Moguls will need a stiff drink nearby when they read Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne’s bracing report today about the state of the home video business — and Hollywood studios. He says that film operations at Universal, Disney, Paramount, Fox, and Warner Bros are worth about $19.3B, down from $40.2B in 2007. And a big reason for the 52% drop is that studios’ annual home video profits from each TV household fell to $100 last year from $127 in 2007 — and will continue to slide to $93 in 2015. Sales and high-priced rentals of DVDs and Blu-ray discs from retailers such as Blockbuster are simply falling too fast as consumers discover that they can do just fine paying $1.20 a night to rent a disc at a kiosk — or less to watch a movie from Netflix. The analyst says it’s possible that studios will boost sales of discs with the UltraViolet initiative, which gives buyers opportunities to stream the movies to mobile and other digital devices. But probably not: Swinburne figures that Netflix users, who pay about $8 a month for a subscription, in effect pay just 48 cents for each movie that they stream. As a result, “the incentive to rent a film at $4-$5 or buy a digital copy at $10-$15 goes down considerably,” he says. “It suggests Netflix film deals are potentially an impediment to the success of UltraViolet.” Meanwhile, DVD sales are falling much faster than Blu-ray disc sales are growing. And overseas opportunities aren’t sufficient to change the story given “lower studio settlement rates for international box office, a minor international home video market and rising film costs.”
The net result: The studios’ overall cash flow from movies fell about 40% from 2007 to 2011. Swinburne says that “only through significant realignment of (movie) cost levels, particularly in the area of marketing and distribution but also overall production costs, can values be maximized.” The picture isn’t entirely bleak, though. Big Media companies have protected themselves by diversifying more into television, a much healthier business, the analyst says.


Is this a situation where volume could help? What if the studios embraced micro-budget to $20 million films and just made a lot more of them? I know advertising/marketing is a huge expense for each movie, and there aren’t enough weekends in the year to put out too many in theaters…but is this an opportunity to embrace VoD, Netflix, straight-to-Blu-Ray as an option for lower budget movies that can cash in on rabid fans? Horror, Thriller, & Comedy? With VoD, etc., it makes it so much easier to consume a movie…my biggest complaint is I don’t have much to choose from at the quality I want. Sorry, Netflix. Troll 2 is funny, but it ain’t *that* good.
And I think this is why TV is doing so well. The quality on a lot of shows (ahem, AMC) is so high that people are gobbling them up…and they deal with relatively modest budgets because it’s TV.
This, to me, is where the studios could really capitalize. Make more movies at lower budgets, but don’t expect each of them to have a $100 million dollar Arbor Day weekend. Let them make money on VoD, rentals, etc.
It is funny that cost controls still have to be explained to film executives. Maybe they should republish this at the end of the summer.
Sorry but Netflix is a cheap penny bargain bin alternative for people who don’t want quality or special features. The day that we can stream a commentary track on Netflix along with the feature in 1080p then i’ll start to worry. Until then, I’ll be buying my 3D blu rays, watching all the extras, streaming my HD copy to my iPad from Ultraviolet and using Netflix as a backup for crappy stuff to pass the time. There’s a difference between watching something on Netflix b/c it’s easy vs. being passionate about a film enough to purchase the blu ray combo pack, support the director and studio and have an experience diving in. Wish more people would watch movies as art rather than just something to pass the time.
When most movies become art rather than something to pass the time, maybe they’ll drop their Netflix accounts. I’m not holding my breath (or paying extra to hear the commentary track for Jack & Jill).
Obviously you haven’t seen the list of top box offices grossing films in the last few years.
As long “gems” like Transformers stay on that list, its safe to say most people aren’t going to see movies as art
Hey I take offense at what you’re saying. I like movies like Transformers and lower budget indie fare. Plus I love foreign films. It’s rude to say that just because somebody goes to Transformers that they’re dumb or wrong for liking it. The thing is that studios need franchises like Transformers to stay alive. You can complain about them as much as you want, but when Transformers make a billion (or nearly a billion) dollars at the worldwide box office, it means that the studio has the money in the future to give you the smaller, more character driven fare. In the end movies are a business, not an art. Sure you get a few directors like Martin Scorsese who do view them as an art form, but most filmmakers, (as well as the studios) are there to make a profit by making a product that everyone enjoys.
Yeah, they need big franchises to stay alive – that does not mean they have to make those movies insultingly stupid.
Hear, hear. As an indie producer, you are my dream customer. Can you please clone yourself approx. 50 million times? Thanks.
If you’re going to post such trash, at least have the GUTS to post under your real name. The most recent DVD I got from Netflix was The Best Years of Our Lives (Won the Best Picture Oscar in 1946). I have no interest in owning the DVD or the Blu Ray of the seminal film. I just wanted to watch it once. So, it makes no damn sense for me to buy it when I can rent it and move on to the next movie or tv show DVD I want to watch. Those days of people blindly buying DVDs are over, jack. With the job participation rate at 64 percent, more people are making better financial decisions. Also, the quality of the movies made over the past decade has been pretty damn bad. So, it’s not surprising that people don’t view most films as art. Hollywood isn’t a charity. If we (consumers) don’t think your product is worth it, we’re not going to give you money simply because it makes us feel better. Get a damn clue.
Am I the only one who still prefers:
1) seeing movies in their intended environment – the movie theatre; and
2) watching homevideo on a television screen large enough that you can actually see each character’s face?
I know I’m a dinosaur, but how can anyone really enjoy watching a 2.35:1 movie on a mobile phone?
Well, I have never watched anything on my phone, but given the choice between sitting in a movie theater with people talking, and sitting in one seat and having to pay a huge amount for snacks or sitting in front of my 47″ TV where I can stretch out on my couch, get things from the kitchen and hit pause when I want a bathroom break, or pause to discuss the film with my family and not miss anything, then I’ll take the at home option.
If I love a movie or TV series, I still buy it on DVD because I can’t count on it not disappearing from Netflix at some point, but other than that, I’m good with streaming.
The simple answer is Kids. Kids enjoy watching movies on phones. They’re drawn to story more than spectacle.
I love that this piece keeps alive the canard that people are going to “watch movies” on Netflix. Maybe 60 days ago… but not anymore, since it turned out that the Starz deal was their primary source of supply. Now that it’s gone, there’s not much left to watch.
The biggest problem we face is that everyone adopted Netflix and they did the best job motivating people to connect… but they don’t pay for films. So when people say they’re going to watch my new movie, they say they’re going to “Netflix it”. Only, of course, Netflix doesn’t carry it. I’ve had to tell them to “Redbox it” even though I hate that Redbox is killing the biz. Telling them to go to Blockbuster won’t work…
iTunes could save the day, but that’s three to four times as expensive as Redbox per title. So I’m kinda pissed b/c frankly it’s all a big distribution clusterfck. Since when did ‘ease of use’ services like Netflix just make things harder?
“The simple answer is Kids. Kids enjoy watching movies on phones. They’re drawn to story more than spectacle. ”
Whaaaaaa? You must not know many kids.
And loosing Starz from Netflix meant I lost a whopping 3 titles from my queue of 100+ titles. Somehow… I will weather the blow.
Wow, are you really trying to push COMMENTARIES as a reason to buy DVDs? No one does that. I have literally never heard anyone talk about wanting to see a movie for the extras or the commentaries, and the lack of blu ray and 3D tv adoption firther undermine your point.
Also, people act like Netdlix doesn’t do discs anymore. That is still a viable option for viewing. And if you can’t stream your movie in HD from Netflix that’s a problem on your end.
To the point of the article: How can something be undermined that has no foundation to begin with?
I guess you don’t realize how interesting and insightful commentary tracks are, especially from Criterion titles and classics like Citizen Kane, Casablanca or even Del Toro’s films alone. It’s like taking mini film courses over and over while seeing your favorites in true 1080p resoration all at the same time. I literally rent blu rays now ONLY to listen to the commentaries and have been going back just to complete my understanding of a director at that time. You should broaden your horizon more, commetnaries are worth searching for if only you knew what they held…
Commentaries are worth it to you because you have a deeper interest in film than most people. I love movies but I’d rather use the two hours I’d spend listening to a commentary watching another movie. I get that commentaries are a reason to buy Blu-Rays for you but you can’t honestly believe that you’re not in a tiny minority of people. Even if everyone that loved a Del Toro filmed forced themselves to listen to a commentary most would be bored to tears at worst and mildly amused at best.
