Fixing broken windows
Reading David Pogues’s interview with Todd Wagner, whose company is releasing movies on DVD the same day they are released in theaters, I was struck by a bit of humility that’s rare among system-buckers:
You know, I could sit here and say, “Oh, this is how it’ll play out. We’ll do this and this and this.” But if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that we don’t know yet. And I wouldn’t wanna lock ourselves in to say, “This is the model.” That, to me, would be as shameful as saying the old model’s right.
For most big movies released in North America, I think going out day-and-date with both the theatrical feature and the DVD would be a mistake. Maybe not a disaster; you could conceivably sell more DVDs because you’re piggybacking on the main advertising campaign. But it would hurt movie theaters. It would confuse DVD buyers. Cows and sheep would start mating.
It would not be good.
But note the condition I put on my prediction: “for most big movies released in North America…”
Here’s the thing: Everywhere else in the world, movies do come out on DVD the same day they go to theaters. The difference is, the DVDs are all pirated.
In St. Petersburg, Beijing and Shanghai, I’ve seen the movies I’ve written for sale on sidewalks. They’re always bootlegs. Sometimes, the packaging is impressibly authentic-looking. Most of the time, it’s a crude Xerox. Either way, it’s how most of the world is going to see these movies.
So I can’t blame Sony or Warner Bros. for releasing films with a shorter and shorter time window between the theatrical release and the DVD. If I were running a studio, I’d make the cheapest DVD I could for China, and flood the market with it the first day it’s released anywhere in the world. Better to make fifty cents per DVD than nothing.
Also, the logic of theatrical versus DVD windows breaks down when it comes to very small movies, which never end up playing in much of the country. A film like Me and You and Everyone We Know will never make it to Wichita, despite good reviews and a fair chunk of publicity. So there’s a fair argument for putting out the DVD right away, or offering it on pay-per-view.
Would this hurt the tiny arthouse theaters? Probably. But maybe not as much as the free screener tapes almost everyone in Hollywood gets around awards season. (To date, I’ve gotten three, but more are coming.) In the interview, Wagner explains a profit-sharing idea that would help the little theaters, which are under increasing pressure from the 30-plexes anyway.
Of course, for movie-goers the issue isn’t financial, but emotional. There’s something intangibly awesome about seeing a great movie on opening day with a packed house. The worry is that if DVDs come out too soon after release, movie theaters will go away. I doubt that. We still have packed stadiums for football games, even though they’re all televised. As long as people want to be part of a shared experience, as long as THX sound makes the seats rumble, as long as teenagers want to get away from their parents, there will be movie theaters.
To reiterate, I think releasing a film like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on DVD the same day it goes in theaters would be a Bad Thing, both financially and creatively. But knee-jerk panic over shrinking video windows is unwarranted. The goal of a release should be getting the film in front of the greatest number of viewers (paid viewers, ideally). If we need to tinker with the model to do that, so be it.
Articles
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Me, You, and Everyone We Know is one of the best films of the year that practically no one has seen. This year has been a non-stop debate about the theatrical experience versus DVD, shortened windows, and the whole song and dance routine. I’m just going to sit back and see how it plays out. But, you really have to wonder if anyone will own up and admit that no one would have wanted to see Short Circuit meets Top Gun (with no stars, either) five years ago.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:52 pm
I think you meant Todd Wagner, not Mark Cuban.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
I agree completely. I go to the movies, not just to see the film, but the experience of the audience and to get lost for a couple hours in the fantasy of my choice. Putting the movie out at the same time in theatres and DVD would suck. Piracy in Carribeanic scales would ensue. For the most part, it seems like 6 months after a film is first in theatres, that the DVD is then released. I don’t mind the time of that being shortened down a bit, even to say that after the film is completely out of theatres that it can come out on DVD. But why stop at movies? Why not put the season of a series out at the same time with the series DVD? It wouldn’t kill TV. It’d just screw up the experience. And that’s ultimately what would be lost on both cases. And I personally like the experience.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm
As someone nowhere near the Hollywood movie engine, I can only hope that you, as an insider to said machine, can help affect a change to the model as it stands now.
