The Irishman (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Adkins]

My feeling is the sides should compromise and cut the 3 months in half. Make it a 6 week exclusive window for cinema chains, that's all they really want it for anyway. I assume the worry here is the theater chains are concerned with screwing with how long they can have the comic book, animation, Disney stuff...because Disney has their own streaming service now right?

The problem with that scenario is that a 6-week window would kill box office attendance. Yes, almost all of the business is done within 6 weeks but you'd have more people staying home saying "I only have to wait 6 weeks before I can rent it on iTunes". What's the rush? Do they really think they'll sell more copies at 6 weeks than at 90 days?

 

[usrunnr]

Speaking of Netflix, still no disc for "Roma".

 

[Wayne_j]

I think Netflix would prefer most people to see their movies on Netflix. They probably just went though making a show of trying to get major chains to show it to appease Scorsese.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The problem with that scenario is that a 6-week window would kill box office attendance. Yes, almost all of the business is done within 6 weeks but you'd have more people staying home saying "I only have to wait 6 weeks before I can rent it on iTunes". What's the rush? Do they really think they'll sell more copies at 6 weeks than at 90 days?

So, I'm old fashioned I guess because I love going to a cinema to watch a film. I still get excited about going to see a movie I really want to see. I want theaters to thrive because I enjoy going to them. In fact I have mentioned elsewhere on this site that I think going to the theater now, for me anyway, has become better than it ever was before because many of the cinemas have added big comfy recliners and booze. They tend to be super clean now, whereas when I went in younger days they could be incredibly dirty. So, going to the cinema now is better than it ever was as far as I am concerned. I love it!

The lousy thing is I am lucky if they release 4 or 5 films now in a year I want to go and see. So, as much as I want to go, well, what they show is mainly stuff I have no interest in. I don't go to comic book films, family/Disney films, animated films, franchise films, or sequels. So, that just wiped out 90% of what theaters tend to be showing.

Point being, I really want to see Scorsese pictures in a cinema. That is a major night out at the movies for me. I don't want to watch Scorsese's new film on Netflix...ever. However, I have to hand it to Netflix for being the people that stepped up to fund this picture...and this happened because that de-aging process exploded the budget.

So, what we have here is this problem of trying to be fair to everybody. Theater chains want to have an exclusive window on the picture for 3 months...but will not show the movie for 3 months because if they did probably within 6 weeks the movie would be showing to empty or near empty theaters. So, they will happily push it out of the theater for new films and even quicker if the new film is a Marvel or Disney film that will fill seats and sell popcorn.

Maybe the compromise could be based on how many screens the picture is showing on as time progresses. So, if it opens wide on 4000 screens but within 3 weeks is playing on 1000 then they lose exclusivity after week 6. If it is still playing on 3000 screens after 4 weeks they get to keep it exclusive for up to 8 weeks. If during week 6 it drops to 500 screens they forfeit their exclusive deal. If they are still showing it on 2500 screens in week 8 they get the full three month run.

I am just using all that as an example but perhaps that is a fair way to do it in that if theater chains keep playing the film then they can keep it exclusive but if they are just dropping the film after 3 or 4 weeks and drastically reducing the showings then this limits their exclusive time frame deal. Make the exclusive deal performance based for each film.

That way if theaters don't want to keep it out there the company that owns the film can then put it out there in different ways.

 

[SamT]

It seems it's 3h30.

 

[FatherDude]

Why is the 90-day window "outmoded"? Why do you think Netflix doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else? There's no rule that says that can't put it on Netflix on day 1 if they want to, but they don't get force theater chains to play it.

Netflix digging in their heels is the reason people outside of the major markets won't get to see it in a theater.

It's outmoded because we live in a world where theatrical and on-demand co-exist, and where three months is dramatically longer than the majority of films play in theaters. That is not a forecast or an endorsement, but a reality that is upon us, even if it's one that the biggest theater chains would prefer not to accept. I have not watched happily as the traditional theatrical experience has died a slow death, but if anything the chains have contributed to that downfall with just this kind of decision-making.

