Do 100% of "box office receipts" go to the production company? Or is a portion of that overhead for the theater showing the movie?
Also I think you're really missing something important, which the entertainment industry is also ignoring... "all you can eat" is not the only way to do it, there is a market for "a la carte" as well. My wife has been trying to find a way to pay to stream 3 or 4 TV channels only, she specifically does not want to pay for ESPN or other trash television we won't watch. It would be even better if we could find it without ads. Of course such a model is probably unthinkable for content producers that want to bundle their losers in with their winners in order to boost their value.
I don't think theaters make much, if anything at all, from ticket receipts. That's why concession are so overprice. Some theaters even flat-out tell you this.
I think the "a la carte" model is much more realistic than the "all you can eat" model but I don't think that model solves what the parent comment was saying. The a la carte model doesn't really work that well for movies either. I still think people would complain and go to torrents. "Why should I pay $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones when I can torrent it?" will still be a question but that's already better than things were two years ago when it was "Why do I have to pay a $70 cable subscription PLUS $15 a month to watch Game of Thrones?"
Theaters get an increasing percentage as the movie get's older. First weekend they get ~0-25%, but they also fill the seats. "after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales" However, the seats are mostly empty. http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-thea...
I would guess Hollywood get's around 80% of overall ticket sales, but it can very a lot. However, production costs can be less than advertising costs. So, the production side might get 60% of stated ticket sales and that's the percentage that Netflix would need to cover.
That said, if Netflix had every movie ever for 25$ a month they would also likely have far more customers and probably be revenue neutral for Hollywood. But, at the same time every studio would want a larger cut and the only way it would work is if there where similar rules for streaming movies as streaming songs.
Also I think you're really missing something important, which the entertainment industry is also ignoring... "all you can eat" is not the only way to do it, there is a market for "a la carte" as well. My wife has been trying to find a way to pay to stream 3 or 4 TV channels only, she specifically does not want to pay for ESPN or other trash television we won't watch. It would be even better if we could find it without ads. Of course such a model is probably unthinkable for content producers that want to bundle their losers in with their winners in order to boost their value.