Responses to "Illegal Streaming Is Shaping The Future Of Film Distribution"
JAINA, rightly wishes for common sense from the studios:
It's frustrating the stubbornness of the film industry to get up to date with how people want to watch film these days. Surely it's in their best interests to get their films seen by as many people as possible, in a way that's easy for them?
The months in between US and UK film releases is painful. The likes of Django Unchained, Flight, Les Mis, Zero Dark Thirty - no wonder people turn to downloads.
TERI BROWN offers perspective:
You're right that the studios are signing their own death certificates by continuing to do it that way when anyone who knows how to Google can find those movies available to view online.
And her thoughts on a solution:
I do like that some studios (and indies) have been releasing films on PPV at the same time as they are released in the theater. It costs more than the $1/night Red Box rental, but it's considerably less than seeing it in the theater and you don't have to wait. I think *that* is the future of movie distribution.
ANONYMOUS chips in with some incredibly insightful thoughts that I wish I could get the Studios to read:
Ditto on all accounts.
To what Teri said about studio and indies being released on PPV, they should continue doing and also push it available for other countries.
The US iTunes "Indie" section has movies such as Struck By Lightning, Fitzgerald Family Christmas that have opened in US and also pre-theatrical releases such as John Dies At The End, Charles Swan and Freeloaders.
For this point, I'm too lazy to check if they are available in the UK store but they are not available at least in one of the Scandinavian countries.
What it comes down to is will I buy US itunes gift card from ebay and give my money to someone in China or wherever and buy the movies from US Itunes which is still illegal as I have a fake address and name in my US iTunes account as you cannot use different country store with your actual information and credit card or do I save my money and download them illegally from torrent sites.
In both cases, I'm doing illegal things. As opposed to those indies being released on this Scandinavian iTunes store and I could pay 5-17 € per movie (rent or buy, SD or HD).
The positive changes are happening with television. Recently both Netflix and HBO streaming services were launched in Scandinavia (yes, that is right, Netflix is a shiny and new thing in the late 2012 Scandinavian world).
Today marks the first time we are able to watch a US show (even with local subtitles!) without downloading it within 24 hours it premiered in US. Banshee premiered yesterday in the States and people from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are able to watch it on Saturday (the episode was available afternoon) via HBO Nordic who have deals with Starz and Cinemax as well. The same will be for the new seasons of Girls and Enlightened that premiere on Sunday and will be available on Monday with local subtitles.
On the Netflix side of things, House of Cards is the 2nd show that we can enjoy fully legally right from the start.
Both instances, HBO Nordic shows and Netflix originals have something in common - quality and cable/subscription. Clearly it will take time when we are able to legally watch network shows but I have faith that day will come. What type of changes are needed for that to happen (distribution, economic, big US corporations possibly buying smaller companies in Europe and elsewhere etc), that's a whole new topic.
Monday 14 January 2013
Friday 11 January 2013
Illegal Streaming Is Shaping The Future Of Film Distribution
Amazon.com are offering a new feature which allows you to to listen to any CD you've ever bought from them, via streaming.
http://nyti.ms/WUabBu
"Variations on this have existed before, but they have often met resistance, if not litigation."
This is how modern distribution works. A few kids figure a way to bring music to the masses and the distributors panic and rush to court.
But years later, they follow the paradigm set by the youngsters. The youngsters who were catering to a future that the distributors were too reluctant and narrow-minded to see.
They thought Napster would literally kill music, but the evolution of distribution needed to happen. Any of you volunteering to give up your mp3s and iPods?
The same thing is happening with film right now. The distributors are trying to keep us in the dark ages. For example, the USA get cinema releases before the rest of the world, then gradually they come to places like the UK. Previously, there were various reasons for this, mostly to do with profit margins; but the key reason: the film prints! When you distributed movies the old way, the costs were huge!
Yesterday the Academy Award nominations came out. In the UK, we still haven't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty' or 'Lincoln', but there are perfect viewable copies online, available illegally.
