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."
More propaganda from the big money movie folks. They need to learn to budget better like everyone else.
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.
Good movies won't be doomed, something McCallum & Lucas might like to try making some time.
Even considering the worst case scenario - all major studios go out of business - that still leaves a wide open market for people to make movies and sell them for money.
It's completely absurd to think that movies MUST be made by companies named "Paramount Pictures" or "Universal Studios". There's nothing magical about those names. If they can't stay in business, or refuse to change enough to stay in business, then screw them. Time for new blood.
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
They said the same thing when VCRs came out, and that certainly wasn't the end of the movie industry.
George and I are just praying that we can finish 'Episode III' in time, before it's all over."
Its already over lad! George shot his own golden goose with Episode I. "Before its all over" reads to us fans like "before you suckers realize what tripe we are churning out each episode".
Starwars is dead. Long live Starwars.
Rapid Nirvana
Unless you have money to burn, nothing beats seeing a movie in the theater. Now if they'd just start putting real butter back on the popcorn...
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.
It doesn't matter to me. If I go to see the movie at the cinema on cheap night, it's 5-7 bucks. If I wait 5 months to rent it and watch it on my 20 year old TV and VCR, it's still 5-6 bucks... so why would I wait? I wouldn't.
Sure, the chump with $20,000 home theatre could wait, but obviously, money isn't a big factor in his decision.
Personally, I enjoy a night at the movies, but I also enjoy snuggling up at home to a movie with the girlfriend... I think both will be around for a while, personally.
I'm sure someone said similar things when VHS was introduced.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
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.
Then, once they go out of business, perhaps people that are interested in making good movies rather than huge incomes will start making movies.
And oh, here's a thought...who forces them to release a DVD in 6mo's??? Seems like they could delay the release of alternate distributions indefinately. Don't think so? Go ask Disney. They did it for a VERY long time.
If it's such a risk...release alternate media 1 or 2 years after the movie comes out.
Wow. That was hard to think of wasn't it. Perhaps if he stopped thinking about his next big rip-off-money-making-flick, such an obvious concept would be obvious to him too.
What was his point again...
The most popular movies are gating over $400 dollars in the US alone. (Star Wars, Spider-man, Fellowship of the Ring).
Those same movies will likely make killings in overseas markets.
And then, those movies will make even more on DVD sales around the world.
If Hollywood goes out of business, it'll only be caused by their own incompetence. Maybe Hollywood should drop the $30 million salaries and ridiculous special effects costs and concentrate on writing (or adapting) entertaining storylines for movies.
DVD's aren't going to kill Hollywood any more then VHS did. A big screen TV is not the same as a movie theater screen. However, I'd wager that the quality of movies is declining. For every gem like Fellowship of the Ring, there's 3 or 4 movies with the quality of "Kung Pow".
This is just a ploy to use the recent outcry over pirating as a wedge to push digital projectors and THX approved sound systems in theaters. Remember the toll free number given out for the SW trilogy re-release to report theaters with substandard equipment?
Pretty sneaky!
And don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
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.
Well, when a DVD I own permenantly costs ~$20 and a movie I see once costs ~$12.00 I have to agree that the Box office will die (if it does not change).
Anyway, my seats are comfier (no seat kickers), I can adjust my audio levels to match the film I'm watching and the drunk guy making a nuisance of himself is me!
crazy dynamite monkey
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...
It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who goes in to see his doctor because it hurts every time he bends in a strange way. The doctor tells him to stop bending that way, and the pain will go away.
If it really hurts the box office that the DVD is released just a few months after the theatrical release, why in hell are the doing it? They could always delay the DVD so that it only comes out a year or more after the theatrical release. That preserves the incentive to see the movie on the big screen, while letting the DVD come out close enough to the theatrical release that people can still remember the movie and want to buy it. What is wrong with these people?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The Buggy Whip Manufacturer's association is calling for legeslation to restrict, license and tax "horsless carrages" citing safety concerns.
Traveling Theater Companies call for legeslation to regulate the new "moving pictures" industry, citing flickering and health concerns.
The dairy industry seeks non-dairy product regulation and distinctive markings so that consumers will not be "duped" by "inferior" products.
Television networks are calling for increased regulation of Cable and Satellite Television providers citing "unfair competition".
Looks like these movie guys are a little slow on the uptake with the same old false logic.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Just like to point out that most actors don't make anywhere near as much money as the big ticket names. While it's true that they do make a significant amount of money, a 200,000$ per film take isn't an excessive amount of money when you look at the cost of living for California.
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
"Filmmakers love it because it more closely resembles the film made."
"[Movie-goers] are paying more attention to the fact that the movie will be out on DVD in just four or five months at a rental fee of $4 or $5."
Filmmakers love DVDs, movie-goers love DVDs. Who loses? Popcorn manufacturers.
