Star Wars Producer Says Box Office is Doomed

Cutriss writes "Seen at CNN, this article interviews Rick McCallum, longtime producer at LucasFilms. McCallum says that DVDs will be responsible for the downfall of the movie industry *without* taking piracy into account, due to the fact that people think the home theatre experience is just as good, or better than the big screens, and they know that in five months, the DVD will be out on the market. Of course, his claim that "studios are barely breaking even" falls on deaf ears when I hear about 9-digit salaries for individual actors in a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept. He also mentions, of course, that DVD piracy and movie "sharing" groups will only speed up the cycle, and that they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years."

Comments

Re:Too Bad...

[mosch]

Yeah, the nerve of them, charging $9 so that you can sit in a $150 seat, watching a movie on a $8,000 screen, being displayed from a $90,000 projector, that's playing a $50,000 film while listening to a $100,000 sound system that's located in a $2,000,000 building!

I mean christ, they must think we're crazy!

* figures used in the above are based on a THX theater with a Barco DLP projector, showing a first-weekend movie

Re:But they keep breaking records!

[kdoherty]

I realize this guy is just a karma whore, but this is simply absurd.

6 or 7 years ago, I'd take my girlfriend to the local 3-screen theatre and we'd watch a first-run movie for about $5 a head, plus a shared $8 combo. Total cost, after taxes, $18. Now, the ticket price at my local 12-screen megaplex is $13 per ticket, and the cheapest popcorn+soda combo runs $9 plus tax. Total cost, after taxes, $38.

Now, at $18 for a night out, it was worth it. But once the cost of the experience exceeds the price of owning the movie on DVD, I get a little hesitant about running out to the theatre every weekend. So now, unless it's a movie that will truly benefit from the big-screen experience (i.e., Clones), I simply wait and buy the DVD. That's right, I buy the DVD, even if I'm not sure I'll like the movie. Know why? Because it's still cheaper than seeing it in the theatre, and plus, I get to keep the movie. So even if the movie sucked, hey, at least I still have something to show for it. If it had sucked on the big screen, all I'd walk out with would be some butter on my fingers.

Earth to dipshit, we have this thing called rental. For that 18-38$ that you're spending on a DVD, I spend the same amount of money to rent 5 movies from Blockbuster. New releases have to be back in a day or two, but everything else can be kept out for a week at my blockbuster. Buying these movies on DVD that you don't even know if you like is just stupid. You can rent them for far cheaper, and how often are you going to watch these DVDs you buy anyway?

I think this was one of the reasons I liked "Memento" so much - I'd never seen Guy Pearce before.

You're an uncultured clod. Guy Pearce gave a great lead performance (well, shared with Russell Crowe) in L.A. Confidential, a movie released in 1997. It received 9 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, and won Best Adapted Screenplay (Kim Basinger also won Best Supporting Actress).

You clearly are arguing from a position of staggeringly profound ignorance. In the future, when you feel the urge to post, DON'T.

Re:movie theaters suck...

[AuMatar]

Re you kidding? Losing a brain doesn't prevent you from participating in Slashdot discussions.

Hell, it actually helps!