Comments on: As Mel Gibson’s Latest Film Goes Straight To VOD, Is This A Glimpse Of The Future Of Distribution?

By: rex

rex — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

best movie created

By: Mohammed

Mohammed — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

It saddens me what's been happening to the film industry. Little by little, piece by piece the new technology is taking away from the way we used to see films. I'm 58 years old, so I'm not a young man like most of the audience and internet users. Yet, I don't think age is playing an issue here, but what I'm trying to say is that I can only feel the loss of the best the cinema pre-the 80s had to offer. The cinemascope, the film noire, the westerns, the extra ridden historical epics (not like the computer graphic treated films). I don't know… is it too much to ask filmmakers to resist and help keeping this great heritage of Hollywood alive by not driving the industry into the big fade-out? Cinema today has become like a match-box. You use the match once then you throw it away. Unlike in the past were films (even so-so works by middle range directors) were considered jewels and achievements that are made to last, today's films (in general of course) under today's technologies and the supervision of those who care much less about art and value, and towards audience who hate to leave the coach, are just a one look fair: Pay. Watch. Go.

By: Mike O

Mike O — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

Don't forget the movie, 'SUING THE DEVIL' – as reported in the LA Times, it was one of the most illegally-downloaded movies in history.

It's going VOD in April, but how do these illegal torrent sites play a part in hurting Hollywood films?

By: jingmei

jingmei — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

i think this post used Mel Gibson's film in the article's title as a case apparently potentially said no to this trend 8)

By: David Holbert

David Holbert — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

Don't we pretty well know that the future of distribution is VOD and that VOD is a work in progress? At least for movies that are not spectaculars anyway. Theatrical is good work when you can get it. For now, it has two things VOD does not: the perception of validity in reported results; and, usually, a vigorous promotional process, or at least one that is well understood. Right now, I'm not aware that there is anything convincing on reporting VOD results (what is reported seems suspect – if someone knows otherwise I would value knowing). Promotion for VOD is pretty much a blank slate. LA200 is on to this with some really good ideas. Recommending, social, and internet ads simply have not communicated that "must see" urgency. They're good, but by themselves not good enough it seems. I would be suspicious of claims of inherent democratization through the VOD medium. Anyone can tack onto the skinny end of the long tail but without some kind of promotion or broader marketing, not much is likely to happen. So I'd like to see a lot more about results reporting and marketing for VOD.

By: bruckey

bruckey — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

In relation to Fox they do have Fox International Productions which releases foreign language films abroad and when they can't sell off the US rights they release it via VOD

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/fox-home-entertainment-launches-world-cinema-video-label/

By: Frank Casanova

Frank Casanova — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

This is a boon to the low-budget and micro-budget Indy Filmmaker. Most of these movies would never see the light of day (or a theater) with the traditional distribution model. Now, the playing field is starting to see a bit of a leveling… and the audience will also benefit by being able to see many new artists that might have only had two days of showings in some forsaken art-house theater. This is a very good thing.

By: LA2000

LA2000 — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

I think the best use of VOD hasn't really happened yet – that would be to use the format to "sneak preview" a solid film to build word of mouth prior to theatrical release. The film would hit VOD a week or two prior to theatrical, would have a limited number of views available (say, 200,000), would be comparably priced to a theater ticket, would be marketed as a "special, limited time/quantity event", and would be pulled from VOD on the date of theatrical release (or when the view ceiling gets reached, whichever comes first). This would allow VOD to serve as a money generating promotional vehicle (waaaay cheaper than billboards and TV spots) to build water cooler chatter for an upcoming theatrical release that might otherwise get ignored. And by doing this consistently only for pictures which are considered "quality", a VOD early release becomes the signifier of a good picture rather than a dumping ground for garbage and misfires.

A great little movie like "Let Me In", which faced the insurmountable promotional behemoth of "The Social Network" in the run up to its theatrical release, strikes me as the kind of picture that would have greatly benefited from a VOD "preview" release strategy.

After all, word of mouth only works if people have seen the picture.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

This is a very interesting trend that's starting. On the more extreme end of this trend we've seen filmmakers like Kevin Smith with Red State completely roll out his film on his own, cutting out the studios completely, and he did it pretty successfully. One might argue that this is because he already has a fan base built in, however while this may be so this still gives a lot of hope to the independent filmmaking industry giving the indie filmmaker himself a few options, and enticing studios to buy up more indies as they see they have new avenues of revenue stream to reap from.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:30:34 +0000

"According to a poll at the time of the film's release, 98% of those who attended a theatrical screening were unaware that the film was also available for home viewing, suggesting that thoughts that a simultaneous VOD release hurts theatrical numbers were unfounded."

You really need to brush up on your logical reasoning. If people who saw the film in theatres weren't even aware it was available at home, how the hell does that suggest that VOD doesn't hurt theatrical viewing? That argument makes no sense whatsoever.

In fact, if anything, you could draw the conclusion that it DOES hurt theatrical viewing, because there's a good chance that if some of the 98% HAD been aware it was available at home, some of them (perhaps many) would have chosen to stay at home instead.