• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

So Far, Amazon and Netflix Are Sundance’s Top Buyers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Armadilo

Banned
Article

26SUNDANCE1-master675.jpg


It was the independent film equivalent of a crack of thunder.

After its Sundance premiere on Saturday, “Manchester by the Sea,” a buzzy drama starring Casey Affleck as a handyman coping with family strife, sold not to a traditional studio distributor but to a streaming service. Amazon paid a hefty $10 million for the movie, beating out the likes of Fox and Universal.

After years of dipping their toes into the Sundance water — picking up a documentary here, making an unsuccessful bid for a narrative film there — the big streaming services this time around are driving the deal-making. Halfway through the 11-day festival, which started on Thursday, Amazon had bought four films. Netflix had snapped up three and was chasing several more. Most traditional distributors had yet to buy anything.
26SUNDANCEjp-articleLarge.jpg

In addition to buying “Tallulah,” which stars Ellen Page and Allison Janney, Netflix paid $7 million for the global streaming rights to “The Fundamentals of Caring,” a Sundance road movie starring Paul Rudd, Craig Roberts and Selena Gomez. Other Netflix purchases include “Under the Shadow,” a horror movie set in Iran.

This is good for indie filmmakers, Amazon and Netflix are making it rain
-----
Netflix bought global streaming rights for its films, while theatrical and distribution are still available - the big 6 aren't happy about that.

Amazon bought streaming and theatrical rights.
 

Armadilo

Banned
Guys they are throwing big numbers at these films, usually the last couple of Sundance's Networks would only throw a $1 Million or less for a film
 
This is great. Not just because more non-traditional movies will be picked up, but also because more people will actually watch them. The convenience of streaming as opposed to going to the theaters really encourages people (in my experience at least) to watch stuff they normally wouldn't.
 

Moonkid

Member
It's interesting to see the momentum these services are picking up. Last year as part of a course in high school we were discussing the future of the independent film industry of America and how these online platforms will continue to affect them. It's interesting to see some real moves being made by Amazon and Netflix.
 

Ridley327

Member
Hopefully, this winds up gaining more and more traction so that AMPAS can't keep pretending VOD isn't a perfectly viable way to promote and watch films.
 

Xater

Member
As someone who really enjoys all kinds of films this is great news. I use both services and if they give me easy access to great indie films I am all for it.
 
Hopefully, this winds up gaining more and more traction so that AMPAS can't keep pretending VOD isn't a perfectly viable way to promote and watch films.

No doubt, fukunaga was the biggest oscar snub this year and I think his movie being on Netflix was the primary reason for it
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
It makes me really happy that Netflix and Amazon are pushing the medium forward.
 

Armadilo

Banned
Is it really? I read some grumblings from some people in the biz.

There's some people that are actually mad that Netflix or Amazon are paying so much for these films( a lot of bubble bursting talk). I think its good that they are going after indie films
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Netflix bought global streaming rights for its films, while theatrical and distribution are still available - the big 6 aren't happy about that.

Amazon bought streaming and theatrical rights.
 
This is what I like to see. Digital marketplaces are going to be great alternatives for people who are more tired of traditional film venues.

For indie movies I agree just because my area doesn't get a whole lot of these (Buffalo, NY). Wish we had more theatres that would carry more indie stuff. I love going to movie theatres.

Netflix bought global streaming rights for its films, while theatrical and distribution are still available - the big 6 aren't happy about that.

Amazon bought streaming and theatrical rights.

Why would the big 6 (I assume studios) be mad at Netflix for not buying the theatrical or distribution? They could still get a piece of the pie then.
 

LoveCake

Member
Is there a danger that they are paying too much for the content though, it could lead to huge distortions in the industry, Amazon & Netflex have money & a lot of it but are they not just burning through it?

I have Sky TV with everything (not HD, not paying the extra) & also Amazon Prime, only had it a couple of months, I have only watched The Man in the High Castle & Mr Robot, nothing else appeals to me though :/
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Thoughts of 'Beasts of No Nation' come up and the whole controversy over that. Definitely a quality film.
 

LQX

Member
Nice. I would much rather watch movies like these via streaming rather than in a theater.
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Why would the big 6 (I assume studios) be mad at Netflix for not buying the theatrical or distribution? They could still get a piece of the pie then.

Usually studios buy the whole lot: theatrical, video distribution and streaming rights.

What Netflix did was buying streaming rights outright prior to the film being viewed at the festival and leaving the rest to whomever.

Studios don't like that since a revenue stream is cut-off, there was a piece on Deadline about it.
 

Armadilo

Banned
birth-of-a-nation1.jpg

Ah. Missed that

Edit: Netflix went with a 20M bid! Wow!

Article

Sony Pictures and The Weinstein Company bid in the mid-eight figures for Birth Of A Nation, and Netflix went all out and bid $20 million, sources said. Aside from the high bid among traditional theatrical distributors, Fox Searchlight is the company that guided 12 Years A Slave to an Academy Award for Best Picture in 2014. Many who saw the film yesterday feel that is a realistic goal for The Birth Of A Nation.

They took the Fox Searchlight deal of $17.5 million instead of Netflix and its $20 Million
 

Ridley327

Member
Ah. Missed that

Edit: Netflix went with a 20M bid! Wow!

The article does make a good point why the filmmakers would have gone with Fox Searchlight instead with the framing of how they handled 12 Years a Slave. Even in Netflix's capable hands, they wouldn't be able to shake the VOD stigma that hurt Beasts of No Nation, which would hurt awards chances.
 

sn00zer

Member
Netflix is becoming very very cool....sems like a lot of people's pet passion projects are gtting funded by netflix and amazon.
 

gamz

Member
The article does make a good point why the filmmakers would have gone with Fox Searchlight instead with the framing of how they handled 12 Years a Slave. Even in Netflix's capable hands, they wouldn't be able to shake the VOD stigma that hurt Beasts of No Nation, which would hurt awards chances.

Yep. Indeed.
 

jtb

Banned
Very interesting.

It's too bad they feel forced to stash these films until awards season, where they're going to end up botching the campaigns for them anyways and overshadowed by theatrical releases anyways. I want to see stuff like Manchester by the Sea now; isn't the whole point of disruptive businesses to... well, disrupt? not to play and lose by the old rules?
 

harSon

Banned
Let's see what the real reasoning behind Beasts of No Nations receiving no nominations this upcoming Oscars season.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
The article does make a good point why the filmmakers would have gone with Fox Searchlight instead with the framing of how they handled 12 Years a Slave. Even in Netflix's capable hands, they wouldn't be able to shake the VOD stigma that hurt Beasts of No Nation, which would hurt awards chances.

Seems like a pretty good deal. Amazon may pay a bit more, but FoxSearch Light has been present every time in the past 10 years, with 3 wins, and a few multiple noms several of the years. I believe they have the best track with Oscars as this decade.
 

Armadilo

Banned
The article does make a good point why the filmmakers would have gone with Fox Searchlight instead with the framing of how they handled 12 Years a Slave. Even in Netflix's capable hands, they wouldn't be able to shake the VOD stigma that hurt Beasts of No Nation, which would hurt awards chances.

Some person in the Article comments section---?

Netflix deals do not have any upside/backend since there is no “box office” or home video/cable revenue that can be allocated on a picture-by-picture basis. This is the reason why Netflix has to pay license fees which are higher than others since they are essentially buying out the film’s producers and net profit participants from their potential upside. In this instance, because the movie cost less than $8mm to make, the deal with Searchlight recoups the film’s investors and puts all of the film’s participants into net profits while retaining some additional upside if the movie breaks out as a theatrical hit. Shows how little people really understand the industry.
 
Usually studios buy the whole lot: theatrical, video distribution and streaming rights.

What Netflix did was buying streaming rights outright prior to the film being viewed at the festival and leaving the rest to whomever.

Studios don't like that since a revenue stream is cut-off, there was a piece on Deadline about it.

Hm... What happens if nobody bothers to buy the theatrical and video distribution rights then?
 

Ridley327

Member
Some person in the Article comments section---?

Interesting. I don't think a lot of Netflix's actual business practices are made public very often, so I do wonder how they figure on accounting for that. Overpaying is a common enough practice at film festivals that it can be reworked to make up for whatever loss they're taking on gross participation, but it's still a relatively new market for something else to come along and make more sense.
 
Very interesting.

It's too bad they feel forced to stash these films until awards season, where they're going to end up botching the campaigns for them anyways and overshadowed by theatrical releases anyways. I want to see stuff like Manchester by the Sea now; isn't the whole point of disruptive businesses to... well, disrupt? not to play and lose by the old rules?

Forreal. Awards campaigning process is so shit, ideally these digital distribution deals mean we can see this in a couple months but nah we'll have to wait til at least September now because they want to get some noms in
 

IISANDERII

Member
I love the indie dramas Netflix gets but I don't see why they need to get exclusive premiere rights or whatever. These films aren't about hype!
 

Toothless

Member
This actually annoys me, because I know Amazon isn't going to put Manchester by the Sea anywhere by me so I'll have to wait to stream it. Also, it screws over Kyle Chandler's chance to get an Oscar. Don't know why they sold it so quick too; with the acclaims it's been getting, I could see Weinstein or Fox Searchlight paying $15M for it.
 

Ridley327

Member
This actually annoys me, because I know Amazon isn't going to put Manchester by the Sea anywhere by me so I'll have to wait to stream it. Also, it screws over Kyle Chandler's chance to get an Oscar. Don't know why they sold it so quick too; with the acclaims it's been getting, I could see Weinstein or Fox Searchlight paying $15M for it.

Amazon actually has a different strategy for releases than Netflix. Chi-Raq was theatrically distributed by Roadside Attractions with a month-long engagement, with the VOD release not hitting until the very end of December. While 305 screens ain't exactly big, it still played at major chains and is a hell of a lot more than Netflix could get for Beasts of No Nation.
 

Ridley327

Member
Because if they don't they'll risk somebody else getting exclusive streaming rights.

Especially if Amazon is in the picture, as Amazon already enjoys streaming rights to bigger indie distributors like A24 and Drafthouse Pictures. I think the only big feather Amazon has to themselves has been IFC, but even that gets a little screwy as of recent with the deals IFC has made with Paramount to boost awards chances on a couple films, which has been preventing something like Boyhood from hitting the service. Even guys they have a good relationship with aren't entirely loyal, like the Weinsteins giving Netflix the new Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon movie day-and-date, but throwing Macbeth at Amazon instead.
 

Servbot #42

Unconfirmed Member
Usually studios buy the whole lot: theatrical, video distribution and streaming rights.

What Netflix did was buying streaming rights outright prior to the film being viewed at the festival and leaving the rest to whomever.

Studios don't like that since a revenue stream is cut-off, there was a piece on Deadline about it.

Yeah this was the grumbling i read about, i wonder if that kind of rights segmentation can be good for everyone involved, hopefully no one gets screwed.
 

Blader

Member

Like forcing studios to pay eight-figure sums to buy up small indie movies, many of which won't come close to making that money back anyway. It sets a bad precedent and makes it harder for a lot of filmmakers to get distribution just because they can't sell for a $10-15 million deal.

Not that that hasn't been the case for 20 years already, but it's a constantly growing trend.
 

Toothless

Member
Amazon actually has a different strategy for releases than Netflix. Chi-Raq was theatrically distributed by Roadside Attractions with a month-long engagement, with the VOD release not hitting until the very end of December. While 305 screens ain't exactly big, it still played at major chains and is a hell of a lot more than Netflix could get for Beasts of No Nation.

That's true, but let's just say I hope Manchester by the Sea goes wider, because the closest Chi-Raq showing for me was three hours away.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Like forcing studios to pay eight-figure sums to buy up small indie movies, many of which won't come close to making that money back anyway. It sets a bad precedent and makes it harder for a lot of filmmakers to get distribution just because they can't sell for a $10-15 million deal.

Not that that hasn't been the case for 20 years already, but it's a constantly growing trend.

Studios were exploiting the shit out of indies. They can fuck off. Critically acclaimed movies with star power and highly commercially viable projects were regularly selling for one or two million at Sundance just a few years ago, and for the whole deal not just streaming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom