Premium video-on-demand and how to save the theatrical experience from Netflix?

Sad Professor

Christopher Nolan, Alexander Payne, Denis Villeneuve and others weigh in on the threat posed by Netflix to the theatrical window:

"Netflix, my ass," said Sony chairman Tom Rothman after showing some footage from "Blade Runner 2049."
[…]
Moments later, director Christopher Nolan took the stage to preview footage from his ambitious, large-format celluloid epic "Dunkirk" and offered a different view from Kroll, who is distributing his film.

"The only platform I'm interested in talking about is theatrical exhibition," Nolan said. The usually quiet audience erupted into applause.

Earlier, the director told The Associated Press that while the threat is nothing new, it's also not something filmmakers are, "particularly excited about."

"You really want your film to be in theaters as long as possible because that's where they are meant to be seen," Nolan said.

Indeed, most of the filmmakers sided with Nolan, including "Arrival" and "Blade Runner 2049" director Denis Villeneuve, who said he will "always make movies for massive screens," and "Downsizing" director Alexander Payne.

"I don't work in television, I work in cinema and I like my films to be seen on the big screen. Period," Payne said.

Others, like George Clooney and Matt Damon, recognize that the tide is turning.

"I think it's inevitable in some way," Clooney said. "But people still go to concerts because at some point, you've got to go out. You can't keep telling your wife, 'Oh honey, let's stay home and watch TV' ... I don't think it's mutually exclusive. I think both can survive.”

Interestingly enough, Amazon supports exhibitors and continues to release its films in theatres and on Blu-ray. In contrast, Netflix, who is releasing Martin Scorsese’s next film, is mostly shrugging off other formats, including DVD and Blu-ray. Beast of No Nation still hasn’t been released on physical media. (See this Digital Bits article on Netflix's "DVD problem".)

I think the key thing is that films continue to be made for a big screen even if many people don’t see them that way. It's not just the theatrical experience that's at risk, it's the traditional language of cinema that emphasises visual storytelling.

What do people think?

Frank O. Pinion

"Netflix, my ass"??? What?

I love films. I love watching hundreds of films a year, at home, on my own TV. I gave up on the "cinematic experience" years ago, and my love of films did not go down. I do not like watching films surrounded by other people, and their noises. I will always enjoy the latest Nolan or Villeneuve or whatever at home, in my own comforts. For me, their art would be greatly negatively affected, if there was a bunch of other people around me, eating popcorn, arriving late, etc.

When directors say stuff like this, they sound like old men with old ideas.

McLoughlin

One of the big issues is if you don't live in a big city chances are your local cinema, if you have one, doesn't have a wide variety of films they will show the popular ones but very little else getting films away from cinema and onto Netflix or online platforms opens up the availability of films to a new potential audience.

Fysh

Hmmm. Given that Netflix has shifted its focus towards tv more than film I don't know that it's necessarily a huge threat to the film industry in general (a bigger issue is the dwindling numbers of 18-24 yo audience members). And made-for-Netflix isn't any different to made-for-Tv as far as movies are concerned, the only practical difference is that a higher proportion of the netflix exclusives are actually pretty good.

At the same time, I do particularly enjoy the big-screen experience, at least for films made by creators who know how to makr use of the space and in venues run by staff who know how to provide a good viewer experience. I think the idea that the cinema is the "real" home of film is dying a death, but no more so than it already started to when cable/satellite TV services started to be able to offer pay-per-view screenings. I think it's foolish to assume that the cinematic experience will disappear completely - because unlike, say, videogame arcades faced with home console systems, the cinema can offer a materially different viewing experience to the one open to most home viewers, and I think there will always be some subset of film fans who enjoy that experience.

Sad Professor

I suppose Netflix et al is a threat to Hollywood in that people are increasingly choosing to say home and watch binge-watch some tv show rather than go to the cinema. There's no doubt that the multiplex experience is by-and-large rotten and has been for a long time, but I think there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wish some of these studio execs would get out of their private screening rooms from time to time and get a sense of what the theatrical experience is for most filmgoers.

I agree that theatrical experience won't go away, but my fear is that eventually the majority of feature films will be made for television screens and that directors will take second place to writer-producers. As it stands, most movies are made for the big screen, even if most people don’t see them that way. At a certain point, though, the pendulum may swing the other way. Filmmakers have been making compromises for tv for decades - tighter framing, etc - but it would sad to see the feature film format and the classical narrative structure it inspired be absorbed into home video. Art forms can and have been effectively killed by being absorbed by other ones. Silent cinema being a good example.

johnny_ultimate

I am a militant believer in the importance of the cinema itself. I think everything about it - right down to the effort to get there in the first place - makes me more engaged in the film before the opening titles even roll. I obviously watch plenty of films at home, but even when a film hooks me I'm always more fidgety and easily distracted than I am when immersed in a theatre. That's partly down to me, and partly being lucky enough to only frequent cinemas with an almost always decent and respectable group of patrons (the horror stories of cinema trips thankfully seem pretty alien to me) - but yeah, there's no better way to watch a film as far as I'm concerned. Some of that is a vague, romantic sense of exclusivity and prestige - but **** it, there's a lot to be said for such romanticised concepts in the age of digital replication.

And I absolutely believe filmmakers should continue to embrace the assumed giant canvas of a cinema screen - why wouldn't they? To me home cinema will never be able to catch up with that, barring some serious advances in VR in the future (hopefully that doesn't require you to wear a bloody headset the entire time). Films always seem smaller to me at home, even though the experience has improved immensely since I was a kid watching VHS tapes. I fully appreciate the convenience of streaming and the volume of material available online + on disc - I watch something at home most nights. The rise of streaming services has many benefits - from cutting down the gaps between premiere and public release (several notable Sundance films are already available, for example), to making films more universally available. Watching 'em is still not the same, though.

What's important to me as well is that it's not just big-budget spectacle films that fly the flag for the big screen. Seeing Toni Erdmann with a totally game audience and the director / cast in attendance was a unique sort of pleasure that IMO helped me get the film more than I would've had I just watched it at home. For the arguments you can make against the social viewing experience, I think there's plenty of strong counter arguments too - and for me there's been countless cases where the hushed silence or indeed vocal glee of an audience has made the film much more memorable

Sad Professor

Yeah, the immersiveness of the film theatre is one of the things that really distinguishes cinema as an art form from television and is part of what I mean when I talk about movies being made for the big screen rather than the small. A film director can reasonably assume that he has your your full attention. The size of the screen, the darkness of the theatre, the lack of a pause button, the absence (in an ideal scenario) of phones and other distractions. This allows him to engage in a level of visual subtlety that a tv producer may not have the confidence to do due to the fear that the audience might miss what is being conveyed. Obviously this immersiveness has been eroded for many viewers by poor multiplex presentation, but I still think when it's working properly it far exceeds the home video experience.

Occono

Fysh wrote: »

Hmmm. Given that Netflix has shifted its focus towards tv more than film I don't know that it's necessarily a huge threat to the film industry in general (a bigger issue is the dwindling numbers of 18-24 yo audience members). And made-for-Netflix isn't any different to made-for-Tv as far as movies are concerned, the only practical difference is that a higher proportion of the netflix exclusives are actually pretty good.

At the same time, I do particularly enjoy the big-screen experience, at least for films made by creators who know how to makr use of the space and in venues run by staff who know how to provide a good viewer experience. I think the idea that the cinema is the "real" home of film is dying a death, but no more so than it already started to when cable/satellite TV services started to be able to offer pay-per-view screenings. I think it's foolish to assume that the cinematic experience will disappear completely - because unlike, say, videogame arcades faced with home console systems, the cinema can offer a materially different viewing experience to the one open to most home viewers, and I think there will always be some subset of film fans who enjoy that experience.

