This year, Netflix and Amazon have really shaken up the traditional game at Sundance, by striking expensive streaming-only deals for some hot titles in Park City. Amazon, who picked up the rights to Whit Stillman‘s "Love & Friendship" in the fall, shelled out $10 million for Kenneth Lonergan‘s "Manchester By The Sea," and picked up the Rachel Weisz-starring “Complete Unknown.” Meanwhile, Netflix has opened up their wallet, dropping $7 million for "The Fundamentals Of Caring," starring Paul Rudd, and $5 million for "Tallulah" with Ellen Page. Why does this matter?
"It pisses off the studios most of all — they rely on their cable output deals," a source told THR recently. "It becomes uncomfortable for a studio to go to its output partner and say, ‘Sorry, I bought theatrical on this film, but Netflix has SVOD.’ " This means that indie studios are now being forced to spend more money to keep up, while also trading on the kind of experience that streaming companies don’t yet have, which has led, this week, to a record-breaking deal at the Sundance Film Festival.
READ MORE: 10 Sundance Hits & 10 Sundance Flops: Why The Buzz Doesn’t Always Convert To Cash
Fox Searchlight is shelling out $17.5 million for Nate Parker‘s hugely buzzed "The Birth Of A Nation," which tells the true story of slave rebellion in the early 1800s, and is already garnering Oscar talk. What’s most interesting about the deal is that the team behind the movie apparently turned down an offer of $20 million from Netflix. And one has to wonder if part of Fox Searchlight’s pitch was their veteran status on the award-season scene and their ability to bring films like "12 Years A Slave" with tough subject matter to big success ($187 million worldwide). Not to mention that Netflix’s big Oscar player this year, "Beasts Of No Nation," failed to make it to the big show.
But overall, the landscape is shifting, and while there are some who take the view that more outlets equals more opportunities for movies to find homes, it’s not quite so simple. “You always want your film to be shown on a big screen with perfect sound and the best projection,” "Tallulah" director Sian Heder told The New York Times. “But that’s not always the reality anymore. The way that people consume media is changing.”
And with that change in how people are watching movies comes a shift in how these deals are being made, with producers and filmmakers forced between two choices. “For some, it’s the largest check. For some, it’s a real theatrical release,” said Paul Davidson of indie staple Orchard.
So, Netflix and Amazon are changing the game, and some could argue, ballooning the acquisition cost of movies that, five or 10 years ago, studios like Fox Searchlight or The Weinstein Company would’ve paid a fraction for, while using the leftover dollars to pick up even more titles.
And in this environment, it’s worth noting a couple of things. Of the films that debuted at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, only a very small few earned over $1 million theatrically. Secondly, Sundance is littered with examples from past years of studios who wildly overspent on movies that earned buzz in Park City, only to die by the time they rolled out to the public: "Hamlet 2" (acquired for $10 million; less than $5 million theatrically); "The Details" (acquired for $7.5 million; earned less than $65,000 theatrically — no, a zero is not missing); and even last year’s "Me And Earl And The Dying Girl," snapped up for $12 million in Park City, barely doing half of that upon release.
Bigger gambles are being made by indie studios so they can stay competitive with Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming services who are hungrily looking for content, but one wonders if we’re looking at a bubble that’s only bound to burst. Thoughts? Let us know what you think in the comments section.
Thanks @PHOTOGRAPHICAMNESIA, I\’m a proud, raging SOB so I\’ll give you that one, but there\’s a whole canyon of complexity between that and being racist. It\’s probably too much to discuss on a comments page but possibly you\’re talking about a bigoted shadow that grows and emulates those you\’re up against, in which case possibly but I would say that we\’re currently up against some grotesque, ingrained perceptions that surely need to be blown apart, I may have been scattergun towards @MAL, I don\’t know the guy, but the popular and continual negative clouds of suggestion all build to a toxic and impossible situation for artists of color, while they may feel small in and of themselves they pack into something cold, hostile and near impenetrable.
@Lulu I agree that Mal\’s comment could be construed racist with the wrong filter (my first impression was similar). Whether it\’s intended or not. And that doesn\’t mean it should get "a pass" by any means. But to say you are only confrontational and not admitting you may be sharing an opinion with shades of racism as well is just being stubborn/prideful. Which is usually a key ingredient to being racist. I\’ve read many of your comments in the past and don\’t truly feel you are racist just passionate about your point of view. So I do give you a pass and won\’t hold any judgement against you. Hope you have a great day 🙂
Confrontational maybe but not superior. I mean how else am I to respond to someone who finds it hard to believe people of color could create worthy art? I\’m supposed to give them a pass? No, it\’s an ignorant and offensive aspersion and don\’t let the anonymous comments sections on movie websites fool you, it\’s unacceptable, backward, bigoted, thinking.
And saying "You know you\’re a racist, right?" isn\’t snide or superior at all?
@MAL I\’d say it\’s not as guaranteed or predictable as your snide, superior (you know you\’re a racist right?) comment.
Birth of a Nation is guaranteed to get Oscar nods now because … well … quotas.