Star Wars Producer Says Box Office is Doomed 1203
Cutriss writes "Seen at CNN, this article interviews Rick McCallum, longtime producer at LucasFilms. McCallum says that DVDs will be responsible for the downfall of the movie industry *without* taking piracy into account, due to the fact that people think the home theatre experience is just as good, or better than the big screens, and they know that in five months, the DVD will be out on the market. Of course, his claim that "studios are barely breaking even" falls on deaf ears when I hear about 9-digit salaries for individual actors in a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept. He also mentions, of course, that DVD piracy and movie "sharing" groups will only speed up the cycle, and that they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years."
Propoganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Too Bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The food portions are smaller than a few years ago.
2. The price is WAY WAY higher!
3. People's cell phones are going off.
4. Some a**hole is giving comentary to the person sitting next to him/her.
Overall, not a very pleasant experience.
Movie Industry dead in three years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lucas THX (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds to me like a misquoted or singular rant, and not an offical platform of Lucusfilm. There is potentialy even more money to be made in the home theater market, and it's quite clear that they realize this.
-Chris
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
It's completely absurd to think that movies MUST be made by companies named "Paramount Pictures" or "Universal Studios". There's nothing magical about those names. If they can't stay in business, or refuse to change enough to stay in business, then screw them. Time for new blood.
How is this any different than VCRs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno (Score:2, Insightful)
-- (uh oh, here come the "How dare you support the MPAA" loonies...) -- it's a social occasion. We can have a few beers, or a pizza, talk about the movie, throw some popcorn around, and generally have ourselves tidied up after by acned teenagers. It's a different experience from watching a DVD, no matter how good someones home cinema system is.
More complaints (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they always say this? Wasn't it said about videos, CD Video, cable? Who produces the DVD's? OK, so if people stop going to theatres then thats a revenue stream down but more income from DVD rentals, sales, airlines, pay per view, airlines ....
I really wish they'd just see that technology opens up new revenue streams faster than it closes them down.
movie theaters suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Watchable movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if that is just them hanging onto all the good stuff so that they are remembered at the awards or what. If that is the case then they only have themselves to blame for the situation as there should always be at least 1 movie that everybody should want to see.
--
My PC refuses to think outside the box.
Read the article! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Filmmakers love it because it more closely resembles the film made," he says.
All he really states is that the Box Office gross doesn't mean what it used to and more directors are "relying on DVD sales".
This would be redundant, but it doesn't look like the previous posters actually read it.....
This is just a rehash of the TV arguement (Score:2, Insightful)
I really doubt this will be a real issue. I can imagine I'd ever have a 30 - 45 ft screen in my house. I like going to movies just for the massive screen size. LOTR looks great on my home TV, but it will never compare to the theatre.
Sean D.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
The most popular movies are gating over $400 dollars in the US alone. (Star Wars, Spider-man, Fellowship of the Ring).
Those same movies will likely make killings in overseas markets.
And then, those movies will make even more on DVD sales around the world.
If Hollywood goes out of business, it'll only be caused by their own incompetence. Maybe Hollywood should drop the $30 million salaries and ridiculous special effects costs and concentrate on writing (or adapting) entertaining storylines for movies.
DVD's aren't going to kill Hollywood any more then VHS did. A big screen TV is not the same as a movie theater screen. However, I'd wager that the quality of movies is declining. For every gem like Fellowship of the Ring, there's 3 or 4 movies with the quality of "Kung Pow".
Re:Too Bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
$6.00 for three movies (at my convienience) or $18.00+ for one?
No matter what the hardware that the movie theatre has, it does NOT justify a $9.00 ticket price.
Funny? He's serious (I think)! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why someone modded this as Funny because I think zensmile makes good points. It costs a lot to go to the movies and the experience is inferior to what I can have in my home. Here's a few more additions to the list:
5. Sticky floors6. Six or seven trailers before the show starts
7. No control over sound, picture quality, environmental conditions
8. Just too many people in general
If the film industry starts hurting for business, they can start to work on making the theater a more enjoyable experience. Until then, I'm just going to wait a few months and get a better experience at a better price in my own place.
GMD
Or maybe the reason is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Could it be you produced movies that were shite, Rick? oh no,no,no must be DVDs and the internet, that's it!!
just another generational shift. (Score:5, Insightful)
just because you have managed to earn a living doing something in the past, that is no guarantee of being able to do so in the future.
technology changes the rules, and some industries suffer, but other industries prosper.
the movie industry needs to realize that they are not "entitled" to make money from traditional movies, they must provide us a reason to do pay them for the experience.
if they made movies that were worth the extra $5 to see on a big screen vs. my tv, then maybe I they wouldn't have this problem.
Hollywood is doomed? (Score:2, Insightful)
It'll Be As Dead As... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be as dead as...
...movie theatres after TV.
...Live music after radio.
...theatre after movies.
...radio after TV.
There's something that going to the movies can provide that DVDs can't. The movies provide the whole "going out" experience, and the crowd. How many times have you gone to a movie and remarked "when that happened, the whole crowd laughed, yelled, groaned, etc."
Staying at home with a DVD and the microwave is lame. Dinner and a movie is cool.
Better yet, we may see more innovation in theatres like the Cinema and Drafthouse. If you've never been to one of those, you don't know what you're missing.
In other news... The sky is falling (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how piracy has destroyed the software industry! Oh, it hasn't? But people have been pirating software for 10 years, how can software vendors still be making money?!!! Funny, isn't it?
My hope for the future is that we get rid of alot of the "Fame and Fortune" aspect of acting. In the future (thanks to the Internet), I believe that anyone will be able to broadcast anything they want, and may become famous, but not necessarily rich.
