Can Barbie Break Netflix?
A couple weeks back, I wrote a post making the case for why I believed Netflix was now making a mistake in not allowing their films to debut in movie theaters. Not all of them, mind you. Not even most of them. But for certain films where it makes sense, it's silly not to have this tool – which serves as a marketing accelerant (albeit an expensive one) and an immediate prestige booster, if nothing else – in your modern distribution tool belt. My bet was that this would be the next dogma Netflix caved on. Well, they haven't caved yet, but a couple updates.
Which have a link – in pink.
A couple days after my column came news that Netflix had lost a bidding war for the latest adaptation of “Wuthering Heights". This one is a red-hot property given it's the next writing/directing project from Emerald Fennell after her over-the-top but zeitgeist-piercing Saltburn. And she's bringing that film's Jacob Elordi with her to star here as well. But the main star? Barbie herself, Margot Robbie, who is also producing the film, just as she did with the billion-dollar-plus Barbie.
So yeah, all the money was going to get thrown at this project. And the company that threw the most, reportedly, was Netflix. At yet they lost the project. Why? As Nicole Sperling reported for The New York Times:
Netflix was willing to pay $150 million to have it.
But Ms. Robbie, who is producing the film with her husband, Tom Ackerley, and their business partner Josey McNamara, wanted to maintain her track record of making movies for traditional studios that put them into theaters.
That tipped the scales to Warner Bros.
A few days later, Robbie's Barbie writer and director, Greta Gerwig, found herself in a tangential battle. As Matt Belloni reported for Puck:
I broke the news on Twitter/X today that Greta Gerwig and Netflix have found a potential compromise over her desire for a meaningful theatrical release of her planned Chronicles of Narnia movie. It’s still just conversations, but under the scenario being discussed, Imax would release the big-budget film in up to 2,000 theaters worldwide over an exclusive period, possibly three to five weeks, after which it would drop on Netflix. So if Narnia is a holiday movie, it could be in Imax on Thanksgiving, then on Netflix for Christmas. Gerwig would get the prestige and the premium screens she was largely denied on Barbie (thanks to Oppenheimer), and Netflix would keep its big event movie and the ability to say it didn’t cave on its aversion to theaters because Imax is niche and premium. Plus, for Netflix, this would prevent the potential disaster scenario of an A-list filmmaker bailing on a potential franchise over the theater issue.
He goes on to note that Gerwig may be negotiating this theatrical release herself directly with IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond. And yes, it sounds like a clever way to get what she wants for her next and undoubtedly massive movie, while also sticking with Netflix and allowing them to save some face because it wouldn't be the typical wide theatrical release.
But the whole thing is stupid – Gerwig shouldn't have to help Netflix save anything. They should want to do this! Releasing Narnia in IMAX for a few weeks before going to Netflix would be a massive win/win for both sides. Actually, it's more like a win/win/win because Gerwig gets her theatrical release, IMAX gets a massive title from a top talent to showcase over the holidays, and Netflix gets to have their top talent-driven massive title showcased whilst making undoubtedly a shit-ton of money at the box office, which they would undoubtedly get a huge cut of!
It's ridiculous that this is any kind of debate. And that Gerwig (apparently) had to go behind Netflix's back to cut such a deal herself. Netflix should be thanking her and Gelfond!
Presumably, Ted Sarandos is worried that this is a slippery slope. That all talent will now start demanding a theatrical component to their release. And you know what, they should! And Netflix should want to do it when it make sense. And when it doesn't, they should tell them as much and push the movie straight-to-Netflix.
Obviously, that's easier said than done – especially in a competitive environment. But to quote Don Draper, "that's what the money is for!" Just as Apple had to do recently with no less than George Clooney and Brad Pitt – two of the biggest stars in the world, of course – this isn't about ego, it's about business. It didn't make sense to release Wolfs wide in theaters if it wasn't going to perform well. Increasingly, every studio – especially those with streaming services – are going to have to have such discussions and make such calls.
This is the way (going forward).
And yes, Sarandos may think that by agreeing to a theatrical component it "cheapens" the Netflix release – and, to be honest, he's probably not entirely wrong there. But I would argue that Netflix has done far more to cheapen that window by releasing mediocre movies over the past many years. Again, this is the way now. Netflix should act fast to figure out how best to leverage it.
And while AMC is being deemed as the loser here (because they're not IMAX), they're a winner in this model too because they are the largest theater chain. While every filmmaker may want an IMAX release, most aren't going to get it given IMAX's limited screen capacity. And if many movies shouldn't be released in theaters and should instead go right to streaming, even more shouldn't be released in IMAX. Save that format for when it works. The big, epic content. Like Narnia.
This is not rocket science. Leverage all of these distribution methods when and where they make sense. It's not a one-size-fits-all model as it has been in the past. Some movies go straight to streaming. Some go to theaters then streaming. Some to IMAX then theaters then streaming. Some – gasp – to streaming and then, perhaps to theaters! Certainly sequels, if they worked well on streaming. All of this should be on the table. From Netflix on down. Even Ken would be able to figure this out.
One more thing: In his newsletter talking about the Netflix/Wuthering Heights situation, Lucas Shaw notes one additional interesting wrinkle involving another rejected bidder – Amazon:
The commerce company, which has emerged as the most compelling streaming service in the movie business, offered to put the film exclusively in theaters for more than a month — just like any studio — and then make it available on Prime Video, according to three people familiar with the talks.
It also discussed paying the filmmakers for each view on streaming, a new kind of compensation that could be a huge windfall for producers, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing private negotiations. This is the latest example of streaming services toying with new kinds of performance-based compensation. While many of the proposals amount to bonuses based on levels of viewership, this is one of the first that would pay someone for every view.
Participants would receive one rate for a viewer who signed up to Amazon to view the title and a lower rate for the average viewer. The potential payday from such deals would rival and could even exceed those from traditional studios — if the films prove to be hits. Artists would get paid in success for the performance in theaters and on streaming.
It sounds like Amazon is still early in figuring out such a model (and if it would even make sense, financially), but that would obviously also apply pressure to Netflix and the like. Especially if, as reported, Amazon is all about a theatrical release to augment their movies. Imagine that.
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler
M.G. Siegler