Why do filmmakers choose to sell to Netflix instead of theaters?

Tools    





Yeah, some are purchased after production, some are financed from the start. The Irishman was greenlit by Netflix rather than sold to it.
__________________



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well it seems to me that the standard of Netflix is usually low. I don't think Bright, Bird Bod, or El Camino would have went to theaters, if they were made by a theatrical company, unless the producers demanded changes in the script, but isn't producers wanting changes for the director a good thing, if it makes the movie of a higher quality?



Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Whether it does or not, filmmakers don't like it much, the same way authors don't always like editors. If they had to be told to do something it's not likely it's something they'll agree with it.

Sometimes producers insist on something that makes the film worse because their priority is distinct from the filmmakers. Sometimes this also makes the film better. It's hard to know which happens how often because we don't usually get a counterfactual to compare to. And even when we do, people don't always agree if the director's intended version was better or worse.

Or, as put earlier:

But really, people just have different priorities. That's the answer to 90% of these kinds of questions.



Professional horse shoe straightener
Nobody else would finance, make, and distribute The Irishman. Think on that - one of the greatest directors of all time, reuniting some of the greatest actors of all time, could not get a single studio to make his next big epic.

But hey at least we'll have 'Waspman 7' next year, or whatever dire superhero is next.



Nobody else would finance, make, and distribute The Irishman. Think on that - one of the greatest directors of all time, reuniting some of the greatest actors of all time, could not get a single studio to make his next big epic.

But hey at least we'll have 'Waspman 7' next year, or whatever dire superhero is next.
Heh.

Technically, I think he probably could have gotten it made, he probably just couldn't have gotten it made for $130 million (!), kept it 3 and a half hours (!!), and still been allowed to do whatever he wanted with it. The criteria he ended up getting is, indeed, pretty risky, and probably only made sense for a place like Netflix that was happy to pay a premium for the cachet and PR splash that came with it.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Nobody else would finance, make, and distribute The Irishman. Think on that - one of the greatest directors of all time, reuniting some of the greatest actors of all time, could not get a single studio to make his next big epic.

But hey at least we'll have 'Waspman 7' next year, or whatever dire superhero is next.
Is that really true though? I find it hard to believe since it's Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro.



It's probably true for the version we got, at the budget we got, but I don't think there's any serious doubt he couldn't get some version of it made. Maybe just for, like, $90 million, with a sub-three-hour run time, or something, since the budget he did get is kinda nuts for this type of film, and the run time is kinda daunting even if you're a huge fan.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, I thought he could still get it made with a lower runtime, but then release a longer director's cut later, like a lot of directors do, unless that wouldn't have been an option?



I mean, it's a counterfactual, there's no way to know the specifics. They would have varied based on a multitude of factors. That said, seems plausible Scorsese would have cared a lot about the "official" release of the film even if he was allowed to release another cut, given the major emphasis he put on the theatrical release, specifically, for the film he did end up making.



Professional horse shoe straightener
It's probably true for the version we got, at the budget we got, but I don't think there's any serious doubt he couldn't get some version of it made. Maybe just for, like, $90 million, with a sub-three-hour run time, or something, since the budget he did get is kinda nuts for this type of film, and the run time is kinda daunting even if you're a huge fan.
The reason he hasn't got it made for the last 12 years is that he wanted THIS version. I don't think it would ever have been made if it wasn't for Netlix. Genuinely.



What an excellent day for an exorcism
Well, since I rarely go to the theater anymore and have Netflix, my selfish side welcomes this trend. I recently went to the theater with my daughter to see Joker. It was the first and only time I had been to a theater this year.

Theater attendance has just evolved to a bad experience for me personally. Many in the crowd ignore the screen message to turn off their smartphones and once the theater goes dark, out comes a flurry of bright light smartphones in front of you. It's like trying to watch a movie with a swarm of fireflies buzzing in front of you.

Then there's the weirdos. You just don't know what kind of wackadoo is sitting near you. And that was the case with watching Joker. Some weirdo, alone, just two seats from me would practically jump out of his seat laughing obnoxiously loud....at scenes that are not even intended to be funny. No one else was laughing. It was really distracting and pretty much ruined the movie experience.

I have my 75 inch Sony android TV, good sound system, Netflix, HBO Now, and Disney Plus. I'm guessing it will be at least another year before I'm inside a theater again.
__________________
SciFiMovieZone.com



Donít know if it was mentioned (too much to read and not much time) but many of these films are released in theatres in a limited release before going to Netflix.
The Irishman for example.
This is done so the film is eligible for awards.



(I have a few more minutes while my machine at work is being worked on)

Adding onto what I posted, one of the biggest issues I have noticed is the bloat of films released on a yearly basis. Add to the rise in cost of a movie ticket and people are opting to stay home more often then not, only venturing out for the blockbusters (Marvel, Star Wars) and maybe the occasional horror film and maybe an actual drama.
Netflix offers those people the option of staying home to watch the films donít they otherwise wouldnít see.



Oh okay, but isn't a little interference worth the theatrical release? What other interference would they impose besides the look of the movie and less budget?
Views. Disney basically owns every movie theater so your film is more likely to be seen on Netflix than it is in theaters. With The Fugitive, original stuff had a bigger chance at being seen back then. Martin had just gone done talking mess on Marvel. And be honest with yourself, who would see Bright or Bird Box in theaters? No one would've even heard of it if it weren't for Netflix. Or Blue Ruin? Lord knows, that masterpiece would've been hidden from the masses.
I donít know where you get that Disney basically own most theatres.
They donít own Regal nor AMC theatre chains which are pretty big.



What an excellent day for an exorcism
"The major studios are on the brink of deals that will make new releases available to stream for $30 to $50, with pricing depending on how soon they're available, according to multiple reports out of Cinemacon, the annual gathering of movie-theater owners and the media conglomerates who supply their product.

While theaters and premium VOD will co-exist for a little while, make no mistake: once that deal is sealed, the doomsday clock starts ticking down. I give it 10, maybe 15 years. And I'm feeling generous.

Once that genie is out of the bottle, the price will fall. Over the coming years, $50 will turn into $39.99, then $29.99, then $19.99. The smallest first-run theaters will shutter soonest, followed by mid-sized chains. Megaliths like AMC and Regal, with their outsized amenities and global market penetration, can probably hold out longest, but only by showing only the biggest blockbusters on a tight turnaround."...... Josh Dickey, mashable.com