Anything Goes : Netflix: it cheapens movies by Richard Fitzwilliams

The 100 year old way people have watched movies is changing. The art form is not cheapened. The art form will thrive as long as there are people with passion. Movies are more than an art form, they are also a product. So filmmakers are faced with finding new methods to attract and audience and new ways of showing their art form. I can see why the big cinema chains don't like this - they will lose money holding tight to an old method. I hope they will address the problems they face. In big cities some theaters are meeting the challenge. Sure, the tickets cost more in these "special" theaters but the overall experience is better for the movie goer. And when people know they will sit in a clean theater with excellent picture and sound and that the theater operators will do their best to minimize rude patron behavior then more people will attend. But filmmaker should embrace new outlets for their work. Far from cheapening a precious art form new and more ways to attract viewers elevates it.

I wish this was the case. Several London cinemas already are part-restaurants and a product must indeed be sold. Here's the problem. A film opens and there's the premiere, buzz and interest. Maybe some can't go to see it in the cinema because they need a babysitter. So they watch it at home, there's noise, maybe visitors. It is obviously a very different experience. What seems to me to be so wrong is that to show, say the new Star Wars or the remake of Ben Hur simultaneously to patrons and subscribers means the latter lose the benefit of the large screen. The cinema itself may have all the benefits you mention but that's no use if patrons can see the product at home especially when its a blockbuster meant for the large screen. I'm no purist but, as I argued on Al Jazeera this week this makes the movies lose their cachet-for the stage, concerts, exhibitions etc you make a special effort. Now Netflix will pander to the lowest common denominator as we are "evolving". Include me out!

With change comes challenges. Those cinema's that make the special effort will survive. Those that do not will not. Someday a few London cinema's will rise to the challenge of making moving going special as cinema's in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Austin and other cities have done to great success. Giving people choices is scary. People might choose the option you do not choose. Those people become the lowest common denominator. I love choices. Include me in!

You would have the choice three months after release. What depresses me is that many consider the cinema as less significant an art form despite its influence on current trends than theatre or opera and ballet. The fairly recent worldwide success of watching live performances in a cinema or opera house when it isn't possible to be part of the actual audience has worked superbly. It has kept the cachet. If you saw the remake of Ben Hur, for argument's sake, at home, you could take put the kinds to bed during the gallery battle and receive email during the chariot race!

Cinemas have faced this challenge before. 50 years ago studios and cinemas thought TV would cheapen a precious art form - the lowest common denominator would stay at home and watch inferior product for free. Seeing a movie in the cinema survived. Studios pushed widescreen and the "roadshow" event movies. 30 years ago studios and cinemas thought the VCR would cheapen a precious art form - the lowest common denominator would stay at home and watch movies for less. Seeing a movie in the cinema survived. I agree with you, Richard; a company like Fathom Events has brought live theater, concerts and opera into cinemas. They get people into cinemas and keep the cachet. Those who step up to the challenge will keep this precious art form alive and well. If more people can see a movie when it first opens that only helps this precious art survive. Yes, people will make a choice you don't like. You want to restrict that choice. Yes, people will put the kids to bed during the gallery battle and receive email during the chariot race. That is their choice. There are people who would love to see a movie the week it opens but cannot for many reasons. My old dad live in an area that has few cinemas. He love going to the cinemas but the ones near him do not show "art" films, independent films or foreign language films. So he must wait for three month. This new method allows him to see these movies at the same time I see them. He loves that. This new method of distribution gives those people an option. You don't want them to have that. As you can see we are both passionate about movies. We both know that seeing a movie in a theater is a wonderful experience. I believe more people will see movies if movies are released on multiple platforms at the same time. You want to hold on to a 30 year old strategy. Change is uncomfortable and difficult.

I watch movies through Netflix that I would not have paid a dollar to see in a theater. It also affords me access to things like extended versions, directors commentary, making of..., etc. You can also screen old films that will never ever be seen on the big screen again. Netflix keeps old films alive so they can be studied. "Renting" a seat in a movie theater the size of a showbox for 70 to 90 minutes is not worth $14 to $18 (or more) USD.

Before I moved to LA none on my local theaters played independent or art movies. I wish I had had Netflix at the time. It doesn't cheapen movies to add additional ways for people to see them. My brother is quadriplegic, confined to a motorized wheelchair. It's very difficult for him to get to a movie theater. He is going to get to see “Beasts of No Nation” as soon as it's released rather than wait for several months. I don't see how that cheapens movies. I'm a lot like JD. There are movies that I would like to see but don't have the time or the money to see in a theater. Now I get to see them. How does that cheapen movies? I must pick and choose which movies I see in the theater due to the cost. So I pick one over a couple of others. But now with some movies being released streaming and theatrically at the same time I can go see one in the theater on Friday and see the other at home on Saturday. How does that cheapen movies?

The market is shifting away from old models. In general it appears to be opening up opportunity and choice. The demand is far higher than it ever was. Access is (difficult but) much easier than before.

D Marcus Yes choice is important. You get it after a 3 month or so period. Some people will like having it at once. Here's the downside Cinema prices will soar-this removes potential viewers. Many won't be able to afford it. Art house movies will find distribution even harder. This is serious especially after such brilliant success at last year's Oscars. So precious to film. Uusually I go to previews as a critic but often see movies in thecinema. Yesterday's screening of Tom Hardy in Legend was packed. Would it have been if you could subscribe to it as its the first weekend of release here. Choice has a price. Also cinema, is, wrongly, considered an inferior art film by many despite all evidence to the contrary. You have to go to the theatre, opera, concerts or ballet. Or you can see them on screen from abroad which is a brilliant concept which is catching on in the UK. Films you can see any old time. Hence a totally undeserved regarding of films as inferior by many. DVDs and videos didn't destroy the windowof 3 months when a movie could only be seen as intended. JD Hartman I totally support the release of old films and this sounds marvellous. The more the better in any way so they get an airing to fans, to anybody anywhere Parker I of course accept your brother would benefit from simultaneous screening. The reason I used the term cheapens movies is because an alternative to seeing them as intended immediately being available seems to me to be wrong, it will be fought-imagine France accepting this where they take movies seriously. Of course enthusiasts will see them on screen. The buzz, the hype, the premiere, all of this draws interest but see Star Wars on a tiny screen and have visitors half way-no. The industry must survive, not all changes are good. David If the demand is higher I'm all for it. Of course there is change. What is proposed is drastic. I remember in the Leopard, which Visconti directed so brilliantly, the Prince's motto is "things should change so things should remain the same". Here chains could face ruin. re will be in-fighting and resistance. I accept fans will go anyway but the vast majority are not enthusiasts like Stage 32 members.

Streaming Netflix or other streaming services will not seriously impact theaters until the delivery infrastructure is in place and reliable. In a large city, maybe streaming all the content is viable. In my location which isn't rural, it's not an option, no fiber optic connectivity and none projected. So I rely on DVD's mailed to me, a system where Netflix controls how much I watch in a month by simply delaying the mailing of a new DVD selection, no matter how fast I view and return them.

I agree; choice has a price. I want theaters to face the challenge by making the cinema going experience better. You want to hold on to the old methods. I like the quote; "things should change so things should remain the same". What needs to change is theaters need to make the movie going experience better so distributors want their movie in the cinemas. You want no change at all. Distributors need to meet the needs of more people than the current method does. Not hold on to the old ways. I'm thrilled and excited by all the new ways filmmakers have to get their movie seen; even if it's not in a theater. I feel the old method (the way you want to continue) restricts filmmakers from reaching as broad an audience as possible. An "art house" movie released simultaneously on multiple platforms will benefit from the advertising used for the theatrical release. More people will see it. Many "art house" films do not need to be seen in a theater. More and more are made by filmmakers who know the majority of viewers will see their movie at home. Change is here. Filmmakers and distributors and exhibitors need to rise to the changes not go down with the ship.

What I don't quite understand, Richard is why it seems wrong to you that people will make a different choice than you would make. I love seing movies the way they were meant to be seen – in the theaters. But I do not think it's wrong when someone can't see a movie in a theater. Or even chooses not to. Yes, there is a downside. There is also an upside. Interesting that you accept that many people (like my brother) would benefit from a simultaneous screening but you still don't want then to have that choice. My brother would LOVE to see movies the way there were meant to be seen but he can't. It isn't “wrong” to offer people that option. It's not what YOU want. But it's what many people want. And you hope this option that benefits many people is fought successfully. Sorry, but that is too selfish for me.

D Mann I certainly don't want to restrict film makers and of course the cinema experience should expand. Things obviously evolve. Cinemas do change, the new London cinemas have become part-cafes though more expensive, when you queue for your ticket you join the queue for the overpriced popcorn and drinks. Will art house movies really benefit from this if screened simultaneously. I strongly doubted. Some films do not need to be seen on the large screen though the experience is obviously different from that at home. Some certainly do. The wait is only three months and that is pivotal for the industry as I see it. The more who see a film in various ways the better but the cinema needs a certain cachet too and the three month window seems vital to me. Parker I deeply sympathize with your brother's predicament. I was trying to estimate the effect of a seismic change on the industry and on releasing films without being personal. There are indeed many people who would like simultaneous screenings but I was trying to estimate how it would affect the industry. Soaring prices, a shrinking art market in cinemas, a cheapened experience for many not all. It is not like TV where the studios could adapt by making movies for TV. If you regard a threat as I do the Netflix move as being harmful to an art form you love, of course you want it fought.

Films distributed through streaming services and other "new media", need advertising to get people to watch them as well. If not "released" fairly close to the theater run, they lose the benefit of the advertising. How else are the streaming and other VOD services going to meet their expenses? The last blockbuster film I saw in a theater, two weeks after initial release had nine seats sold in a space that probably held 80. If tickets weren't $16USD, maybe they would have sold more. I'm not interested in the $6 pre-popped (offsite) popcorn or the $3 bottled water either. Theaters need to re-think their business model

Time will tell. In the 1950's studios and cinemas thought TV was going to diminish not only the "precious art" of movies but bankrupt cinemas. It hurt for a while but filmmakers and cinemas stepped up to the challenge and cinema going thrived. Adjusted for inflation a ticked price for a movie today isn't much higher than one for 1955. In the 1980's studios and cinemas (and movie goers) saw home video as a threat to cinemas and "art house" films. Home video is a great asset and money maker for studios and even for small, independent films. Adjusted for inflation a ticked price for a movie today isn't much higher than one for 1985. Art house movies thrive. Richard, I see you in those groups; people who feel that adapting to what the audience wants will harm filmmakers and cinemas. In the past the concern was unjustified. I suspect that your current concerns will be proven to be unjustified. Seeing a movie in the theater is not going away. Theaters need to adapt to reach people who are staying at home. They will. I suspect that it is quite likely that many small, independent "art house" movies won't get theatrical release - but few do today. I also see that more small, independent "art house" movies will find an audience because of this "threat". Even though I love seeing a movie in a theater as a filmmaker I'm excited and optimistic about the future of small, independent "art house" movies . You will fight this threat to cinemas. I will embrace the possibility of more and better films finding an audience.