6 ms·
Cinema is indeed second behind streaming. The theatrical window is now so short (~40) days that audiences are happy to wait for the increased benefits and reduc
by jmkd 10mo ago
Cinema is indeed second behind streaming. The theatrical window is now so short (~40) days that audiences are happy to wait for the increased benefits and reduced cost of watching at home.
- bombcar 10mo agoIt’s only older contracts and studio holdovers that are preventing simultaneous release (which has already been done at times).
- brandensilva 10mo agoNow I'm envisioning WB movie pass combined with streaming subscriptions. The business models can get quite funky in this paradigm.
- leeter 10mo agoI believe the Academy Awards and a few other things too also influence this. The rules to be eligible still very much favor legacy studios IIRC. But, with this that may change? Hard to say. I know that quite a few Netflix movies have had theatrical runs at random mom and pop theaters in Cali so they could meet eligibility requirements for the various awards.
- jmkd 10mo agoA current example (although not Netflix) is The Secret Agent with an award qualification run in NYC and LA before wider release.
- PearlRiver 10mo agoThis was inevitable. Technology was bound to catch up. Hollywood actually panicked in the 1960s. But those screens were tiny. Nobody wants to see the Godfather on a cheap 1974 Panasonic. But TV today is at least 55 inch and in crisp 4k resolution. A modern TV is good enough for most content. It is not Netflix that killed the movieplex. They were just the first to utilise the new tools. The movie theater became the steam locomotive.
- Retric 10mo ago55” TV’s have been out for decades they really aren’t a replacement especially when put in a normal living space. The issue IMO is so few movies are worth any extra effort to see. Steam a new marvel movie and you can pause half way through when you’re a little bored and do something else.
- sbarre 10mo agoI got a 4k 55" TV for $299 earlier this year. It weighs maybe 10lbs, and is super thin and fits on the wall. Large 4k TVs being this accessible/affordable for most households has not been an option for "decades"..
- Retric 10mo agoScreen size makes little difference for an individual they can just sit closer, viewing angels are the problem for a family where 55” doesn’t cut it. 4k also makes little difference here, most people really don’t care as seen by how many people use simple HD vs 4k streaming.
- dpark 10mo ago> Screen size makes little difference for an individual they can just sit closer This is silly. Most people don’t want to sit in a chair 3 feet from their TV to make it fill more of their visual area. A large number of people are also not watching movies individually. I watch TV with my family far more than I watch alone.
- Retric 10mo ago> This is silly. Tell that to every streaming on their tablets sitting on their stomachs. People even watch movies on their phones but they aren’t holding them 15’ away. Also you don’t need to sit 3’ from a 37” TV.
- 10mo ago
- slumberlust 10mo agoGood. Movie theaters have been anti-consumer for decades. Time for them to reap what they sowed.
- johnnyanmac 10mo agoYeah, now it's tv's turn to abuse the consumers!
- Spivak 10mo agoSame stone, different people trying to squeeze it. But every time we go around the loop it does seem to improve. What we have now with "home theater" is instant, on-demand, portable, and super cheap both compared to cable tv and movie theaters. The only thing that hasn't seen the price drop is live sports but it also hasn't gotten worse.