3 ms·

Heres the problem I see: should it ever come to a point where ripping DVDs and downloading ripped movies is totally legal, will studios then have an incentive t

Heres the problem I see: should it ever come to a point where ripping DVDs and downloading ripped movies is totally legal, will studios then have an incentive to produce quality movies? Won't it hurt us if they stop making movies we like to watch, because they can't turn a profit? I see the guy's point, but it could prove to be an unfortunate truth.

shiranaihito 19y ago
True, but what if they cut back only on the really awful movies? Very few movies are even worth watching, just like even fewer albums are worth buying. The re-use value of music is extremely high, but how many times will you watch a movie you buy? Downloading movies in Blu-ray format is still more or less infeasible though, and it's not like RIAA & MPAA would be expected to start a torrent site of their own :)
- pchristensen 19y ago
  The problem is, it's hard to determine what is going to be a really awful movie until you make it. Just like an idea can sound great and the execution bad, a movie can get killed by poor execution at any step of the process. And once a movie gets past a certain point, it has to be released (even if everyone knows it's bad) to recoup some of the money that's been put into it.
  - shiranaihito 19y ago
    Good point!
bayareaguy 19y ago
"An inconvenient truth" was one of the better movies I've seen recently. It didn't cost all that much to make and has turned out to be quite profitable. The big studios would like us to believe production expense is related to quality, but I doubt that's the case.
- pchristensen 19y ago
  Bingo. It's hard to predict things like story quality or actor chemistry, so those things are not good investments (from the POV of the studios), even if they can have bigger effects on earnings. This is why so many sequels get made - it takes the unpredictability out of story and screen chemistry. Unfortunately, the only way to find the limit is to beat the story/characters to death. Things that do provide predictable financial returns are: - big stars (basically a marketing expense, although they can affect chemistry in unpredictable ways - see DaVinci Code, The) - visual effects, since given the same story, a pretty movie will do better than an ugly movie. But everyone has chased this one to the point of diminishing returns, and the audience expectation here is through the roof. - production quality (things like editing, lighting, etc) - but this is so universally high quality that it's now more of an expense of doing business than a differentiating quality. Basically, expensive movies tend to do well because studios throw money at areas with more predictable returns. And since the studios have quarterly earnings reports and shareholders, etc, that's what they focus on.

shiranaihito 19y ago

True, but what if they cut back only on the really awful movies? Very few movies are even worth watching, just like even fewer albums are worth buying. The re-use value of music is extremely high, but how many times will you watch a movie you buy? Downloading movies in Blu-ray format is still more or less infeasible though, and it's not like RIAA & MPAA would be expected to start a torrent site of their own :)

pchristensen 19y ago
The problem is, it's hard to determine what is going to be a really awful movie until you make it. Just like an idea can sound great and the execution bad, a movie can get killed by poor execution at any step of the process. And once a movie gets past a certain point, it has to be released (even if everyone knows it's bad) to recoup some of the money that's been put into it.
- shiranaihito 19y ago
  Good point!

bayareaguy 19y ago

"An inconvenient truth" was one of the better movies I've seen recently. It didn't cost all that much to make and has turned out to be quite profitable. The big studios would like us to believe production expense is related to quality, but I doubt that's the case.

pchristensen 19y ago
Bingo. It's hard to predict things like story quality or actor chemistry, so those things are not good investments (from the POV of the studios), even if they can have bigger effects on earnings. This is why so many sequels get made - it takes the unpredictability out of story and screen chemistry. Unfortunately, the only way to find the limit is to beat the story/characters to death. Things that do provide predictable financial returns are: - big stars (basically a marketing expense, although they can affect chemistry in unpredictable ways - see DaVinci Code, The) - visual effects, since given the same story, a pretty movie will do better than an ugly movie. But everyone has chased this one to the point of diminishing returns, and the audience expectation here is through the roof. - production quality (things like editing, lighting, etc) - but this is so universally high quality that it's now more of an expense of doing business than a differentiating quality. Basically, expensive movies tend to do well because studios throw money at areas with more predictable returns. And since the studios have quarterly earnings reports and shareholders, etc, that's what they focus on.