Even after Netflix has soared in popularity, especially overseas, there’s still a fair amount of detractors that think the streaming service will never be able to replace theaters. Many of those people happen to be filmmakers that want their projects to be seen on the big screen, instead of on TV, phone, tablet, or laptop. However, for Netflix, this doesn’t make sense at all. And their counterpoint is simple – the streaming service brings more eyeballs to your project.
In a recent TED talk, Netflix co-founder and CEO Reed Hastings talked about that very issue, while trying to explain how the days of theaters being the best place for a film to premiere are long gone. In fact, the beauty of Netflix is its variety and the ability to watch whatever you want, right when you want, in the comfort of your home.
“Sometimes you just want to relax and watch a show like [cooking documentary series] ‘Nailed It,’ it’s fun and it’s not stressful, but other times people want to watch really intensive films,” Hastings said (via IndieWire). “‘Mudbound,’ which was Oscar-nominated, it’s a great, very intensive movie. We’ve had over 20 million hours of viewing on ‘Mudbound,’ which is dramatically bigger than what it would’ve been in theaters or any other distribution.”
For those that aren’t aware, “Mudbound” is one of the recent crown jewels of Netflix Original Films. The Oscar-nominated film was purchased by Netflix after premiering at the Sundance Film Festival in 2017. At the time, pundits scoffed at Netflix spending over $12 million for the film. However, with those numbers, it makes perfect sense.
(Side note – Netflix is notoriously tight-lipped about viewing data. We have to take Hastings on his word because there’s no way to back up the data.)
If the film is roughly 2 hours, that means “Mudbound” was streamed roughly 10 million times since its release last year. If you consider that a fair number of those streams were watched by multiple people, it’s easy to see how Hastings said that it was “dramatically bigger” than a theater distribution deal.
If “Mudbound” was able to draw that kind of numbers, makes you wonder how many people have watched “Bright” or some of the other films that have been heavily promoted by the streaming service. It really puts all that big-time spending in perspective, huh?
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://dev.theplaylist.net/netflix-ceo-claims-viewers-watched-20-million-hours-mudbound-20180622/&media=https://cdn.theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/14220245/Mudbound-Netflix.jpg&description=According to the Netflix CEO, "Mudbound" has been shown to a "dramatically bigger" audience than if it had a traditional theatrical run.){kind=link}
Of course, Hastings and Netflix neatly ignore the simple question: WHY NOT BOTH? A real theatrical release (not just enough to qualify for awards) and THEN a Netflix streaming after-life!
Theatrical distribution is very expensive. Netflix could buy 4 more “Mudbounds” for the cost of promoting and releasing a single “Mudbound” on 1000+ screens.
Most mid-budget films cost more to promote and distribute theatrically than they cost to make but rarely return the $100+ million gross necessary to recoup that distribution investment. That is why studios almost exclusively concentrate on big budget tentpoles made with established IP and Netflix plays mostly in the mid-budget and indie space.
1. Netflix is a billion dollar company. 2. If Amazon can do it, so can Netlfix (both billion dollar corporations). We aren’t talking about some tiny indie with an office the size of shoebox
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean it makes business sense. Successful businesses always keep the core mission front and center. Keep in mind that while traditional studios have standing distribution apparatus in place, Netflix does not. They would have to pay a third party a substantial percentage of any theatrical gross (not already claimed by the theaters) to handle bookings, distribution, and revenue collection. If Netflix (or Amazon for that matter) were the least bit interested in making theatrical distribution a significant facet of their businesses, they would be making a run for Fox studios if for no other reason than to acquire ready standing production and distribution capabilities (along with a fat library for the streaming end of the business.) But they didn’t.
As for Amazon, film is a branding sideshow. The entire streaming product is nothing more than a value added bonus to the prime shipping product which directly serves the core online retail business (which is where the money is!). Netflix doesn’t have that secondary capacity to monetize streaming customers through ancillary retail transactions. Consequently, the equivalent example to Netflix theatrical distribution would be if Amazon started opening general merchandise brick and mortar stores in every mall in order to compete with Walmart. Perhaps they could afford to do it, but it is off brand, very expensive, requires the pricey build of a secondary warehouse/distribution system to serve stores, and would drain considerable resources from Amazon’s overwhelming dominance in the online retail space.
In short, it would distract from the core mission, so they don’t do it.
I disagree. And, further, I would be a LOT more sympathetic to them if they didn’t cry like little infants every time someone like Cannes or Spielberg called them out on their sham theatrical releases.
If they want to be a TV channel – then compete for Emmys.
I’d like to see some data. For a long time, Netflix claimed every show was a hit, and would automatically renew everything for multiple seasons. Of course, they never released their ratings, and even here, Hastings doesn’t have any solid data backing up his claims.
Another possibly is that Mudbound is a politically correct movie (directed by a woman and shot by one), and being the PC network that they are, he may be lying about its success for ideological reasons.
Been a Netflix subscriber since the beginning, but I believe Reed Hastings about as far as I can throw him.