, on Amazon.com’s MP3 store. No DRM, just plain, high quality MP3 files.
I was reading this article this morning, trying to see if I agreed with the author. On one side, I could agree with the Randall Stross’ theory that Cuban is missing the big picture. HD pictures don’t bring people in to movie theatres (yes, Star Wars excluded), more often than not, that’s yet another reason to stay home (that plus tickets, parking, etc all make it no less than $20 venture for just one person), but then again, maybe the “Industry Experts” are missing things too.
Movie production costs have been steadily rising for over a decade now, and probably quite a bit longer (though I don’t have the stats in front of me), however, I’d argue that movie quality has actaully either stayed constant or actually gotten worse. If the movie industry really wants to look at why movie attendence is down, they shouldn’t be blaming the technology, they ought to be checking their own back yards. While Harry Potter maybe one of the more CGI-heavy movies of the year, ask anyone who’s seen it, its a GREAT story, with compelling characters, and each one of the sequels has gotten better!
I would bet all of the money in my pockets right now, that if the movie industry actually embraced things like digital transfer, digital movie projectors, and many o the other improvements that people like Cuban are attempting to employ, and thus did NOT raise ticket prices, they would see a reduction in costs and more people would return to the theatres.
I want to see Rent, Narnia, Memoirs of a Geisha, Walk the Line and a few other movies this year while I’m in Florida (of course, I’ll have to get up at 6am to fight the crowds for the 9am show, but still…). If I’m lucky, I might get to see 2 of those. Back in 1995, when I graduated high school, I remember ticket prices were $5.25 at the “expensive” theatre. There’s no way movies are twice as expensive to make now as they were back then, and if they are, maybe the movie industry might want to look at that too, rather than passing all of the expense onto the consumer.
I hope everyone has a happy Holiday (yes, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, Happy Hannukkah, wonderful Boxing Day, et al) season.
December 19th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
20 million per picture is what some of these stars get…
I know we can argue the merits of talent vs the industry, etc…
but do 4 pictures a year and you have 80 million per year on one person.
production costs have gone up for one reason; big egos want big paydays.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
who gets 20 million per picture?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Here’s a list: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/175280p-152629c.html .
It’s a bit old, but take a look at the grosses of most of their movies. It seems a bit unfair to ask people to be the vehicle that makes or breaks a movie but then only give them whatever you happen to think is a fair cut. They negotiate and settle the price.
I don’t know how you can say that there’s only one reason, just the big egos.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
one last comment: Here was an interview given by Bob Iger, new chairman of Disney: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113374725252213739-wF0pI8UMd3A7Cern4iFOVAqtJ6I_20061204.html?mod=blogs
Read some of the stuff about theaters and Wal Mart to see the types of entrenched stakeholders outside the studios that are resisting change as much as anyone.
(disclaimer: I work for Disney but know, well, nothing about how studio production does what they do. I’m also not speaking as an employee).
Latch onto the big paychecks, but there’s more going on…
I wonder what the average marketing budget is these days vs. the “old” days. Or, how much money studios expect from DVD sales over their traditional box office receipts. Agents and stars know those numbers and are negotiating against the total gross instead of the box…
December 20th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Marketing budgets, ego and salary costs are actually just two costs that, while they’re growing, aren’t only what I’m looking at.
The part that I’m most concerned about is the rate of failure. How many high profile movies bomb and how does that affect ticket pricing? They only can go up.
Let me put it another way. Rent was expected to be huge. People expected, based upon the show (and the success of Chicago), that it was going to be MASSIVE. According to most reports, Rent has only made about 28 or so million dollars. So, even if it recovered its costs (and I think it might have), wouldn’t the studio still consider it a failure? What about Napoleon Dynamite? or Garden State? A movie that cost $10 million to make, but ended up grossing in excess of $60 million. That movie’s successes were clearly used to offset the failure of another movie during 2004.
What about Serenity? It cost $39 million to make. Let’s assume it made back every dollar of its $39 million at the box office. Clearly not all of that money went to the studio. I’m certain part of that movie’s take went to the theatres, to name just one place. I wonder if the studio considers it a failure, because while in the theatre, it didn’t make back its money.
Movie studios make bad choices, and the customer ends up paying for it. I know they expect to make more money in DVD sales. And I know their goal is to make money. I’m just saying that if they made better movies, the customers like me would be more willing to go see more of them. Movies shouldn’t cost 100% more than they did 10 years ago. There’s no way the combination of inflation and technology costs have made that so.
Just a few thoughts at 7:30am.