Slashdot Mirror
Can Streaming Companies Replace Hollywood Studios? (vanityfair.com)
"Movie-theater attendance is down to a 19-year low, with revenues hovering slightly above $10 billion," reports Vanity Fair, arguing that traditional studios should feel threatened by nimble streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon, which produced the film Manchester By The Sea -- nominated for six Oscars.
An anonymous reader writes:
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos attended the Oscars, prompting host Jimmy Kimmel to joke that if the film won, "you can expect your Oscar to arrive in 2 to 5 business days, possibly stolen by a GrubHub delivery man." But it's a symbol of an inevitable disruption in Hollywood. "Studios now account for less than 10% of their parent companies' profits," writes Vanity Fair, adding "By 2020, according to some forecasts, that share will fall to around 5%... Some 70% of box office comes from abroad, which means that studios must traffic in the sort of blow-'em-up action films and comic-book thrillers that translate easily enough to Mandarin. Or in reboots and sequels that rely on existing intellectual property." Former Paramount CEO Barry Diller famously said "I don't know why anyone would want a movie company today. They don't make movies; they make hats and whistles."
The article makes the case that Hollywood, "in its over-reliance on franchises, has ceded the vast majority of the more stimulating content to premium networks and over-the-top services such as HBO and Showtime, and, increasingly, digital-native platforms such as Netflix and Amazon. These companies also have access to analytics tools that Hollywood could never fathom, and an allergy to its inefficiency."
The article argues that with A.I., CGI, big data and innovation, "Silicon Valley has already won," and that "it's only a matter of time -- perhaps a couple of years -- before movies will be streamed on social-media sites."
The article makes the case that Hollywood, "in its over-reliance on franchises, has ceded the vast majority of the more stimulating content to premium networks and over-the-top services such as HBO and Showtime, and, increasingly, digital-native platforms such as Netflix and Amazon. These companies also have access to analytics tools that Hollywood could never fathom, and an allergy to its inefficiency."
The article argues that with A.I., CGI, big data and innovation, "Silicon Valley has already won," and that "it's only a matter of time -- perhaps a couple of years -- before movies will be streamed on social-media sites."
there's that DMCA thing, too.
He is fucking dead! Still! He may still be dead tomorrow too!
Hollywood could have been utilizing these services for at least a decade, and probably helped push the technology along. They would rather have people visit a theater since their profits can be higher and media tightly controlled.
I don't go to movies, and haven't for about a decade. The mandatory 15 minutes of commercials, price for the film, hassle of parking, insane price for drinks and a snack all add up to a big "no thanks" from me. If they streamed I'd probably pay for a movie now and then, but as is I wait for it to be on TV.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Picture, better at home
Sound, better at home
Food, better at home
Seating, better at home
Rest of Audience behavior, more controllable at home
Other than a lock on new releases the theatres have nothing. Producers would make more money with a secure direct to home pay per view service.
FYI: the sky is apparently falling
Like i.e. Netflix, that wanted to be a disruptor, and then went ahead and did the exact same fucked up international licensing, "sorry, even our own shows are unavailable in $yourcountry, 'cause we prefer money and licensed it to $local-media-mafia"...
...when the author has a primary financial stake in the outcome, or a strong political motivation to push that outcome.
Not that it won't be true, but it is the very definition of bullshit. Right now, most of the prognosticators are predicting either Trump's ascension to eternal godhood, or his imminent crash into grim legend - same story there too, it's not a real prediction, but an attempt to shape the range of expected outcomes.
Same story for hundreds of years of history too - look at any newspaper archive and and the wonderful history of local yellow journalism. There's dozens of archives easily browsed with a google search, and they're hilarious and enlightening on the nature of such bullshit.
So yeah, Hollywood may just be the next buggy whip factory doomed to be unable to adapt before failure, or it may be the start of the next golden era for the studios once they absorb the remains of failed online studios - but either prediction would be wrong to make ahead of time without evidence.
I'd love to predict a future where folks learned to adopt more skepticism in their daily lives and news preferences, but I fear that one is DEFINITELY not held up by previous ages of human interest and news trends over time. That would take concentrated education, in a world drawn to distraction... and here I am on Slashdot!
Ryan Fenton
I thought silicone valley won a long time ago already. There are no natural starlets anymore, so the change to silicon and CGI is inevitable.
Hollywood has become far too much a churn factory. Producing the same content endlessly...
Netflix has really grabbed the reigns at producing a wide variety of content. Yes Netflix has Marvel stuff too, but even that is better than what Hollywood produces!
