Screeners

[somebody85]

22 hours ago, DAR said:

If the studios ever got to that point they would have to order some type of pricing plan.   And it would be pretty steep.

It could be but not necessarily? Look at AMC offering it's members $5 discount Tuesdays.

Those aren't really big budgeted films usually like the tentpoles.

 

22 hours ago, Barnack said:

It is not an easy trade off and studios are not the only player's involved, and is always there for most movies.

 

1) Theater would refuse to have studio stream movie they play in regular theater under regular term, I imagine they would need to struck a deal with theater chain to not hit the retention rate and what not too hard if those movies would be on VOD (or studios netflix competition to come up or already there)

 

2) Even with a not so bad deal, it would hurt theater sales the only way studio make people pay by people instead of for a group, would probably require the VOD to be quite expensive to make up for it and a lot of people would still get the screener's/watch a stream instead to save money.

 

I imagine that yes, studio want to make those movie available as soon as possible absolutely everywhere, but every windows will fight them to keep the exclusivity they got and studio know that in general and over the long run it is best for them to respect that theatrical windows, it is in good part what make movie event and new movie perceived as more valuable that easy to get/available everywhere older movies.

Right this all makes sense but this sort of thing has worked for the music industry to combat piracy. A lot of record companies are all involved there and are doing good? (at least from what I've heard)

It just seems like some sort of deal like they have could be struck when it comes to these screeners.

And as far as theater sales? The lower quality screeners didn't hurt films like American Sniper of The Revenant. Those were widely available online before release. So was Frozen and look at the box office run that had. 

I think people would still go to the theaters who want to but others would choose the other option if it was available instead of downloading. And it would be a win/win for studios because that money would still go to those films. I dunno, it seems like this transition towards services like Netflix is happening sooner and sooner. This just seems logical to me.

[somebody85]

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Because theater chain would not like it, it would be much harder for them to sell tickets if the movie is available on VOD no ? It would either require the VOD/package to be expensive enough that people would still watch it on piracy or if cheap enough, theater will probably refuse to play those movies.

 

It is not purely in the studio hands decision and there is consequence to not respect the theatrical windows to weight in.

But a lot of theater chains aren't even offering these films. They choose the mainstream stuff over them and put them in the smallest theater. 

2 theaters in my entire metro city are offering The Shape Of Water. Lady Bird is playing on very few screens.

I also remember films that have been released to theaters/VOD at the same time. I can't think of any examples off hand though.

I think the people who want the theater experience would still go but these films are getting pushed more to the back more and more in cities outside of NY and LA from what I've seen here.

 

[somebody85]

Comparing this to music, with Google Play I pay like $10.99 a month and can download whatever album I want with one search. All those record companies receive some sort of payment.

And it's worked. Music sales are way up from what I know because people are willing to sign up for packages like this.

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

And as far as theater sales? The lower quality screeners didn't hurt films like American Sniper of The Revenant. Those were widely available online before release. So was Frozen and look at the box office run that had. 

Leak quality is really important, VOD here would be high HD, 5.1 type of product.

 

23 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

Right this all makes sense but this sort of thing has worked for the music industry to combat piracy.

Worked is a generous term, having almost all music freely on youtube and spotify being free obviously reduced piracy, it is now pretty much fully legalized to listen to music for free and almost free if you want some options like on data-mobile music....

 

It destroyed that industry revenues:

 

 

It went from 34.29b in 2016 dollar industry to a 15.7b in 2016 industry, a 54% revenues drop while music is still quite popular if not more than ever, it is not necessarily a good model to follow if you are not absolutely forced too like the recorded music industry was, obviously if the movie industry is ready to cut is revenue by half they could easily remove most piracy (that would be what would happen if the netflix model becoming popular and with no windows at that price point), but at a big cost.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Barnack

[somebody85]

12 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Leak quality is really important, VOD here would be high HD, 5.1 type of product.

 

Worked is a generous term, having almost all music freely on youtube and spotify being free obviously reduced piracy, it is not fully legalized to listen to music for free....

 

It destroyed that industry revenues:

 

 

It wend from 34.29b 2016 dollar to 15.7b in 2016 industry a 54% revenues drop while music is still quite popular if not more than ever, it not necessarily a good model to follow if you are not absolutely forced too like recorded music industry was, obviously if the movie industry is ready to cut is revenue by half they could easily remove most piracy (that would be what would happen if the netflix model becoming popular and with no windows at that price point), but at a big cost.

Right. I understand leak quality is important but in a lot of cases, certain people still want the theatrical experience when it comes to those types of films. I think many who aren't into the whole streaming thing would still go.

And I understand your point with music but right now it seems like studios are turning more and more to these big streaming services. They obviously see it as the future. 

Wouldn't it help ratings for awards shows to make these films available outside of limited releases if people are just going to download them anyway? They are going to leak. It happens every year and tens of thousands of people download them. Studios are okay with handing them out to members of SAG (many who don't even vote), etc. around January. The only stipulation to get them through SAG is by paying a membership fee. If your fees aren't paid, they won't send them.

Why not do something like this through a streaming service? Offer a handful of these films (some after they've had their main theatrical run - Lady Bird, Three Billboards, The Florida Project) and give people who want to see them and have no choice other than to download them or wait for a rental, the option to see them if they are okay with handing them out to a large group of people anyway?
 

And to answer your question Tele, no I don't think pre releases that go to critics should be available through something like this. I'm just referring to the big awards season films which are usually not huge tent poles. Pretty much the same films sent out to members of SAG in those spiffy envelopes (but not stuff like Coco or TLJ).

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by somebody85

[The Panda]

Why not just wait a month when the movies are on actual steaming services?

[somebody85]

14 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Leak quality is really important, VOD here would be high HD, 5.1 type of product.

 

Worked is a generous term, having almost all music freely on youtube and spotify being free obviously reduced piracy, it is not fully legalized to listen to music for free....

 

It destroyed that industry revenues:

 

 

It wend from 34.29b 2016 dollar to 15.7b in 2016 industry a 54% revenues drop while music is still quite popular if not more than ever, it not necessarily a good model to follow if you are not absolutely forced too like recorded music industry was, obviously if the movie industry is ready to cut is revenue by half they could easily remove most piracy (that would be what would happen if the netflix model becoming popular and with no windows at that price point), but at a big cost.

And as far as music, it is at least on the rise again. I'm not talking about doing this for every film that's released, just a small handful that are up for awards around January of that year.

[somebody85]

11 minutes ago, New Year New Panda said:

Why not just wait a month when the movies are on actual steaming services?

Because they won't be.

The Shape Of Water has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, Lady Bird has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, The Disaster Artist has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, I, Tonya has no release date yet and is available as a screener online.
 

Molly's Game is another screener that was sent out and has no release date.

The Florida Project isn't available until the second week of February (probably a little earlier via digital download) but is available as a screener online. Three Billboards isn't available until the second week of February either but once again is available as a screener online.

Coco is available is a screener online and has no release date.

So that's 2 films in consideration outside of Get Out and Dunkirk that have release dates. Which option are people going to choose who don't want to wait yet see all the discussion about these films? What if they aren't available in that city? 

Well, then they're screwed. Again, I live in a major city and most of these releases have been pushed to the back of the theater and play on one screen in the smallest auditoriums.
 

I can't imagine smaller cities even getting them.

Edited January 9, 2018 by somebody85

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

Wouldn't it help ratings for awards shows to make these films available outside of limited releases if people are just going to download them anyway? They are going to leak. It happens every year and tens of thousands of people download them. Studios are okay with handing them out to members of SAG (many who don't even vote), etc. around January. The only stipulation to get them through SAG is by paying a membership fee. If your fees aren't paid, they won't send them.

Why not do something like this through a streaming service? Offer a handful of these films (some after they've had their main theatrical run - Lady Bird, Three Billboards, The Florida Project) and give people who want to see them and have no choice other than to download them or wait for a rental, the option to see them if they are okay with handing them out to a large group of people anyway?

Well yes if you are talking about wide theater release I imagine that the week of those shows studio would want for most of those nominated movies to be in all the movie theater that would accept to play them, but most theater would not want to play them I imagine, except for the BP winners and some other exceptions.

 

Has for the why not make it available movies that are still playing in theater (or just out of them), well I seem to be repeating myself it is because that it would not respect the theatrical window. Look how theater chain treat an Amazon release vs a netflix release that do not respect it for example or what Snowpiercer did and other movies not respecting it.

 

It is one things to have torrents/stream outthere, but an easy to access to older people (the people that go to theater see those movies) on their TV directly without having to do or know anything about computers, would have a different effect. Yes some would still go in theater (some still went to see Snowpiercer or beast of no nation in theater, but not that many):

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=snowpiercer.htm

Domestic:

$4,563,650

 

Or 

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beastsofnonation.htm

Domestic: $90,777

 

And those were some of the most acclaimed movies, trackrecord of movies available on video at the box office is not that great, specially for that type of movies.

 

I am not sure why bring the part of lending them to 200k people argument has being relevant that is 0.0058% of the domestic market population, it is not a large group of person it is about no one (if it was not of the fact that it leaked it would be absolutely irrelevant no ?)

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, somebody85 said:

Because they won't be.

The Shape Of Water has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, Lady Bird has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, The Disaster Artist has no release date yet and is available as a screener online, I, Tonya has no release date yet and is available as a screener online.
 

Molly's Game is another screener that was sent out and has no release date.

The Florida Project isn't available until the second week of February (probably a little earlier via streaming) but is available as a screener online. Three Billboards isn't available until the second week of February either but once again is available as a screener online.

Coco is available is a screener online and has no release date.

So that's 2 films in consideration outside of Get Out and Dunkirk that have release dates. Which option are people going to choose who don't want to wait yet see all the discussion about these films? What if they aren't available in that city? 

Well, then they're screwed. Again, I live in a major city and most of these releases have been pushed to the back of the theater and play on one screen in the smallest auditoriums.
 

I can't imagine smaller cities even getting them.

I can attest that Lady Bird and Three Billboards did make it to smaller cities in Texas.  I’m sure Shape of Water and other BP nods will get decent Expansions too.

 

No reason to release your movie to streaming when it’s still in wide release or prior to Oscar noms.  It’s not as profitable.

[somebody85]

36 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Well yes if you are talking about wide theater release I imagine that the week of those shows studio would want for most of those nominated movies to be in all the movie theater that would accept to play them, but most theater would not want to play them I imagine, except for the BP winners and some other exceptions.

 

Has for the why not make it available movies that are still playing in theater (or just out of them), well I seem to be repeating myself it is because that it would not respect the theatrical window. Look how theater chain treat an Amazon release vs a netflix release that do not respect it for example or what Snowpiercer did and other movies not respecting it.

 

It is one things to have torrents/stream outthere, but an easy to access to older people (the people that go to theater see those movies) on their TV directly without having to do or know anything about computers, would have a different effect. Yes some would still go in theater (some still went to see Snowpiercer or beast of no nation in theater, but not that many):

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=snowpiercer.htm

Domestic:

$4,563,650

 

Or 

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beastsofnonation.htm

Domestic: $90,777

 

And those were some of the most acclaimed movies, trackrecord of movies available on video at the box office is not that great, specially for that type of movies.

 

I am not sure why bring the part of lending them to 200k people argument has being relevant that is 0.0058% of the domestic market population, it is not a large group of person it is about no one (if it was not of the fact that it leaked it would be absolutely irrelevant no ?)

I completely understand all of that but Snowpiercer came before the real blowup of services like Netflix. Beasts Of No Nation is a different story but that's not as big a film as something like American Sniper or The Revenant. And with services like Netflix, the studios are still profiting off of these movies.

The theatrical window with some of these films is so small that it just seems like it wouldn't effect their gross that much. If my city is any indication then Lady Bird probably wasn't playing in the biggest theaters across the US. 

If there were some sort of streaming package that made it available to watch, I feel like it would still make money.

 

 

35 minutes ago, New Year New Panda said:

I can attest that Lady Bird and Three Billboards did make it to smaller cities in Texas.  I’m sure Shape of Water and other BP nods will get decent Expansions too.

 

No reason to release your movie to streaming when it’s still in wide release or prior to Oscar noms.  It’s not as profitable.

Right, I know those two did but a lot of the others don't. Even here, A Ghost Story played in one theater for like a few weeks way late into it's run (if even that and at that time it already had a release date on bluray). Those types of films never get the attention of the bigger releases.

The Shape Of Water started it's run in early December I guess in LA and NYC. As of now, looking at Fandango it has expanded to most of my local theaters (which must have happened after the 31st) but it's only in one auditorium. Molly's Game, All The Money In The World, Darkest Hour are the same.
 

The Disaster Artist has one showtime a day and Lady Bird is only available at a few theaters. I don't see Three Billboards anywhere.

Alright, The Strange Ones could be an interesting test. That is in a few theaters right now and is also available right now as a digital download. That's still not a film that gets attention like the others though.

I dunno man, I think releasing these films outside of theaters come January through some pay service would just help them more but I get the other points as far as theater chain exclusivity. As far as the transition in the industry going on, this feels like it would be something that could be realistic down the line.

SAG alone is composed of 160,000 members. If all those members paid their dues, then 160,000 people are receiving those screeners....or at least it would seem? And that's just one agency that gets these screeners. 
 

These films are playing in one auditorium that seat about 50-60 and play 3-4 times a day for a few weeks in a big city. If the studios are okay with handing these films out to SAG members who don't even vote for some fee, what is the problem with doing it with the regular public if there's a fee involved and the films still profit (outside of theater chain exclusivity - but again these aren't playing in multiple auditoriums - so they aren't making that much compared to the tentpole releases to begin with)?

That's really my main point.
 

Edited January 9, 2018 by somebody85

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

The theatrical window with some of these films is so small that it just seems like it wouldn't effect their gross that much. If my city is any indication then Lady Bird probably wasn't playing in the biggest theaters across the US. 

If there were some sort of streaming package that made it available to watch, I feel like it would still make money.

The issue here, it seam you have a VOD available only in part of the country where the movies will not play in theater, not sure how possible it is (you do not know if you will not get theater ever if you are a nomination and have a shot at award) or if it would not be confusing to customer marketing wise.

 

Chance are, it would be available everywhere, including the markets were it play in theater and you would need the theater chain to accept it (and you to accept the condition they are ready to let the windows down).

 

I think you are right and studios want to push those movies as soon as possible every where and they are always trying all the time to do it, but they need to respect every players windows and cultivate that symbiotic relations respectfully, maybe streaming will change thinks, but in the past industry that went away with the theatrical windows (like Italy that started to play movies on tv really fast ?) destroyed their movie industry and never recuperated.

 

Every year's or 2, you see that news coming up, MPAA attempting to make movies available right away to all customer:

 

this year

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/studios-premium-vod-early-1202013205/

 

2016:

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/studios-exhibitors-consider-revolutionary-plan-for-day-and-date-movies-at-home-exclusive-1201725168/

 

2014:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-hacking-interview-vod-20141230-story.html

https://celluloidjunkie.com/2014/06/03/premium-vod-just-killed-cinema-release-window/

http://www.shericandler.com/2014/09/18/day-and-date-film-release-conversation/

 

2011:

http://deadline.com/2011/03/nato-responds-to-premium-vod-plan-between-directv-studios-119060/

 

2009:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/reel-time-the-incredible-shrinking-window-for-movie-releases/

 

2008:

https://www.engadget.com/2008/05/16/mpaa-dangles-early-hd-vod-releases-in-exchange-for-closing-that/

 

A mix of fear, complication with theater chain, not finding a solution or viable price point (that family of 4/couple night out is sometime spending a lot of money on a movie night out, something really hard probably impossible to reproduce on VOD) make it never really happen.

 

Awards movie would be one of the best to ever happen during the season for sure (say a Fandor special package of all movies with award attention available for 2 months for 50$ or something) and I am sure some studio are looking hard at it, but it is not easy to do.

[somebody85]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

The issue here, it seam you have a VOD available only in part of the country where the movies will not play in theater, not sure how possible it is (you do not know if you will not get theater ever if you are a nomination and have a shot at award) or if it would not be confusing to customer marketing wise.

 

Chance are, it would be available everywhere, including the markets were it play in theater and you would need the theater chain to accept it (and you to accept the condition they are ready to let the windows down).

 

I think you are right and studios want to push those movies as soon as possible every where and they are always trying all the time to do it, but they need to respect every players windows and cultivate that symbiotic relations respectfully, maybe streaming will change thinks, but in the past industry that went away with the theatrical windows (like Italy that started to play movies on tv really fast ?) destroyed their movie industry and never recuperated.

 

Every year's or 2, you see that news coming up, MPAA attempting to make movies available right away to all customer:

 

this year

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/studios-premium-vod-early-1202013205/

 

2016:

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/studios-exhibitors-consider-revolutionary-plan-for-day-and-date-movies-at-home-exclusive-1201725168/

 

2014:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-hacking-interview-vod-20141230-story.html

https://celluloidjunkie.com/2014/06/03/premium-vod-just-killed-cinema-release-window/

http://www.shericandler.com/2014/09/18/day-and-date-film-release-conversation/

 

2011:

http://deadline.com/2011/03/nato-responds-to-premium-vod-plan-between-directv-studios-119060/

 

2009:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/reel-time-the-incredible-shrinking-window-for-movie-releases/

 

2008:

https://www.engadget.com/2008/05/16/mpaa-dangles-early-hd-vod-releases-in-exchange-for-closing-that/

 

A mix of fear, complication with theater chain, not finding a solution or viable price point (that family of 4/couple night out is sometime spending a lot of money on a movie night out, something really hard probably impossible to reproduce on VOD) make it never really happen.

 

Awards movie would be one of the best to ever happen during the season for sure (say a Fandor special package of all movies with award attention available for 2 months for 50$ or something) and I am sure some studio are looking hard at it, but it is not easy to do.

Those are all really good points. Nowadays it's usually 90 days from a tentpole release to bluray unless it does really well so that window has certainly gotten a lot smaller through the years.

I just see this transition happening and I know screeners leaking have been a thorn in the industry's side for a long time. With more and more going digital and offering options like Moviepass, it seems like offering these big oscarbait movies to all avenues after a certain point would allow them to be the most profitable.

Theater chain exclusivity is one thing but I've noticed that these sort of releases aren't playing in multiple auditoriums in theaters like they used to. So the demand can't be that high if theaters only trust putting them in one a day...and then they only last so long.

The sad thing is more people have possibly seen Bright over The Shape Of Water.

To me, if studios are willing to hand out copies of these films to agencies like SAG, that theaters would have less of a problem if they worked on some sort of deal where everyone benefited. I could see chains like AMC or Regal streaming certain movies somewhere down the line through their website or a program if the industry keeps going the way it is.

[MikeQ]

I understand your frustration, somebody. October/November/December roll around and there are quickly an abundance of interesting, compelling and beautiful smaller/limited release films that I really want to see in theatres. Those are the months where I suddenly have so many movies I want to see, and I imagine there are many like me who really live for seeing this kind of cinema. Depending on where a person lives, however, the films may never be truly accessible to them in theatres.

 

I'm not sure that a viable solution lies in having some kind of streaming service for these movies, unless you are someone who is in favour of theatres becoming a thing of the past and streaming becoming the norm.

 

I strongly believe that most cities should have an arthouse cinema, and that cinephiles in cities without one should advocate for one or collectively start their own. I don't live in a major city, but I am lucky that my city does have an independently run arthouse theatre. And while it doesn't get all the smaller, limited release or independent films right away, they usually get most of the small awards buzzy ones in the November to February stretch before the Oscars roll around that I really want to see in theatres and before the Oscars.

 

This isn't a perfect solution. As a cinephile, I'd be much better off living in Toronto (which is 2 hours away from me). But anyway, I understand where you're coming from.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

 

[AJG]

I just realized that this year the leakers are on a "moral crusade".

In order to 'give a film a chance' they're only leaking a movie out once it hits it's budget at the domestic BO  

Edited January 13, 2018 by AJG

[JonathanLB]

On 1/8/2018 at 2:44 PM, Just Tele said:

 

But fairness has nothing to do with it. The studios do this because they want to push for awards, not because they're trying to reach an audience that might not otherwise see something. What you're describing is basically the end of theatrical viewing for anything other than giant tentpoles... which might happen but I certainly hope not.

Exactly. If they want my vote for DGA awards they have to send me this obscure stuff because I won’t go pay to see it. Not a dime. And every year I see some awards film I love that I wouldn’t have seen otherwise (Birdman, I Tonya, Dallas Buyers Club, The Post, etc.).