Print 77 comment(s) - last by stlrenegade.. on Mar 14 at 4:15 PM

Hollywood film executives fear Netflix may conquer traditional broadcast services the way it did Blockbuster if someone doesn't keep them in check  (Source:
Film execs think the video-rental company is becoming too big too fast

As Netflix continues to grow in both audience and content, Hollywood film executives are feeling more and more threatened. 

In the past, studio executives have questioned whether Netflix could acquire a large audience without hit films or television shows, which is content they didn't think the video-rental service could afford. But now, Netflix has more than 20 million subscribers and has "sought-after" content available more than 200 internet-based platforms and devices like Xbox 360 and iPad. In the past year alone, the number of subscribers to Netflix has increased 66 percent. The video-rental company has even pushed competitors like Blockbuster and Movie Gallery to file for bankruptcy protection.

Netflix's ability to obtain such popularity so quickly has Hollywood executives scared, mainly because of how it influences the studio's businesses. For instance, Netflix draws sales from other areas such as airlines that offer in-flight internet access. If a person aboard the plane has Netflix, this takes a sale away from the carrier who is trying to sell movies on the plane as well.  

Film executives believe Netflix is having other impacts on the movie industry as well. For instance, movies on Netflix lose value more quickly than those that don't because "Netflix takes scarcity out of the equation" by offering movies to users anytime they want. In addition, film execs say Netflix discourages users from buying new releases. Disc sales are decreasing annually, and 30 to 50 percent of DVD's are still in their original shrink-wrap. While new releases won't appear on Netflix for years, users are okay with waiting until they do. 

According to Eric Garland, CEO of Big Champagne, which is a company that follows digital-media consumption, consumers quit collecting DVD's because it is no longer the new technology of the times.  

"The medium was creating this false impression that we had a real need to curate libraries of films," said Garland. "People built film libraries because they had never been able to own movies before. Even then, most of the movies only got watched once." 

Nevertheless, the film industry made a large profit for years off of movie sales, especially the DVD.  

"If we find out that people won't collect feature films anymore, than the business as we know it is broken beyond repair," said Garland. 

In response to Netflix's overwhelming popularity and its negative impact on the film industry, Hollywood film execs have decided to avoid Netflix completely. They will not "throw in" with the company and jeopardize conventional broadcast services. They feel it is their job to keep Netflix in check before it grows too large to handle. 

This doesn't mean that film execs are at war with Netflix or refuse to distribute films or television shows over the internet. The film industry plans to continue offering this content over the internet for attractive prices, but not through Netflix. 

Studio managers see Netflix as a company that offers the least-valuable material, and that the service will become a swap meet at best that users will become bored with eventually. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: typical
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2011 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 1
We get it, you want to make man love to every Republican ever elected to office. Democrat or Republican, they all suck equally, parties are retarded and people who follow them are even more so.

RE: typical
By FITCamaro on 3/8/2011 5:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
I get it. You follow me around because you secretly want to poke me in the butt.

Parties are necessary to get the funding to be elected anymore. Who makes up those parties is up to the people. And no. People like Jim DeMint, Tim Scott, etc. do not suck as bad as people like Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, Lindsay Graham, etc. One side advocates for personal success off our own merits (fully acknowledging that you may fail and thats your problem) and the rule of law. The other advocates for punishing those who manage to succeed and rewarding those who will just blindly vote for them while ignoring the law except when it benefits them.

But I'll disagree with even someone like DeMint when he makes comments he shouldn't such as those he made on teachers who are single moms. That's their business. But if a state wanted to push a certain moral value and say that teachers must uphold a certain moral standard (such as not having children out of wedlock), that's fully within the power of the states. Of course with today's twisted view of the constitution, it wouldn't be.

RE: typical
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2011 11:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Parties are necessary to get the funding to be elected anymore.

Why? Nothing is needed unless we make it needed. If you want things to change, sitting around making backhanded silly comments to try to be the other side to the Bush haters doesn't get you anywhere. People run independent all the time, but most people just freak out cause they aren't radical like their favorite party. It is a scam, get used to it. People are notoriously easy to manipulate and it is done all the time.

If you really believe the Republican candidates all want success off your own merits, you are a fool. These people all make laws for their own gain, both sides. They could care less about you. Very few candidates would piss on you if you were on fire. I can hardly blame them, most of the world is filled with brain dead morons who really don't deserve to breathe. Normally nature would take care of this through predators, but we don't have them, so apparently they erupt in our own species.

Generally I think of the idiots that complain about jobs and not getting paid enough and yada yada as the weak ones in the pack and the higher predators just take advantage of this, whether they be religious zealots, politicians or charlatans. I wonder sometimes if I want to continue my normal career pursuits or just take advantage of the stupid.

I have noticed the best of the best naturally rise if they want to, the rest sink because they are useless.

As for the bottom paragraph, I don't concur with your majority rules ideals. If everyone in a state wanted slavery back, are you saying that is OK? I could easily replace children out of wedlock with anything you happen to like and do it to you. I have a feeling you would double back at that point and produce the normal human response and suddenly change your mind cause it affects you. I'm sure we could get tons of people to get together and outlaw guns, then you would complain up a storm (as would I, but I hate any law that hinders without a legitimate reason).

In the end, laws should make sense and only exist to solve a problem that affects the people, not makes them feel icky or outraged with their religion. Let's be honest, most of this garbage comes from religious nut cases that feel everyone else has to believe what they do and they get to press their morality on everyone else. Short of things that affect others, I see no reason to make a law about anything. If two dudes want to bang, whatever. It has no direct bearing on me. From a biological standpoint though, it is a fluke and not normal. Does that matter? No.

RE: typical
By FITCamaro on 3/8/2011 11:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you really believe the Republican candidates all want success off your own merits, you are a fool.

All do not. But I only get to vote on the ones from South Carolina. The ones I vote for here, do. I've met them both. Lindsay Graham will not win another election.

As for the bottom paragraph, I don't concur with your majority rules ideals. If everyone in a state wanted slavery back, are you saying that is OK?

Way to show complete ignorance of the constitution. The states have any power not granted to the federal government and that does not violate the rights provided in the constitution. Slavery does violate the constitution. The federal government is not given the power to set up or regulate public schools anywhere in the constitution. As such, if a state wanted a moral code for its employees, they would have every right to have one.

State laws are supposed to address the desires of a state. If a state wants to pass universal health care for the people in that state, they have the right to. If a state wants to expand the definition of marriage to include gays, they have that right to. If they want to say you can't buy gas on Tuesday, they have that right to. You as a citizen have a right to live or not live in that state.

RE: typical
By Myg on 3/9/2011 10:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that America was founded on those very "relgious nutjobs" who "feel everyone else has to believe what they do and they get to press their morality on everyone else" cause thats what the USA does when it doesn't follow the protectionist approach, right?

You guys were founded by the lot who didn't want to attempt to exist living with the people around them; why not just not mention such things and accept it in your heart instead? Or would that actually change that age-old habit?

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki