Kiosk.net

Thanks to a link from Scott Kirsner at Cinematech, I was directed to a very interesting article in the Boston Globe about companies offering rental-by-mail services that are based upon the Netflix model. These include Gamefly (which rents video games), Simply Audiobooks (self-explanatory), and GreenCine (which rents rare and artsy films). Many of these services, however, like Netflix, are accepting the fact that downloading is the future (Simply Audiobooks already offers it).

Read the full article here.

This is not quite a news or opinion item, but just some cool I pics I’m passing along from Becky at Netflix Fan, via Mike K at Hacking Netflix. These wish-you-worked-for-a-different-company pics are of the inside of Netflix’ (relatively) new headquarters in Los Gatos, CA. Apparently, every conference room (and even bathroom) has a different movie theme, ranging from “The Matrix” to “Dr. Strangelove.” Click here to check ‘em out.

Back in April, Netflix sued Blockbuster for patent infringement. The lawsuit was originally filed in response to Blockbuster’s development of an online rental model (Blackhacker makes the interesting point that it is tough to determine what exactly is being patented here–the idea of maintaining a queue?). In response, Blockbuster filed an anti-trust suit, on the grounds that Netflix was establishing a monopoly on the online movie rental business. Apparently the suit was filed on the grounds that Netflix failed to reveal some of its earlier patented technology while applying for a new patent.

According to a link from Hacking Netflix, Netflix’s attempts to have this countersuit thrown out of court have been refused by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup. The drama continues.

According to a report from Did-It, spending on primetime broadcast TV has gone up by 40% in the last decade, while audience size has dropped by 50%. The result is an increase in spending-per-consumer that is likely to scare off many advertisers. The study cited by the post also predicts a one-third drop off in the effectiveness of TV as an advertising medium by 2010, as compared with 1990.

Looks as if the onslaught of quality cable programming, as well as the widespread adoption of cable and satellite TV, has finally taken its toll on the networks. Taking myself as a tiny sample, I can’t say that this surprises me. I don’t remember the last time I watched a non-sports network show on a regular basis.

The best thing about Netflix is that when you actually think of a random movie you want to see, or when it comes up in conversation, you can just add it to your queue and not worry about that bound-to-happen moment in the video store when you can’t decide what you want to rent and are forced to just bang your head off the wall as you try to grasp the title of “that movie” that came to mind a few days earlier. The lone drawback to this set-up (aside from the fact that if you do it enough times, the same moment takes place when digging through your queue) is that you are not always near a computer.

Well thanks to http://www.netflix.com/mobile, your queue will always be accessible, so long as you have a cell phone handy. The stripped-down site allows you to check the top-10 movies in your queue, add to the list, and read brief summaries of movies, all from a web-enabled phone or PDA. What a tremendous idea.

Via JK On the Run.

AOL just announced that it will be getting into the movie downloading game, as AOL Video will be offering several movie titles at prices ranging from $9.99 to $19.99. In joining Movielink, CinemaNow, and Guba, AOL becomes the fourth major online movie downloading store.

Presently, AOL is offering movie content from Sony, but deals are in the works with 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Brothers. The Fox and Sony deals will include TV content.

Thanks to paidcontent.org for the scoop.

The relationship between Netflix and the independent film business has generated a lot of discussion as of late. The discussion is often tacked onto a discussion of the “Long-Tail Economics” theory, which more or less predicts that the boom in internet retail will result in a consumer market that is driven not by ‘hits’ but my a diverse conglomeration of a niche purchases (the “long tail”).

While numbers suggest that Netflix’s revenue is predominantly hits-driven, one only has to look at the size of its library to see that these numbers don’t rule out a deep philosophical committment to offering independent and rare films. Recent comments given by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos in an interview with Wired Magazine (and brought to my attention by Christopher at Deep Structure) strengthen the notion that Netflix is committed to independent film-making.

While Sarandos reveals Netflix’s plan work out distribution deals to someday rent-out every movie screened at Sundance, Hastings one-ups him by revealing that the company’s real goal is to get every movie SUBMITTED to Sundance, not just the ones that get screened. Not surprisingly, Netflix is also reportedly interested in forming its own production company. Don’t forget, Bahman Naraghi (the new VP of Original Content at Netflix) used to be Executive VP of Finance and Operations at Miramax (i.e. the studio that arguably started the indy-film boom thanks to its release of films like “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” and “Pulp Fiction”).

Sometimes media lightning rod Spike Lee’s recently released HBO Documentary “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts,” got mostly positive reviews following its premiere earlier this week. The documentary tells the story of Katrina’s aftermath, and pulls no punches in criticizing the government for its lackluster response to the catastrophe–which Lee considers more of a man-made than a natural disaster.

It is clear that Lee intends the film to be a “call to action” of sorts, as is most evidenced by his appearance and comments at a screening in Martha’s Vineyard. Social activism is not, of course, foreign to the director of “Do the Right Thing,” “Malcolm X,” and many other, lesser-known films (like the wonderful “Clockers”) that deal with racial issues.

The film has, of course, generated much controversy, given the fact that it gives voice to conspiracy theories which blame the levees’ collapse on intentional governmental action and that it all but ignores local politicians and Democrats in its blame-slinging. A heated discussion of the film’s merits in this regard can be found atWizbangblog, where Kevin Aylward’s negative take on the doc generated quite a response.

Last weekend, the much hyped Samuel L. Jackson vehicle (and aptly-named) “Snakes on a Plane” came in number one at the box office, but failed to generate the gross ticket sales that producers had hoped for. The campy horror flick generated only about $15 million in sales, a far cry from what the amount of internet hype that accompanied it would lead one to expect. Studios had expected opening weekend ticket sales of around $20 million dollars.

The film only cost, however a modest $30 million dollars, which suggests that it will be profitable in the long run. I think that the “it’s so bad it’s good” feeling of this film translates better to DVD anyways. This is the type of movie you whip out at 3am after a long night of drinking, not one you drop 10 bucks and a trip to the theater on. As long as its theatrical release effort breaks even, the publicity its generates should dramatically boost DVD sales and make the whole project a big success.

I haven’t seen the film yet myself, but jelewis8 at FringeBlog says that the film delivers on its promise of cheap, mindless fun. But as always, the quality of the film-going experience says nothing about its financial success. I think that Snakes on a Plane’s less-than-ideal performance this week can be explained by the fact that the buzz it generated basically encapsulated what it is all about. Just TALKING about the film seems to be good enough; there really isn’t much more to be expected from actually seeing it. Marianne Richmond, however, has an interesting take on the success/failure of buzz marketing that Snakes on a Plane exemplifies. See her post on Resonance Partnership here.

[Source].

The low-ball offer given by Viacom CEO Summer Redstone to Tom Cruise for the renewal of his recently expired contract with Paramount is itself a sure indication that the company has been dying to get rid of him. But any doubts about this can be easily dismissed by Redstone’s recent comments in the Wall Street Journal.

In response to questions about the end of Paramount’s relationship with Cruise, Redstone is quoted as saying: “It’s nothing to do with his acting ability, he’s a terrific actor…but we don’t think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot.” Apparently, Redstone blames the relative failure of Cruise projects like “Mission Impossible III” on Cruise’s recently “eccentric” behavior. This behavior certainly got Cruise’s name in the paper, but estimates suggest that it also cost Paramount more than $100 million in ticket sales. Cruise is reportedly planning to set up his movie studio independently with partner Paula Wagner and both are, unsurprisingly, claiming that the break-up with Paramount was strictly their choice.

We all could see this coming. I, for one, was always kind of luke-warm on Cruise; he’s a good and reliable, but not great, actor. I didn’t see MI3, but then again I didn’t see MI or MI2 either (actually, that’s not true; I fell asleep during MI2). The fact that MI became a franchise with two sequels had me confused even without reference to Cruise’s recently exposed insanity. I therefore think that it’s tough to tell if it really was his public nutiness that caused the failure of that film (a meager $393 million globally, which isn’t much, given Cruise’s salary chunk and cost of the film), especially since “War of the Worlds,” which was released right after his infamous Oprah appearance performed much more solidily at the box office ($590 million globally). But I will say that, even though I liked “War of the Worlds,” his off-screen antics made his on-screen presence a bit distracting for at least the first 20 minutes of the film. And any time you have to put that kind of effort into forgetting who an actor is in order to watch a movie, its usually a bad sign for that actor’s career. My guess is that Paramount cut ties before Cruise could do something more embarrassing than what he has already done (i.e. something that takes the audience more than 20 minutes to forget).

So is this the right move for Paramount? Leora at TomKatCrazy.com thinks that it is, but I’m ultimately not so sure. MI3 could have crapped out simply because it was a crappy movie. I do agree, however, with the conclusion reached by I’m Not Obsessed: this is certainly not the death of Cruise’s career. We will assuredly hear from him again, even if only through his soon-to-be-started indy production company.

UPDATE: Click here for an interesting article suggesting that Cruise was fired to cover-up Viacom’s recent overall poor performance.

UPDATE 2: Inside reports suggest that Redstone has grossly exaggerated Cruise’s salary in order to make it look like he was getting an egregious amount of money, thereby justifying his release. See the full story here.

UPDATE 3: Another rumor has Redstone’s wife as a major player in the decision to fire Cruise!

[Original Source]