 BellBoySteven Paul Jobs 1955-2011Premium
join:2001-02-20
Los Angeles, CA | What's the REAL cost?? I think that something that hasn't been discussed is the actual cost of what a film (music album, etc.) is worth to the general public.
I wouldn't necessarily mind paying for a film or music over the net, but I think what has to be thought out is this: what is a property actually worth? Is a film from 1941 worth less than a film from 2001? Should someone pay more for "Big Daddy" than for "Gone With The Wind"? Just because a film cost $100 Million to produce, should the consumer pay more to see it in another medium just because it tanked at the box office?
There are films that are considered classic and have been shown on TV hundreds of thousands of times, yet nowhere on the net can those films be found for download from a major studio for a fee (or even for free). How much would you pay to have a DivX quality copy of "Sergeant York," "Citizen Kane," or "Singin' In The Rain"? $4.00? $2.00? $.50? In the same context, how about "Titanic," "Star Wars," or "The Matrix"? Those films made buckets of cash. So should we have to pay more for those films simply because of the demand they would generate? Would it soothe the studios to offer films for free if they threw in commercials every 20 minutes or so?
My point is that the quality of a film (or album for that matter) is so subjective--each and every person will have a different opinion as to its worth. Determining how much to pay for a "$100 Million movie" as Mr. Valenti put it, is close to impossible because the studios will always be looking for the profits that never came from a box office disappointment.
--
I'm not an ASI tech, but I play one on TV... |
|
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | some movies may make buckets of cash, but this is the movie industry and those execs want dumptrucks of cash as buckets arent enough.
--
[60 Sorcerer]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to BellBoy
Let's not forget the movie industry is about as bad as the music industry. Movie theaters hardly get any money from the movies they show. They have to make a living off of inflated concession prices. I have seen the figures on the movies they are complaining about being traded online. They have made hefty profits from these films. I'm not talking a little profit. I am talking more money than most movies ever make. And that's just ticket sales. We are not even factoring DVD sales, rentals, cable, television premiers and merchandising.
This is another "cry me a river" sympathy ploy if you ask me.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
BellBoySteven Paul Jobs 1955-2011Premium
join:2001-02-20
Los Angeles, CA | said by SRFireside:
Let's not forget the movie industry is about as bad as the music industry. Movie theaters hardly get any money from the movies they show. They have to make a living off of inflated concession prices. I have seen the figures on the movies they are complaining about being traded online. They have made hefty profits from these films. I'm not talking a little profit. I am talking more money than most movies ever make. And that's just ticket sales. We are not even factoring DVD sales, rentals, cable, television premiers and merchandising.
This is another "cry me a river" sympathy ploy if you ask me.
I hope you don't misunderstand me...
I'm certainly not on the studio's or Valenti's side. I agree with you, the studios are the first to run to the media with box office scores and the last to run to court to prove that their accounting numbers are wrong. Anyone remember the "Coming To America" lawsuit that Art Buchwald brought against Paramount, et al.?
As far as the theater owners go, they're digging their own graves. $3.50 for a little bag of candy? Give me a break! Whenever I can, I head to a local store and buy whatever I want to eat. The only exception is that I'll buy popcorn--mostly out of guilt.
Plus, building a 1,000-plex is not really good for business. Hell, the majority of the screens have the latest film that sucks anyway so any film I actually want to see is banished to the early or the late show. F*** THAT!
If the studios and the theater owners had a brain between them, they'd take a hint from the art houses and sprinkle some older classics or avant guard films into the mix to bring in a different audience--along with the brainiacs that can't wait to see the latest David Spade fiasco.
--
I'm not an ASI tech, but I play one on TV... |
|
| My intent was to only add to your comment so don't worry, I didn't misunderstand you. 
However regarding the price of snacks at the theaters they really don't have much choice. I don't know how little they actually get, but I do know the theaters depend on those elevated prices just to keep the theaters open. Over here in Austin there is a theater called Alamo Draft House that does show some classics as well as new movies. They also show some oddball movies that have cult followings. Plus they serve real food too. It's a shame your common theaters don't go back to the classics. There is a possibility they can't due to licensing. Another issue to take up with the movie industry.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
