Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

DreamWorks Animation CEO Says Movies Need a New Business Model


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 of 6 OFFLINE   Towergrove

Towergrove

    Supporting Actor



  • 968 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2011

Posted April 29 2014 - 02:25 PM

Interesting...

 

Movies aren’t a growth business anymore and won’t be again until studios charge viewers based on how and where they view motion pictures, according to Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. (DWA:US)

Katzenberg, chief executive officer of the studio that made the “Shrek” films, said that within 10 years or so consumers will be able to buy or rent movies 17 days after their release in cinemas.

 

http://www.businessw...-business-model

 

Isnt this the same guy that said the future is a 3D world?  I believe that was just a few years ago.


"Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy night."
 

 


#2 of 6 OFFLINE   Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter



  • 2,452 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted April 30 2014 - 06:19 PM

And this is the same guy who said "The DVD market is dead!" (four years before Blu-ray) after nobody bought Shrek 2.

And who said "2-D traditional animation is dead!" after nobody went to see Sinbad.

 

(...(sigh) O-kay, Jeff, what industry is dying THIS time, since it isn't your fault?   :rolleyes: )



#3 of 6 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Producer



  • 3,256 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted May 10 2014 - 08:36 PM

I wonder if what movies need is really a new business model, or perhaps more of a return to the old...

 

Remember the old days when studios knew how to make a mix of high budget, mid-budget and low budget films?  When the success of a particular year wasn't based on the success of a single title, but rather, how the slate as a whole did?  When the people who ran studios weren't business moguls making decisions based on spreadsheets, but people who came up in the movie business and valued and understood storytelling?

 

Studios seem very good at the moment at either making $200+ million movies, as well as buying $200 indie films and budget thrillers at festivals.  Everything else in between seems a lost art right now.  The problem with a $200 million movie is the need for it to appeal to everyone and offend no one.  We seem to be losing movies that appeal to many but not all, movies where filmmakers had a little money to throw around and a little freedom to experiment, but weren't expected to carry the entire studio.

 

In the race to make the biggest blockbusters ever and the potentially huge and quick grosses a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon can give you, studios are trying to make every single film the biggest thing ever.  And the truth is, not every story needs $200 million to be told.  I'm a little scared of how Disney, for example, has announced their intentions only to make tentpoles.  On one hand, I like a good crowd pleaser.  They've done well with Marvel, and I think they will do well with Star Wars -- and what's more, the audience has already signaled advance interest in those properties, so it's not the biggest risk ever to make one of those types, and I'm glad they exist.  It's just too bad that they're trying that approach with everything.  "The Lone Ranger" cost over $200 million -- was there really no version of that movie that couldn't have been made for half that?  The upcoming "Maleficent" is coming up, and that's another $200 million production -- has anyone even asked for that movie?



#4 of 6 OFFLINE   Todd Erwin

Todd Erwin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,451 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 16 2008
  • Real Name:Todd Erwin
  • LocationOrange County, CA

Posted May 18 2014 - 12:37 PM

I wonder if what movies need is really a new business model, or perhaps more of a return to the old...

 

Remember the old days when studios knew how to make a mix of high budget, mid-budget and low budget films?  When the success of a particular year wasn't based on the success of a single title, but rather, how the slate as a whole did?  When the people who ran studios weren't business moguls making decisions based on spreadsheets, but people who came up in the movie business and valued and understood storytelling?

 

Studios seem very good at the moment at either making $200+ million movies, as well as buying $200 indie films and budget thrillers at festivals.  Everything else in between seems a lost art right now.  The problem with a $200 million movie is the need for it to appeal to everyone and offend no one.  We seem to be losing movies that appeal to many but not all, movies where filmmakers had a little money to throw around and a little freedom to experiment, but weren't expected to carry the entire studio.

 

In the race to make the biggest blockbusters ever and the potentially huge and quick grosses a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon can give you, studios are trying to make every single film the biggest thing ever.  And the truth is, not every story needs $200 million to be told.  I'm a little scared of how Disney, for example, has announced their intentions only to make tentpoles.  On one hand, I like a good crowd pleaser.  They've done well with Marvel, and I think they will do well with Star Wars -- and what's more, the audience has already signaled advance interest in those properties, so it's not the biggest risk ever to make one of those types, and I'm glad they exist.  It's just too bad that they're trying that approach with everything.  "The Lone Ranger" cost over $200 million -- was there really no version of that movie that couldn't have been made for half that?  The upcoming "Maleficent" is coming up, and that's another $200 million production -- has anyone even asked for that movie?

Then there are the $100 million marketing campaigns attached to these $150-250 million movies. I can somewhat understand spending that kind of money on the launch of a potential franchise (Lone Ranger, etc), but did Sony really need to spend that on Amazing Spider-Man 2? Or Disney on Captain America: Winter Soldier? Those films already had a built-in audience.

 

Realistically, I think what the studios need to do, to help out the theatre owners (now that they've spent millions upgrading to digital projection), is widen that home video window again so films have a chance of having "legs" or becoming sleeper hits. With the exception of Gravity, when was the last time a film played for months at a single theatre? I remember when the shelf life of a film during its first-run theatrical window was 6-8 weeks, now it's more like 2-4 weeks. And the press doesn't help the public perception of a film's success by proclaiming the opening of a film "disappointing" if it doesn't earn at least $20 million and/or place in the top 3 spots during its opening weekend. Pacific Rim was a good example of this from last summer, where by the time word of mouth got me into the theatre during week #3, it was already considered a "disappointment."

 

When summer movies arrived on VHS/DVD during the Christmas holidays (and vice versa), that gave smaller films a better chance to flourish at the box office, and sometimes find their audience when moving over to the second-run ($2) theatres. Nowadays, the second-run move-over tends to occur 1-2 weeks before arriving on Blu-ray/DVD, and quite often the same week or after.



#5 of 6 OFFLINE   Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter



  • 2,041 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted May 18 2014 - 01:55 PM

Back when first run movies played theatrically there wasn't as much competition for entertainment dollars. People would regularly go to the theater on a weekly basis and watch whatever happened to catch their eye on the marquee. Now many hardcore movie fans have home theaters and they spend more time recycling their personal collection than going out.I don't think that widening the home video window would get people back into theaters. There would probably be a bit of an increase in bootlegging.

#6 of 6 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator



  • 18,803 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted May 19 2014 - 05:53 AM

I took 3 kids and my sister to see Gozlilla this weekend, admittedly in IMAX 3D, which should be a premium format.  It cost us 17.50 a ticket, we got 2 buckets of popcorn, 2 drinks and 2 boxes of candy.  Total cost was near $150.  Insanity.



I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt

HTF Rules

Classified Sales Rules

UV Sales New Clarifications





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users