|
Post by sgev1977 on May 23, 2017 1:12:32 GMT
The Killing of a Sacred Deer sounds very intriguing! Variety just posted an article in which Ben Stiller (I know! He is a big star who does silly movies) said something similar to what I posted and a lot of people are saying: He and Sandler also said that the guy from Netflix love movies not a businessman and "reminds him of the types of people who ran studios back in the day" variety.com/2017/film/news/ben-stiller-adam-sandler-defend-netflix-cannes-1202440602/I guess the perfect solution would be that theatre owners accept shorter space between the run of theatrical releases and the streaming. That's the question in France. It seems that indie movie theatre doesn't have any problems in the USA but big chains do and they are the ones making noise. We will see what happens this year when Okja and Baumbach's movie do their short run and if they are ignored or not by the Academy. I think I read that they also planned to release on cinema the Brad Pitt movie to qualify for awards but it's receiving great reviews.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 23, 2017 1:51:29 GMT
Here's an interesting article on the downside of Netflix: www.indiewire.com/2017/04/netflix-bad-for-movies-theaters-okja-tramps-1201806272/I don't think it's a matter of elitism or good guys vs. bad guys (honestly, i blanche at the thought of referring to anyone in the business side of the film/tv/whatever business as good guys). The industry is changing very rapidly and the effects need to be anticipated, protections need to be discussed, and regulations (which can always be renegotiated) need to be put in place.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 23, 2017 2:06:57 GMT
The link is not working.
I didn't literally thought for a moment they were literally good or bad. Of course everything it's a business. I just think that Netflix is doing a good service financing artistic movies that a few years ago were financing by big studios' indie branches that have been disappearing in recent years. It's also comprehensive why big studios prefer franchise and superhero movies nowadays more than ever. It's there where money is because the audiences go to the movies to see those kind of movies. At the same time people who prefer adult oriented entertainment seem to be watching TV more than ever.
Of course things are changing and there need to be discussion by those involve. In this moments theatre owners are very frightened by the situation and it's comprehensive but I don't know if it will work to try to boycott streaming services in any way.
I don't think people would stop to going to cinema ever.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 23, 2017 3:39:57 GMT
Sorry. Maybe this will work: www.indiewire.com/2017/04/netflix-bad-for-movies-theaters-okja-tramps-1201806272/
I think someone else, maybe igs, had mentioned elitism. In the U.S., distribution is really a mess right now on so many levels. Streaming services aren't the only thing threatening the survival of non-blockbuster movies. For instance, the studios release far too many movies in theaters - especially during Awards season. They dump so many "prestige" films every week in the Fall, that the public doesn't have a chance to see them. They are gone within a week or two. Even hardcore movie fans, not to mention casual fans, have a limited amount of time and money that they can spend on entertainment. Only a tiny fraction of these films will come close to making a profit before being buried on some streaming service. It wasn't always this way. Studios used to release only a few movies a year and they stayed around for months, giving them a chance to find an audience. I'm not saying studios should return to those practices even if they could, but there are some things they could do differently. They could increase distribution of prestige or art house movies throughout the year. AMPAS might even be able to help by changing some of their policies.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 23, 2017 19:24:13 GMT
I only go to the cinema once or twice a year. I'm not gonna pay that much when I can wait six months and see it for free. But movie theaters have always skated on the edge of financial collapse. First there was the threat of tv, then the cost started rising and folks started spending their money elsewhere. But what do they expect when it's 30-40 dollars for a show for two and a couple of popcorns?
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 23, 2017 19:59:28 GMT
I only go to the cinema once or twice a year. I'm not gonna pay that much when I can wait six months and see it for free. But movie theaters have always skated on the edge of financial collapse. First there was the threat of tv, then the cost started rising and folks started spending their money elsewhere. But what do they expect when it's 30-40 dollars for a show for two and a couple of popcorns? Wow! It's not that expensive here, but I usually avoid the popcorn, which costs a fortune! France, apparently, has a thriving film industry ...or is it just the movie theater business that's thriving. Maybe we could learn something from them. I don' see any reason why streaming and theaters can't coexist.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 23, 2017 21:06:45 GMT
That's about what it costs here, too. The ticket prices actually dropped a few years ago and have remained steady, but everything else - popcorn, candy, drinks - went up. I remember getting a bottle of water once, and was told that it was $4. I told the guy behind the counter that I only wanted a bottle, not a case! From then on, I bring my own water.
