Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Could Start Buying Movie Theaters to Help Films Gain a Boost in Oscar Race, Report Says (indiewire.com)

Posted by msmash on from the interesting-moves dept.

Netflix has made a strong effort to land Oscar nominations since debuting its first original feature, "Beasts of No Nation," in 2015. The next step in the streaming giant's plan to secure film awards could be to buy and own movie theaters. IndieWire: A new report from the Los Angeles Times says Netflix is considering buying theaters in Los Angeles and New York in order to gain a boost during Oscar season. People familiar with the situation say the theaters would be used to give greater exposer to the feature and documentary titles Netflix is hoping to push into the awards race. According to the Times, Netflix executives originally considered purchasing the Los Angeles-based Landmark Theaters, which is co-owned by Mark Cuban. The theaters are well known for attracting awards voters by running first-run features, documentaries, and foreign films during Oscar season. Sources close to Netflix confirm the company has no current plans to buy Landmark properties. Landmark has three Los Angeles locations and 53 theaters overall in the U.S. Sources close to Netflix.

29 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. ...report says by Richard+Stalin · · Score: 1

    Why do they insist on making every other article something with "...a report says" followed by a bunch of clickbait?

    1. Re:...report says by neilo_1701D · · Score: 2

      Why do they insist on making every other article something with "...a report says" followed by a bunch of clickbait?

      Because "... a random guy without a clue says" simply doesn't carry the same weight as "a report".

      Imagine the proper headline from earlier today: " 'Increasingly, People in Silicon Valley Are Losing Touch With Reality', says random guy without evidence".

    2. Re:...report says by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Because it is clickbait. The current media is fully driven by it, it's also the reason why the quality is so low. It's not about quality, but quantity and how they can draw eyeballs in for revenue via ads.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. Netflix does not need the Oscars by OffTheLip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's the other way around. Times, they are a changin.

    1. Re:Netflix does not need the Oscars by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a way, old times are going back to how they used to be.

      Up until 1949, the US movie industry was dominated by the "big five" movie studios, in something called the "studio system". In the studio system, the studios not only made the movies, they owned the movie theaters as well, exercising monopoly control over independent theaters by forcing them to purchase and show less popular movies. In an age before TV where almost everybody went to the movies every week, that was guaranteed profit.

      That's kind of what Netflix does with its interface. It started as a content middleman, but it's using its control of the app in your smart TV to steer you toward Netflix original content, most of which, like the vast majority of Golden Age Hollywood movies, are mediocre. Strategic ownership of theaters in places where they can influence taste makers is consistent with that strategy. It makes little sense on its own, and it's not a long-term strategy, it's a short-to-mid term strategy to increase brain share. That's obviously Netflix's long term game.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Netflix does not need the Oscars by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      I don't subscribe to Netflix because they make news at Cannes. I don't subscribe to Netflix because they win lots of Oscars. If (and that's a big "if") there is any truth to this claim that Netflix is buying theaters to score points somehow then there are management problems at Netflix; somehow the people running things have lost all available clues about their subscribers. Oh, and space that Letterman crap too; I don't subscribe to Netflix to watch limousine liberals dote on each other.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Netflix does not need the Oscars by quantaman · · Score: 1

      In a way, old times are going back to how they used to be.

      Up until 1949, the US movie industry was dominated by the "big five" movie studios, in something called the "studio system". In the studio system, the studios not only made the movies, they owned the movie theaters as well, exercising monopoly control over independent theaters by forcing them to purchase and show less popular movies. In an age before TV where almost everybody went to the movies every week, that was guaranteed profit.

      That's kind of what Netflix does with its interface. It started as a content middleman, but it's using its control of the app in your smart TV to steer you toward Netflix original content, most of which, like the vast majority of Golden Age Hollywood movies, are mediocre. Strategic ownership of theaters in places where they can influence taste makers is consistent with that strategy. It makes little sense on its own, and it's not a long-term strategy, it's a short-to-mid term strategy to increase brain share. That's obviously Netflix's long term game.

      Not just that. If you want an endless volume of ad-free streaming TV Netflix is still the only game in town, meaning they can remain dominant as long as they have enough watchable content, but that's not going to last.

      Soon other players are going to have Netflix-sized catalogues of watchable content, which means that Netflix will need to shoot for high quality TV shows and movies.

      They're getting close with TV shows, they have a bunch of hits but no GoT style breakout hit, but that's just a matter of quality. If you make a show good enough the audience will come.

      But movies are one-offs, it doesn't matter how good your movie is, if it's going to get noticed you need a major marketing push. And people still think of big screen movies and better than TV screen movies.

      If Netflix wants to draw viewers in the future it needs respect for its movies. And if Netflix wants respect for its movies it needs box-office numbers and awards.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Netflix does not need the Oscars by drsquare · · Score: 1

      How will they attract high-end talent to make movies that aren't eligible for Oscars? Netflix needs talent if they want to be known as more than an online bargain bucket.

  3. Why by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix is a company built around disrupting the market, showing that the old distribution model is dying, and now showing that the old guard production companies are unneeded parasites.

    So why the FUCK are they wasting time and money chasing the baubles and trinkets of those dinosaurs? They're chasing film festivals and the Academy Awards like a social outcast seeking the approval of the popular high school kids, but 20 years after high school when they're all aging and failing.

    1. Re:Why by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Because they've been rejected and they want to be able to come back and tell the academy awards to suck it.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  4. Re:And their own version of the Oscars as well by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Was 1922 a "Netflix Original"? I really liked that. Otherwise I agree. Nearly all of it is trash to mediocre.

  5. Next headline will be "Netflix buys Futurama" by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Academy Awards: You can't enter your movies for nomination since they're not shown in theatres.
    Netflix: Yeah, well... We're gonna go build our own theatres, with blackjack and hookers.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  6. I Can't Wait! by sycodon · · Score: 1

    My local theater, now owned by Netflix, will start showing movies like Indiana Jonesy. Not to be confused with the blockbuster...

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:I Can't Wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the senior sonar officer from 'The Hunt for Red October' retires from the US Navy to become an archeologist chasing after fortune and glory? I want to see this movie.

  7. with blackjack and hookers! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    with blackjack and hookers!

  8. 'exposer' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    The word is 'exposure'. Doesn't ANYONE proofread these things first?

    1. Re:'exposer' by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were talking about a flasher or something? The Exposer was arrested for illegal Exposure.

    2. Re:'exposer' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
      Second sentence of the summary of TFA:

      People familiar with the situation say the theaters would be used to give greater exposer to the feature and documentary titles Netflix is hoping to push into the awards race.

      As I said: "exposure"

    3. Re:'exposer' by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Thank God you posted that and debunked the GP's comment, otherwise millions of people, perhaps even billions,might have thought the summary really was referring to a flasher. Thank you so much for your commitment to getting the truth out there.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:'exposer' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to be funny, it's kinda weak.

      What's so wrong wiht the people running this website at least reading things before posting them on the front page? A little professionalism, please? A pseudo-news-aggregator site like this could at least do that much for it's credibility, otherwise how is it any better than junk people post on social media?

  9. Dear God No. by ausekilis · · Score: 2

    Having watched a few of the Netflix-original movies, they can best be described as "high-dollar crap". Killer Clowns from Outer Space has a better plot than some of Netflix's brain-garbage.

    Spectral had an interesting idea, good special effects, mediocre acting and a crap resolution.

    Mute was scattered, confusing, and violent for the sake of violent. I had no idea what the hell was going on until the end.
      I'm sure there are others that my mind has shoved away in some deep dark corner never to be thought of again.

    1. Re:Dear God No. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Having watched a few of the Netflix-original movies, they can best be described as "high-dollar crap".

      Isn't that all movies though? I can't remember that last good film I saw.
      TV shows are where it's at these days. To really get 'into' a story you need time, and 90-120 minutes just isn't enough. Netflix has plenty of good TV shows, so I expect the movie format to lose ground as people prefer to digest their screen entertainment at home over weeks and months rather a hour or two.

  10. A few reasons come to mind. by LordZardoz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fundamentally, Netflix created movies are the same medium as theatrical releases. Netflix has series that have won Emmy's. They want the same shot for their other content, particularly their documentaries.

    There are a few good reasons for Netflix to want to do this.
      - Competition for and Recognition of Talent: Netflix's shareholders and such might not care if a movie gets any nominations. The actors, writers, and directors probably do.
      - Competition for Content: If someone makes a documentary, they shop it around. If the ownesr are hoping to win an Oscar, they will disregard Netflix if going with them means no chance of an Oscar.
    - Free Advertising: Being able to point to movies that have won awards may attract subscribers.

    END COMMUNICATION

  11. Comeback to Cannes by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If they get their own theaters, they can distribute their own movies in it, and then come back to Cannes festival

    1. Re:Comeback to Cannes by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Nope. They still won't wait the three years between theatrical release and "available on NetFlix" required by Cannes....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. Against the law by twebb72 · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

    United States V Paramount Pictures (1948) was case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theaters and holding exclusivity rights on which theaters would show their films.

    Netflix, as much as you want to own the entire creative pipeline, this is no longer allowed

    1. Re:Against the law by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      United States V Paramount Pictures (1948) was case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theaters and holding exclusivity rights on which theaters would show their films.

      The exclusivity clause would likely be the clincher. If Netflix is only distributing their content in their own theaters, then sure, it would probably hold. If, however, Netflix has attempted to distribute their films to AMC or Lowes and they simply don't want to gamble the theater space (especially if Netflix films are also available for streaming at the same time), then it's not 'exclusivity'.

      The other argument that could be made is that, in 1948, there was no concept of watching movies at home, much less on demand streaming. People *had* to go to theaters to view content, and the complete vertical of production to theaters was troubling. Is the Paramount ruling still relevant in the age of on-demand streaming? I don't think the MPAA members are going to fight this one too much, especially since arguing that Netflix original content should be able to be shown in anyone's theaters makes a rather slippery slope for streaming service exclusivity - it's a short trip to consider streaming services a 'theater' in the context of "a place to experience viewing audiovisual entertainment" and rule that CBS cannot forbid Netflix from making Star Trek: Discovery available for streaming as a matter of course.

      Finally, don't underestimate Hollywood Accounting. Netflix doesn't own theaters, Theaterflix, a wholly independent company does...who then proceeds to only incidentally screen films of Netflix original Content, as it is the only company from whom their customers enjoy seeing films. Netflix licenses distribution to Theaterflix, and makes the same offer to National Amusements. If Netflix allows NA to play the films just like Theaterflix, and for the same price as Theaterflix plays...then the question simply becomes whether Theaterflix can be compelled to show MPAA movies if they don't want to. If NA wants to play the films, everyone wins! If NA never makes the offer, then the fact that Theaterflix is the only one who wants to isn't Netflix's fault.

  13. Why would they do something dumb like that? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Their business model BENEFITS from being decentralized and almost completely virtual for distribution?

    Why would they invest in the dying "theater" business model?

    Outside of specialty "brew and view" / dinner-and-a-movie venues, the entire market segment is contracting violently...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Re: One simple trick to win the Oscars by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Hollywood cares about them. A dirty little open secret about them is that they're fixed. If you are an actor or filmmaker, just to merely get nominated, either you or somebody else (i.e. a studio promoting your film) MUST pay a very steep bribe. Still, they eat it up anyways. I wonder if that piece of paper with their name printed in a gold color is laced with cocaine or something.

    They all know it's fixed, but what's worse is those stupid fucking assholes (actors, directors, studios, and all) have the gall to ask governments to start paying for some of it, and that is what some do. After all, they MUST hire the top celebrity chefs and fashionistas to make $500,000 worth of overly elaborate banquets. Must have those H'orderves that say BAM! And accept both bribes AND government money at the same time. Unfortunately, an entire political party has been purchased and paid for in full by Hollywood.