Lucasfilm's Rick McCallum says DVD hurts box office returns. (1 Viewer)

[Harry Callaghan]

I myself struggle to accept that studios are losing money, but then I don't have the full picture.
I think some people are jumping on a 'bash' wagon when they say things like 'I will see an independant film anyday over a hollywood blockbuster because 9 times out of 10 they are better', because when you take those comments in the context of home theater (that is this forum), they do not stack up. How many people on this forum have said "wow, that indie film last night really gave my sub a serious workout" or "the DTS track of this indie film rocks" ???
And yet those sort of comments are heard so often about big blockbuster films.
Still we could do without them I suppose - our home theatres would be cheaper

 

[Ernest]

I think we are being miss-lead and the bottom line is all that should count and all that does count is the bottom line. So the studios may not make as much as they did in the past from the theatertical run, but more than make up for it with the sale of DVD's. Times are changing and the studios need to recognize this and they do evidenced by their support of DVD.

Many families are spending lots of money to create their own home theater to enjoy the movies they way they prefer. What do the studios care as long as they get their return on their investment and they do.

 

[Jeff_HR]

The thing that keeps me from going to see a movie is that most of them have very poor plots (it seems to me most movies have scripts made by people who "fly by the seat of their pants" type of mentality), lacks a fluidity (scences jump to much)

Watching films from 40 to 70 years ago might provide some better plotting.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

"My Big Fat Greek Wedding"

The exception, but by no means the rule.

 

[James Reader]

The exception, but by no means the rule.

But does it matter if a movie makes a profit on the theatrical release as long as it *does* make a profit?

The studio's are in business to make profit. Most films do make a profit once American and worldwide takings for all of the following are taking into account too: television sales, video sales, pay-per view sales, soundtrack sales and in some cases toys and clothing sales!. A movie would have to be a mega-bomb to still not make a profit once all that added up - and I would say they were the exceptions and not the rule.

The only difference as I can see it is, most films have a slower return rate these days. But then again the Studio's are quickening the return rate by releasing the DVD's sooner. They can't have it both ways you know.

 

[Michael Hall]

For me, personally, the theatrical experience of a movie is something special still. I still get that "Oh, I *have* to see that in a theater" feeling when a movie I really want to see is coming out. I'm kind of on the low-tech end of film fandom I guess, as my Home Theater isn't much more than a television set and a DVD player (living in a building with retired folk and being a po' graduate student doesn't allow me to have a large setup) and cable internet access is a virtual pipe dream (no pun intended). Maybe once I get this big HT setup, I'll think differently, but as for right now, nothing compares to seeing a film like Star Wars or LOTR in a theater with a nice big screen and full surround sound.
That being said, my most recent filmgoing experience yesterday wasn't exactly all that great. I went to an early AM showing of "The Ring" (great film, btw) and had the distinct pleasure of sitting behind three foul-mouthed people in their early twenties who felt it necessary to comment on everything in the film and their lives as the film went on, out loud, so everyone could hear. It was easily the worst film commentary I've ever heard. This won't stop me from going back to the theater though, as I'm going to have to see "The Ring" again because of it. So there's some more of this nonexistant repeat business (like the nine times I saw AOTC this summer) that's so rampant nowadays.
My cousin downloaded AOTC from the net about a week before it came out. She asked if I'd like to watch it and I told her "No, I'd rather see it in its full glory for that first time." Seeing a film on a small screen and in often very questionable quality doesn't interest me. I had to virtually force her to come to a theater with me to see AOTC back in June, and when we walked out of there, she couldn't stop talking about all the stuff she caught on-screen that she missed watching it on her computer. Because of stuff like this, I don't think that the filmgoing experience is becoming dead due to bootlegging or home viewing. Sure, some people who aren't exactly sticklers for quality (literally or figuratively) aren't going to care, but I, for one, do care about the quality of the films I see and the experiences associated with them. Standing in line for tickets for TPM overnight back in 1999 was an experience I couldn't have waiting on the DVD to go on sale at midnight last October. There's just certain things that bootlegs, and dare I say it, DVDs just can't replicate for me.
Basically, my long-windedness aside, I'll probably never stop going to the theaters. I might have the DVD of FOTR, but if they announced that it would be rereleased for one week prior to the release of "The Two Towers", I'd be right there in line, getting ready to watch it again.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Very well put, Michael! The theatrical experience is still special for me and many others as well

The only difference as I can see it is, most films have a slower return rate these days. But then again the Studio's are quickening the return rate by releasing the DVD's sooner. They can't have it both ways you know.

Very true. I have little doubt that if these auxillery forms of income didn't exist, the theatrical runs would be much more profitable as the only pipelines for films. Basically, they're getting the same amount of money, only spread out far thinner then they used to.