I wish I had the time to go to the movies more often. Back in the 80's, my sister and I saw at least one movie each weekend. It was actually a money-saver for us because it was cheaper than spending a couple of hours at a mall!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 24, 2017 1:09:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 24, 2017 1:59:11 GMT
Interesting point of view. I just can speak about my personal experience: when I knew about the two examples he cites were added on Netflix, Beats of No Nation and I don't feel at home in this world anymore, I watched them. I didn't care for ratings or the hour Netflix added them. I was just curious to watch the movies I hear about reading reviews. Like I always do except that quicker. This is almost a philosophical issue. That means that I haven't really watched The Godfather trilogy, all those silent films I love, Hitchcock, Kubrick, etc. Of course I would have loved to watch those movies when they were on movie theatres but apart of some special exhibitions it's impossible to do it simply because I haven't been born yet or I didn't have the right age to be admitted. People are also forgetting two things: 1) non-reviewers interested in art cinema, especially in non-major cities, only have access to those movies thanks to TV or streaming services. Going to the movie theatre is everyday indeed more and more elitist because it's very expensive but also because not everyone can have access to watch art films on the big screen. Those movies aren't screened everywhere like franchise movies are; 2) TV and streaming productions are getting better because technology transformed TV from ugly to beautiful. Yes, some people watch movies on their phones and iPads but TVs are bigger and their images more beautiful than ever. I think that's the main reason a lot of great filmmakers are doing TV in the last few years. That's why TV celebrities aren't a joke anymore. Actually they seem now bigger stars than a good number of movie stars. I love movies and I would love to watch them all on the big screen but I can see why young and old filmmakers are excited when their projects are bought by Netflix. I can't deny that I'm excited to know that in one or two months I would watch two official selected Cannes movies on it and in high definition (which being honest it's more clear and beautiful that commonly bad projected movies at movie theatres) or that I was very happy to know that one Sundance favorite was ready there to watch.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on May 24, 2017 3:20:47 GMT
Netflix's system for finding films, tv shows, and other content is notoriously difficult. I find it very cumbersome. If you know the exact title, you can search for it, but otherwise, it's a mess. I can see how films that are not promoted by them would get buried. In contrast, Movies On Demand is very easy to use and I've never had any problem finding new movies that I had never heard of, but that sounded interesting. No one is suggesting that Netflix go away, that streaming services don't have their place, or that they are not producing some brilliant work. There is also no reason that theaters should die or be limited to movies with the complexity of bumper stickers or fortune cookies. None of this is inevitable. There are a lot of forces at play - not just the streaming services. The industry, the arts communities in various countries, and governments need to be proactive about the rapid changes and develop strategies for addressing them that benefit artists, consumers, and local economies. For those groups to just sit back and let other people determine the future seems stupid. Awards, even those at Cannes, are largely marketing devices and changing them can have an effect on what movies and projects get made and distributed. For example, some people (not many) have suggested eliminating acting categories that are specific to sex - no best actress awards, just best actor - and have all actors competing against each other. This would have a devastating impact on the minuscule number of movies starring women. Because there are so many more movies starring men in a wide variety of roles, the majority of the nominations would probably go to men. This means that the huge publicity push surrounding Awards season would focus even less on women ...which means that even fewer people would go to see movies about women ...which means that even fewer movies about women would get made because they would be considered even less commercial. Brilliant! Fewer and fewer foreign films are distributed in the U.S. these days. An award at Cannes or some other international festival will influence whether a film shows here at all. Insisting that movies or series be distributed in theaters first to qualify for certain awards doesn't mean that the projects not allowed are of a lesser quality; they can come up with their own awards, and probably should, as a way of promoting content that might be getting lost. SaveSave
|
|