This is a pertinent and valid question for all of us to ask ourselves. Can Small films survive?
When we say we all, we mean audiences too. They may say that they don't have any part in making a film but the success depends in their hands.
Unless and until they decide to watch a film in theater, the amount of money collected by a film will always be restricted and low.
Hence, they need Satellite and Digital platforms to give them some money to at least recover the costs or be in profit zone. When an audience member is not willing to watch it in theater, he or she, might stream it at their leisure on these platforms.
Hence, on face value, a movie gets minimum amounts from streaming sites like Amazon Prime and Netflix. But looking at their logos on posters, people are waiting for 40 days to stream them while theatres are waiting for crowds like mother with an open embrace. Problem is child isn't coming at all.
So, the producers decided to go for 60 days minimum period as 50-60 days has become the maximum time a film can run at the theatres even if it is a hit or even a blockbuster. The run seems be shortening up and Digital services are shortening them even further. Hence, the rule came into existence.
Now, streaming sites are offering lesser amounts than before. For big films, the market doesn't fluctuate too much but this is a big affect on small films.
People might think about watching those films when they are available and they could forget about them too. This could result in streaming sites going for big labels more and small films which could benefit with high prices offered for early streaming might not have such advantage.
Surely, small films will have to depend on marketing and promoting more, which will in turn increase their costs further. But the audience members do not really go by all this analogies. They watch a trailer, if content attracts they rush to the theatre else stay back.
It seems easy for makers to come up with flexible plans according to the theatrical business but that will eliminate table profit for a producer which will make him or her to try another film. It all seems more unfair to small films but the truth remains, 'Content is the King!'
When we say we all, we mean audiences too. They may say that they don't have any part in making a film but the success depends in their hands.
Unless and until they decide to watch a film in theater, the amount of money collected by a film will always be restricted and low.
Hence, they need Satellite and Digital platforms to give them some money to at least recover the costs or be in profit zone. When an audience member is not willing to watch it in theater, he or she, might stream it at their leisure on these platforms.
Hence, on face value, a movie gets minimum amounts from streaming sites like Amazon Prime and Netflix. But looking at their logos on posters, people are waiting for 40 days to stream them while theatres are waiting for crowds like mother with an open embrace. Problem is child isn't coming at all.
So, the producers decided to go for 60 days minimum period as 50-60 days has become the maximum time a film can run at the theatres even if it is a hit or even a blockbuster. The run seems be shortening up and Digital services are shortening them even further. Hence, the rule came into existence.
Now, streaming sites are offering lesser amounts than before. For big films, the market doesn't fluctuate too much but this is a big affect on small films.
People might think about watching those films when they are available and they could forget about them too. This could result in streaming sites going for big labels more and small films which could benefit with high prices offered for early streaming might not have such advantage.
Surely, small films will have to depend on marketing and promoting more, which will in turn increase their costs further. But the audience members do not really go by all this analogies. They watch a trailer, if content attracts they rush to the theatre else stay back.
It seems easy for makers to come up with flexible plans according to the theatrical business but that will eliminate table profit for a producer which will make him or her to try another film. It all seems more unfair to small films but the truth remains, 'Content is the King!'