 

[Seth Paxton]

most films have a slower return rate these days.

Hardly. By front loading like crazy films are making all their money in the first month.

The time period Rick is talking about, say 1977, required a film to run for 8-12 months to get all it's BO. In 2002 a film will have its entire BO run over with and be out on DVD collecting big sales in that same time frame.

Maybe Rick doesn't want DVD sales to "count" in whatever view he wants to promote, but unless studios are making a major mistake and are giving away DVD rights (they aren't) then that money counts too.

DVD sales dwarf VHS and LD sales (selling a lot to rentals places is fine, except that studios then have to buy the titles back after a certain point - DVD by-passes this), and before that there was NO home video sales.


The bottom line is this: In so many words Rick is really saying "the 2nd theatrical run is killing our first theatrical run". DVD sales being the 2nd run. Just think about it, $25 DVD is 3 adult ticket sales. How does selling a DVD differ in the bottom line from leaving the film in the theater till that same point and selling 3 tickets to it? I'll tell you one way it differs, the studio would probably get LESS of the profit from the theatrical sales that late in the run versus a DVD sale.

Where is Mr. Pink with his tiny violin?

 

[Richard Fairbrother]

Okay,

Can I say this one more time? Please folks, listen up to this will you?

1. George Lucas has not released the Original Trilogy on DVD because he is busy shooting the prequels. It doesn't matter about the 20 years previous and why nothing has come out, the reality is now and he's shooting a new movie. He told us that and his stance hasn't changed in 4 years.

2. George Lucas, with his vast millions, is not going to simply hand off the DVD project to anyone else. It will demand and receive his attention when he's good and ready for it.

3. The scope of the Original Trilogy in terms of content and extras is above and beyond anything people have considered. I can say this because I've been to the Ranch (hope you fellas that went with Atlantic Technology had a great time) and some of my good friends are working on getting materials ready for the DVDs. If you doubt my integrity, tough.

4. McCallums claims are off both valid and off base. While tighter margins, the rising costs of stars and films, and picky audiences all gouge profits, the back-end return of DVD sales has skyrocketed. Within weeks of release, DVD sales are achieving millions in units sold. Small pofiting theatrical releases are seeing huge back-end profits. Most revenue forecasts never prepared for the profitability of DVD.

5. The concern is on base in terms of piracy cutting into back-end profits as well. If a consumer has the ability to sell thousands of bootleg copies, millions of dollars in revenue are lost. Yes, it DOES hurt studios. But I find more enthusiasts eagerly await the official DVD release than a hack-job of a pirated one.

All in all, I've never met Rick McCallum. I don't need to in order to say I wouldn't want him speaking for my industry. He has a job and for Lucasfilm he does it well.

Rich

 

[BrettisMckinney]

I think Ricky is just pissed off coz he thinks no matter what a Star Wars film is like, it should make more money than everything else! He's oozing jealousy of spiderman and lotr.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Richard,
Just a note on #1,2, and 3 - a director whom I won't name, in the intention of harmony, has supervised and supported a traditional DVD release and the most LOADED DVD release ever, attended many events during an early year awards season, and directed re-shoots and extensive post-production on a film easily as large as any SW film, all within an eleven month timeframe. So the claims that it cannot be done in a THREE year period are, and will remain, suspect to me.

Lucas has his reasons, I have no doubt. Telling us he physically doesn't have time...isn't so believable. He might have vast millions, but not vast concern. I have no doubt the super-duper SW releases will be thorough and detailed...and digitally mucked with. That does not meet "above and beyond anything we can consider though." I don't doubt your integrity...just the ability of LFL to keep up.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Just a note on #1,2, and 3 - a director whom I won't name, in the intention of harmony, has supervised and supported a traditional DVD release and the most LOADED DVD release ever, attended many events during an early year awards season, and directed re-shoots and extensive post-production on a film easily as large as any SW film, all within an eleven month timeframe. So the claims that it cannot be done in a THREE year period are, and will remain, suspect to me.

Ah yes, but Fellowship:EE isn't a catalog title requiring quite possibly/probably extesive restoration. As well, the script was done for the entire trilogy and principal photography has wrapped. If Jackson had worked on the Extended Edition extensively during the prinicple photography you might have a point. I just can't understand why people are knocking a guy for waiting it out and doing it right the first time. What's so bad about that?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No knocking. I understand PJ had a lot done already, but ONE YEAR for EVERYTHING he's done since 19 December 2001 is an IMMENSE undertaking. My point is simply that I don't buy LFL's reasoning. They should just say they are waiting a few years. Don't say they don't have time, or Lucas is too busy.
I don't blame him at all. I have the DefColl on LD. Based on George saying that the OT might never be available unaltered (although I think it will), I might not even buy the super boxset. GL is doing what he wants, and I respect him for that. I just don't need to hear a sob story that is clearly not entirely honest. He doesn't HAVE to wait...he wants to. Just say that, and move on.
Take care,
Chuck
P.S. McCallum doesn't help, because he is the WORST exaggerator in the history of Hollywood. But at least he's a nice fellow.

 

[RichardMA]

I can only relate the studios results to how I view movies.
Here is what my experience has been over the last five years.
I will avoid seeing most movies on the big screen unless they demand a big screen showing (they are spectacular)
and will watch most on DVD. A movie with a minor budget
that can be enjoyed just as well at home, I'll watch at home.
Watching at home is preferable in nearly all ways to a theater. Only the sound (bass, specifically) and picture
are sometimes better at a theater.
I would even feel this way about VHS tapes if they are
of the proper WS format.
DVD has not caused me to see any fewer movies at the theater.
What has is that movies on the whole are not as good
as they were 10 years ago (debating this is a losing proposition)therefore there are some movies that I won't
go to a theater to watch but will "chance" them on DVD and home theater is preferable to the theater, for the most
part.

 

[Josh Simpson]

Yes, McCallum is very melodramatic. He seems nice yes, but does exaggerate quite a bit I think. I'm just praying that E.T. will be successful enough to get George thinking the same thing. He seems stubborn though. I'm not holding my breath. As for the subject thread, I think Rick is both right and wrong on some of his comments.

 

[DeathStar1]

>I'm just praying that E.T. will be successful enough to get George thinking the same thing. He seems stubborn though>

Oh well, if he dosn't, I can always dupe my original Trilogy Widescreen set to DVD and be done with it. Either way, I'll still be buying the real deal when it comes out, just to have the superior quality and extras. Even if they are the Special Editions.

 

[Chris Farmer]

I don't know. personally, I still think the piracy thing is overstated. The downloading of MP3s has NOT killed CD sales, despite what the RIAA has said (the recent downturn can be far more easily attributed to the down economy then piracy, or does piracy also account for the sagging computer market, the layoffs at numerous corporations, etc.). CD sales were at their all time high when Napster was at its peak. Does that prove a thing? Nope, but it is there, and it is true.To blame piracy for everything is absurd. Can I download AotC? Sure, easily. Is it worth it? No. It looks like crap, sound will be in mono or maybe, if I'm lucky stereo, but no 5.1. The resolution will be approximately the size of a postage stamp. Special features? Forget about it. And it will take hours to download. Vs. walking into Best Buy on release day, plunking down $20, give or take (probably less), walking home, and shaking my apartment building on its foundations with the seismic charges. Total investment? 20 mins for the trip, $20, as opposed to hours of downloading and not being able to take my laptop with me to class, etc. Piracy has a long way to go before it can touch what DVD does.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

The original plan was to film "The Hobbit" starring Warwick Davis. But when Miramax balked at the $75 million dollar price tag Peter Jackson took it to New Line which gave him nearly $300 million to make the trilogy

Why did he then digitally shorten actors instead of hiring actors who were already that short to begin with?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

PJ may have mistakenly read the description of Hobbits in The Hobbit. They sound to me more like overly chubby little people (or "physically height challenged" to be overly PC) instead of regular people shrunk to a smaller proportion as in the movies, and I've read these books many times.

Also, it is an unfortunate side effect of human (and more to the point Hollywood marketing "gurus'") prejudices that little people in major roles of a movie are few and far between (usually relegated to playing comic relief roles, "Ewoks," dwarves, and other diminutive creatures). They could then use well known regular sized actors (box office draw), instead of unknown little people.


More to the point of the original topic: I think McCallum is full of it. Lucas wanted a "Yes Man" and a PR agent, and he got that wish in spades. No wonder Gary Kurtz (the original producer for classic Lucas films) was disgusted and left these projects oh so long ago (right as Jedi started into production-- and we all know what happened soon after wards: the over kid-ification of the series). Lucas needs quality people around him who can criticize and give him alternate view points to keep him balanced and in check, and now he's been released to wreck havoc on the movie industry. Oh, the humanity!

Dan

 

[Richard Fairbrother]

No offense taken to my points. But here are some more.

Lucas said he was busy shooting a movie. That movie IS being shot with a DVD in mind. The time he needs to supervise movies that were shot WITHOUT a DVD in mind simply outweighs his ability or desire to coordinate both simultaneously.

Peter Jackson is a gifted filmmaker who loves DVD. How easy is it for him to have shot LotR and the rest with the eventual release in mind? It's a luxury that did not exist when Lucas made the Original Trilogy. I'm not taking anything away from Peter Jackson, just saying the circumstances are now different.

What has been mentioned to be on these DVDs takes material from 20 plus years into consideration.

Rich