AMC Theaters Pouts Like A Child Because NBC Universal Proved Movie Release Windows Are Nonsense

from the take-my-ball-and-go-home dept

There's a laundry list of shoddy arguments and business structures that have been exposed as nonsense and folly during the pandemic. One of them is the traditional Hollywood film release window, which typically involves a 90 day gap between the time a move appears in theaters and its streaming or DVD release (in France this window is even more ridiculous at three years). The goal is usually to "protect the traditional film industry," though it's never been entirely clear why you'd protect traditional theaters at the cost of common sense, consumer demand, and a more efficient model. Just because?

While the industry has flirted with the idea of "day and date" releases for decades (releasing movies on home video at the same time as brick and mortar theaters) there's long been a lot of hyperventilation on the part of movie theaters and traditionalists that this sort of shift wasn't technically possible or would somehow destroy the traditional "movie experience," driving theaters out of business.

Then came the pandemic, when visiting a traditional theater suddenly became potentially fatal. Numerous studios quickly adapted, and began experimenting with much shorter release windows or in some instances, no window at all. Comcast NBC Universal, for example, offered early access to some films for $20 at home while they were still in theaters. Other films, like "Trolls World Tour," were released simultaneously on video on demand and in theaters that remained open.

Guess what: the film did very well, raking in $100 million in premium VOD rentals in its first three weeks in North America, which wasn't just profitable, but wasn't that far behind the $116 million grossed by the original Trolls film during the first three weeks it was in theaters in 2016. Excited by the success, Comcast NBC Universal CEO Jeff Shell gave a fairly innocuous statement to the Wall Street Journal:

"The results for Trolls World Tour have exceeded our expectations and demonstrated the viability of PVOD," Shell told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the numbers. "As soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats."

There's really nothing wrong with that. Adaptation is a good thing. Unless apparently you're AMC Theatres chair-CEO Adam Aron, who immediately threw a temper tantrum and declared that AMC would never again show a Comcast NBC Universal picture, anywhere in the world:

"It is disappointing to us, but Jeff’s comments as to Universal’s unilateral actions and intentions have left us with no choice. Therefore, effectively immediately AMC will no longer play any Universal movies in any of our theaters in the United States, Europe or the Middle East," Aron wrote."

It's understandable that the traditional theater sector is worried, especially given the number of employees that are struggling right now. That said, Aron's comments are one of the more embarrassing "I'm taking my ball and going home" moments in modern history. Comcast was forced to adapt during a pandemic, discovered a profitable way to do so, yet this is somehow perceived as a fatal sin worthy of being blackballed worldwide. Aron proceeds to insist that his very clearly vindictive and punitive toddler moment was in no way a vindictive and punitive toddler moment:

"Incidentally, this policy is not aimed solely at Universal out of pique or to be punitive in any way, it also extends to any movie maker who unilaterally abandons current windowing practices absent good faith negotiations between us, so that they as distributor and we as exhibitor both benefit and neither are hurt from such changes. Currently, with the press comment today, Universal is the only studio contemplating a wholesale change to the status quo. Hence, this immediate communication in response."

Comcast in turn was forced to issue a counter statement blowing smoke up the traditional brick and mortar industry's posterior about how they weren't being forgotten, there's kind of a pandemic going on if you hadn't noticed, and the company remained dedicated to traditional film releases because it remains a big part of its business model and will probably remain that way for years to come.

Regardless, it's abundantly clear that such windows have outlived their usefulness, and if movie theaters want to adapt to the streaming and broadband era, they're going to need to adapt and find creative new offerings. They're going to need to embrace more innovation, and less crying like babies every time Netflix or anybody else dares to move the ball forward. Many bar/restaurant hybrid establishments have focused on making the traditional theater more enjoyable. Others, apparently, see pouting over inevitable evolution as the best path forward.

Filed Under: adam aron, covid-19, day and date, home video, jeff shell, movies, pandemic, theaters, theatrical releases, trolls world tour
Companies: amc, comcast, nbc universal

'The Irishman' Ban Once Again Shows Hollywood's Disdain For Netflix is Stupid & Counterproductive

from the what-exactly-are-you-doing-here dept

For years Hollywood has seen Netflix as a mortal enemy because of the company's interest in disrupting the entertainment industry. Hollywood has been particularly vocal about how Netflix is "destroying" the traditional, sticky-floor, brick and mortar theater business because it wants to modernize antiquated release window rules from a bygone era. For example, Netflix content was banned from Cannes last year largely because the company wouldn't adhere to France's absurd cultural exception law that requires a 36-month delay between theatrical release and streaming availability.

