Hacker News Reader

Comment by fudged71 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema?

I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or something like that. What do you think?

At some point I assume they will also become the channel that VR content could be sent through as well, maybe in partnership with Facebook?

View on HN

>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema?

They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it.

But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do you bridge that price gap? How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees? You can't.

Unless they move to a model where you have to PPV for new / premium content like box office movies.

That's the model that I think would actually be acceptable to all parties in the short to medium turn. I'd be happy to fork over $5-$10 ppv for a cinema release over the $23 I'd pay at the cinema. I'd still go to the cinema for bigger movies that I wanted to watch for the experience/sound/screen.

Here's an idea your comment made me think of: I wonder when are we going to see DLCs for movies?

Imagine - you buy the base Force Awakens for $10, and then they offer you extra movie parts - $1 for one in which Chewbacca does something silly, $2 for one which features an additional 10-minutes-long scene of starships shooting at each other, etc.

They've been doing this for years with deluxe editions on DVD and Blu-ray, providing things like deleted scenes, extended versions, and commentary tracks. You can pay one fee (or get a rental) for a bare-bones experience or pay more for a better one.

That's called "The Unrated Director's Cut".

I could see it being more like the DVD/BluRay Extras model - $5 for a pack of commentary tracks, $2 for deleted scenes, another $2-4 for the behind-the-scenes featurette, etc. It would be similar to the more successful DLC implementations, where a handful of enthusiastic users would make up a significant amount of the revenue.

It would be interesting to see how this would/could be applied to both rentals and purchases - rent the bonus features for $0.50-2 each, purchase them for $2-5 each or something like that.

I sincerely hope not. If you bought a book but were told you could get an extra chapter of storyline added in for extra money, you'd wonder "Does it contribute to the story in any way?" Ultimately, no. Or "will the story make sense if I do not buy this extra chapter?". Hopefully yes; hopefully the story makes sense without this extra chapter.

I wouldn't want to watch a film with extra fluff that added nothing to the story, just for a cash-grab by the maker of the film.

Extra add-on features are always pointless: look at the Dreamcast and the add-on packs you could put into the controller. As it was entirely optional, none of the games could depend on it being there so had to cater for controllers without it, so this little LCD on your controller just ended up showing Rayman walking or dancing, and contributed nothing to the game.

The same is happening with Macbooks and iPhones, where developers cannot rely on the user having a "force touch" touchpad or iPhone 6nnnn (whatever it is), so cannot rely on that hardware feature being available; because of this, they cannot say "feature X is done by using force touch" because if you have a Macbook without that hardware, you can't use that feature. So it must get ignored to cater to everyone.

In the case of stories and films, the story must still make sense without the extra scenes. This makes the extra scenes pointless.

I hope not either. But this is a popular model in videogames, and it somehow both pissess off players and earns the studios tons of money.

You obviously can't apply it to every movie, but you could appply it to quite a few. For instance, there's little point in extra content for Inception, because the movie world is defined by the start and the end of that very movie, and as you said, it has to make sense in its basic version. But consider things with already established franchises. I Disney would start publishing DLC sub-stories to the Force Awakens, I'm betting that every hardcore Star Wars fan would feel obliged to see them. The world portrayed in the movie is much bigger than the movie itself, and is has communities formed around it. To participate in the fandom, you need to be up to date with the canon. I'm pretty sure it could work with Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.

Then there are movies for which such a move would be a gamble. LotR and Hunger Games are franchises too, but I don't think they're strong enough to support DLC money-grab.

Anyway, enough suggesting ideas to them :). I absolutely hate DLCs. I just couldn't resist discussing the concept in the abstract.

The Animatrix seems like a real example of something along those lines. A DVD of 6 short episodes that expanded on the Matrix story universe. They were done by different directors/writers/makers, like authorised fanfic or something. In my opinion it was a great addition, better than the full-blown sequels, and certainly not a distasteful cash-grab.

I think this could totally work for something like Inception too. The film has a backstory suggests at a wider context beyond what's shown in the scenes. Most stories do. That's why fanfiction exists.

Force Awakens is probably not a great example though. Maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, while traditional big-budget blockbusters scramble to find an alternative release method?

Also: > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great.

From what I hear, that's not true, but it's all hidden through magical "Hollywood accounting" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting)

It's already started happening. Netflix has been at the film festivals buying up movies, especially documentaries.

>maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix,

Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?

> Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?

If they can keep selling in theatres then they will. But if Netflix can deliver high enough production values (coupled with higher quality home equipment) then it may put theatres out of business. Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.

>If they can keep selling in theatres then they will.

I think that's what it comes down to.

>Since I got a $500 projector I've hardly ever gone to the cinema, and regretted it when I did.

But that's been a trend for a long time. There is some evidence that high-quality AV equipment with digital content did impact ticket sales. But I don't know if it's going to kill it. The one thing that cinema has going for it is it's a destination when you want to get out of the house.

And we do have a good thing going. If you want to see a new release RIGHT NOW, you pay $15/person/view. If you don't, you wait a few months to rent it for $5 or wait a little longer and watch it for 'free' on Netflix or TV. That's eco101 price discrimination.

$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be perfectly fine with additional fees or different payment tiers for more expensive content. I pay $130/mo. for a cable package that provides almost no content that I enjoy and includes a DVR that frequently craps out when recording the few shows that I do watch. I'd rather pay Netflix an extra $30/mo. (or more, depending on what they can offer) for that premium content and ditch my cable package altogether.

Shhh..... remember my cable bill used to be 40 bucks 22 years ago. That includes hbo.

Mine includes 8Mbps internet access. I'd love to "cut the cord" but I don't want to give up regional sports and live network news.

> regional sports and live network news

Precisely the things I don't watch :P

I think it would be interesting to see rise of actors' fees over that period of time. Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors.

Most of the cost of blockbusters is marketing.

> Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hol...

I would not be surprised if they did that to move money into the "costs" column for the movie, while still funneling value into advertising companies owned by the parent.

   Sure cable companies make money but most money seems to be going to TV networks and in turn TV actors

Do you have figures on that? I would surprise me if actor salaries were major cost, but I don't know the industry.

I guess you are right. This is one link I found about TV show economics http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-a-hit-tv-show/

I bet pro athletes, sports leagues, and college conferences take home more of the money than actors.

>$10/mo. is incredible value for Netflix

Let's see what the price is when they are entrenched as a global monopoly with a vast catalog of culturally relevant content that you can't get anywhere else. It may very well act as Hollywood on steroids.

Of course it will. If there isn't adequate competition, every company will do this. If you have an executive in place who refuses to do it, the shareholders will fire and replace him. This is exactly why free markets that stimulate competition are extremely important. Our current copyright laws make competition very difficult, especially if you're not starting with a multi-billion dollar war chest.

$10 sounds unsustainable for this catalog (heck, €8 in France for single-watchers). The expectable price is rather $30. That's just an initial promotion, the customer lifecycle value they are ready to extract should be much, much higher.

Crunchbase tells us that the only investment was $36m. The rest is regular debt, $1.7bn! It just shows how much banks trust their business model.

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/netflix#/entity

Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million (probably towards the lower end of that scale). Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop? I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much and that releasing cinema to streaming services will correctly adjust the price of new release films.

For context I watched the force awakens last night at iMax (premium recliner chairs which was nice!) for $43. But you can't see a movie in Australia for less than about $23 these days. We're directly funding hollywood's lifestyle.

> Flipping the question a little bit, how do you justify paying actors 40 million for a movie if they're being streamed online for $5 a pop?

This is basic supply and demand. Harrison Ford has a monopoly on Harrison Ford, so if you want Harrison Ford, you have to pay what Harrison Ford wants for it.

There are 2 sides to the transaction and it comes down to margins. If the margins don't exist to pay Harrison Ford $40M then either he takes less $ or another actor is found.

Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?

We end up with YouTube?

If the industry shifts to paying its top stars smaller but still large sums of money then maybe Harrison Ford won't accept that, but the best actors in the next generation who weren't used to getting paid todays rates will.

The original Star Wars did okay using no-name actors instead of paying Harrison Ford $10 million just to show up.

But they paid Alec Guinness very handsomely for his role.

Though it did do ok paying Harrison Ford to (not just) show up.

Well, I wouldn't jump so fast to the conclusion that those movies would be of lower quality.

>Or the movie doesn't happen and we will see movies of lower quality because of that in coming years?

Hard to imagine how that would be possible...

Exactly, supply and demand. He demanded what the studio could afford to pay. If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments.

I think some of the low to medium budget movies will make the transition to simultaneous streaming releases where it may be easier to recoup money early on. This may or may not force a similar thing to happen with big budget films, but too many lifestyles would be affected for this to happen in any short to medium term.

If the movie is no longer generating so much revenue (because streaming) then actors will no longer be able to (successfully) demand 8 figure payments.

Pretty much what happened to authors of novels.

Were publishing companies hiring authors for millions of dollars?

I know authors usually use publishers for review / editing / publication, but I'm not aware of a time where the relationship was not "publisher gets X% cut of revenue". When was it "author gets X million dollars"?

The same applies to music. Pretty much every creative industry outside film is paying the performers or creators a percentage of sales. Its just harder for that to scale to endeavors that take thousands of people like modern blockbusters.

Publishing customers were at least sometimes paying million-dollar advances (which I appreciate isn't quite the same thing).

Lump sum payments are not at all uncommon when it comes to ghostwriting.

(Royalties aren't rare either, but a lump sum agreement isn't eyebrow raising in the least)

> The same applies to music. Pretty much every creative industry outside film is paying the performers or creators a percentage of sales. Its just harder for that to scale to endeavors that take thousands of people like modern blockbusters.

For performers, actors in plays, members of an orchestra, backup dancers behind a pop star... most are getting paid per performance or per period of time, not royalties. Royalties are more common for people who can take a majority responsibility for the end product, e.g. a solo artist or an author.

I am not sure why you are presenting reducing actors revenues as a desirable goal. Movie studios can afford to spend that much because there is enough demand for movies of that budget. What's wrong with that?

Maybe this will give all the not-Harrison Fords a better chance. A lot of the A list is about hiring tried and true great actors... but you can get 80% of Harrison Ford for much less than 80% of his current asking price.

Much like making music, filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level... it's distribution costs that remain high (hard to reach a large audience without massive ad $$, known actors, and an established publisher). Netflix would seriously disrupt that, boosting "indie" film making in the same way that Spotify / youtube / myspace / etc seriously boosted non-mainstream music. We still have A-list musicians but the long tail is seeing far more success than before.

Netflix has paid Kevin Spacey his price, anyway, so the point is kind of moot.

>> filming technology is already commoditized at the entry level

But Indie music is better in the personal preference category and usually no worse in production values. And on the other hand what we see in regular tv: we see increasing abundance of content , and most people flocking more and more to the highly rated content which usually has high production values and often some measure of high brand.

That's probably because they don't want to risk an hour of their time. On the other hand , listening to a new song ? who cares if it's bad - it's only a minute to switch to something else , and it's a social custom too.

What you're saying is true, but it's also interesting to me that studios could potentially get by with less.

Young Harrison Ford in the late 1970s might have been willing to trade away the use of his likeness in future Star Wars films for a relatively small consideration.

In the future, if a studio can find a relatively unknown actor who wants the work, it's possible they could do with a digitally-produced likeness, in case the original actor doesn't want the job. (Sort of an augmented version of the SNL contract)

SNL?

A long term 'gold handcuffs' deal for new performers http://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/

For some sources on Harrison Ford

Variety claims 10 - 20 million http://variety.com/2015/film/news/harrison-ford-star-wars-pa...

Sydney Morning Herald had an article says that it would be $34 million if it breaks $1 billion gross earnings (which is likely). http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/star-wars-the-for...

> Maybe it'll force Hollywood to pay actors far far less. Harrison Ford was paid somewhere between 10 and 25 million

Probably a bad example, because the studio's investment in Harrison Ford in SW:TFA will surely be repaid many times over, and isn't really threatened by netflix.

