MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

D'OH!!! Reasons Why Shortened Windows Are Dumb: #117

It finally hit me…
What kind of silly person would want to adjust the system of windows when the theatrical revenues are growing and the post-theatrical revenues are getting smaller?
Seriously.
“It is clear from the changing economic model of our industry that we’re going to have to reevaluate the way in which the current window structure operates,” said Michael Lynton.
Because… uh… there’s more money in DVD.
No.
Because the interest in going to the movies is plummeting.
No.
Because the demand for DVDs and other post-theatrical is getting stronger.
No.
What is the logic behind the new wave of “shorten the windows” mania?
The same bad excuses ideas of 5 years ago… save DVD marketing dollars… avoid piracy. False notions then. False notions now.
Is there any good excuse? I guess a theatrical opening in September would fairly want to take advantage of the Christmas buying window. I get that. I can see that.
Mostly, I think this is a massive failure of imagination. The execs have had lay-offs, budget cuts, pay talent less, budget less for marketing… and still, they are spending too much on movies, that are not making what they should in spite of all the cuts. There is nothing left. (Aside from cutting their own salaries or employing fewer suits.) So let’s f*** with the windows!!!
It doesn’t matter that the business that the windows protect, theatrical, is rising and post-theatrical is falling. It doesn’t matter that once you get to post-theatrical, there is no going back. Your revenue stream for the life of that title is locked in and nothing – except in the rarest of circumstances – can add a dollar to it. Never mind that people are willing to pay extra in theatrical for 3D in much greater numbers than they are to pay for more expensive DVD with Blu-ray.
Desperate high schoolers in wing tips.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “D'OH!!! Reasons Why Shortened Windows Are Dumb: #117”

  1. Ruminski says:

    Fine for mainstream & higher-end independent titles, but what about on the genuinely niche end of the indie spectrum? 3D will never be a factor here, and 90+% of the time, neither will Blu-ray.

    Meanwhile, theatrical release costs get higher, traditional/affordable advertising avenues such as dailies (and most print outlets, for that matter) are becoming increasingly irrelevant/ineffectual… it’s a lose-lose for indie films: younger audiences outside of the big cities are reading about films online weeks or months before they actually arrive in local cinemas, and older audiences aren’t engaging online to a degree that makes up for the print media fall-off.

    BECAUSE DVD revenues are contracting, it makes even less sense to mount a second marketing campaign from scratch 6-8 months later. Same goes for VOD revenues, which are still too small to justify much of a standalone marketing spend at all.It has been a long, long time since there has been a single film ‘business’ or economy. With the days of supportive, patient exhibitors and long, slow-build word of mouth runs consigned to ancient history, do you really think that there’s a sustainable future for the niche market in playing by the same rules as ‘mainstream’ indie & the studios?

  2. NV says:

    Don’t you think the studios want to control distribution? Isn’t that the holy grail? This isnt about marketing or piracy or spending too much, this is about margin and control.

  3. David Poland says:

    My apologies… yes… I am talking about big studio films, not exclusive release indies… or even indies released on under a couple hundred screens.
    Very different animal.

  4. EthanG says:

    I’d go even further and say that mid-range studio releases may benefit from a shorter window because they tend to fall out of the public consciousness faster…
    Anyway good point, and maybe the sudden surge in box office is leading the studios to re-consider? It’s pretty stunning that domestic BO is up 9% (attendance up around 5%) over 2009 year-to-date considering all the coverage surrounding last year’s record breaking start…maybe ticket price inflation will finally slow down to match actual inflation?? I wish..

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon