|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Steven Spielberg is worried what the success of streaming means for theatrical films
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 02-19-2019 09:36 AM
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229794/steven-spielberg-streaming-theatrical-films-netflix-roma
Steven Spielberg is worried what the success of streaming means for theatrical films
Netflix isn’t making ‘TV movies’ anymore
By Chaim Gartenberg@cgartenberg Feb 18, 2019, 4:54pm EST
Over the weekend, in a speech at the Cinema Audio Society’s CAS Awards, director Steven Spielberg reminded listeners yet again that he’s specifically dedicated to a theater-based cinematic experience as “a firm believer that movie theaters need to be around forever.” Accepting the Filmmaker Award at the event, Spielberg said, “I hope all of us really continue to believe that the greatest contributions we can make as filmmakers is to give audiences the motion picture theatrical experience.”
Spielberg’s comments may seem innocuous — there’s nothing controversial about a director who’s largely made his name on big, expensive Hollywood blockbusters stating that he likes big-screen movies and wants to see the format last — but his comments have been taken as a pointed slight against streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And they come at a contentious time in the industry, as perceived streaming upstarts challenge big studios for audiences and official recognition. Netflix’s first run at an Oscar for Best Picture, with its original film Roma, has prompted a renewed debate about the relative place of theatrical releases versus streaming releases.
----
Check out Steven Spielberg’s partial speech at the CAS Awards the other night. What do you think? https://t.co/zRIFlfYPbo pic.twitter.com/KqQINONwt0
— Marc Malkin (@marcmalkin) February 18, 2019
----
In the face of that debate over what makes a release qualify as a movie, Spielberg seems to be on the side that feels that streaming-service releases shouldn’t be eligible at big awards shows because, regardless of length or storytelling mode, they’re primarily intended for a home viewing platform. “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” Spielberg told ITV News in an interview last year. “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”
Spielberg echoed a similar thought at the CAS Awards, emphasizing that, for all the high-quality content streaming services are producing and regardless of the quality of people’s home theater setups, “there’s nothing like going to a big dark theater with people you’ve never met before, and having the experience wash over you.”
It does seem strange that Spielberg would be so against the idea of outlets like Netflix and HBO funding personal, non-commercial films like Roma, though, given that he’s expressed urgent concerns over the current studio model and how it’s more focused on big-budget blockbusters that leverage popular franchises at the expense of smaller films.
Back in 2013, Spielberg discussed his fears for “a whole bunch of really interesting, deeply personal — and even maybe historical — projects that may get lost in the shuffle” in today’s Hollywood, as studios focus on big event films with potential billion-dollar paydays. Spielberg predicted an “implosion where three or four or maybe even half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground.” At that same event, filmmaker George Lucas worried that increasing film costs and suffering studios would drive up theater ticket prices: “Going to the movies is going to cost you 50 bucks, maybe 100. Maybe 150.”
But while Spielberg is concerned about the future of theaters, he also seems to be objecting to recognition for the alternative channels that are enabling small- to mid-scale movies. In the same ITV interview where he lamented that a Netflix-style “TV movie” shouldn’t be nominated for an Academy Award, he also noted, “A lot of studios would rather make branded, tent-pole, guaranteed box office hits… than take chances on smaller films. And those smaller films that studios used to make routinely are now going to Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix.”
These two concerns — that studios are shutting out small movies and that streaming services might be getting too much recognition for small movies — appear antithetical. But Spielberg’s argument seems to emphasis categorization above all else: it seems that, no matter how worthwhile a film may be (and as he noted in his CAS speech, streaming services’ “TV” films do feature some of the top work in the industry right now), “TV movies” undermine theaters, even if those films spend some time there first. That seems like a strangely backward philosophy that puts presentation above content.
But he authentically seems to mean it not as a swipe against the streaming industry, but as an expression of anxiety for theaters. Currently, the numbers do show some cause for concern. The Motion Picture Association of America’s annual box office numbers show box office takes as comparatively equitable over the last 20 years, despite steadily rising ticket prices. But it seems highly unlikely that industry recognition for a film like Roma would really have any effect on people’s willingness to head to the cineplex for the latest Godzilla remake or superhero film. It may simply fall on concerned, respected industry leaders like Spielberg to come up with creative solutions to the problems they see as dominating the industry. If Spielberg doesn’t like big studios focusing on big films and big paydays or small streamers earning attention for daring personal projects, what does he want to see happen in the industry?
-----
HH Comment - The idea of restricting Oscars to "theatrical" movies reminds me of the idea mentioned at https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/09/11/broadcast-networks-need-their-own-emmy-awards/#2f04c61717e4 of broadcast television getting its own Emmy award because almost all the exsiting Emmy's are going to non-broadcast programmers like CATV and streaming networks.