Kudos to you for recognizing the reality of the situation in regards to going to a theater. I would posit however that while the intangible of going to a movie house is still there, it’s rapidly going away. Mainly due to the sheer volume of commercials that are played before the trailers even start.
I think most consumers would agree that when paying for a movie ticket, we believe that we are paying for the people who actually made the film. Not to be bombarded by BMW or Pepsi commercials for 20 minutes prior to the movie. It’s that kind of situation that drives people out of the theater and into their home theater etc. (Granted there are the hard core people who will go to a theater regardless, I’m not one of them, unless it’s something I absolutely must see on a big screen {read: one of yours}. But, even then I’ll go to the small theater that no one goes to just to avoid the crowds etc. and have a more peaceful time out.)
So, what’s a theater refugee to do for first run movies? In my humble opinion, the studio that realizes what is truly driving people away from the theaters, and, alters course first, will be the big dollar winner. Look at itunes. It’s not that people liked to pirate with napster and break the law. They liked the convenience. If I can download the album I want instantly at a reasonable cost, why go to the store and deal with lines, and surly counter people? And, more importantly why break the law by pirating?
So, er… yeah.. that’s my .02$. Apply NACL liberally. :) Happy Holidays and if you are in town give me a call, the beer’s on me.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Hi John. I’m a great fan of your work, but personally I would prefer being able to see a movie wherever I chose to see it. Sure, you get a huge screen and great sound at the cinema, but having to share the movie experience with some hundred persons who are constantly talking, laughing at strange things, making sounds with their candy-wrapping and so on isn’t exactly my cup of tea. It takes away to much from the experience in my opinion.
George Lucas is quoted as saying “For studios, the fact is that the theatrical film market is less than 10% of their business — it’s very, very small. I mean, you could chop that off in a second, and it wouldn’t even bother them — they’re just doing it as a promotional thing.” at http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001524471&imw=Y But like you say, I don’t think theaters will go away for the simple reason that there are those who enjoy having fun in the company of hundreds of strangers.
It’s interesting to see that you don’t believe that the issue for movie-fans is financial. Then, why is there piracy at all? A lot of people can’t afford seeing all the magnificent movies they want to see, and we’re not just talking about people in “poor countries” here. I believe the answer to piracy is lower prices and distributing entertainment the way consumers want it. Which today, in many cases, is distribution over the Internet. When it’s possible to download a high quality movie to your media center at home in an hour or two and enjoy it whenever you want to, alone or with friends and with pauses whenever you want there to be pauses, why would people want to pay to wait in line, watch 20 minutes of commercials and watch the movie together with a bunch of random people. It’s sort of like choosing between a public buss or your own car, most people would simply want to drive their own car.
Let the consumers decide how they like their entertainment, because if they’re not allowed to watch a movie the way they want to legally, they will simply get a pirated copy and like you said, then the studios won’t earn a penny.
Merry Christmas! Andreas
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Daniel –
You’re right. Todd Wagner, not Mark Cuban. Fixed it. Thanks.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Here I thought that mistake was some subliminal suggestion. Crafty, John, crafty.
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I was @ a presentation Todd Wagner gave @ TIFF this year about the whole no-window thing and I’m up for the experiment.
I’ve been saying for a while now that for the theatres to make some bucks, they should be selling DVDs too. I’m not sure why it’s not happening. They need to go in and make available all the discs related to said movie you just saw so on the way out you can pick up the directors last movie, or the stars first, or the screenwriter’s favourite.
Plus, as a bonus, get a ’special features’ disc. King Kong came close by releasing the production diaries the same week, but still they were only @ the stores, and not the theatres. Make it a deal that you can only get the early special features if you see the movie – i.e. redeem your ticket stub or something even.
I’ve sent the idea to Todd, but haven’t heard back. He’s in a unique position since he also owns a theatre chain (Landmark is it?) along with the production companies etc.
What do people think?
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I can’t imagine paying for multiple versions of the same product for much longer. Let’s take cable television for example; Suppose I’m paying $80 a month for premium cable so that I can watch Monk (among other things), $25 for a season of Monk on DVD, and then $2 for an episode on my Video iPod. These all serve a purpose right now- cable is immediate, DVDs are somewhat permanent, and because of the DMCA, downloading from iTMS is the only way to easily and legally access portable versions of the tv show. But I’m paying 3 times for the same thing and I suspect that consumers and the market will demand a way out of this redundancy because the limitations imposed on the different forms of media are artificial and arbitrary (the DMCA, DRM, etc.).
December 24th, 2005 at 2:18 am
One hidden bugaboo with day-and-date theatrical and DVD releases: the DVDs would no longer be considered a “supplemental” market.
As such…no residuals!
Unless, of course, we change the way we calculate residuals.
December 24th, 2005 at 10:21 am
I think DVD release next to cinema release sounds a great way forward. The reason – it would make cinemas have to work a bit harder. Cinema is supposed to be an experience. A big dark room that shows a film earlier than elsewhere ain’t an experience. Bring back a bit of showmanship for goodness sake!
December 24th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
This could be deliberated for years, months, decades and, well forever. The truth of the matter is this: The Bottom Line. If the films released in this process make money, it will become popular. If it does not, it will not. Support it if you like the idea, don’t support it if you think it’s ridiculous. The public decides what Hollywood does. It WANTS to set the standards and create the trend, but it’s just following ideas and theories, and hoping for the best. So, we’ll see.
December 24th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Everybody always lists talking in the argument against movie theaters, but I never seem to have a problem unless I’m seeing more of what the industry would call an “urban” film. What theaters are you guys going to that it’s so disruptive you can’t enjoy the movie?
December 25th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Consumers want to be able to choose what films they watch, when and how they want them.
As soneone who owns their own dvd player and a pretty decent tv/sound system, going to the local cinema is a slightly sleazy experience. It’s like owning a pool and having to swim at a public pool where kids are peeing in the water.
Bottom line: if consumers prefer watching new releases in cinemas then the theatrical industry will continue to thrive. But this choice should be up to the consumer, not the industry. Why should consumers be deinied the right to enjoy new releases in the comfort – and often superior viewing conditions – of their own homes? We shouldn’t try to enforce the group moviegoing experience through artificial windows.
Video piracy exists only because consumer demand is not being met. The industry should sit up and take notice of what the consumers want, not try to force them to accept artificial windows. The recording industry tried very hard to protect its own ecosystem and ended up wrecking it. Beware!
December 26th, 2005 at 4:27 am
I love a big screen. I love to watch a movie in the dark and be engulfed by the picture and sound. I remember seeing the restored Spartacus at London’s National Film Theatre and the entire experience lingers in the memory like a big Broadway show.
They just opened a new multiplex in my town and last week my daughter went along to a screening of The Family Stone, saying she’d scout the theatre and report back. It’s one of those Warner Vue cinemas and I don’t know what they’re like around your way, but around here they’re state-of-the-art technically with comfortable seating and amazing sightlines.
Her advice to me: don’t bother. She’s your average teenager and she came away saying that the experience was ruined by the audience, which included an entire row of people swapping their phones back and forth so they could watch each others’ movie clips. The staff apologised as my daughter and her friend were leaving, but they were no more than kids themselves. The offenders were all middle-aged (ie, to my kid, 25 or over).
I mean, The Family Stone??
December 26th, 2005 at 11:00 am
It’s encouraging to me that the movie studios are at least exploring ways to change their business model. I’ve watched the music industry shoot themselves in the foot by treating their customers with nothing but contempt.
I don’t have an opinion on whether or not it would be of benefit for the major Hollywood theatrical releases to also coincide with the DVD releases. Personally, I enjoy seeing movies in a theater, and have rarely found the giga-plex audiences to be annoying. Despite my giant-screen TV, and my surround-sound system, and the convenience of pausing the story while I fix a sandwich, for me, none of that replaces the magic of seeing a movie at a theater.
On the other hand, I have found that the movies of the past few years have definitely gotten dumber. I used to be a frequent movie-goer. In 2001 I went to 21 movies. Since then, I’ve only gone to about 3 movies a year, and of those that I’ve seen, most of them have been distinctly underwhelming. Every weekend I eagerly scan the reviews and check my local listings hoping that something interesting will be opening, only to discover one unappealing choice after another. When I finally do catch the major theatrical releases on HBO or Showtime, what I’ve seen has only confirmed my initial decision to skip seeing them. I never thought the day would come when I could say this, but there are more compelling stories told on television than there are in the movies. (Mind you, few of them have better production values, but that’s another rant for another day.)
What’s singularly annoying is what I call the “ComicCon-ization� of movies. That’s where the studios find some cult property (be it comic books, or video games, or some long dead television show), with presumably a pre-built audience, and proceeds to hype the hell out of it. I understand that Hollywood is trying to harness themselves to the pocketbooks of the fanboys, and I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that. It obviously can be a successful strategy. But what’s very clear to me is that in the past few years, Hollywood has been underserving a significant portion of their entire potential audience. Not everyone in the US has the mental outlook of a 13 year-old boy. Unfortunately, that underserved audience is quickly getting out of the habit of going to movies altogether, and finding other sources of entertainment. It is probably already too late for them to be lured back into theaters.
I do agree with you that the simultaneous release of DVDs with the release of a movie will only help the small, independent features. For me to see one of these movies involves a 2-hour drive. That is, if it even comes to my state. Although I may still not wish to spend 20+ bucks on a DVD of a “quirky� movie with dubious credentials, I would certainly be willing to rent it on Netflix. (I’m fairly certain that such movies will not make it to my local “bricks and mortar� video outlet.) Better yet would be if for around the same cost as a movie theater ticket, I could download it via the internet and watch it on my large-screen TV. (Or watch it on my portable video player in lieu of the awful in-flight movie during my business trips.)
December 26th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Movie theatres have to lower ticket prices or they will suffer the same fate as the music industry. The high prices of CD’s coincided with the rise of high-speed internet and downloadable music. When faced with the decision between paying 17 bucks for a CD that has maybe one or two songs worth owning, and a free, but illegal download, well, to the consumer, that’s a no brainer. It wasn’t until itunes and the 99 cent download came along that a model came along that made sense. Now, between paying 30 bucks (2 tickets, popcorn and drinks) to go out to see a movie in the theatre, or paying 4.99 to rent the DVD a few months later with a lot less hassle (parking, rude audiences), and the decision is just as obvious. Sure, you can’t deny the community aspect of seeing a movie with a crowd, but with the big plasma screens and sound systems, people can have just as good an experience with a group of friends and family. The only solution in the short term is to lower prices. In the long term, I think movie theatres are doomed. The new generation is used to having their entetainment available to them at their fingertips. The idea of going out to a theater to have something played for them is old school.
December 26th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
My local cinema is already dying because of the multiscreen cinemas we’ve had appear over the last 10 years. We have 3 cinemas at the moment which for a small city, is way too much. I can’t find a screen with any atmosphere going on unless it’s Star Wars/Harry Potter opening night!
Sod the DVD/cinema release windows… DVD’s will be obsolete soon anyway when all this blue-ray stuff shows up with the PS3 and people have to restart their film collections! I’m a firm believer that figuring out how to go digital is the way forward. Then people can convert their movies to whatever format they want and watch it on a projector or a laptop, or some flash movie glases that someone invents.
Heck, I would have already impulse bought an entire film collection given the chance at the right price!
x
December 27th, 2005 at 9:31 am
Oh man, I’m all over simultaneous releases! I’m fairly misanthropic, so I really can’t stand the inconsiderate moviegoers I’m forced to watch new releases with. It’ll be nice to watch a new movie in the comfort of my own home and eliminate the chances of spoilers because of waiting for the DVD months later.
R
December 27th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Between piracy and bittorrent it’s pretty well inevitable that near-simultaneous releasing is going to happen one way or another… the only real choice facing the studios is whether they take control and make money out of it, or watch while others do.
December 27th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
I used to love visiting the cinema, but now it takes a cattle prod, a rubber glove, and a tub of vaseline to force me to go. Not as an enticement you must understand but as a threat. There are many reasons why I detest it now. The obvious ones being that I just don’t want to deal with the anti-social behaviour of the great unwashed anymore. Their constant banter, their tuneless cellphones, and their feeble homemade director’s commentary just rubs on my already frayed nerves. I spend more time mentally chainsawing their heads than watching the film. And (because I just had to have that one extra beer before the three hours of Memoirs of a Geisha)having to scramble past people to get to the loos is an Olympic event that I don’t want to deal with. Finally there is the cost. Here in New York a movie for two will snatch from my tight death-like grip a nice $21. Well, I could buy it on DVD for that much, and watch it when and how I want to. As home theatres grow in screen size, and the sound comes from as many speakers as you dare, cinemas are going to find it harder and harder to corral people with their overpriced tasteless popcorn and bucket sized coke.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:31 am
The film in question is called Bubble, which I also believe is getting released on Cable TV that same day as well.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I wish all movies were brought out on DVD/the internet (legally) on the same day. Maybe even BEFORE they’re released in the cinemas. I say this as a film fan. Not somebody who watches the occasional film, but as somebody who watches films everyday. I should have the right to see the film the way I want to see it. As I love DVDs I want to see them on DVD and not have to wait. I hate, with a passion, that 1) they aren’t released at the same time as they are in the cinemas and 2) that films take so long to come out in the UK(!). :@
January 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Andreas Climent perfect! I HATE HATE HATE watching movies with other people! Plus I want to watch it how and when I want. ME ME ME! DVD DVD DVD [ the irony being that I'm not the selfish one; releasing it in the cinemas first and giving the consumer no choice IS] !
I never knew Lucas said that. Wow. Oh and PAUSES GLORIOUS PAUSES so I can go for a pee and get a drink! Why do the movie distributors make us sit in cramped, freezing(!) rooms with full bladders and dry mouths? Why? All I ever wanted to do was watch a movie or two. :*(
Where’s my extras? Why the trailers?! Big pictures? They’re called projectors and surround sound. Plus watching it on the PC monitor or big screen TV is fine. Just fine. I’m not going for an “experience”. I’m a movie buff for smeg sake! I’m trying to watch a movie! I don’t care about “cinema experiences”! I care about the quality of the film and watching it in the comfort of my own home. Oh I want my DVD! Give it to me! I’ll never go to one of those overpriced (£7-9 for ONE viewing?!) places again. I’m Freezing. Needing to Pee!?! For SEVEN TO NINE POUNDS?! NO! I say NO! Give me DVD! DVD!
pramos yes we should be able to d/l legally.
Great topic. I love this site.
(P.S. I HATE watching movies with other people.(!)
January 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Hey John, I live in China and I’ve seen all your movies on pirated DVD. Recently I’ve noticed mainland movies getting authentic DVD releases at the same as the theatrical release. And the DVD is much cheaper than a ticket to see it on the big screen. They even seem to be cracking down harder on pirated versions of Chinese movies. However, most Hollywood movies are still pirated here before reaching the big screens. The authorities occasionally do crack downs in big cities like Beijing and Shanghai, although they seldom make efforts in any of the other cities. It is a losing battle with the pirates, and it seems like the North American studios haven’t even entered the battle yet. They’re taking a serious whooping.
BTW, your website is also blocked in China. I have to fire up the old proxy to gain access.