NPR has run several stories about streaming services producing films this year (though being NPR, they’ve run the same story all year, bookended each time with an eight second sound bite from the latest writer or producer so it seems like a new story each time). My biggest hangup with streaming distribution services is they generally do not pay a reasonable amount to content creators of media they do not own. The same cannot be said of those they do own... if anything they are overpaying to try to lure better talent.
But my second biggest hangup is that there doesn’t seem to be an effective means in place of providing anything close to a ratings system. Content creators themselves don’t know who if anyone is watching their media. TV ratings are obviously imperfect as a barometer, but they can be used with other methods of data collection to paint a picture of an audience. And I feel eventually writers and producers will get frustrated p*ssing their content into the wind. And eventually investors who don’t see the return on their investment will start backing away from streaming services, resulting in only the major studios (or their patent companies) owning and operating them. As for the movie-going experience, I despise it in almost every instance. There are a few film franchises I enjoy seeing on the big screen with a roomful of people (James Bond and Star Wars being the two biggest examples... Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy is not only best viewed in a theater, I find those films almost unwatchable at home), but otherwise the cinema business has ruined movie-watching for me. And the more they try to improve it, the worse it gets. On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 10:09 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > This piece in the NYT focuses on the question I pondered as I walked out > of my local theater last night. I had seen Netflix’s fabulous film Roma, in > one of the few Bay Area theaters where it is being shown. It also debuted > this weekend streaming on Netflix (highly recommended). > > I chose to see this in the theater because I had read good things and > wanted the Big Screen experience, and also the community experience. This > proved even richer than I anticipated, as several rows behind ne were full > of migrant farm workers from Mexico, who had interesting and positive > responses. I could tell they were particularly pleased to see a film in > that theater full of small details that made sense to them, and not most > others (I gathered certain songs and foods had a deep, nostalgic > resonance). > > I like going to the movies - I see 1 to 3 films a month in the theater, > even though I know I could see most at home in 3-4 months. But I see to go > even more often; I found it economically advantageous many years ago to pay > for premium cable and streaming services because it represented a savings > over the cost of taking 5 people out to the movies (plus parking, gas, > popcorn and often dinner, or babysitting fees). Now, with kids grown, I am > cutting back on premium cable ( but keeping streaming, which my adult kids > still piggyback on). > > Netflix releases 90 films a year (compared, the article says, to > Universal, one of the more productive traditional studios, which releases > 30). Most of the Netflix films will never be exhibited in a theater - and > the highbrow offerings get only a limited, qualifying theatrical release in > NY and CA. Some movie makers (and all exhibitors and traditional studios), > think everything streamed should be classes as television. > > As I drove home last night I was wondering if Roma should be thought of as > a new kind of “Made for TV” movie. After all, there were some fabulous > examples of that in the past. But I don’t think so - Roma and Amazin’s > Moonlight, and an increasing number of productions to come, are full > fledged films and deserve to be regarded as such. I would like to see as > many of these as possible have at least a few weeks in theatrical release - > perhaps, as at Whole Food, people with streaming subscriptions could get > some kind of discount. But the main thing is Netflix and other streamers > have a lot of cash (for now) and an insatiable need for content, and are > willing and able to greenlight a more diverse range of projects than the > mainstream studios that seem focused only on sequels and common denominator > blockbusters. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/business/media/netflix-movies-hollywood.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
