (at Alamo). Sure, it wasn't cheap but the experience was great and it's not much more expensive than the nice dinner + drinks people do every weekend. The problem for movie theaters is that while I enjoy the experience, I'll only go max twice a year.
  - pc86 8y ago
    I've only been to an Alamo once, it was amazing. Unfortunately the closest one to me is an hour away and I'm not willing to dedicate the better part of a day to seeing a movie and having some (admittedly very good) popcorn. I probably only go once every 3 or 4 months so not much more than you. But if there was an Alamo within a short drive I'd probably go more often.
josefresco 8y ago
Two reasons to watch a movie in a theater: 1. You get it to see it when it first comes out. 2. You get to watch it on a giant screen with awesome sound. #1 might change, however you can never replicate #2 at home (or at least without significant cost). I believe the market will simply shrink/consolidate. Theater's won't be in every town, but will be whittled down to high population centers. Similarly, my mall visits are 1-2 a year, pretty much the same frequency as my movie theater attendance.
- Angostura 8y ago
  I also just like going with the kids, who see it as something of a special treat (as do I)
- vezycash 8y ago
  >however you can never replicate #2 at home (or at least without significant cost). VR or AR like hololens can create giant virtual screens
  - bhandziuk 8y ago
    Is it a problem having your eyes focused on something so near to you for so long? I've never used AR/VR for an extended period of time.
    - callalex 8y ago
      Part of a VR headset is optics that change the focal point to “behind” the screen, so your eyes are actually focusing further away.
      - bhandziuk 8y ago
        Cool. I'd like to try watching a movie on a headset like that.
noitsnot 8y ago
It's not going anywhere. There is no experience like watching a movie in a theater and most people can't recreate that at home.
lolsal 8y ago
That's too bad, I'd encourage you to give them another shot. I've noticed a nice increase in competitiveness and quality: - buy tickets online - reserved seating - aggressive no noise and no screens policies - decently priced (still a bit high) and decent quality brewpub style food - beers on tap - recliner seating

originalsimba 8y ago

Hey I just wanted to let everyone know that the year 2000 called.

grendelt 8y ago

"film"

jbob2000 8y ago

The article is missing the forest for the trees. Hollywood isn't snubbing Netflix (in my opinion, anyways). Hollywood is all about the cinema and the theatrical release. It is a completely different experience streaming a movie at home than going to see it in the theatre. Netflix makes movies to keep people subscribed. Hollywood makes movies to get people to the cinema. On the surface, it looks like they're in the same business, but the products are engineered differently for different purposes. It makes sense to keep these in separate buckets; they are rated by different metrics.

DamnYuppie 8y ago
I will be honest the only draw of going to a theater is to see a new release. If they let me stream it form $30 one time to my home I would much rather do that. I don't enjoy the movie theater experience, kids being noisy, 25+ minutes of previews, and most importantly not being able to pause the movie to go to the bathroom!
- coliveira 8y ago
  That's exactly why Hollywood is not letting Netflix or anyone else to stream these new releases. They know very well what they're trying to sell.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    And they know, people aren't buying it. That's why they try to ban competition, thinking it will slow down the tide.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >most importantly not being able to pause the movie OTOH, not being distracted. I actually mostly like seeing movies in the theater now and then, albeit not enough to actually go out and see something more than once in a blue moon. But, yeah, it's mostly when there's some new release that I want to see without spoilers.
  - 8y ago

Pigo 8y ago

I guess I just hope both Netflix and Hollywood step up their game, I'm pretty bored with both of them. I don't really care about super heroes, or watch kids dancing, or another stupid Adam Sandler movie. But I burn through the handful of Netflix shows I really like in a day or two, and then spend months in between them hoping they bring Futurama back.