What do you mean shifted to TV? In terms of licensing content, they're not a concern here. This is about their originals, and this year is when they have started releasing a lot of original films, with big names like Brad Pitt and Will Smith involved.

Fysh

Occono wrote: »

What do you mean shifted to TV? In terms of licensing content, they're not a concern here. This is about their originals, and this year is when they have started releasing a lot of original films, with big names like Brad Pitt and Will Smith involved.

I mean that their focus in terms of catalogue balance is shifting/has shifted more towards TV, and while they're releasing more original films, I think they're using them as a small selection of eye-catching items to draw in/retain customers, rather than aiming to become a new powerhouse in original film distribution.

I would suspect that the possibility of alternate releases for them will depend on the agreed contracts for their production - House of Cards and the Netflix Marvel series do seem to eventually get a home media release, for example. And a lot of the "Netflix Originals" don't involve Netflix at the production stage at all (e.g. Black Mirror is still made by the same production company that made it for Channel 4, it's just that now they're making it to be released on Netflix instead).

Decuc500

I think the idea of Netflix buying films and not allowing them cinema releases is a very depressing thought. Are we really not going to see the new Scorsese film in a cinema? Will the new Bong Joon-ho film, Okja, not even get a blu-ray release now that Netflix have their hands on it, never mind a cinema release? How very restrictive.

The downsizing of film seems to suit a lot of people nowadays. Ease of access seems to be the most important thing.

I’ll always make an effort to see a film I really want to see in a cinema. Nothing will beat that experience for me. I also have to say that as a regular cinema goer, I very rarely encounter bad or annoying behaviour in cinemas. Certainly nothing to put me off going.

silverharp

Everyone is raised on going to the cinema , as long as there are families and kids that market wont go away. Hollywood supposedly is still very cost heavy and one reason being the unionesque type work practices so they could do with a shakeup and get the cost of making movies down.
In terms of cost and value there are certainly more alternatives to consider now than in the past and the cost of going to the cinema hasn't gone down in price. I assume a lot of people roughly decide how many films to see in a year regardless of the quality and will watch the rest via other means.
Cinema pricing could be shaken up, Its like Aer Lingus before Ryanair got involved, none of them price to get bums on seats. Somewhere like the Odeon at the Point Village would make more money if the seats were sold for 2€ on condition you buy food, it seems like there is a glut of cinemas not covering their overheads

Sad Professor

Decuc500 wrote: »

I think the idea of Netflix buying films and not allowing them cinema releases is a very depressing thought. Are we really not going to see the new Scorsese film in a cinema? Will the new Bong Joon-ho film, Okja, not even get a blu-ray release now that Netflix have their hands on it, never mind a cinema release? How very restrictive.

As Fysh said, it would depend on the terms of Netflix's contract for the distribution rights. In the case of The Irishman, Scorsese may have insisted that the film get a limited theatrical release - assuming he was in a position to make any demands, which is unlikely given that the film has been in development hell for years and was just dumped by Paramount as being too risky.

Sad Professor

David Ehrlich: Netflix Keeps Buying Great Movies, So It's a Shame They're Getting Buried

When you watch something on Netflix, are you watching a movie, or are you having a movie-like experience? Netflix is aware of this conundrum, and it has made some half-hearted strides to address the issue, even if its motivation is as unclear as its viewing numbers. Last year, the service signed a 10-picture, day-and-date deal with iPic, an 120-screen luxury theater chain that has positioned itself as something of an Alamo Drafthouse for wealthy people who don't give a **** about movies. Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos told the Wall Street Journal that the deal was an effort to prove that its original features are "not TV movies"

It's easy to appreciate what he means by that, but the quality of the films is becoming less and less of an issue. The problem isn't that Netflix Originals are TV movies, the problem is that - more often than not - they're laptop movies, or iPhone movies, or watch-out-of-one-eye-while-checking-Twitter movies. And while that may be the ultimate fate of all video content in this day and age, Netflix Originals never get the chance to be anything more.

Netflix shouldn't be worried that it's releasing TV movies. The platform should be worried that they're not releasing movies at all. Business is business and time marches on, but until Netflix decides that it genuinely cares about its content, audiences will never truly find their films. In the meantime, it will continue to be a little heartbreaking every time Netflix buys a movie and turns it into something else.

Occono

I mean, speaking from Ireland, and not Dublin, that argument means nothing to me. Pre-Netflix, a movie like IDFAHITWA or Divines would first become available to me buried in HMV for €20 on DVD a year or two from now. I get that an American movie critic talking about American movies doesn't have that concern, but Netflix's international goals are still a bit underestimated by movie bloggers I think. And Netflix is hardly killing theatres and people's attention spans by itself.

L'prof

Sad Professor wrote: »

Christopher Nolan, Alexander Payne, Denis Villeneuve and others weigh in on the threat posed by Netflix to the theatrical window:



Interestingly enough, Amazon supports exhibitors and continues to release its films in theatres and on Blu-ray. In contrast, Netflix, who is releasing Martin Scorsese’s next film, is mostly shrugging off other formats, including DVD and Blu-ray. Beast of No Nation still hasn’t been released on physical media. (See this Digital Bits article on Netflix's "DVD problem".)

I think the key thing is that films continue to be made for a big screen even if many people don’t see them that way. It's not just the theatrical experience that's at risk, it's the traditional language of cinema that emphasises visual storytelling.

What do people think?

Was Stateside for a few months and went to see Logan & Ghost in the Shell in IMAX (never been to a show in IMAX before). Absolutely phenomenal and completely engrossing experience. Sure, I would have enjoyed these movies at home but not in the same way

Frank O. Pinion

Sad Professor wrote: »

David Ehrlich: Netflix Keeps Buying Great Movies, So It's a Shame They're Getting Buried

When I decide to watch a "Netflix film", like I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore or The Discovery, I watch it the same way as any other film, on my TV, giving it all my focus. I never watch films while on a laptop or while messing with a phone, "Netflix films" or otherwise.

Fysh

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

When I decide to watch a "Netflix film", like I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore or The Discovery, I watch it the same way as any other film, on my TV, giving it all my focus. I never watch films while on a laptop or while messing with a phone, "Netflix films" or otherwise.

I'm the same - there's nothing specific to Netflix about people watching stuff without paying full attention to it. And anyway, if that kind of split focus or interruption is so inherently awful, how come we've put up with films being shown on television with ads interrupting things every ten to fifteen minutes?

I think the bigger issue that filmmakers in Hollywood are ignoring is that the cost of cinema trips keeps increasing and that has translated to a current generation of let's say under-30s with the lowest likelihood of attending the cinema of the last several decades.

Deriding a platform like Netflix (which for me has been a great way to see films from all over the place that I either missed out on first time round or had never had a chance to see previously) because it doesn't​ fit into the existing business model of "Cinema first (no matter how crap the experience), then multiple dip for home viewing options" seems like the same logic as the ludicrous unskippable anti-piracy ads on DVDs a few years ago. Don't try and tell me Netflix is awful, give me reasons and a rallying call for why the cinema experience deserves to live on in contemporary film culture - and make those reasons relevant for the people who don't or wouldn't post in this thread (because let's be honest, if you're the kind of viewer who goes to film festivals you're probably not giving up on cinema any time soon).

That David Ehrlich article is just click bait trash, his points fall down the second you realise that most people who watch a film on Netflix and care about cinema give the film their full and undivided attention. I love what Netflix do, they pick interesting films and give them a platform that gives them more eyes than ever imaginable. I love that they get films so soon after their festival premiere and that I'm not waiting two years for it to get a DVD release. If someone is watching a film on Netflix and giving it half their attention then it's not like they would have gone to see the film in the one art house cinema it played.

Sad Professor

Watching movies at home on your TV is great and often the only way people see most films, myself included. Nobody is disputing this. The issue which Ehrlich was trying to get at relates to the future of the art form itself. Regardless of how or where you see them, currently most movies are still made to be seen on the big screen. Most people probably don't notice it except subconsciously, but they can tell the difference between a movie and tv and its got nothing to do with production values or spectacle. Movies manipulate time, mood and atmosphere in a way that tv doesn't. If you eliminate the theatrical experience so that most people see movies on tv screens, then the art will change.

James Gray, who is on the promotion circuit for Lost City of Z at the moment, has been raising similar concerns and is extremely pessimistic. On one hand, you have Marvel, DC etc dominating the multiplexes. On the other, you have Netflix starting to hoover up indie films at festivals and not releasing them in theatres. It's like a pincer movement and I'm not sure movies as we know them will survive it. As Gray as pointed out, art forms can and do die off. Movies aren't like literature or painting. They are very expensive to make. They may never go away completely, but they may be replaced by 8 hour mini series type shows that abandon much of the cinematic formalism and narrative structure we associate with film.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Watching movies at home on your TV is great and often the only way people see most films, myself included. Nobody is disputing this. The issue which Ehrlich was trying to get at relates to the future of the art form itself. Regardless of how or where you see them, currently most movies are still made to be seen on the big screen. Most people probably don't notice it except subconsciously, but they can tell the difference between a movie and tv and its got nothing to do with production values or spectacle. Movies manipulate time, mood and atmosphere in a way that tv doesn't. If you eliminate the theatrical experience so that most people see the movies on tv screens, then the art will change.

James Gray, who is on the promotion circuit for Lost City of Z at the moment, has been raising similar concerns and is extremely pessimistic. On one hand, you have Marvel, DC etc dominating the multiplexes. On the other, you have Netflix starting to hoover up indie films at festivals and not releasing them in theatres. It's like a pincer movement and I'm not sure movies as we know them will survive it. As Gray as pointed out, art forms can and do die off. Movies aren't like literature or painting. They are very expensive to make. They may never go away completely, but they may be replaced by 8 hour mini series type shows that abandon much of the cinematic formalism and narrative structure we associate with film.

There is a real sense that cinema as an art form is not so much dying as evolving, I love the cinematic experience and there is no question that it is the best way to experience most films but there is also the argument that Netflix and the like by cutting out the two-year festival run and small theatrical run are opening films up to whole new audiences.

Take I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, one of my favorite films of the year thus far. I would love to have seen it on a big screen but like similar films such as Cheap Thrills, without Netflix it would have spent the next 9 months playing various festivals before getting a token theatrical release in the states before being dumped onto DVD and maybe Blu-Ray with little marketing. Is it an ideal situation to go to Netflix and maybe never get a physical release, not at all but Netflix has allowed the film an audience that would never have even heard of it before.

I don't think that film is dead or even close to dying, I think that it is just in a state of change and that the future is bright. Netflix, Amazon, etc are offering small indie film makers an whole new avenue to bring their films to the masses and that is a good thing.

Also, films are still made to be seen on the big screen, I can't think of any that was made for a small screen and that's not going to change anytime soon. Netflix are being pressured into releasing films into cinemas and while it's so far been a token gesture it looks likely that they may go the way of amazon and give their films theatrical releases. though that said I am quite happy at times with being able to watch a film at home, going to the cinema is getting more and more expensive and if you live outside say Dublin there's no such thing as a loyalty card so you can end up paying up to 26 euro to see a film. Even matinee screenings are 8 euro a ticket and while it's a small price to pay it can add up, I used to go see 200 films a year minimum in the cinema at a cost of 8 euro a ticket and loved almost every minute of it. But cinemas have changed and with films like Captain Iron Thor playing on 5 and 7 screens in a cinem while the other two have a two month old blockbuster on it's nice that Netflix can cater to other tastes.

Sad Professor

You're probably right, Darko, about cinema not dying as such. In fact, I think it might be more accurate to see binge-watch content and cinematic universes as the start of a new art form that cannibalises aspects of both film and tv. I'm a bit of purist, so i find the idea of film evolving away from the 2 hour motion picture kinda sad, but I think that's the way things are going. It's already happening with blockbusters, many of which are just episodes in bigger cinematic universes these days. The barrier between film and television is being gradually eroded.

I find the whole concept of shared universes to be the most pointless and ridiculous idea Hollywood has had in a long time. I enjoy a good blockbuster as much as the next person but the thought of having to watch 20 bloated overlong blockbusters so as to get the full story just seems like a certain kind of hell. I've enjoyed to a degree some of Marvel's output but there is no reason that any of the films should be over 100 minutes, the latest Fast and furious film is only 2 hours long and is the perfect length for a blockbuster. Anything more than that and you know that at least a third of the film is going to be filler or scene after scene of set up for the next entry.

Cinema as it stands hasn't really adapted since it came along, the theater chains refusal to allow same day theatrical and home releases and repeatedly tried to push back the home release of films has I think done them more damage than good. Cinema is all about the experience and in recent years it is the films that have changed not the experience. Live outside a major city with multiple cinemas and you would be hard pressed to find anything other than the latest big budget fare, the odd time in Galway we get a couple of interesting left field choices but by and large it's not uncommon to find Marvel's latest taking up 8 screens between the two cinemas.

I would be happy to watch the latest Marvel film on a TV at home if it meant that it freed up a screen to show a smaller film. Sadly that day is never likely to come so I'm happy that we have VOD and the like and I can at least pay to see the films I want. I'd love to see so many films on a big screen but people have no interest in anything other than Marvel and studio tentpole releases these days.

dreamers75

So Netflix is the enemy now? Have the pirates been defeated?

Agree with Clooney, people who want to go to the cinema to enjoy movies will still do. People who want to sit at home and stream will do that just better quality.

valoren

Am I going to see the next Star Wars film on the biggest screen possible? Yes.
If someone at work raved about an indie film but it was only in cinemas, would I go and see it? Very likely.

The last part of the article is the most pertinent. If you want to have your films seen on the big screen, you need to compel viewers to go and see them on the big screen. While having your 3 hour 70mm epic shown in theaters is an artistic victory is one aspect, that practically nobody went to see it, and that it made no money, it is nothing but a phyrric victory.

That's the key point. With the technology of today, we have a saturation of options for movies, but viewers are also very discerning and will feasibly value quality movies over quantity. With the cost of seeing one film in a cinema the equivalent of 3 months worth of Netflix sub, then the need for compelling people is greater than ever.

The same happened with Theatre and to another extent Cinemas and the advent of television. Where a technology disrupted both.
Both still exist, they are still relevant artistically. But it takes quality to draw an audience for both theatre and cinema.

Mokuba

In the Cork area there is one cinema that I can go to and be 80% confident that it will be a good experience (e.g people actually being respectful of others in the theatre) - Mahon Point Omniplex.

The others are a complete and utter disaster. Would make you never want to go near a cinema again.

Last week I went to the cinema (The Reel) with the intention of seeing Get Out. There were a bunch of rowdy enough young boys, no older than 12-13. They were all admitted to a 15A movie, and it was fairly obvious where that was going - having experienced it enough times I just left without purchasing a ticket.

I could count on one hand the amount of good experiences I have had in the past 2-3 years in cinemas that aren't Omniplex Mahon.

I find this to be an awful shame as I would agree that films are meant to be enjoyed in the cinema - but too often the experience is spoiled by others and I am left wishing I stayed at home. So if you want to "save the theatrical experience" - maybe make sure it's actually up to scratch before moaning about people opting out.