Somebody get a violin please,
Or One Singing Fat Lady.
Thank you.
young people aren't going to the same movie five or six times a la "Titanic."
Maybe the movie companies aren't making a film as good as Titanic every year. Personally, I didn't care for it, but a lot of people really liked it. I don't see the same kind of passion for "Dude, where's my car?".
Filmmakers love it [DVD] because it more closely resembles the film made
Then maybe the movie studios and theatres should listen more closely to the filmmakers before eviscerating the movie for general release?
I don't think there's a single movie that can survive on box office gross alone; it just doesn't exist anymore. A theatrical gross can't hack it anymore, and the business is barely surviving right now
27 movies so far this year have grossed over $100 million. If you can't put a movie onto film for less than a million dollars a minute I suggest you need to control your costs a little better. Taco suggested paying actors less. That might be a start.
--
E_NOSIG
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.
Furthermore, people will STILL go to the movies as a social event, it's something to do with friends, it's an experience, and most people just don't have home theater equipment that comes close to that yet, until we all get InFocus-style LCD projectors for our living rooms. Oh yeah, and if you want us to come to the theater, consider that just maybe 10 bucks+ a person, not including snacks and soda is a little outrageous - when I was a kid, I remember it was 4-5 dollars, and I'm only 23. Price has gone up substantially faster than inflation, and the quality of most major studio releases has gone down. Hmmm....
Not to mention product comercials before a movie you have paid for...
I should have known better ;-)
Anyway, my favorite quote was at the end:
Personally, I'd like to see Lucas standing out on Hollywood Blvd holding a placard that says "The end is near! Repent from your evil filesharing ways!"
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
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.
"Literally, our very lives are at stake now. George and I are just praying that we can finish 'Episode III' in time, before it's all over."
Thats right, they NEED this money, their lives are at stake!. They'll be dead men if they can't pay off Jabba the Hutt. Maybe a long nap in some carbonite will give George enough time to think about a career change.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
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.
I don't know about you, but the last few DVDs I bought have this 5 minute mandatory intro on them that plays before it gets to the main menu. The skip buttons are disabled during this thing, so you have to basically stop the DVD and then press play to get past the damn thing. I'm sure that this will be where trailers and teasers will be placed next.
And to add to whatever list is building, I'm kind of getting tired of the damn teenage kids running into the theater and screaming to their friends from the wings and then running out. WTF is with this? I never did this when I hung out at the theater as a kid, and I don't remember any other fellow-annoying teenagers doing this either.
Another point to add to the negative theater experience is that it is impossible for parents with babies to go to the movies. While there are ways of going without the baby, sometimes those options just aren't available. We decided for the price of a movie, we could go out and buy two thick steaks and a new DVD and just barbecue at home. Nice dinner, a movie, and we don't need a sitter and we can watch the movie again if we like.
I can see the commercials now..
[Kid seated in front of a computer]: I just downloaded some movies.
[Shot of money being locked in a briefcase]
[Soccer mom at Wal-Mart]: I always buy DVDs for my kids, it's cheaper than the theatre
[Shot of a gun being cocked]
[Teenager at his computer]: I wasn't hurting anybody.
[George Lucas with a gun to his head]
[Voiceover]: If you pirate movies, or even buy DVDs instead of going to the theatre, you're supporting terrorism.
[Soccer mom again]: I wasn't hurting anyone...
[Fade to black]
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Is it just me, or does Mr. McCallum sound a little paranoid/delusional? If Episode III brings in less than half a billion in box office and 3 hundred million in merchandising tie-ins, I'd be surprised. Yet Rick and George "literally" have their "very lives" at stake. I guess they're just a few pirated DVDs away from living in a cardboard box.
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.
The only thing i need is a baby crying, a woman talking on her cell phone, and teenage kids kicking the back of my couch to make it a true movie-going experience.
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
People like to Go Out. As strange as it seems to us normal folk, going out to the movies is a pleasant experience for a large number of people. Somehow you're a loser if you stay home and watch the same movie that you could see at a theater. People like to make phone calls, dress up, go to the movies, go to dinner.
The box office isn't going away anytime soon. That guy is a fool to even say it; look at the damn box office gross figures.
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.
So the movie industry isn't making money off of all those DVD sales? If they aren't, they are doing something really wrong. If they are, well, it shouldn't be the end of the movie industry then. Perhaps just a rearanging of priorities.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Or use Free DVD playing software. ogle works well, and I can zoom right by that FBI warning.
--
I post links to stuff here
... is the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Everything else really doesn't have the value-add to make it worth driving out to a mega-plex to be surrounded by the same people you see on Cops and Girls Gone Wild.
--
The trailers are awesome, although the trend toward commercials sucks.
My wife and I go to the same, megasuperduper stadium-seating theater every time. We even drive extra miles for it. The seats are comfy, no obstructed views, and the food is actually much, much better than it used to be in theaters (ice cream, nachos, free soda and popcorn refills -- where were those?).
All told, it's probably a cheaper experience than dining a tier above fast food, plus we get to watch a movie.
If we stayed home, rented a DVD and ordered a pizza it'd be about the same money. I just wish that there was a pizza+movie delivery service.
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
9. Food prices. I can get a whole meal at JMU with a meal punch for the price I would pay for a drink ($3.50) at the local theatre.
10. Inane local advertising in the theatre. I did not come to see advertising
11. Lack of leg room for those of us that are >5 feet tall
12. Turning the AC down so low that my gf has to look like a fsckin eskimo to keep from walking out a deep shade of blue
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
There are theaters in my area that feature "crying rooms", where parents with crying babies can sit and still watch the movie.
It's a nice feature. Too bad nobody uses it.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
This is why you set up a linux box with ogle/videolan and use that as your DVD player. No FBI warning garbage, no macrovision, no regions, no disabled buttons, etc. Just the movie.
I read one comment in another thread where the guy was so annoyed that whenever he bought a DVD, he ripped it, removed all the crap, and then reburned it.
Hollywood accounting is designed so that movies just barely break even. If any movie makes a 'net profit', then they have to pay money to people who have 'net points' royalties. It is similar to the contracts that musicians sign with music studios.
Most of the money for a movie goes to affiliated companies that make huge profits for the moneymen while the accounting ledgers for the movie itself rack up negative numbers.
In Japan, the cost for me to go to see a movie is 1800 yen. About $16.50...to see a movie...at matinee hours.
The theater experience is not, but it ain't that nice. Gimme DVD any day.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
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.
I frequently boo loudly when those commercials come one. No one seems to mind, in fact, people tend to join in the booing. Try it, it's fun.
XML causes global warming.
Anyone notice how this is similar to what's going on right now with the video games industry? I mean, the current generation of consoles we have now can easily render the stuff we find in the arcades. This is a problem for many arcade-owners and developers alike--because since the games at home are just as good graphically, it's less of a reason for Joe Gamer to go to the arcade. (Of course, developers are getting more clever with this by using special controllers, etc.) So, like with DVDs and the theaters, people have less of a reason to leave their houses.
To shoot anyone not playing in a paintball game.
That's what real guns are for.
paintball
His citing Titanic isn't a good example either. Titanic was a total aberation for movies. It made as much the next 12 weekends as it did it's first weekend (within 10-20%) instead of having the usual 30-50% drop off that most major movies do now. People just kept going back again and again, and you can't expect any movie to come close to what Titanic did. I just think they're blowing everything way out of proportion. Yes, I'm sure downloading movies hurts them some, but not that much (I know I'm not going to take the time).
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
Didn't we hear this about videos about 20 years ago? It's not DVD that's killing movies, it's the stupid studios. If using big stars kills budgets, then don't use them. There are thousands of unknowns who are far better actors than the big names anyway. Learn how to budget. Don't waste money. The daily catering isn't necessary on the set, is it? My father-in-law was a purchasing manager for Fox studios. The excess, waste, extravagance and beaurocracy is dusgusting, if half of his stories are true.
I don't know jack about economics. My only education on the subject was Econ 101 in school. They drew a little graph for us - the theoretical supply/demand curve. The goal, they explained was to find the sweet spot where the supply and demand curves crossed. That is where profit is maximized. Perhaps the studios haven't taken Econ 101 or perhaps they think that moviegoing is an inelastic market and the price of the movie won't affect demand. Perhaps they need to go back to school. For the $10 a pop (or more) we're paying these days, I'm mighty choosy about what I go to see.
Which leads me to the next point. Movies suck. They all suck. They're so over-Hollywoodized that I just can't stand going any more. And it's getting harder to find places to see indy films, as the smaller theaters get crushed by the megaplexes. Perhaps this has something to do with Hollywood's plight?
In any case, so long as movies continue to be made, people will see them in theaters. Not everyone has a home theater with THX and Dolby 5.1. And not everyone's home is quieter or less distracting than a theater. And some of us like to get out of the house once in a while. And I certainly don't have a 40 foot high screen in my living room. And I don't like to wait for good movies to appear on DVD - I want to see them right away. Maybe that's why McCallum's upset. They botched the last two Star Wars movies so badly that maybe they're afraid everyone's just going to wait for DVD next round. I know I will.
they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years.
They. That's right. THEY will be putting hollywood out of business, but when he says "THEY" he doesn't me us, or the file sharers, or the fans. What he really should be saying is "THEY", Hollywood themselves.
If you're in the automotive business, and business is doing lousy because of the economy, you cut costs. If you're a dot-com, before you go bust, you cut costs. If you're a doctor, HMO, Radio Station, Factory, Fast Food Joint, anybody in business, when business is lousy, you cut costs.
So why is it then, that when Hollywood feels the economic crunch, they blame everyone, raise their salaries, raise their costs, and then stick it to the fans with a higher ticket price?
If they were any other business, they would have folded by now. I kind of hope the big studios fold. Little studios will take over, for cheaper, with new and innovative ideas. We'll still have movies to watch, it just won't be the movies THEY make. Good riddance.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Take all the megamovieplexgargantua theaters, and instead of each minitheater being open to all, have them designated as:
Theater 1, The Playpen: Squalling babies allowed, offering counselling at a premium for idiots who take their 2 year olds in to see the latest rated R slasher flicks.
Theater 2, The Lame Room: For people who really don't care about watching the movie, and instead want to talk, make out, use their cel phones.
Theater 3, The Idiot Room: for people who want to do their own MST3K performance.
Theater 4, Paradise: For people who actually want to *gasp* watch the movie.
That way, they'll actually make MORE money, rather than driving away the folks who would normally want Theater 4!
Meanwhile, has anyone else noticed the irony that this is the same Lucasfilm that not only took upwards of 5 years originally to release their movies to tape/DVD, but supported the old "pay to watch" DIVX standard, refusing to release the original trilogy to DVD until it died?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
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!
Ok, so you aren't an MPAA or RIAA exec.... *g*
The problem with your R&D analogy is that the only R&D occurs with companies producing SFX, film stock, cameras, etc. The movies and albums themselves are "art" or "expression."
The MPAA and RIAA don't produce anything, but they speak on behalf of their industries, and are a means of referring to their members as a whole (The "A" at the end of the acronyms refers to "Association".)
They are bad at marketing. All they market is their biggest budget efforts, with little to no regard for quality. The only exception I can recall was "The Blair Witch Project", which was done on a very low budget compared to movies or records that usually get the push.
When is the last time you saw an ad for a movie that didn't have at least one multi-million dollar star involved? When was the last time you saw a band that didn't fit a top-40 profile for a non-major genre get promoted? How many times now have we found out that a "band" was actually a fraud that was lip-synching or so heavily processed that the singer in concert sounds nothing like the album?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
I think you're all missing the fact that Hollywood won't die on the vine, they'll just call their pet congressmen and make sure that DVDs are only playable one time in a specially formatted RIAA controlled player. Then charge you for the your own popcorn that you made in YOUR microwave, because you ate it during the DVD playback, and you had to agree to this charge in the EULA when you opened the DVD case.
It's not hard to imagine a scenario where an AOL executive tells CNN to start running stories that support the media industry's demands for favorable treatment by Congress. CNN would claim that its "ethics" would never allow such a thing to occur, but cross-promotion is the whole reason AOL has formed its empire, and if it comes to a choice between the axe and "bending the ethics," I'm sure CNN will be quite flexible.
Why is it automatically OUR fault when someone's previously successfull business starts to fail? That's business. When you find something that works you stick with it until it stops working. At that point you have to change. If you've invested to much in the old way to be able to adapt to new circumstances, someone new will come along and steal away your business. If the current Hollywood has to be brought to the ground for a new succesfull business model so be it. They stopped listening to consumers a long time ago.
If the studios would lengthen the time between releasing a movie to theatres and releasing it to DVD, then they could get more people into the theatre. Unfortunately, you need to train people to expect a 1+ year (or 2 year?) delay for your blockbusters before this is effective, as you want them to go see it while it is still in theatres.
It seems that these days they want to milk the movie in the theatre and rush it to DVD - if they weren't so anxious to release the DVDs and beat out the other studios, then maybe we'd go see them in theatres while they're fresh. But for now, I'll just wait the 4 months until it's on DVD.
Make a white-disc copy of the DVD available cheap for anyone with a ticket stub from the movie. As soon as the movie is on the big screen the customer can buy it on DVD this way. That'd boost attendence and help stop piracy.
SW: Clones just sucked. That's why I didn't see it again and again like I had previous Star Wars movies.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Dissing new media is the content-maker's well-honed tradition. The piano-roll was going to kill music sales. The radio would devastate music, as would the audio tapes. G-d save us from the death of everyone after the television. And the VCR case had to go to the Supreme Court. Then the DAT, the CD and now the DVD.
In every case, savvy content people got bigger and bigger and bigger, wealthier and wealthier, precisely because of the new media, not in sprite of it.
Yes, theatres and hollywood had better get the message clearly -- they serve a marketplace, not the other way around. Those that get it will prosper, those that don't will fail.
Good, maybe now the movie theatres will start showing movies with decent scripts.