Of course it will, because of really high ticket prices and they're providing a product that many people want. If ticket prices were lower though, Ford wouldn't be able to ask for that kind of money. Not many films can generate this kind of demand though, yet we're all stuck with high ticket prices for lower quality films.

I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much

The market decides these things.

It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries.

A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats.

Sure, the "Star Wars" name would be enough to put butts in seats but without Ford, Fisher and Hamil, this movie would have made less money.

If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.

Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.

Obviously, no one knows for sure but let's say that 1% of the people who went to see it would have opted out if the original stars hadn't returned...

In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray.

As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.

> The market decides these things

Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground.

And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films.

> If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.

Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up.

And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.

What you're describing already exists: television.

If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films.

Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model?

Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.

No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers.

One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.

> Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model?

I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit.

> No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers.

Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.

I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term.

At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely.

For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen.

We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow.

There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup.

It might happen one day but no time soon.

A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.

I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.

> viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more.

That's not exactly how movie economics works. The script calls for a male character, 30-40 years old, good-looking as he's the subject of romantic story. The casting operation calls a few agents and comes back with data that Tom Cruise will want $3m, Ryan Philippe will want $2m, some known actor who's currently in a TV series wants $500k, or a no-name actor showing promise will do it for $80k.

It's up to the studio heads and producers to circle down on an option they consider reasonable. They are aware that a portion of movie revenues is generated by having a brand-name actor, i.e., there will be 200,000 extra tickets sold if Tom Cruise's name is on it. Tom Cruise is also aware of this dynamics, which explains the premium.

But it's also not that simple. Actors like to pretend they're in this industry for the sake of "art", not "money", which means that if you have an interesting script and an "artistic" director with a potential of making to Sundance or Cannes, you might then get a brand-name actor for essentially free (you'll have to pay some union-mandated salary). Every big name actor has this "artistic" no-budget movie in his belt, to showcase their "range" and to signal to public that it ain't about the money, which leads to more public attention and larger check for the next franchise movie, as the actor is still "hot".

I'm not worried about actor salaries. Big budget epics cost lots of money to make outside of actor salaries because hundreds of professionals work on them for years, usually on location.

I guess I like a world where a $300 million Lord of the Rings trilogy exists. It's not necessary but I like it.

Yeah you can. I was in a cinema last week in Maloolaba for $9. Brisbane has 3 low cost cinemas around the same price, one in Southbank in the city. Just avoid event cinemas and support your local indies.

You're directly funding the lifestyles of everybody involved in everything you buy. I don't see this as a negative.

That said, the studio will probably get at least half of each of those $5, and I've known people who think absolutely nothing of renting movies for $5 multiple times per day, literally no cognitive difference between picking some $5 movie on iTunes and choosing another one on Netflix. Multiply that, e.g. 1% * $global, and pretty soon you're talking about real money for everybody.

$10-25million is nothing to pay an actor with a main part in a movie that may make $5 billion dollars for the studio.

Wow, $43 (or even $23) is crazy. I just checked, in my city (in Germany) Star Wars costs 13€ (AU$20), and that's the English version in 3D with shutter glasses. "Normal" movies (no 3D, no excess length) are 7-8€ (AU$11-12.50). That's like... half of what you pay. Is Australia generally that expensive? :O

Just checked in Poland, and 3D version in English(with subtitles) is 25PLN per regular ticket, so around ~6.2USD. IMAX version is 28PLN so about 7USD.

$43 is for a VIP type experience - smaller number of big reclining arm chairs, food and drinks delivered to your seat throughout the movie, etc. Similar to the difference between an economy and business class seat on an airline.

At the big-chain theatre that I saw Star Wars, the "standard" price for a non-3D movie is $19.50. However it's very easy to get discounted prices for any movie. I paid $12.50 for my ticket, booked it online a few minutes before I left home.

I'm quite sure that the extra dollars paid for the $43 movie ticket was going to the movie theatre, not Hollywood.

Someone has already mentioned Hollywood Accounting.

Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema.

And I don't watch big budget movies all the time. I can see them getting customers to keep paying the monthly subscription for the cheaper to make content and then they have enough money left over to film a few huge movies every year. Especially if they use relatively unknown talent that won't get paid tens of millions a film.

>Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema.

Which means you're spending $180 on movies per year. $120 for a legacy catalogue of hundreds of movies, and $60 for six new releases. So why would they give up that extra $60?

Well, you originally questioned how they would recoup the cost of making a big movie. And I replied thinking it was entirely possible.

As for your next question, maybe making their own movies does not exclude theatrical releases and getting another $60 from me.

I think their bigger concern is not having to deal with expiring streaming rights and regional distribution rights. They want their own library of quality content.

The margins in Hollywood are actually really great. It's the accounting that makes them seem like a break even business. Less 'profit' means fewer points that have to be paid out from net.

A $200 million film that grosses a billion worldwide.. Those margins aren't bad.

Margins on the Force Awakens aren't bad. Margins on Waterworld, probably not nice. On average? Haven't looked it up by I'm thinking they are OK but nothing to get really excited by.

Don't you think that the humongous scale of Netflix customers combined with the ease of access will compensate for that?

For ex: (10 million movie-goers * $10 tkt price =$100 m rev)

(100 million Netflix users * $1(considering that Force Awakens title in Netflix library is being accessed by 1/10th of total library and N'flix is paying Star Wars accordingly) =$100 m)

I don't understand your example. Force Awakens grossed over a billion. In a few months it'll get a DVD run and make more money and then it'll end up on Netflix (maybe) and make more money there. ... So why would the studios ever bypass the cinema money for streaming when they can have both?

because you are analyzing the situation at this moment and my prediction is 5-10 years in the future when --

-- there will be 100-200 m Netflix subscribers who can access all the content anywhere in the world

-- there won't be any physical media drive in existence in which you can slot your DVD.

-- economies of scale for Netflix with dirt cheap internet will force people to consume content cheaply and easily.

-- there will be so much advancement in Televisions and Home theater systems that it would make cinema screen inferior.

Won't these reasons be good enough?

I don't know about you but I go to the cinema almost exclusively for the amazing popcorn. Otherwise, I'd rather watch movies at home.

Maybe the calculus works if they make movies with indie budgets? It could work and we can get to know some very good non-famous actors. Also, they could unveil some kind of 'Netflix Theater' service where, if you pay a one-time fee, you get to watch the movie the minute it's online or alternatively you could just wait a month and it will be made available to every netflix user. That one could prompt some internet fury though...

Agree, It could disrupt Cinema too. When you have a baby and you couldn't go to cinema for years. Netflix should be an alternative for family.

It did happen to me when my daughter was born, I couldn't go to cinema but still wants to see new movies.

> Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great

Avatar production cost: $237,000,000 USD

Avatar global revenue : $2,787,965,087 USD

91% of Avatar's total revenue was pure profit... practically unheard of in most industries.

Sure, Avatar is a unicorn, and sure studios often produce strike-out movies... but the occasional home-run more than makes up for them.

> How do you justify spending $200 million on Force Awakens and hope to recoup that from Netflix fees?

Perhaps the $200 million production cost is unreasonable. We've all seen how many people and companies are involved in producing a single movie. The actor assistants have assistants that have assistants who have paid interns. One company will do a single character model while another goes a different character.

There's so much waste in the movie industry... it's ripe for the typical "SV" disruption (come in cheaper, and same or similar quality, and make it more easily accessible to the masses).

This is exactly why Netflix gave up on movies and now emphasizes its TV reruns and originals. The streaming movie catalog has always been sparse.

If "disrupting cinema" in this context means abandoning cinema altogether and switching the big screen with a regular HD TV, then I as a consumer hope this future won't happen.

"Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.

What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell? You do not really talk to the rest of the audience other than those you went to the cinema with, and that can perfectly be replicated at home. The surround sound is indeed better, but that can be replicated with headphones or, if you're dedicated, with speakers around the room.

So you have a 40+ foot screen in your living room with blacked out windows, 7.1 surround sound to match?

>What are all these advantages of cinema, pray tell?

A 10+ meter screen plus great sound.

A chance to get out of the fucking couch/house.

Getting to see a movie along with lots of other people (the mere fact of sharing the experience with a whole audience is important to a lot of people and a frequently written about part of the cinema experience, even though some people --introverts, touchy etc-- can't stand others next to them).

Not the OP, but my guess is "nostalgia".

I'm sure there were people who insisted on using horse driven carriages, long after automobiles took over. "It's just the proper, cultured thing to do. And you can tip your hat to other passing carriages! The shared feeling!"

Although note that sentimental items can have a value of their own. Cinemas could perhaps even increase the ticket price dramatically in that world, making it a "luxury item" on purpose. "Tell her the depth of your feelings with a real cinema ticket". Remember diamonds?

Part of the appeal for some people is just to get out of the house. You get to go somewhere and do something. Don't discount that.

I'm not big into movies and I don't care for the cinema "experience" at all but I do like to get out of the house once in a [great] while to see a movie with friends. The actual movie we go see isn't too important to me as long as it isn't terrible.

> You [... only talk to] those you went to the cinema with, and that can perfectly be replicated at home. The surround sound is indeed better, but that can be replicated with headphones [...]

Where the headphones would make the talking-to-others impossible again.

> or, if you're dedicated, with speakers around the room.

Not to mention the HD projector/4K television, dedicated windowless room, comfy chairs, etc...

The point being that, yes, with enough time, money and effort you can of course build yourself a miniature cinema inside your home. But the idea of cinemas is that you don't need any of that to enjoy a movie in exceptional quality.

I live in a city apartment and have neither the physical space nor the dedication to get myself a professional-grade entertainment system. Does this mean I don't care about image details or sound quality? Of course not.

The social components of going to a cinema shouldn't be underestimated either. Watching a film in a crowd is a different experience than watching it with close friends at home - visit any midnight premiere of a movie with a decent fanbase if you need proof.

Depending on who you go there with, it can also be more than just the movie and be a part of going out in the evening.

The disruption seems like a loss of quality to me, where everyone except the rich or very dedicated would have to do with a significantly reduced experience tgan what is available today.

And as someone who doesn't live anywhere a big city but has lots of space, a good projector and better audio system, I can't wait for cinema to be available on demand. Just to deliver a different perspective.

Fact is, I haven't been to a cinema screening in more than a decade, for several reasons:

- it requires me to drive at least 50 km (one way) - I want to see the film in its original language, which is impossible in local cinemas - the german versions (in my case) are simply horrible compared to the original. - many obscure indie films or documentaries are hard to find even if you're willing to drive those 50 km to the next big city

To me, cinema as a location doesn't come with any advantages and if the industry sticks to their content delivery restrictions, I'll lose interest in the medium - a process that has already started. Currently it takes months (often more than 12) from learning about a film and actually being able to see/buy it, mostly on Bluray or if that doesn't work, it's less legal sources. It's tiresome and naturally, I won't keep track of every movie I was interested in at some point.

They have released two films so far (with mixed results), and they're working on quite a few more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...

Oh yes, please. The current state of cinema for me means that I have to put the name of a film on a list and check back in a year or two to see if it's actually available to me by then. Particularly for more obscure releases or documentations: When I see a movie website and the screening section shows ca. 5 cinemas in New York and L.A. I have to wonder who the hell are you trying to reach? Just offer a digital download for a fair price and let me watch the movie.

Why would they be in better position to disrupt cinema as compared to iTunes, Google Play or YouTube? All of those players have worldwide name recognition and require no immediate upfront membership.

"The Interview" went online directly, and from what I recall the box office results were kinda meh. Of course, we have no access to a parallel Universe where it would've been released through traditional channels, so it could had been a relative success fwiw.

Abrams 'mystery box' will probably keep Cinemas alive for a while. Even with an unlimited access card I'm still not jaded enough to watch movies home. It's not the same experience (a crowd, the room, the size of things, the room).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com