UnpossibleJim 8y ago
but you, like me (with the exception of super hero movies... my guilty pleasure. They've taken the place of Star Wars) are probably old (Futurama was a tip off). And by the very definition of old, not the future. To quote Invader Zimm, "Go die now." =)
- ch4s3 8y ago
  I love new things in arts and entertainment, but I feel like we're in a bit of a shovel-ware/and also moment in film where there's one hit and 100 crappy imitators. This isn't a problem per se, but it reminds me of some moments in music or video games in the last 20 years. I'm bullish on the Netflix model more or less, but I can't say I love their content lately.
  - baby 8y ago
    Check Annhiliation and Mind Hunter. You’re welcome.
    - eanzenberg 8y ago
      Ugly Delicious
    - Pigo 8y ago
      Mind Hunter was the last new show that I kind of liked, and I do think it's worth watching. But I also think the bar is really set low for these shows. Most of them feel like good movies that are stretched out into a series of shows. The beauty of great television is a show that has a great arc, but also where the episodes can stand on their own. You could watch one episode of the first couple seasons of the Sopranos, and be moved by it without ever watching the rest of the show.

irln 8y ago

The Future of Film? I love Netflix, however, isn't the jury still out if their pricing model is sustainable given their debt issuance?

nimish 8y ago

Theater owners are both extremely powerful and extremely weak: they have put their foot down on any improvements to the film distribution process out of existential fear of losing their early film run monopoly. The studios still need the distribution power of the theaters so they comply. In the uk all of the chains have a movie pass subscription deal. The problem is that it is per-chain and nobody cares which theater shows the avengers. And films that you don't care about the spectacle of don't need a 30' screen. The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value. Nobody likes the shitty experience of crap food and drinks (so smaller, high end chains with good food and experience are doing fine) but the big multiplex experience is a uniform and really expensive cartel.

koolba 8y ago
> The rise of fake IMAX and 3d is basically desperation moves to add value ... What's "fake IMAX"?
- Phlarp 8y ago
  Somewhere between 30 feet and 80 feet I would imagine. Might also imply curvature of the screen-- or lack of curve
- blanderman 8y ago
  Smaller than the original IMAX but not branded any differently. There's also the digital vs film debate for IMAX releases. https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-just/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-puni...
- dawnerd 8y ago
  Also can be called imax is the RPX/XD/etc style showing which are the theaters own in-house large premium formats.
ddingus 8y ago
Yes, agreed! I want to attend one of the Alamo Drafthouse theaters. Friends and family, where they currently do business, have reported a great experience! That's what they are supposed to be selling. Hell, I would! Also, anyone who will do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs I'll go just on principle. That's bad ass great, and a service to everyone spending their money on what they want to be a good experience.

hbosch 8y ago

I still quite like going to a theater, the experience is much different than watching a movie at home. In a theater I am much more focused on the film being shown, the screen is large and crisp, the speakers overwhelm – it's much more a celebration of the artwork than almost any typical home environment. On the other hand, I also like watching movies at home because I like sitting with my dog and being comfortable. In that sense, it's almost ridiculously obvious why Hollywood doesn't like Netflix... it minimizes the "big screen experience". Imagine if we all replaced fine art galleries with mobile phone apps. Would anyone be surprised if masterworkers of paint and sculpture got upset about that? Of course not! They work on mediums that are designed to be experienced in a very specific spacial context. A director like Christopher Nolan, whether you like him or not, designs his movies specifically to be seen on 80ft wide projections with 100 speakers all around you. Anything less than that and, in his eyes, your mission is now to render his movie meaningless. All this said, I really think the directors' gripes are misplaced. Netflix didn't kill theaters... theaters killed themselves. Rising prices, gouging on food, maintaining massive floorplans that require massive leases of land. If going to the theater to see a movie wasn't, by and large, a $50+ excursion for a family of 4 to eat garbage food and struggle to find seats then maybe we wouldn't all be staying at home?

falcolas 8y ago
It doesn't help that virtually the only way for theaters to make money is to sell that food. They make virtually nothing on the tickets themselves - almost all of the ticket money goes back to the studios for the first few weeks. How do you keep a theater running as a business when you need to have huge floorplans, when you need to make money some way other than via ticket sales?
- sanderjd 8y ago
  I'm not an expert in film finances, but this is my sense too. If studios want people to see their movies in theaters, they need to take responsibility for keeping theaters alive and affordable by sharing more of the ticket sale profit.
- baby 8y ago

EastLondonCoder 8y ago

I like to be able to see film in a theatre, and as far as I can see the only way of having theatres work out financially is for them to have a short monopoly on screening the film before they go to streaming services. For me the combo of Odeon limitless and Netflix/Prime/Iplayer/BFIplayer works quite well. But I think that Netflix would need to be ok to release their productions cinema first in order for theatres to still have a viable business model.

blanderman 8y ago

Submarine article for MoviePass?

larrik 8y ago

"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren’t being well received." I hear how badly the movie industry is doing, while they keep breaking sales records. I don't believe it at all. It is, and always has been, a hits-oriented business. This means profitability analysis is total nonsense.

jhall1468 8y ago
Sales records in film are flat values, not inflation-adjusted values. Avatar is the only film in the 2000s to break the top 10 for inflation-adjusted revenue from film. So they aren't breaking sales records, or even close to it, they are breaking "dollars earned" records. Inflation-adjusted costs of going to a movie have remained fairly even, while inflation-adjusted sales figures have plummeted.
- beautifulfreak 8y ago
  Box Office Mojo's inflation adjusted list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

appleflaxen 8y ago

Several posters are talking about theater sound being a great thing, but I think it's miserable: basically a volume war, which my ears are going to lose. How can theaters get by with such loud volumes, when a work site would be shut down by OSHA if the workers didn't have hearing protection. There is obviously an issue of how long you're exposed, but no theater should be allowed to push the volume into the range where hearing loss could possibly occur. And in the case of Netflix... it's never an issue because I control my volume.

goostavos 8y ago
My local AMC plays movies so loud that I can hear the dialog for some movies through the walls in an entirely different theater. It's kind of the ubiquitous theater experience for me now to just have some kind of foreign noise going on -- people crunching popcorn, talking to each other, or, the most absurd, another movie that is not the movie I'm watching. So, yeah, bring on the death of the theater, please.
some-guy 8y ago
I agree, mainstream theater sound is absolutely awful. IMAX is one of the most uncomfortable experiences out there. Local theaters in my area with smaller screens tend to not be as ridiculously loud.

ryanianian 8y ago

God help us. Apart from content, what hollywood movies offer is some competition on viewing experience. The netflix content is 'fine', but the UX is hateful and activates every anxiety center that exists in my brain. I get anxious just thinking about looking for content I might actually like on Netflix (and I'm not the anxious type!). HBO/Hulu/Amazon are better in this regard for now. But it's a sure bet that they will also go the netflix route of trying to push you to WATCH SOMETHING NOW versus mindfully choose something. (E.g. HBO-Go rarely has previews now - why would they show previews when you can just waste 20 minutes deciding you don't like it?) This says nothing of there being a half-dozen walled-garden services. You basically have to subscribe to all of them to see new-releases. Hollywood content: you pay per viewing. It's annoying to pay $15+ for a movie (or be forced to buy it online when you just want to rent it for the weekend), but at least you don't have to pay for a service every month that's full of B-rate content that you hate to dredge through. We're on the edge of a dystopian version of "the golden age of television."

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Try http://instantwatcher.com http://instantwatcher.com as an alternative interface to Netflix. Simple lightweight text oriented page with better search and filters than Netflix offers.

HenryBemis 8y ago

> And guess what: MoviePass now has 2 million subscribers. People want this service. The bad news is that the company is simply bleeding money. Seems like they want to become a monopoly, or get to the size that it would be profitable to run the business. Netflix has a mortal enemy: the Cinemas. Hollywood/Cannes (movie makers in general) prefer to have the multitude of channels than having Netflix, which can be a monopoly. If Netflix doesn't like XYZ studio it can shut it down if it becomes a monopoly. And by "like" I mean, set/extort/define the pricing. Having a unique outlet is not the best idea. Netflix wants to be _it_. I don't think Netflix is the future of film. I will always want to watch Star Trek/Star Wars/Avengers/etc on a 10-20 _meters_ screen, eating popcorn, rather than on the 10-..-50 _inches_ of a monitor/TV/tablet eating pizza. To be honest I like both. But Netflix wants to change the model.

baby 8y ago
What about VR replacing the cinema?
praneshp 8y ago
Heh, moviepass is not killing anyone. I'm a natural customer (1 movie a week at least), and signed up in september or so. They turned around and dropped 3 out of the 4 theaters I watch movies in (one of which was an AMC)

no1youknowz 8y ago

The theater is ripe for disruption. I cannot stand going and in over 25 years the amount of times I have gone is 2. I cannot wait until someone brings out VR which immerses the wearer into a theater experience. That is, big screen and thx sound. Plus, for those who "absolutely" need to have other people there. It being VR you can have people from all over the world (who you know) also join and collectively watch it. I hope netflix also starts creating a worldwide catalogue of films. Which would do 2 things. Downplay piracy and also increase profits. Praise be, when I read that the last theatre chain has gone under and the way of blockbuster! Oh and one more thing. There's another revenue stream and 2d fails to realise this. How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience? With the rise of AI for video and lyrabird for audio. Maybe one day it's just a case of actors signing away their Avatar for their talents, a director AI creates the film and the user consumes it. That's why I hope Netflix is the future of film. Current film is dead and has no-where to go.

baby 8y ago
How does current VR movie viewing holds? Especially with the latest high wuality headsets?
icebraining 8y ago
How about being the lead in a film? How about both watching the movie and then actually figuring out puzzles, or needing to defeat the bad guy. Or what about actually having a movie that branches depending on your own experience? I think those are called videogames. People have been using the look and voice of live actors for characters for a long time (at least since 1989, in Prince of Persia).
sotojuan 8y ago
The second idea sounds like video games, or at the very least some sort of VR experience that will always be niche. Most people just want to watch a movie, not play it. For VR movie watching in general... I think this should absolutely be an option in the future but I doubt it replaces theaters. Most people go to theaters in groups or on dates - there is a communal aspect to going out together.

jernfrost 8y ago

Something has to change. Hollywood movies are just so receipt oriented. I kind of like super hero stuff, but I hate most of the super hero movies coming out. I loved kick-ass, and I think the various super hero series on Netflix such as Jessica Jones has been quite good. Other than that I realize I want to see more movies from other cultures. I am Norwegian myself but have tended to gravitate towards Hollywood, because the production and is higher quality and selection of actors is better. However I have noticed that some of the stuff that I have enjoyed the most and which has felt most fresh such as Skam, has been from my own country. There is a lot of foreign films I never get access to because they are not really distributed. I notice when recommending Norwegian series or movies to friends abroad, that they are really hard to get hold of and even harder to get subtitles for. The teen drama Skam only worked because fans made the subtitles themselves for the foreign audience. Netflix shows a path forward here in that they are opened up for more diversity and allow more foreign series. E.g. you got Norwegian Viking comedy series "The norsemen" on Netflix. It was made in a way that I think is a great solution going forward for foreign film/series makers. The creators of the Norsemen filmed every scene in Norwegian and English successively so that the show could be shown easily to both a domestic and foreign audience.

csisvunit 8y ago
trollhunter rocked. want to see that turn into a franchise.