Scorsese didn't go to Netflix first when he tried to get this film financed. Everyone else passed on the film. The traditional model rejected THE IRISHMAN when it had a chance to produce the picture, so I am not sympathetic to its policies now that it's time to exhibit the picture. This is a classic case of the establishment vainly trying to hold back the tide. Note the way AMC framed their position as a show of respect for their "longstanding studio partners, including Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate" - in other words, the studios that passed on the movie in the first place. Unprepared to finance the film, the old guard nevertheless want to cherish their right to block it.

And it certainly is the right of AMC, Cinemark, Regal and Cineplex to refuse to change with the times, just as it is the right of filmgoers to scorn them and make them extinct for it. The smaller theaters, aside from being more respectful to the medium by demonstrating interest in providing a higher quality outing, seem less desperate to be gatekeepers. They are the ones who are actually keeping the theatrical experience alive to the extent that it's still got a pulse. As far as I can tell, the big chains have quite the opposite agenda. Curtailing the big screen release of a Scorsese movie seems a pretty convincing Exhibit A for that theory.

Trying to frame this as obstinance on Netflix's part is laughable. One requires no affection for the streaming giant to see why they are entitled to the leverage in this scenario.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It's outmoded because we live in a world where theatrical and on-demand co-exist

They've co-existed for decades now.

and where three months is dramatically longer than the majority of films play in theaters.

Back when the window from theatrical to home video was 6 months, that was also dramatically longer than the majority of films played in theaters. It's always been that way.

That is not a forecast or an endorsement, but a reality that is upon us, even if it's one that the biggest theater chains would prefer not to accept.

I still don't know what reality you are referring to.

I have not watched happily as the traditional theatrical experience has died a slow death, but if anything the chains have contributed to that downfall with just this kind of decision-making.

Theaters aren't dying. Attendance and revenues are up.

Scorsese didn't go to Netflix first when he tried to get this film financed. Everyone else passed on the film. The traditional model rejected THE IRISHMAN when it had a chance to produce the picture, so I am not sympathetic to its policies now that it's time to exhibit the picture. This is a classic case of the establishment vainly trying to hold back the tide. Note the way AMC framed their position as a show of respect for their "longstanding studio partners, including Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate" - in other words, the studios that passed on the movie in the first place. Unprepared to finance the film, the old guard nevertheless want to cherish their right to block it.

What? No one is blocking the film. AMC, Regal and Cinemark require a 90 day window to show a film. Period. It has nothing to do with Netflix or "establishment vainly trying to hold back the tide". If they're going to have those rules for everyone else, why should Netflix get special treatment?

And it certainly is the right of AMC, Cinemark, Regal and Cineplex to refuse to change with the times, just as it is the right of filmgoers to scorn them and make them extinct for it.

AMC, Cinemark and Regal aren't going extinct.

As far as I can tell, the big chains have quite the opposite agenda. Curtailing the big screen release of a Scorsese movie seems a pretty convincing Exhibit A for that theory.

Except none of the chains are refusing to screen the film. They'd probably love to have it. What they aren't going to do is change the window just because Netflix feels like they deserve it.

Trying to frame this as obstinance on Netflix's part is laughable. One requires no affection for the streaming giant to see why they are entitled to the leverage in this scenario.

Entitled? Entitled to get special treatment that no one else gets?

 

[Jeff Adkins]

So, I'm old fashioned I guess because I love going to a cinema to watch a film. I still get excited about going to see a movie I really want to see. I want theaters to thrive because I enjoy going to them. In fact I have mentioned elsewhere on this site that I think going to the theater now, for me anyway, has become better than it ever was before because many of the cinemas have added big comfy recliners and booze. They tend to be super clean now, whereas when I went in younger days they could be incredibly dirty. So, going to the cinema now is better than it ever was as far as I am concerned. I love it!

I do also!

So, what we have here is this problem of trying to be fair to everybody. Theater chains want to have an exclusive window on the picture for 3 months...but will not show the movie for 3 months because if they did probably within 6 weeks the movie would be showing to empty or near empty theaters. So, they will happily push it out of the theater for new films and even quicker if the new film is a Marvel or Disney film that will fill seats and sell popcorn.

I still don't understand why people think the theater chains should change their rules to please Netflix?!?!?

Maybe the compromise could be based on how many screens the picture is showing on as time progresses.

Again, I don't see why Netflix is special enough to warrant a compromise. Amazon makes movies. They have a streaming service. They understand the way distribution works and don't throw tantrums about how the window system (which has been in effect since forever) is unfair to them.

I am just using all that as an example but perhaps that is a fair way to do it in that if theater chains keep playing the film then they can keep it exclusive but if they are just dropping the film after 3 or 4 weeks and drastically reducing the showings then this limits their exclusive time frame deal. Make the exclusive deal performance based for each film.

That still involves giving special treatment to Netflix. If they open that door, then Warner Bros, Sony, Disney, Lionsgate, etc will all be demanding the same terms.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Jeff, I agree with pretty much everything you say except this:

Theaters aren't dying.

I think this is happening, but the extent of the damage is obscured by ever-rising prices which camouflage the decline.

At the very least, the business is transforming rapidly - the types of films that will motivate the general public to come out en masse are constricting, with audiences for the most part rejecting non-tentpole features as things that can wait for home viewing. Though movies like Avengers Endgame can make as astonishing amount of money in a single weekend, there are huge chunks of the calendar year where the box office is incredibly anemic. It’s uncertain whether a business that is profitable for maybe ten or twelve weeks out of a 52 week year can survive and thrive. The profits on movies like Endgame may not be enough to help theaters make their expenses during slower portions of the year. And it’s uncertain as to whether a tentpole audience can generate Endgame revenue regularly as opposed to once or twice a year.

 

[PMF]

I never subscribed to Netflix before "Roma".
And post "Roma" I still haven't subscribed.
In terms of "The Irishman" and subscribing to Netflix?
Same deal...and this holds true for all the other channels.
I'm simply not a streaming, cable, HBO, subscribin' kinda guy.
For me, it's either the theaters or a disc.
Anyway, just thought I'd let Netflix know this; as its not personal, its only business.
Still, I can't imagine that Netflix wouldn't be able to also profit from the theater and BD audiences, as well.
As for my wanting to see "Roma" and "The Irishman"? You betcha, I do.
Heck, Netflix, open up the floodgates;
do theaters, do television, do discs and do them all - simultaneously.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Still, I can't imagine that Netflix wouldn't be able to also profit from the theater and BD audiences, as well.

They would -- but they don't want to.

We've been having the same discussion over in the Blu-ray forum about whether or not Netflix will release Blu-rays of their fully-owned movies.

Netflix has demonstrated over and over again that they value their exclusivity above all else. They don't want to sell you a Blu-ray because the minute that they make their content available somewhere other than on their streaming service, it loses its allure as an incentive to lure subscribers. They don't care about the $20 you would spend to buy a disc. They'd much rather have you spend $9.99 a month in perpetuity to have access to it. The fact that you will pay $20 for a disc but refuse to subscribe means that they don't care about getting your $20. Providing a disc release for you to buy means they'd also have to provide discs to people who actually might subscribe, and they want to make sure they have as much exclusive content on their service as they can. If people can get it somewhere else, it's not an exclusive anymore.

Considering the streaming space is about to get a lot more crowded with the arrival of Disney+, HBO Max (Warner) and whatever Universal is going to call their service, it's hard to argue that this view doesn't make sense. Netflix has already lost that lucrative output deal with Disney that gave them access to all of Disney's theatrical titles from 2016-18. They're probably also going to lose lots of content from Warner and Universal soon; we already know that those companies are pulling Friends and The Office, respectively, when Netflix's current deals for them expire, and those are almost surely not the only things on the cusp of leaving. In the current environment, having stuff that they control in perpetuity is more important to Netflix than ever.

