Movie Studio Finally Sees the Light On Rentals

Griller_GT writes "After months of conducting studies about the effects of delays on sales of DVDs, 'Paramount Pictures has agreed to provide its movies to Redbox on the same day they go on sale.' A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a purchase.' Gee, who would have thought of that?" Reader DisKurzion sends in news of another movie business experiment underway by an Australian company called Distracted Media. They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece. When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.

Comments

First Rental

[TheNinjaroach]

Woohoo! On the same day of release.

Re:First Rental

[commodore64_love]

It's funny how executives' thinking changes over time. Back in the days of VHS (early 90s) they had the opposite view - Release rentals first, and release Purchase copies a month later. Of course you could buy the VHS if you really wanted to, but the cost was kept high at $80, $100, or even $120 in order to discourage purchase by average people.

I remember wanting to buy Star Trek The Undiscovered Country, and the store clerk handed it to me and said, "That will be $84.80," and my mouth dropped open. He then told me if I come back a month later I can get it for less, and sure enough it dropped to a reasonable $25.00.

Re:First Rental

[Spellvexit]

I worked at a video store when I was in high school, and every once and a while some customer would lose a copy of their new release. When we finally caught up to them, a month or two down the road, we would inform them that they owed us $90 for the actual video. Sometimes we'd be selling the same movies on our shelves for $35, since we had since bought more to sell to customers at a reasonable price point. The copy *they* lost was the $90 "new release" video, however. The logical arguments that ensued from this disparity were ugly, I tell you!

Re:First Rental

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how executives' thinking changes over time.

I don't think that has much to do with thinking. My guess is, the difference is that today they bought enough laws to do whatever they want. Back then they sold the movie and had little control over what happened with it. They couldn't have prevented 1$ rentals if they started with regular prices.

Today - thanks to dozens of copyright law changes - they can dictate how their products are being used even after the sell it. There's no need to keep the price artificially high because they can simply prohibit any use they don't like.

They're finally starting to get it

[SweeBeeps]

Alternative distribution methods are definately here to stay. Companies like Blockbuster (who may just consider this another coffin nail) had a purpose 10-15+ years ago, but were incredibly slow to react to market changes (Netflix in particular) and are all having rather violent death fits (they're using the last of their influence with the big production companies to try and force Red Box to carry childrens movies only or not carry any new releases).

Re:They're finally starting to get it

[iamhassi]

"Companies like Blockbuster (who may just consider this another coffin nail)"

Oh there were already nails in Blockbuster's coffin long before this announcement, and Hollywood Video isn't doing much better.

Despite living in a large (millions) city Blockbuster and Redbox are my only physical video rental locations. Redbox worked out a deal with Walmart back in 2008 so they're already virtually everywhere, I predict Blockbuster locations will disappear in the next 5 years and we'll be left with Redbox at Walmart and McDonalds who use to own Redbox.

Re:They're finally starting to get it

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Refusing to make content available to low-cost vendors encourages piracy. Plain and simple.

I'll never pay .99 cents a song to iTunes when there are other cheaper and legal options out there anymore than I would pay the now defunct Hollywood video $5 for a rental when I can get it elsewhere for $1. I'm willing to wait!

To a similar end, I have dumped DirectTV's crooked asses and replaced them with a Netflix subscription and a digital converter box to get broadcast channels. Why would I pay $75 a month for commercial laden TV? What good are 120 channels if they are paid programming 8 hours a day?

The entertainment industry might be finally getting with the digital age, but still seem to have trouble doing math. Perhaps they should ditch the abacus and get a calculator.

Re:They're finally starting to get it

[commodore64_love]

>>>Despite living in a large (millions) city Blockbuster and Redbox are my only physical video rental locations

It's been interesting watching these places die. My favorite spot was a regional chain called A-to-Z Video. They closed shop and their mall location evolved into a small Mom & Pop store. Now I just noticed they went-out of business, and it looks like a porn store moved in..... not that it is a porn store but it LOOKS like one with the same dark lighting and stained appearance.

I'm curious to see what will move-in next. From a bright shiny successful store to a dark, dirty store in less than five years. But now wonder - I don't rent anymore and neither does anyone else my age. Easier to watch for free on the net.

Aside -

I'm glad A-to-Z went out. I borrowed the Swimsuit Issue 1992 from them, and it fell behind the TV. I returned all my borrowed videos but not that one because I didn't see it back there. Then I got a call about a month later, and they charged me $60! Bastards. They could have called me sooner..... in retrospect I should have just kept the video rather than return it.

follow the green dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not here to tell you how it's going to end -- I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin ...

Something seems off

[Anon-Admin]

Most movies cost $800,000 + to shoot. At 1$ a frame and 24 frames a sec, a standard 190 min movie only comes out to $273,600. Seems low

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

Re:Something seems off

[CarpetShark]

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

Remember, what big companies put on paper as "costs" after tax evasion, big bonuses, and drug-fueled parties isn't much to do with the actual costs of a project.

Re:Something seems off

[east coast]

At the same time The Blair Witch Project cost (reportedly) 40,000 to shoot.

Movies can be done on a budget. They just normally aren't.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard movie length is over 3 hours now?

Re:Something seems off

[spun]

Movies do not cost that much to shoot. Explosions, hot famous actors and actresses, and anthropomorphic CGI animals cost that much to shoot. I know most people nowadays think the one is synonymous with the others, but that is not necessarily the case.

Re:Something seems off

[Reilaos]

At 1$ a frame and 24 frames a sec, a standard 190 min movie only comes out to $273,600.

Maybe they're shooting at 120 fps? =o

Re:Something seems off

[CAIMLAS]

Yeah, except it's quite possible to make a good film for less than even that.

If you RTFA'd, you'd see their finished film intends to have 135,000 frames. So, $135,000 budget. That's not unreasonable.

Consider that the biggest costs with film production these days is CG/special effects, actors, marketing, and distribution. The technology for doing something with film is cheap - and mature - enough to put the bar for entry at around $1500, give or take.

This film looks like it might be an action/horror/thriller film. If they've got their sets (looks like they may be filming 'on location' and paying a negligible fee for doing so), and their actors are working for free (not implausible - they'd surely be able to find some suitable talent in a city like Sidney willing to do so), their biggest costs will likely be in costumes and makeup.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same time The Blair Witch Project cost (reportedly) 40,000 to shoot.

Movies can be done on a budget. Good ones just normally aren't.

FTFY, although admittedly there are some huge stinkers at the high end of the budget range. Price shouldn't be a measuring stick for a movie, but honestly how would Batman get produced well on $40,000???

Re:Something seems off

[0100010001010011]

One of my favorite movies, The Man from Earth cost $200,000.

It had 0 CGI, no big name actors but a kick ass story from Jerome Bixby.

Paranormal Activity was made for $15k and grossed $9M the first weekend.

Re:Something seems off

[Locke2005]

I'm pretty sure you can make an Indy film with no-name actors for less than $273,600. Hollywood blockbuster with lots of special effects and A-list actors, no.

Re:Something seems off

[east coast]

As far as I'm concerned? Batman isn't a good film. So I guess there are a lot of "stinkers" out there in the upper range of the game too....

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter. It doesn't mean anything to me when I go to spend my entertainment dollar.

Re:Something seems off

[jollyreaper]

One of my favorite movies, The Man from Earth [wikipedia.org] cost $200,000.

It had 0 CGI, no big name actors but a kick ass story from Jerome Bixby.

Ditto, an utterly amazing movie. But I cannot stress enough that anyone viewing it should go in cold, not even knowing the premise. Don't read the box, don't read a blurb, don't even follow the link. Watch it cold. That's what I was told to do, that's what I did, and boy was it worth it.

Re:Something seems off

[SoundGuyNoise]

If it's digital, they may going with the average of 30fps. 190 min * 60 seconds * 30 frames = $288000. That extra $15,000 should cover gas, lunch and tolls.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

And Blair Witch was awesome? Surely you can't hate every single movie that uses special effects... Right? What are you, like 95 years old?

Re:Something seems off

[tepples]

their biggest costs will likely be in costumes and makeup.

That and licensing music for the soundtrack. I seem to remember a couple films where fully half the budget was spent on clearing music.

Re:Something seems off

[geekoid]

All you proved it poorly shot, crappy written movies can be cheap.

No shit.

Re:Something seems off

[DIplomatic]

I think Paranormal Activity was so cheap because they only bought the first 10 pages of the script.

10 INT Living Room: 2 Unlikable characters mumble aloud.
20 INT Bedroom: Characters sleep.
30 INT Kitchen: Characters discuss previous scenes in bedroom and living room.
40 GOTO 10

Re:Something seems off

[AnonymousClown]

It was like they filmed a stage play. Pretty much one set and one hell of a story.

It was a great Sci-Fi movie with no special effects!

I wish Hollywood would spend more time on stories instead of special effects. I really hate movies that are all special effects or just action sequences - yawn.

Re:Something seems off

[Rogerborg]

Tru dat. if a set on a [Warner Brothers] movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against [Babylon 5's] profits. $1 billion dollars gross revenue and rising, and Babylon 5 is still listed as a net loss.

Re:Something seems off

[afidel]

Big movies also tend to have a TON of special effects and CG which burn computer time like it's going out of style and use armies of fairly well compensated graphics and computer professionals. Also the salaries of the stars and the advertising budget are both significant contributions. The actual cost for materials and such is probably only 4-5x that of an independent film.

Re:Something seems off

[afidel]

enough to put the bar for entry at around $1500, give or take.

I don't think you can buy the glass for a decent film camera for less than $1500 let alone the film or digital camera itself.

Re:Something seems off

[jfengel]

We're talking about a horror movie here, and they can be incredibly cheap. Big special effects cost money, but it's usually scarier if you catch only glimpses of the monster. The real emotional impact is in the reactions.

Blair Witch Project was shot for under $25k (though high-end editing and sound were applied later, ballooning the price before it hit theaters). Paranormal Activity was shot for $11k. They're treated like documentaries, which means that the audience will forgive and even expect things like poor sound, poor lighting, cheap video, bad framing, etc.

The film can only sustain itself for maybe 90 minutes, so they can only take in $130k, but that's plenty for a low budget horror flick.

The same thing applies to real documentaries, and I think aspiring documentary makers could avail themselves of this model. But clearly if you want to do "real" movies this way you're going to have to add zeroes to the price tag.

Re:Something seems off

[migla]

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

No-one is holding a gun to their heads, forcing them to spend all that money. :)

Re:Something seems off

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing.

How much of that cost goes to pay made up positions like "Associate Producers" and others who really contribute nothing to the project?

Re:Something seems off

[socz]

The first thing that came to mind was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOZVp9NFhQE



And here you have: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/05/25/watch-the-brilliant-fan-made-alien-vs-predator-movie-that-cost-j/

An amateur film maker has posted online a 22-minute homemade Alien v Predator sequel. The fan-film - AVP: Redemption - was a one-man production by Alex Popov and took him two years of his spare time. Popov did all the filming, directing, editing, video FX and sound design himself and despite a budget of just $500 the production values are incredibly high quality.

On his Vimeo page Popov writes: "AVP:Redemption fan film made by me Alex A. Popov for the purpose of entertaining the fans of both Alien and Predator franchises, and also to share my vision of what Alien VS Predator film should be."

The AVP franchise has never been well regarded by critics. The New York Daily news labelled the original 2004 film the "worst sci-fi movie since Battlefield Earth". However, Paul W S Anderson's film did well at the box office, grossing $172 million which is the highest earning of any Alien or Predator movie.

The 2007 sequel Aliens v Predator: Requiem was also a hit and there has been rumours of another movie. First though Robert Rodriguez is bringing the cut-throat aliens back to life in Predators. The film, which opens here in July, is set on the Predator home planet and features a group of soldiers and villains battling for their lives against the creatures.

Re:Something seems off

[future assassin]

>Remember, Hollywood movies can cost from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 to shoot and produce so compared to that it is nothing. And remember that equating cost of a movies doesn't equal how good a movie is. They'd be better off using unknown artists every time and have creative writers to write a good story line instead of spending 300mil on special effects to wow the sheeople.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

And Blair Witch was awesome? Surely you can't hate every single movie that uses special effects... Right? What are you, like 95 years old?

And you can't possibly hate every single movie that doesn't use special effects... Right? What are you, like 12 years old?

And stop calling me Shirley.

Re:Something seems off

[flimflammer]

Paranormal Activity was a bit of a con though. The movie itself sucked, the beginning was kind of promising, the middle kind of sucked, and the ending really sucked.

The only reason they made as much money as they did was because of their constant advertising on TV to get it in theaters like it was some underground masterpiece. It piqued everyones interest. Unfortunately, I haven't met anyone who said it delivered on that interest.

Re:Something seems off

[Tumbleweed]

All you proved it poorly shot, crappy written movies can be cheap.

So, what that means is that you can duplicate a big budget movie with a small budget. :)

On the other hand, there are examples like El Mariachi:

"The movie was shot in numerous locations in Acuña, Coahuila. Rodriguez had a $7,000 budget, almost half of which he raised by participating in experimental clinical drug testing in Texas."

I'd bet a great deal of that cost was actual _film_, which doesn't apply today. If you've already got, or have access to, the equipment, you're most of the way there these days. The source of that money also explains a great deal about Rodriguez and his later films.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

That extra $15,000 should cover gas, lunch and tolls.

But Lonestar won't take the money, because he fell in love with Vespa along the way.

Re:Something seems off

[DamienRBlack]

190 min? That's a long movie! I think you mean 90 min. Which is only $129,600

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

How much of that cost goes to pay made up positions like "Associate Producers" and others who really contribute nothing to the project?

For the record, APs work their asses off, and usually earn that credit by doing the line producing or post-production supervision, and are themselves usually one promotion over the coffee gofers and runners. It's miserable and unglamorous work and as a technician I have nothing but respect for them.

You might be getting confused between Associate Producers and Executive Producers, but even they sometimes work very hard, or if they don't work on the film they at least are risking millions of dollars of their own money. Everybody's different of course.

Re:Something seems off

[X0563511]

The solution is to avoid using popular swill, and paying a composer to do the job. It's probably cheaper, and has a better result.

Re:Something seems off

[Trepidity]

You can get high-quality used cameras for previous-gen technologies for pretty cheap, though, which is why lots of indie films shoot on things like Super 16. There are also places that will rent equipment, including some indie-filmmaker organizations that acquire equipment for their own members' use.

One of my favorite recent films, Primer , had a $7000 total budget.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

The thing with films like Paranormal and Man from Earth is that they're essentially stunts that only make money because of their novelty. For everyone one of those that goes on to get recognition there are literally hundreds of quarter-million-dollar quickies that never swing that one festival screening that puts them over the top, or gets them the attention of the fanboy press, lying in wait to deck themselves in the borrowed plumes of the filmmakers they "discover."

There's definitely no business model in making these films, they're so uneven in quality. A much more representative film in the budget range would be something like The Asylum's Transmorfers or Snakes on a Train; ridiculously poor-quality films that get their feature presentation on Sci-Fi channel and profit from their German TV presale.

Notice I'm not saying that Paranormal or Man from Earth are BAD, just that good small-budget films don't reliably profit. Without the reliable profits, it's very hard for these filmmakers to continue making them, because nobody wants to keep making $30k movies all their life, they finally get to the point where they want to make something and not have to beg, borrow and steal to get it made, and they run out of people to call in favors from. Paranormal easily cost over a million dollars when all of the favors and one-time-only deals the filmmakers made are factored in.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make an Indy film with less than $25M. There is no substitute for Harry Ford.

Re:Something seems off

[Chih]

Get off his lawn!

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

Consider that the biggest costs with film production these days is CG/special effects, actors, marketing, and distribution.

If you spend $20 million on Tom Cruise, you'll make at least that much back in presales; actors generally pay for themselves. On smaller films getting one "name" actor is the difference between the film getting funding or not in the first place, so in that case their value is inestimable.

People will pay to watch cool special effects. If your trailer has awesome shots, people will come to see the movie.

Prints & Ads are expensive, but again people don't go to movies unless they hear about them, and wether or not a film has US distribution and a big marketing push is generally decisive as to wether or not the film will be able to presell foreign territories. P&A pretty easily pays for itself unless the movie is a plain dud.

Re:Something seems off

[afidel]

That only works because someone else has already depreciated the asset, *someone* has to pay full price to keep the R&D and production facilities running. I'm not saying that essentially unlimited budgets like Avatar have to be the norm, but the real average per film is going to be well north of $7k.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

Blair Witch Project was shot for under $25k

Which was $24,500 too much. $490 for a good camcorder and $10 for a bottle of Wild Turkey is all you need in order to stagger around in the woods and emerge Monday morning with a hangover and a rough cut of Blair Witch.

Re:Something seems off

[AfroThunder215]

While I absolutely love projections as much as the next man, it says straight from TFA that the movie is 90 minutes, and the total gain would be $135k, from 135,000 frames. Also, the fps is apparently 25, as buying a second costs $25.

Re:Something seems off

[tepples]

The solution is to avoid using popular swill

For the scene inside a nightclub, or when a car drives by with its radio blaring, what music will be playing to set the period of the setting?

Re:Something seems off

[Trepidity]

Oh, I agree, I'm not arguing any average price. Merely that, given that big-budget films exist, and will probably continue to exist, and continue to depreciate those assets, it's quite possible to make films cheaply by taking advantage of the resulting used market.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

No-one is holding a gun to their heads, forcing them to spend all that money. :)

Well, the guy who ran IATSE (my union) in the 30s used to keep a .38 on his desk when he had meetings with studio execs :) I'm not sure any SAG negotiator has ever brandished a firearm, but there is the story about Jon Peters threatening Ray Stark when he was Barbara Streisand's manager...

Re:Something seems off

[bill_mcgonigle]

a standard 190 min movie only comes out to $273,600. Seems low

It can be done. One of my favorites this year was The Man From Earth. $200,000. Given that the film was ten minutes too long, maybe it could have been a bit cheaper.

Apparently good writing isn't that expensive, if one cares to engage in it.

That said, this film had very cheap locations. If you started having to build sets and stuff it would get expensive. I suspect they also hired McDonald's Catering for their food or told the actors to brown-bag it. Still, if movie production can be treated as things normal people do rather than royalty and elite, a few days of RED camera rental could probalbly be had for reasonable coin. Maybe projects like this will get us off the Hollywood Blockbuster/Direct-To-DVD treadmill.

Re:Something seems off

[bill_mcgonigle]

Oh, I just had an old-guy moment and remembered people don't build sets anymore. OK, so hire a greenscreen stage for a few days and get a freelance digital set designer to work for you for a few months. No union crap to load down your production.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

The soundtrack budget for Clerks was *more* than the budget for the rest of the film...

The cost of licensing the songs on the soundtrack cost more than the film cost to make.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

Apparently good writing isn't that expensive, if one cares to engage in it.

It's very cheap, however it's not exactly the sort of thing you can find at ScriptMart. Creative writing is a very strange beast and people who are consistently good at it are hard to come by and hard to develop, and it's hard to keep them working on things that are going to keep a broad swathe of people interested for two hours. Good scripts can be had for free, but you can also get struck by lightning for free. Anybody can get lucky once.

And even when you find good writing, it's not like people pay $8 to watch a script reading. The movie actually has to be made well, too.

Maybe projects like this will get us off the Hollywood Blockbuster/Direct-To-DVD treadmill.

The Man from Earth didn't make money until it was released on DVD at Blockbuster. That's the only consistent revenue stream films like this have; I know, I've worked on (and have revenue participation in) several of them.

I don't get how people bring up Man from Earth, one film that's barely made any money in absolute terms, and use that as an argument against an entire industry that produces and has to make a profit on hundreds of films in a year. Obviously people are going to make good movies for a small amount of money, but they almost never do so consistently -- the rarity of these projects should be a strong indicator of just how unstable this mode of production is. The only exception I can think of is Tyler Perry, and his films trade completely in niche demographic (read urban black) appeal.

Re:Something seems off

[rednip]

You give me $1 a frame, and I'll give you a 190 minute 'movie'.

It's either an interesting way to finance a low budget movie, or a scam, and might be both.

Re:Something seems off

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works in film, let me tell you that features can vary in cost from under 10k to over 100m.
The big costs in making a feature usually are Crew, Actors, Equipment (purchase/rental), and Post.
Shooting down under, they can avoid the Hollywood unions and save hundreds of thousands if not millions right there.
If the cast is doing it for cheap/free that is a huge savings also.
If they already own the equipment and do the post themselves they save even more.

And as a side note: these guys are in Australia and are shooting PAL HD which runs at 25fps not 24. That gives them 135,000 frames for their 90 min movie (Movies are not typically 190min as the above mentioned). Also the $1 they mention is the is the Australian dollar so in US dollars that is around $117,477.00 give or take changes in the exchange rate.

100k is more than enough money to shoot an indie film.

Re:Something seems off

[bertoelcon]

Price shouldn't be a measuring stick for a movie, but honestly how would Batman get produced well on $40,000???

The 60's Batman probably wasn't much more than that.

Re:Something seems off

[bsane]

Thanks guys...

Just finished watching via netflix, and loved it.

Re:Something seems off

[bill_mcgonigle]

Obviously people are going to make good movies for a small amount of money, but they almost never do so consistently

Right, and right. There's a product and a demand, but not yet an effective market. We don't need to duplicate 35mm reels and ship them on trains anymore, so the task is relatively easy, but there's momentum still favoring the big distributors. This is changing.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

Distribution has nothing to do with making a good movie, I'm just saying very few people make a good movie. We've had very-low-cost distribution channels for 10-15 years now, since DVDs have become standard, and there hasn't been significant movement toward indies, at least compared to the first half of the 90s, which was really a golden age for non-studio films, and those were distributed on FILM. Even Clerks had a theatrical at the time and made a ton of money for Miramax on home video.

There will always be a lot of people with terrible ideas for movies, it just so happens that people will pay to see a terrible idea if you spend $200 million producing and marketing it. What they won't spend $8 to see are bad ideas produced on a shoestring.

Re:Something seems off

[bill_mcgonigle]

Distribution has nothing to do with making a good movie, I'm just saying very few people make a good movie. We've had very-low-cost distribution channels for 10-15 years now, since DVDs have become standard

Sure it does - without good distribution and marketing there's little incentive to make a good movie.

DVD's don't have any coupling to marketing the way online distribution does.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

Sure it does - without good distribution and marketing there's little incentive to make a good movie.

This is an inversion of what you're talking about, you're confusing good and expensive. Man on Earth had no distribution and yet it was good. Good movies are made all the time. There's little incentive to make an expensive movie without distribution and marketing. Even more, there's little incentive to base your business model on film production if the distribution medium can't provide enough upside to fund the projects.

Just look at our victim here in the TFA; they're charging as much as they dare charge people who will get nothing in return, and for that they will have a miserable budget and they probably won't be able to repeat it under the same conditions. It's like the Million Dollar Webpage of film production: A one-off stunt, nothing more. And there isn't much evidence that even for-pay revenue models for online distribution generate enough money to make a movie honestly, namely: paying everyone a market wage, not calling in any favors, and not relying on the externalities/surpluses of the profitable parts of the film industry.

DVD's don't have any coupling to marketing the way online distribution does.

Online distribution has no coupling to revenue streams, nothing like theatrical moolah anyways -- you'll never see a $100 million BitTorrent (or even Hulu) opening day. The only way you can make money on things online is with Long Tail, and long tail just doesn't make enough in a hurry to fund a movie. Theatrical distribution is still a winning formula for the studios, they make a lot and ever growing stream of revenue from it; their problem is that their budgets have gotten even larger, and that worked as long as DVDs moved, but ever since their window started closing budgets have started to come down. It used to be that a Will Smith or Tom Cruise would get $20 million against 20% of the gross; that just doesn't happen nowadays, particularly since CGI has started really balooning, and 3D conversions and processes are millions of dollars on their own.

But theatrical is here to stay for at least another decade. Nothing replaces Date Night, unless our country turns into a nation of losers and everyone stops going to movies on Friday night in favor of playing an evening of WoW. What an awful outcome; but I saw Raimi on the lot last week and he's developing a Warcraft feature, so maybe the doom encroaches from both ends.

With regard to marketing coupling, you have to get the public branded first, though, and making that happen through Facebook and Google analytics just won't deliver the same numbers as a national ad buy. People don't like movies, movies go out and like THEM. At least that's what you have to do if you want maximium interest; Internet advertising is just too low-impact.

Re:Something seems off

[im_thatoneguy]

First of all I think the GP was a little confused in his calculations. What movie is *190* minutes long? The average film length isn't 3 hours and 10 minutes. It's closer to 100min.

So that means $1 a frame = $144k

That's practically no money. Yes a lot of you are saying "ooo I could live on that for a while." The other half of you are saying "Such and such film was made for only $20k." Yes one person could live off of $144k for some time. But 10 people couldn't.

Pretty much the only way films are ever made for less than $100k is because people work for free. You know how people often afford to work for free? By getting payed enough in paying gigs to take time off from work to help out. There are tons of industries where you could do a lot if you don't pay anyone. They often didn't pay anything for their equipment. People who again can only afford to purchase equipment because of paying jobs. If the rental house was generous enough to loan out $10k a day in gear to you because they like your project then you didn't make your film for $0 you made it with tens of thousands of dollars worth of donated time and equipment.

It's one thing to make a couple of films here and there for $15-50k. But nobody should be tricked into thinking that films could be regularly made that rate. Those films cost significantly more to make. The costs were just absorbed by larger productions with deeper wallets who unknowingly funded them.

I get really annoyed by the mantra that big blockbusters kill the small cheap indie film. The small cheap indie film is almost always crewed by blockbuster crews who just got their pay check and health insurance contributions from the blockbuster. If they hadn't just made a blockbuster they would probably be too busy pinching pennies and beating the pavement looking for their next paying gig. If the rental house didn't just get their entire inventory rented out the week before for 16 weeks straight they couldn't afford to loan you any lights or grip.

I'm not saying these indie films are exploiting anyone. I have done my fair share of free labor. I just get pissed off if these people then turn around say "I made this film for only $10k see, film is cheap you don't have to have $1m budgets!" You get one or two freebies in my books. I'm helping you because I want to see the project made even if it's commercially unsuccessful. But if I am working for free or practically free I also expect the person asking me to work for free to work for nothing. And if I learn that you're one of those people who perpetually use volunteer crews and don't make an effort to actually get the proper funding then you're just lazy, go get the $$ to pay the costs you're ignoring. There are a lot of producers that just go from project to project making "$20k" films and never actually do their jobs of trying to sell the film so that someone other than themselves gets payed.

Re:Something seems off

[im_thatoneguy]

There are also a lot of APs which just got the credit by investing in the film.

But that also wouldn't fall into the category of "cost", quite the opposite.

Re:Something seems off

[iluvcapra]

There are also a lot of APs which just got the credit by investing in the film.

Name one AP that got credit by investing -- any backer would be a fool to take anything less than a clean "producer" credit. Some APs are actor's relatives and agents, however ;)

Re:Something seems off

[jollyreaper]

Glad to have helped. :)

Asmounding!

[CarpetShark]

So, you mean, I can now drive to a store and rent the DVD/Bluray of a movie on the same day as I can buy it in a store, six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release?

Wow, this is real cutting-edge tech they're bringing to consumers. Who wouldn't want to pay through the eyeballs for that?

Re:Asmounding!

[jeffmeden]

Is a $1 (perhaps $1.50 or whatever bluray ends up costing at the 'box) really "paying through the eyeballs"? That's the big deal here, it used to be that Blockbuster was the only outfit to rent from, and new releases are regularly $5 or more per day from them. Now, the 'box will rent them for $1 or so, and you can find one at tons of convenient places and there's no pimply guy behind a counter to eye you for renting a chick flick (or even require a voided check, social security card, and fingerprint before 'allowing' you to be a customer). Just swipe any credit card and you get your movie. Digital distribution may be a little ways off yet, but this is surely a step in the right direction (and away from overpriced brick and mortar rental places.)

Re:Asmounding!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you mean, I can now drive to a store and rent the DVD/Bluray of a movie on the same day as I can buy it in a store, six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release?

Wow, this is real cutting-edge tech they're bringing to consumers. Who wouldn't want to pay through the eyeballs for that?

How nice of you to let the rest of us pay for your movies. The old term was freeloader.

Re:Asmounding!

[ubermiester]

six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release

You mean steal right? I have a feeling the producers are not giving you special access to their prints, so if you're downloading it you're stealing it from them. Same goes for leaked music. Are you working on the assumption that because no one can stop you that you have the right to take whatever you want? It's theft whether you've got a black mask and a flashlight or not.

Re:Asmounding!

[afidel]

The best thing about Redbox if you have kids and do roadtrips is you can rent at one location and return at another. When we were driving back from Florida to Ohio and the kids had already watched all the DVD's we brought we were able to rent 10 new ones and return them when we got home. It was probably the best $10 spent in the history of humanity =)

Re:Asmounding!

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It's funny, the local video rental store in my hometown used to rent out VHS and DVD's for 3 days for $1.00 a pop. Then Blockbuster moved in and put them out of town because they had a better selection and a membership card. Now the Red Box is putting Blockbuster out of business because it doesn't have as huge of a selection or a membership and it rents DVD's for $1.00 a pop. What is it that folk tend to say about pendulums and cyclical nature and what not again?

Re:Asmounding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster actually revised their business model to be comparative to Redbox pricing. All rentals are now $1.00 per day, with a minimum of 4 days and a maximum of 14, at which point you're charged the selling price of the movie. And membership requirements are more lax than ever (over 18, Driver's License). The company may be a dinosaur of the VHS era, but it's not quite death throes time yet.

Re:Asmounding!

[DamienRBlack]

Yes I see it now. Someone with a black mask and flashlight breaks into a house, looks and the jewels, takes some photos and then goes home empty handed, leaving the jewels. He used a technologically advanced 3D printer to recreate his own copy of the jewels. Theft! How dare he! What is he doing? He is the vilest of thieves, duplicating other peoples property. /sarcasm

For the record, downloading movies or music is copyright infringement, not theft. Illegal? Yes. Theft? No. I'd like to see a prosecutor try to make the case that duplicating and distributing copyrighted material is theft. It would be laughable. Their case would be summarily thrown out.

Re:Asmounding!

[X0563511]

Indeed. I can sympathize if you have an actual reason to do it, but if you go downloading it because "lolz i can watch this before you lololol" then you're part of the problem.

Re:Asmounding!

[geekoid]

It's about the step. In order for the movie industry to get with the future, this is a necessary step.

Re:Asmounding!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really stealing if the original owner retains ownership. Theft means someone was deprived of property... in this case the words you are looking for are copyright infringement.

Re:Asmounding!

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, the thing here is... he didn't steal it in the sense that he didn't remove the product from the studio in question and leave them holding the bag. He only gained access to it by unapproved means, in essence he's peeking through the knot hole on the construction site. If anything he's in violation of the license which should be an issue of contract law not of theft. Whether the employee who uploaded is committing an act of industrial espionage or whatever is a separate matter but this is *not* theft.

Moreover the workprints which he apparently finds interesting aren't available to the consumer at any price which means that this is a market which is underserved by the current distribution model. If they offered these products for sale, I'm sure they'd find takers.

Re:Asmounding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Media conglomerates are tremendously slow in waking up to what "information wants to be free" *really* means to them and their business model. It's not just some lame 14 year old's "damn the man" battlecry, or an excuse to pirate. You deal in information, you will lose control of your product. Quickly. Whether by accident or by malice, you will lose control.

  It's like they slowly see each piece of what it means, but can't seem to assemble the puzzle properly to see the whole picture that each piece is just a part of.

Re:Asmounding!

[LoverOfJoy]

Minimum 4 days? It doesn't take THAT long to watch a movie. Occasionally life gets crazy and I keep the video an extra day. So at redbox it'd cost me $2 and blockbuster $4? no thanks.

Re:Asmounding!

[IshmaelDS]

That's not really changing it. That's cutting $1 off the price and a day off the rental and changing the wording. If it's $1 a day for a min of 4 days than it's a 4 day rental for $4 dollars. It used to be $5 for 5 days.

Re:Asmounding!

[jackbird]

In my supermarket, the Redbox machine disappeared and was replaced by a $1/day Blockbuster machine. I didn't want to get close enough to it to read the fine print and find out if it's the same "$1/day" scam as the B&M ones.

Re:Asmounding!

[ubermiester]

While you are correct in pointing out that from a legal point of view, downloading a movie without paying the copyright owner is not technically theft. But from a moral, and more importantly from a societal point of view it is a distinction without a difference.

I'm not sure what you do exactly, but there is a very very good chance that you don't actually produce any kind of physical product. Very few American workers do these days. And since you're posting on /. It is equally likely that you are a "knowledge worker" of some kind who relies on the copyright system to protect your work (even if you don't own the copyright yourself, your employer could not afford to pay you without it).

So how can you possibly justify violating someone else's rights - a copyright is defined as the exclusive right to make copies of a registered work - when you know very well that your own livelihood and the livelihood of many of your piers and friends depend on exactly the same kind of protections you so glibly dismiss?

Moreover, your description of someone breaking and entering to somehow reproduce someone's jewelry without taking it is ludicrous - and quite ironic. The only reason copyright infringement is different than property theft is because information is generally not considered property - whereas jewelry is. So your hypothetical is actually quite self defeating. Even so, if the person who owns the jewelry does not want you to have it, you have to commit the crime of breaking and entering just to get access. (And if someone else knowingly receives the fruit of your efforts they are accomplices after the fact - that's you btw) Therefore, you would have to break the law to make or receive a copy. Probably not the best analogy.

I am all for fair use, but you are simply unwilling to pay for something you want. That makes you a thief.

Re:Asmounding!

[CarpetShark]

How nice of you to let the rest of us pay for your movies. The old term was freeloader.

You're talking about piracy. I'm not. Try not to project your own concerns into text when there's no mention of those concerns.

About time!

[eihab]

It's about time movie studios started realizing that. I'm a rental-convert and have been renting my movies for almost 2 years now.

I have a shelve full of DVDs and VHS tapes that are collecting dust. Most movies aren't worth re-watching and it seems ridiculous to purchase things you're only going to watch once.

I still buy DVDs, but I only buy movies that I know I will watch again (e.g. The Matrix, God Father trilogy, etc.).

Everything else is on the Netflix queue, and if it takes 10 months for me to finally see it, oh well, so be it.

Case in point, I was looking forward to watching Ninja Assassin because the previews looked good and it has the "Wachowski brothers" stamp on it.

When it finally reached Netflix and my mailbox, I was extremely excited... extremely excited that I didn't go out of my way and buy it. The movie was a piece of junk in my opinion, and it would not even be on my shelve collecting dust with other DVDs.

tl;dr: Renting Movies "FTW".

Re:About time!

[Locke2005]

You're missing the point of buying DVDs: start a co-op with 19 of your friends. Take turns buying new movies as soon as they are released, and share them with friends. You're not paying the overhead of a for-profit distribution company like Netflix, and it's perfectly legal.

Re:About time!

[jeffmeden]

You're still being forced to pay $1 (or more depending on how much the price exceeds $20) for every single movie you or your friends wants to see. Surely there are movies you would rather not see... Right? Just go to a RedBox or similar $1-per-rental outfit and rent only what you want.

Plus, there's no in-fighting between you and your 19 "close friends" over who gets to keep Avatar on their DVD shelf...

Re:About time!

[eihab]

You're missing the point of buying DVDs: start a co-op with 19 of your friends.

19 friends?? I can count my friends that I still interact with on one hand with a few missing fingers!

I pay about $8 a month for Netflix and I watch anywhere between 1-3 movies a month. In addition to that, I watch a lot of movies/shows on my Wii or my Blu-ray player. It's insanely cheap compared to any other method (including socializing with 19 people and exchanging DVDs).

To each their own though :)

Re:About time!

[swanzilla]

You're missing the point of buying DVDs: start a co-op with 19 of your friends. Take turns buying new movies as soon as they are released, and share them with friends. You're not paying the overhead of a for-profit distribution company like Netflix, and it's perfectly legal.

Prerequisite: 19 friends w/o Netflix subscriptions

Re:About time!

[Locke2005]

Worse than that, it requires 19 friends with similar tastes. My wife's friend loaned her Pride and Prejudice. I, uh... still haven't watched it. Another reason for buying... kids. My daughter will actually watch the same movie several times in a row -- on the same day. Myself, most movies I buy I only end up watching once.

Re:About time!

[tepples]

Just go to a RedBox or similar $1-per-rental outfit and rent only what you want.

Unless a movie is old enough that Redbox doesn't have it anymore.

Re:About time!

[Locke2005]

I can count my friends that I still interact with on one hand with a few missing fingers! You could, you know, once in a while go upstairs and watch a movie with your mom...

Re:About time!

[eihab]

You could, you know, once in a while go upstairs and watch a movie with your mom...

My mom lives on a different continent you insensitive clod!

Sigh, I miss that basement.

Re:About time!

[Locke2005]

Glad you took that in the spirit in which it was meant -- as a joke. I should have included a smiley with that comment. ;) Contrary to the stereotype, yes, most of us are long past the "living in our parents' basement" phase -- in my case, it was over 30 years ago.

Re:About time!

[eihab]

Glad you took that in the spirit in which it was meant -- as a joke.

It was funny, thanks for the smile :)

I should have included a smiley with that comment

Or, you could have used an appropriate font ;)

Re:About time!

[im_thatoneguy]

I think consumers are starting to realize that it never is cost effective to purchase a film. At least at the release prices of about $18.

It's 100% about convenience. "I'm going to own this so that I could watch it at a seconds notice." Redbox and streaming are problematic for this psychology since you could watch a streaming movie instantly or probably get to a redbox and rent it for $1. There are very very few movies I own which I've seen 18 times. There are very few movies I own which I've seen 5 times. I should really own about 4-5 movies if it was purely financial.

Re:About time!

[eihab]

I think consumers are starting to realize that it never is cost effective to purchase a film. At least at the release prices of about $18.

Finances are a factor, but they are not the only factor. At least for me.

When I do my monthly budget, I leave about $300 for misc. purchases (outside of the entertainment line item). $20 on a movie is not really going to make or break my world.

But, $20 on a crappy movie (that its previews looked so good) that will take storage space in my house is something I look at and feel strongly against. I hate the ripped-off feeling that ensues.

As I have stated in my post before, I buy movies that I have already watched just to have them. It's not convenience, it's really about "having" that epic movie in my collection and maybe even passing them on to my grandchildren (if you're reading this my grandchildren, good luck finding a DVD player ;) ).

The movie industry really mastered the art of previews. They show you the best bits of a movie and string them together creating a false sense of a very intriguing plot.

They really shoot themselves in the foot when they do that, and I hope that they start to put less emphasis on the previews and more in the direction and story-line/character development.

I'm obviously not disagreeing with anything you said (aside from the 100% convenience), I just wanted to rant some more about it :)

"Unthinkable", another weird movie studio story

[sammyF70]

funny how stories tend to come in packs. The Movie "Unthinkable" was ranked #3 at IMDB prior to the release of the DVD/BR (it was a straight to video release). The producer ended up asking on the IMDB forums the people who had rated it where they got it from and about ideas on how to make things fairer for both sides.
As someone who saw it ~early~ too, I can only urge you to watch it (if possible through a legal rental or by buying the DVD or BR ... it IS worth it), as it is a really interesting movie.
I wonder whether this and TFS are linked somehow.

Re:"Unthinkable", another weird movie studio story

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the heads up. I found the .torrent on TPB and am downloading it now.

Nice, keeping up with the times

[jollyreaper]

Obligatory from the Onion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TrPwOrf4sM

Blockbuster Offers Glimpse Of Movie Renting Past

I work for a video rental store

[Supurcell]

In the last couple years, there have been a ton of retail exclusives. There are a few distributors who won't sell us movies that have some bogus exclusivity, but you know who will? Best Buy. We just buy em there, and rent em out just like anything else. The only thing we can't effectively get a large quantity of are the Netflix exclusives, but those are usually more obscure movies(which my store specializes in).

What I really hate are the "Rental Exclusive" editions of movies which have long, unskipable previews before the movie.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[jollyreaper]

What I really hate are the "Rental Exclusive" editions of movies which have long, unskipable previews before the movie.

That sort of thing has me absolutely livid. I have netflix but it makes me want to go seed a hundred movies out of spite.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really hate are the "Rental Exclusive" editions of movies which have long, unskipable previews before the movie.

Posting anonymous so I'm not karma whoring, but there was a LifeHacker article some weeks (months?) ago that said there's a good trick that works for many DVDs and DVD players (granted, not all of them)... to skip all the crap at the beginning of a disk, once it's started, hit STOP-STOP and then PLAY. Many players will start up the main title. I know this has already saved me from many annoying and painful preview crap on discs that we already own.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Sir_Dill]

Fast forward also still usually works

and if your player is like mine, hitting it more than once makes it go faster.

A "preview" at 20X is practically like hitting the next chapter button.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I won't even watch my Netflix movie before ripping it with AnyDVD and burning it with CloneDVD2 or just compressing with ffmpeg and streaming over UPnP to my tv. Yeah by the time I've done that I've sometimes lost some quality, and I love my HDTV, but you know what? I don't give a fuck if it means I can avoid the raging fit I'm bound to have if I get impatient and pop the actual DVD into the player. I cuss, smash random buttons on my remote, trying to bypass that ridiculous shit.

Good job movie studios, since I've already taken all these steps I guess I might just invest in 500 bucks in a Synology home NAS and pop in some 1 TB drives.

Yeah I'm impatient or whatever, I'm not in the habit of paying money (even if it's relatively little) to be annoyed. Relaxation is not for being annoyed. Work may be, but you get paid for that, so it's okay there.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[networkBoy]

My normal use case for Netflix:
Get DVD
Rip DVD to server
package up DVD and send it back
stream DVD from server to TV(s)
delete the DVD when I don't want to watch it any more (and/or I need the space back).

It's a similar use case for purchased DVDs

Re:I work for a video rental store

[spire3661]

NO. Redbox and Netflix are both on record as buying discs at retail stores. The retail chains were even pressured by the studios to limit the amount of discs a single person can buy.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[iluvcapra]

We just buy em there, and rent em out just like anything else.

Those copies at BB are only licensed for private home exhibition (that's why the rental copies cost a lot more and your company pays royalties when you rent them, dipshit). By renting those out you're cheating not just the studio and the distributor, but also the writers, director and actors out of income. My neighbor down the hall is Columbia Pictures Home Ent's Worldwide President, you want me to pass along a URL to your post?

God I hate freeloaders.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[iluvcapra]

Where on Earth do you get that information? Renting home videos out commercially might not be illegal but it sure as hell violates the terms of the license, even if they get away with it.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[cjHopman]

Those copies at BB are only licensed for private home exhibition (that's why the rental copies cost a lot more and your company pays royalties when you rent them, dipshit). By renting those out you're cheating not just the studio and the distributor, but also the writers, director and actors out of income. My neighbor down the hall is Columbia Pictures Home Ent's Worldwide President, you want me to pass along a URL to your post?

God I hate freeloaders.

Might want to pull out that law book of yours before commenting on legal matters. The right to rent retail purchased DVDs was affirmed in NEBG v Weinstein. Feel free to read more here.

You've now made a fool of yourself to us, please reconsider before doing the same with your neighbor down the hall.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[brentrad]

Or if your DVD player in the living room is a PC, run AnyDVD and it will make everything skippable - or you can set it to skip directly to either the menu or the main title.

AnyDVD-HD will even remove the Blu-Ray HDCP protection so you can plug your computer into a non-HDCP monitor or HDTV.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Anonymous Coward]

[Insert "Oh Snap! Diagram" here]

Re:I work for a video rental store

[noc007]

True they have been getting the retail copies, however I've seen a number of new DVD releases that are Rental copies; recent WB releases come to mind. Unfortunately these rental copies do not have any special features and are littered with previews.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[naoursla]

Maybe you should tell your neighbor down the hall that he has two options:

1) Sell DVD's
2) Rent movies

If he is going to sell DVD's, then people are going to buy them and rent them out under first sale doctrine. The goal here is that revenue from purchases is more than you can extract from rentals.

Or he could end sales. Plan on all revenue coming from revenue sharing on rentals. Give copies to the rental companies. Charge a super-high purchase rate if people don't return them. Dictate the rental price and take a healthy share. Doing it this way would also allow transfer pricing on companies like Netflix. Columbia could have transfer pricing on the Netflix's digital business if it were not for the escape hatch the physical mailing business provides.

Unfortunately (for him), if the other studio's don't follow his lead, the end result will be fewer movies from Columbia being watched as consumers choose the competition. He could arrange collusion with his competition, but that would be illegal and probably more financially damaging in the long run.

If he wants to discuss real long term solutions to this problem, I am available for consulting.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Leebert]

First Sale Doctrine, and most recently NEBG v Weinstein.

Further, I don't recall entering into any licensing agreement last time I bought a DVD. (Though in fairness, it's been a very long time.)

Re:I work for a video rental store

[Thelasko]

Sigh... Nobody ever reads the FBI Warning.

Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures.

Re:I work for a video rental store

[spire3661]

All microsoft optical discs come with " DO not make illegal copies of this disc" which is very nicely worded. It doesnt preclude the possibility of LEGAL backups while worded in a way that would scare most luddites. Same thing with your quote, its worded in a way that makes you think that ALL "reproduction, distribution or exhibition" is verboten, which is clearly not the case.

That is nice and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but after I downloaded "Gamer" with Russel Crow and watched it in fast-forward I decided to stop watching movies.

So DRM didn't beat me... "Gamer" did...

Re:That is nice and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but after I downloaded "Gamer" with Russel Crow and watched it in fast-forward I decided to stop watching movies.

Are you sure you actually watched it? Russel Crowe isn't in that movie man. You kinda lose those details whilst in "fast forward" mode.

Re:That is nice and all...

[BotnetZombie]

Watching films drunk has exactly the same effect. Only thing I remember from Gamer is that Dexter was the bad guy. And that it's probably not worth watching sober or at normal speed.

Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a purchase.'

That statement just kills me. In recent years, phrases like 'the customer is always right' seem like out-of-style-like-full-service-gas-stations concepts. If I were to go back in time like 15 years and talk about how these places lowered the value of the products to the people who pay for them to increase sales from those who didn't, they'd think I was concocting some silly sci-fi story.

Re:Wow

[Hatta]

I wonder if that Paramount exec had considered the implications of substituting "pirate" for "rent" wherever it occurs in that statement. It would be just as correct.

Re:Wow

[networkBoy]

not entirely.
I tend not to pirate stuff I can rent from Netflix/Redbox/etc.
So...
they can get the rental (at least that first sale) or nothing at all.

Re:Wow

[Hatta]

I don't see how that's a counter example. You evidently don't want to pirate, you want to rent. The best course of action for the publishers is not to stop you from pirating, but to provide opportunities for rental. This is completely consistent with my statement above.

Re:Wow

[nine-times]

Well these days, people think that the whole point of companies is only "to profit". Read the people posting on this site, and you'll see people advocating the same idea. I wouldn't be surprised if someone responded to my post with the whole spiel about how "a corporation's only responsibility is to maximize profit for shareholders".

No consideration given to the idea of "producing things" or "doing a good job" or "benefiting customers". It's gotten so unscrupulously greedy people don't even need to hide it. They could say, "We're out to get every last penny out of our customers while providing as little benefit as possible," and most of their customers would say, "Yeah, that's about what we expect."

It's sad, really. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

15 years isn't far enough - you would still be postdating Jack Valenti's famous quote about Sony (makers of video cassette recorders) being worse than rapists and murderers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. (above quote is not mentioned on the page, but this is the context wherein it was made)

Re:Wow

[arose]

Am I the only one who thinks that "rent" was a placeholder for "pirate" for PR purposes?

Re:Wow

[aaron552]

Not the only one. I immediately thought the same.

At last

[symes]

Having kids, a busy job and a generally hectic life I just don't have time to get to the cinema as often as I would like to. I would more than happily pay the equivalent, or even a small premium, to see a new release at home... why? Because going to the cinema is not just going to the cinema - it is an event with baby-sitter costs, a meal, drinks and generally making the most of a rare night out. Why oh why can't the movie business see this market (I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, well maybe on slashdot) and cater to my needs? I mean really! They are bonkers, the lot of them. Hell, I'd even subscribe and watch a new release once a week.

Re:At last

[tlhIngan]

Having kids, a busy job and a generally hectic life I just don't have time to get to the cinema as often as I would like to. I would more than happily pay the equivalent, or even a small premium, to see a new release at home... why? Because going to the cinema is not just going to the cinema - it is an event with baby-sitter costs, a meal, drinks and generally making the most of a rare night out. Why oh why can't the movie business see this market (I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, well maybe on slashdot) and cater to my needs? I mean really! They are bonkers, the lot of them. Hell, I'd even subscribe and watch a new release once a week.

That's supposedly the reason behind the push to get the FCC to approve "Selective Output Control" - basically kill the analog outputs so the movie studios can release movies earlier. (The FCC did, but restricted its use - from the moment it's made available and uses it, until 90 days later or when the movie is for retail sale - whichever is earlier). Of course we all see it as the MPAA and the like taking control of our cableboxes and obsoleting equipment, but they claim it's because there's a market for those who want to see a movie at home earlier than the usual 3-4 months between theatrical and home video release (via Video on Demand type cablebox service).

Only time will tell if this is the case or it's horribly abused.

Re:At last

[AnonymousClown]

I can't stand the damn advertisements at the beginning. My bladder is only so big and sitting through a 2 hour movie is a challenge. I also have this thing about arriving late to miss the ads - walking in the dark, trying to find a seat - I like to sit at the very back under the projectionist - anyway, I have to plan to be dehydrated a little before I see a movie so that I can sit through it.

It's also pretty pathetic that they have to remind people to be quiet and turn off their cell phones. Off course there's always one person that gets a call, their ringer is on full blast, it's also some hokey ring tone that just pierces through the movie sound ( and if you have an actor who likes to do those dramatic whispering dialogs ...), and of course, the phone is somewhere that's not in easy reach so it rings 4 or 5 times (one ring of a ringtone lasts the equivalent of 4 standard rings.) Then, some asshats actually answer the phone and talk.

Then there's the shitty quality of movies in the theater. After watching clear crisp DVDs, a 35mm projected movie looks fuzzy to me. They all do so it couldn't have been a projectionist that didn't know what he was doing.

DVDs for the win.

Re:At last

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of whether it will be abused, but when. If a corporation perceives a legal means of profit---even at an unreasonable cost to its customers---it will pursue it.

Re:At last

[dunkelfalke]

The whole point of going to the cinema is to watch the movie on a huge screen. If you just want to watch a DVD, there is no particular reason to watch it as the same time as it runs in the cinema, you can just as well wait a couple of months for the release anyway.

Re:At last

[bill_mcgonigle]

basically kill the analog outputs so the movie studios can release movies earlier

Right, because the clean/digital review screeners don't show up on torrent sites already.

I understand - this time they're going to stop the pirates, for sure!

When this generation of stupid executives retires/dies they'll start making more money by recognizing and satisfying market demand.

Re:At last

[KahabutDieDrake]

The whole point? The only one? Entirely? Are you sure? I think maybe that might be the "whole point" for you, but not necessarily for everyone else. You should try considering other perspectives once in a while. I'll bet you'd be shocked at the depth and breadth of reasons people do things.

Re:At last

[dunkelfalke]

You'll lose the bet.
Anyway, most things people do have nothing to do with any depth whatsoever and the most reasons are invented after the fact to explain the action.

Re:At last

[dangitman]

Then there's the shitty quality of movies in the theater. After watching clear crisp DVDs, a 35mm projected movie looks fuzzy to me. They all do so it couldn't have been a projectionist that didn't know what he was doing.

No, you must be going to shitty theaters. If you projected a DVD at cinema screen sizes, it would look awful. Even in a medium-sized home theater, DVD looks all blocky and crappy.

I think the problem is that they don't employ enough projectionists anymore, and the projectionists don't care. Often they have one projectionist for something like 12 screens. They aren't paying attention to each screen, they are too busy juggling. And new-release movies are so shit, that there's no reason why the projectionist would care about a particular film they way they used to.

Re:At last

[Taxman415a]

I actually wouldn't care a bit if they were allowed to also market a device that had no (or disabled) analog outputs as long as they weren't allowed to restrict sales of devices that did have analog outputs. Then they could choose to stream new releases just to their restricted devices. I wouldn't care a lick because I would never buy the restricted device.

The problem is they are already allowed to market a restricted single purpose device, but they choose not to and instead push to restrict the analog and other abilities of all devices even though it's really not the analog hole that is the source of pirate copies.

Re:At last

[AK Marc]

After watching clear crisp DVDs, a 35mm projected movie looks fuzzy to me.

You either need to try new theaters or new glasses. At the back row of a movie theater, there should be no "fuzzy" at all. The 35mm film has more resolution than a DVD. The issue is either the greater distance you are sitting (your eyes) or that the theater is presenting it poorly. But the 35mm resolution beats a DVD (and many theaters are moving from 35mm to digital projection that's well above 35mm).

The story needs to be corrected.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a soon to be former Paramount executive.

Just like when an IBM VP came down to RTP and told us all how our software was too complex and hard to configure. That we needed to start having it do what the customer needed and for them to be able to understand it. I told my co-workers he'd be out of the company in under 6 months. Sure enough he left the company after 5 months.

The powers that be don't like the truth or those who continually spout it.

A return to the days of commissioned art.

[maillemaker]

>They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece.
>When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.

Sounds like a return to the days of commissioned art.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's do this with porn too!

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Tubal-Cain]

Would that be a bad thing?

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Kjella]

I'm not sure those days ever left, Hollywood commissions a movie based on what they think people will pay for and so does this movie so what exactly is the difference there? I would probably even say that a huge group of tiny investors will have a much harder time agreeing to influence the production than one huge Hollywood studio, leaving more artistic freedom to the makers. However, I think that's also the downside, you have no idea what will come of your money. Can they start making it when $100,000 is in, risking they'll never reach the $200,000 goal? Will they stop midway, leaving the money spent and those that paid with nothing? Or do they wait until the money is in, make the crappiest cheapest movie they can and disappear? Promises are cheap, for example I bought some of the webisodes of Sanctuary, before they they got a contract with SyFy and reverted on all their promises that they would always be an online series with web releases equal or prior to any TV release. I call it a scam to pay their way through the pilot. Things will have to work a lot differently for this to succeed, I doubt "give us money please" will be enough.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Durinthal]

Sounds like a return to the days of commissioned art.

Crowdsourced commissioned art? Sounds like a good plan to me, actually. Kickstarter funds a wide variety of projects (not just art) in a similar manner.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[L3370]

I think *invest* is a poor choice of words here. The benefit of "investing" would be a return on that investment. If the movie is to be released for free, there will be no return on investment for someone that paid.

This sounds more like paying money in exchange for a product...except there's a chance the project won't make it to completion, and you'll be out your share of the cash. If it is completed and you watch it and fully enjoy it, you've broken even, at best. If the movie is terrible then you may perceive the value of your contribution as a waste of money...a loss.

Overall this sounds like a crafty group of entrepeneurs are trying to find "investors" that will accept all the risks of production and buy the end product, finished or unfinished. Hipsters will love it and buy it, because its released for free in an open venue. Very good sales pitch. Make the customer feel like an investor, rather than a sucker.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[dangitman]

Yeah, where's the investment? Sounds more like charity to me, the cinematic equivalent of a Paypal "donate" link on a blog.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[dangitman]

Would that be a bad thing?

Probably. It puts cultural creation in the hands of the wealthy and elite. It means art is more likely to be used for propaganda.

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already do. Many porn sites are subscription based. Ya know, the whole put a down payment so said site will release new materials?

Re:A return to the days of commissioned art.

[Twylite]

Sounds like a return to the days when "invest" and "charity" meant the same thing. At least commissioned art gives you something of value, i.e. an actual investment.

For your "investment" you will get limited non-commercial rights to a single frame of the movie. One "investor" will get a 1% share of the "profit". "Profit" is defined as income less all expenses including the $135k charity (whoops, I mean "investment") they received in the first place. Needless to say, "income" is undefined.

So their business model is "give us money and we will create a free movie, and then make some money for ourselves off everything other than the distribution of the movie." This is precisely the wrong model for sustainable business.

Link?

[whisper_jeff]

Other than these two, totally separate stories being about movies, how are they even related? Shouldn't they be two different front page submissions? One is about rental policies from a major studio while the second is about a decidedly independent movie-making effort. Or did we just piggyback one on the other so that it could get Slashdot front page face time?

Tag needed...

[irondonkey]

suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

Redbox is for new releases

[tepples]

I predict Blockbuster locations will disappear in the next 5 years and we'll be left with Redbox

Redbox machines tend to carry only new releases, not older films that I may have missed. With Blockbuster and locally owned video rental stores gone, where will people rent older films?

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[SweeBeeps]

Older movies seem to be a Netflix specialty, especially with streaming content (whereas streaming new content is spotty at best!)

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[LBt1st]

From their couch.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[mrmeval]

Check their website, you can have movies delivered to a redbox and they'll tell you when you can pick it up.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[X0563511]

I'm not interested in Netflix (or anything similar). There must be others like me. What will we do?

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[kimvette]

Shop for antique buggy whips? ;)

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[iamhassi]

"There must be others like me."

Not enough apparently.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[PrecambrianRabbit]

Honestly, you'll probably be out of luck. I was recently looking for a semi-old movie (from 1997, which feels weird to call semi-old) recently, and had no luck, even at places like Blockbuster. Shelf space is apparently at a premium, and unless a movie is a bona fide classic or new release, it's hard to justify stocking it... I guess.

I have no objection to Netflix, so I'll probably go that route one of these days, but an alternative that I like is Amazon/iTunes rentals. I know they're DRM-ed, so many here will object, but I consider a rental a disposable purchase anyways. I don't mind if it has no future compatibility and limited viewing options, I just want to watch the movie this evening and then forget about it.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[BarryJacobsen]

I'm not interested in Netflix (or anything similar). There must be others like me. What will we do?

You'll start your own movie rental place specializing in old videos if you REALLY want them, and think others do. Otherwise you'll go without or give in and take one of the options provided to you like Netflix.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[bzipitidoo]

Nah, play games! Cards, board games... oh all right, video games too. Maybe even ball games, like, uh... miniature golf!

It's an outrage that Trivial Pursuit's "Entertainment" category is almost exclusively about movies and TV shows. People might not realize there are other forms of entertainment!

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[Omestes]

With Blockbuster and locally owned video rental stores gone, where will people rent older films?

Blockbuster started to really suck in the older movie department. Recently (in the last 3 years or so) all they carry is new releases, crappy copy-cat movies (like Transmorphers, or other direct low-budged copies of recent blockbusters), and movies that were big and popular under 10 years ago. Recently they even cut this back make a large Blu-Ray section, and NYT Bestseller books aisle (which pretty much screams "we are a company deeply in crisis, and completely out of ideas that make money). Browsing Blockbuster is now somewhat depressing. The only reason to go there is to buy pre-watched new release DVDs, though they even jacked up those prices recently.

The only brick and mortar places that have/had a decent selection of older, more obscure, movies are mom&pops, some Hollywood videos. When I lived in Flagstaff Hasting's was the greatest video place on this side of Netflix, they still have aisles of VHS tapes. I doubt they ever removed inventory accept when it wore out, which is a very nice feature for a video store.

Netflix probably wins in the older move category. They have ALMOST everything I've looked for. Outside of that, try your local library. Most libraries have a decent movie section now. Some of them even have more movies than books these days (which is fundamentally depressing).

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[Omestes]

What do you have against Netflix, out of curiosity?

If there are no rental shops, and only Red Box, and your religion bars Netflix, then you pretty much are out of luck, unless you want to only buy (or pirate) movies. You, in other words, are completely out of luck.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[aussie_a]

I know game stores around here have killed Blockbuster for video games. You can play a game for a week and return it if you don't like it and get a full refund.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[hairyfeet]

Buy them on Amazon? Hell after a year or so the movies and PC games at Amazon are usually about the same price as a rental, and you keep the movie. I know that I pick up older shooters that I missed all the time for just a couple of bucks, around $5-7 with shipping, less if I buy multiples from the same company.

So in the end while rentals will disappear, at least for older releases, with sites like Amazon you can often buy older titles for just a hair more than a rental, maybe even less.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[Jarik C-Bol]

Blockbuster Online. its netflix, only with better envelopes, and a name that does not make me feel quite as retarded to say.

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[NotQuiteReal]

Shop for antique buggy whips?

No! there is a (small) market for NEW buggy whips... and with the Internet makers can profitably find that market!

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourselves immediately

Re:Redbox is for new releases

[Nothing2Chere]

I walked by a Redbox machine on Sunday night at 7pm in a suburb there were something like 25 waiting in line to rent their movie. I thought, "It's worse than at the bank".

Big Rental Release

[RichMan]

The bigger the rental release the more copies the rental places need to have to meet the surge. If the surge is dampened because of earlier sales and less hype because of the mixed release dates then the rental places have to buy less to meet the peak opening demand.

So releasing into both markets at the same time is likely to lead to more sales into the rental market.

Kill Bill

[tepples]

Standard movie length is over 3 hours now?

It may not be standard, but Disney's Kill Bill was so long they had to release it in two installments. A lot of made-for-TV movies are the same way.

Re:Kill Bill

[jeffmeden]

Standard movie length is over 3 hours now?

It may not be standard, but Disney's Kill Bill was so long they had to release it in two installments. A lot of made-for-TV movies are the same way.

*Disney's* Kill Bill? Did you see the movie? Disney, it ain't. Maybe that was a joke I missed?

Re:Kill Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a typo - it should be "Disney's 'Kill Steamboat Willy' "

Purchase? Restricting?

[Culture20]

A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a long term rental ending when we change to a new DRM scheme.'

There, FTFY
Also: Restricting. Nice to know they're owning up to that word.

I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[tepples]

Most movies aren't worth re-watching

True, most movies aren't made with single-digit-year-olds in mind. But when little Staisy wants Cinderella, she wants Cinderella. And she wants it once a week or more often. I should know: I was six once, and I was that way with The Care Bears Movie.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[eihab]

Most movies aren't worth re-watching

True, most movies aren't made with single-digit-year-olds in mind. But when little Staisy wants Cinderella, she wants Cinderella. And she wants it once a week or more often. I should know: I was six once, and I was that way with The Care Bears Movie.

Are you telling me you have never re-watched a movie past the age of 6? Ever go back and watch a classic that you have seen before but it's so good that you want to see it again?

I happen to forget movies and even plots sometimes, and re-watching a good movie (not weekly obviously) can be a fun experience where you notice the subtle hints you may have missed before (sixth sense, beautiful mind, butterfly effect, etc.).

I would take a good movie that I watched before any day over a crappy shiny new movie.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[Anonymous Coward]

Deliberately misspelling a common name to be 'unique' (such as Staisy) is punishable by death.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[celery stalk]

Amen to that. There's movies I have on DVD/BD (or ::ahem:: a "time-shifted rental") that I can see anytime I want to, but what if I just catch it on TV? Strangely enough, I'll sit there and watch it, even with the commercials added and it having been edited for "time and content". It's not quite the same, but it is still the same story as the uncut, and I still enjoy seeing it again.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[tooyoung]

True, most movies aren't made with single-digit-year-olds in mind. But when little Staisy wants Cinderella, she wants Cinderella. And she wants it once a week or more often

Yeah, she wants it, oh well...

I've seen this behavior with plenty of my friends and it just blows my mind. Their kid will sit in front of the TV watch Cars or some Disney cartoon over and over and over. Every time I am at their house, the kid will be watching the same movie. Is this really healthy for a child? I have enough of a problem with the television being the sitter for a kid under the age of 10, but at least give them some variety.

Oh, believe me, I know, your kid really wants to watch that movie again. They demand it. They will not behave if you don't let them watch it. This is a parenting problem. How about interacting with your children instead of letting them set the rules?

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[tepples]

Are you telling me you have never re-watched a movie past the age of 6?

Over the 20-year life of a home video format, I'll re-watch a film three, four, five times, maybe. But not 20, which is the number of times I would have to re-watch to break even with Redbox.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[tepples]

How about interacting with your children instead of letting them set the rules?

A lot of parents can't take three months off work to interact outside with a child on summer vacation.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[eihab]

Over the 20-year life of a home video format, I'll re-watch a film three, four, five times, maybe. But not 20, which is the number of times I would have to re-watch to break even with Redbox.

Well then I guess I'm one of the weird people who thinks of classic works as collectibles that I like to own even if the underlying technology becomes obsolete.

You don't need a ROI plan with dollar amount and break-even analysis on every little thing you purchase you know :)

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[eihab]

Their kid will sit in front of the TV watch Cars or some Disney cartoon over and over and over. Every time I am at their house, the kid will be watching the same movie. Is this really healthy for a child?

I think my son's TV/movie watching habits are healthy. He doesn't watch Cars back to back, but every once in a while he'll ask to watch it again and I let him.

He's been recently asking to watch old cartoons that he used to watch a year ago (Blues Clues, etc.).

I sit down and watch it with him, and I'm noticing that he wants to watch it again because he has a better command of the language now and he "gets" what Blues means now. It's fun to watch him get excited and his face lighting up/laughing because he is that much more better at communicating.

Children also have a very short attention span. I notice that he misses a lot of the movie when he gets bored 20 minutes into it and starts playing with his actual cars or going for another activity. Which can explain why re-watching movies aren't that big of a deal to kids.

They demand it. They will not behave if you don't let them watch it. This is a parenting problem. How about interacting with your children instead of letting them set the rules?

I agree that this is a parenting problem. And believe you me, if my son is not on his best behavior and have not been impressing me recently (be it toilet training, learning how to spell new words, or counting past a certain number) then he gets no TV whatsoever, let alone demanding a show/movie and throwing a tantrum for it (that's grounds for timeout in my place).

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[LoverOfJoy]

Certainly too much tv (or anything) can be bad for a kid. But even with things like books, kids love repetition. It's how they learn. And it's not poor parenting to let your kids make choices in their lives...even if it is to read or watch something again for the 10th time in a row. Sure, they need to be exposed to a variety of things, but having a favorite they watch/read a lot does not preclude that.

Re:I wanna see Sin-duh-weh-wuh

[Omestes]

To each their own, but I doubt very much that you have "normal" habits.

I have probably watched the Godfather over 50 times in the last 30 years. I've watched the original Starwars Trilogy about once a year since I was 8. Etc... I don't think, though, that I've ever spent over 15.00 for a single movie though. $20 DVDs is a pretty new thing, and I completely refuse to play along with that. I usually wait for it to hit $10, or buy it used via Blockbuster or a used bookstore, or for it to be a loss-leader at some media store. Blue Ray fits on the same budget criteria, I refuse to buy it until it hits the sub-$10 level, I will not spend more money for Blue Ray than I will for DVD.

I also have stranger tastes, and older, than Red Box will allow. I like old movies. I very rarely watch a new release, since I fully expect them to suck.

Netflix has exclusives?

[AnonymousClown]

Could you give an example? I don't doubt it, it just seems as though NF is the last in line for many things. Most of the time, I have to wait months before a movie is available on NF.

And they're really weird about streaming. They'll offer a streamed version for a couple of months, take it off, and then put it back on.

Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[tepples]

Did you see the movie?

Nope. And I don't plan to until 2019 when the Sonny Bono Act, a U.S. copyright term extension heavily promoted by Miramax's parent company, finally wears off.

Disney, it ain't.

From Wikipedia: Kill Bill was distributed by Miramax Films, which has been part of Disney since 1993.

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. And I don't plan to until 2019 when the Sonny Bono Act, a U.S. copyright term extension heavily promoted by Miramax's parent company, finally wears off.

Oh. Dear. Lord. No. You're going to be one of those grandfathers who makes references to 30-year-old movies as if they were just released because you finally saw them after years of wondering what all the fuss was about, aren't you? Good GOD, you're going to be annoying around 2019. We'd best hurry up and get to extending it again just to keep you in the dark...

There's an xkcd for this, I just forgot the number.

From Wikipedia: Kill Bill was distributed by Miramax Films, which has been part of Disney since 1993.

Um... then that would be "Miramax's Kill Bill", not Disney's. Do you normally name things by their ultimate parent organizations? How far up the chain do you want to go? "America's Kill Bill"? "The human race's Kill Bill"? "The Milky Way Galaxy's Kill Bill"?

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[MaskedSlacker]

Distribution != production.

Any /.er who doesn't know this (hint:Video Games) doesn't deserve the title.

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[tepples]

Um... then that would be "Miramax's Kill Bill", not Disney's.

One could continue the analysis down to the director: Tarantino's Kill Bill. But films like these are works made for hire.

Do you normally name things by their ultimate parent organizations?

I continue up the chain of parent organizations that have a controlling voting interest. For instance, I lump Paramount and CBS News together, even after CBS spun off Paramount Pictures and other high-growth brands into Viacom, because National Amusements controls both CBS and Viacom.

How far up the chain do you want to go? "America's Kill Bill"?

I stop at Disney because the US government doesn't have a controlling voting interest in Disney.

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[tepples]

Distribution != production.

But of the distribution company and the production company, which keeps more of the earnings? And which keeps the copyright in the film?

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[iluvcapra]

Nope. And I don't plan to until 2019 when the Sonny Bono Act, a U.S. copyright term extension heavily promoted by Miramax's parent company, finally wears off.

To be honest, I think your politics is depriving you of a lot of really good movies. So do you never watch a Pixar film either?

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[iluvcapra]

The producer retains copyright except in the territories where he has specifically relaxed it to a local subsidiary, for tax or other reasons. Production companies usually don't make a lot of money from the profits of the show, distributors keep much more. Production companies make much of their money by taking a percentage off the top of the budget as their fee to produce. Producers of course get a nice slice of the gross, but it's the difference between 5 or 10% for the producers and like 50% to the distributors.

Re:Miramax? That's another name for Disney.

[zeroshade]

And I don't plan to until 2019 when the Sonny Bono Act, a U.S. copyright term extension heavily promoted by Miramax's parent company, finally wears off.

Good luck waiting for that. I have no doubt that they'll find a way to extend it, yet again.

Re:Wachowski bros

[Anonymous Coward]

Wachowski bros lost all their cred when they tried to make a sequel to the Matrix. Fortunately you and I know that they never made a sequel to the Matrix, and I for one will never watch another Wachowski bros movie.

Who would have guessed?

[Sloppy]

They must have decided that saying "No" to customers' offers of money, isn't quite the optimum revenue-generating strategy. Saying "Yes" to offers of money, apparently gives the movie-makers a subtle financial edge, relative to their old business model. Who knew? What a weird and unintuitive market this is; conventional wisdom is that the best approach to business is "The customer can always go fuck themselves."

I'll watch a movie if it's on

[tepples]

So do you never watch a Pixar film either?

I'll watch a Disney movie if it's on. This means a non-theatrical showing that someone else is paying for, such as network TV or a DVD at someone else's house. If a movie is "on", the studio gets no more money whether I watch or not. But among the people I hang out with, something like Up is more likely to be on than something like Kill Bill.

Re:I'll watch a movie if it's on

[iluvcapra]

You're a Buena Vista freegan!

The monthly fee

[tepples]

What do you have against Netflix, out of curiosity?

The monthly fee. Netflix is $9/mo, but I'm not yet up to the point where I'm renting nine movies at the Redbox a month.

Re:The monthly fee

[Omestes]

Not to argue with you, obviously your choice works for you and my differing choices have nothing to do with that. But do you think the larger back catalog would change your rental habits?

I noticed that Netflix changed my viewing habits. The automated sending of movies is great, and the streaming content pretty much killed my cable subscription. For my family it is worth the $15/mo.

Obviously mileage varies.

That "SOMETHING" is your math

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen a "STANDARD" 190 minute movie...that's 3 hours 10 minutes!! The few that I know of that are that long are far from "standard"...

Try $1/frame x 23.9fps x 90min = $129,060

Vote with your dollars!

[Anonymous Coward]

Crowdsourcing the funding for a movie is a brilliant concept, I bought a frame to support the distribution more than the movie. Whether this movie is good or not, I hope all indie films will be funded and distributed this way. And who knows, the movie might be the next Blair Witch Project.

So basically...

[NotQuiteReal]

They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece. When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.

They are pretty much like a "squeegee guy" or someone sitting at a freeway off ramp with a sign that says "will work for food".

Yeah, working a 9-5er sucks... maybe I'll take donations for $10/sentence to write a book... which I will release to project gutenberg for free!

Obviously you didn't look at their site...

[N0Man74]

If *THAT* is the party that seemed off to you, you didn't read the details on their site...

First, I want to say that there are tons of indie films with budgets in this ballpark (or even lower) that have been successful, and some of them are quite good. Hollywood movies don't try to be reasonable in budget. They try to be big and showy, and that costs money.

The amount is actually going to be $135,000... apparently they thought 90 minutes was standard, rather than 190 minutes.

However, those aren't the numbers that are off. What is off is what the terms are for this deal. What you get for your $1, assuming the movie is completed, is they will e-mail you a picture of the 1 frame of the film that gets designated to you. All those people who happen to fall on a "fade to black" are going to be pretty excited by that pure black picture they get...

99% of the profit is going to go back to the group that made it.

1% is being given away lottery style to whoever happened to have randomly invested in a frame that is going to be selected by these guys. That 1 person gets 1% of the film profits.

Sounds like a good shtick to me. Why bother taking out loans when you can get people volunteer donations for only 1% of the profit?

Freeganism

[tepples]

Thank you for the excellent analogy.

So, I guess I'm a Vivid Entertainment freegan?

[CaspianHiro]

I'll only watch porn if it happens to be 'on.'

Or a strip club freegan - the asshole at the table next to yours that keeps making comments while you're trying to enjoy a table dance.