Brian Kidd

You can download full dvd's RIGHT NOW. Sure, they take a while to finish but with a broadband connection left on overnight it's not that big of a deal. When Internet2 comes into full usage it will be an even bigger problem. We're talking speeds that dwarf todays fastest connections! Also, dual-layer DVD+R discs are going to market as we speak with Blu-Ray discs just around the corner.

I am not about to take the high road here. Most of us have experimented with downloading something off of the 'Net. Would I be willing to pay for a full dvd that I could download and burn myself? Sure I would! It would be convenient as hell. It's more and more expensive to go to the theaters. As much as I love movies and seeing a film in a theater with a group of people, I just can't afford to pay a minimum of $20 for my wife and I to go to the movies. It's gotten to the point where we only see movies that we think would suffer greatly on a small screen like LOTR.

Here are some points I'd like to make.

• Films should be released worldwide at the same time. Don't release a film until all of the work that needs to be done for foreign markets is finished. Then region coding could go bye-bye.
• Make good quality digital versions available for download legally. Itunes is making a killing. The same could work for movies. Don't talk to me about the crappy services already in place. Those films look like shite.
• Get rid of the dots on the screen. They don't work and they're distracting.
• Get rid of the ads before the films. Trailers are fine but the rest have to go. I'm paying to be entertained, not to watch ads.
• A lot of what I've seen floating around the 'Net is copies of films and shows that are out of print and may never see the light of day for one reason or another. If this is the only way that I can see them, then so be it. If the studios choose to release the programs and films in a legitimate form, I'll be glad to pony up the cash. The studios should look at DVD-on-demand. Smaller distributors like Sinister Cinema are already making it so you can order films that are then burned to DVD-R and sent to you. It cuts their production costs down exponentially. Why can't the studios do that for their niche products?
• At least in the US, piracy isn't hurting the bottom line for the studios. That's a fallacy. The people willing to download crappy cam versions of films are the same ones who wouldn't pay to go to the theater anyway.

Downloading isn't going anywhere. Any copy protection can and will be broken. What the studios have to do is realize that their current distrobution and marketing practices are outdated. They must adapt in order to survive. And the WILL survive. The Movies aren't going anywhere.

Support Film Preservation before it's too late!
---------------------------------------------



My Blog

Lew Crippen

It’s clear that you don’t understand the difference between ‘Hollywood’ and a theatre owner, David. The commercials to which you object are run by the local theater owner, not by Hollywood. Now you may not want to watch them (I certainly don’t) but these are commercial arrangements between the advertiser and the theater owner. Should they be eliminated, local owners would either make less money or raise their ticket prices. You should direct your issue with this to the theater management, not Hollywood.

You will see product placements regardless: see the movie at the theater and you get product placement; see the same movie at home on a DVD and you see the same product placement; see the same movie on TV and you see the same product placement; illegally download the movie and you still see the same product placement. I can understand that you don’t care for product placement, but what does this have to do with seeing a movie in a theater?

You should not have to put up with rude clerks anywhere. But what does this have to do with Hollywood? Again your anger is misplaced and you should direct your complaints to your local theaters. By the way, I go to the movies a lot and I can’t remember the last time someone was rude to me. Perhaps Dallas is just a more friendly city than Austin.

You make some good arguments, Brian, though there are some practical (at least today) problems with a few of your points.

Simultaneous releasing of films worldwide does two things: it delays the introduction of films as issues like translations in many, many languages must be done and good subtitles and/or dubbing must performed before any release is possible and it raises the overall cost of production because there will be a delay associated with the post-production costs before any revenue hits the books. This model also does not address the release of smaller films and films that may not necessarily be of global interest. There will also be a raise in print costs, as many countries get copies made for the initial distribution after the demand of the first few weeks has subsided.

Your second (especially) and third points are good, though the copy protection issue needs to be addressed somehow.

I mentioned the ad issue already in this post. This is not an issue that really can be addressed by the film producers—up to the distribution chain somewhere—most likely the local theater owners. But we would all be crazy to believe that the removal of ads is not going to increase ticket prices. And while I have read posts where people said they would be willing to pay more for ad-free movies, I’ve read a lot more posts that feel prices are already too high.

Your fifth bullet is again valid.

Your last point is not supported by any real evidence. We can all speculate, but it is pretty clear that the industry is very concerned. I am not saying that you are wrong—I’m just not sure hat you are right.

¡Time is not my master!

ChuckSolo

As a musician and songwriter, I absolutely deplore the "it's OK to download intellectual property for free" mentality. As for ticket prices being too high at movie theaters, I simply wait until the weekend and go see a matinee. I find where the huge cost of the cinema experience comes in, is in the concessions. My wife and I eat and drink all we want BEFORE we go to the movies and that solves that problem. Remember, concessions are a matter of choice. Once you pay the ticket price, you are under NO obligation to pay $4.00 for a large soda!! I would gladly pay a fee to download a movie, provided that the download picture and sound quality would be equal to a store bought DVD. I have NEVER used free Napster or Kazza, and never plan to. I have however downloaded music from the Wal-Mart website and paid $.88 per track, a bargain in my opinion. I have downloaded almost 90 minutes of music for under 10 bucks. I think the issue of product placement and ads in theaters is a direct result of digital video recording, ala, Tivo. When you can skip over ads in their entirety, advertisers are going to go to different media to display their products. I don't much like commercials before a movie starts at the cinema, but I don't mind product placement in a movie. To me, it makes the movie a little more real; much more so than if you see a character in a movie drinking from a soda can with no label or that has the word "soda" printed on it.

Dome Vongvises

But do not forget why this happened in the first place. I can't place the exact time and date it happened, but I think it started with Godzilla 98. It's fairly common practice I believe for a studio to receive a majority portion of the ticket sales in the first few weeks, the the remaining weeks of theatrical run going to the theater.

People (whoever they may be) expected Godzilla 98 to make a shitload of money. And so the practice of taking in an even larger percentage of the first weeks ticket sales was implemented by "Hollywood". Or at least that's my guess with Godzilla 98.

Either way, Godzilla 98 proceeds to bomb, and nobody got any money, especially the theater chains. And with the increase in wham, slam, bang films that come to theaters that have no staying power, theaters are finding that they're losing more and more money. Companies always find a way to make money, but theaters have to not only rely on their true seller (the over-priced snacks), but on good films with staying power as well. Something like Titanic or Lord of the Rings rarely comes by and even they're double-edged swords because of their running lengths, although I think they're a special case given how well they do and how long they stay at theaters.

And that's what I think constitutes half of the reason why there are now advertisements in theaters. They got to make money somehow.

Lew Crippen

I’ve been going to the movies for over 50 years and can say for a certainty that the theaters I attended in small town Illinois and mid-size town Kentucky had commercials back in the day. True they were, for the most part slide shows that advertised local businesses such as jewelry stores or a local restaurant, but they were present.

Dome you are mostly correct as to how most distribution works, although there are two models (at least ones that I know about): a distributor can lease a movie (which may not be done much anymore) or it enters into some type of profit-sharing arrangement with the studio.

In the lease model the distributor takes the risk, paying a fee for showing the movie and if it’s a hit, they make a profit, but lose if it’s a flop. The studio makes a modest profit but does not realize big bucks on a hit (of course there can be contract modifications that modify the arrangements). The profit-sharing model speaks for itself.

The theater owners (now mostly chains) have a couple of options on how to lease a movie from the distributor: they can bid for the rights to show a movie for a fixed period of time (and may get exclusive rights in an area) or they can cut a deal for a percentage of the box-office receipts (note the analogy to the lease and profit-sharing arrangements).

In the model where a theatre (chain) gets the rights to (for instance) Godzilla for six weeks for a fixed price, the theatre owner loses big time.

Which is why most deals involve a percentage of the box-office. In a six week deal (I'm kind of making the numbers up) the theater gets 95% of the take, the second 90%, the third, 85% and so on. This is usually modified so that the theater first takes off his base operating expense (assume $5,000/week). The remainder (or the net) is split 95/5, 90/10 or whatever. The result is that in the first couple of weeks, even if the theater is sold out, they won’t make much of a profit and unless the movie has ‘legs’, the number of people attending in the latter weeks won’t be so great so again the profits will not be large. And they can even lose, if the box-office is not enough to cover their operating costs (the $5,000/wk).

Now assume receipts of $10,000 in the first week (probably 1,300 or so tickets considering student/senior and matinee discounts). $5,000 is retained for operating expenses and $5,000 is split 95/5 giving the theater a grand total of $250 profit for the week. And even if the movie is twice as popular bringing in $20,000, leaving $15,000 to be split the theater makes a massive $750 for the week. Which is one reason for concessions. And advertisements. I don’t have any idea what ad rates a local theater charges, but you don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to quickly realize that selling half a dozen adds at modest rates is going to mean a lot more net revenue to the theater than the straight movie net income.

A longer way of coming to your conclusion. And for me evidence that complaining about Hollywood and fat cats is not going to do away with ads.

¡Time is not my master!

Lew Crippen

Chuck, I could not agree more with this—and with the rest of your post.

With a few exceptions, I find very few people who have actually created something of commercial value, think free (i.e. illegal) downloading is a sound idea.

¡Time is not my master!

Brian Kidd

Lew,

I agree that there have always been ads at the movies, but the difference between unobtrusive slide shows and loud (and sometimes overly long) commercials is striking. I have no problem with slides at all except for the ones that say "Find the bottles of Coke!" and then proceed to show an entirely black and white photo with big red Coke bottles all over the place. I know that Corporate America thinks we're stupid, but COME ON!!! It's like:

*************COKE******************

"Heck! I don't see nothin' nowheres!"

Support Film Preservation before it's too late!
---------------------------------------------



My Blog

Lew Crippen

Brian, not to disagree, but too add to your comment, I am beginning to see more ads that are tied in with notices to turn off cell phones (and similar issues), that are reasonable clever and entertaining—and brief.

Those kind of things work just fine for me.

¡Time is not my master!

Seth_L

Well... on the news that movie tickets will be climing to $10.50 this year I think the local theatres can kiss my business goodbye. I won't be downloading, but rather renting and buying.

ChuckSolo

C'mon guys, to be fair, where would we be today without "Corporate America?" Piracy is a legitimate concern to those folks, and while I think that a lot of the products, CDs, DVDs, etc., are over priced, "Corporate America" only charges what they think we the buying public is willing to shell out. Overpricing is our fault, if we refused to shell out that type of money for legitimate copies, "Corporate America" might price these products more fairly. Pricing though is NO excuse for piracy. I would much rather do without than rob someone of their right to profit from an intellectual work. This is why Wal-Mart and Target are so successful at selling DVDs. You walk into FYE or Sam Goody, or Suncoast and they charge $19.00 to $22.00 for a new release and then WalMart/Target offers it the first week for less than $16.00. But really, how many of you are going to pay the $19.00 to $22.00 at a local video store to avoid the pain in the butt of driving all the way to the local WalMart/Target.....especially if you are a guy and hate shopping centers in general. I think the only time I am going to really get angry with "Corporate America" is if they actually start incorporating commercial breaks into a feature film shown in a theater. I now refuse to watch AMC because of their adding commercials to their features a couple of years ago. If it wasn't for the two or three shows that I like, I wouldn't even have cable, although my wife might insist we do. Although those "Find the bottles of Coke" slides are ludicrous, I rarely even notice the slides as I usually enter the theater and slouch down in my seat and close my eyes until the lights go down and the projector goes on. Methinks some of us are nitpicking at this point since we do get to watch an entire film at the theater without interruptions (intermissions don't count on a very long movie).