Slashdot Mirror
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."
I could really care less about the box office. Everytime I go to the movies...
1. The food portions are smaller than a few years ago.
2. The price is WAY WAY higher!
3. People's cell phones are going off.
4. Some a**hole is giving comentary to the person sitting next to him/her.
Overall, not a very pleasant experience.
They said the same thing when VCRs came out, and that certainly wasn't the end of the movie industry.
Don't they always say this? Wasn't it said about videos, CD Video, cable? Who produces the DVD's? OK, so if people stop going to theatres then thats a revenue stream down but more income from DVD rentals, sales, airlines, pay per view, airlines ....
I really wish they'd just see that technology opens up new revenue streams faster than it closes them down.
because people have completely forgotten how to behave in a theater. I can't count the number of times I've had a movie ruined by inconsiderate dolts talking, or ANSWERING THEIR CELLPHONES and having an entire conversaion during the movie. Except for major blockbusters, I wait until I can rent it on DVD.
I'm not sure why someone modded this as Funny because I think zensmile makes good points. It costs a lot to go to the movies and the experience is inferior to what I can have in my home. Here's a few more additions to the list:
5. Sticky floors6. Six or seven trailers before the show starts
7. No control over sound, picture quality, environmental conditions
8. Just too many people in general
If the film industry starts hurting for business, they can start to work on making the theater a more enjoyable experience. Until then, I'm just going to wait a few months and get a better experience at a better price in my own place.
GMD
watch this
The movie industry did basically the same thing to live theater. it still lives as a niche product for those who want it, but it is not nearly as pervasive as it was.
just because you have managed to earn a living doing something in the past, that is no guarantee of being able to do so in the future.
technology changes the rules, and some industries suffer, but other industries prosper.
the movie industry needs to realize that they are not "entitled" to make money from traditional movies, they must provide us a reason to do pay them for the experience.
if they made movies that were worth the extra $5 to see on a big screen vs. my tv, then maybe I they wouldn't have this problem.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
It'll be as dead as...
...movie theatres after TV.
...Live music after radio.
...theatre after movies.
...radio after TV.
There's something that going to the movies can provide that DVDs can't. The movies provide the whole "going out" experience, and the crowd. How many times have you gone to a movie and remarked "when that happened, the whole crowd laughed, yelled, groaned, etc."
Staying at home with a DVD and the microwave is lame. Dinner and a movie is cool.
Better yet, we may see more innovation in theatres like the Cinema and Drafthouse. If you've never been to one of those, you don't know what you're missing.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'll chalk this up to "We only have 10 years left on this planet!" stated by actor Ted Danson about 10 years ago (also from Hollywood).
Look at how piracy has destroyed the software industry! Oh, it hasn't? But people have been pirating software for 10 years, how can software vendors still be making money?!!! Funny, isn't it?
My hope for the future is that we get rid of alot of the "Fame and Fortune" aspect of acting. In the future (thanks to the Internet), I believe that anyone will be able to broadcast anything they want, and may become famous, but not necessarily rich.
Hollywood makes lots of great movies, and a lot of bad ones. But they've only been around for less than 100 years. They may simply be a short-lived 20th century phenomena, with other forms of entertainment eventually taking over. Don't boohoo about it. If they disappear, it will be because nobody wants their stuff, not because everyone wants DVD's...
For the record, I've never put off "going to the movies" with my wife, simply so that I could watch it on DVD/VHS/PPV three months later...
Ticket sales will improve as the economy improves. Theaters will install new technology to make the movie-going experience better. Ticket prices will increase leading to bigger and bigger box-office takes. DVD sales will remain strong. Hollywood will continue to thrive. Piracy will be a secondary factor (as it is now) until fat bandwidth is ubiquitous; after that, it will be controlled by social factors. MPAA will continue to believe that they represent the forces of free speech; people like me will continue to laugh in their faces.
Hollywood will face a major defeat, however, it won't be economic. It will be legal. Copyright extentions will be cut down by the Supreme Court and DMCA will either be stricken down or repealed. Hollywood will then have to resort to marketing (gasp!) to prevent mass piracy.
