The Weinstein Gamble
 

So, the Weinstein brothers have signed a deal with Blockbuster. Starting Jan. 1 next year, all releases by Weinstein will be available for rent through Blockbuster, and Blockbuster only (no Netflix, no Hollywood video).

Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? In the deal, they're getting $ from Blockbuster for every rental, plus bonus $ based on how well the movie does in theaters. But is the limiting one's distribution really worth that? As a Netflix customer, I know my reaction wouldn't be, "Hmm, I better consider switching to Blockbuster." It would be, "Scerw the Weinsteins."

Of course looking at their slated upcoming releases, I won't feel any great loss. But it just seems silly to me for an independent studio, even one with a big name behind it, to be making it harder to get their product.

Are they only avaliable through Blockbuster for all eternity or just for a limited time - like a few months? If they're getting cash upfront it doesn't sound like a horrible deal for them. If you were a netflixer and they came out with a movie you really really wanted to see it's not a massive hassle to go to Blockbuster.

The article doesn't specifically say "forever", but nor does it say "for X time frame".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731212/

No, it's not hassle to go to Blockbuster...but it's even less of a hassle to put something else in my queue, and I suspect more people are going to be doing that than will be making an extra trip and spending an extra $4.

True but unless it was a huge hit that you really wanted to see it probably wasn't going in your queue anyway. It will be interesting to see if this works out and if other studios follow suit.

I am not going to bend my normal routine for the Whinesteins.

If it's spelled Weinstein, it should be pronounced "wine-stine"; why do they pronounce it "wine-steen"?

I know. I just decided Whine was better.

Pronouncing the German "stein" as "steen" is a long standing Americanism. It really should be "vine-shtine" anyway.

My maiden name is German, and my father's family demanded people pronounce it...incorrectly. :rolleyes: Took me until jr. high to figure that out.

And, because of all of you people, no one can pronounce Chris' name correctly. Yes, you all. ;)

I don't know what you're talking about. I can pronounce "Chris" correctly. :p

Black kitty, black bunny, black kitty! :D

I refuse to patronize Blockbuster for many reasons (though since Netflix there isn't even a glimmer of a temptation) and that won't change.

I think she is talking about the Monkey part. And who can't pronounce "Monkey"?

Wait, if this is rental only then they'll be selling them elsewhere. What stops Netflix from buying 1,000 copies the old fashioned way (as opposed to the manufacturer giving them a discount and mailing it directly to them) and then putting them into circulation.

It isn't like you need the manufacturers permission to rent a DVD out.

Oh, and apparently each title is exclusive to Blockbuster for three years.

Um, that would be blatently illegal. No, Alex, Netflix cannot do that. Nor can you or I.


Blockbuster has to bet its very survival on beating Netflix at its game. They have instituted a very clever twist where you can return their mail-service discs at any Blockbuster location and thus hasten the mailing of the next disc on your queue. They obviously mean to get very aggressive, and this move is certainly in that vein.

Kinda reminds me of the vast market forces looking to end net neutrality. If big business has its way (and it often does) the availability of everything everywhere - apparently including your DVDs - will be coming to an end.

Except that according to some people who have the Blockbuster service, they instituted that because the standard mail-it-in route is painfully slow. Going to the store speeds it up, but until they can match Netflix's 3 day turn around in most metropolitan areas, they'll never win.

Netflix just has a cooler name, too :cool:

So far I know, yes they can, and so can you. The only thing the copyright holder can prevent is public exhibition.

In 1983 legislation was introduced that would give the copyright holder the right to control the secondary rental market but it was never passed in the face of protest from the new video rental industry.

So long as you don't make copies, once you own a physical copy of a movie you can do whatever you want with it.

I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that say otherwise (since this all came up when an aunt opened a video store years ago) but Section 109 of the copyright act specifically says that the owner of a lawful copy can do whatever they want with it (except make additional copies). Musical recordings (in 1984) and computer software (in 1990) were specifically exempted from this (renting music CDs is illegal without permission but renting book CDs is legal without permission) but as mentioned, the attempt to exempt movies from this in 1983 failed.

Now, a lot of rental companies do enter into licensing agreements with distributors for the special consideration and Netflix likely wouldn't be willing to risk those over the mediocre movies The Weinstein Company has been releasing. But so far as I know, there is no mandatory licensing requirement. I know you don't like to look stuff up, but if I am wrong I'd really like to be set straight.

I would have been happy to have waited a bit longer to see the Libertine

Ain't that the truth.

All this seperation stuff reminds me of early Hollywood, where studios owned actors and movie theaters. If you wanted to see Judy Garland in a movie it had to be an MGM film at an MGM-owned theater. I'm surprised we seem to be regressing to similar specificity.

As someone who ran a projection room for 18 years, I would welcome this with open arms. I would love to see the major stuidos "owning" the theatres they show thier films in. I think this would fix alot of the problems out there in "theatre-land." Knowing that digital is on the way and film will be gone in the next 10 years, I think having the studio involved in the presentation would make perfect sense.

Why would this help "theatre-land"? What kind of problems are there?

The popcorn stinks.

And it tastes terrible.

Well, you have the typical problems, pay, moral, and how theatres are run company wise. Theatres get buy with pretty much a small percentage of ticket sales and concession. So they are less than willing to invest money into its employees and in fixing the mechanics of the theatre. These last few years it's been unbeliveable how the "upstairs" were unwilling to fix broken elements of the projection, sound, seating and that sort of thing. Edwards Theatres before they were bought a few years ago, were infamous for opening these expensive looking theatres, done on the cheep and then when they would start to fall apart, they wouldn't put up the money to fix them. In some cases they just shut them down or would build another one nearby.

So, I'm sure its no different than most companies. We can and have talked about Disney in the past this way too. I think with Digital projection and all the elements that will go into this - from developement to installation in thousands of theatres, to upkeep and running the machines, I don't see major theatres being very happy that they have to fork over the money to do this.

I would love to see a return of the studio run theatres. I think the quality of the experinace would be greater. If they put 1/2 the money the put into advertising of the movie into the presentation of the movie, I think its a win win for everyone.

Movie theaters are getting smaller and smaller while home theater systems are getting larger and larger - not to mention better. While there's no recreating the large, grand theater experience at home, that experience is harder and harder to come by. TONS of money is spend on making and advertising a film and contemporary presentation is usually sub-par. Why is that?

It's the same situation as with Disneyland back in the 90's. Cheep, don't spend, don't pay.

I went to see Man of the Year at my "old" theatre. The one where they demoted me to floorstaff because I could only work 1 day, nevermind that I worked projection for 18 years. ;) But, they have some kid running the shows and the 2 of the 5 films are scratched. If I spent 100 milion on a film and I went to a theatre where the movie was out of focus, out of frame, the sound sucked, the seats were broken, and there were black scratches down the middle of the image? I would be more than pissed. I would be very suprised to see that happen if it was a studio run theatre. I've been in the projection room with the studio folks for those special research screenings and they are very anal about everything. They actually stopped doing the screenings at the theatre I worked at because of its condition.

It is against the law for the studios to own theater chains (at least in the manner that the studios would want them) so that won't be happening again soon.

Then how has Disney gotten around owning the El Capitan for the past two decades .... and pretty much showing exclusively Disney product?

I've wondered how they got around that law ... must be some clever loophole. But why are they the only ones to have pursued it? If anyone can shed some light, it's a subject I've been mildly curious about for some time.

True. But I had just such an experience last night. Midnight show, several hundred people - pretty die-hard fans to stay up till 3 on a Thursday night - opening show of Casino Royale at Grauman's Chinese Theater, one of the greatest movie palaces ever created ... and one of the few remaining.



But, yeah, I'll admit that most other moviegoing is ho-hum. It's one of the reasons I Netflix more and Theater less. The AMC near my office let their old facility rot to the core, and then simply tore it down and built a shiney new, faster, better one just down the street.

Even catching 'em when they're new, however, generally doesn't do it for me. The black box multiplex experience is just bleh.


.

It could be one of two thing. 1. They only show a percentage of Disney product, meaning 10% of the years releases go to another theatre in their district. In my area 10 years ago, we never got Paramount films because in a sneeky odd sort of way Mann is owned by Paramount, from what i understand. For a long time we didn't get Disney because of an "issue" between the studio and UA theatres. Or 2. Its Disney and they let them do what they want. It's money for Hollywood Blvd, Disney, and Pacific Theatres.

El Cap is what I can see and would want happening to other theatres someday.:cheers:

At least initially, Disney only owned 49% of the theater and Pacific Theaters owned 51%. But I think Disney owns it outright now.

It's quite possible that with the changes in the market that if a studio were to try and own a large chain of theaters that it would no longer be considered an issue. Theaters are no longer single screen affairs, there are generally mutiple methods of distribution and the rest of the production process is no longer vertically integrated.

In trying to find an answer as to why Disney can own the theater I see that the picture is muddier than I realized. According to a page at the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers (an early organization that was behind a lot of the pressure that resulted in the 1948 antitrust decision; Walt Disney was a member) some law changed in the mid-80s (though it doesn't say what and I can't find it) that loosened theater-ownership rules.

Most of the major studios have since then been, at one time or another, a significant minority or controlling owner of theater chains. Universal at one point owned 49% of Cineplex Odeon. In '85 TriStar purchased Loews Theaters, merged with Columbia, was bought by Coca-Cola, was and was sold to Sony. Loews and Cineplex Odeon were then merged resulting in Sony owning 50% and Universal 25%.

So I guess it isn't true that the studios are not allowed to own theater chains any more (though I'm sure a major monopolistic style purchase would get quite a bit of regulatory review). That must mean that the reason they don't is that they generally don't want to.

The studios already get the vast majority of the box office receipts so all owning the theater gets them is the popcorn and soda profit (relatively pissant) and a lot of hassle. The full financial benefit would only be realized through monopolistic practices and in today's mega-multiplex environment it is hard to see those working (exclusivity and discriminatory pricing would be difficult when you have 18 screens to fill but only four movies in release).

Discriminatory pricing is still an ongoing issue, though. In Oakland the Grand Lake theater successfully sued one of the distribution companies for giving price discounts to the major theater chains (AMC in this case, I believe) that weren't available to the independents.

I'm assuming that if the Chinese wanted to show Santa Clause 3, that Disney would give them the same rental deal as every other theater chain.