3 ms·

> The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more

> The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground. And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. > If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes. Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up. And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.

massysett 11y ago
What you're describing already exists: television.
LordKano 11y ago
If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down. No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  > Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit. > No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely. For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen. We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow. There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup. It might happen one day but no time soon. A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively. I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.
prostoalex 11y ago
> viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. That's not exactly how movie economics works. The script calls for a male character, 30-40 years old, good-looking as he's the subject of romantic story. The casting operation calls a few agents and comes back with data that Tom Cruise will want $3m, Ryan Philippe will want $2m, some known actor who's currently in a TV series wants $500k, or a no-name actor showing promise will do it for $80k. It's up to the studio heads and producers to circle down on an option they consider reasonable. They are aware that a portion of movie revenues is generated by having a brand-name actor, i.e., there will be 200,000 extra tickets sold if Tom Cruise's name is on it. Tom Cruise is also aware of this dynamics, which explains the premium. But it's also not that simple. Actors like to pretend they're in this industry for the sake of "art", not "money", which means that if you have an interesting script and an "artistic" director with a potential of making to Sundance or Cannes, you might then get a brand-name actor for essentially free (you'll have to pay some union-mandated salary). Every big name actor has this "artistic" no-budget movie in his belt, to showcase their "range" and to signal to public that it ain't about the money, which leads to more public attention and larger check for the next franchise movie, as the actor is still "hot".

massysett 11y ago

What you're describing already exists: television.

LordKano 11y ago

If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down. No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.

jsmeaton 11y ago
> Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit. > No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
- LordKano 11y ago
  I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely. For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen. We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow. There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup. It might happen one day but no time soon. A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively. I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.

prostoalex 11y ago

> viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. That's not exactly how movie economics works. The script calls for a male character, 30-40 years old, good-looking as he's the subject of romantic story. The casting operation calls a few agents and comes back with data that Tom Cruise will want $3m, Ryan Philippe will want $2m, some known actor who's currently in a TV series wants $500k, or a no-name actor showing promise will do it for $80k. It's up to the studio heads and producers to circle down on an option they consider reasonable. They are aware that a portion of movie revenues is generated by having a brand-name actor, i.e., there will be 200,000 extra tickets sold if Tom Cruise's name is on it. Tom Cruise is also aware of this dynamics, which explains the premium. But it's also not that simple. Actors like to pretend they're in this industry for the sake of "art", not "money", which means that if you have an interesting script and an "artistic" director with a potential of making to Sundance or Cannes, you might then get a brand-name actor for essentially free (you'll have to pay some union-mandated salary). Every big name actor has this "artistic" no-budget movie in his belt, to showcase their "range" and to signal to public that it ain't about the money, which leads to more public attention and larger check for the next franchise movie, as the actor is still "hot".