Harold
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-19-2019 02:57 PM
I think very rough times are ahead for the entire entertainment industry.
The bean counters think selling movies is no different than selling shares of stock in tech companies. As they keep screwing around with the foundation of the business model it becomes more likely they'll implode the entire structure. They just keep pushing and pushing, trying to turn movies into TV as they work on cutting commercial theaters out of the food chain. They foolishly think the movies will still be movies without the theaters and the movie industry will go on without a problem.
The greed and myopia of these money people know no bounds. Rhetorical question: do you know why streaming is so popular these days? It's cheap and it's SIMPLE! That financial equation doesn't seem to compute at all in the heads of these douche bags. I say this because the movie studios and other people involved in the equation have begun the process of ruining the streaming platform. Both the mainstream press and entertainment press insist that "streaming is the future." Um, it won't be if every studio breaks off to launch its own streaming service. Just like no one likes paying $100-$200 for cable, no one will like paying that much for a bunch of different, fractured services.
I pretty much expect Disney to set a new high water mark on per month pricing (I'm guessing around $20 per month) when they launch their own streaming service. Netflix and Amazon have both increased their pricing in recent months. Some financial experts insist Netflix needs to raise prices at least a few dollars higher per subscriber to offset its astonishing cash burn. All these different audio-video streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Sirius|XM, etc) may seem cheap by themselves. The bill adds up fast when you subscribe to half a dozen or more different services. We probably know this won't end with Disney launching its own service. I'm sure Warner Bros, Paramount and Universal won't be far behind. Both Amazon and Netflix are trying to flex their muscles as movie studios themselves. So they're not going to go away. But the whole streaming situation is going to turn into one giant, over-priced mess.
Some movie fans might try turning back to physical media. But the movie industry is doing its best to ruin that as a platform. Samsung's announcement that it is getting out of the Blu-ray player business is pretty troubling.
It's obvious people have been cutting the cord in droves because traditional cable & satellite TV is too fucking expensive. Too many of the channels are loaded with garbage. Only a handful of cable network have any quality programming at all. The rest of it is endless repeats of reality-TV garbage, stuff like some Brit chewing out the kitchen help or a lady popping giant cyst zits on a patient's back. That kind of shit is supposed to be worth a bill of $100 or more per month!? If it wasn't for live sports programming and 24-hour "news" outlets of anger porn the cable TV industry would be in crisis mode.
Netflix grew very popular because it was a cheap and convenient alternative to cable. For awhile it seemed like a very simple one stop shop. As prices rise and all the good content gets spread across a dozen different competing streaming services the convenience and value will be gone.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Well if Uncle Speilie (as a late colleague of mine called him) is so concerned, then he needs to try to pound some sense into the studios to quit putting out unoriginal, derivative, brainless movies and get some REAL stories going again. THAT is why films like "Roma" are doing well because they are willing to break away from the Hollywood studio's cesspool.
The big studios are definitely screwing themselves in the long term with all the Save The Cat! movies made by clip art templates. Even if you watch a big studio movie that doesn't have a number in its title you still feel like you saw the same movie 1000 times before.
The most entertaining movie I've seen recently was Free Solo. Cynthia and I watched that on our local "IMAX" screen a couple weeks ago. I knew the guy successfully became the first person to free climb the front face of El Capitan. But watching him do it (on a huge screen no less) was still scary as all hell.
I think movie theaters and traditional movies as we know them are both dying a death of a thousand cuts. The studios forced a flawed model of digital projection down the throats of theater operators. Then film began dying off in the movie productions themselves. The changes to cinematography and projection have greatly blurred the lines between movies and TV. Big budget movies and ordinary TV shows are using the same camera systems, same post production tools and create mostly HDTV resolution products virtually indistinguishable from each other. The only physical difference is the production budget. The TV shows, especially the series-based shows, have much more creative freedom with how they can handle the plot and characters. Too often those shows seem more fresh, unpredictable and entertaining.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Just as the studio's monopoly on theatre ownership was broken up (and it seemed to have been very beneficial) maybe it is time for the "Big Studio" concept to go away as well. Just looking at the endless list of "producers" and "executive producers" on the latest blockbuster (as well as so many "production assistants", etc.) shows how bloated the overhead on a studio film really is.
I am 100% certain if movie theaters get eliminated and everything goes to streaming we will see the concept of the big budget 2 hour feature movie completely disappear. No studio or production company is going to blow $200 million on the production of 2 hour movie made only for TV. And they're not going to spend another $100 promoting it either.
