Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Movies Entertainment

Netflix CEO: Movie Theaters Are 'Strangling the Movie Business'' (businessinsider.com) 342

Posted by msmash from the movie-industry dept.
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings thinks the state of film is a "real tragedy" and that movie theaters are "strangling the movie business," he said at The New Yorker's Tech Fest on Friday. From a Business Insider report:On Friday, Hastings came down hard on these theater owners, saying there had been no innovation in the movie theater business in recent years, even as TV has been shaped by the rise of cable and internet networks. "Money" and "innovation" has flooded to the TV industry, Hastings said. Not so with film. The movie theater business has seen flatline revenue, Hastings said. Part of the problem is that small movies, such as many Netflix has snagged from places like Sundance, would be better distributed both at home and in theaters. That's a convenient position for Netflix to take, but Hastings said the movie studios feel the same way. Each movie studio would like to "break the oligopoly" of the theaters, but "they don't know how," he continued. If they collude to face the theaters, it's anti-trust, but if they are the ones to take the first step, their films will get killed. That means they just go along with the status quo.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix CEO: Movie Theaters Are 'Strangling the Movie Business'' More

Netflix CEO: Movie Theaters Are 'Strangling the Movie Business''

Comments Filter:

  • Movie theaters (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:23AM (#53031615)

    It's all a bunch of teenagers kicking the back of your seat and smacking gum and talking on phones. I'll pass.

    • even worse (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kludge ( 13653 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:37AM (#53031707)

      I seldom go to theaters any more.
      The food mediocre and overpriced.
      There are no intermissions or breaks on 3 hour long movies. Old movies had intermissions. Live theater has intermissions. When do I get rid of all this soda that has made its way to my bladder? I can pause a movie at home any time I want.

      • Re:even worse (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tx ( 96709 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:57AM (#53031895) Journal

        There are no intermissions or breaks on 3 hour long movies.

        Slightly side-issue, but a lot of movies are way too long anyway. Sure, there's the odd Schindler's List or whatever that actually has three hours of story to tell. But Batman v Superman? F**k off with that. These shitty movie directors need to get their egos under control and realise that that kind of movie needs to be 90-100 minutes tops. More isn't necessarily better when you're telling a story that isn't actually very complicated or fundamentally interesting.

        • I thought Avengers Age of Ultron would never end....Its was so unnecessarily long.

          • I love superhero movies... well I used to but bloody hell the Marvel ones are pretty hard to get into. They're absolutely determined to shoehorn bloody everyone in to every movie and have everyone fight everyone else. They're just a massive mess, and they seem to eschew plot and character development in order to get more characters crammed into each film.

            If you didn't like "Age of Ultron", don't watch the next one "Civil War".

        • And even if they do have 3 hours of story to tell, they really should go the Lord of the Rings route. Do an initial release in theaters with a shorter cut, and save the full length cut for a special edition home video release.

      • Another aspect of Murphy's Law: when you run to the bathroom to unload the coke you drank, that's when the movie gets interesting.

    • KIDS: STAY OFF THE LAWN!

    • It's all a bunch of teenagers kicking the back of your seat and smacking gum and talking on phones. I'll pass.

      YMMV, and it all depends on where you go. Go to a shitty theater in a shitty neighbor? Then you'll get a shitty experience.

      I for one avoid those, and take my kids to really nice ones. This is one of my favorites in the western (better) part of Broward County, FL, which is build as a theme park (see image [eprkc.com]). My kids go crazy there.

      My kids went in awe when I took them to watch Kung-Fu Panda 3 and Finding Dory. Sure, they can (and will) watch them again at home in DVD, but they love going out and eat a "

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by plover ( 150551 )

      If that was the only problem, I'd probably go more often, but that's not my normal experience. Where I go, the other patrons are fine. It's the theater that bothers me.

      My main problem is the theater's continual attempt to convert everything about the experience into advertisements and money. The ticket-seller is unsatisfied that I'm only paying for a movie, and wants me to sign up for a free loyalty card. The hallways and ceilings are lined with cardboard cutouts of celluloid heroes, pitching movies I n

  • ...what about the drafthouse?.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...it's the only place i'll watch films anymore; they innovate and do a wonderful job of it...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      We have a Cinema Grill near our house. Awful food and drinks, old chairs, and below average theater. But it was the first in the area to offer an alternative to just rows of traditional seating...I think even before stadium seating made it here.

      A Regal theater several years ago added motorized recliner stadium seating. That's typically the theater we go to now. Ton of space, chairs you can set to exactly the angle you want, and even if someone has their cell phone screen on you don't notice it because you'r

      • I can get rid of that at home. Easily. Pause the movie, yell "get the fuck out of here if you want to talk", wait for them to leave, resume playing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          Or I could just yell that, and then rewatch whatever it is when I'm sleeping on the couch that night.

      • Alamo draft house actually does get rid of the talking. You place your orders on written notes if you indicate someone is talking on that note they give them one warning and on the next offense throw them out.

  • Might as well break the ice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:30AM (#53031659)
    This being Slashdot, many of you don't want to go to theaters and see films. You want to view them at home, from your HTPC where you won't be bothered by other people, people you consider dumb, rude, loud, too young, always on their phones and generally needing to get off your lawn.

    I remember this last time movie theaters came up. I was in the minority because I do consider going to the movies to be a social experience, especially when when seeing a suspenseful or funny movie.

    • It depends on the film. If it's a big special effects blockbuster, like a new Star Wars film or something, then yes, going to the cinema can add something to the experience.

      For almost anything else, however, home viewing is definitely preferable for me. All too often, there's a film I'd very much like to see but don't want to have to watch in a cinema. Then by the time it's available to watch at home, I've forgotten about it or just lost the inclination to see it.

      If the Movie Theater chains are really confi

    • I go to the theatre all the time. You just need to go to the right one. AMC Cinesuite is 18+ only, recliners with foot rest and push button for food service. The industry has innovated.

    • Re:Might as well break the ice (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GIL_Dude ( 850471 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:41AM (#53031737) Homepage
      I go to movies too. Probably 8 times a year or so. There are some loud and rude people. But most of the folks aren't. I've had to give a shout and a death stare to one ass that kept kicking my chair. But normally it is pretty much OK. I still think movies should be available "day and date" (on streaming and theaters in the same day). I don't care if they tier the pricing over time. On day one, rental streaming $25, theaters their normal too high price. 30 days in, $8.99 for streaming and it goes to the bargain theaters. 90 days in and it goes to Netflix and others (free streaming with paid monthly account). Something like that. Work out the prices and set them to something that makes sense - that was just a broad strokes idea or pricing. There should also be global release and no region locking. It is proven that if you make access available people pay for it. Sure, there are you inveterate, never going to pay for anything people. But they aren't and won't ever be your customers. Make it available everywhere at the same time and you will get customers.

    • There are movies where the cinema can add to the experience. Mostly Michael Bay movies, where even the obnoxious assholes around you can only add to the experience... ok, snide comments aside, there are certain aspects and elements of the cinema experience that can augment the experience. Like going to a premiere of a long expected movie. Or a great comedy where you can experience the movie and its gags with other people, and where the reaction of other people is actually part of the experience. Or when you

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      You don't have to be on some corporation's property to have a "social" experience.

      • You don't have to be on some corporation's property to have a "social" experience.

        Seriously?

        No you don't HAVE to be. You can have all sorts of social experiences in all sorts of places. You know including on "some corporation's property". And yes, the cinema is a social experience.

    • I'd still rather just do that at home on my 120" screen and thx certified 7.1 surround. Where I can invite just the people I want. And where I can not get gouged $20-40 for less than a dollar worth of refreshments. They are better quality some place like Alamo drafthouse but they are still gouging you. Understandable since they have a massive theater they have to pay for but I already pay for a theater at home.

      The only thing the theaters have going for them is getting the movies sooner. There are boxes that

  • A biased opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by foxalopex ( 522681 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @10:35AM (#53031695)

    My understanding from how movie theatres work is that they barely make any money at all from the showing of movies. It is the production studios that take the greatest amount of profits from the movies shown at the theatre. Where theatre's make money is primarily from the extremely unhealthy food folks buy at the theatre. It's why we hear so much about movies from producers that flop because that represents a huge loss. Theatres are not so worried so long as folks still go to the theatre to see movies.

    Gas stations use a similar model where most of their actual profits are from non-gas sales. They behave very much like a corner store. The gas that's sold isn't very profitable otherwise.

    • Re:A biased opinion (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2016 @11:00AM (#53031923)

      This is a common misunderstanding. Movie theatres make plenty of money from showing movies. It is true that the vast majority (~90%) of revenue from brand new films (typically a film is a 'special engagement' from release through the end of its second weekend) goes back to the studio. However, the studio's take drops rapidly after that point, eventually tilting in the theatre's favor. A large chain with a good film buyer and strategies in place to ensure movies perform as well as possible during an extended run can get their overall 'film rent' below 60%. But, even at 90%, the theatre's box office take isn't "barely any money." The nice thing about tickets is that everyone pays for them, while many customers don't visit the concession stand. When I ran a movie theatre, our average ticket price (which factors in free passes, discounted tickets, matinees, child tickets, etc.) was about $7.50. Our net concession per capita was about $2.40. 75 cents may pale in comparison to $2.40, but it is definitely significant...and this is absolutely the worst case scenario.

      • Or they can do what places like iPic do and upgrade the experience. It's nice to have a more comfortable chair, and better food. It's almost like going to Chile's or Applebees, with a recliner, beer, and movie.

        I rarely go to theaters anymore unless it's with the Mrs to see a new Marvel or Star Wars movie. Neither of us like the gum-riddled floors and vomit-infused seats, so we pay a little extra to be in a better environment. I'd wager the theaters operating cost is not significantly higher since you are

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        Few films have an "extended" run any more. With a lot of pictures these days, you're pretty much out of luck if you don't remember to get to the theater right away.

        • i see some movies in the theater for weeks. with digital projection it's a lot easier to squeeze older movie showings in than dedicating a theater with the old film projector

      • that's revenue

        you still have lots of bills to pay like rent, salaries, taxes and dozens of others which is why the concessions make money and tickets are a money loser.

  • My local theater has been innovating in recent years, contrary to Hastings' claims. Some of the changes have been good, such as the ease in buying tickets before arriving at the theater and ability to pick out assigned seats when purchasing tickets.

    But most of the "innovations" are horrible. I don't mind (and would often partake) in food and drink at the theater. But unfortunately it comes paired with in-seat delivery during the movie. Waitstaff walking around the theater is a great way to ruin a movie. Alw

    • I don't like assigned seats. If I'm not familiar with the theater, I can't judge the optimum location by looking at a seating chart.
  • Sounds like a great opportunity for entrepreneurs. Seems like a good fit for those who have the mentality of restaurateurs. There have been some some dinner theater type place for a long time. How a bout an local organic restaurant that also serves up documentaries with your soup? Even sounds like an opportunity for Starbucks: coffee, a scone and a Sundance movie. Sounds like the content providers really want to be outlets so what's the problem.

  • The movie is the same movie (save for small details on what is/isnt cut) in theater vs home. So why pay $12.50/person in theater vs $20/total for home?

    The movie theaters need to make it more about the experience than just the product (the movie) itself.

    A few local theaters have changed their seating to be 180-degree leather reclining seats. Something that makes the experience a HELL of a lot more comfortable. Some theaters also include Dolby Atmos, if you love amazing sound systems. I've also heard of some

  • While there is much study and discussion about monopolistic behavior, and the formation and maintenance of monopolies, and the dismantling or replacement of monopolies, there is less about the decline and eventual diminishment (to the point of irrelevance) of said monopolies.

    The movie industry is facing the disintermediation of several components of the industry. Production is being democratized and decentralized as equipment is cheaper than ever, and even animation is affordable. We will see 4K recording o

  • It is a Government-created problem. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MyFirstNameIsPaul ( 1552283 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @11:12AM (#53032051) Journal
    The studios are not allowed to own their own theaters, per the 1948 ruling in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. [wikipedia.org]. The ruling is the same as making the claim that Matco can't make it's own tools and sell them from their own trucks or Apple can't sell iPhones from its own stores. Totally lame and arbitrary and definitely contributes to reduced investment, thus reduced innovation.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      Totally lame and arbitrary and definitely contributes to reduced investment, thus reduced innovation.

      It also strengthened the hand of independent movie studios, because the big studios couldn't keep them out of major theaters. This is a good thing.
      It strengthened the hand of independent theaters, since.. well, all theaters were independent of the studios now. This is a good thing.
      The Hays Production Code took a major hit. This is a very good thing.
      The "studios" also no longer own actors who can make movies for any studio. The is also a very good thing.

      I'm not really seeing the downside here.

  • Part of the problem is that small movies, such as many Netflix has snagged from places like Sundance, would be better distributed both at home and in theaters.

    Right.

    If they collude to face the theaters, it's anti-trust, but if they are the ones to take the first step, their films will get killed.

    Baloney. The small films often "get killed" anyway. Put in a modicum of advertising (say, subway billboards) and implement a competent social media campaign, and if the audience exists they will find the film.

    Ha

  • They waste space, cost a lot of money and tend to become obsolete quickly. Devotees spend more time playing with their system than they do actually enjoying a movie and I figure I can go out to the movies for a few decades once a week for the money some people put into trying to replicate a movie theatre. It's really almost the Uber vs buying a car in reverse. Why buy a car or a movie theatre when someone else can provide you one on demand for less?

    A couch and less than gargantuan screen is perfectly fin

  • "The movie theater business has seen flatline revenue, Hastings said".

    That's a truly beautiful example of deceptive speech. He meant that revenue has been "flat" - in other words, they are not always getting more money with every passing year. When you think about it, how bad can that really be? Must everything grow eternally, without limit?

    But the word he chose to use was "flatline", a medical term for "the continuous straight line displayed on a heart monitor which indicates cardiac arrest or death". (COE

  • Horse hockey. The studios don't own the theatres, theatre companies do, and the studios want an arm and a leg to show the films, and the theatre companies want the other arm and a leg for profit... and the theatres pay the staff from the food and drinks.

    The result is, what, it was $20/person last year for an IMAX show of Interstellar. $20 for a MOVIE? And another what, $10? $15? $20? for popcorn and sodas?

    Gee, I just don' know why fewer people is going to da theatres....

  • There are two types of movies being made now:
    flash bang glitz that might benefit from a large screen but offset by garbage plot and dialog, not worth paying for so I watch at home
    indie-ish movies with good story and plot but don't really benefit from the big screen so I watch at home

  • Disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @12:37PM (#53032879)

    It seems to me that the real problem is the low quality output of the Hollywood studios, combined with their monopoly on the US market.
    In Europe you often see films from many different countries/cultures, in the US, its ALL Hollywood monoculture output only.
    Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories.
    Now all we get is just endless hybrids of one of 7 or so standard moralized storylines,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    and a bunch of CGI effects. The result is entirely predictable, unimaginative and only truly engaging to people with an IQ of about 80 at most.
    Presumably because that's what the studios now believe is the lowest cost/least effort approach needed in order to make something that will probably be profitable, rather than actually good.
    Its gotten so bad that a high percentage of American masses seriously think Hollywood Physics is how things actually work in real life.
    http://www.informationweek.com... [informationweek.com]?

    • Re:Disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

      by painandgreed ( 692585 ) on Friday October 07, 2016 @01:13PM (#53033213)

      Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories.

      Yes, but I bet you're cherry picking a few great movies out of two decades, and there are the other 90% of the movies out at the time that had the same issue that you are complaining about current movies having. Do you have any idea of how many Charlie Chan or Tarzan movies alone were made in that time period? In 50 years, somebody else will be describing the great movies of the 00's and 10's while complaining about their current movies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      A bunch of that problem your seeing hasn't got anything to do with the U.S. Hollywood studios are making movies that will play in Asia, especially China, to people who may not speak English, so complex plots and dialog don't work very well. CGI works equally good or bad in all countries.

      The problem is the Asia movie market has passed the U.S. and Europe in size so U.S. studios are pandering to it to make money

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close