Hollywood makes lots of great movies, and a lot of bad ones. But they've only been around for less than 100 years. They may simply be a short-lived 20th century phenomena, with other forms of entertainment eventually taking over. Don't boohoo about it. If they disappear, it will be because nobody wants their stuff, not because everyone wants DVD's...
For the record, I've never put off "going to the movies" with my wife, simply so that I could watch it on DVD/VHS/PPV three months later...
Then and now (Score:2, Insightful)
Cut to 20 years later...
Rick McCallum: "Studios need it, or they're gone. They're on the verge of collapse anyway. They are not making money. Anyone who says, or thinks, that they are, is out of their mind."
--Joey
Stop doing that (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who goes in to see his doctor because it hurts every time he bends in a strange way. The doctor tells him to stop bending that way, and the pain will go away.
If it really hurts the box office that the DVD is released just a few months after the theatrical release, why in hell are the doing it? They could always delay the DVD so that it only comes out a year or more after the theatrical release. That preserves the incentive to see the movie on the big screen, while letting the DVD come out close enough to the theatrical release that people can still remember the movie and want to buy it. What is wrong with these people?
Absolute unadulterated hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Ticket sales will improve as the economy improves. Theaters will install new technology to make the movie-going experience better. Ticket prices will increase leading to bigger and bigger box-office takes. DVD sales will remain strong. Hollywood will continue to thrive. Piracy will be a secondary factor (as it is now) until fat bandwidth is ubiquitous; after that, it will be controlled by social factors. MPAA will continue to believe that they represent the forces of free speech; people like me will continue to laugh in their faces.
Hollywood will face a major defeat, however, it won't be economic. It will be legal. Copyright extentions will be cut down by the Supreme Court and DMCA will either be stricken down or repealed. Hollywood will then have to resort to marketing (gasp!) to prevent mass piracy.
puh-lease (Score:2, Insightful)
Response to some of his points (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the movie companies aren't making a film as good as Titanic every year. Personally, I didn't care for it, but a lot of people really liked it. I don't see the same kind of passion for "Dude, where's my car?".
Filmmakers love it [DVD] because it more closely resembles the film made
Then maybe the movie studios and theatres should listen more closely to the filmmakers before eviscerating the movie for general release?
I don't think there's a single movie that can survive on box office gross alone; it just doesn't exist anymore. A theatrical gross can't hack it anymore, and the business is barely surviving right now
27 movies so far this year have grossed over $100 million. If you can't put a movie onto film for less than a million dollars a minute I suggest you need to control your costs a little better. Taco suggested paying actors less. That might be a start.
Films like Star Wars will always b seen in theater (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, going to the movies is a social activity. People bring dates to movies, they bring their kids on outings to movies, etc. It's kind of like saying bars and resturants are dying because people can eat and drink at their houses.
Try getting that big screen at home (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's the big screen I like. Mitsubishi electronics' best efforts notwithstanding, home theater will never be as impressive as a screen the size of an auditorium wall with all the characters projected in incredible detail. The movies I really love I go to see three, four times on those big screens, just because I prefer to watch a movie "up there" than "down here".
When I can afford to outfit an entire room of my house for darkened projected DVD movie experiences, I may reconsider. For now it's easier just to spend $3 apiece at the cheapie theater.
it won't always be doomed.... (Score:2, Insightful)
suppose rick m. is right - dvds and piracy effectively reduce all incentives to produce films (or music). what happens then? consumers still demand these things but a system to make a profit/deliver these goods has died. well, guess what - the 'invisible hand' will strut its stuff and a new market, which gives incentives to producers and content to consumers, will spring up. that is the way a market economy works.
to rick: so stop lamenting your death, and perhaps poise yourself for the new market. then you can really make out. just keep producing good stories and you'll be ok, guy.
Re:And yet, box office receipts keep rising... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd also argue that if they stopped raising ticket prices so much, more people would go. DVD is successful, since it is affordable compared to seeing a movie in a theater... Especially to big city people, who are busy and have to pay to park.
This is news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, of course, when one distribution model fails, the smart thing to do is jump onto the next popular one (DVD's), or even better, look past it. Yes, the internet could be the next after that. Industries must adapt to change or die out. So they should adopt to the internet and be ahead of the curve. But, it's these same studios, and the record companies, that wish to neuter the potential of the internet marketplace! Doh!
What happens when an entrenched industry or interest successfully holds back change is much like what happened to Sparta, or a more recent example, when Afganhanistan took a turn south from progress a few centuries back. Maybe one day we too will be waiting for delivery of a generous donation of internet infotainment devices to help "uplift" us the way we recently sent tv's to Afghanastan so they could see the world socker match, or looked upon with the same quaint humor the romans did of the Spartans when they too failed to change with the times.
Re:Funny? He's serious (I think)! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention product comercials before a movie you have paid for...
But they keep breaking records! (Score:5, Insightful)
6 or 7 years ago, I'd take my girlfriend to the local 3-screen theatre and we'd watch a first-run movie for about $5 a head, plus a shared $8 combo. Total cost, after taxes, $18. Now, the ticket price at my local 12-screen megaplex is $13 per ticket, and the cheapest popcorn+soda combo runs $9 plus tax. Total cost, after taxes, $38.
Now, at $18 for a night out, it was worth it. But once the cost of the experience exceeds the price of owning the movie on DVD, I get a little hesitant about running out to the theatre every weekend. So now, unless it's a movie that will truly benefit from the big-screen experience (i.e., Clones), I simply wait and buy the DVD. That's right, I buy the DVD, even if I'm not sure I'll like the movie. Know why? Because it's still cheaper than seeing it in the theatre, and plus, I get to keep the movie. So even if the movie sucked, hey, at least I still have something to show for it. If it had sucked on the big screen, all I'd walk out with would be some butter on my fingers.
What I'd like to see happen is for studios to make less use of expensive, superfluous special effects and quit pandering to the silver-spoon prima donna crybaby megastars like Julia Roberts, and start hiring equally-capable, but far lesser-known (and thus, far cheaper) actors, like Guy Pearce. Of course, now that he's becoming popular, you'd have to opt for someone else, unless he's willing to continue working at his "Memento" salary levels. This way, we'd get more diversity on screen, and the movies would be far cheaper to produce (and dare I dream, far cheaper to watch?).
Am I the only one who, when I see a Tom Hanks movie (and don't get me wrong, Tom is an amazing actor), I have a lot of trouble accepting him in whatever role he's supposed to be? I keep seeing Forrest Gump. Of course, he was great, but he's still got that recognition, and sometimes, that can hurt a movie. I mean, come on, George Clooney as Batman? Sure, he did a great job, but I kept seeing the doctor from "E.R." I think this was one of the reasons I liked "Memento" so much - I'd never seen Guy Pearce before.
By the way, there's no way that the industry will die in a mere 3 years. That's insanely fast. They couldn't die that fast if they tried. It would take nothing short of some extreme economics and a perfect sequence of disastrous coincidences and events to eliminate such a massive industry so quickly.
Re:Naturally... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a 27" TV (hand me down, about 10-12 years old).
I MUCH prefer this theatre to the one in Maumee, OH which would set me back about $9.00/ea ticket.
My couch is FAR more comfortable than the theatre chairs, I don't get a nose bleed from the stadium seating, and I don't have to listen to the asshole teenagers blabbing the whole time (then who tell someone 10 years older than them to STFU, on a side note: When I was 12 I wouldn't THINK of talking to a 21+ year old, nevermind talking back to them)
Again, 2.99/ea or $6.00/three DVDs rental. $9.00/ea (18.00/total) for movies.
Too easy.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Hollywood in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too Bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Babies do not belong in movie theaters! You have to be able to sit down and shut up for at least 2 hours.
Which some 20+ year olds have problems with I know, but at least you can prosecute them. There isn't a jury alive that will convict a baby.
Ummm.....No (Score:2, Insightful)
1- A huge theater screen with booming THX speakers
or
2- Your 27' television
Hmmmm, yeah, I chose number 1 as well. Face it, unless you're just plain El Cheapo, you still go to the movies for the ones you REALLY want to see. And unless you've got LOTS of cash flowing in, you probably don't have a "home theater" with all of the goodies. Sorry, but I agree with an earlier post. I don't think Lucas knows this YoYo is going around saying this.
DVD better than Cinema Experience? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Screen Size: 32" is no slouch but it still doesn't compare to the walls I watch at the local multiplex. Say what you want about projection setups but I haven't found one yet that fits my lounge, taste or budget...
2. Sound Quality: 5.1 is also quite good, especially inside the confines of my lounge. But again it doesn't measure up to the cinema both on the clarity front (the room is far from an ideal shape) and the volume I can use without attracting police attention.
3. The Seats: admittedly much of a gamble at the cinema but my local has unusually large and comfortable ones with plenty of leg room. I can fit more friends and family into a cinema than into my lounge...
I have about 200 DVD's myself and view the format as far superior to vhs - but still filling the same niche in the entertainment ecology. It allows me to replicate part of the cinema experience at home, but not to replace it.
Given the option of seeing The Two Towers first at home or in a Cinema I would have no problem choosing the cinema - home theatre has a long way to go to match it...
BO take is off because the economy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that we are in lean times of course I, and many others in a similar situation, are not going to go out to the movies as often as once was.
We're all feeling the crunch McCallum, you are not immune to it.
Insert your own cheap shot about the drop being off due to rather poor story telling and execution for the last two Star Wars movies.
So don't blame the internet and kids with fat pipes. Try looking closer to home for the real reason things are so green right now.
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
"This is how things (the current state the Hollywood entertainment industry) are."
"Becuase things ARE this way, it is good and right."
"Because things are good and right, they should at least stay this way if not become MORE SO this way."
"Should anything, anything at all come along that could change this current state, then these affectors are bad and should be stopped at all costs."
So if I understand correctly, they have simply appended their classic idiocy to classic logic.
I think, therefore I am. + I am, therefore I should be. = Squish anyone who threatens to prove me wrong.
Re:Propoganda (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only that,
a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept.
they also need to innovate
History repeats itself.... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the late 70's/early 80's they said the VCR will kill the film industry.
Now Rick McCallum is claiming that DVD will kill the film industry.
He claims that "single movie that can survive on box office gross alone". That may be true, but only because of natural competition. The total revenue for a movie in the day and age is theater release + home release. That TOTAL revenue is what pays salaries and production costs. What, did he think the DVD was going to be just pure profit? Actors aren't making 20 million just based on theater release.
But it is unlikely that theaters are going away anytime soon. Why? Because the studios control the supply and demand for movies (for the most part). You pay $8.00 to go to a movie because you can't see it on tape, even if you had a movie quality home theater. And it is going to be decades before >50% of the public has movie quality home theaters anyway. They release the movie on DVD only after noone is seeing it in the theaters anymore.
Now piracy may be an issue and that is one of the points he seems to be making. However, in order to be all that widespread everyone would need T1 lines to their houses and the total bandwidth of the Internet would have to be tripled. Most people will still be on dialup in 3 years, so mass use of a Napster-clone is unlikely to be feasible. Unless people are willing to stay online for 2 weeks to download a movie.
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Too Bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just rentals, although they do help. But, consider the costs even *without* the availability of a $2.99 rental...
A typical major-release DVD costs $14-$18 (I don't include "rare" or some imports in that, since you can't go to the theater to see them for *any* price). Just a pair of movie tickets costs $18, so you've *ALREADY* broken even by buying it rather than going to the theater.
Now add in some food and drinks, and a trip to the movies for two costs *easily* $30. For parents taking a pair of kids, that can hit $50 quite easily.
Someone remind me of the advantage of actually going to a theater?
Okay, the really big screen seems nice. I admit I go to one or two movies per year just for that, but even the big screen makes no difference for most movies. So far this year, I went to SW:AotC, and Austin Powers. The first really did look nice on the big screen, and I don't regret going. The second really didn't need the whole theater experience, and I would have enjoyed it MORE at home.
-1 Redundant (Score:5, Insightful)
When VCRs came out (circa 1980), people from the movie studios claimed it would be the death of the big screen cinema. They adapted and survived and made more money than before.
When so-called piracy came out (circa 1980s), people from the movie studios claimed it would be the death of the big screen cinema. They adapted and survived and made more money than before.
Now that DVDs and overly expensive home theaters are out, someone from the movie studios is claiming it will be the death of the big screen cinema.
These people really have no clue what they're talking about, do they?
Come on, people. Yeah, cinemas are grossly overpriced, but people keep going to them in droves. There's a very heavy social aspect there that no one seems to realize. Your family isn't "going out together" if you rent a movie (or stream it from a server) onto your own 30" screen. It's not really a date with your girlfriend if you're not paying for her rip-off slime popcorn at a theater.
Yeah, I'm sure this guy is speaking for himself, not for the company. That doesn't make him any less of a short-sighted dork for saying it.
I have full faith and confidence in the ability of American business to figure out how to make a buck no matter what the technology is.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Many of us can't afford a huge home theater. I watch movies on a 27" TV with two external speakers. It's good enough for most movies, but huge movies like Braveheart or Lord of the Rings really deserve the big screen.
2) Don't blame the theaters for ticket prices. They break even on admission. They make virtually all of their profits on food. The movie studios are screwing the theaters over on what it costs to show a movie. The best example is the recent Godzilla. The studio (Sony IIRC) doubled their regular cost to the theaters and promised a gate similar to Independance Day (same creative team). When the theater execs finally saw the movie a week or so before it came out, there was a white collar riot where execs actually threw things and demanded their money back.
Several big theater chains (Lowes comes to mind) have failed recently, even with $8 tickets. Maybe if the studios would make more movies worth 8 bucks, they would get more butts in the seats.
-B
Riiiight... (Score:4, Insightful)
he's ignoring the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
The box office isn't going away anytime soon. That guy is a fool to even say it; look at the damn box office gross figures.
Re:Yaaahh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Cause lets face it
Entertainment today is more expoitive than it ever has been. They ploy on your material and cultural associations, but rarely have anything to say that is applicable beyond the cultural microsecond in which they are released and promoted.
In fact, this is part of a bigger problem in the whole 'Business at the speed of light' goal we got caught up in
And how many films made $80+million this summer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And yet, box office receipts keep rising... (Score:5, Insightful)
For decades at lest (probably longer), studios have been telling writers, actors, directors, etc that movies don't make any money. That's right, if you look at the numbers for [insert blockbuster movie here], you will find that it raked in some huge amount of money and then showed a loss within the studio.
This is, of course, a shell game used to avoid royaltes. However, it is common for studios to then turn around and cite this "bad numbers" as the evidence that a) there is healthy competion in the market b) there is no price-fixing c) there are no other anti-trust problems. So, when someone tries to guage the general health of the Hollywood economy, it certainly looks like it will all fall apart in a few years.
The important thing to remember is this: THAT HAS BEEN THE PERCEPTION FOR DECADES!! What's more doom and gloom about home formats has been running around since VHS. Heck, I can't get a group of friends to wait to see a matinee the next weekend for many movies!
The Theatre Experience is Crumbling (Score:5, Insightful)
About 3 years ago in Canada we had a projectionists' union strike. It didn't end well. The frequency of fuckups in my moviegoing experience has at least tripled. They are constantly threading the film up - especially first releases - with the wrong lens (i.e. anamorphic vs. standard). Film breaks are more common, and apparently unrepairable now.
They run innumerable ads before movies now. When I hear the voice say 'and now a word from our sponsor...' I feel like standing up and spouting off for 10 minutes because I am their goddam sponsor.
The popcorn prices are laughable. The soda/pop prices are fucking astronomical.
Mobile phones. Laser pointers. Hell, GameBoys.
The waits have gotten longer.
First-run movies often get cycled 24-7 so the prints fall apart faster. Which means you need to see it earlier (see previous point).
I liked the theatre experience before; there's a certain crowd-vibe that is really enjoyable, sometimes even saving you from a bad film (the complete derision shown in the last Godzilla remake was spectacular. I've never seen a whole movie openly, loudly mocked by the entire audience before. And it was fun.)
These days though... being able to control the lighting and sound perfectly, being able to pause to go to the can, eating my own sensibly-priced junk food... like most, I make a judgement call when a movie comes out. If I'm dying to see it, I'll go. Those movies are rare these days.
Re:It'll Be As Dead As... (Score:3, Insightful)
Movie theatres have been done okay so far, even with TV.
Live music is much smaller then it once was. Most of the damage was done by replacing bands with recorded music in clubs. It's very hard to make a living playing music, but there was a time when every town had it's own big band orchestra.
Vaudeville theatres once packed them in but now is gone, with many converted to cinimas.
Radio has been exclusively playing music, although talk radio is growing. Once radio had drama, game shows and almost everything else you now see on television.
These industries have changed and adapted, but they have also shunk a great deal from thier peaks.
I'll start going more often again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Better Price? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just my $7.02
Re:Funny? He's serious (I think)! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Paramount Theater, in Oakland, CA provides a great old-time experience, including prize giva-aways, live organ music and a ton of other fun extras, again for a low ticket price, and they are packed for every show I have atteneded there.
Theaters that keep cramming in more seats and charging higher ticket prices for the same sub-standard experience SHOULD start to die, but specialty houses that cater to their clientelle will be able to keep picking up the slack and hopefully spread out from their hardcore urban niche to the rest of the country. Which for me would be a good thing.
And the death of the blockbuster would just be icing on the cake for me.
Re:It'll Be As Dead As... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting for parking is lame. Crappy seats are lame. Children with colds are lame. Loud Adults are lame. the drunkard behind you who is wheezing and producing phlegm throught out the movie is lame. Not being able to pause when you have to go to the bathroom is lame.
And to go off- a bad dinner made by an apathetic sous-chef who douses my food in salt and calls it "tasty!" and charges $50 a plate is lame.
Howzabout I get fresh ingredients and make a fabulous gourmet meal at home (yes, the microwave is lame) and pop open a bottle of wine and have front row center seats with my wife? I've hand crafted my house to be an ultra-comfortable space. No where else is better. Call me lame. I'm having far too good of a time to care!
If yr gonna go out, GO OUT. Go out to meet people. Bars, night clubs, coffee houses, whatever.
NOW! The cinema and drafthouse is a fabulous thing- (I'll miss the Bethesda Drunken Theatre!)
seeing a movie that most people there have already seen, so there is a higher tolerance for talking and crowd noise. Plus, your drinking!
Re:And yet, box office receipts keep rising... (Score:2, Insightful)
They just finished replacing the old obsolete 6-theatre cinema where I live with a spanking new 18-theatre ultra-mega-super-plex.
I guess noone told the people who build, own and operate the theatres that they're doomed in the next 3 years.
They are also ridiculously expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs about $8-9 USD for a ticket for one person. If a couple is going, that's $16-18 just to get in the door, and there are a rather large number of DVDs that sell for that price (including new releases.)
Anyone with kids is hopelessly punished by the ticket prices, not to mention the confectionary stand. (Suuuure you can convince the kids to skip that $2 medium drink and those $3.50 candies!)
And for what? To have your feet stick to the floor? To listen to the idiot with the cell phone, or the couple/group that spend more time talking than watching? Perhaps for the joy of screaming "Focus! Focus!" when the monkey upstairs in the projection booth lets everything go fuzzy?
As to "going bankrupt", maybe Hollywood's big money directors and stars will be forced to do what many of us in the tech industry did last year -- take a pay cut in order to keep working. I realize 10-15% cuts for them amount to a few million dollars a year in some cases, but they can afford it far better than "normal" people can.
And if I hear another MPAA or RIAA exec trying to justify the prices as being necessary to cover the costs of producing the "failures", I think I'm going to puke. No other industry I know of tries to justify their costs by pointing to perpetual mis-management, poor marketing, and poor salary negotiation skills. It's called "ROI" people, and if you can't grasp that basic concept and deal with it you should be out of business!
They're in control and still blame others ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Having control over all elements of the equation, with the exception of our decision to pay or not, should enable them to do very well. Instead, theypick lousy scripts, overdo the effects and pay actors outrageous amounts of money -- perhaps they should focus on telling quality stories with engaging characters and doing it well.
How many movies in the last decade should never have been made based ? How easily could this "crisis" have been avoided ?
The movie industry is heading down the same path as professional sports -- spending themselves to death instead of improving the quality of the experience.
They made the bed -- and then complain when we won't dress up and bend over ?
movies are to be fun, not complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, I used to go to movies a lot. I used to have a main stream movie theaters close to me. That theater is now closed and I have to go much farther to another theater where i have to pay for parking, where they have several concesion stands but even on busy weekends they only have one open, usually with only two staff, to serve the entire 30 screens, and where they clean up the during the credits. And don't get me started on the five minutes of unrelated product commericals. I never had these problems at my old theater.
Going to a movie is no longer a pleasent experience, and it has nothing to do with cell phones, or people talking, or babies. It has to do with the number of screens and the number of seats that is necceary to show a main stream movie. Movie going should not be something that has to be scheduled, planned, and carried out in a careful operation. It is supposed to be fun.
So, I mostly go to the occasional art flick where I can drop in, buy a ticket, and enjoy the show without having the experience ruined by excessive lines, cleaning staff, or overt commercials.
And, in time, I may get a home theater, and more DVDs. Of course, if the DVDs continue to become increasing draconian, I may just abandon the whole movie going expereince
Re:How is this any different than VCRs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apropos of nothing, that's why we now have widescreen movies. Wider aspect ratios than the old "academy" format which was pretty much identical to the TV aspect ratio, started to emerge in the 50s as a way to jazz up movies compared to television. That's when you had all this work going on to make the image bigger and the color better (because TV was black and white). Panavision, Vistavision, technicolor, etc.
(I know not all of those were at the same time, and no doubt someone far more knowledgeable about cinema history than myself will blow me out of the water here. But clearly this guy needs to be on something for those panic attacks.)
Re:movie theaters suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the movie played, he kept answering his cell phone, and his kids kept running in and out of the theater, either due to boredom or restlessness.
Half way through the movie, I got up and complained to the theater people, who asked me if I wanted my money back or tickets to a different showing! I expected them to go in and escort the guy and his undisciplined children out the door, but it was much easier for them just to placate the people who complained about the problem.
This is exactly the reason why I believe that theaters are doomed. There were a LOT of people in that theater, in the rows before and after, who were annoyed by this guy. They didn't complain; though, mostly due to cowardice or laziness.
Anyways, I left, and haven't gone back to that theater since. I wonder how many others have done the same?
Re:Watchable movies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Option #1:
-Pay 2/3 of DVD price to watch the movie ONCE TIME in a room full of cell phones ringing.
Option #2:
-Pay DVD price and watch it at home as many times as you want, with the ability to pause, reverse when you want to see something again, etc.
The problem is not only that there are a lot of crap productions coming from Hollywood. It's also that they expect us to watch it in an expensive but crappy environment while eating popcorn with a 1000% profit margin. Sorry.
Hmm, and furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
A fact over which, of course, the movie producers have no power whatsoever. There have been dozens of movies I would have liked to have seen on the big screen, but didn't get around to, and after the DVD and VHS comes out they seem to just vanish. Meanwhile, every damn cineplex has the same half dozen pieces of crap playing, several hundreds of screens accessible to me in my metro area and I've got the choice of about fifteen pictures to choose from.
Unrelated to this comment, but I just have to vent on the following:
"Literally, our very lives are at stake now. George and I are just praying that we can finish 'Episode III' in time, before it's all over."
First off, FUCK I hate it when people say literally when they mean figuratively. I think I would like to show this man the difference between his life "literally" being at stake versus it "figuratively" being at stake... Literally. Second, oh come off it. Yeah, the movie industry will end, and there's no need for a patent office anymore because everything has already been invented, and nobody needs a hard drive bigger than 16 K, and Stephen King is dead at 55, and yeah, chicken little, the sky is, indeed, falling. Can we be done with this inanity, finally, at last? What planet do these idiots live on, anyway?
Note - I'm led to believe that the story of the patent officer who claimed that the patent office should be closed because everything had already been invented is a myth. "In his 1843 report to Congress, the then commissioner of the Patent Office, Henry L. Ellsworth, included the following comment: "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." As Jeffery shows, it's evident from the rest of that report that Commissioner Ellsworth was simply using a bit of rhetorical flourish to emphasize that the number of patents was growing at a great rate. Far from considering inventions at an end, he outlined areas in which he expected patent activity to increase, and it is clear that he was making plans for the future."
Sass mentions another atribution of the quote to Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office Charles H. Duell, who didn't say it either. http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/patent_office_ul
Price gouging at the consession stands (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they say you can't bring in your own stuff, forcing someone who say, is hypoglycemic or has a bunch of kids who will make noise unless they have something to shove into their mouths to pay those prices to keep their blood surgar up is tantamount to extortion.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And yet, box office receipts keep rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahhh...but when your prediction was a 23% increase over last year, that can be seen as a "loss" of 3%. It all depends on how you slant the line.
Charts will be the death of us.
Monkey points (Score:3, Insightful)
Hollywood accounting is designed so that movies just barely break even. If any movie makes a 'net profit', then they have to pay money to people who have 'net points' royalties. It is similar to the contracts that musicians sign with music studios.
Most of the money for a movie goes to affiliated companies that make huge profits for the moneymen while the accounting ledgers for the movie itself rack up negative numbers.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
My rewrite
Re:movie theaters suck... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pop Quiz: (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to a theatre is immersive. There are (ideally - screaming children and cells aside) no distractions at a movie. You're completely involved with what's going on on-screen. Same thing happens in a play - they darken the theatre for a reason, and it's not to see the actors better.
Watching a movie in your typical living-room is completely different. You know you're watching a movie, you don't become as involved in it.
I think $10 for a movie is ludicrous (I grew up with a $4 second-run moviehouse on the corner of my street). I can't really afford it, but I go anyway. Why? Because it's a change of scenery, it's a night out, it's not sitting in my living-room. And because, for any given movie, I have a better shot of enjoying it in the theatre's immersive environment.
Triv
Re:Too Bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie studios are charging the theaters so much for the films that their only profits come from concessions.
With such a thin revenue stream, the theaters have to cut costs wherever they can.
Because the only way to get people in is to keep the theater itself state of the art, the money must come out of personnel.
The personnel that are there probably get paid minimum wage, because hey, they don't have to do much, do they?
Low wages means that there are at least a couple of people out there willing to risk making a copy of the film -- say, from the projection booth late at night. (That's the only way to make a really good-quality pirate copy, isn't it?)
So, by trying to squeeze every penny out of the movie theaters, the studios have made widespread copying of theatrical releases worthwhile at the weakest links in their value chain. And it's quite possible that this is going to destroy their entire industry.
O, the irony.
Sometimes, you just can't get around economics and human nature.
TSG
Why are they screaming for us to save them? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Stop charging more than the DVD costs for two people to see the movie in the theatre. And I don't mean raise DVD prices either. There is no reason it should cost more than 10$ for two people to see a movie, or more than 8 for that matter.
2. Stop paying Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwartzniger 40 million to be in a movie. Easy.
3. Make movies worth seeing and not these overhyped pieces of garbage like the last two star wars have been. In most cases a movie CAN wait, I've got better things to do.
For now I'm more than happy to watch DVD's on my 53" widescreen in the privacy of my own house. I don't have to worry about people moving past me because they bought the 72oz soda, or a bawling child. If Hollywood doesn't like that, fix their problems, don't make it out like this is my fault.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternatives are to just keep the same stories, swapping out last year's stars for new ones (have you noticed how Sandra Bullock's filmography is populated entirely by film cliches?); or else keep the same stories, but with more eye candy. Note that both these alternatives have been Hollywood SOP for at least a generation, now.
Might be offtopic, but...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too Bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why places like the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin are so amazingly cool. Well, that and getting a great variety of movies that you won't see at your local megaplex.
Good food, good beer selection, and they bring it to you while you watch the movie (and it's not as intrusive as first-timers seem to think it'll be).
http://www.drafthouse.com/
Last Drafthouse thing I went to was "The Ultimate Lebowski Experience". They have a huge inflatable screen that they set up in the parking lot of a local bowling alley, had a Q&A with Jeff Dowd (the ORIGINAL Dude), then showed the movie. After the movie, your ticket stub got you two hours of bowling and a white russian. This was a case where it was ok that people made some noise during the movie. Not like Rocky Horror crap or MST3k heckling, but like cheering when Jesus licks his bowling ball,
That deal was 15 bucks. I had no problem with that. I have a problem with spending 15 bucks to see some tired formulaic crap with a bag of stale oily popcorn and a flat pepsi. Double that price if you're taking company.
-l
Re:Too Bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
I just sit closer to the TV. It's amazing how big that 27 inch TV is from three feet. For earth shaking sound, just put the powered sub on your surround sound under the couch (or laz-y-boy if your over twentysomething). The best reason to not go the the theater is simple: they usually don't serve beer or have food I actually want to eat (come on, where else sell Raisinettes)?
Re:Price gouging at the consession stands (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to work at a movie theater. The rule was you could only stop a person from bringing in something if it was visible when they came through the door. Even if you could see people outside the theater stuffing their pockets and purses full of goodies, as long as the "contraband" was out of sight, we weren't allowed to do anything at all to stop them.
Which was fine by me. The more people who snuck stuff in, the fewer people I had to deal with while working the concession stand.
Oh... this is so much bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
-The economy is in the shit can
-Hollywood isn't putting many interesting new films out, mostly just "safe" formula vehicles.
-If a movie sucks, no one is going to go see it.
-Ticket prices are way too high. There is a reason for this and it goes all the way back to the studios. See below:
The reason you have to pay so much for movie tickets is because the studios dictate how much a movie theater must pay to exhibit a film. If the movie stays in the theater for 3 or more months, then it makes a profit for the studios and the theater. The income from the ticket sales goes to cover the cost of exhibition for the first 3 months, then after that, to the movie theater itself. Since not all movies make the 3 months, movie theaters lose out on profits. That's why you're starting to see regular ads in front of movies (ads for cars, local businesses, soft drinks, etc...). The movie theaters don't have much say in what ads they can show (also dictated by the studios), but they do make a profit from the ads. Most of the time they make only enough money from the ticket sales to barely break even for exhibiting the film. This is also why you have to pay so much for consessions. That is the only way that movie theaters make most of their money without having to split it with the studios.
So... here's the run down: Fewer people are going to see movies because they are too expensive and many of them suck. The movies are too expensive to exhibit because the studios control the exhibition terms. The movies suck because the studios are trying to make sure they stay with the most guaranteed profit generating vehicles (The "best" of anything is usually not the most popular, and the most popular is usually not the "best": witness the *nixes vs. MS Windows
I still say that capitalism is failing for the same reasons that communism did: greed and fear. Just like the Ponzi scheme, there is only so much wealth/power to go around in any economic/political system. In the end, someone (ususally lower in the pyramid) has to suffer to put/keep someone else on top. Tradgedy of the commons... and all that jazz.
Re:They are also ridiculously expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Bull. Tell them no, stay firm. If they insist, talk to the manager to get your money back and don't take them to the movies anymore.
I'm sick of people w/kids saying they have no control over them. You don't have to listen to your kids, no matter how annoying they might be.
Re:movie theaters suck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Half way through the movie, I got up and complained to the theater people, who asked me if I wanted my money back or tickets to a different showing! I expected them to go in and escort the guy and his undisciplined children out the door, but it was much easier for them just to placate the people who complained about the problem.
Exactly. It's this short term thinking that eats at many businesses. They think that because someone doesn't complain, they must be happy. Many of the people around you that night probably won't go back. The theater would have been better off loosing that one loud customer.Re:This man needs help (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are also ridiculously expensive (OT) (Score:2, Insightful)
Down here (New Orleans) we had (almost) all of the public schools institute manditory uniforms - and the reasoning behind it was that it would save parents money since they wouldn't have to buy the designer closes that their children demanded of them.
Seems to me that if you need a school policy to be able to stand up to your children then you've got more serious problems there than spending too much money on clothes.
maybe the movies just suck (Score:1, Insightful)
GOOD LORD WHAT CRAP (Score:2, Insightful)
The same company whose major summer film (along with SpiderMan and LOTR) grossed more than the GNP of several small countries (hundreds of millions of dollars together) just in theatrical release?
The same company whose advertising blitzes are in the $20 to $50 million dollar range, not counting tie-ins with McDonalds, etc?
The same company which still has yet to release (or just recently released) several of the biggest films of all time, forcing fans to develop the tactics LucasArts is complaining about if they ever want to see the films again?
Well boo fucking hoo.
I've only gone to 2 movies in the theater this year because none of these pandering McD's-tie-in bullshit special-fx films interest me. If the script was quality instead of crap, there was actual acting instead of an army of cgi clones, and an original thought now and again I'd be willing to dish out $50 for 2 hours entertainment. Hmm, maybe not.
But maybe when all the incumbent fat-cat assholes have gone bankrupt from mishandling their fortunes, we'll get to see some of the underground talent and concepts!
DVDs gross more than theaters already (Score:4, Insightful)
In general, it seems unlikely that an industry could destory itself economically when the products in competition both generate revenue for the same industry. Of course, it might have some effect on quality. The low overhead for DVD production relative to theater releases allow crappy films to generate profits. Something akin to what video did to the porn industry a la "Boogie Nights." Of course, this also means good things for indy films and pieces that appeal only a cross-section of society, which could yield some high quality pictures.
History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there was Valenti's prediction that VHS would kill movies. As you can see, it hasn't.
I don't think that DVDs necessarily mean the end of movies, either. Though if it means studios start to concentrate on quality, putting an end to the sort of crap movies that seem to dominate the box office these days, that could be a blessing. (No more Adam Sandler, please! No more Tom Green!) There are some films that you just have to see on the big screen, and I've been known to drive all the way from Springfield, Missouri to Kansas City to see films that may not make it down here. (I'm considering such an expedition to see Spirited Away, for instance, even though I've already seen it on a DIVX ripped from the Japanese DVD.) But I could be an exception to the general rule...
Scare tactics for theater owners... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hense the comparison to DVDs; the digital projector equivalent for the home which is widely accepted.
From what I have read, these digital projectors will make a significant difference in the movie theater experience and perhaps it does make long term sense for the theaters to upgrade. However, with all the crap that Hollywood is putting out now a days (including Star Wars) and theaters' tight margins, I would guess that there is a lot of resistence to upgrade. Hence these crazy statements from a movie producer to try and spur them on.
What a bunch of baloney!
McCallum is a whiner (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know jack about economics. My only education on the subject was Econ 101 in school. They drew a little graph for us - the theoretical supply/demand curve. The goal, they explained was to find the sweet spot where the supply and demand curves crossed. That is where profit is maximized. Perhaps the studios haven't taken Econ 101 or perhaps they think that moviegoing is an inelastic market and the price of the movie won't affect demand. Perhaps they need to go back to school. For the $10 a pop (or more) we're paying these days, I'm mighty choosy about what I go to see.
Which leads me to the next point. Movies suck. They all suck. They're so over-Hollywoodized that I just can't stand going any more. And it's getting harder to find places to see indy films, as the smaller theaters get crushed by the megaplexes. Perhaps this has something to do with Hollywood's plight?
In any case, so long as movies continue to be made, people will see them in theaters. Not everyone has a home theater with THX and Dolby 5.1. And not everyone's home is quieter or less distracting than a theater. And some of us like to get out of the house once in a while. And I certainly don't have a 40 foot high screen in my living room. And I don't like to wait for good movies to appear on DVD - I want to see them right away. Maybe that's why McCallum's upset. They botched the last two Star Wars movies so badly that maybe they're afraid everyone's just going to wait for DVD next round. I know I will.
Re:Watchable movies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be serious. The majority of the time I go to a movie, there's no significant interruptions (people talking loudly, cellphones, crying babies, etc.). The experience of sharing a story with five hundred other people, especially if it's a good movie, is a wonderful thing that I truly enjoy. The sense of scale a theater screen gives you cannot be equalled by a home theater.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but come on, you can do better than this utterly selective nonsense.
Re:Bah humbug (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as with VHS, the movie industry will have to be force-fed all the money they make on DVD sales and they'll be crying all the way to the bank.
Five words to the people in entertainment: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, technology is going to make you obsolete, but only if you're unwilling to compromise. These days, with improving technology and amateur entertainment, people don't feel like shelling out a ridiculously huge sum of money to go see a movie in the theatres. The local theatres charge $13.95 CDN per movie here, and frankly, I just don't feel like paying that much when for the price of two admissions and a drink I can buy a DVD.
You're all just going to have to grow up and realize that you are being forced to relinquish some of your control over when and how we entertain ourselves. You do not need to be making 7-9 figure salaries; you're all just going to have to eventually settle for a paltry few hundred thousand dollars a year or suffer the consequences.
Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the first good news I've heard on Slashdot this week!
Although I think he's being a little bit optimistic on how soon this will happen. Have a look on IMDB at how much money even the worst recent movies have made vs. their production cost.. That's a disgusting profit margin for any industry.
Protect our freedoms! Fight DMCA / CBDTPA / SDMI / SSSSA / Palladium / etc. Boycott Big Media!
Hurling, now! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so you aren't an MPAA or RIAA exec.... *g*
The problem with your R&D analogy is that the only R&D occurs with companies producing SFX, film stock, cameras, etc. The movies and albums themselves are "art" or "expression."
The MPAA and RIAA don't produce anything, but they speak on behalf of their industries, and are a means of referring to their members as a whole (The "A" at the end of the acronyms refers to "Association".)
They are bad at marketing. All they market is their biggest budget efforts, with little to no regard for quality. The only exception I can recall was "The Blair Witch Project", which was done on a very low budget compared to movies or records that usually get the push.
When is the last time you saw an ad for a movie that didn't have at least one multi-million dollar star involved? When was the last time you saw a band that didn't fit a top-40 profile for a non-major genre get promoted? How many times now have we found out that a "band" was actually a fraud that was lip-synching or so heavily processed that the singer in concert sounds nothing like the album?
Re: concession stands keep the theater alive (Score:5, Insightful)
He claims he has never once seen a theater that would have been profitable if it wasn't for selling concessions!
Apparently, Hollywood screws over the theaters pretty bad on their cost to show new films. (Typically, they do a 90/10 deal. Hollywood gets 90% of whatever a new movie earns in ticket sales, and the theater keeps the other 10%. After the film runs for so many weeks, the amount drops on a sliding scale. So after a few weeks, it might be 70/30 instead of 90/10 - but lots of people already saw the movie by then.)
Furthermore, Hollywood often forces the theaters to enter a contract guaranteeing they'll show the movie for no fewer than a set number of weeks. (That partially explains why so many of the mom and pop theaters, and maybe even some of the drive-thrus, have closed down. To offer a decent selection of movies all showing at once, you have to have a large number of screens.)
For old movies, they sometimes offer a deal where a theater can simply buy it, instead of renting it - and then can make 100% of the profit showing it whenever they like. This is rarely done, however. (Hollywood makes exceptions to this rule for perennial favorites like "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", where a theater would obviously rather just buy it outright if they could.)
So what you really have is a business model of selling people food and drinks, not making money showing movies. That's why the stuff seems like such a rip-off.
Hurt Hollywood? (Score:1, Insightful)
whiney little bitches (Score:2, Insightful)
Boo Fricking Hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
More lag time between Theatre release and DVD (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that these days they want to milk the movie in the theatre and rush it to DVD - if they weren't so anxious to release the DVDs and beat out the other studios, then maybe we'd go see them in theatres while they're fresh. But for now, I'll just wait the 4 months until it's on DVD.
Re:movie theaters suck... (Score:1, Insightful)
That is what is going to kill movies in theaters.
Inconsiderate people.
Most of my friends don't see movies for the same reason. It's like Mystery Science Theater whenever we go to the movies.