It's about supply and demand. WE LOVE MOVIES AND WANT TO SEE THEM! People don't sit down and watch a film illegally because of criminal intent, it's because they want the joy of film for two hours. On Facebook, all my American friends and colleagues have seen 'Lincoln', they have strong opinions about it. I'm desperate to see it! Why are you making me wait? For every ticket buyer they win by holding a film back, they lose two more who will view it online.
I wrote something like this before and a bunch of the comments criticised my viewpoint, saying I'm selfish and want my own way, basically that I'm just a greedy consumer. But that's not the point ----- the point is that distribution is still modelled on a structure that doesn't even exist anymore. Home Video is dying (in 2012 in the USA the rental market took $400million less than 2011). And disc sales are falling by 6% a year (that percentage will steeply rise in coming years). Videos spread online like wildfire in a way that the old formats never did and never will.
Piracy via streaming is rife. Studios are trying to crack down and get sites closed. It's the same nonsense they tried with Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, iMesh, etc. These changes to distribution are happening for a reason.
You want us to spend two hours wages on a cinema ticket, and three hours worth on the popcorn. Then you want us to rent the DVD, then buy the DVD, then buy the Special Edition, then the Blu-Ray limited edition, then the bonus version and after that the anniversary disc.
But times are changing. The music industry thought YouTube would end music, but then they figured out how to monetize it. And Spotify seems revolutionary, yet Napster did it fifteen years ago!
We are actively partaking in the most exciting shift in distribution since the birth of cinema. Without question, we must pay for the art we consume; but the Studios and distributors need to get on board with the changes. The digital revolution puts power back in the hands of the people. You can no longer sell us formats that will quickly become obsolete.
Yes, I love the cinema experience. Nearly everyone reading this does too. But the statistics and the rate of privacy prove that people want to stream from the comfort of their own home just as much, if not more. It's ridiculous to try and deny this simple fact.
DISTRIBUTORS & FILM STUDIOS: Stop suing the innovators. In the future, all of our films will be streamed -- and, ironically, you'll be stealing all your ideas from the very people you took to court.
http://nyti.ms/WUabBu
"Variations on this have existed before, but they have often met resistance, if not litigation."
This is how modern distribution works. A few kids figure a way to bring music to the masses and the distributors panic and rush to court.
But years later, they follow the paradigm set by the youngsters. The youngsters who were catering to a future that the distributors were too reluctant and narrow-minded to see.
They thought Napster would literally kill music, but the evolution of distribution needed to happen. Any of you volunteering to give up your mp3s and iPods?
The same thing is happening with film right now. The distributors are trying to keep us in the dark ages. For example, the USA get cinema releases before the rest of the world, then gradually they come to places like the UK. Previously, there were various reasons for this, mostly to do with profit margins; but the key reason: the film prints! When you distributed movies the old way, the costs were huge!
Yesterday the Academy Award nominations came out. In the UK, we still haven't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty' or 'Lincoln', but there are perfect viewable copies online, available illegally.
It's about supply and demand. WE LOVE MOVIES AND WANT TO SEE THEM! People don't sit down and watch a film illegally because of criminal intent, it's because they want the joy of film for two hours. On Facebook, all my American friends and colleagues have seen 'Lincoln', they have strong opinions about it. I'm desperate to see it! Why are you making me wait? For every ticket buyer they win by holding a film back, they lose two more who will view it online.
I wrote something like this before and a bunch of the comments criticised my viewpoint, saying I'm selfish and want my own way, basically that I'm just a greedy consumer. But that's not the point ----- the point is that distribution is still modelled on a structure that doesn't even exist anymore. Home Video is dying (in 2012 in the USA the rental market took $400million less than 2011). And disc sales are falling by 6% a year (that percentage will steeply rise in coming years). Videos spread online like wildfire in a way that the old formats never did and never will.
Piracy via streaming is rife. Studios are trying to crack down and get sites closed. It's the same nonsense they tried with Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, iMesh, etc. These changes to distribution are happening for a reason.
