dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Netflix Eyes Same Day Theater Film Release
by Karl Bode 08:12AM Tuesday Oct 29 2013
Not satisfied with their push into original series, Netflix is taking their ambitions one step further and may be considering releasing feature films the same day they hit theaters. All Things D points out that in a speech made over the weekend, Netflix content boss Ted Sarandos stated the company was exploring the possibility, though so far not offering any hard details. "..Why not premiere movies on Netflix, the same day they’re opening in theaters? And not little movies...why not big movies? Why not follow the consumers’ desire to watch things when they want?"

view:
topics flat nest 

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Unless Netflix wants to pay Sony $150-$250M for a single blockbuster debut, why would Sony, WB or other big budget studio give away their product for pennies on the dollar?
--
Nocchi rules.

plus one

@comcast.net

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

said by skeechan:

Unless Netflix wants to pay Sony $150-$250M for a single blockbuster debut, why would Sony, WB or other big budget studio give away their product for pennies on the dollar?

Because the studios won't do the deal unless they get a ton of money from Netflix.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
Because those people would never go to the theatre anyway.
the studio would be getting something versus nothing.
--
Despises any post with strings.
cahiatt
Premium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

This... I've abandoned going to the theater after the last trip cost nearly $70 for me, my wife and two kids.....
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

I agree - regular movies end up at $12/head + any extras... 3D is a few dollars more.

If I wait 3-6 months, Redbox has it for $1.25 - $1.50
Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

having worked at a theater, i no longer wish to go. I can get the same DTS sound at home(literally, they use the same basic DTS system that most HT systems use, its just a little larger in scope as far as the speakers go), the same digital HD picture quality(1080p @ 10 feet looks just as good as 4K at 40 feet), but I don't have to deal with the noise, the people, the hassle, and the cost when I do it at home. I quit going to the theater more because of the annoyances together with the cost. The last trip for me and my wife(without discounts, because we still get them sometimes for working there) cost us around $50 for the two of us. I can buy it, or rent it later for that cost.
snarf7

join:2013-08-31
There's a $3 theater here

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
Studio gets it anyway, just down the road in DVD/BRD, VOD, pay TV and finally Netflix and broadcast. All of it would be given up to Netflix.

Letting Netflix have it on release day doesn't get the studios a single extra customer but loses them at the box office, at rentals, at VOD, pay TV...

Why would HBO pay a premium to get a movie that Netflix had for 6 or 12 months already? Why would anyone pay $5 in VOD of which the studio gets 1/2 when they can get it on Netflix. Who is going to buy the DVD when you can get it on Netflix?

No one. All of that revenue is surrendered. Meanwhile 1 to 2 years from release date, Netflix still gets the movie and pays the studio for it.

This would be stupid for the studios to do. As big as piracy may be, they legitimate revenue sources dwarf it and they would be giving it up to Netflix.
--
Nocchi rules.
Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Exactly how does a same day release lose the studio that money from VOD, rentals, and such? many people are no longer going to a theater because they cannot afford it anyways, so how is it losing that revenue? People would still buy the DVD, people would still go to it in theaters. This is what is wrong with the studio thinking. They think its a lost revenue stream, when in reality, VoD sales, DVD sales, and theater attendance has actually been going down over the last ten years because its too damn expensive. DVDs are still $30-$50 new, and that is not even counting HD formats like blu-ray, which start at $50. Many people are cutting their cable bills because that is far to expensive, so they definitely lost the VoD customer(not that I used it when I had it, it was too damn expensive anyways, at $12 for a new release, it isnt worth it), and how many people actually have HBO anymore? if you don't subscribe to cable, you can't get HBO, so they are completely irrelevant, not to mention that they cost an additional $20 per month on your cable bill if you have it.

While it might look like theater attendance has gone up, it actually has not, and I can get the attendance numbers from a local theater for the last 7 years to prove it. What has gone up is the price. It has gone from $6 per person to over $15(and 25 per ticket in some places), which has happened in a lot of places. This means that only half the number of people need to show up country wide and the profit looks the same or better. Theater attendance is way down, and that is because people can get it other ways for cheaper, and all they have to do is wait. I wait for a redbox to get it, I cancelled my cable, and I actually no longer want DVDs because they take up too much space. I know there are a lot of people like me too, and in 5 years, the studios will be charging $50 per ticket to a theater because they like to stick with old business models when they are clearly dead to everyone else around them because blinders.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Of course they would lose money, especially since tickets are front loaded. Studios get the vast majority of the ticket price for the first week or three after release. Then only after a few weeks do the theaters start getting a bigger cut. Netflix isn't going to pay them $100 million for anything, certainly not a single title.

Meanwhile it would only make piracy that much easier. Pirates would never pay some $50 for this VOD. They won't pay $20 for a frakkin BRD. It could be $2 and they would still pirate it...they pirate music and it is $1.

Digital HD copy pirated the day of release...no more cams plus zillion in lost revenues...studios would be completely idiotic to do this. But of course everyone here loves free stuff so they will argue for free stuff.
--
Nocchi rules.

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:100
+1- I don't go to the movie theater anymore either. Now a days with netflix, amazon prime, redbox and others, why pay the big price tags when I can wait and don't have to.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
I would assume they charge for it, won't be part of your subscription. I feel that they will move to an Amazon model (prime, pay) sooner or later.

The problem is how to you charge 4 people vs 2 watching vs 10? Well the Kinect can spy on you, but most movies involve 2+ people and I know that on 1st day the studio may get 80% of the receipts so figure $12-$15 for 2 people. They will have to charge over $20 for this to even get close to their current models.

I can wait until it comes to streaming or is free, but the kids are less patient so I can see every now and then this makes sense...

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

They don't need Netflix for that. They can put it on In Demand/On Demand or whatever the cable VOD service is and get 1/2 the money.
--
Nocchi rules.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
A movie would have to make over $300 mil in US theaters for a studio to make $150 mil. How many do that?
Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

actually, with "hollywood accounting", the theaters typically report much less than they actually pull in, and most of the time claim the movie is a loss so they don't have to pay the actors any residual income. Did you know that "harry potter and the sorceress stone" pulled in over 1 billion dollars world wide, but the studio claimed it was a total loss? The movie only cost about $45 million to make, so, how does that even out?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Studios will use any tactic to make them look like the losers coming out, when they really aren't, and don't deserve any sympathy for a 100 year old crooked business that is now sinking.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
Let's hope the studios aren't that stupid. There's a *LOT* of profit to be made in having movies available on the day of release.

It tends to drum up a lot more interest in the movies, as well.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Not nearly as much as NOT offering them at home the day of release.
--
Nocchi rules.

Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
said by skeechan:

Unless Netflix wants to pay Sony $150-$250M for a single blockbuster debut, why would Sony, WB or other big budget studio give away their product for pennies on the dollar?

Who said anything about pennies on a dollar? IMO, if this does work out, I see it working as PPV and probably costing the same as it does an average family to go to the movie theater (probably around $50 for one-time viewing). The upside would be the convenience of not having to actually go to the theater and the gripes that come with it such as overpriced food/drinks, dealing with annoying people, etc. A solution for those who want to see it ASAP and are willing to pay premium for it. As far as everyone else goes, wait a few months and watch it in Blu-ray/DVD or digital download.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill.
If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of progress is Congress.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Netflix doesn't have a PPV system. If studios are going PPV, they don't need Netflix. All existing operators all have PPV systems already in place.
--
Nocchi rules.
stridr69

join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA

Re: Uh, because there is no money in it for the studio?

Think internet based only. Netflix, VUDU, Amazon Prime, Hulu come to mind for those cord cutters out there. I use VUDU as it's a buck cheaper for HD movies vs Charter's on-demand
Pervbear

join:2013-08-20
From other reports I read it sounds like netflix wants to be the driving force behind these releases. Just like their tv stuff.

Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

a brave pirate killing experiment

i hope a few studio releases are brave enough to step up and give this a try. there are many "straight to video" or specialty "film festival winning" movies that really should not bother being released in the theatres that would benefit from this type of worldwide release date exposure. it may take a while for the business model to evolve to the point of being used for blockbusters, but the industry must go there if it wants to get every dollar it can make out of it's content since the pirate community will always remain one step ahead of this glacially slow to adapt to new technology industry.
buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Which do they care about more

A real solution to Piracy.
or
Their current system.

While this would be a big incentive to stopping piracy. The studios won't do it.
Which is odd when you see the kinds of numbers that they claim movie pirating costs.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Movie theaters are done

Would you rather watch a new movie in the comfort of home with friends and family where you can pause for bathroom breaks or ...

Go to a public showing with strangers interrupting your pursuit of entertainment.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Re: Movie theaters are done

dont forget the unattended children, sticky floors, people yakking on cellphones, clicking of people texting etc. overpriced concessions[that 50 cent bowl of popcorn they sell for $15]
--
Despises any post with strings.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
I agree this will kill theaters, no longer enough big screen fans to support a second run business.
and since most will be watching on screens 60 inches or less (some a lot less) the value of best quality /little details goes out the window, so they can dump the big locations and sound stages and just go with "made for television" technical values, with lots of product placement.
NefCanuck

join:2007-06-26
Mississauga, ON
But this is another of the issues that has the movie studios leery of this approach.

If you take your family to a movie theater, each person pays for their seat (and viewing) in the theater.

If you watch at home, the studios have no way to monetize the number of people watching the content at the same time.

While it would be a bold move to combat piracy, the amount of potential revenue that would be lost is something that would give even the most progressive studio pause.

NefCanuck
onthecake

join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO

Like Netflix

But would rather see this on Vudu. I never have streaming problems with Vudu but netflix is a crapshoot sometimes.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Re: Like Netflix

not to mention bitstarved[for a good movie i can wait for the dvd]
--
Despises any post with strings.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
While Wal-Mart may have the cash I don't see them ever doing this.
jeff17

join:2000-12-11
US

um, what?

"...may be considering releasing feature films the same day they hit theaters".

In other news, content providers/production companies are considering asking Netflix to pay $500 million per release in order for Netflix to release it on same day as theaters.
Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI

Re: um, what?

in other news, netflix content costs are continually rising because content creators that are integrated with a release house fear change, and soon netflix prices will go up again.

RRedline
Rated R
Premium
join:2002-05-15
Attleboro, MA

I'll probably get flamed for this...

...but I wouldn't care if I never saw a movie in a theater again. I would MUCH rather watch it at home, with no annoying people to deal with. I've had enough bad experiences at theaters that I rarely even go anymore. I am content to wait a few months until a movie is released on Blu-ray and rent it or stream it.

I think going to a theater made a lot more sense ten+ years ago before everyone and their grandparents had 50+" TV's. Most people have a pretty decent at-home movie-watching experience now.
--
One nation, under Zod!

•••

Probitas

@teksavvy.com

Likely won't happen

I can't see customers wanting to pay substantially higher fees just to watch a movie the same day it releases, not to mention, at a theatre the revenue is per person, Netflix is per household/device. Hardly the same thing at all.
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

Theatrical Release is still the biggest cash cow for movies.

I don't see how netflix could pull this off unless they started investing in their own movies (which would be really expensive).

The argument that you don't go to the theatre thus it shouldn't dent Theatrical results is a farce. What about all the people that do go to a theatre but wouldn't bother if they could watch it at home on release date? That's where the impact would be.

Having movies available to watch at home on release isn't a horrible idea, but I think you'd have to charge a lot to compensate for the reduced earnings the theatre. Most movies still make the majority of their money on the theatrical run. You're going to have a hard time convincing movie studios to lose out on the theatrical run for a fraction of peoples 7.99 monthly subscription.

The only way I see this working is for small/medium budget movies. Movies that only costs 20 or 30 million to make. The ones that people aren't going to the theatre in droves to see. Then it doesn't matter so much. Make the money back any way you can. Theatrical, VOD, TV rights, Netflix etc....

It makes no sense to give up theatrical profits on a movie that costs hundreds of millions to make (ie tentpole movies) but it could make sense and give life back to smaller movies which are dying at the theatres.
dublin00

join:2005-12-29
Dublin, CA

Re: Theatrical Release is still the biggest cash cow for movies.

A lot of movies lose out already because of the limited number of screens available or booking conflicts. I've seen more and more movies on VOD that are like this today. The cost is higher, one recently was $11.95, but my wife and I watched one anyway because we just didn't want to "deal" with the theater experience. The quality of TVs is also pretty good these days, and you can hear the entire movie at home too .

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

Already being done....

If you look at Amazon streaming movie offerings, quite a few will say they are still in the theater. Most of them I've never seen or heard a peep about, but it is being done.

I have been waiting for big movies to come to something like netflix for a long time, but I think someone like Amazon will beat them to it, at some point.

I myself would be willing to pay to stay home, and get first run movies %1000 more chance for me to see it that way, and pay more to get it. Maybe even more than it would cost to see it in the theater, and more than it would cost to see it run later. Maybe in the $10-15 range.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

Re: Already being done....

I see it as two different markets. Tentpole Films (the ones that cost hundreds of millions to make) and small/medium budget films. Tentpole films need to make a boatload of money back. They aren't going to sell them to people at home for $15 when they can charge $15/head at the theatre (and make $30 to $60 for a couple or family instead of $15 for a home viewing).

Low/Medium budget films are a different beast. They have a hard time in theatres now. People won't shell out an arm and leg to see them. I think these films could thrive on VoD, Online streaming etc.... They aren't making much money in theatres, so trying alternate venues could work.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Already being done....

said by zod5000:

Low/Medium budget films are a different beast. .... They aren't making much money in theatres, so trying alternate venues could work.

But the theater needs these maybe 30-40 weeks a year to breakeven so when a big one or 3 or 5 actually play for a month they can actually make a profit.
Cut those "filler" films and the theater closes and never comes back, and without the individual pay per view of the blockbusters at a theater Hollywood can take the risk one big ones and all you get are basic formulas and remake after remake.

anonome

@verizon.net

What Netflix has needed all along...

Pay-per-view.
biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

Netflix Movies

This won't work unless Netflix wants to start making their own movies like they are now doing with TV shows.
--
Unicorns Show ponies Where's the beef?

whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

I think people are missing what is happening here...

I think people do not have a clear understanding of what is happening. Everyone is assuming that Netflix wants first run movies on their $7.99/month streaming plan. This idea would not work in any kind of meaningful high volume as the capital is not there to fund the movies.

However Netflix is in a PERFECT tech+brand position to open up a first run new market. A Netflix "value added" service for home theater of first run movies. They already have the network to serve it up. Netflix would offer first run movies for $x.xx (perhaps the cost or a little less than two tickets because they can't count # of people viewing). Once paid that would open the movie up on Netflix streaming for 12-24 hours to view.

This would be a revolution for people who like to watch movies at home as well as handicap people. It would pull some extra direct film revenue from some in the "wait for the DVD crowd". But the service would be very hard on less popular theaters by having the same effect streaming had on DVD rental stores.

Winners would be most customers + Netflix + Movie Labels

Losers would be small theaters and those who live near them.
--
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the corporations discover that money can elect representatives to vote themselves a monopoly, buy media to blame 'The Godless' and forced price inflation on the public.