Finding God in a Dog
It's not the "theater experience" that attracts me. It's not the first-viewer opportunity. It's certainly not the overpriced popcorn and soda or the need to drive fifteen minutes across town with my entire family in tow. And it's not, nor will it ever be, the ability to recreate sounds in 6.1 speakers around the entire three-dimensional room.
No, it's the big screen I like. Mitsubishi electronics' best efforts notwithstanding, home theater will never be as impressive as a screen the size of an auditorium wall with all the characters projected in incredible detail. The movies I really love I go to see three, four times on those big screens, just because I prefer to watch a movie "up there" than "down here".
When I can afford to outfit an entire room of my house for darkened projected DVD movie experiences, I may reconsider. For now it's easier just to spend $3 apiece at the cheapie theater.
Not to mention product comercials before a movie you have paid for...
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.
What I'd like to see happen is for studios to make less use of expensive, superfluous special effects and quit pandering to the silver-spoon prima donna crybaby megastars like Julia Roberts, and start hiring equally-capable, but far lesser-known (and thus, far cheaper) actors, like Guy Pearce. Of course, now that he's becoming popular, you'd have to opt for someone else, unless he's willing to continue working at his "Memento" salary levels. This way, we'd get more diversity on screen, and the movies would be far cheaper to produce (and dare I dream, far cheaper to watch?).
Am I the only one who, when I see a Tom Hanks movie (and don't get me wrong, Tom is an amazing actor), I have a lot of trouble accepting him in whatever role he's supposed to be? I keep seeing Forrest Gump. Of course, he was great, but he's still got that recognition, and sometimes, that can hurt a movie. I mean, come on, George Clooney as Batman? Sure, he did a great job, but I kept seeing the doctor from "E.R." I think this was one of the reasons I liked "Memento" so much - I'd never seen Guy Pearce before.
By the way, there's no way that the industry will die in a mere 3 years. That's insanely fast. They couldn't die that fast if they tried. It would take nothing short of some extreme economics and a perfect sequence of disastrous coincidences and events to eliminate such a massive industry so quickly.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
...but theaters. The movie studios will keep making movies, and if they can't make as much on dvd sales then they reduce the cost of making movies (lower pay, increase productivity, the usual etc.). The worst that can happen is that theaters go out of business, and I see no reason why that would really cause movie studios to go down. Heck, with the focus off of getting people into theaters, maybe the number and quality of films released each year could rise. Maybe not to the level of the book industry (production costs too different), but along those lines.
How can one compare movie earnings from a few years ago to today? The economy is the exact opposite today as it was a few years ago. Back in the day we all had a little extra cash to spend on the outrageous 10 bucks a pop price to watch a movie in a theater.
Now that we are in lean times of course I, and many others in a similar situation, are not going to go out to the movies as often as once was.
We're all feeling the crunch McCallum, you are not immune to it.
Insert your own cheap shot about the drop being off due to rather poor story telling and execution for the last two Star Wars movies.
So don't blame the internet and kids with fat pipes. Try looking closer to home for the real reason things are so green right now.
In the 50's and 60's they said TV will kill the film industry.
In the late 70's/early 80's they said the VCR will kill the film industry.
Now Rick McCallum is claiming that DVD will kill the film industry.
He claims that "single movie that can survive on box office gross alone". That may be true, but only because of natural competition. The total revenue for a movie in the day and age is theater release + home release. That TOTAL revenue is what pays salaries and production costs. What, did he think the DVD was going to be just pure profit? Actors aren't making 20 million just based on theater release.
But it is unlikely that theaters are going away anytime soon. Why? Because the studios control the supply and demand for movies (for the most part). You pay $8.00 to go to a movie because you can't see it on tape, even if you had a movie quality home theater. And it is going to be decades before >50% of the public has movie quality home theaters anyway. They release the movie on DVD only after noone is seeing it in the theaters anymore.
Now piracy may be an issue and that is one of the points he seems to be making. However, in order to be all that widespread everyone would need T1 lines to their houses and the total bandwidth of the Internet would have to be tripled. Most people will still be on dialup in 3 years, so mass use of a Napster-clone is unlikely to be feasible. Unless people are willing to stay online for 2 weeks to download a movie.
Brian Ellenberger
When TV came out (circa 1950s), people from the movie studios claimed it would be the death of the big screen cinema. They adapted and survived and made more money than before.
When VCRs came out (circa 1980), people from the movie studios claimed it would be the death of the big screen cinema. They adapted and survived and made more money than before.
When so-called piracy came out (circa 1980s), people from the movie studios claimed it would be the death of the big screen cinema. They adapted and survived and made more money than before.
Now that DVDs and overly expensive home theaters are out, someone from the movie studios is claiming it will be the death of the big screen cinema.
These people really have no clue what they're talking about, do they?
Come on, people. Yeah, cinemas are grossly overpriced, but people keep going to them in droves. There's a very heavy social aspect there that no one seems to realize. Your family isn't "going out together" if you rent a movie (or stream it from a server) onto your own 30" screen. It's not really a date with your girlfriend if you're not paying for her rip-off slime popcorn at a theater.
Yeah, I'm sure this guy is speaking for himself, not for the company. That doesn't make him any less of a short-sighted dork for saying it.
I have full faith and confidence in the ability of American business to figure out how to make a buck no matter what the technology is.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
And they're not making money from DVD sales? I'm sorry, what does it cost... $.05 per disc? Probably less? The movie makers will continue to make money irregardless. And if the movie theatres can't stay open well that's just too bad. They should have figured out a way to make us want to come and put up with their ridiculous prices and all the annoying patrons that you have to sit with. I'm sorry, I'm still paying, I'm not going to feel sorry for them.
Before they start delaying DVD releases, they need to start making better movies again instead of simply trying to feed you the next big catchphrase to utter around the water cooler.
.. how many of the folks that bought Austin Powers 2 on DVD would have bought it had they had to wait another year or two? Nobody gives a shit about most of these movies once they've faded from the pop culture venacular; a process that only takes 4 or 5 months after the movies runs in theatres.
.. the faster you get into the cultural conciouness (with exploitive or cheap advertising), the faster you fall out of it. The feedback loop between the producer and the consumer *can* get too tight, and the movie industry as it stands today is a very good example of this. Watch for the pendulum to start going the other way; hopefully with a neo-Hollywood instead of the one we're stuck with today.
Cause lets face it
Entertainment today is more expoitive than it ever has been. They ploy on your material and cultural associations, but rarely have anything to say that is applicable beyond the cultural microsecond in which they are released and promoted.
In fact, this is part of a bigger problem in the whole 'Business at the speed of light' goal we got caught up in
"Old man yells at systemd"
About 3 years ago in Canada we had a projectionists' union strike. It didn't end well. The frequency of fuckups in my moviegoing experience has at least tripled. They are constantly threading the film up - especially first releases - with the wrong lens (i.e. anamorphic vs. standard). Film breaks are more common, and apparently unrepairable now.
They run innumerable ads before movies now. When I hear the voice say 'and now a word from our sponsor...' I feel like standing up and spouting off for 10 minutes because I am their goddam sponsor.
The popcorn prices are laughable. The soda/pop prices are fucking astronomical.
Mobile phones. Laser pointers. Hell, GameBoys.
The waits have gotten longer.
First-run movies often get cycled 24-7 so the prints fall apart faster. Which means you need to see it earlier (see previous point).
I liked the theatre experience before; there's a certain crowd-vibe that is really enjoyable, sometimes even saving you from a bad film (the complete derision shown in the last Godzilla remake was spectacular. I've never seen a whole movie openly, loudly mocked by the entire audience before. And it was fun.)
These days though... being able to control the lighting and sound perfectly, being able to pause to go to the can, eating my own sensibly-priced junk food... like most, I make a judgement call when a movie comes out. If I'm dying to see it, I'll go. Those movies are rare these days.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
...when they STOP showing commercials to a captive audience before the movie. The excuse that the commercials are buffering increasing ticket prices is, IMO, bunk. Tickets here in Cinci have risen about 20% in the last couple of years. I used to go to about 10 movies a year, now it's down to about 3 and those are *matinees*.
Actually, a couple of theaters in the east bay area where I live are addressing just these issues and doing a gangbusters job of it. The Parkway theater is a small brewpub/theater environment that carefully crafts their movie schedule to theme nights and provides special nights for things like people with small children and they do boffo business at $5.00 a ticket.
The Paramount Theater, in Oakland, CA provides a great old-time experience, including prize giva-aways, live organ music and a ton of other fun extras, again for a low ticket price, and they are packed for every show I have atteneded there.
Theaters that keep cramming in more seats and charging higher ticket prices for the same sub-standard experience SHOULD start to die, but specialty houses that cater to their clientelle will be able to keep picking up the slack and hopefully spread out from their hardcore urban niche to the rest of the country. Which for me would be a good thing.
And the death of the blockbuster would just be icing on the cake for me.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
It costs about $8-9 USD for a ticket for one person. If a couple is going, that's $16-18 just to get in the door, and there are a rather large number of DVDs that sell for that price (including new releases.)
Anyone with kids is hopelessly punished by the ticket prices, not to mention the confectionary stand. (Suuuure you can convince the kids to skip that $2 medium drink and those $3.50 candies!)
And for what? To have your feet stick to the floor? To listen to the idiot with the cell phone, or the couple/group that spend more time talking than watching? Perhaps for the joy of screaming "Focus! Focus!" when the monkey upstairs in the projection booth lets everything go fuzzy?
As to "going bankrupt", maybe Hollywood's big money directors and stars will be forced to do what many of us in the tech industry did last year -- take a pay cut in order to keep working. I realize 10-15% cuts for them amount to a few million dollars a year in some cases, but they can afford it far better than "normal" people can.
And if I hear another MPAA or RIAA exec trying to justify the prices as being necessary to cover the costs of producing the "failures", I think I'm going to puke. No other industry I know of tries to justify their costs by pointing to perpetual mis-management, poor marketing, and poor salary negotiation skills. It's called "ROI" people, and if you can't grasp that basic concept and deal with it you should be out of business!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
For instance, I used to go to movies a lot. I used to have a main stream movie theaters close to me. That theater is now closed and I have to go much farther to another theater where i have to pay for parking, where they have several concesion stands but even on busy weekends they only have one open, usually with only two staff, to serve the entire 30 screens, and where they clean up the during the credits. And don't get me started on the five minutes of unrelated product commericals. I never had these problems at my old theater.
Going to a movie is no longer a pleasent experience, and it has nothing to do with cell phones, or people talking, or babies. It has to do with the number of screens and the number of seats that is necceary to show a main stream movie. Movie going should not be something that has to be scheduled, planned, and carried out in a careful operation. It is supposed to be fun.
So, I mostly go to the occasional art flick where I can drop in, buy a ticket, and enjoy the show without having the experience ruined by excessive lines, cleaning staff, or overt commercials.
And, in time, I may get a home theater, and more DVDs. Of course, if the DVDs continue to become increasing draconian, I may just abandon the whole movie going expereince
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What I don't understand is why no one has ever filed a suit against theaters, especially the big ones like AMC and Showcase for price gouging at the consession stands.
Since they say you can't bring in your own stuff, forcing someone who say, is hypoglycemic or has a bunch of kids who will make noise unless they have something to shove into their mouths to pay those prices to keep their blood surgar up is tantamount to extortion.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
What's the difference, experience-wise, between watching a movie in a theatre and renting/buying one?
Going to a theatre is immersive. There are (ideally - screaming children and cells aside) no distractions at a movie. You're completely involved with what's going on on-screen. Same thing happens in a play - they darken the theatre for a reason, and it's not to see the actors better.
Watching a movie in your typical living-room is completely different. You know you're watching a movie, you don't become as involved in it.
I think $10 for a movie is ludicrous (I grew up with a $4 second-run moviehouse on the corner of my street). I can't really afford it, but I go anyway. Why? Because it's a change of scenery, it's a night out, it's not sitting in my living-room. And because, for any given movie, I have a better shot of enjoying it in the theatre's immersive environment.
Triv
Claiming that it's the consumer's fault they're in trouble is bullshit. The can easily save their own asses.
1. Stop charging more than the DVD costs for two people to see the movie in the theatre. And I don't mean raise DVD prices either. There is no reason it should cost more than 10$ for two people to see a movie, or more than 8 for that matter.
2. Stop paying Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwartzniger 40 million to be in a movie. Easy.
3. Make movies worth seeing and not these overhyped pieces of garbage like the last two star wars have been. In most cases a movie CAN wait, I've got better things to do.
For now I'm more than happy to watch DVD's on my 53" widescreen in the privacy of my own house. I don't have to worry about people moving past me because they bought the 72oz soda, or a bawling child. If Hollywood doesn't like that, fix their problems, don't make it out like this is my fault.
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, "In today's Hollywood, box office revenue makes up less than a quarter of a film's total take. The largest piece of a movie's money pie comes from sales and rentals of its DVDs." It goes on to note that while "Monster's Inc." grossed $255 million at the box office it is expected to generate $380 million+ from DVDs (DVD sales have already topped $140 million). Seems like hollywood will be running pretty strong even if box office sales do decline.
In general, it seems unlikely that an industry could destory itself economically when the products in competition both generate revenue for the same industry. Of course, it might have some effect on quality. The low overhead for DVD production relative to theater releases allow crappy films to generate profits. Something akin to what video did to the porn industry a la "Boogie Nights." Of course, this also means good things for indy films and pieces that appeal only a cross-section of society, which could yield some high quality pictures.
The funny thing is, people have bemoaned the impending death of the box office since time immemorial. The first thing that was going to kill movies was television. And true, it did (along with the busting-up of the vertical monopolies held by movie studios) fundamentally change the movie-going experience, turning what had been a whole evening's worth of entertainment (newsreel, shorts, B movie, feature) into a single movie presentation. On the other hand, it also improved movie presentations dramatically, as the studios went to panoramic widescreen and more use of color to draw audiences back out of the home.
And then there was Valenti's prediction that VHS would kill movies. As you can see, it hasn't.
I don't think that DVDs necessarily mean the end of movies, either. Though if it means studios start to concentrate on quality, putting an end to the sort of crap movies that seem to dominate the box office these days, that could be a blessing. (No more Adam Sandler, please! No more Tom Green!) There are some films that you just have to see on the big screen, and I've been known to drive all the way from Springfield, Missouri to Kansas City to see films that may not make it down here. (I'm considering such an expedition to see Spirited Away, for instance, even though I've already seen it on a DIVX ripped from the Japanese DVD.) But I could be an exception to the general rule...
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
that they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years.
This is the first good news I've heard on Slashdot this week!
Although I think he's being a little bit optimistic on how soon this will happen. Have a look on IMDB at how much money even the worst recent movies have made vs. their production cost.. That's a disgusting profit margin for any industry.
Protect our freedoms! Fight DMCA / CBDTPA / SDMI / SSSSA / Palladium / etc. Boycott Big Media!
Actually, I just read a very interesting message posted by a guy who did accounting for movie theaters.
He claims he has never once seen a theater that would have been profitable if it wasn't for selling concessions!
Apparently, Hollywood screws over the theaters pretty bad on their cost to show new films. (Typically, they do a 90/10 deal. Hollywood gets 90% of whatever a new movie earns in ticket sales, and the theater keeps the other 10%. After the film runs for so many weeks, the amount drops on a sliding scale. So after a few weeks, it might be 70/30 instead of 90/10 - but lots of people already saw the movie by then.)
Furthermore, Hollywood often forces the theaters to enter a contract guaranteeing they'll show the movie for no fewer than a set number of weeks. (That partially explains why so many of the mom and pop theaters, and maybe even some of the drive-thrus, have closed down. To offer a decent selection of movies all showing at once, you have to have a large number of screens.)
For old movies, they sometimes offer a deal where a theater can simply buy it, instead of renting it - and then can make 100% of the profit showing it whenever they like. This is rarely done, however. (Hollywood makes exceptions to this rule for perennial favorites like "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", where a theater would obviously rather just buy it outright if they could.)
So what you really have is a business model of selling people food and drinks, not making money showing movies. That's why the stuff seems like such a rip-off.