FreeKill 8y ago

I think one of the big issues with the film industry today, and one thing Netflix addresses tangentially, is that all films should not be the same price. It's strange to me that a movie like 'Avengers Infinity War' is the same price as 'Super Troopers 2' or 'A Quiet Place'. I consider myself a movie buff and I remember in the 90's, friends and I would go to movies as something to do. We wouldn't necessarily plan to go, but movies were a reasonable price < $10, we were bored, and you'd just go, see what piqued our interest, and give it a try. Now-a-days, movies are so expensive that it's almost an event and something you have to save for like concert tickets or sports tickets. Why would you take a risk on movie X, with middling reviews, when it costs so much? That's why so many middle of the road films seem to crash and burn so much more starkly these days, because people can't afford to take a chance on a potential stinker. I think movies should have a scale for pricing, Infinity War costs $20 to see, but Super Troopers 2 costs $10 to see. Maybe they both start at $20, but over time, the price slowly declines until it leaves theaters based on how it's performing. After all, the goal for theaters is get butts in seats so they can sell concession food anyway. Where Netflix really stands out is their incentive is entirely different. They have one goal, to keep subscribers from unsubscribing for another month. As a result, they hope that when you're bored and you turn on Netflix, something in their library catches your eye. Netflix has replaced the 'randomly going to a theater' experience and as a result, many movies that perform poorly in the theaters can thrive on the platform. Who cares if a movie is a 30% Rotten Tomatoes candidate, when it cost you nothing at the moment to watch it, and you have nothing better going on anyway. It's not an event, it's a way to pass some time. It's the new channel surfing... All the film makers who end up being snobby about Netflix are missing the point entirely. Not all movies are suited for the $20, monster screen experience, and you can clearly see that with many experimental films crashing and burning hard in recent years. The cinema price is so prohibitive these days that a family doesn't take any risks, they save their money for huge tent poles where the rating is virtually guaranteed. That's a losing formula for experimental films who were never going to have broad appeal and it's a shame that a segment of the film industry seems hell-bent on standing in the way of that alternative outlet. They should embrace it with open arms.

irrational 8y ago
I stopped going to the theater for a long time until the local theaters put in large recliners, reserved seating, and cheap-ass Tuesdays. All seats for all showings on Tuesdays are $5-7 (depending on the theater). So we have started going back to the theaters on Tuesdays for spectacle movies like Star Wars and Marvel.

jo_el 8y ago

One knock against Netflix is that I’ve been told they pay-less-than standard wages to non-actor, union workers. This means the prop designers, cameramen/women etc get paid less to work on Netflix productions.

open-source-ux 8y ago

Netflix is thriving outside the US too - and challenging the dominance of traditional TV broadcasters. For example, the UK and Germany are two of Netflix's largest markets in Europe. In the UK, Netflix is more popular than the BBC's iPlayer on-demand service. The BBC has released some series with all episodes available at the same time - clearly influenced by Netflix. Competition from Netflix is a good thing, and it will be interesting to see how broadcasters respond.

dawnerd 8y ago

I’ll keep going to the theater until Netflix can stream disc quality video and audio.

nickconfer 8y ago
I doubt there will be enough users who feel the same way to make this a reason why theaters remain. The same argument has been made about sound quality, and overwhelmingly now the sound quality in streaming services has improved, but is no where near perfect. 4k streaming will be more of a norm, and that will likely be enough for most users.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  Whats sad is netflix's 4k looks worse than their super HD streams. People see 4k and just blindly assume its better which is really sad.

john_wang_doe 8y ago

Not all films are created equal. In the future I see movie studios and netflix bidding on directors to do exclusive releases. Kinda like what Sony and Nintendo do with their consoles

ryanisnan 8y ago

The bit about Spielberg just sounded like an old man complaining about something he doesn't understand.

nickconfer 8y ago

The issue here is not is the theater still relevant, but can the economics continue to support theaters. If the trends in ticket sales continue, it seems like theaters by and large could be a thing of the past. It really is not about whether a large group see it as still relevant, its can the theater business maintain a profitable industry if it loses x% of its patrons. If ticket sales decline, profits shrink or losses grow. Changing the model another way might increase revenues for theaters (say a all-you-care-to-watch pass, which would likely increase food sales), but only if Holywood changes its revenue model as well. If they continue to charge theaters the same rates, that model likely wouldn't work well. Further, if Holywood had to lose revenue, would it be more interested to work with other streaming services first, or create a competing service, versus go to the theaters? To me the MoviePass subscription company is almost a Trojan Horse. While they continue to burn and lose money, and grow subscribers, they are making their subscribers see their experience as the new norm. If they go out of business, these subscribers now have to chose if they want to pay for each pass again individually (very expensive in comparison). Likewise, if theaters and Hollywood make a deal, it cuts their own revenue significantly. Its almost a lose/lose situation. All this is just some of whats hurting Hollywood and the theaters. You also have personal politics growing sharper, a Millennial generation that doesn't value these experiences as highly, a fundamental change in how reviews are looked at, no longer being as easily controlled (RottenTomatoes), 3D movies not holding peoples interest, etc.. Its a bumpy road that doesn't seem to be getting much smoother.