The other reason Netflix will dominate is they are not afraid to make content available worldwide regardless of what audience it was produced for. The Netflix show 3% was targeted at the Brazilian audience but I really enjoyed the story and actors. No studio would have produced something like that and showed it in the U.S., at best they would have done a crappy American focused remake that watered down the point dramatically.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go for it, cut the fat!
There was some really good movies, and then there were the steaming pile remakes - like Ghostbusters, Batman vs Superman - I wouldn't be interested in watching that on a streaming service. The reason why streaming is "winning" at the moment is they're making stuff that people actually want to watch - that's new / original. If Hollywood learns this lesson, people will go back to the cinemas. What goes around comes around - many years ago when the VCR was first introduced, people said it was the death of the cinema, it wasn't, and neither is streaming content. It will hopefully be the death of mediocre cinema - if it is everyone wins!!
It seems 2 different things to me. The content producers and the content distributors are different groups with different specialties. The top producers and physical studios can rent themselves out to Netflix if the deal is right, for example. Neither is stapled to each other.
The fact that Netflix and Amazon have produced a hit or two doesn't mean they will take over most content production. If they find a nice niche, competitors will copy that niche.
Table-ized A.I.
You should check a person's post history before attempting to insult them. A Constitutional Conservative is about as far from "liberal" as you can get. Dumbass trolls..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why would I pay 20 bucks to see a movie when I can download it for free?
Future movies won't stream. Future movies will be that you download a script, several actors, default personality files and camera angle list as a single file.
Then the computer will just render the movie as you want.
Don't like the default Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? Fine. Replace the actor with Matt Damon and watch the movie your way.
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
For a big movie with complex effects?
...
To make a really big US movie you need to get your actors and script to a low cost "Canada" to really enjoy the tax issues.
Then move the product back to the US to have more expensive US staff work on the project with really expensive US private sector super computers.
The script is easy to find. Actors exist in every state in the US with great talent and skills.
The super computers are still too expensive per frame per artist in the USA.
The ability to transport an entire crew to an international "Canada" like location to enjoy complex tax considerations is also a cost with the risk of local currency changes over the duration of the project.
The risks for the USA are:
Other nations with good support, gov "funded" private sector super computer services and lower all taxes on new movies.
If other nations can get that per frame art work cost down, parts of the trendy, creative USA could face real cost issues per project.
Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada could just make that low cost happen by funding local artists, experts with the projection that long term tourism covers the digital "students" art costs.
How to win:
Anyone can find US actors, a new script. That US only super computer network that makes nice art still per movie is still too expensive.
So make movies that don't need a lot of fantasy, avoid the advanced computer work on every frame or get other nations to pay for the complex art.
Thats limiting. Find other ways to cover computer costs.
Invest in nations that welcome artists making complex movies and have the gov assistance to really prove their support of the arts. Nations that will do anything to create new hi tech local jobs.
Don't hire any actors from such nations but use all their services and see what gov support is on offer. A US company has more control over US actors who get strange ideas about wages, conditions, work place safety, the later "sharing" of profits... Local actors might have too many legal rights or even access to expert lawyers, unions in their own nations.
Enough US actors to pass as a US movie. Enough of an international crew to get international tax rates and art support in nations desperate to tax payer fund their own computer and art students.
Return to the USA with a product that will sell domestically and enjoy the international tax rate and low cost "educational" support other nations give away.
Its not gov funded art in some other wealthy nation. The project helped poor computer students in a poor nation with their first big "special effects" movie. It just needed free super computer time the gov had on offer for their poor students for a few months, years
In a historical perspective why stay in the USA and pay for a Video Toaster team when another nation will totally fund a complete 3D animation and rendering package?
No more US artist/engineers needed per frame, the costs are lower, the product can sell in the USA and globally.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's about making good movies. Which Hollywood has been incapable of for decades. I stopped watching Hollywood movies in 2006. I'd had enough.
Jeremy Clarkson famously ended his Top Gear BBC career by punching a staff member. Amazon snapped him up and The Grand Tour Replaced it.And because the they aren't held down by craptastic rules about empowerment, cultimultcheralism, and being politically correct have created an even better show to watch.
So Yes, Hollyweird has to restructure and re purpose because they are going to lose a lot of eyes because it makes more sense to spend less and get more.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Follow the money.
Many, many moons ago studios owned the theaters and there were enforced anti-trust actions. A few years back I started wondering who owned what and found something interesting. Large amusement companies own the theater chains. They also hold large stakes in the studios and many production companies.
Ya know how we sometimes stories about how a musical group get's a million dollar contract for 2 albums and all the production costs are billed by the record company against the contract... And all the companies and services being paid are subsidiaries of the record company?
It seems to work the same way in movies. Except they got smart enough to not do it directly and the big amusement companies collect at every step of the way.
Disney just reported net income last quarter of $2.88 billion on revenues of $15.24 billion...
CEO Robert Iger: "Driven by the phenomenal success of Star Wars, we delivered the highest quarterly earnings in the history of our company"
Movies at $6 to $8 are something you can do every friday.
At $12! for non-3d, non imax- just ordinary screen and still pay $8 for popcorn and $5 for a drink, I pass.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
16 years (and two months). that's how long it had been since i've seen a movie in a theatre. i simply can't justify the expense. and i only went because it was filmed nearby. before that, probably add another 5 years to that back when i lived in a town with a really inexpensive theatre ($2-3 got you in to see first-run titles, with drink, popcorn and some other snack included in that). yes, that theatre still exists today, still costs about that, and still shows current releases.
I'd pay more for movies in theaters if they somehow guaranteed no one would be yapping along during the entire thing right next to me
No
Choose your move
Too late. He's already pushed mine.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Trump is one button press away from rescuing the world from global warming. The nuclear winter will provide enough radiation to kick start evolution. The remaining human population will be forced to live as an ordered society and thanks to radiation and genes under stress, the human evolution will create a super human in less then 10,000 years. Trump is one button press removed from saving the planet earth from the destructive human race. He will be remember as an angel sent by god. Instead of flooding the earth, he set the world in fire. Out of the ashes will rise a better world led by the newly evolved man.
There is one thing, though... Netflix et.al are not available outside the US, or, if they are, they are only a sad joke compared to the American version (from a selection p.o.v). Netflix in Europe is pathetic, for instance. So in most places in the world there simply is no alternative to going to the movies.
Plus, the experience is better in front of a huge screen, with great sound - no matter what setup you might have at home.
Just like the music industry did for so many years (and still tries re piracy): the film industry is clinging to the old distribution model that served them for decades - trying their best to ignore the reality of the Internet. There is no reason for region-codes, other than to piss off your potential audience. Fewer and fewer people want to go sit in a theater full of ill-behaved idiots, when the quality of home devices is just as good.
They could try to get ahead of the curve, and lead their audience into the future, instead, they are dooming themselves to irrelevancy, as companies from completely different backgrounds start producing better content aimed directly at the Internet (Amazon, Netflix, et al).
Did you know that, if you trim off the non-movie activities from the conglomerates, Apple could theoretically buy up every single Hollywood movie studio with its spare change? Probably twice over. For all the drama, the movie industry is actually remarkably small and irrelevant.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Silence them with a squirt gun then.
Movie making used to be a craft. Now it's a franchise run by accountants trying to generate a return instead of generating a good movie.
That's why the DMCA is required. People can see the movies are crap for free, but once a theater has your money they don't care if you enjoy it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And I hope it happens sooner, rather than later. Hollywood "studios" are basically VC outfits these days, with little to no interest in entertainment or quality. That's why they keep shitting out remakes and sequels and casting celebs who can't fucking act.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I've never been a fan of the "shelf-life" mentality with regard to professional compensation. In fact, I think it's total bullshit. No one is guaranteed income/royalties for life. If you age-out of your chosen profession...to be clear, the profession you chose...then you go and do something else. You go back to school, retrain, do whatever you need to do to continue being a production member of society. Or you can retire if you're able to and that's what you want.
It's likely that no job is guaranteed. You can age-out do to the fickle nature of it like acting, although there are plenty of actors over 30 doing just fine, or it being health/performance related as is the case for professional athletes. You can be replaced by cheap labor from overseas, or by AI. You can work in an industry that was just up-ended by some silicon valley upstart and forces your company to close shop. I didn't say, "I'm not going into programming unless I get paid stupidly excessive amounts of money just in case my job is obviated by some technology 10 years down the road." I got into it because I liked it, wasn't bad at it, and not everyone can or wants to do it.
The same goes for most professions, and should go for those in the acting profession as well. If an actor can negotiate a percentage of the box office for their remuneration, that's one thing. Good for them and their agent. But to claim they should get that money because they may not get parts later is bullshit.
And speaking of profitability. In truth, only about 50% of movies make an actual profit. Interestingly, this is regardless of budget. On paper, no movies make a profit due to Hollywood Accounting. That's why the Lord of the Rings trilogy grossed something like $6 billion and yet New Line Cinema claimed they got hit with horrendous losses on the movie.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
The article makes the claim "Some 70% of box office comes from abroad, which means that studios must traffic in the sort of blow-'em-up action films and comic-book thrillers that translate easily enough to Mandarin." This is not the first time I've seen foreign audiences blamed for the lack of creativity and ambition we are seeing in recent Hollywood productions. Another example.
The percentage given (70%) seems accurate, depending on the types of films chosen maybe a bit high, based on checking the box office of some major films from recent years at random, but overall I am unable to find much to support the claim that audiences abroad were more into the mindless action sequels or simplistic thrillers than the american audiences. The example given in the BBC article (Battleship, 78,4% foreign) is clearly to be a notable exception, but the other film given (Fast and Furious 6) actually falls short of the given average of 70%, although not by much. Taking some other examples like The Pianist (73% foreign), The Tree of Life (75,5% foreign), The Avengers (59% foreign) or Batman v Superman (62,2% foreign) somewhat suggest the opposite.
Yes, the examples given above are very random and clearly you can find several examples of different behavior. But the question still remains, is there truth to the statement or not?
Going through something live "top 100 critic choices for year 2015" it is true that many of the smaller films were much bigger successes in the US than abroad, with the caveat that they were never released in theaters anywhere outside the US. It is therefore hard to say whether not releasing them is the reason or the consequence?
The part that I do find plenty of evidence to support is that comedies in the style of let's say Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller or the Wayans brothers are generally not popular outside of US, but I am not sure I am willing to accept the language-barrier as the explanation.
You'll do fine without all this TV/Hollywood slop. Read a book, become active in your own life and your community. This other crap is just a time sink to force you to see the world by someone else's vision.
"Movie-theater attendance is down to a 19-year low, with revenues hovering slightly above $10 billion," There is a simple problem...you pay your so called talent WAY TOO MUCH, the price of tickets is WAY TOO HIGH, the price of concessions is WAY TOO HIGH. For your typical family of 4 to go see a movie, not counting gas to get there and back, it's EASILY over 100.00 PER MOVIE. Not to mention, I for one am fed up with the lazy ass attitude of hollyWEIRD agencies/movie production companies making nothing more than remake/reboots and part 4,5,6 of a stupid movie. How about SOMETHING ORIGINAL. I can stay home, watch 2nd run movies on netflix/Amazon Prime or what not for little to nothing, compared to what it cost to go to a movie.
No, Netflix makes about 650 million a year from disc rental, and around 6 billion(!) dollars a year from streaming, growing rapidly...
Your information is about ten years out of date.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Same with athletes. Clubs pay a lot for players not because they work really hard, but because they generate lots of revenue.
It's different there. With professional athletes, what generates revenue for a club is easier to correlate with quantifiable performance. More wins means more butts in the home field's seats. A player not generating value gets relegated to a developmental league.
From the summary: "Movie-theater attendance is down to a 19-year low, with revenues hovering slightly above $10 billion".
Hollywood has a demonstrable preference for African-Americans. I'm non-African-American, live in the United Socialist States of America (USSA), and most movie advertisements I see on broadcast DTV are geared towards an African-American audience. Hollywood seems to have no interest whatsoever in creating movies that cater to a racially-diverse audience.
Only 1/3rd of the u.s. geography has high-speed internet.
The wireless crap from the mobile phone people does not work for video, except inside some major cities.
Ironic, that the areas which are underserved are a byproduct of how the corporations think.
If your business model was based on only 1/3rd of a population you can reach, then why not put effort into reaching the other two-thirds?
People don't care. They're sick of commercials and $200/mo cable bills.
Broadband Internet + Netflix + Hulu + HBO Now + Amazon Prime + CBS All Access + Sling (for ESPN) can add up fairly quickly as well, and Hulu and CBS All Access still show commercials to subscribers who don't pay the commercial-free surcharge.
Now that you can actually get a 10 figure budget to do a series 9-12 hours series the 90 or 120 minute long movie is going to go the way of the short story -- not enough bang for buck.
This site http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ shows that in 2014 the USA sold fewer tickets than in 19 years. The past couple years have been a little better. Also, box office numbers are higher likely thanks to higher ticket prices. 19-year low? That's a stretch. Also, this does not count movies made for streaming services. Hollywood is booming, if you include TV. They are producing far more shows today than ever.
Theater movies... Not even once!
but my story filtering software tagged this as "I don't know" XD
how appropriate :D