Christopher Nolan Calls Netflix's Film Strategy "Pointless"

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The esteemed director of Dunkirk had hinted at his aversion for Netflix in the past, but his latest comments really cement his hate for the streaming service: Christopher Nolan blames Netflix for depreciating the theatrical experience due to their unwillingness to put films in cinemas, noting that they have a “mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released.” He also describes their investments toward interesting filmmakers and projects “some kind of bizarre leverage against shutting down theaters.”

He pointed out that Amazon, which releases its movies in theaters before making them available on its platform, shouldn’t be lumped with Netflix for contributing this issue. “You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake,” he said. “The theaters have a 90-day window. It’s a perfectly usable model. It’s terrific.” Netflix enables a larger budget and a degree of creative freedom for major global directors, and two of its productions premiered at Cannes this year, Bong Joon Ho’s sci-fi satire “Okja” and Noah Baumbach’s “The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected).” Nolan is unimpressed.
 
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?

He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.

I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
 
They are a streaming company... and yes they have a plan to get rid of theaters. Why wouldn't they... they can move to make all the monies why the hell wouldn't they. :)

For most customers we would gladly be rid of the theater system if we could be. I bother going to 2-3 movies a year tops anymore... at the end of the day very few movies are worth spending 50 bucks to take the wife to, and even fewer are worth spending 70-80 bucks to take the family to. When I think about it I shouldn't even go that often... 2-3 visits costs me more then what Netflix charges me for the entire year. (god damn ok I'm out no more theater for me lol)

If Netflix was to ever add a $5-10 a month add on "premium" movie package. I would expect a lot of people to be willing to pay $20-30 a month for Netflix.
 
If a movie came out on both netflix and in the theater, if I wanted to watch it in the theater, I would.
 
Good. Fuck him, and fuck theaters. I fucking hate the general american public that can't stand to do simple factors like
1) Shut the fuck up
2) Leave your crying baby at home with a sitter
3) Turn your fucking phone off
4) Don't spill food and drinks everywhere and give theaters the notorious "sticky floors"

Until that day comes, I have no plans to return to theaters unless it's an amazing looking film, and I haven't been to see one in the last year about.
 
I'm pretty sure Netflix and theaters can coexist. This seems like "get off my lawn" garbage from someone who has drunk too much of the Hollywood koolaid. He just released Dunkirk, which was shot on IMAX cameras and in 70mm, neither of which can be experienced through Netflix, so I really don't know what he's on about. Maybe I'm looking at it as a fan of film and not as a more typical movie goer?
 
Chupachup said:
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?

He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.

I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
Click to expand...

As much as it sucks, that is the only way for theaters to make money. They make fuck all on ticket sales. If I remember right, by the end of a movie's run the theater might have gained a grand total of 30% of the overall ticket sales for its entire run. That is very little for what is an expensive to operate business. On release week theaters might see 5-10% of each ticket sold.
 
I'm all for the theater experience, but right now I've got a bigass TV with a good sound system, it's better than sitting in the back of most theaters around this area. I've been in a couple of IMAX theaters with awesome seating and amazing audio, I don't think there could of been a bad seat in there. Maybe if every theater were spectacular and I could have a soda for a couple of bucks I'd be there more often. Right now, my home theater experience is awesome, and it doesn't cost me $14 per person per showing.
 
Derangel said:
As much as it sucks, that is the only way for theaters to make money. They make fuck all on ticket sales. If I remember right, by the end of a movie's run the theater might have gained a grand total of 30% of the overall ticket sales for its entire run. That is very little for what is an expensive to operate business. On release week theaters might see 5-10% of each ticket sold.
Click to expand...

Realizing that, where then is the process truly broken when Hollywood reports records earnings on releases? It certainly isn't the theater goers stiffing the theater owners at that point.;) Yet, is they who are forced the burden to support the theater buy purchasing goods priced far above fair value or simply support the production houses by watching movies sans the typical movie treats?
 
Two different things. Netflix was designed to be on TV's. Large, small, home theaters. Some movies are better in theaters (either professional or home). Big screen, dark room, great audio. Some are very much not any better in a theater.

Some movies on Netflix would be cool in the theater, but they aren't really the "must-see" in theaters. And for me, those type of movies has really gone down lately. Star Wars, and to Nolan's credit - Dunkirk, Marvel movies (just a big fan). That's about it. Unless it's some original blockbuster that kicks ass, I am fine waiting for them to come to Blu-ray. I do have a small home theater, though, so that might make a difference.
 
I just don't enjoy the theater experience. It takes something I really, really want to see to get me to bother.
Even then, it better be at an Alamo or Movie Tavern where I can get some beers and decent food with it. I wish all theaters had food/alcohol and the same rules about talking and phones.
I get that some people are nostalgic about it or want people to experience thing with a large screen and surround setup, but I have that at home. Thanks to better/cheaper technology - so do lots of people.
 
Chupachup said:
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?

He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.

I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
Click to expand...

Dude the theaters have to charge that much for concessions because the studios and distributors fuck them over. If Nolan want's to find the source of "depreciating the theatrical experience", it start with the people he works for, and ended with tehcnology permitting the merger of cell phones with teenagers.

The cinema is a shit experience.
 
SereLaw said:
The only thing wrong with theaters is there are people in them.
And I have to pay out the ass for anything there.
Oh yea and fucking people are there.
Click to expand...
Cyraxx said:
Good. Fuck him, and fuck theaters. I fucking hate the general american public that can't stand to do simple factors like
1) Shut the fuck up
2) Leave your crying baby at home with a sitter
3) Turn your fucking phone off
4) Don't spill food and drinks everywhere and give theaters the notorious "sticky floors"

Until that day comes, I have no plans to return to theaters unless it's an amazing looking film, and I haven't been to see one in the last year about.
Click to expand...

20046644_1004812976221827_7805159949787604311_n.jpg
 
Oh no! An overrated director giving an unpopular opinion!

I agree that the theater experience is at the heart of film but his view is narrow scoped because any theatrical release is always limited time only. In his view, I've never actually properly experienced any movie that predates my birth.

The fact of the matter is, since Nolan works primarily with the technicalities of cameras (not camera work or plot, but the use of high-end cameras), that his movies can only be "truly" experienced in a theater. If the movies were good on their own they'd be enjoyable on any screen.
 
Sounds to me like Nolan might just be a film purist and thinks the whole viewing is some kind of profound experience meant to be enjoyed a certain way. I mean I get it to an extent, but I think I still prefer to watch movies at home anyway where I can have a beer, pause to take a leak, get dirty with the Mrs, what have you.
 
Spidey329 said:
"Hey Nolan, yeah, it's Netflix. How would you like to shoot an exclusive movie for us? $200mil budget, you get creative control."

I bet his tune would change real quick.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, Spidey? Nolan has always been Netflix's #1 Fan...
 
nysmo said:
Sounds to me like Nolan might just be a film purist and thinks the whole viewing is some kind of profound experience meant to be enjoyed a certain way. I mean I get it to an extent, but I think I still prefer to watch movies at home anyway where I can have a beer, pause to take a leak, get dirty with the Mrs, what have you.
Click to expand...

He's not a film purist by any means.

As I stated above, Nolan simply loves to use high-end IMAX cameras and anyone who doesn't see his movies at a good theater is 'missing the point' in his eyes.

A lot of his movies are rooted in a gimmick like this. Memento has the reverse storytelling (unreverse it and it's a very boring plot/story), Batman has...well Batman, Inception has the effects but no real story either, and Interstellar has Anne Hathaway. He loves to shoot movies but I don't think he cares to make good movies. Not that it stops blockbuster Joe from thinking he's the next Kubrick, which is about the most asinine thing I've actually read online.

"Duuuude, they are deep movies that make you thiiink". No, they really aren't, they just don't have endings.
 
Last edited:
I really don't give a rat's ass what you think Mr. Nolan. After watching an early screening of Dunkirk on Monday, I'm inclined to just tell you to STFU. What a shit movie that was and a horrible waste of time.
 
nysmo said:
Sounds to me like Nolan might just be a film purist and thinks the whole viewing is some kind of profound experience meant to be enjoyed a certain way. I mean I get it to an extent, but I think I still prefer to watch movies at home anyway where I can have a beer, pause to take a leak, get dirty with the Mrs, what have you.
Click to expand...

As if he spends any time in the local Cine-Plex watching first-run movies with Bill and Ted next to him scarfing their nachos and hitting their vape pens.......
 
Chupachup said:
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?

He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.

I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
Click to expand...

Honestly they have to charge for concessions like that or they vanish. I blame the studios and their system of not sharing ticket sales. Theaters really get the short end of the stick in my view. I am no fan of the costs and the experience to be honest but when they make nothing on tickets I am not sure how we blame them. I want to see movies like Dunkirk either on a very large > 100 inch screen at my home or Imax :)
 
Sonicks said:
He's not a film purist by any means.

As I stated above, Nolan simply loves to use high-end IMAX cameras and anyone who doesn't see his movies at a good theater is 'missing the point' in his eyes.

A lot of his movies are rooted in a gimmick like this. Memento has the reverse storytelling (unreverse it and it's a very boring plot/story), Batman has...well Batman, Inception has the effects but no real story either, and Interstellar has Anne Hathaway. He loves to shoot movies but I don't think he cares to make good movies. Not that it stops blockbuster Joe from thinking he's the next Kubrick, which is about the most asinine thing I've actually read online.

"Duuuude, they are deep movies that make you thiiink". No, they really aren't, they just don't have endings.
Click to expand...

Say what you will about his films, they are far better then the average hollywoo movie. Dark Knight, Interstellar... I'm sure Dunkirk are I have no doubt great theater movies.

The problem with theaters isn't the level of quality coming from Nolan. The problem is so many big name directors deciding to remix their old movies for $. Being subjected to so much reboot/sequel/prequel crap the last few years its no wonder people have a general "wait for it to hit netflix" attitude. I mean was anyone that green lit Zoolander 2 really surprised so many people said... I can wait another 3 months for this to hit the streaming services. lol

I think Nolan is way off... and I hope Netflix / Amazon crush the theater system between them over the next few years. At the current rate of home theater tech progress I believe most people would be happier watching at home on their 60"+ 4k OLEDs ect. I do recognize the man is one of the better directors working today. I agree with you some of the script material he has shot has not been stellar. His films in general turn out far better then the scripts would suggest.. that has a lot to do with him and his choice of cinematographer ect. People will enjoy even ho hum movie scripts if the film is paced properly and looks pretty... Nolan is one of the best right now in both regards.
 
ChadD said:
They are a streaming company... and yes they have a plan to get rid of theaters. Why wouldn't they... they can move to make all the monies why the hell wouldn't they. :)

For most customers we would gladly be rid of the theater system if we could be. I bother going to 2-3 movies a year tops anymore... at the end of the day very few movies are worth spending 50 bucks to take the wife to, and even fewer are worth spending 70-80 bucks to take the family to. When I think about it I shouldn't even go that often... 2-3 visits costs me more then what Netflix charges me for the entire year. (god damn ok I'm out no more theater for me lol)

If Netflix was to ever add a $5-10 a month add on "premium" movie package. I would expect a lot of people to be willing to pay $20-30 a month for Netflix.
Click to expand...

$50 for two? You're getting ripped off. Its $10.50 each here, or $5 each on Tuesdays.

Streaming also sucks. I wish there was a Steam like service for movies. Buy and keep, good sales, downloads with the option to stream, options to download extras or skip them if you don't have the bandwidth/time, all that stuff. I know Steam has some movies but I'd prefer if Valve focused purely on PC games.
 
Flogger23m said:
$50 for two? You're getting ripped off. Its $10.50 each here, or $5 each on Tuesdays.

Streaming also sucks. I wish there was a Steam like service for movies. Buy and keep, good sales, downloads with the option to stream, options to download extras or skip them if you don't have the bandwidth/time, all that stuff. I know Steam has some movies but I'd prefer if Valve focused purely on PC games.
Click to expand...

Well first I'm Canadian so their is a 20% aprox exchange. Imax showings around here are $13 each... ultraAVX 3d is $14. So almost $30 bucks just in tickets (over when you tack on sales taxs)... and I have a wife that refuses to go to a movie without getting a bag of popcorn. So throw in a min of a large popcorn and drink and ya... 50 bucks.

Takeing the kids throw in a couple kids tickets which are a whole 2 bucks cheaper. (which isn't even worth it here in Canada where Ciniplex has a "scene" bonus program that awards points you can use for free movie tickets... kids tickets get half points so its almost cheaper to just buy them adult tickets for the double points) Add another popcorn and a few drinks... and damn a couple nights at the movies is more expensive then Netflix+Amazon prime for the year. So 4 hours of entertainment vs 1,000s I can see why a big name like Nolan who relies no movie studio budgets to do what he wants to do with imax cameras and such is anxious about the big streaming companies disrupting the system.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the current model isn't pointless? "content license holder' charge theaters such a ridiculous amount of money to show the movie, they are forced to continue to up ticket/concession prices to be able to keep operating, all while providing a much shittier 'experience'. Yes, so stupid of netflix to try and move ahead.

It's a good thing everyone agrees with this turd and netflix isn't making any money on this new business model....

I almost never go to the theaters anymore. It's like 60+$ for 2 people with a drink/small bag of chips with fake liquid cheese, so I can be distracted by assholes with their phones out or constantly talking. Much rather stay at home with a big TV, nice surround system, no assholes by myself and the ability to pause any time I want.
 
I know what the theater experience is like, and I don't like it, everything from popcorn that is overly priced, to the soda that makes sodas that you order in restaurants seem reasonably priced and the restaurants give free refills. I just want to see the movies in the comfort of my own home. Next argument?
 
nysmo said:
Sounds to me like Nolan might just be a film purist and thinks the whole viewing is some kind of profound experience meant to be enjoyed a certain way. I mean I get it to an extent, but I think I still prefer to watch movies at home anyway where I can have a beer, pause to take a leak, get dirty with the Mrs, what have you.
Click to expand...
weird... I too like to pause a movie and get dirty with your Mrs.
 
Chupachup said:
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?
He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.
I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
Click to expand...

If they don't do that, then they're going to have to significantly raise the ticket price. Most of the ticket price goes to the studio in the first 2 weeks. After that, the theater gets an ever larger cut of the revenue, but if you look at film grosses, it's clear that most of the money comes in the first 2 weeks. Regardless, I doubt that Nolan would do a film that didn't go to theaters. If he was into a TV series, then he might work with Netflix (on that front, there's no real difference between it and HBO). Truth is, I'd rather see most of his films in a theater. Maybe when I'm a billionaire, I'll build my self a home theater with a 75' screen, but until then, a good theater trumps home theater every time.
 
Cyraxx said:
Good. Fuck him, and fuck theaters. I fucking hate the general american public that can't stand to do simple factors like
1) Shut the fuck up
2) Leave your crying baby at home with a sitter
3) Turn your fucking phone off
4) Don't spill food and drinks everywhere and give theaters the notorious "sticky floors"

Until that day comes, I have no plans to return to theaters unless it's an amazing looking film, and I haven't been to see one in the last year about.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you were in a theater? Unless it's a kids movie (where kid asks parent questions), people are generally quiet (though old people can also be a problem, but I haven't had that happen in at least a year or 2).
I have seen on rare occasions people texting, but actually talking on the phone? Not in many years.
Spilled food/drinks? Do you hang out at a dollar cinema? Most of the theaters I go to have reserved seats, with recliners that are better than what most have at home and even the older stadium theaters are generally very clean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtm55
like this
windianrecords said:
Another thing is that when Netflix tried to get movies in theaters, they were denied:

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/m...cott-netflixs-beasts-of-no-nation-1201445636/
Click to expand...
That's because they don't want to compete with free (and at that point, it's essentially free to watch at home).
Ur_Mom said:
Two different things. Netflix was designed to be on TV's. Large, small, home theaters. Some movies are better in theaters (either professional or home). Big screen, dark room, great audio. Some are very much not any better in a theater.

Some movies on Netflix would be cool in the theater, but they aren't really the "must-see" in theaters. And for me, those type of movies has really gone down lately. Star Wars, and to Nolan's credit - Dunkirk, Marvel movies (just a big fan). That's about it. Unless it's some original blockbuster that kicks ass, I am fine waiting for them to come to Blu-ray. I do have a small home theater, though, so that might make a difference.
Click to expand...
For me it comes down to if it makes it to a big screen or not. I really don't care if it's a big action flick or not, but a 60'+ screen with good sound is generally better than a home theater and there are far fewer distractions in a theater than at home. None of this, "Pause the film while I answer this call" or "pause the film while I go to the bathroom".

Nope, turn off your phone (and contrary to what people say here, IME, phones are off and baby's are rare outside of kids flicks) and go to the bathroom before the movie, cuz it's not stopping.
 
Chupachup said:
Nolan won't credit theaters for any of the depreciation THEY generate by overcharging customers for popcorn(8X cost), soft drinks(12X cost) and candy(2X cost)?

He might be an "esteemed director", but he is otherwise a self absorbed boob who just hasn't been offered enough cash or the right terms by Netflix. He's the directorial equivalent of a well educated top tier escort trying to coerce a higher price from a prospective client.

I'd die if Netflix fired back a response stating, they'd never be willing to entertain the thought of inviting him to run one of their projects. *drop the mic*
Click to expand...

I saw our local theater unpacking their snacks one day. They literally get their nachos from the local Sams Club, I know because I buy the exact same kind. $5 gets you 8lbs of chips, and $6 gets you 10lbs of condensed nacho cheese. The theater sells a small tray of nachos for $6.99.
 
nilepez said:
That's because they don't want to compete with free (and at that point, it's essentially free to watch at home).

For me it comes down to if it makes it to a big screen or not. I really don't care if it's a big action flick or not, but a 60'+ screen with good sound is generally better than a home theater and there are far fewer distractions in a theater than at home. None of this, "Pause the film while I answer this call" or "pause the film while I go to the bathroom".

Nope, turn off your phone (and contrary to what people say here, IME, phones are off and baby's are rare outside of kids flicks) and go to the bathroom before the movie, cuz it's not stopping.
Click to expand...

Where is this miraculous movie theater you go to? Because every theater in the area(6 or so) is absolutely horrible. Idiots on cellphones during the movie, idiots jabbering away with eachother during the movie, idiots who can't open a candy bar without spending a full 60 seconds making a ton of noise, idiots bringing their infant children to a rated R movie, the people with a bladder the size of a thimble who have to get up 5 times and go past you back and forth(so that's 10 times you have to get up with them walking past in your way), and so on.

You say there's fewer distractions in the theater than at home? At home if someone for some reason is being obnoxious I can tell them to STFU, rewind so I can watch the part they screwed up, and then finish my movie watching experience. Not to mention, I can drink a soda without paying $7, grab some good nachos at the local taqueria on my way home instead of the crap yellow cheese slop the theaters have, and basically do whatever I want from my own couch without wondering why the floor is sticky and then hearing my shoes stick to tile and concrete flooring as I'm walking out hoping it's off the bottom before I get back in the car.
 
awww someone is upset he's no longer getting a cut from ticket sales.
 
Agree with Nolan. As much as I love Netflix and its stock prices, it does not even come close to watching a film on a giant screen IMAX. Even if I have a kickass hometheater setup with an expensive projector, large screen, and speakers for Dolby Atmos, all that still wouldn't even remotely match what IMAX offers.

To solve the aholes problem when watching movies at theaters, I go at the end of their run. That usually means on the 4th week after release. It is great as most times there is only about say 5 to 10 of us watching it at that time. I have been doing it this way for a very long time. Unfortunately, it seems people are starting to catch on to what I'm doing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top