gamblor956 8y ago

I laughed pretty hard after reading this blog post. Netflix movies have been on a horrific downhill trend in quality (though their documentaries have remained great). After the Adam Sandler flicks, Bright, The Cloverfield Parodox, and especially Mute, it's become clear that Netflix's film department has no fucking clue what they're doing. It's getting to the point where people I know who are avid Netflix bingers would literally rather rewatch a show or film they just saw than watch the latest Netflix film.

praneshp 8y ago
Holds for some of the first shows too. House of cards was a disaster even before the Kevin spacey thing, Orange is the new black has been going downhill (I blame that on Jenji Kohan), etc. They are making up in volume with new shows though.
- mrweasel 8y ago
  I would say that Netflix is making up for anything with volume, the quality of their own shows seem to be rather low in general. Their plan seems to be to make as many shows as possible and kill them of as soon as possible if they don't become sufficiently popular. Other may disagree, but to me "Netflix Original" is a warning that the show is going to be poorly written. Production quality is usually pretty good though.
  - praneshp 8y ago
    Sure, I come from a point of view that the inaugural seasons House of Cards and orange is the new black were terrific. If you disagree with me on that, then Netflix is an even lower bar for you. I also think Black Mirror, while still good, dropped a notch after moving to Netflix.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    It's been my experience that the first season of a Netflix show is usually worth watching, but each season the quality of the show declines. However, I would agree with you that their drive for quantity has resulted in a very low-quality slate of new shoes over the past two television seasons.

bdreadz 8y ago

netflix starts it's own high end theaters. Think how rad that would be that maybe they hold back on a season finale of a show and you see the last one in a theater. Then the next day it releases on the service. Get to be around a bunch of people chatting about theories. Or something along those lines. Upgrade your account package to include seeing stuff in their venues. Make it an experience around their flagship shows. I'd go.

isthatart 8y ago

The real problem is that people want to watch movies for free, so Netflix tries to take a little bit of $ from a huge population, while Hollywood tries to take lots of $ from the few patrons left. On the average Netflix movies are better than the average (legacy?) movie, IMO the logical step is that Netflix will suck all the talent by making the movie makers to compete for the few shows distributed by Netflix. Same story as in the ridiculous Gold OA in academic publishing http://archive.is/uYN0I http://archive.is/uYN0I

gamblor956 8y ago

My experience is definitely different from normal because I live in Tinseltown a few blocks from one of the theaters where they hold movie premieres and from an Alamo Drafthouse, but I could never see Netflix replacing Hollywood. The business models are fundamentally different. All Netflix cares about is eyeballs and giving customers the barest reason to continue subscribing. This means that they focus on quantity over quality, as evidenced by their last 3 years of films: each worse than the one released the week before it, with extremely rare exceptions like Beasts of No Nation and Mudbound. (It's curious that their films are so horrifically bad when their TV series are generally watchable, though Lost In Space and the recent seasons of OitNB and HoC suggest that the malaise affecting their film department has spread to the show department.) Hollywood, for all the moaning about sequilitis and mass-market crap, at least makes crap that's good enough to draw people out of their homes, drive a few miles, and plop down a few dozen dollars for seats and maybe food. There's a strong incentive to maintain at least a minimum baseline of quality and a stronger incentive to make a commercially viable movie. Think about the films people will remember from the last decade: you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all.

cat199 8y ago
agree with you on alot of this, but: > you won't find any Netflix films among them. But the cultural significance of films like La La Land, Star Wars, even the the Fast and the Furious franchise will outlive us all. You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either.. when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising.. also much less working class/rural/elderly people aren't plugged in to netflix, so you don't have the same level of 'total' market penetration either..
- gamblor956 8y ago
  You also won't find the 'popular excitement' that is late-night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazines, radio spots, entertainment news, social media 'influencers', and so on, reminding us of the 'significance' of the netflix produced items either.. There were plenty of late night tv guest appearances, supermarket checkout magazine articles, radio spots, entertainment news, and quite frankly excessive social media influencers fawning over House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, or Stranger Things in their first two seasons. HoC especially is single-handedly responsible for Netflix's status today as a destination for shows (and the people who make them) when hollywood itself is determining what is culturally significant, and neflix is basically a 'rogue studio', this is hardly surprising.. Hollywood doesn't determine what is culturally significant, people do. Netflix produces culturally significant shows...but not movies.

caligarn 8y ago

Putting the beauty and power of going to the movie theater aside, I think what is most powerful about Netflix, and something they learned from HBO, is how to give the directors/writers/producers more autonomy over their work. This is something TV execs have failed to do again and again. I think the problem is this does not translate to cinema. Films are a much more tight medium where spreading your wings and entertaining a multitude of ideas fudges the thrust of the narrative. With TV, we are willing to entertain long arches of story that wind and weave without a clear endpoint or direction. Let’s take Game of Thrones, for example, it’s rarely quite clear what is going to happen. We do have the specter of the Khaleesi and the white walkers arriving on the shores of Westeros, but throughout you have an overarching theme of uncertainty with any and all of the characters. Cinema would not allow this kind of uncertainty. And that’s exactly one of the reasons why superhero movies do so well. They have a clear and crisp narrative that we go to the cinema to satisfy. Being nuanced in film is much harder because in film you also have to be blunt. In film, you must pay more close attention to the heroes journey. In TV, you can hack and toy with it. This is why I think Netflix thrives in TV shows but flounders in cinema. Cinema requires tight thinking and TV requires open thinking. Netflix, by its business model and Silicon Valley culture, is inherently an open culture. They are willing to entertain and support the ideas of creators. Now, you might argue, hey look at A24, they allow their creators a lot of space and still pull off great cinema like Ex Machina and Moonlight. I think Netflix hasn’t quite made it there yet but is inching towards it with movies like Annihilation. Annihilation also tries to do too much but it is succinct as compared to Bright. That’s A24’s strength it picks and guides its creators towards succinct storylines that, in the end, are powerful. I think the best example of the above points is how weak Netflix superhero shows are overall compared to its big hits like Stranger Things and House of Cards. With superhero stories, they are inherently tight: the hero must win. There isn’t much room for subtlety and so these shows tend not to catch on. It doesn’t play to Netflix’s open-ended storytelling strengths (and granted their production value is usually B level). Whereas with Stranger Things, the open-ended nature of the story keeps the viewer entranced. Unless Netflix hires some people who understand these fundamental issues at its top levels, it will be hard for them to really innovate on cinema. IMHO.

ebbv 8y ago

The future of bad films. My wife and I give most of the netflix movies and shows a shot but the batting average is unfortunately really low. At least for us. We thought "Bright" and "Titan" were absolutely terrible. And it's not like we're snobs, we're looking forward to "Infinity War" even though it's silly and dumb. The writing the Netflix movies is mostly really horrible, though. I hope they make some better movies because the world does not need more bad or even mediocre ones. We have plenty.

gormz 8y ago

I hope not. If people want to hate on hollywood for holding so much share in film, why would you want it to go to ONE company. Netflix is a corporation and we all know corporations are inherently evil. Given enough time, Netflix may murder all people who don't subscribe to make smut for it's subscribers.

throwaway84742 8y ago

God I hope not. The overwhelming majority of their shows are badly produced, drawn out drivel. It’s kind of like paying someone not for the results, but for hours billed: there’s a strong possibility this incentive will become the maximization objective for the payee.

perseusprime11 8y ago

Netflix will eventually reinvent the theatre experience just like how they got into originals. Going to movies will become fun with AR & VR.