Great write up! I thought about Disney's “vault” and about Mubi.
I wonder if Mubi's system of only keeping a film around for a month could coincide with disc releases or even theatrical releases. “See it remastered on the big screen,” or “buy it on blu-ray and keep it forever” or “catch it on streaming this summer” is a form of artificial scarcity, which I don't like, but it helps to empower consumers to make a choice (or several) based on their taste and spending power.
For those titans like Disney with a huge archive of properties, this seems like an avenue, not to mention their established pipelines already in place to produce theater and physical media content.
I will keep churning streaming services to keep the amount I pay every month to a minimum. I prefer buying Blu-ray and 4K DVDs. I feel better having that physical media on my shelf ready to be viewed whenever I desire. I also like the extras, such as the Director's commentaries, on the discs. I won't be upset if streaming as we know it today fades into obscurity and is replaced by a more viewer-friendly model.
Great article, Jeff. And very well-researched. There's very little about streaming platforms that I support, so I root for changes in the future.
The latest bad trend is that many movies now receive no theatrical or physical media releases, even those featuring top actors and directors. Plus, TV shows have become mini-series with six-episode "seasons" every 2-3 years. And, as many here know, the A/V quality on streaming platforms is subpar at best.
And that's just a couple of the downsides.
All that said, subscription streaming platforms can be fine as a choice...so long as they're not the ONLY choice for viewing movies and shows. But my main gripe is that these companies push for that permanent exclusivity to lock you into paying those increasingly high fees endlessly, and it's very frustrating.
Thankfully, it hasn't been too profitable for the studios.
Here's hoping they realize, as you suggest, that it's wiser to earn money through many different routes, including theatrical, physical media, and VOD. It's better for them and it's better for us.
Physical media, especially 4K UHD will beat streaming everyday, the detail and sound is not even close. The public are starting to wake up, they once said vinyl was dead and look at the resurgence in that. I recently went and saw Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 2 in a cinema that did 'Hypersense,' I was pleasantly surprised to find the theatre two thirds full and it was a midday showing!
What would it look like if the cinema industries returned to a theatrical-first model? If we look beyond the money, would we get a wider variety of choices and be more satisfied? Would we return to a steady supply of films for grown-ups (along side the franchises and family films)?
I think this is about treating non-Hollywood productions and artists like locally owned businesses. Everybody has said for as long as I can remember that you (Artist) are the product. But it has always been aimed at selling that product inside the monopoly of the Hollywood system. Put another way, imagine if everyone who owned a local business making widgets in Anytown USA could only sell their product to Walmart and had no option to sell to locally owned mom-and-pop stores or farmers markets or what have you. Walmart might like it, but it would push a lot of people into poverty and close a lot of businesses down, forcing those people to work a day job that has nothing to do with creating whatever they create- be it bracelets, bread, or brews.
The indie film and TV movement needs a corresponding effort to revitalize indie cinemas. Locally owned businesses that have one screen or maybe two and focus the bulk of their efforts on showcasing the work of small business owners who make stuff Hollywood doesn’t even know exists. Constant and ubiquitous event-style festivals in every single state every week throughout the year that don’t aim for trying to get Hollywood to notice them and buy their movie, but aim instead to rebuild community and to create engagement with and literacy in the audience so that the medium can survive.
And as a community of creatives, whether in the Hollywood tent or outside it, everyone should be making effort to prop up those independent businesses with time and attention and dollars so that 1) the artists making those films and shows can afford to live life making them, and 2) so that pressure can be exerted on the big business of Hollywood when they allow toxic business practices to motivate their efforts rather than those practices that enhance the art form and help it grow and thrive. It’s about Buying Local for Cinema.
I think that’s right. I was looking back on the world before Netflix: when it was Blockbuster dominating the home video market. Movies were synonymous with theaters and Blockbuster. They were making hand over fist with their business model (mainly on the late fees), once they failed to adapt by their own business priorities, Netflix became synonymous with movies & TV. Everything was working well when the companies were licensing their content to Netflix. Everyone was still making money. But when they tried to become technology companies, that’s when everyone started to lose except for… Netflix.
They got into the game before anyone else, and I believe as long as streaming is the main way we watch movies at home, Netflix will always be #1. But I would rather live in a world where Netflix dominates streaming and studios are making money thru licensing and rentals again, and the consumer is paying less overall. Sony never made a streaming service and despite their lack of quality movies (sans MCU Spider-Man), they are chugging along. More need to follow suit and everyone do what they do best.
The question is whether or not these companies will survive long enough to switch back/switch over to some new method that moves beyond streaming and reintegrates traditional profitability margins. I mean that in the literal sense of staving off bankruptcy, but also in the sense of not getting themselves bought out by tech companies that derive their primary income from a different business and just want the chit of owning a legacy studio.
For instance, Amazon owning MGM. It really doesn’t matter to Amazon whether or not MGM is successful. It’s a niche product that funnels users to their main platform, which is selling stuff of any variety imaginable to as many people as they can, as frequently as they can. Another example of this model is Apple, which purportedly spends enormous amounts of money for paltry (or non-existent) returns on their Hollywood fares but remains one of the most highly valued companies on the planet because Hollywood is not their real product.
Comcast owns Universal. AT&T is the parent of WBD. Sony was a technology company before it became a studio. Skydance is buying Paramount and even though it’s “technically” a media company, it was founded by a technology guy with the ethos of a technology guy. There’s a point to this. These tech companies understand that attention and data are the two most valuable commodities on the planet and they are working every single day to consolidate their grip on both and dominate control. This was always the point. It has been since Netflix decided to destroy Blockbuster. This has been intentionally designed as “growth” for Big Tech companies for decades now and Hollywood fell into the trap by chasing the convenience of being able to reach audiences who didn’t want to put on pants and get off the couch.
The particular information you lay out here about Disney (excellently researched and also alarming btw) reinforces what I have been saying for months and will repeat here: the fox is in the hen house. Disney announced more layoffs this week. They’re losing profitability by the minute. It’s not just production leaving Hollywood that makes things more expensive. Inflation, as an entity, has an immediate knifepoint that carves into everybody’s lives on a daily basis, but it also has a cumulative impact over years and decades. When salaries of the middle class (or anyone except the uber rich really) writ large don’t grow at pace over an extended period of time, spending power decreases overall and it stays decreased. This means that most people don’t have the same flexibility in their budgets for going to movies and buying DVDs and merch. More than 60% of the American population lives paycheck to paycheck, which means they worry about paying rent more than what just popped into the cineplex. My point is that, whether or not Hollywood can wrest control of itself back from Big Tech, there may be no room to maneuver back to profitability because the people who buy the product don’t have the cash flow. Changing the supply won’t change the demand. What this Disney data tells me is that we are as close as it seems to Apple, Meta, or Alphabet making an offer on the Mouse. And when that happens, it’s game over for the Industry as we knew it.
The question then becomes what do the artists who are getting drummed out do instead? What is the next thing that happens in entertainment? Theatre dominated the globe for centuries upon centuries before the application of film technology birthed a new Industry. Theatre is still around. But it’s not the big cat in the room. It feels to me like we are witnessing the next evolution of entertainment. It’s not about vertical short form dramas. It’s not about YouTube channels. It’s not even about integrating AI. These are stopgaps. They’re waypoints up the mountain. What is at the top of that mountain? That’s where the new era of storytelling (and of profitability) lives. And I think it’s crucial that it’s the artists who innovate and own it as it is birthed into existence.
Great write up! I thought about Disney's “vault” and about Mubi.
I wonder if Mubi's system of only keeping a film around for a month could coincide with disc releases or even theatrical releases. “See it remastered on the big screen,” or “buy it on blu-ray and keep it forever” or “catch it on streaming this summer” is a form of artificial scarcity, which I don't like, but it helps to empower consumers to make a choice (or several) based on their taste and spending power.
For those titans like Disney with a huge archive of properties, this seems like an avenue, not to mention their established pipelines already in place to produce theater and physical media content.
Nice post this lays it out clearly and succinctly
I will keep churning streaming services to keep the amount I pay every month to a minimum. I prefer buying Blu-ray and 4K DVDs. I feel better having that physical media on my shelf ready to be viewed whenever I desire. I also like the extras, such as the Director's commentaries, on the discs. I won't be upset if streaming as we know it today fades into obscurity and is replaced by a more viewer-friendly model.
Great article, Jeff. And very well-researched. There's very little about streaming platforms that I support, so I root for changes in the future.
The latest bad trend is that many movies now receive no theatrical or physical media releases, even those featuring top actors and directors. Plus, TV shows have become mini-series with six-episode "seasons" every 2-3 years. And, as many here know, the A/V quality on streaming platforms is subpar at best.
And that's just a couple of the downsides.
All that said, subscription streaming platforms can be fine as a choice...so long as they're not the ONLY choice for viewing movies and shows. But my main gripe is that these companies push for that permanent exclusivity to lock you into paying those increasingly high fees endlessly, and it's very frustrating.
Thankfully, it hasn't been too profitable for the studios.
Here's hoping they realize, as you suggest, that it's wiser to earn money through many different routes, including theatrical, physical media, and VOD. It's better for them and it's better for us.
Physical media, especially 4K UHD will beat streaming everyday, the detail and sound is not even close. The public are starting to wake up, they once said vinyl was dead and look at the resurgence in that. I recently went and saw Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 2 in a cinema that did 'Hypersense,' I was pleasantly surprised to find the theatre two thirds full and it was a midday showing!
What would it look like if the cinema industries returned to a theatrical-first model? If we look beyond the money, would we get a wider variety of choices and be more satisfied? Would we return to a steady supply of films for grown-ups (along side the franchises and family films)?
I think this is about treating non-Hollywood productions and artists like locally owned businesses. Everybody has said for as long as I can remember that you (Artist) are the product. But it has always been aimed at selling that product inside the monopoly of the Hollywood system. Put another way, imagine if everyone who owned a local business making widgets in Anytown USA could only sell their product to Walmart and had no option to sell to locally owned mom-and-pop stores or farmers markets or what have you. Walmart might like it, but it would push a lot of people into poverty and close a lot of businesses down, forcing those people to work a day job that has nothing to do with creating whatever they create- be it bracelets, bread, or brews.
The indie film and TV movement needs a corresponding effort to revitalize indie cinemas. Locally owned businesses that have one screen or maybe two and focus the bulk of their efforts on showcasing the work of small business owners who make stuff Hollywood doesn’t even know exists. Constant and ubiquitous event-style festivals in every single state every week throughout the year that don’t aim for trying to get Hollywood to notice them and buy their movie, but aim instead to rebuild community and to create engagement with and literacy in the audience so that the medium can survive.
And as a community of creatives, whether in the Hollywood tent or outside it, everyone should be making effort to prop up those independent businesses with time and attention and dollars so that 1) the artists making those films and shows can afford to live life making them, and 2) so that pressure can be exerted on the big business of Hollywood when they allow toxic business practices to motivate their efforts rather than those practices that enhance the art form and help it grow and thrive. It’s about Buying Local for Cinema.
Maybe studios can start with not spending so much on movies. I shake my head wondering why even a silly rom com takes 200 mil to make.
I think that’s right. I was looking back on the world before Netflix: when it was Blockbuster dominating the home video market. Movies were synonymous with theaters and Blockbuster. They were making hand over fist with their business model (mainly on the late fees), once they failed to adapt by their own business priorities, Netflix became synonymous with movies & TV. Everything was working well when the companies were licensing their content to Netflix. Everyone was still making money. But when they tried to become technology companies, that’s when everyone started to lose except for… Netflix.
They got into the game before anyone else, and I believe as long as streaming is the main way we watch movies at home, Netflix will always be #1. But I would rather live in a world where Netflix dominates streaming and studios are making money thru licensing and rentals again, and the consumer is paying less overall. Sony never made a streaming service and despite their lack of quality movies (sans MCU Spider-Man), they are chugging along. More need to follow suit and everyone do what they do best.
This is excellent work! I have some thoughts:
The question is whether or not these companies will survive long enough to switch back/switch over to some new method that moves beyond streaming and reintegrates traditional profitability margins. I mean that in the literal sense of staving off bankruptcy, but also in the sense of not getting themselves bought out by tech companies that derive their primary income from a different business and just want the chit of owning a legacy studio.
For instance, Amazon owning MGM. It really doesn’t matter to Amazon whether or not MGM is successful. It’s a niche product that funnels users to their main platform, which is selling stuff of any variety imaginable to as many people as they can, as frequently as they can. Another example of this model is Apple, which purportedly spends enormous amounts of money for paltry (or non-existent) returns on their Hollywood fares but remains one of the most highly valued companies on the planet because Hollywood is not their real product.
Comcast owns Universal. AT&T is the parent of WBD. Sony was a technology company before it became a studio. Skydance is buying Paramount and even though it’s “technically” a media company, it was founded by a technology guy with the ethos of a technology guy. There’s a point to this. These tech companies understand that attention and data are the two most valuable commodities on the planet and they are working every single day to consolidate their grip on both and dominate control. This was always the point. It has been since Netflix decided to destroy Blockbuster. This has been intentionally designed as “growth” for Big Tech companies for decades now and Hollywood fell into the trap by chasing the convenience of being able to reach audiences who didn’t want to put on pants and get off the couch.
The particular information you lay out here about Disney (excellently researched and also alarming btw) reinforces what I have been saying for months and will repeat here: the fox is in the hen house. Disney announced more layoffs this week. They’re losing profitability by the minute. It’s not just production leaving Hollywood that makes things more expensive. Inflation, as an entity, has an immediate knifepoint that carves into everybody’s lives on a daily basis, but it also has a cumulative impact over years and decades. When salaries of the middle class (or anyone except the uber rich really) writ large don’t grow at pace over an extended period of time, spending power decreases overall and it stays decreased. This means that most people don’t have the same flexibility in their budgets for going to movies and buying DVDs and merch. More than 60% of the American population lives paycheck to paycheck, which means they worry about paying rent more than what just popped into the cineplex. My point is that, whether or not Hollywood can wrest control of itself back from Big Tech, there may be no room to maneuver back to profitability because the people who buy the product don’t have the cash flow. Changing the supply won’t change the demand. What this Disney data tells me is that we are as close as it seems to Apple, Meta, or Alphabet making an offer on the Mouse. And when that happens, it’s game over for the Industry as we knew it.
The question then becomes what do the artists who are getting drummed out do instead? What is the next thing that happens in entertainment? Theatre dominated the globe for centuries upon centuries before the application of film technology birthed a new Industry. Theatre is still around. But it’s not the big cat in the room. It feels to me like we are witnessing the next evolution of entertainment. It’s not about vertical short form dramas. It’s not about YouTube channels. It’s not even about integrating AI. These are stopgaps. They’re waypoints up the mountain. What is at the top of that mountain? That’s where the new era of storytelling (and of profitability) lives. And I think it’s crucial that it’s the artists who innovate and own it as it is birthed into existence.