Hollywood theater chains' disdain for Netflix bubbled up again this month, with the news that Netflix's latest exclusive, the new Martin Scorsese film "The Irishman," would be banned from being shown at a number of major theater chains. Apparently this was intended as some kind of "punishment" for Netflix, though the company quickly spun the narrative on its head. Like "Roma," "The Irishman" needs at least some major theater time to be considered for Oscar contention, so Netflix has decided to screen the film at the Shubert Organization’s historic Belasco Theatre on Broadway.

It's the first time a traditional film has been shown there in the theater's 112 year history, drawing more public attention to the film's release:

"The unusual arrangement – hailed by the preservation-minded Scorsese as a way to showcase his film in the type of ornate theater in which New Yorkers could once routinely view films – will be the first film screening ever in the Belasco’s 112-year history (the theater was an NBC studio for several years in the early 1950s). Netflix will provide what it describes as state-of-the-art equipment for the screenings."

The film (featuring Joe Pesci, Robert DeNiro, and Al Pacino in a purported return to bygone efforts) will be shown at the theater through the month of November, before it arrives on Netflix November 27. Brick and mortar theaters apparently think they're somehow stopping Netflix from disrupting the industry, but it's hard to see how that's actually going to be successful. Netflix simply turned the snub into a new way to promote the film, and the industry loses any revenue from airing a film that many fans of older Scorsese mob films are going to want to see. It's all a sort of incompetent seppuku.

The biggest issue? The brick and mortar theater worry that Netflix will "kill theaters" has never been proven by any substantive data. Last year a study indicated that Netflix certainly isn't killing movie theaters. In fact, EY’s Quantitative Economics and Statistics group (funded by the National Association of Theater Owners) found that consumers who visited theaters nine times or more in the last 12 months consumed more streaming content than consumers who visited a movie theater only once or twice over the past year:

"The message here is that there’s not a war between streaming and theatrical,” said Phil Contrino, director of media and research at NATO. “People who love content are watching it across platforms and all platforms have place in consumers’ minds."

In other words, the claims that Netflix keeps people at home and out of theaters isn't true, yet it's the cornerstone of all of these efforts. Much in the way that pirates buy more programming on all platforms than other users, users who stream a lot still like to go to the theater because they really enjoy movies. Streaming and theaters can have a synergistic relationship where everybody benefits, yet instead we get whatever this is.

Filed Under: hollywood, martin scorsese, release dates, streaming, the irishman, theaters
Companies: belasco, nato, netflix

Study Shows That No, Netflix Isn't Killing Movie Theaters

from the synergistic-not-cannibalistic dept

It's odd how conventional wisdom usually isn't all that wise. For example the entertainment industry for years has proclaimed that piracy was killing numerous business models, despite record profits and a steady parade of studies showing that pirates routinely buy more legit content than their non copyright-infringing counterparts. The entertainment industry willfully ignored for years (and often still does) that many of these users were engaging in copyright infringement because owners and distributors were failing to provide this content at a reasonable price via legitimate means.

The chicken-little argument then mutated over the years to imply that streaming services like Netflix were also killing traditional brick and mortar movie theater attendance. That, too, simply isn't true.

For example, a new study by EY’s Quantitative Economics and Statistics group (funded by the National Association of Theater Owners) found that young people that stream a lot of content at home are also more likely to go see movies in brick and mortar theaters, showcasing how different methods of media consumption are complementary, not automatically cannibalistic. More specifically, the study found that users who visited theaters nine times or more in the last 12 months consumed more streaming content than consumers who visited a movie theater only once or twice over the past year:

"The message here is that there’s not a war between streaming and theatrical,” said Phil Contrino, director of media and research at NATO. “People who love content are watching it across platforms and all platforms have place in consumers’ minds.”

This study also showcased how claims that young people specifically don't go to the theater because they have more choices and a better experience at home (as if that would be such a bad thing in the first place) aren't true either. In fact, the study found that survey takers between the ages of 13 to 17 went to a mean of 7.3 movies and consumed 9.2 hours of streaming content -- notably more than any other demographic. The lesson, again, is that most media consumption sources are synergistic, not cannibalistic. That said, the study does try to suggest that there's an area where home streaming is having a notable impact, and that's on traditional TV and the rate of cord cutting:

"There’s data to suggest that one way they’re cutting costs is by cutting the cord. The number of consumers who have ever cancelled cable or other pay-TV services in 2018 is projected to climb 32.8%, to 33 million adults, according to recent estimates from research firm eMarketer. Contrino said he thinks that’s where streaming’s influence is clearest. He argues its upsetting the balance in the home entertainment space, not in the theatrical realm."

But even here there's a number of reasons that people are cutting the traditional TV cord (apocalyptically bad customer service, high prices) that has nothing to do with them having more options. The traditional cable industry could also operate synergistically with the rising tide of streaming options if they were simply willing to compete more seriously on price and listen to consumers. But here too, entrenched industries would prefer to hyperventilate about the end times instead of simply realizing there's still ample money to be made all over if you're willing to be competitively flexible and adapt to voracious appetites.

Filed Under: movies, streaming, theaters
Companies: netflix

Movie Studios Considering Tightening Release Windows When They Should Be Eliminating Them

from the closer dept

The very idea of major movie studios simultaneously complaining about movie piracy during the initial release of a film and instituting long release windows so that films are only in the theater for legitimate viewing has never made a bit of sense. As study after study has shown, one great way to reduce piracy for a film is to make it available for home viewing as early as possible. The reason for this should be obvious: in this case, piracy of a film is a sort of market study, one which informs the studios that a part of the public really wants to watch the movie at home as opposed to in the theater. Trying to force that part of the market into the theater by delaying home rentals or purchases no longer works, because piracy is an option. Stamping out piracy has never worked, but making the film product available the way the customer wants would, at least to decent percentages.

And it seems this decades long lesson may finally be finding purchase by its students in the film studios, as several major studios are reportedly considering slashing release windows by a third.

According to a Variety report, six of the seven biggest Hollywood studios are considering plans to allow new movies to be delivered via VOD into the living room between 30 and 45 days after launch for around $30. Fox and Warner are said to favor this structure but other plans are also floating around. Universal are reported to be pushing for a VOD release less than three weeks after launch, with Warner Bros. suggesting a shorter 17-day delay but with a larger $50 rental price.

Of course, any move to bring content to the home more quickly could have a profound effect on the many theater chains around the United States and present a serious stumbling block in negotiations. However, a proposal from Warner would see exhibitors receiving a cut of VOD revenues, if they agree to a narrowing of the theatrical release window.

Getting the theaters on board will indeed face headwinds and it's important to note that these plans are reportedly very early on in the negotiating process. Still, this only makes sense. The job of moviemakers is to give the public movies the way they want them. The job of theaters is to create an experience that makes people want to go to the theater. It can't only be the movie itself. The movie is the studio's job. It has to be the theater attracting viewers. If it isn't, that's on the theater companies, not the studios.

Still, it's frustrating that even these baby steps are facing so much pushback, because what the studios should actually do is much more severe than a 33% cut in the windows. There's a joke in atheist circles that goes like this: first there was polytheism, then there was monotheism, and they're getting closer to the right number all the time. This joke ports nicely to the case of release windows, where the best number available is zero windows at all. With that kind of innovation being too much to hope for from entrenched industries, let's at least hope that some of the more forward-thinking studios can convince the one studio that you already know is against this whole idea.

While the rest of the major studios are keen to move forward, Disney is reported to be against the proposal. For a company that came up with the artificial restrictions embodied in the Disney Vault, for example, that probably won’t come as too much of a surprise.

In which case I would kindly ask Disney to stop bitching about piracy. The other studios are at least trying something new instead of pushing the same doomsday talking points.

Filed Under: hollywood, movie windows, movies, piracy, theaters

Theater Association Boss Reminds Theater Owners, Netflix To Stay In Their Own Lanes

from the don't-gingerly-nibble-on-the-hand-that-feeds-us dept

Guess who's bringing back "broken windows" policing!

The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) is sounding the alarm over a recent deal between Netflix and iPic, in which the luxury-theater chain will screen 10 movies simultaneously with their release on the streaming service.

You would think that a theater owners' association would represent theater owners first, rather than the studios that have long battled any sort of innovation/disruption in its windowed release schedules. Of course, theaters are first on the food chain traditionally, so that probably explains the NATO head's statement, which comes across as a strange mixture of veiled threat and Stockholm Syndrome.

In a statement, NATO chief John Fithian warned that while iPic was free to make its own decisions, “We all should tread lightly and be mindful that over the years, the film industry’s success is a direct result of a highly successful collaboration between film makers, distributors and exhibitors.”

Yes, let's tread lightly and be mindful that creating artificial scarcity is a fool's errand, but creating an experience that people will leave the house for is something that can't be delivered over an internet connection. This defense of the way things have always been done -- phrased the way it is here -- sounds like NATO distancing itself from iPic, the way one distances themselves from close relatives with multiple indecent exposure arrests.

NATO head Fithian goes on to claim that day-and-date releases won't work because they've never worked in the past.

“Simultaneous release, in practice, has reduced both theatrical and home revenues when it has been tried,” Fithian said in a statement. “Just as Netflix and its customers put a value on exclusivity, theater owners and their customers do too.”

Conveniently ignored is the fact that past day-and-date releases have never been fully embraced by studios and, as a result, have been handled ineptly and cluelessly. These have been done on an extremely limited basis and almost always with an exorbitant price tag attached.

There's probably a tad more defensiveness than usual in NATO's statement. Now that there's a group containing respected directors and producers backing a day-and-date release startup, the "threat" is more substantial than a few streaming providers whose libraries have been stripped to nearly nothing by major studios over the last few years.

Theaters aren't going to go away completely. Under-performers who can't offer an experience worth leaving the house for will fall by the wayside, but day-and-date releases will only slightly hasten their demise. If there were more experimentation, everyone involved might find new ways to make money. But as long as people like Fithian are in charge, nothing will move forward. It a small roll out of Netflix films to theaters -- solely for the purpose of allowing the streaming company to get some entries in the Oscar race -- results in these sorts of statements, any chance of studios and theaters moving on from traditional windowed releases is still a long way off.

Filed Under: competition, day and date, movies, streaming, theaters
Companies: ipic, nato, netflix

Sean Parker's New Service Offers Theaters A New Revenue Stream But All They Can See Is Business Model Intereference And Piracy

from the don't-be-trying-to-hand-us-money,-freeloader dept

Any time anyone routes around Hollywood's windowed food chain -- theatrical release, delay, video release, delay, VOD, longer delay, pay TV, even longer delay (or never), on-demand streaming -- studios and theaters get bent out of shape. This terrible system makes major studios and theaters happiest (and their own worst enemies), even though it's apparent a large percentage of the public would rather enjoy films on their own terms.

Along with the complaints about the reshuffling of The Schedule come the inevitable cries of "PIRACY!" Sean Parker, formerly the major labels' worst enemy, is now at the receiving end of motion picture industry hate, even though his plan -- the "Screening Room" -- involves everyone getting paid.

Parker's pitching a day-and-date video-on-demand service that would allow customers to view first-run movies in the comfort of their own home -- provided they're willing to pay $150 for a "piracy-proof" set-top box and $50 for a single viewing of the new release. For reasons only understandable to those pitching the idea, the purchase price of the single, suprisingly-expensive viewing also includes two tickets for the same film non-moviegoers just watched at home.

I guess that's the consolation prize: the inversion of leaving a game show with nothing but the home version of the game you just sucked at. In this case, if you felt you just paid too much to watch a mediocre movie at home, you have another chance to view it in the theater while paying much, much, much more for snacks. Or give them away to someone who you think doesn't spend enough time feeling underwhelmed.

Parker did manage to secure some big name backers from major studios:

[S]creening Room’s board of shareholders and advocates includes Martin Scorsese, Taylor Hackford and Frank Marshall. They join [Peter] Jackson, [Brian] Grazer, [Ron] Howard, Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams.

Even though Parker has the support of several of the most successful directors of all time, the theaters are against it. Pamela McClintock of The Hollywood Reporter notes that the Art House Convergence -- a group representing 600 independent theater owners -- has issued a statment in opposition of Parker's proposed service.

The letter says the group is not opposed to day-and-date video-on-demand per se.

We are not debating the day-and-date aspect of this model, nor are we arguing for the decrease in home entertainment availability for customers — most independent theaters already play alongside VOD and Premium VOD, and as exhibitors, we are acutely aware of patrons who stay home to watch films instead of coming out to our theaters..."

They're just opposed to Parker's plan.

There are many unanswered questions as to how this business model will actually work," said the Art House Convergence. "The proposed model, as we have read in countless articles, suggests exhibitors will receive $20 for each film purchased. At first glance, an exhibitor may think it represents a small, but potentially steady, additional revenue stream. But how will this actually be divided among the number of theaters playing the purchased title; will exhibitors who open the title receive more than an exhibitor who does not get the title until several weeks later (based on a distributor’s decision); who will audit the revenue to ensure exhibitors are being paid fairly; does this revenue come from Screening Room or from the distributor … these are just a few of the issues yet to be explained…"

These are fair questions and ones that Parker and his backers will hopefully have an answer for. But the rest of it is ridiculous. The letter also includes sentiments that make the theater owners sound like Jack Valenti after too many microbrews.

The organization, of which Alamo Drafthouse founder Tim League is a leading member, said if studios and larger theater owners agree to the plan, "we will see a wildfire spread of pirated content, and consequently, a decline in overall film profitability through the cannibalization of theatrical revenue. The theatrical experience is unique and beneficial to maximizing profit for films. A theatrical release contributes to healthy ancillary revenue generation and thus cinema grosses must be protected from the potential erosion effect of piracy."

It always comes down to piracy. Parker claims his service will be "piracy-proof," but apparently if it doesn't involve cable provider set-top boxes, it can't be trusted. This piracy alarmism isn't surprising, but the group making the hysterical claims isn't the normal set of alarmists. Tim League has normally been a voice of reason amidst the "sky is falling" doomsayers. He may not have penned this letter, but he did sign off on it.

People paying $150 just for the chance to watch movies once at $50 per viewing aren't pirates. And they're probably not going to shell out that much money just to use it for some sort of trap-and-torrent Robin Hooding. Why Parker's tech is considered somehow more prone to piracy than other VOD options isn't explained. We're just supposed to believe it's running Piracy Wildfire OS because it isn't being routed through cable/DSL hardware.

The organization representing the rest of the nation's theater chains has also come out against the plan, though it has chosen to deliver a more muted response. No piracy alarmism here, but the group does make a couple of ridiculous assertions as well: release windows are still good, even though no one likes them but theaters, and the future of moviegoing should be decided by theaters, not third parties like the Screening Room nor, apparently, the public.

[T]he National Association of Theatre Owners, the trade group representing the majority of the country’s theaters, has come out against the proposal, acknowledging in a statement that perhaps more sophisticated distribution models may be needed to keep the movie-going business successful, but those models “should be developed by distributors and exhibitors in company-to-company discussions, not by a third party.”

The statement reaffirms the belief most studios and theater owners share, that the exclusive release of films in theaters is what makes them successful for the lifetime of the movie. Says the statement, “The exclusive theatrical release window makes new movies events. Success there establishes brand value and bolsters revenue in downstream markets.”

So, the more things change, the more the arguments remain the same. Even with Parker offering a percentage of the take and encouraging Screening Room customers to patronize their local theaters by giving them two tickets with every rental, the studios still see nothing more than piracy and business model interference.

Parker's service will likely have negligible impact on box office revenues. This may be a hesitant step towards the future of movie distribution, but it's not likely to become the new Netflix and siphon off millions of moviegoers. Box office records continue to be broken despite streaming services, cheap rentals and piracy. The Screening Room isn't going to change anything. And even if it did, it would just add another way for theaters and studios to make money, monetizing the small percentage of consumers who still love first-run movies but, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to patronize theaters. But all anyone can see is broken windows and a torrent seed in every rental.

Filed Under: copyright, day and date, home video, sean parker, theaters
Companies: screening room

MPAA Targets New Anti-Piracy Ads... At People Who Already Paid To Go See Movies

from the strategery! dept

There's that old joke that you've probably heard (in part because we've mentioned it in other contexts), about the drunk man searching for his keys under a streetlight, while admitting that he lost them further down the street. When asked why he's looking over by the light instead, he says "because that's where the light is." People even refer to this as the streetlight effect. And you can see it in all sorts of odd places.

Here, for example, is the MPAA, the guardian of Hollywood's old way of doing business, launching a big new "anti-piracy ad campaign" by... advertising to the people who already paid to see movies in the theater:

The “I Make Movies” videos, which will run in 300 AMC theater locations and a handful of regional chains, spotlights the movie workers behind-the-scenes: a costume illustrator, seamstress, picture car coordinator, carpenter, and set designer.

These spots will be showing in theaters across the country, because that's exactly what people who just paid huge sums of money to watch a movie want to see: an extra commercial before the film they paid to see telling them them to stop being dirty pirates, with the usual claptrap about all of the poor workers that piracy impacts (leaving aside that those people aren't paid based on movie revenue...).

It's the streetlight effect all over again. The incompetent and ineffective Chris Dodd-run MPAA feels the need to do something, so they fall back on the same old game plan:

"Hey, let's advertise to try to make people feel guilty!"

"That's never worked before despite us trying for decades."

"This time it will work! It must work! Because they must all feel guilty! And once they see how guilty they should really feel, they'll stop pirating! Because I have no other ideas!"

"Okay, but where will we best place these advertisements to reach the right people?"

"I've got that one all planned out! We'll get them in the best possible spot: in the movie theaters! The theaters will show those ads for free and we've got a real captive audience!"

"But it's a captive audience who has already shown that they're willing to pay. Why should we advertise to them?"

"Didn't you hear me!?!? It's a captive audience and the theaters will let us do it for free! Piracy is solved!"

Good luck, guys. Once again, if you're looking for better ideas, maybe fire the content protection team, and hire some folks who actually get the internet.

Filed Under: advertisements, anti-piracy, theaters
Companies: mpaa

Theater Chains Pout, Boycott Netflix's New Movie To Protect Antiquated Release Windows

from the taking-my-ball-and-go-home dept

As part of its continued foray into film and more flexible release windows, Netflix this week announced it had acquired the Cary Fukunaga film "Beasts of No Nation." Based on the novel by Uzodinma Iweala, the movie stars Idris Elba and examines the impact of civil war on an unnamed West African country. Like the company's acquired sequel to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," Netflix is using the opportunity to kick down the doors of antiquated release windows, pushing the film to theaters the same day it will be available on Netflix instant streaming.

Given this would challenge the aging structure of the film industry, you'll probably not be surprised to learn that the primary response to Netflix's move has been of the hissy fit variety. That home video viewing will kill theaters has been the refrain of theater owners for decades now.

So, when Netflix announced it would be offering its Crouching Tiger sequel in IMAX on the same day as streaming availability, AMC, Regal and Cinemark -- which, combined, run 247 of the 400 IMAX theaters in North America -- unsurprisingly announced they'd be boycotting the movie this summer. Similarly, those same chains have joined forces to boycott Netflix's release of "Beasts of No Nation," insisting they need to do so to protect the 90-day delay between a theatrical debut and a home entertainment release.

That inflexibility has opened the door to folks like Alamo Drafthouse CEO Tim League, who somehow grasps the immeasurably complicated idea that sometimes people like going out to the movies, and sometimes they like staying home. League shot down the idea that tinkering with release windows was a death knell for theater owners:

"I’m agnostic about this sort of thing,” said Tim League, the company’s CEO and founder. “I look at films I want to play and I play them regardless of the release strategy." League noted that Alamo Drafthouse had success showing “Snowpiercer,” even though that science-fiction adventure debuted last summer on-demand while it was still in theaters.

"I don’t look at myself as a competitor to Netflix,” said League. “I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring. I watch a lot of movies at home, but there comes a time where I want to get out of the house. I look at cinemas as one of those options that compete with restaurants or baseball games or all of those things I can’t do in my living room."

Flexibly focusing on the consumer instead of crossing your arms and making a pouty face when inevitable industry evolution occurs? Ridiculous! Somebody clearly forgot to inform League that change is always bad, and pouting like a petulant child is the only effective and profitable path forward when history and technology threaten to rattle the status quo.

Filed Under: beasts of no nation, crouching tiget, day and date, hidden dragon, movies, release windows, theaters, uzodinma iweala
Companies: alamo draft house, amc, cinemark, imax, netflix, regal

The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters

from the do-these-guys-never-think-anything-through? dept

Given how important teenagers and those in their 20s are to the movie industry, you'd think one day they'd learn to stop being complete assholes to that demographic. For example, you'd think that they'd realize that young folks today really, really like their smartphones, and one of the main things they do with those smartphones is snap pictures or videos of just about anything and everything and share it with their friends via whichever platform they prefer, be it SnapChat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Vine, Facebook, Twitter or whatever else they might be using. It's just what they do -- and they seem to be doing it more and more often. Yet, the MPAA wants to make sure that if kids do this, theaters should call the police to have them arrested as quickly as possible.

The thing is, the MPAA should know that this is a recipe for disaster. In 2007, Jhannet Sejas went to see Transformers, and filmed 20-seconds to send to her brother to get him excited to go see the movie. The result? Police were called, she was arrested and threatened with jailtime. She was eventually pressured into pleading guilty to avoid jailtime. Samantha Tumpach wasn't quite so lucky. She, along with her sister and her friends, went out to the movies in 2009 to celebrate her sister's birthday. Since they were all having fun, she decided to film some of the group while they were watching the movie. Once again, police were called and she was arrested and spent two nights in jail. After widespread public outcry, prosecutors dropped the charges.

Given those high profile cases, combined with the fact that smartphones have become more ubiquitous, and the pastime of taking photos and videos has become ever more popular, you'd think that maybe, just maybe, someone at the MPAA would think to teach theater owners to be a bit more lenient about the kid just taking a photo or filming a couple seconds of a video. But that's not how the MPAA operates. Its goal in life seems to be to think up ways of how it must have been wronged, and its weird and stupid obsession with movies captured by people filming in the theaters is really quite ridiculous.

The MPAA has now released its latest "best practices" for theaters, and it's basically exactly what you should do if you want to piss off the demographic of folks who actually go to theaters. You can see the whole thing here if you want to see exactly what not to do.

And the MPAA is Obnoxious The MPAA recommends theaters institute a "zero tolerance" policy, which appears to mean calling in the police if anyone so much as raises a smartphone. Here are a few snippets:

The MPAA recommends that theaters adopt a Zero Tolerance policy that prohibits the video or audio recording and the taking of photographs of any portion of a movie.

Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place. Do not assume that a cell phone or digital camera is being used to take still photographs and not a full-length video recording. Let the proper authorities determine what laws may have been violated and what enforcement action should be taken.

Theater management should determine whether a theater employee or any other competent authority is empowered to confiscate recording devices, interrupt or interfere with the camcording, and/or ask the patron to leave the auditorium.

Even better, the MPAA reminds theaters that they should tell employees about their "TAKE ACTION! REWARD," in which employees who capture an evil pirate in action get a whopping $500. In order to get the award, one of the requirements is "immediate notification to the police." The theaters have to have posters, like the one above, on display if they want their employees to get the cash, so expect to see that kind of crap in theaters everywhere. And expect that employees seeking to cash in on that TAKE ACTION! REWARD to be calling the cops all the freaking time, because some kid raises his iPhone to take a quick picture of his buddies or something cool on screen.

Could the MPAA really be so out of touch and so completely oblivious that they think this is a good idea? Do they not employ anyone who has spent any time around teens and folks in their 20s? Do they honestly think that most police officers don't have better things to do than rush to the local theater every 15 minutes because some employee is trying to get his $500 and the way to do that is to turn in the kids having fun and trying to share the experience (not the movie itself)? And, most importantly, does no one at the MPAA think that maybe, just maybe, turning theater employees into complete assholes will make fewer people want to go see movies?

Of course they don't. That's because the MPAA is made up of lawyers, like this guy, who are obsessed with one thing, and one thing only: "evil pirates who must be stopped." It really seems like when the movie industry does well, it's in spite of the MPAA. What a disastrous organization, working against the industry's actual interests.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, best practices, camcording, mpaa, theaters
Companies: mpaa