Hacker News Reader

Comment by chomp | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar companies started.

First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them.

They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to.

The only way to legally watch these movies like Okja is to subscribe to these companies. If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. I completely side with Cannes on this fact. You can't celebrate film by promoting the distributor (and in this case, their subscription model).

Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business. If Netflix and Amazon want to start their own awards, then they can go ahead and do it. I'll make sure to stay away from it.

View on HN

It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also streaming the movies for subscribers.

That's right, France actually has a law that after a movie is shown in a theatre it can't be streamed for 36 months.

This is the crux of the issue: that cinema hasn't caught up with streaming services. There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie, i.e., they could show movies and stream simultaneously, maximizing consumer choice (rather than maximizing cinema profits).

> There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie

Wait, what, really?

> maximizing cinema profits

Ah, no, there it is.

This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.

I should have said that there is no technical reason for delaying a streaming release, nor does it really affect the quality of the watching experience (assuming people have good streaming setups).

There's something fun and social about seeing some movies in the theater. I think options like ipic, AMC cinema suites and others, not to mention real IMAX are things you won't ever get at home.

That said, I can see the decline. I cringe every time I think of how much more concessions get priced upwards, in addition to ticket pricing. I don't think the market will bear too much more.

Wow, that is really backwards. How could any French streaming service survives the law? I am surely don't want a service that only has movies 3 years old.

>Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and in this case, French business.

If true, that quote from the comment you're responding to is probably a good representation of the attitude that France approaches that regulation with.

Hearing an argument like that uttered unironically can be baffling, but it is how the thought process can go in France. Those cinemas, they might well argue, are French businesses which inherently deserve to exist - and damn the consequences.

Remember that netflix also wanted to put a movie in us theaters. One chain said okay. Then the other movie companies said we will blacklist you and not send you an movies to show. This is just about commercial competition, the 'real movie theaters' are trying to block netflix et al. Netflix should just buy their own damn theater in LA and show movies there to get them on all the awards shows.

> Netflix should just buy their own damn theater in LA and show movies there to get them on all the awards shows.

That's what used to happen. The Fox and Paramount theatres in Oakland, CA used to be owned by Fox and Paramount, respectively.

I wonder what is preventing them from doing that, other than fear that it’s patrons would rather stay at home. I wouldn’t be so fast to assume that, though. Many people, including myself, love viewing films in theatres.

I would definitely go see a Netflix movie in a cinema, most probably even often, e.g. 3 times a month.

> I wonder what is preventing them from doing that

The 1948 USA vs Paramount antitrust decision might play a role. Content producers used to own theaters until they were forced to sell them to avoid excessive vertical integration.

Just as no business inherently deserves to exist, no distribution model inherently needs to be allowed to submit films to Cannes.

Of course. We should just reduce the value of winning since it's against an arbitrarily culled list of competitors.

Exactly Cannes just became irrelevant IMO. I personally doubt any streaming service movie would win, but restricted rewards are meaningless. At the extreme, I can always offer an award that only I can win, but why would anyone care.

PS: Same thing IMO happened to the Emmys's when Shrek was prevented from winning 'best picture'. With one simple choice they became a joke.

Can you elaborate about Shrek? I can't find anything on that (also the Emmys is for TV not movies).

Ops. Oscars sorry that's how little I care ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Anima... Has some er public history, but it was added specifically for Shreck.

Sure, Cannes can do whatever they want, but it hardly makes me feel like they are an institution whose opinions are likely to have much relevance to my experience.

Their recommendations get colored by their pettiness, sort of like how the Academy's presentations tend to feel disingenuous. It feels like the quality of the work often isn't what is being judged, so...who cares?

You’re conflating physics with human social organization.

If people want to organize around a certain set of ideals that’s up to them. Codifying it in their law is also up to them.

No one social organizational structure has an inherent right to exist unless the people seem to support it.

Argue brainwashing or propaganda is what maintains it, the reality is: thems the rules in France.

Yes. The CNC wanted Netflix to show their movie in more than a measly 6 cinemas since it was showing at Cannes, and the windowing regulations require 3 years before a movie can go from cinema to streaming. This is mostly a protectionist cinema regulation, though there are talks to reduce it going on right now.

I'm not at all a fan of regulatory capture, but I do understand that you can't pay lip service to the spirit of Cannes - celebrate film and cinema, don't promote your streaming services.

> I don't understand where this cheerleading [...] started [...] these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them [...] regulations require [...] regulatory capture

After reading, I think it's clear why this "cheerleading" is occurring and it doesn't matter size. Most people probably think like I do and think that film should be judged on its own merits. If film celebration was really the primary goal, these types of rules would not be in place and they really would be "free to show them"...but we know that's not the case which means that film celebration is not the primary goal.

  and the windowing regulations require 3 years before a movie can go from cinema to streaming

I'm confused as to how you think this is acceptable and that Netflix is in the wrong for "promot[ing their] streaming service"?

So you watch it at home and suddenly it’s not art anymore.

What you watch at home is `video`. What you watch in a movie theater is `cinéma`.

I feel that difference will blow in the next decade. It will just be content, wherever you watch.

Was there a "/s" hidden in there somewhere?

Speak for yourself. Surely you understand that there's a wide spectrum between watching a film on a laptop with built-in speakers and the true theatre experience you mentioned.

Personally, I use a good projector and a high quality audio system in my living room and while not typical, I'd consider it far from unusual. Degrading any media consumption that happens at home in a blanket statement really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Which company that creates content does not promote itself? By your logic, warner bros and other production houses should not display their signs before the movie starts. You seem to fail to see these streaming services as production houses, which is what they seem to have become.

I think the problem is explained by this[1] post in the previous discussion.

Essentially, you have to wait some time [36 mos.] before you can contractually stream after initial theatrical showing, which of course, is contrary to Netflix's whole money making model.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16678392

You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.

It is an advantage because it's independent of the producer. They don't have a lockdown on the content.

You can only watch a Netflix movie, on Netflix. You can't watch it on Amazon, nor Google Play.

Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing.

And paying more to see the movie just once in a controlled theater that isn't your own is so much better? You still have absolutely no control over the media and you are paying more money to more middlemen.

The experience might not be always better. An 8K (~IMAX, usually 4k though) screen and Dolby Atmos beat out what I have in my house that's for sure, but I concede that's usually overridden by noisy neighbors. But, I can chose any theater. The large players like AMC, Edwards, or even some smaller cinemas like iPic, or even Alamo drafthouse.

And you know what? When it leaves that theater, it's available on DVD or Bluray. It's available sometimes on iTunes, Netflix, or Amazon. I (usually, if it's popular enough) don't have to pick and choose what distribution channel I need to subscribe to so that I can actually watch the darn thing. If it's in theater, I can at least usually get it on DVD.

None of that applies with anything Amazon or Netflix create. (EDIT: crysin informed me that yes, Netflix has released a couple TV shows on Bluray; I didn't know that! Thanks!) It's locked down to only their platforms. I can't get the DVD to watch independent of their platforms. If they pull the content one day, it's gone, forever. If they want to one day charge an extra surcharge to watch these movies, I'll be forced to pay. If one day Netflix decides to sell the distribution rights for Okja to Amazon, well now I have to leave Netflix to go watch it.

No one benefits from these walled distribution platforms, except Amazon and Netflix. The consumer gets screwed, and judging by a lot of the comments on this site, not many people seem to mind, probably because they're already subscribed to both.

Netflix does release their popular original series on Blu-ray. I don't know if any of their movies have had that luxury yet, but they are starting to release them independent of their streaming service. As an example Daredevil and Stranger Things are both available on Blu-ray.

Have you noticed that some movies are only available at AMC theaters, or Cinemark, or Cineworld theaters?

Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new.

True independent theaters play smaller, independent/art-house movies because they aren't allowed to play big-production movies without signing up for exclusive access.

Licensing and distribution is a big mess that keeps control and profits in the studio. It's also why you rarely see international movies outside their country of origin.

The sooner the industry dies and gets rebuilt, the better.

> Lockdown on content (from distributors to theaters) has been around a long time, this is nothing new.

Not in France. A seller (here distributor) has no right to choose its clients (here theater).

Promoting independent access to this media is a good thing

Is there some significant difference between me paying $9.99 for a month of Netflix to watch a movie versus me paying $11.50 to an independent movie house for a single viewing?

Is that single viewing at a movie house somehow more open than a month of streaming?

Cinemas will die anyway. I'm personally shocked they still exist. I rent movies from google and Amazon an watch series on Netflix. Used to rent DVDs before that.

Cinema made sense in the early 20th century, but not today.

Cinemas will be fine. I don't want to go to your house to watch movies.

Why do you want to leave your house to watch movies?

Because I'm not a hermit. I like to meet up with friends, have a shared experience, go to dinner and talk about it.

