Questions about the new Hollywood business model

[Boink]

Now that Netflix owns Hollywood, and every studio is now trying to emulate their streaming business model, I wonder about the life cycle of a new movie. It used to be: 1. Theatrical release > 2. Release to BluRay > 3. Release to cable pay channels such as Showtime and HBO > 4. Release to 'general' cable stations like TBS and play in heavy rotation > 5. Release to free over-the-air TV channels.

 

Now that Netflix produces their own content, they've pretty much stripped the public of an opportunity to see their movies on the big screen. (Except in certain cities, for certain 'special' movies, for limited time frames.) But once the movie is no longer new and special, and it's pushed off stage by the next big thing, where does it go? The Netflix graveyard? And once it hits the "What's leaving Netflix this month" lists, is that it? Never to be seen again on another platform? Not even DVD or BluRay?? Will THE IRISHMAN, for instance, end this way? Same questions apply for the forthcoming HBO+ streaming service which will be owned and run by Warner Brothers.

 

I'm not liking this new world!

[+ oldNbusted]

1. Netflix does not own Hollywood, not even close.

 

2. I'm only aware that 2 of the 6 majors are implementing a direct to consumer streaming service.

 

3. The film distribution model has never been fixed. In 1960, ~30% of free-to-air network programing was Hollywood films. Premium Pay TV channels changed everything. Prerecorded home video media changed everything again. Per-Per-View TV changed everything again. Video-On-Demand, both rental and purchase, has changed everything again.

 

4. Netflix isn't a studio that produces their own content in the way the majors do. They are directly financing more films and series that are made by existing productions house, but they still buy the US domestic distribution rights to a lot of projects that have already been made.

 

5. Non-theatrical film releases are not new with Netflix. HBO and Showtime have bought the US distribution rights to films for decades. If you wanted to see Michael B. Jordan (figuratively hot) on the big screen in Fahrenheit 451 (literally hot), you were out of luck.

 

I need a break, let's see a pic of that hotness...

 

 

mmmmmmm

 

6. I'm not aware of any such thing as a 'Netflix graveyard'. In the early streaming day, Netflix had fixed length distribution deals for most of their content, the most famous was with Starz and Marvel. When the deals expire, the content goes elsewhere. For content that Netflix outright owns, I'm not aware they have ever pulled anything off the service, why would they?

 

7. For popular content they own, such as Orange is the New Black, or House of Cards, there have been home video releases, both DVD and Blu-Ray. I'd say the home media release has to have a chance at making money on its own. Not likely to see Chef's Table on Blu-Ray. The film Roma is coming out on Blu-Ray soon and I fully expect The Irishman will follow.

 

8. The Irishman would never have been made if Netflix has not stepped in to finance it, after the original studios backed out when the budget skyrocketed. This is just one example of the point @quoththeraven made elsewhere, more content is available to more people than ever before. When I worked in film exhibition in the early 80s, there were about 300-350 films released a year. Now it's ~700. And that's not counting all the high quality content that never sees a theater.

 

 

Stepping back, I think the big picture is the old business model that we grew up with was largely based on scarcity. That was mostly because it was expensive to distribute the content. This is no longer relevant in an age of on-demand mobile HD streaming to every person and the business model is shifting to all the content all the time. In this world, people will go to the theater because they want a theatrical experience. In a surprise to me, this has actually turned out to be a lot more people than I thought. The number of movie tickets sold in the US last year was 1.3 billion, the peak just under 1.6 billion was back in 2002. While it appears to be on a very slow downward trend, there is no sign of a collapse and I am surprised. I have to say, the changes the theaters have made to keep people coming are fantastic. As far as I'm concerned there has never been a better time to be a movie fan.

[+ WilliamM]

The Irishman in some theaters now is an event for me because of the size of the screen and the large audience.

 

I plan to see the film tomorrow in Philadelphia.

[+ quoththeraven]

Netflix doesn't own Hollywood, and to the extent they're shaking it up I see this as largely a good thing.

[Boink]

Netflix doesn't own Hollywood

 

Sheesh! I didn't mean it literally. But I do see article after article about what a force they've become and how they have more projects in production at any given time than the major studios. They (and all the other streaming services) also have the industry trade unions squirming.

[+ quoththeraven]

Sheesh! I didn't mean it literally. But I do see article after article about what a force they've become and how they have more projects in production at any given time than the major studios. They (and all the other streaming services) also have the industry trade unions squirming.

I kind of want to ask "if you didn't mean it literally, how did you mean it?" Sometimes it's obvious what's meant by hyperbole and sometimes it isn't. I'm not a mind reader.

[Boink]

I kind of want to ask "if you didn't mean it literally, how did you mean it?" Sometimes it's obvious what's meant by hyperbole and sometimes it isn't. I'm not a mind reader.

 

Figuratively. I meant it figuratively. OK? Give me a break.

[+ oldNbusted]

Sheesh! I didn't mean it literally. But I do see article after article about what a force they've become and how they have more projects in production at any given time than the major studios. They (and all the other streaming services) also have the industry trade unions squirming.

 

When written "more projects in production at any given time than the major studios", it means Netflix productions are bigger than all the majors combined. I don't believe you read anything like this. For example, Disney revenue last fiscal year was over $69 billion, Netflix was under $16 billion, less than a quarter the size. And Disney is just one of the majors. The numbers don't add up.

 

Figuratively. I meant it figuratively. OK? Give me a break.

 

Did you mean everything you posted figuratively? If you just want to vent on the internet, that's one thing it's good for, just don't get bent out of shape when people point out there isn't a factual basis for it.

[+ oldNbusted]

Analysis: Netflix has released 371 original TV shows and movies in the US in 2019, a 54.6% increase over 2018 and more than the entire US TV industry in 2005 (Gavin Bridge/Variety)

 

And it's a drop in the huge bucket of content being released.