I think all this hype movies like Roma are currently getting is building up a lot of false hope in proponents of streaming. Have any of these people objectively looked at what is given by far the most prominence on streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video? It sure isn't movies. The big thing is Series TV. You have to hunt through the shitty user interfaces of these streaming apps to find actual movies under the piles upon piles of TV shows. Both Netflix and Amazon are blowing lots of money on their own original 2 hour movies, but they're blowing even more on TV series productions. There is a lot more types of content to watch on those streaming service outlets than just movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-19-2019 04:50 PM
quote: Martin McCaffery
Or as it was known 25 years ago "Dogma 95"
We have an unlimited amount of amateur porn readily available to stream any minute of the day, publicly available on the Internet nowadays. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
I pretty much expect Disney to set a new high water mark on per month pricing (I'm guessing around $20 per month) when they launch their own streaming service.
There were rumors about a tiered service that starts at $10 and ends at infinity and beyond... On average, the $20 ballpark figure for access to anything meaningful (that pleases both kids and parents) seems to be sound. Also, Disney still considers themselves to be a premium brand.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Netflix grew very popular because it was a cheap and convenient alternative to cable. For awhile it seemed like a very simple one stop shop. As prices rise and all the good content gets spread across a dozen different competing streaming services the convenience and value will be gone.
Netflix used to be your mail-order Blockbuster video-rental service. They built their success on top of the content of others. Availability of a broad range of this content has been key, also for their earlier streaming efforts.
But Netflix is increasingly positioning themselves as a content brand and it looks like they're more or less successful in doing so. The amount of content available in the average service area actually considerably decreased in the last year. The money they don't pay for licensing, will most likely be put into their own productions.
As long as they can supply the big mass of binge-watching bottom-feeders with mostly mediocre in-house productions and some cheaply licensed content their position will probably be mostly secure.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The big studios are definitely screwing themselves in the long term with all the Save The Cat! movies made by clip art templates. Even if you watch a big studio movie that doesn't have a number in its title you still feel like you saw the same movie 1000 times before.
It's a negative feedback loop they've set up for themselves. I guess both Spielberg and Lucas do have a point.
We're at a point where the average tent-pole Hollywood production has simply become too expensive. If you're spending $100M+ on the production of a movie alone, nobody is going to take any big risks anymore.
Maybe Hollywood itself needs a proper reboot. Maybe they should consider the Silicon Valley approach: Take more risks, fund more innovative ideas. Most of them will die a more or less slow death, but a few of them are sufficiently genius and wildly successful to easily pay for all the failures.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-19-2019 10:00 PM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
then he needs to try to pound some sense into the studios to quit putting out unoriginal, derivative, brainless movies and get some REAL stories going again.
I think this argument is rather tired. There are plenty of high quality movies released every year. The problem is audiences have voted with their money over and over again to see the big blockbusters rather than the smaller high quality movies.
No matter how good it is, or how wide it's released, a movie like Roma is never going to be a big box office hit. And since Netflix doesn't publish any statistics on their movies, we don't actually know that it's a hit on their service. In fact, they haven't even published box office numbers so we don't know how much success it is actually enjoying in theatres. Even if it is selling out showings in a major metro area, this tells us nothing because it takes such a small percent of the population to sell out a 200-300 seat auditorium in a metro area with millions of people. Especially when you consider film lovers are likely to travel 100 miles or more to drive to where they can see it on the big screen.
I do think it's great that the overall quality of "made for TV" has drastically improved in recent years. Everyone who enjoys quality entertainment should be grateful for more quality content. However, I agree that a movie should not be eligible for the Oscars unless it has a true theatrical release. I would even suggest expanding the definition so that eligibility requires a wide release prior to the end of the year. One thing that hurts theatres is the feast or famine cycle. During the feast periods there is so much content that many movies don't get the screen time they deserve. And the famine periods just give people a reason to stay home since there isn't anything good playing. Give is a 12 month calendar where quality movies are released every month, and every week.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-19-2019 11:09 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
I think this argument is rather tired. There are plenty of high quality movies released every year. The problem is audiences have voted with their money over and over again to see the big blockbusters rather than the smaller high quality movies.
Justin, I would be on your side with this response, but most movie-going markets are extremely far from equal. In the small market where I live 99% of the time viewers only get to see the limited amount of usually derivative content the major studios are willing to provide. They see very very little in the way of indie, art-house or foreign movies. The choice for our vote is often Shit Flavor 1 versus Shit Flavor 2. Add a few more numbers, but it's usually still a bunch of derivative shit.
In a small market you have to be Johnny on the Spot to catch a unique movie that manages to get booked there. Our local paper is on life support; movie studios and theater chains do not buy any movie-specific ads anymore. These days the movies section is a postage stamp ad of the theater with its phone number. That's all you get for "local movie marketing." No movie studio is buying small market specific TV spots for specific movies. In the end a real fan of the movies has to keep an eye out for what's good that manages to show up at the local multiplex. Recently Free Solo had a 7 day run on our local Lie-MAX screen. I went out of my way to check out that movie. Spectacular documentary (but nightmare scary). Alex Honnold, the guy who free-climbed the 3000' front face of El Capitan seems insane for doing what he did. The show was amazing. Sadly the Oscar-nominated documentary played to a mostly empty auditorium. And that's kind of sad. Our local Lie-Max screen is not too shabby (around 550 seats, an honestly huge screen and decently powerful sound system).
quote: Justin Hamaker
However, I agree that a movie should not be eligible for the Oscars unless it has a true theatrical release. I would even suggest expanding the definition so that eligibility requires a wide release prior to the end of the year. One thing that hurts theatres is the feast or famine cycle. During the feast periods there is so much content that many movies don't get the screen time they deserve.
One thing that might cure that problem is if modern multiplex theaters were allowed to play a greater variety of content on each screen rather than letting a single big studio movie hog that auditorium for a week (or multiple weeks) all to itself. Since we no longer have to concern ourselves with physical film prints any modern multiplex should be able to show literally dozens of movies to the public in just one day. The big studios hold a pseudo monopoly on those screens, letting some tired sequel play to a nearly empty auditorium most of the week when the theater could make more creative use of that digital projector, showing multiple movies or other types of programs on each of its d-cinema screens. Since movie theaters are stuck with the cost burdens of buying, maintaining and replacing these projector systems it would only be fair for them to be able to schedule a wider variety of programming on those projection systems.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-20-2019 09:42 PM
Maybe it's time for independent theater owners to unite and address this issue collectively? Especially with Disney now owning "half" of the studios, those practices are a form of monopolistic power abuse. And it doesn't look like NATO is taking the issue seriously.
Exhibitors should be allowed to show their customers, what they want to see, as long as they pay their fair share of licensing fees.
Where the availability of physical media was a good counter-argument in the past, that has been long gone since Hollywood themselves forced a hard transition to digital distribution. They themselves advertised this greater flexibility of content availability as a motivating factor for theaters to switch to digital.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Why should they not? They're the only studio making movies that consistently stick to the wall these days.
That alone doesn't make you premium.
While the "Disney brand" itself is still mostly a premium brand with premium pricing for anything offered under that brand, the Walt Disney Company itself is nowadays such a behemoth, they can't just cater to the top of the market anymore.
Also, what I'm getting from people around me is that the constant barrage of super-hero movies is actually diluting their perception of quality. Although they're marketed under the Marvel brand, almost anybody seems to be aware they're mostly Disney productions.
The same happened to some extend to the Star Wars franchise, especially after they decided it was a good move to release a new Star Wars movie in less than half a year after the last one. Besides Solo being a somewhat lackluster attempt at a prequel movie in itself, those short release cycles made a lot of people question their intentions, whereby quantity seemed to be more important than quality... especially since The Last Jedi wasn't entirely well-received among many Star Wars fans either.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-21-2019 12:48 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The same happened to some extend to the Star Wars franchise, especially after they decided it was a good move to release a new Star Wars movie in less than half a year after the last one. Besides Solo being a somewhat lackluster attempt at a prequel movie in itself, those short release cycles made a lot of people question their intentions, whereby quantity seemed to be more important than quality... especially since The Last Jedi wasn't entirely well-received among many Star Wars fans either.
I agree with this. I always felt like they were rushing things too much, although everybody I talked to loved "Rogue One." They had a mis-step with "Solo" which I didn't really understand, becauuse it was a good movie. It was just bad timing. With "The Last Jedi," I think the biggest problem with that was, there was this huge buildup to the return of Luke Skywalker and then he just wasn't like the Luke we all knew and loved.
So they have a chance, coming up, to repair the damage. Maybe grouchy, sullen Luke will turn out to have been a bad dream.
There is already at least one TV show in development for their streaming service. If Episode IX and that TV show aren't successful, then they've got a problem.
I personally wish they'd leave Star Wars in the theatrical realm and not muck things up with TV shows, but hey they need content. In my perfect world, Episode IX would come out and then there wouldn't be a peep out of the Star Wars universe for at least five or seven years.
I also wish they'd cut it out with strip-mining their back catalog, although the movies HAVE been good and they HAVE delivered, mostly. I'm a little worried about "Dumbo," but I'm really jacked for"Toy Story 4" and "The Lion King," and "Frozen 2" will be pretty much a license to print money.
If they keep up their current pace with catalog-related stuff, they're going to run out of "A" titles pretty fast, so hopefully they've got a lot of good writers and idea people working on some new stuff.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic