The Great Netflix Debate: Do Its Movies Belong in Theaters? (wsj.com) 104
Inside Netflix's movie studio, top executives lobbied Ted Sarandos, the company's co-chief executive, for much of this year to experiment with releasing more Netflix original movies broadly in theaters WSJ is reporting. From the report: They outlined their case in a memo shared in June on the company network. Some argued that Netflix is leaving hundreds of millions in box-office receipts on the table with its current strategy of showing only select movies in a few hundred theaters for at most a few weeks before streaming them, according to people familiar with the matter. Other executives thought showing movies in more theaters would create valuable buzz for the streaming service. Soon after, in an internal meeting, Mr. Sarandos told Netflix studio leaders that he had doubts, and still felt that streaming is the future of entertainment, movies included. Instead, he suggested that studio chief Scott Stuber and other executives meet with their counterparts at Sony Pictures Entertainment to see if they would agree to let Netflix stream Sony's movies just four to six weeks after they came out in theaters, instead of after six to eight months, as spelled out in a partnership the two studios reached last year.
If a new deal could be struck, some executives said, it would help Netflix understand how the company might benefit from streaming a movie shortly after it had been shown on thousands of big screens across the country. The debate inside Netflix over how best to distribute its films -- details of which haven't been previously reported -- is one that is playing out across an entertainment industry that has been rapidly upended by the rise of streaming video. Every major company in Hollywood is facing some version of the same question: What is the best way to release a movie? Is it in a cinema, with stadium seating, popcorn and digital surround sound? Or is it at home, streamed on a flat-screen TV or a laptop? Should movies go to theaters first, then to streaming, or should they be released at the same time? How long should a studio wait between theatrical and streaming release? How many theaters should show a film? Should all movies go to the big screen, or just splashy action thrillers?
If a new deal could be struck, some executives said, it would help Netflix understand how the company might benefit from streaming a movie shortly after it had been shown on thousands of big screens across the country. The debate inside Netflix over how best to distribute its films -- details of which haven't been previously reported -- is one that is playing out across an entertainment industry that has been rapidly upended by the rise of streaming video. Every major company in Hollywood is facing some version of the same question: What is the best way to release a movie? Is it in a cinema, with stadium seating, popcorn and digital surround sound? Or is it at home, streamed on a flat-screen TV or a laptop? Should movies go to theaters first, then to streaming, or should they be released at the same time? How long should a studio wait between theatrical and streaming release? How many theaters should show a film? Should all movies go to the big screen, or just splashy action thrillers?
No. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
First you would need to have a life, and by the way you use the term "woke" to describe Netflix's offerings, I highly doubt that is true.
Re: (Score:1)
The last movie I saw in a theatre, was LOTR:ROTK.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? If the theaters want them, let them negotiate with Netflix. Why would I care about the immense moral question of whether such things "belong" in theaters?
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer miniseries to movies. More time to tell the story, similar production values, and will sized chunks that I can consume at my own pace.
Movies don't belong in theatres, straight to streaming please.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I prefer miniseries to movies. More time to tell the story, similar production values, and will sized chunks that I can consume at my own pace.
Mark this date, folks. Ami said something not just sane but actually reasonable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Protip: acting respectfully towards others, even when you disagree with them, will make you more effective in achieving your goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: acting respectfully towards others, even when you disagree with them, will make you more effective in achieving your goals.
Who is this supposed to be directed at?
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
So you don't want anything in a theater then? I agree re: miniseries. Given recent production value, miniseries look and sound as good as movies, so I'd like more of them. There used to be a time when something going to miniseries meant (to me) that it would look lousy and have mediocre acting. Now it's the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess theatres for people who like them. I can see that some movies might benefit from that experience. But streaming at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, if cinemas/theaters want to do better, they need to offer a better evening out that the current minimum viable product of cattle sheds with screens & seats in them, with ticket machines in a foyer, &
Re: (Score:2)
That's an internal accounting & marketing problem for them to solve & nothing to do with what we think or feel.
It's not entirely for them. When a movie is headed to theaters, they make a great deal of marketing effort. I might make a mental note that I want to see that when it's available to stream or rent digitally. By the time the movie finally makes it to the platforms the buzz has died down and I've entirely forgotten about the movie.
I really did want to watch the movie but I lose out because the delay makes me forget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>in the middle of nowhere, with little else to do. Yeah, some cinemas have bars & restaurants somewhere in the vicinity (which are almost as depressing at the cinemas) but you have to trek across endless acres of car park & risk getting run over by distracted drivers to get to them.
Nope, our nearest cinema is in an outdoor mall with plenty of restaurant choices, from low to high end. It is pretty busy so sometimes you do have to hunt for a parking space.
But we never go there for the movies, so t
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, our nearest cinema is in an outdoor mall with plenty of restaurant choices, from low to high end. It is pretty busy so sometimes you do have to hunt for a parking space.
But we never go there for the movies, so that's not it, either. Maybe experiencing movies on a big screen with a bunch of people you don't know generally sucks, and the refreshments are totally overpriced?
Judging by your UID I'm guessing there was a time when going to the cinema was a frequent thing for you. It used to be for me, and I actually liked the energy of a crowded theatre. Now I never go to our local cinema - which like yours is surrounded by shopping and a good variety of restaurants - and wouldn't even if it was free. Why?
First off, theatres are no longer comfortable, cozy, and inviting - they're a tarted up version of office tower brutalism. Second - and I probably should have put this first - i
Re: (Score:2)
There's advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of theatrical releases include awards, if that's important. It could also mean a wider release of a movie - instead of being limited to subscribers only, it's availab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're an exec at a production studio and you want to maximize profit.
Oh, you're not? Well then never mind, you are the subject of the optimization problem under discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. Personally I think pretty much everything Netflix does is shit, so for me to even think to attempt watching they need to charge about 50 cents or less. I don't even pay for Netflix streaming at home anymore. Just much money for absolutely nothing.
Have you seen the movies in Theaters lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
Junk is junk, whether or not it's on a big screen or not doesn't make it better.
Re: Have you seen the movies in Theaters lately? (Score:2)
I watched the new Hellraiser last weekend and it was total garbage, I can't believe Clive Barker put his name on that shit. Glad I didn't pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree with that. Just like they keep pushing "the last" Friday the 13th redo. I also saw a trailer for "Creed" which from a plotline looks similar to a remake of Rocky 3. Pure Garbage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The economics of the theatre... (Score:2, Insightful)
Covid changed everything. The improvements in reasonably priced home theatre equipment were already eating away at the market, but Covid dramatically hastened that process. Mainstream theatres simply can't afford to carry underperformers the way they used to. If you wanted to see that cool new indie film, your local multiplex probably had it in that corner lower seat box with the substandard audio... but they had it. So theatrical releases are going to be exclusively reserved for the movies guaranteed to br
Re:Better question: What are theatres for, now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because some movies simply are better in theaters. Dune on IMAX was fucking amazing. I watched it at home and I have a reasonably nice setup, and while it was nice, it simply didn't compare. Many people prefer the experience of a larger screen and a loud sound system.
More importantly, the folks here on Slashdot talk about watching things at home as if everyone has a good system. It turns out that for many blockbuster movies the vast amount of attendees are young, many with not much extra cash to spend, and they don't live in situations where they have the room to have a gigantic screen, much less afford to be able to buy that gigantic screen. Many young people *like* going to movies because they like the energy of being around other folks watching the same movie.
I think many people here forget what it was like to be young. Now get off my fucking lawn.
More imagination required (Score:2)
Cinemas tend to only show the most recent releases. Why? Younger people won't have seen some of the classics that are best seen in a cinema. So why not have them available there. Of course this would require cinemas to make the effort to build an audience for such things. But why not?
Something that is happening a bit is the rebroadcasting of stage shows and rock concerts across the world into cinemas. This enables far vaster numbers to get the pleasure of such events - at least to a larger extent. Sadly it'
Actually I think it helped Netflix (Score:1)
Covid changed everything.
That is true but I think things moved in favor of Netflix movie releases...
Before each large multiplex would have maybe ten or so movies across more theaters, and run while they were popular.
But now you maybe have one or two popular movies and a lot of other empty theaters for most showings.
So, it makes a lot of sense for a theater to have more content to at least get some people in to each theater if possible. That combined with digital distribution means a movie theater can have
VR (Score:2, Insightful)
Once we get 8K-per-eye headsets (mid 2030s?) then it should be in VR.
Re:VR (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't want to wear oversized, overpriced toasters on their head.
VR is extremely niche orientated and has been for the past 50+ years.
Re:VR (Score:4, Insightful)
It has also been improving over time. I mean, the Quest Pro is significantly lighter than the Quest 2, something I'm sure you thought was impossible technically. How many VR headsets were sold 50 years ago? Maybe a few hundred? How many were sold in 2021? We know the Quest 2 alone sold nearly 9 million units. So VR headsets have improved over the last 50 years, and likely will improve over the next 50 years and become mainstream just like mobile phones. Mobile phones have been around since the mid 1970s, but sales really started rising in the mid 90s.
Re: (Score:1)
A few hundred? What kid didn't have a ViewMaster?
So VR headsets have improved over the last 50 years
Sure.
and likely will improve over the next 50 years
Probably.
and become mainstream just like mobile phones.
That's never going to happen. The fantasy of VR you imagine simply isn't going to happen with a headset, no matter how wide the field of view or how high the resolution. Of course, no matter what improvements you imagine, you can't change the fact that it isolates you from your environment. That fact alone guarantees that VR will always remain niche.
They're neat toys, but they are just toys.
AR, on the other hand, has a real shot. Its many p
Re: (Score:2)
The Viewmaster was not video, it was still images. They might have had a "TV" VR version, but that was a gimmick .. it never really sold .. and furthermore it's not VR any more than staring at a photograph, your perspective doesn't change when your head moves.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay ... then what consumer VR are you talking about that's 50 years old?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have no idea what you might call "consumer" I never specified that part, but I was referring to stuff like the Philco Headsight or the McDonnell Douglas VITAL.
Re: (Score:2)
How many VR headsets were sold 50 years ago? Maybe a few hundred? How many were sold in 2021?
Sold implies that they were, you know, produced, sold, and and purchased. You're also comparing them directly to consumer products sold last year.
I was referring to stuff like the Philco Headsight or the McDonnell Douglas VITAL.
As far as I can tell, neither of those were ever sold as a product.
Want to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
No, i don't want to try again .. it's stupid to argue over this. Especially when I am right.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Whatever you say.
Re: (Score:2)
OP here. I never stated that consumer VR was 50 years old, only that the tech has existed in one form or another for the past 50+ years.
There are numerous problems why VR is not mainstream and won't be until we can hijack the optic nerve to directly feed images into the brain:
* No killer application
* Good VR is expensive
* People are extremely sensitive to pricing
* Current tech has always been bulky
* Until recently being tethered had issues of range, and getting tangled
* Some people are extremely sensitive
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. But what you said is different from what backslashdot thoughtlessly said in his post.
and won't be until we can hijack the optic nerve to directly feed images into the brain
It doesn't really matter how good the picture is. That doesn't actually solve any of the basic problems that keep VR a niche product. See, the fantasy of VR is something more like lucid dreaming or that Matrix movie. We won't get there, or anything remotely like it, from incremental improvements to what we have now. What the VR dreamers want is a fundamentally different technology.
Re: (Score:3)
This feels like a scene from Red Dwarf. "Kryton, the VR head set is out of focus!" "Sorry, Mr. Lister, let me put on my focal adjustment groinal attachment."
Re: VR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VR offers immersion, but ONLY WHEN YOU ARE IN CONTROL. So, great for games, but utterly useless for movies, even 3D movies. Notice that even the popularity of 3D movies has dropped off? People don't even want to wear lightweight "sunglasses" to watch 3D movies, let alone VR tech to watch....3D movies.
Re: (Score:2)
What debate? (Score:5, Informative)
This debate is about money and awards. The Oscarâ(TM)s require seven days in certain metro areas. Money will be made. The debate is over who is allowed to earn the money.
A la carte (Score:3)
If Netflix is serious about its movies it should stream them for $5 or whatever.
Many people don't want a subscription but would pay for a movie. Separate pricing would also make their subscription look good.
Theaters aren't the future.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm waiting for the DVD releases. Broadband/cellular is shit out here. I'm not going to compete with the autistic little freak down the road playing WoW to buffer your stupid movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people don't want a subscription but would pay for a movie
One move for the family = about 6 months of streaming fees. If the choice is between going to two movies or a year's worth of streaming, it is a very easy choice.
The dilemma for Netflix is how to maximize profit. For movies that are on the big screen, the local distributor gets a huge % of the ticket price and all of the concessions. All of that eats into Netflix's revenue that comes from payment for streaming. I will point out that sometimes I appreciate seeing a good movie once in a theater, for the fun
Re: (Score:2)
What Netflix should do is buy up one of the theater chains (this is probably prohibited, though?)
Given the collapse in viability of cinema chains, the option of being sold or closed is likely to force the trust busters to wave that through.
It depends on the film (Score:4, Insightful)
Some movies are made for a huge-ass screen with an audience. The scope of a film will dictate whether or not it should be seen on a big screen. You wouldn't enjoy the original Star Wars on a 50-inch screen with no audience nearly as much as you would in 70mm Dolby with a cheering audience. You wouldn't enjoy Top Gun: Maverick on a small screen either. It's not really about the quality of the material either. A crappy story will be crappy no matter where you see it. The trouble seems to be that most filmmakers don't really understand scope and grandeur.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It depends on the film (Score:4, Funny)
--
We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we can post & comment on stats about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, there's a prolonged ritual of yelling certain responses to dialogue-- with costumes, props and even live acting happening alongside the film. It became this strange audience participation thing borne out of a specific cinema cult
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There really are films that suffer badly on smaller screens. Lawrence of Arabia, with its 72mm immense vistas, just doesn't have the visual impact. It's a film that can only really be appreciated in a theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at the Cinerama Dome.
Re: It depends on the film (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheering audience? Spare me.
Anyway, theaters are not enjoyable any more. Sound that makes your ears bleed, audiences who can't put their phones away. Endless previews and ads.
Theaters are dead, or will be soon...
While that is the most common it's the not the (Score:4, Insightful)
only experience. Sometimes the theater is a good experience with the big screen, audio, and respectful people. Subtitles dramatically increase your odds of having a not-shit audience. So do mostly empty odd timed shows and non-mainstream blockbuster popcorn trash.
I haven't been to the theater since the pandemic started - the last movie I saw before hand was Parasite (South Korean, with subtitles) and it was a full theater and a great experience of respectful people there to see the movie and not their fucking phones.
Re: (Score:3)
The ads are my biggest gripe. I typically show up 10-15 minutes after the movie "starts" and still have to sit through 5+ minutes of garbage. I made the mistake of showing up a few minutes early last time I saw a movie and about 1/4 of my time in the theater was watching something other than the movie that I paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Theaters are dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Find a better theater. They are a great experience.
Same old same old, but worse. (Score:2)
First, fix the Academy (Score:1)
Re: First, fix the Academy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do theaters belong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Theaters once had a purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A shelter from the heat of summer. Before homes had air conditioning, theaters where cooled. It didn't matter what was on, people would watch to cool off for a while. My wife and I are 65. She cannot tolerate the sound levels in theaters anymore. And our 55" TV that is 5 foot away from us does movies just fine. Another factor is Covid-19. We are still careful about getting it, and we haven't yet. So, let the theaters shut down. I could probably find three around Tulsa that have.
Go further back in history, like a century or so and theaters were places where newsreels ran before the main feature.
Why newsreels? No TV or Internet in those days and radio was still a costly luxury for some. Yes, there were newspapers, but those cannot show off moving pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
She cannot tolerate the sound levels in theaters anymore
Me neither! The insane noise level has become a negative factor in movie theater enjoyment. Over a decade ago I started bringing earplugs into movies especially IMAX. And I always bring extra for who I come with. They always say "Nah I don't need earplugs" but 5 min into the previews they tap me on the shoulder and point at their ears and I'm like "I told you so! Ok here you go."
Louder is better but only to a certain point. You don't need ear-s
Some of them. (Score:2)
Streaming based releases are great. They reach a massive audience with little effort and allow a larger-than-normal audience to enjoy certain stories/scenes than they otherwise wouldn't in public-- see recent flop "Bros" which centers on the life of gay men in New York City. Great RomCom, but they gay sex scenes are WAY TOO INTENSE for the VAST majority of Americans today. They're not going to watch that in public, but might watch it at home.
I've seen a couple "blockbuster" style Netflix (and other streamin
Movies belong in theaters (Score:2)
Say theaters
Not a real moneymaker (Score:2)
The main reason Netflix would release a limited run in theaters is so they can make them eligible for awards (Oscars, etc.). They only release them there is they beige they have a shot at an Oscar.
They are not going to make their goal box office because because are not going to want to pay AGAIN for something they already get with their streaming account.
They will not appreciate being at the bottom of the box office listings every time they release a movie..
Re: Not a real moneymaker (Score:1)
if they beige == if they believe
2 Final Eps Stranger Things in Theaters for 3 Days (Score:1)
I would ABSOLUTELY be there if they showed Stranger Things, the final 1 or 2 episodes, in theaters, say 2 or 3 days before releasing those one or two episodes, on Netflix. I think that would be tremendously fun.
Let superfans go to theater together for a couple of days. It could be a big party. The theaters would make a ton of money, the super-fans would enjoy going, and everyone else has to wait, at most, what, two or three days? They'll be fine.
Netflix Originals are Lowest Common Denominator (Score:2)
I've yet to see one where the producer/director didn't seem to be checking off a list of items headed "what seems to be most popular tropes in this genre".
As such, I'd say Netflix Originals should be right at home at the Multiplex - but they should expect pretty short runs.
Probably a good idea (Score:2)
Like it or not, box office receipts are a big way people judge film quality, particularly for genres like action and comedy.
If Netflix releases a movie in theatres for a couple months before streaming it and gets a few hundred million in ticket sales then people will probably judge their quality as better.
Otherwise, I think theatres still have a role to play in entertainment just like restaurants still have a role to play even when food delivery apps are available (though I doubt someone will go to a theatr
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, box office receipts are a big way people judge film quality, particularly for genres like action and comedy.
Yeah. I remember when "album sales" was the indicator for a band's popularity. Times, they are a changin'.
Re: Probably a good idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The risk is that going head to head at the box office will make their stuff look worse. Fact is that netflix originals are almost exclusively B rate productions, and they'll be lucky to even get people into a theatre let alone win awards.
I suppose, though the other side of that is there's probably a lot of directors and actors who want their work to be in theatres. If Netflix puts their film in theatres they'll be better able to recruit those folks.
I don't think there's much magic from the studio perspective to making a film. Someone sells you on an idea with a decent script, you give the executive producer enough money to hire a talented director and actors and make a good looking films, and then you wait a few months or years and see what
Let the market decide. (Score:2)
-I'm not getting that half minute back...
Yes, but people get hurt if the process isn't cut (Score:2)
at the moment cinema chains are showing minimal imagination.
IMHO no (Score:2)
The reason is personal: I dislike movie theaters.
Seats, service, sound, screen and all the other features are subpar compared to my home setup.
But the worst of movie theaters is "other people". Usually it takes just two teenagers to make even the worst villain of any movie look like a sane and nice person.
The last time I went to a movie theater was five years ago and the "the last time" was that even in a more abstract sense.
Can't wait for that thing to die so that I get my movies streamed earlie.
My theater is in my living room. (Score:2)
2022 question (Score:2)
What's a movie theater, again?
Is that what you call those places that have crazy overpriced mediocre food where I can watch the umpteenth iteration of some Hollywood IP on a screen that's only slightly bigger but MUCH fuzzier than the one I have at home?
Oh and I can't pause it, either.
Wish they would get the framerates up (Score:2)
Besides that, theaters have had superb image and sound quality for decades. I remember watching Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Apollo 13, TMNT, even the Neverending Story. Movies for the most part today aren't as good as 20-30 years ago. I'd go watch old movies at the theaters again
Re: (Score:2)
and The Matrix. That was pretty epic also. Felt completely sucked into the movie. CGI kind of has ruined it. Look at LOTR vs the Hobbit. Chris Nolan and maybe Mission Impossible movies are about all I can get into these days. Guy Ritchie used to be good but I'm still waiting on Rock n Rolla 2
Re: (Score:2)
They've killed their own market (Score:2)
It seems pretty clear to me that movie theaters are dying on their feet so probably won't be around as a thing much longer. Multiple have closed in my city in the past year or so.
My guesses why:
1) The quality of Hollywood movies is at an all-time low. Hollywood has clearly decided to transition from making movies that entertain by telling a gripping, unique story that make you think, into movies that are a vehicle to brainwash the mainstream with radical social agendas. How many movies have you seen recentl
One again, mainstream media drops the ball (Score:2)
The question isn't, "do Netflix originals belong in a movie theatre?" Its, "does anyone want Netflix originals to be shown in a movie theatre?" The answer is, "No one gives a shit."
This is 2022, not 1950 (Score:1)
Actual question more interesting than headline (Score:2)
The question is more subtle than the silly headline. The answer to the headline is: of course they belong in theaters if it makes monetary sense. If Netflix as a studio makes a movie, there's nothing about that movie that make it incompatible with theaters, as far as I can tell.
The real interesting question doesn't appear until the end of the summary - what's the best way to release a movie, in a time when there are multiple potential venues to watch? This is a good question regardless of the studio that