Mar 6, 2023·edited Mar 6, 2023Liked by James Fahey
Hadn't heard the term before, but day-and-date releases could be a good middle ground that allow theatrical releases for streaming service created content. Absorb some of the production cost with theatrical revenue while still releasing on streaming within the review cycle. I'm surprised you didn't mention Glass Onion in your section on streaming services, as it seems like the most accurate case study for the sort of phenomenon discussed. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
And although I agree that direct to streaming (or even day-and-date) releases probably don't generate the same per film profitability as a theatrical release, the purposes of the films produced are distinct; One to retain subscribers and one to generate moviegoers. I partly wonder though if this is why Netflix isn't the best content producer. A movie can be much lower quality if it only needs to convince a subscriber to keep paying for a $15 monthly service vs. going to a movie theater and potentially paying twice that for just two hours. In this sense, it makes sense Netflix produced content often just feels like filler.
Enjoying these Verdicts, hope you keep them up and safe travels on your road trip.
The reason I’m not convinced by day-and-date releases (nor direct-to-streaming) is fairly simple: more people watch theater-released movies, even after their theatrical run has ended. That last part is the key. Movies like Babylon or Banshees of Inisherin wouldn’t have had nearly the same response on streaming services had they not been released in cinemas; their theatrical release is what gives them higher streaming numbers.
Think of it this way: The casual viewer might have heard of an auteur movie like Banshees, but wouldn’t be inclined to shell out the $14 at the theater. But precisely BECAUSE it played in theaters, they’re more likely to watch it once it comes to streaming on the basis that “Oh hey, this movie played in theaters, it must be better than that most recent direct-to-streaming mediocrity.”
Glass Onion is an interesting case study in this regard because it actually WASN’T direct-to-streaming. Rian Johnson, the director of the film, required Netflix to give it a 10-day run in theaters before it went to the website. Turns out that this was an essential move: It made a solid $13 million during that time on a $40 million budget. Fans of the first film were the group that went to see Glass Onion in theaters, and they were also the group that generated major buzz before its streaming debut.
You may very well be right that Netflix doesn’t care as much about quality, but I’m not entirely sure, especially after arthouse/Oscar attempts like The Irishman, Uncut Gems, and The Power of the Dog. Then again, these may be exceptions that prove the rule.
I certainly hope this isn’t the case. Maybe more big-name directors like Johnson can do more to convince these digital obsessives to put their movies in theaters first.
Chills just reading this 🙌🙌🙌
Hadn't heard the term before, but day-and-date releases could be a good middle ground that allow theatrical releases for streaming service created content. Absorb some of the production cost with theatrical revenue while still releasing on streaming within the review cycle. I'm surprised you didn't mention Glass Onion in your section on streaming services, as it seems like the most accurate case study for the sort of phenomenon discussed. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
And although I agree that direct to streaming (or even day-and-date) releases probably don't generate the same per film profitability as a theatrical release, the purposes of the films produced are distinct; One to retain subscribers and one to generate moviegoers. I partly wonder though if this is why Netflix isn't the best content producer. A movie can be much lower quality if it only needs to convince a subscriber to keep paying for a $15 monthly service vs. going to a movie theater and potentially paying twice that for just two hours. In this sense, it makes sense Netflix produced content often just feels like filler.
Enjoying these Verdicts, hope you keep them up and safe travels on your road trip.
The reason I’m not convinced by day-and-date releases (nor direct-to-streaming) is fairly simple: more people watch theater-released movies, even after their theatrical run has ended. That last part is the key. Movies like Babylon or Banshees of Inisherin wouldn’t have had nearly the same response on streaming services had they not been released in cinemas; their theatrical release is what gives them higher streaming numbers.
Think of it this way: The casual viewer might have heard of an auteur movie like Banshees, but wouldn’t be inclined to shell out the $14 at the theater. But precisely BECAUSE it played in theaters, they’re more likely to watch it once it comes to streaming on the basis that “Oh hey, this movie played in theaters, it must be better than that most recent direct-to-streaming mediocrity.”
Glass Onion is an interesting case study in this regard because it actually WASN’T direct-to-streaming. Rian Johnson, the director of the film, required Netflix to give it a 10-day run in theaters before it went to the website. Turns out that this was an essential move: It made a solid $13 million during that time on a $40 million budget. Fans of the first film were the group that went to see Glass Onion in theaters, and they were also the group that generated major buzz before its streaming debut.
You may very well be right that Netflix doesn’t care as much about quality, but I’m not entirely sure, especially after arthouse/Oscar attempts like The Irishman, Uncut Gems, and The Power of the Dog. Then again, these may be exceptions that prove the rule.
I certainly hope this isn’t the case. Maybe more big-name directors like Johnson can do more to convince these digital obsessives to put their movies in theaters first.