I don't think they really care about the theatrical releases at all. They are a courtesy because they want to work with big-name directors like Scorsese and Cuarón who want to make sure their films are eligible to compete for awards. If the Academy would allow films that have never screened in a theatrical setting to be eligible, Netflix would probably not bother. They won't agree to a 90-day window, even for a Scorsese film, because providing it to their subscribers and touting it as a driver for new signups is more important to them than the revenue they would receive from a wide theatrical release.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some people around here to wrap their heads around. I don't like it any more than you do because I love the theater, and I love Blu-rays, and there are a number of Netflix exclusives I would be interested in buying. But I understand why they run their business this way, even if it is not a strategy I like.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I still don't understand why people think the theater chains should change their rules to please Netflix?!?!?

For me it has nothing to do with pleasing Netflix. Personally, were I told one of these things is going to go away-- theaters, discs, or streaming --and you get to pick which one goes, I would pick streaming. I dislike streaming. I love going to a cinema, I love putting a disc in a player. Streaming, as of right now, and I pay for the fastest internet connection, stinks.

So, I have no interest in doing anything to please, favor, or help Netflix. I do love the way Netflix works with filmmakers and that Netflix is generous about funding quality films for adults. The rest of the industry prefers nothing but entertainment that is aimed at the 13 and under crowd.

Here's the way I see it...through the generosity of Netflix this new Scorsese picture exists. Scorsese is one of our great filmmakers and a gift to all who appreciate cinema. He wants his film shown in cinemas because he too believes that's the place to see a film and he intended his picture to be seen by people in cinemas.

This to me has nothing to do with Netflix, it has to do with the opportunity to show one of Scorsese's films in cinemas across the country. To allow people the opportunity to see it the way he intended for it to be seen.

It has nothing to do with giving Netflix any sort of special treatment.

I think you are correct that it has everything to do with theater owners fearing if they allow a film from Netflix to be shown it could effect their deals with other film companies.

I do not think the comparison to Amazon is a valid one. Amazon has multiple revenue streams they are not just relying on their streaming service for their survival. In fact Amazon sort of treats that aspect of what they do as a bonus for their customers.

Netflix is strictly relying on the fact that they are a streaming service and so they depend upon that entirely. So, comparing them to Amazon really makes no sense.

The other aspect of this is the other film companies you mention are choking the ability of filmmakers to make the films they want to make. Those companies want primarily product, the same films, franchises, sequels, over and over and over again. To the extent that if you want to make something that is not about a guy in an idiotic costume saving the planet, is not animated and for teens and under, and is not a sequel, remake, or reboot...well...you will need to start pounding the pavement looking for someone else to fund it because they are not interested in giving you a dime.

It was actually Scorsese that brought this all up years ago. Great filmmakers like the Coen Brothers, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Steven Soderbergh, have struggled to get their pictures made and either walked away or turned to somebody like Netflix. Scorsese just joined the ranks of these guys. Scorsese was worried about guys like Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, James Gray, being able to get funding to make the pictures they wanted to make.

Tarantino is going to quit...not because he has to because he sees the writing on the wall. Making films is becoming like flipping burgers at a MacDonald's restaurant. It's not about creativity, your art, doing great work...it's about delivering the same damn thing over and over with no variation other than "There are pickles on this one, none on this one."

It's a sad time for movies but Netflix is one company still keeping real filmmaking alive. Theater chains are following the lead of "Just give us the same film over and over! Sequels, remakes, franchises, all the same stuff! Do not try anything new!" because that's what they feel brings people in and fills seats and sells popcorn.

I just want the theater chains to show Scorsese's film so people can go and see it. For some it would be their first time seeing a Scorsese up on a big screen. Maybe that would have an effect on them. Make them fall in love with the art.

Maybe not but trust me my feelings have nothing to do with wanting to do favors for Netflix, I just want good pictures to play in cinemas.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I dislike streaming. I love going to a cinema, I love putting a disc in a player. Streaming, as of right now, and I pay for the fastest internet connection, stinks.

Forgive me for being blunt, but this means there’s something not right in your chain - whether it’s the streaming device you use or something else.

There are too many of us at HTF who do stream and who get a quality where streaming is either equal to or better than the disc, for there to be a real argument against the technical capabilities of streaming. Simply put - if you’re not getting an experience that’s on par with a disc, the problem isn’t with the idea of streaming but with something specific in your chain - could be your ISP, could be your choice of streaming service, could be your choice of device, or a setting within.

 

[dpippel]

There are too many of us at HTF who do stream and who get a quality where streaming is either equal to or better than the disc, for there to be a real argument against the technical capabilities of streaming.

Sorry Josh, but when you're comparing apples to apples, the quality of streaming video will never be "better than disc."

 

[FatherDude]

That still involves giving special treatment to Netflix. If they open that door, then Warner Bros, Sony, Disney, Lionsgate, etc will all be demanding the same terms.

That door is opening, whether they like it or not. That is the heart of my frustration - this stand is a fruitless one, and a Scorsese movie is gonna get a limited release in the name of it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Forgive me for being blunt, but this means there’s something not right in your chain - whether it’s the streaming device you use or something else.

There are too many of us at HTF who do stream and who get a quality where streaming is either equal to or better than the disc, for there to be a real argument against the technical capabilities of streaming. Simply put - if you’re not getting an experience that’s on par with a disc, the problem isn’t with the idea of streaming but with something specific in your chain - could be your ISP, could be your choice of streaming service, could be your choice of device, or a setting within.

Well, the point was not about the quality of streaming, the point was about how I like to enjoy a picture. You are likely right, in my primary home theater I could spend some time optimizing the set-up for streaming, the thing is I hardly ever stream anything so I just have never bothered. My wife is the Netflix subscriber in the house. I'm still all about going out to a cinema but now I am faced with the fact that hardly anything gets released to cinemas that I want to see. It's like a horrible tease, they have improved the cinema experience by miles yet Netflix are the ones making what seems to be the best content...and there is this fight over showing those pictures in a cinema.

Netflix is backing Scorsese, the Coens, Dan Gilroy, Alex Garland, while the big studios abandon directors in favor of just churning out franchises, sequels, animated films...product, product, product! Truth is for the stuff they are churning out they don't need talented directors, they don't need talented actors, they certainly don't need "movie stars", all they need is the costumes and the effects team.

So, in this way you are right to ask "Why are you not just optimizing your streaming set-up?" because if that's where all the good content is why would I even concern myself with going to a cinema?

I guess if I want to see films made by people like Scorsese, the Coens, etc...well, I will have to optimize streaming in my home theater...and maybe you are right, cinemas will become a relic of the past.

The funny thing is when I go to the cinema it's filled with people that are over 40. I don't see a lot of younger people there. I always write this off as being about what I am going to see. I think the pictures I go to probably appeal to people 40 and up. However even when I have gone to see a big franchise film like John Wick 3, Mission Impossible, or James Bond...well...the crowds are older. Granted Mission Impossible and Bond are films that are relics that younger folks probably don't have the connection to that older people do.

I recently heard Joe Dante say he believes younger people just have no interest in going to a cinema. They are used to the technology that brings everything right to them, on their phone or tablet. They think it is ridiculous to actually have to go somewhere to watch a movie. I have no idea if this is true. Some of it may be economics, as you have often said, but I think a good deal of it is exactly what Joe said. I've read other studies they have done with the generations that have grown up with cell phones and the internet and those studies say these younger people have no use for a lot of stuff. It is based around the idea that they grew up with the "Press a button, it comes to you." tech. From their perspective if you can do that why would you waste time getting up to go somewhere for something? This has changed the culture.

For people my age going to a movie is an event. You go, share an experience with an audience. It is a night out. Dante claims there is none of that luster for the younger generation who are happier watching a film on their phone.

I mean all that points to you being correct, I should optimize my streaming set-up because that's how the younger crowd will be watching stuff.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s not just the younger crowd! And it’s incredibly dismissive and shortsighted for you to insist that it’s just about age.

Theaters place in the entertainment ecosystem is changing due to a variety of factors. Price and relative/perceived value is one. Convenience/time is another. Comfort is another. The lack of negative consequence for missing a film in theaters is yet another. It is not simply a matter of “Kids like phones lol aren’t they dumb they don’t get art”.

In many places, the relationship between theatrical screenings and movies is now akin to the relationship between those who pay to see a live sporting event in person vs those who watch it at home. In the end, everyone is seeing the same content, but the majority of people who view that content aren’t going out and buying an expensive ticket to do so on someone else’s schedule. Am I any less of a baseball fan if I can’t afford to buy tickets to my favorite team, or if watching at home fits better into my life than traveling to the stadium?

It just baffles me how you refuse to see that for some people, waiting for a specific time on the calendar, leaving the house, and paying a good deal of money isn’t as good of a value proposition as staying at home and seeing the same thing for free on their own schedule, often at a technical quality that equals or exceeds what the theater can show.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yup, even an old goat like myself doesn't enjoy going to the movie theater like I used to back in the day. I've decided numerous times to pass on watching movies at my local cinemas in favor of waiting some months later to view such movies in one of my home theaters that I have upgraded over the last couple of years.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It’s not just the younger crowd! And it’s incredibly dismissive and shortsighted for you to insist that it’s just about age.

Here's the funny thing about age...if you listen to what people say the claim seems to be that Netflix is providing the content for "older" people and it is a younger crowd and families that go to the cinema now. The claim is Netflix is doing all the "adult content" while in the theaters everything is aimed at teens and younger.

The thing is though when I go to the cinema I see mostly people older than me, and I am early 50s, and when I talk to younger people they all say they just watch Netflix. The other night I was at a party and there were lots of people much younger than me there and we get into a conversation about movies...and every time I mention a movie they ask "Is it streaming somewhere?"

"Is it on Netflix or Amazon?"

And I have to keep responding "I have no idea." because I rarely watch Netflix and I have never streamed anything off of Amazon.

This is sort of hilarious to me because I AM THE OLD GUY (or middle age guy) going to the movies and all these young people are home watching Netflix...where I am supposed to be.

I think that the rise of home theater deeply impacted who is going to a theater and I agree with you it is both young and old that avoid it. I read all the people of all ages that say "I hate people I won't go to a theater." and actually, I think or feel this is true.

One thing the internet has done is allowed people to further isolate themselves. To just sit alone and watch something, to avoid other people and spend far more time alone.

And I think the fact that it has allowed this has brought out more of the "me, me, me" in people.

I suppose people could tell me I am wrong but in my lifetime I have never seen such animosity toward my fellow human beings.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think that the rise of home theater deeply impacted who is going to a theater and I agree with you it is both young and old that avoid it. I read all the people of all ages that say "I hate people I won't go to a theater." and actually, I think or feel this is true.

I’d argue that that’s overly simplistic. People aren’t staying home just because TVs are nicer. The whole ecosystem changed.

From the advent of motion pictures until the 1950s, if you wanted to see it, you had to go out. From the 1950s through late 1970s, if you missed it in theaters, maybe you could see it at home but you’d wait years for the chance. The 1980s brought prerecorded media home to the masses - if you missed it in theaters, you could see it at home a year later in a poor quality copy. It’s only in the last twenty years or so that we’ve had quality at home that matches what’s in theaters, and only in the last few years are we getting to a point where what’s at home is as good or better than what’s in a theater.

There used to be a real consequence to missing a movie in a theater. Now, there isn’t. A movie theater is merely one place of many a movie might play over the course of its lifespan.

It’s also going to be, for many people, the most expensive and least convenient way to see a movie over the course of its lifespan.

People can be sports fans without attending a game at a stadium. People can be movie fans without seeing the movie in the theater.

As for people hating to go - I think I’ve been to the theater a dozen times this year. Out of all those screenings, only once did I have a non-disruptive audience. Why am I paying to listen to someone else talk during the movie, and why am I paying to watch someone’s bright phone light shining on the screen? Last movie I saw in theaters, the person next to me wouldn’t stop talking for the entirety of the feature, and the projector bulb was half dead. What artistic principle am I honoring by paying for that?