@bubb – I’m as passionate a film lover as anyone, but like most of America, I’m hanging onto to middle class status by my fingernails. I switched to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon (via roku) to save $80 a month. I have friends who dropped $1500 on a quality HD flat screen, plus a bluray player and content for it. I don’t have the money; I’d like to own a house someday, you know? So the quality in which I see movies takes a hit, but I still have access to just about everything I want to see, and it looks the same as it did for the last thirty years, and even a little bit better. Just not as great as it could be, and without the extras. It’s got nothing to do with being passionate about film, it’s just the reality for most film lovers.
Just like the music industry, Hollywood has to face the fact that their entire business model is changing. People that used to make millions of dollars will have to settle for hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially above-the-line talent. I’ll weep for them in my one bedroom apartment.
I completely sympothize, I just bought my first house, a 65′ 3D TV with 7.1 audio and can afford every blu ray that i want when it comes out so i’m kind of in the minority. but still, i think people should be more passionate about what they like and not settle to group everything together as just watching something b/c it’s cheap and easy. Depending on how deep you want to be immersed, you should have the option for 3D combo packs, commentaries, extras and digital copies for your mobile devices. I’ve begun to respect ultraviolet only b/c it frees up space on my iphone or ipad so i can have 30 HD movies at my fingertips without actually having to put them in itunes and physically clutter up the capacity. You have to structure your viewing excitement techniques – blockbusters, classics and favorites you buy and watch every single packaged element at home with no distractions, 2nd tier blockbusters and art house films i like to rent from blockbuster and netflix to get the 1080p image AND the extras but those you can watch at home or work. TV shows like Downton Abby, Sherlock, etc are fun to stream on Netflix but when they try and force us to watch everything through one specific portal and limit how deep we want to experience something it’s just plain wrong. I watch 500 movies a year and know what i want.
@bubba – you are clearly a single man, perhaps with a job that does not cosume too much of your waking hours and certainly you do not have children. If any of those things happen for you in life, get back to me then on having the time to spend watching DVD commentaries and “structuring your viewing excitement techniques”. Most people in the world have other things sucking up their time. Also, if you really watch 500 movies a year, haven’t you run out of things worth watching yet?
What kind of patronizing nonsense is this? Clearly you must be a jet-setter ‘Huh’, since you have time to post on message boards.
Wow, how much freaking free time do you have, bub? 500 movies a year? I think huh makes a lot of good points.
Umm…what?
UltraViolet currently has only SD downloads, streams via Flixter (except Paramount, which only streams via a PC). it’s a far lower quality than the bazoom 4000 setup you have would seem to tolerate.
We’re all impressed by the size of your equipment and all that….you’re in the sub 1% category of home video consumers.
Some movies are just designed to pass the time. The ‘art’ argument doesn’t work for a Stephen Sommers flick.
That said, if I like a film enough I will buy the Blu-ray or dvd for my home collection. But using a rental service does allow me to see more films that I can make that judgement call on without wasting too much money buying things on spec.
I’ve saved a myself a fortune from the days I would purchase in much greater volume than I currently do.
Exactly, Bubba. Netflix is a good time waster, or to catch up on old tv shows I want to see again for nostalgia (yay Quantum Leap!), but for quality, selection, extras I still, and will keep, buying Blu-Rays and/or DVDs.
My biggest fear about the “netflix” invasion is that they control what we can watch. If they pull a film or series out of rotation I can’t see it anymore, if they don’t make a deal for a film, it will never be seen again, etc…
That’s why studios have to find away to keep the dvd/blu ray market alive. I don’t want to be forced to go to illegal methods to watch a show I want to see, but in the future if netflix doesn’t offer it, and the studios aren’t selling dvds and blu rays, then what else are you supposed to do?
What the studios really need to do it start their own services like Netflix that have all of their movies and tv series available for streaming like netflix does, then offer people the choice to pay super cheap for a viewing ($.48) like netflix, or a per month subscription rate for the die hards.
That way I could subscribe to the Universal service, and chose from their entire catalogue what I want to watch, or the Fox service, etc… If each studio had their own “channel” for streaming content it would be perfect. Netflix can go on being the service for Doc, Independent, sci-fi channel films.
Ultraviolet is not going to “solve” anything. It is too slow and convoluted for the average consumer, and doesn’t provide the consumer with what they really want. People are quite content to contain their movie watching to whatever is available via streaming on Netflix (which is now available on virtually all mobile devices), especially if the costs comes out to $0.48 for a Netflix film, but $15 for something they buy in the store.
Studios desperately need to contain the costs of their films in this new economic model. They seem to still be budgeting films in a world where the DVD can sell 5 million plus units, which just isn’t a reality any longer. There is no reason so many films need to cost so much to be made and marketed.
When the HE market first started to explode, there were maybe 5 films a year that had production costs above $100mm, but now, there have got to be over 50 a year, with some costing $200mm or more (I am looking at you, John Carter). Simple logic says that when revenues are dropping and costs are increasing, things are going to be askew.
The big exception to all of this has got to be family movies. I rarely buy discs for myself, but I have 100 different movies and series I bought for my son.
Memo to Hollywood: make more family movies, make more money.
It’s a tricky position to take to say that films don’t need to cost as much as the do to make. Number one how would you know? Do you run a studio? And if you did how would cut costs? By not paying the talent you hire?
The thing is most big budget movies get that way because of the talent they employ and how long it takes to make the movie. For instance John Carter probably took 250 million to make because of all the computer generated special effects and creatures, like the Tharks, which took a couple of smaller effects houses, in addition to Disney’s effects houses, to make. The costs of hiring computer animators, particularly great ones, is not cheap, especially considering when you have thousands of them working for you for years. And John Carter had been in production for at least 3 to 4 years at Disney. So yes in the end it did need to cost 250 million to make.
Yeah, I think you cut down on the size of the offers to talent.
Also, if a film like John Carter requires $200mm plus to make it right, DON’T MAKE THE MOVIE!!!!!
So let me get this straight you want movies with crappy special effects? As your argument is and I quote you, “if a film like John Carter requires $200mm plus to make it right, DON’T MAKE THE MOVIE!!!!” The key word there seems to be right. Obviously Disney thought the movie was going to make a lot of money, so they felt that doing it right (i.e. paying their talent to make the movie) was going to help them sell the movie.
Would you have made the same argument about 13 years ago to New Line that because the Lord of the Rings was going to cost 300 million to make (and do right) that it wasn’t worth it and therefore they should pass on it? What about if The Lord of the Rings hadn’t been made 12 years ago and were to be made today? Would you say no?
I’m so out of touch. I’m happy to pay itunes $5 to watch a new release on my apple tv, even at 720p. But in no way do I want to deal with the ultraviolet service, its a giant head ache. If I buy a blu-ray just give me an ituens download. Its lower quality but nice to have as a back up option.
two weeks ago after dinner i felt like watching a movie and streamed CHINATOWN on netflix streaming.
this weekend, it was THE LADY VANISHES.
for $20 a month i have two discs at a time (with commentaries) and unlimited streaming. why in god’s name would anyone ever buy a disc anymore? the cover art is just not that compelling
Observer, many people still buy. In 2011 sell thru was around a $10 billion business. Unlimited streaming? Only as long as the Netflix continues to stream said films. When the streaming rights expire they pull them from the service many never to return. Netflix is the section 8 of home video. Teathered like a leash, you watch what they feed you. Exact opposite with sell thru.
UltraViolet is garbage, and completely worthless. Why would I want to stream something I can just as easily rip to a portable format with programs like HandBrake and MakeMKV? Drop the disc in, push a button, and movies and tv episodes are automatically separated and converted into digital files, which I can toss onto my iPad and take on the airplane, the gym, the train etc. No internet connection required, no having to demolish my monthly bandwidth cap with streaming media, easy peasy lemon squeezy. Besides that, if I pay for something, I like the feeling of actually owning it. This is why I still by CD’s and DVD’s, instead of downloading digital files.
As a consumer, I would say this assumes A LOT. Yes, affordability is an issue to consumers these days.. but access/deliverability and availability of content still rules. I’ve got three Red Boxes within a mile of my house.. but on a Saturday night it’s still the same problem as I had when there were three video stores.. New releases are always sold out.. So I stream/rent from iTunes or Vudu. I’ve NEVER purchased to own a movie sight unseen. ever. I’ve always rented first anyway (and bought my own copy down the road if I loved the movie) And Netflix is a non issue in this analysis. They’re selection of new releases is very limited and openly market their vast and awesome TV library more than new movie releases. So I guess my disconnect with this Morgan Stanley take is that it A. Doesn’t fit the actual pattern of my consumer experience.. I’m often paying as much or more than I did renting a new release DVD at Blockbuster. B. What’s losing to Netflix in my household is premium cable channels not new rentals.. and C. with both the loss of the middle man stores and the costs of disk duplication the biz model should be getting easier. They may indeed not be getting the mark up they had before but they also don’t have some of the overhead.. Seems like the real problem is none of them got into the streaming media business… Apple, Wal Mart and Netflix might be buying the studios for content one day..
Its very sad when the budget of a movie is a key part of it’s marketing. “You have to see how James Cameron spent $300,000,000!” may as well be the logline of Avatar. Budgets are out of control.
As a rabid movie fan $13 a month for Netflix is a justified expense (as opposed to almost $50 for a night at the movies for my wife and I) especially with a large selection of TV Shows, Documentaries and Art House. Especially since I live in Canada and a lot of Shows and Movies are available on the service due to a lack of distribution here. I would even pay a higher monthly rate for a tiered service featuring new releases.
I still go to the movies and love Blu Rays, but Netflix is still a great alternative for a “I’m bored, let’s watch a movie” night in.
So the Studios cut a deal to sell DVD’s cheaply to RedBox. Studios revenue share with Blockbuster and a lot of indie DVD Rental Stores. Doesn’t it seem that Studios can make more money doing revenue sharing than dumping movies at Redbox which cheapens the entire industry. Who wants to pay $4 rental when Redbox has it for $1.29? Studios need to stop supporting Redbox.
I don’t think redbox or blockbuster are the problem. The point is the days of owning a physical copy of a movie are drawing to a close as disc sales plummet and on demand business models are on the rise (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc)
Just to be clear, studios don’t “support” Redbox. They reluctantly accept its existence and make deals with Coinstar in an attempt to recoup something from what they consider a bad situation in the $1.20 a night movie rental.
Consumers (myself included) support (and love) Redbox. It allows us to pay less to see a movie today than it cost us 10 years to do the same. How many things can you say that about?
Here are the real reasons why people are opting for cheaper, lower quality alternatives to traditional DVDs/BluRays
1) Most movies are single-use goods: most people no longer see “owning” movies as a good value. This is largely because of experience, after you buy 50 or so DVDs and all they do is gather dust, you begin to realize that “owning” something you will probably only enjoy once is a terrible idea.
2) Studios devalued their “product”: forced trailers, multiple-versions, holding back high demand Blu Rays, and other schemes all serve to punish the guys paying the most for your product.
3) Studios punished their customers with technical changes: when HDTVs and Blu Rays came out, studio accountants started salivating. Now people would have to replace their “collections” by re-upping past classics at $20-$30 a pop. The customers, on the other hand, felt like suckers. So instead of adopting the repay-for-everything-you-own-every-five-years system offered by the studios, they opted to a different business model. The smartest way to restore those collectors is offer a replacement policy where DVDs can be exchanged for Blu Rays. It’ll never happen so say goodbye to the collectors.
4) Too much competition: Netflix shows that when people are offered TV programs that are mini-movies lasting 50 hours and older content at 10% the price of DVDs and BluRays, they’ll opt for the cheap stuff. Sadly, because movie studios have went (at best) sideways in terms of creativity this is a simple decision for most.
The best strategy is probably out Netflixing Netflix at this point. The studios should get their delivery systems onto everything: computers, media players, consoles, smart TVs, Android, iOS, etc. The best way to do this is abandon DRM, which is largely how the music publishers stabilized their industry and broke Apple’s control of the market. Partner up with the true carriers: cable and internet providers. Then claw back the catalog and wait for physical media to die off. Once things go to digital distribution, you can eliminate Redbox and Netflix and regain pricing power.
Also, get costs under control. John Carpenter should never have happened.
If you think things are bad now, just imagine if Google and Netflix’s programs take off and more smaller players flood the market. International box-office sales are the one thing keeping Hollywood afloat at this point. Just imagine what happens if foreign competitors finally figure out how to produce Mad Men or Game of Thrones level quality in their people’s own language and tailored for their culture.
Well said.
The studies have been done and the issue is that most purchased discs get watched once (or some even not at all).
The value proposition for disc ownership is not there, and absolutely nothing the studios do will change that. If a title gets watched once (or not at all), then no amount of commentary is going to make an ounce of difference.
All that the studios can do is improve the value proposition by doing everything they can to make it easy for people to watch what they purchase. Netflix follows me everywhere. So should my purchased collection.
It would be novel for the movie business to focus on the expense side to reach profitability instead of the revenue side.
From writers to actors, most of the best talent is in tv these days so yeah they should pay their inferior talent less. It used to be a given the best writers and actors were in the movie business, now it is just the opposite.
Movies have a ridiculous top end imbalance where the very top tier of directors , writers and especially actors make absurd amounts of money and everyone else very little. The movie business is turning out less quality products then ever. I used to have scores of movies to look forward to each year and now if I can get to five movies that legitimately might be good i would be lucky. All the story telling is on tv. Movies are about broad and vague stories and/or special effects. It is a horrible time to be a movie fan. With this low quality content they have to stop trying to raise revenue. They need to figure out how to cut costs and increase quality.
I have hundreds upon hundreds of hours of tv on Dvrs that I want to watch before any movie I can think I might want to see and I don’t watch many movies anymore. Yet unused to go to 50-75 movies in the theaters a year on a slow year.
It seems the movie industry has given up on storytelling altogether and that is their choice. However the movie business is not declining just because of Netflix and redbox. Tv is kicking its teeth in. Some quality drama series on cable offer a trilogy worth of entertainment and superior story telling for a fraction of the price.
I am not the typical movie-on-disc consumer. I have an extensive collection of movies on both DVD and Blu-ray. I enjoy the experience of buying discs of movies I have seen in the theater and loved. For that reason, I watch them more than once, sometimes just to see the opening titles (hello, “Casino Royale”). I hope I always have the option of buying the physical discs, even if it means buying online. I get that most consumers are satisfied with the cheap-o versions available at RedBox (when they’re available). But I don’t want the technical problems that often go with streaming. Thank God for Criterion. Thank God for having choices.
The Studios canstop paying $20m plus 20% of the box office tp “STARS”. My idea to cut cost is ez
Tom Cruise gets $10,000 a week when a film is SHOOTING. That comes to about #150,000. Tom Cruise then will get a 10% of the gross (after the negative cost is made) Tom cruise has a lifetime payout on the film at $20M. IF a studio makes more money and production cost on A-List talent gets cut then the studios might take more chances and make riskier films. If production cost fpr A LIST TALENT is still $20M+ then all the studios are just going to give us remakes and sequels.
I used to own a lot of VHS tapes and DVDs… but the time when this made sense and my library substituted for the lack of TV channels or other forms of entertainment are over. Let’s face it: Most of the movies we see we see one time only. If we like a flick we might see it 2 or 3 times over the course of a decade. That’s it. So, do the math. Renting or buying? I prefer all-you-can-eat menus like Netflix for catalogue titles and go to the cinema for new releases.
Ultraviolet? I always said it sucked. The concept is entirely wrong. But when raising my voice it cost me my job at f§*#&!g Sony Pictures. The people in charge don’t have any consumer insight. A bunch of yes-sayers with little understanding about digital media convergence. No wonder Sony Pictures has replaced its digital management team every two years.
Interesting that the drop was measure from 2007. Seems there was some other event that occurred around that time frame that impacted a large number of Americans…let me see… Oh, yeah! The economy imploded! A large number of people owed huge debts, many were thrown out of work, or forced to take reductions in time and/or wages. Movies, either at home or at the theater, have always been a luxury for the majority of Americans. And by luxury I mean free time and over-the-essentials-to-live money spent on entertainment. If people have neither, which has been the case for the majority since 2007, then nonessential services, like buying Blu-ray or DVD’s, are out of the picture. The last DVD I purchased was just prior to Christmas, but my wishlist from that point on (which I would have purchased if I had the extra funds) currently is approaching a dozen titles.
I don’t agree with Swinburne’s analysis, though, that the downturn will continue through 2015. It looks like he’s just taking the current trend and projecting it onward. If the economy rebounds close to its prior exuberance, I see growth beyond today’s levels and it may even exceed 2007 levels as pent-up demands of delayed personal gratification are satiated. (Like buying a dozen disks once funds are available.)
All this talk about movies being either business or art. The thing is, many of the most profitable commercial juggernauts were also at the height of artistic achievement – Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, the Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, and many movies by James Cameron. That studio execs don’t understand this is why movies are so bad. We get the broad, gutless, commercial bombast, but none of the art. If Hollywood still made great movies that people had an emotional attachment to, I have no doubt that people would still want to own them on DVD.
I used to buy movies, watch them once, and then they would take up space on a shelf. We have the Netflix 2 BlueRay discs and streaming option. It’s perfect in that we can watch newer movies on BlueRay and old tv shows and movies (I may or may not have a strange obsession with terrible sci-fi films) on streaming. If we really like a movie, we’ll purchase it on Blue-Ray to watch the extra features (a lot of rentals discs no longer have these options) and to watch whenever we want. I can’t fathom spending $20 – $30 purchasing a movie to find it awful or only worth a one-time viewing. Also the Blockbuster by my house closed and there are no other video stores in the area. It’s Netflix or nothing. Also with theater movies at $10 – $16 a ticket, I can only afford to go to movies that are “worth it” meaning they need special effects that are hard to replicate at home. Comedies and dramas are strictly Netflix films to watch at home. When there was a dollar theater in my town, I would go a few times a week even though the movies were second run. Once it closed two years ago, we picked up the Netflix account to fill the hole.
Netflix online success is in large part due to a superior UI – the quirky category titles, the recommendations and all that.
It’s still pretty amazing that they exploded the way they did, given the technophobic nature of the majority of users. I mean you have to actually hook up a laptop or game device to your TV, which still sounds like early adopter behavior. So the fact that they’ve gotten as much traction as they did is amazing.
Netflix also streams movies. That means instant gratification. Even on a really fast connection, it can take close to a half hour to download a movie off iTunes. (They’re going to introduce streaming, but it’s unclear when or what movies/TV shows they’ll stream)
Amazon streams movies too, as does Google Play/YouTube. The big pay-TV providers (Comcast, Verizon et al) are beefing up their on-demand catalogs, so UltraViolet is going to have a lot more competition.
The most interesting noise lately is around letting the streaming services have access to new movies and rent them for $50-75 a pop. (If you’re bringing a family of 5 to the movies, this isn’t as outrageous as it sounds.) Theater chains are not happy about that possibility, so it’s not a done deal, but as internet bandwidth and the technology behind it are only going to get better and better, it’s foolish to pretend streaming isn’t going to make DVDs seem like 8-tracks.
And movie theaters have several options to change their business models: the fact that going to the movies is an event that gets you out of the house is a starting point.
Finally, while Bubba’s lament at American’s disregard of film as art is surely heartfelt, it’s a pipe dream – there will never be a critical mass of people jonesing to see director’s commentary. Or read the prologue of books or the liner notes of albums. Would be nice if there was, but highly unlikely…