|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Apple In Talks To Collapse Video Release Window Down To Two Weeks
|
Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 12-21-2016 01:32 AM
Collapse of Video Window
From what I understand the carrot to get the major theatre chains to agree is to offer those major theatre chains a portion of the video rental revenues - at least for a period of time.
From Bloomberg
Apple is pressing Hollywood studios for earlier access to movies, according to people with knowledge of the matter, a move that would bolster the company’s iTunes business.
21st Century Fox Inc., Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. and Comcast Corp.’s Universal Pictures all confirmed over the past week that they are looking to offer high-priced, home-video rentals of new movies shortly after they open in theaters. Some studio executives have been pushing to allow home rentals as early as two weeks after theatrical debuts and are considering a deal with iTunes as one option, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.
The most recent talks are part of longer-running efforts by Cupertino, California-based Apple to get new movies sooner, two of the people said. Such an arrangement could help iTunes stand out in a crowded online market for movies, TV shows and music. While the iTunes store helped Apple build a dominant role in music retailing, the company hasn’t carved out a similar role in music and video streaming.
Christine Monaghan, a company spokeswoman, declined to comment.
The studios could end up choosing another technology platform instead of Apple to deliver movies more quickly to households.
Hollywood studios typically give theaters exclusive rights to new movies for 90 days or more before issuing them on DVD or making them available for online purchase. With cinema attendance mostly stagnant and home-video revenue flat in recent years, film companies are under pressure to find new areas of growth.
Shares of movie-theater chains fell. AMC Entertainment Holdings dropped as much as 2.8 percent, while Regal Entertainment Group slid as much as 1.9 percent. Cinemark fell as much as 1.1 percent.
Earlier availability of new movies could satisfy a growing consumer appetite and deter piracy, Warner Bros. chief Kevin Tsujihara said last week.
One option is a premium-priced online rental for new movies, at prices of $25 to $50, a possibility under consideration at the studios, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
Theater chains have battled to keep their exclusive hold over new movies, in some cases boycotting films that were released too soon for home viewing. But Cinemark Holdings Inc., the No. 3 U.S. exhibitor, said recently it’s looking for solutions that would benefit both sides and held preliminary talks about creating a so-called premium window for home entertainment. Such a service is likely within the next 18 months, one of the people said.
Those talks may have gained momentum after Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, said in March he was trying to create a new home-video service, called Screening Room, that would offer viewers movies on the same day they were released in theaters. The company has also discussed offering movies at home after 14 days in theaters, two of the people said. A spokeswoman for Screening Room declined to comment.
One of the concerns about iTunes is whether it will be a secure platform for delivering movies that are still in theaters, the people said. While Apple encrypts iTunes video files so they can’t easily be duplicated, it’s possible to use a camera to record a movie playing on a TV screen. A leak of picture that’s still in theaters would jeopardize returns for the studios and cinema owners.
Screening Room uses a watermarking technology that’s supposed to prevent piracy by making it possible to track down the source of a leak.
To compete with popular music streaming services such as Spotify Ltd., Apple acquired Beats Music in 2014 and built its own streaming music service. Yet the maker of iPhones and Mac computers wasn’t part of the surge in streaming video propelled by Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president for software and services, has taken small steps toward developing video content with a series of app- and music-based shows, while efforts to obtain streaming rights to films and TV shows have thus far been unfruitful. This month Apple will release a new app, dubbed simply TV, that will serve as a hub for users to watch content from a number of different apps. Netflix is notably absent.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-21-2016 05:26 PM
The visible effect may not be "immediate," but it will sure seem like it once the paradigm shift really gains momentum.
Video rental stores and retailers specializing in books, music and movie disc sales had all been struggling to some extent since the mid 2000's at least. Then one by one they all started failing. The overall process took years, but the final effects of it have really seemed fast.
Big theater chains haven't been huge generators of profit. Remember all those bankruptcies 15 or so years ago? IIRC, both Carmike and AMC were in and out of bankruptcy court during that period. Now AMC is buying Carmike. Margins can be pretty slim in the theater business. Some day and date scheme or 2 week release window scheme might do a lot more damage in a faster pace than we might predict.
quote: Justin Hamaker
If you look at the top movies ever year, they are grossing more than ever, so I think the loss in ticket sales is coming from the bottom to middle of the releases. This would kind of make sense since these are the movies that don't necessarily demand to be seen on the big screen. IF this is the case, then the "stagnate" theatre attendance is actually a problem of the studio's making.
There are still lots of people who love seeing big event movies on a huge screen. But it costs so much to see those movies, especially when you throw something like IMAX in the price. The economics forces people to see fewer movies at the theater and watch the "regular" dramas and comedies on the TV screen at home. It's easy for those "regular" movies to get lost in the huge crowd of content once can see at home. And then you have all the sequels, remakes, etc. I guess enough people keep paying to see these derivative shows. Hollywood only seems to be making more and more of them. But I do thing audiences are getting pretty tired and annoyed of those kinds of movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-21-2016 09:04 PM
quote: Donald Brown
If one takes a look back at the adult entertainment industry and its transition from filmed entertainment to video and eventually to other mediums, there are many similarities with the exhibition industry today. By the late 1980s, the theatrical exhibition of adult motion pictures was primarily a marketing tool for that product on home viewing media. That is essentially the same as what is sought by a narrowing release window. The result of that transition is that adult entertainment is gone from the theatrical environment.
Porn and traditional movies may have some similarities in how both industries have done well over the past 30+ years in the home video market. But there are very important differences too.
Porn was never going to be a mainstream product for movie theaters. Regular movies are usually most entertaining when viewed with an audience in a big movie theater. Porn is usually best viewed in private. Lots of people watch porn, but not nearly as many would ever set foot in a theater showing porn for obvious reasons.
The porn industry grew by leaps and bounds in the 1980's once people could start buying or renting the tapes and watching them at home. The transition from film to video helped the porn industry produce a lot more types of content and grow its audience, but it also lowered the bar of production quality standards and paved the way for things like amateur porn. Today the "establishment" side of the porn industry (the side that generates money) is in bad shape, thanks in part to all the free porn people can stream on various YouTube style web sites.
quote: Donald Brown
With today's leaderless exhibition industry, where will theatrical exhibition be several decades from now?
If current trends are allowed to continue unchecked, such as the ever shrinking window between theatrical and home video release, the movie industry will be gone within 10 to 20 years. Commercial theaters will be all but gone. Without theaters the movie studios will no longer be distributors, but rather much smaller production companies working as an arm of TV networks. The big budget movie productions so many of us love will be a thing of the past. The business model for giving a tent pole movie a $200 million production budget and $100 million advertising budget will be destroyed. The theatrical release platform is the only thing that makes it possible. If theaters are allowed to disappear TV series will be the only things getting relatively big production budgets after that.
Several decades from now (when many of us will be long since gone) entertainment like music and dramatic productions may be quite a bit different and much more technologically sophisticated. People will always have a need for entertainment. But the question is what sort of business will be able to produce and deliver it yet still be a viable, profitable business?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-21-2016 10:13 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
I believe that this sort-of actually worked with the record industry and that the emergence of Itunes as a legitimate way to buy recorded music online reduced piracy, at least in the beginning. Whether or not this will hold true for the movie industry is a different question, however.
The reason it "worked" in the music industry is that iTunes launched songs for 99 cents. It made it cheap enough that somebody was less likely to illegally download a bootleg vs. when you had to buy a $17 CD to get one or two songs.
People don't watch pirated movies because they "demand" to see it at home or on their mobile device. They do it because they want to watch it for free. Maybe you would stop a lot of it if you charged $2 a movie.
If you put movies out for home release sooner, you will just get more pirated copies floating around.
The way to put a dent in piracy is to eliminate the sources of high quality bootlegs (screener DVDs, etc) and make it so all the bootlegs are camcorder off of screen versions. Then pretty much anybody that really wants to see something will either see it in a theatre or pay for it when it is available for home viewing.
The "profit sharing" angle is designed to dupe moronic exhibitor executives. At the beginning, they will put the profit sharing into the exhibition contracts to allow the new window on the new releases.
However, once they reach critical mass of people willing to pay $50 to watch at home, they'll just stop offering the profit sharing on future title with the short window, then don't play it.
The home video profits are plummeting due to Red Box and Netflix devaluing home viewing. The price point got to where it no longer makes sense to people to buy DVDs or Blueray or digital downloads.
If the studios want to increase profits they should make less movies (try to choose the ones to make carefully so they can be better), extend the windows and do everything possible technically to encourage more people to go to theaters at high prices. 20 years from now, the end result of pushing home viewing will be that the price paid per set of eyeballs to watch a movie will be the same (or lower than) the price people pay to binge watch a season of a TV show. At that point, movies will no longer be economical to make.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic