Is Video On Demand Adoption a Viable Option?
How much would you pay to see 'Black Swan' at home right now?
I've always been a bit of a purist, maintaining that in a theater is still the best place to see a film. I even opt to support the independently run theaters as much as possible rather than fork my money over to the AMCs of the world, something my girlfriend makes fun of me for.
Yet last night we were feeling lazy and went the Video On Demand route and split a paltry $6.99 on All Good Things. This isn't a review, but I'd highly recommend it — even at full price.
But then I opened up the winter schedule from the art house theater down the street to find All Good Things will be opening there on Christmas Day (odd placement for a moody murder mystery if you ask me) and thought to myself, "What's the point?" Unless, of course, you're one of those people who don't have cable. Yes, they still exist. Trust me, I used to work at a video store.
Look, I live in Chicago. It gets cold here. That whole "Windy City" thing is endearing and all, but it's also a sad reality. Especially in the winter. Lips get chapped, toes go numb, and people slip on the ice all the time. It's all fun and games until you're the one calling in sick with a broken tailbone.
Do I really want to get all bundled up to scrape off my car or walk to the corner and wait for an intermittently reliable source of public transportation so I can spend $10 per ticket and another $5 on a drink (sorry, I get thirsty) only to wait through 20 minutes of Coke commercials, Kid Rock music videos and trailers I've already seen ten times before the movie even starts?
Or should I just make a simple $6.99 charge to my cable bill while wrapped up in a blanket with a can of Diet Coke and Chinese leftovers. Hey, I can even pause the movie to get up for a restroom break or to answer the aggravating question of "what do I know that guy from?"
Deadline's Nikki Finke reported last week that despite a lukewarm opening in two New York theaters, All Good Things has already made millions from Video On Demand purchases. Recent non-VOD limited releases like Jack Goes Boating and Buried, while anchored by high-profile stars, have failed to approach that number through their entire theatrical runs. Surely a rollout similar to that of All Good Things would have proven more profitable for these releases.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone lives in New York or L.A. And those people like independent movies too. Magnolia and IFC seem to be the foremost distributors embracing the On Demand formula, but perhaps it will only be a matter of time before a Fox Searchlight or Sony Classics follows suit.
Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan made an impressive $1.4 million in its first weekend while opening in just 18 theaters, a record per theater average for a Fox Searchlight release. I can't help but think how much this number would have been aided buy a supplementary VOD release. Black Swan will make its money (it made another $3.3 million this weekend in only 90 theaters), eventually expand to wide release and hopefully be playing in a theater near you in the coming weeks. But for every Black Swan there's an Animal Kingdom that can't reach an audience because the access simply isn't there.
Writer/director/actor Edward Burns has gone as far as forgoing the theatrical release altogether. His most recent film, Nice Guy Johnny, was released straight to iTunes and VOD on October 26 after wrapping up its run on the festival circuit. Burns views this model as a new home for independent filmmakers. "If these new revenue streams weren't being uncovered, I know I would be out of business," he told the AP's Nicole Evatt.
The numbers back it up, with Diana Kerekes, Comcast's VP of Entertainment Services, noting the more than 200,000 indie purchases a month.
Others, like Magnolia co-owner Mark Cuban, view the VOD format as a platform, a jumping of point for their films' impending theatrical releases. "Hopefully this will change the landscape of independent film allowing movies to gain awareness and momentum going into their theatrical release," he opined to Cinematical's David Ehrlich for a September 2010 article.
Magnolia released Monsters to cable boxes over a month before its October 29 theatrical debut, hoping that hardcore genre junkies would spread the word to their less monster-crazed friends. The 2009 Joaquin Phoenix/Gwyneth Paltrow romance Two Lovers remains the format's largest success, showing a larger net profit from its On Demand run than its theatrical showings.
You would think the VOD model would be the more lucrative option since the studio basically cuts out the middle man and eliminates print costs and theater takes, but Magnolia Senior Vice President Tom Quinn insists the ultimate goal is to produce strong box-office numbers. They're basically using VOD to spark buzz for their films, something Black Swan doesn't appear to need.
So I'm interested to hear what you think. Does a VOD rental offer a more appealing option than a theater ticket? How much would you be willing to pay to watch a movie like Black Swan from the comfort of your home right now? What if you lived in a place like Montana, for example?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
before i put a theatre room in the basement…no. being able to see the films you want on the big screen is half the draw. but for the films that most people decide to wait to see until the come out on bluray, or dvd, then sure.
the only other enticement would be, like you mentioned, the limited release films. i'm dying to see black swan, and it won't be out in my area, for a few more weeks. i would have grabbed it immediately on demand, if it was available. same with blue valentine.
but like i said, if i was watching it on a regular television screen, i would probably be more enticed to see it in the theater.
I really don't think this has a straight, simple answer.
There's too many films made that are of interest to people who watch a lot of movies for any of us to be able to afford to actually go and see them all, even if you live in a big city or a reasonable commute in most weather conditions from your cinema.
That's IF your theatre even shows it in the first place. So, VOD will have a place.
I can see the appeal for smaller, more modestly budgeted films that are never going to have the wide appeal that will always generate a lot of money. I think Black Swan is somewhat of an exception because their was buzz and anticipation around it for months, months and more months than I can backtrack.
I can't imagine it will hurt blockbusters that are made for the BIG screen, and it won't stop people going to the cinema to see films they want to……….but it's another route to making some money back on the expenditure for some films that otherwise won't get a big enough release to make much.
If, in consequence, that at least allows these more modest films to get made (because, at least they will make money, even if not via the theatrical release route) then it may be a good thing.
Where a studio/distributer maybe feels they can ALSO succeed with a theatrical release then they can do that as well on top of the VOD (like All Good Things) as it would just increase the potential for profit.
To answer the original question – I will wait for Black Swan and pay to see it in theatres. All Good Things is not necessarily one I would see in a theatre, so the VOD option might be one I would take.
But only because I have a greater desire and interest in seeing the former.
My friends don't enjoy Oscar worthy films like Black Swan or The King's Speech. So I would definitely love if they brought films like these On Demand. I'd watch the crap out of them.
the challenge isnt the business model or benefit to indie producers or consumers. The challenge is that the only national chain that will play films concurrent with VOD , or films that have had a VOD run, is our Landmark Theaters.
No other national chain will touch them and if you even accelerate the DVD release, they will pull any remaining runs of the film.
The ability to premiere on VOD prior to theatrical release on a national basis (IFC is NY) is a differentiator that the vertical integration of HDNet, HDNet Movies, Magnolia Pictures and Landmark Theaters will continue to offer to producers in unique ways that we hope benefits everyone.
And FYI, ALL THINGS DOWN continues to excel on VOD as well as hold its own theatrically.
m
There is certainly a place for VOD, but for me there is nothing like the theater experience, more specifically going to your local independent theater like you stated. But I can definitely see VOD being big for people in more rural areas.
I saw Ed Burns new film at a festival and enjoy it and VOD definitely makes sense for the film as while I enjoyed it I don't think it would have pulled much of a theater audience.
Fuck theaters. I know its the whole feel of the big screen and whatever, but the price gauging, the annoying audience, the hassle to make lines, to hold in the need to go to the bathroom and the whole need to go to the theater is just too much.
I'd gladly go through all of that for Broadway, but a movie is a movie and if its eventually going to be on my living room LCD Screen, then why not watch it there in the first place.
If VOD is the future of cinema, I'd be very pleased.
amen
I agree that the theatrical experience is superior to home viewing. I might say differently if I had a home theatre set-up. And I haven't ever tried VOD, but it does seem like a good way to see those films that I just couldn't make it to in theatres, whether because I didn't have access to them, or because they're not enough of a priority. For example, generally in the couple weeks after Christmas I make a trip to D.C. (I live in central Virginia) for the sole purpose of seeing movies that haven't come out here yet. The most films I've pulled off seeing in one day is three, and I'm sure I could do four, or even five, depending on show times, location, etc. But this year that still might not be enough for me to see everything I want (though Black Swan is opening here on Friday, so that's one less film I'll have to worry about seeing up there). So for films like Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, and Somewhere, that aren't high on my priority list compared to 127 Hours, The King's Speech, Another Year, and Biutiful, VOD would definitely be an option I'd consider. And if I lived in a place like Montana or Mississippi, where specialty films would never show up, it would be an even bigger draw.
Also, mad props for avoiding the big chains whenever possible. I generally loathe Regal and AMC, because they're just corporate behemoths that build all their theatres the same way, with the same dreadful constant width screens. I love supporting the indie theatres in D.C., or even the smaller chains that do a much better job at showmanship (not trying to do a commercial, but Harkins Theatres and Warren Theatres are two of the best small, private chains out there that show mainstream films and mix in plenty of indie content as well. Unless you've spend time in the Southwest, you've probably never heard of them).
Everyone should cancel their cable subscriptions and buy 2 things: a Roku player and antenna for local channels (i.e. rabbit ears). Link the Roku to your Netflix account and Amazon account – you'll have unlimited things to watch and save tons of dough. Besides Netflix/Amazon, the Roku streams all sorts of cool free content.
I would never have gone to a theater and payed a full ticket price to see I'm Not Here, but the movie intrigued me enough to pay $8 for a 48 hour rental and watch it with some friends in my living room. And as the author says you have the added bonus of takeout and the pause button.
It's too bad there aren't more documentaries on VOD because it seems perfect for the genre. It seems that these doc distributors usually send their films to Netflix Instant for free once the DVD is released; so why not offer them online earlier for a premium free.
This discussion is so tired you'd think distributors would take notice. Everyday peoples' cost/benefit incentive for going to a theater is diminishing; but films like Avatar, Inception, and Tron are must-see theater experiences. Stepping into an enormous dark room filled with strangers part of being transported into a different world. But documentaries and indie flicks, like Tiny Furniture, for instance are perhaps better enjoyed at home with friends in the living room. Heck, milk every revenue stream possible there's nothing to lose. I ended up going to a theater to see Winter's Bone but I would have rather paid $15 to see it at home.
Good post Kevin.
The last movie I can honestly say I got up out of the house to go see in a theater was Inglorious Bastards. And while I'm certain that in the coming weeks I'll get around to seeing the new Harry Potter in theaters, I can definitely say I'm not really excited at the prospect of going out to the movies anymore. Especially not now that I have a netflix account and online access to a ton of classics and foreign films I've never heard of. With the small exception of a couple of filmmakers, like Tarantino's, whose works I really love or series, like Harry Potter, I've seen all the installments of in theaters already, there's just not much that's drawing me back to theater. Especially when I can wait a couple of extra months for the DVD and watch it at home on a theater system that I know will work and doesn't have the brightness control issues that most theater projectors do. As for the idea of VOD I am totally for it in theory, if the studios knew how to properly utilize it without screwing over the consumer. I think it's great now that more indie minded projects are using the method to make money, but I worry that if Hollywood ever chooses to fully integrate the model into it's consideration of how to widely release movies that the weekend's newest box office blockbusters like Pirates of the Caribbean 32 : Captain Jack Collects Social Security are going to ruin the chances of an indie film getting noticed or becoming financially successful.
9 dollars
If price were no issue, I would pick the theater-viewing experience every time. I am lucky enough to have some of the smexiest theaters (warrentheatres.com) around, but the prices are just insane. Not the ticket prices mind you, but the food and beverage costs. I know, I know. I don't HAVE to buy them, but it's part of a movie-going experience for my son and I. I'll continue to go to the theaters, but if VOD becomes a viable (read: cheaper) option, I'll probably start to opt for that.
I completely disagree with VOD being a viable option. Ever since video was created, independent films have been making a profit and being seen by millions "after their theatrical releases". So why the need to use VOD before the theatrical release?
If anything, it limits the possibility of a film to grow in theaters. What will be next? Closing theaters and only watch films on TV, because we're too lazy to leave our house? Even if I can't watch a film in a theater, I take pride in knowing that the film I'm watching was originally released in theaters. If you ask me, VOD is a pretty synonym to straight-to-video,