You want us to spend two hours wages on a cinema ticket, and three hours worth on the popcorn. Then you want us to rent the DVD, then buy the DVD, then buy the Special Edition, then the Blu-Ray limited edition, then the bonus version and after that the anniversary disc.
But times are changing. The music industry thought YouTube would end music, but then they figured out how to monetize it. And Spotify seems revolutionary, yet Napster did it fifteen years ago!
We are actively partaking in the most exciting shift in distribution since the birth of cinema. Without question, we must pay for the art we consume; but the Studios and distributors need to get on board with the changes. The digital revolution puts power back in the hands of the people. You can no longer sell us formats that will quickly become obsolete.
Yes, I love the cinema experience. Nearly everyone reading this does too. But the statistics and the rate of privacy prove that people want to stream from the comfort of their own home just as much, if not more. It's ridiculous to try and deny this simple fact.
DISTRIBUTORS & FILM STUDIOS: Stop suing the innovators. In the future, all of our films will be streamed -- and, ironically, you'll be stealing all your ideas from the very people you took to court.
Monday 7 January 2013
Tea For Sarah
Sarah lives on the other side of the world, so went don't get to spend much time together.
She asked me to make up a story about us going for tea. I wrote this today on the tube between Stratford and Waterloo.
He smashed the device against the wall. "Fuck the iPad!" he declared. "Fuck the iPad" he screamed again, into air, because he was not currently able to tweet it.
He bolted from the room and turned up at Sarah's door a moment later.
She opened the door. "We're going to walk the fields," he told her. "I have work to do," she lied. "I only have an hour."
He was all pumped up on something, whatever it was, maybe dislodged neurons firing all crazy by mistake. "We're going for four days," he said. "I'm bringing my laptop", she replied. "Fuck the laptop!", he screamed, as he pelted it deep into her living room wall.
They left for an adventure, wondering how they would explain it or market it or rationalize it to friends later. It would be two days before they realised all that stuff didn't matter. This was between them and Mother Earth as they darted across endless fields, debating the world and its rules until they realised eventually that it has no rules.
They stumbled across farmers, walkers and dreamers. They had lunch with George and Anne who were exactly like them but thirty years their senior. Lunch was finished and off they screamed into the falling night.
They tiptoed across a silent mountain somewhere out there in the grand outdoors of the world when he turned sweetly to Sarah and said, "I want a tea". Her imagination sparkled at the thought and their minds became one, with all their neurons pointed directly towards the vague sense of a town ahead where maybe there was a tea waiting.
They stumbled down the darkened edges of the world, desperately in search of the magical tea. It was 3am and nobody would usually be drinking tea but life in these random days was proving anything was possible.
They landed in a sleeping town of pre-war housing and unexplainable floating auras and felt the tea was in reach.
They looked for clues of lights and laughter but nothing was to be found. The waves of tiredness crashed into them just as daylight rose and the cafe at the end of the world opened.
Marian welcomed them with open arms like they were the first visitors ever and maybe they were. When they asked for tea in quiet desperation, Marian, the Queen of Nowhere, nodded knowingly and quietly slipped away into the basement where the magical tea surely waited.
He looked at Sarah, wondering what all this meant. She looked at him, wondering where the tea was. His eyes danced across the window view, relaxed and dreaming of moving in to the tiny brown house that sat stubbornly outside like the soul survivor of a day all gone.
"Two teas", said Marian, as if it was the simplest sentence in the world.
They looked at her and smiled. And still there was one more day of endless adventure before they'd climb back into life, which eventually they did, but it was always different after that.
Is GERALDINE CHAPLIN Talking About CHARLIE In 'The Impossible'?
I found Geraldine Chaplin's cameo in 'The Impossible' incredibly profound., and probably not for the reasons the filmmakers intended.
Firstly, wow. She looked just like him.
He left our world nearly 40 years ago, and he left our screens even further back than that.
But here was Geraldine Chaplin in a disaster movie. And she's always, of course, had a similarity to her father. But in this scene, in her close up, it sent a chill down my spine. And then there was the dialogue. It's like he was with us, and she was talking about him.
GERALDINE: Some of those stars, have been burnt out for a long long time. Did you know that?
BOY: They're dead aren't they?
They're dead, but once they were so bright that their light is still travelling through space, we can still see them.
How can you tell which ones are dead and which ones are not?
Oh you can't, it's impossible. It's a beautiful mystery isn't it.
And when she delivers that line, 'it's a beautiful mystery isn't it', she shakes her head and gets a little glimmer of light and wonder in her eyes which is so CHARLIE CHAPLIN. Wow. I sat there, in the midst of a movie which I didn't love - yet this moment, wow, it knocked my socks off. Charlie Chaplin, my biggest hero in the world; came alive once again, just for a moment, somehow, like some magical piece of alchemy --- Geraldine's face, the stars, the setting, the moment.
Charlie came back for the tiniest moment, and it was wonderful.
Firstly, wow. She looked just like him.
He left our world nearly 40 years ago, and he left our screens even further back than that.
But here was Geraldine Chaplin in a disaster movie. And she's always, of course, had a similarity to her father. But in this scene, in her close up, it sent a chill down my spine. And then there was the dialogue. It's like he was with us, and she was talking about him.
GERALDINE: Some of those stars, have been burnt out for a long long time. Did you know that?
BOY: They're dead aren't they?
They're dead, but once they were so bright that their light is still travelling through space, we can still see them.
How can you tell which ones are dead and which ones are not?
Oh you can't, it's impossible. It's a beautiful mystery isn't it.
And when she delivers that line, 'it's a beautiful mystery isn't it', she shakes her head and gets a little glimmer of light and wonder in her eyes which is so CHARLIE CHAPLIN. Wow. I sat there, in the midst of a movie which I didn't love - yet this moment, wow, it knocked my socks off. Charlie Chaplin, my biggest hero in the world; came alive once again, just for a moment, somehow, like some magical piece of alchemy --- Geraldine's face, the stars, the setting, the moment.
Charlie came back for the tiniest moment, and it was wonderful.
Recent Movie Playbook: Thoughts on Stuff I've Seen
Just saw 'Pitch Perfect' and loved it. For two hours I was able to believe acappella singing is the centre of the universe.
A good film does that, draws you into its world. You shut down the majority of your brain and body and let the cinema magicians take you on a magic ride.
I didn't get that ride with 'The Impossible'. I somehow didn't read the opening credit which mentioned that it was a 'true story'. So I spent the whole film in a liberal-idiot-rage, wondering why we were telling somebody else's story with white English people?
And then at the end, I realised it was a true story.
That being said, it was still way too white and western. English people, Americans and a couple of Germans. The only moment when the locals got involved was to drag Naomi Watts across the broken town in a helpful yet scary way, with the camera lingering on Naomi to show her fear as this strange person from a land unknown dragged her around.
Helen Hunt has always been one of my favourite actresses, so it's delightful to see her in 'The Sessions' where she plays a sexual surrogate who comes across an unusual case; a man with polio who spends his time in an iron lung to keep him alive.
The film does things at its own pace, slowly gliding you into the story, keeping you glued with strong performances and the slow burning entanglements of the characters. And it's quietly funny, too.
'Silver Linings Playbook': I loved the performances. When was the last time you saw De Niro this good? Sure, a large part of it is the material -- but let's credit the man himself. His performance was full of vulnerability, it was almost scary to see our beloved De Niro like this. That's why it's easier to sell out and keep making 'Meet The Parents', because when you do roles with real depth, you put your legacy on the line, because there's every chance you'll be terrible and people will see the fraud that you are.
But De Niro is no fraud, he's the best there is. And Jennifer Lawrence is utterly compelling. Bradley Cooper is the perfect modern leading man. He's at his peak, and his next few films are crucial.
I had big hopes for 'Hitchcock', but it's average at best. The icons of cinema are so intriguing to us all; that's why they make films like 'Chaplin' and 'My Week With Marilyn'. When these films are good, they get us a little bit closer to our cinematic heroes, whereas 'Hitchcock' plods along without having much of a point of view. Dare I say it's all a wee bit bland.
I loved 'Argo'. Riveting! Who'd have ever predicted that Ben Affleck would turn out to be such a great director. 'Gone Baby Gone', 'The Town' and now 'Argo'; all fantastic!
Still haven't seen 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', and I was meant to see 'Life Of Pi' a few days back but the girl I was going with cancelled. Chances are she'll probably recover from the flu and then drag me to see it, so I'll let you know what I think.
Final Thoughts:
A good film does that, draws you into its world. You shut down the majority of your brain and body and let the cinema magicians take you on a magic ride.
I didn't get that ride with 'The Impossible'. I somehow didn't read the opening credit which mentioned that it was a 'true story'. So I spent the whole film in a liberal-idiot-rage, wondering why we were telling somebody else's story with white English people?
And then at the end, I realised it was a true story.
That being said, it was still way too white and western. English people, Americans and a couple of Germans. The only moment when the locals got involved was to drag Naomi Watts across the broken town in a helpful yet scary way, with the camera lingering on Naomi to show her fear as this strange person from a land unknown dragged her around.
Helen Hunt has always been one of my favourite actresses, so it's delightful to see her in 'The Sessions' where she plays a sexual surrogate who comes across an unusual case; a man with polio who spends his time in an iron lung to keep him alive.
The film does things at its own pace, slowly gliding you into the story, keeping you glued with strong performances and the slow burning entanglements of the characters. And it's quietly funny, too.
'Silver Linings Playbook': I loved the performances. When was the last time you saw De Niro this good? Sure, a large part of it is the material -- but let's credit the man himself. His performance was full of vulnerability, it was almost scary to see our beloved De Niro like this. That's why it's easier to sell out and keep making 'Meet The Parents', because when you do roles with real depth, you put your legacy on the line, because there's every chance you'll be terrible and people will see the fraud that you are.
But De Niro is no fraud, he's the best there is. And Jennifer Lawrence is utterly compelling. Bradley Cooper is the perfect modern leading man. He's at his peak, and his next few films are crucial.
I had big hopes for 'Hitchcock', but it's average at best. The icons of cinema are so intriguing to us all; that's why they make films like 'Chaplin' and 'My Week With Marilyn'. When these films are good, they get us a little bit closer to our cinematic heroes, whereas 'Hitchcock' plods along without having much of a point of view. Dare I say it's all a wee bit bland.
I loved 'Argo'. Riveting! Who'd have ever predicted that Ben Affleck would turn out to be such a great director. 'Gone Baby Gone', 'The Town' and now 'Argo'; all fantastic!
Still haven't seen 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', and I was meant to see 'Life Of Pi' a few days back but the girl I was going with cancelled. Chances are she'll probably recover from the flu and then drag me to see it, so I'll let you know what I think.
Final Thoughts:
- Glad to see Helen Hunt with lots of upcoming projects. Seems she went quiet for a few years, I'm excited to see where her career takes her.
- Although I wasn't overly taken with 'Hitchcock', there is one masterful scene when the cinema audience are watching the first screening of 'Psycho', and he's waiting just outside the auditorium. I won't say no more, because I want you to see it, because it's a magical moment. I have no idea if it really happened, I sure hope it did!
- Naomi Watts is a fantastic actress.
- Is 'Silver Linings Playbook' really Best Picture worthy? For me, the performances are an A*, but the film overall is not quite up to that level.
- I'm taken with 'Pitch Perfect'. It was a blast! Just pure fun and silliness. My experience with it in the cinema was great! I was three rows from the front -- there were maybe twenty people in the cinema. Anyway, the things that I found hilarious were the exact things that three or four guys towards the back on the right hand side also found hilarious. Don't you love that, when only part of the audience loves the same stuff you do? It would be boring if we all laughed at the exact same moments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)