I do that, discovered lots of good movie that way, and discussed different perspectives etc... Why would you need a cinema or watch a movie together?

Do you only discuss books you have read with and at the same time as your friends?

You sound like an antihermitite. Are you an antihermitite? Do you have some kind of a problem with me watching a movie at home in my mountaintop retreat, next to my bearfriend, who is watching a completely different movie on another screen? Does it disgust you that we enjoy each other's company without ever having a single conversation?

If I wanted to go to dinner and talk, I'd hang out at roadkill point with the crows, and make fun of the redtailed hawk behind her back.~

I remember back when going to the movies at a cinema was a great way to date someone without letting them know exactly where you lived--in case they turned out to be both wrong for you and obsessive--and without revealing immediately that you can't hold up your end of an unprompted, free-form conversation for four whole hours. It's a lot better value when you don't have to pay for your kids' tickets and meals, too.

Right. This is exactly why I don't go to cinema, just somebody else's house full of rude guests!

Right. And you don't use public transportation because it's full of serial killers.

I do. Public transportation is cheaper and less stressful than other options if I cannot walk there, or arriving all sweaty from riding my bycicle isn't a good option.

Watching a movie at home is cheaper (7 $ HD for the whole family), a better experience (no smell of whatever food they sell in cinemas), not having to deal with people who talk during the movies, etc...), less effort (I'm home already), you could even argue better for the environment since we don't need to use any mean of transport.

I really do not understand your analogies, they don't make sense to me.

Cinemas are great for a wide range of people.

For mainstream/action-blockbuster viewers, a huge screen with a hard-hitting sound system makes a huge difference. Some people like the reclining seats and food service (though that's not for me.)

For indie/foreign film lovers, cinemas are some of the only places where you can even see many films. Some never come out on streaming sites.

There's also the simple fact that nearly all film-makers intend their movies to be watched on the big screen. Any deviance from that means you're not getting the correct experience. Watching Lawrence of Arabia on your little iPhone, streaming from freemoviez23.net is not even close to the original 70mm glory of that movie. Hell, even 35mm movies look so much better when projected from film - that wonderful fuzziness. It's something like how old NES games were meant to look good on CRT TVs.

> Some never come out on streaming sites.

I'm sure that's not the fault of the streaming services though. They want more content.

It does seem to be a problem with streaming services to an extent. I was talking to an award-winning documentary directory and he said it would take 18 months to get the movie into Netflix. Why doesn't Netflix have a ton more independent movies? You can probably get 10 great indie films for the price of one studio film, even a low-budget one.

I wonder about streaming services that let you rent and buy by the unit?

I've been renting movie on google a lot more lately. The business model of a monthly fee is an incentive for making diluted content (long series) vs concentrated (short movies telling the same story). As a consumer I prefer the latter.

I download a lot of movies and have increasingly watched more on Netflix, but nothing beats the cinema experience.

I go to both the big chain theatres in my city and the small independent ones. It's great to be able to see big new movies on IMAX or AVX with the great quality and sound and also seeing lesser known or older movies in a small locally-run "artsy" theatre.

Streaming is great but they're just different experiences.

For the blockbusters, I sometimes find the communal responses make it more enjoyable... Not when it's one person talking out of turn next to you, but when an audience cheers at given points.

I do like the reclining seats and food service myself. But I understand why it could be a turn-off.

They’re good good for people with social lives.

See my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16692395

I don't see see being in a dark room in silence with 50 or 100 strangers being a good social experience.

People don't want to invest in expensive equipment to watch the occasional movie on NetFlix. I outsource viewing movies to cinemas.

It's also more convenient to meet friends and experience a movie together in a public space, I don't have to bring people into my home and we can experience a movie and go grab some food afterwards. Let's face it, your kids aren't going to want to have a date night on your lounge in front of you either.

> They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they refuse to.

Unless they show their movie in at least six French cinemas, preferably more, and also not make it available for streaming for at least three years after that.

> Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas

A noble quest! Cinemas are just about the worst possible way to consume a movie (in my humble opinion!).

Worse than having it forced on you from fifty small poorly calibrated TV's in the seat-backs of fellow airplane passengers who are too lazy, ignorant or oblivious to turn them off while you're trying to sleep on the first of two red-eye flights before your layover in O'Hare International Airport before work the next day?

>If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon.

Why must you be able to see the movie in an independent theatre?

Instead of paying the $10 ticket isn’t it the same to pay the $10 monthly subscription?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com