3 ms·

Umm, its exactly what its about. He's complaining that "the big evil internet" is killing their business, because more people are consuming more media. Yet ho

by froo 17y ago

Umm, its exactly what its about. He's complaining that "the big evil internet" is killing their business, because more people are consuming more media. Yet however, the actual data shows that ticket sales in cinema are actually going up, but not at the same rate of consumption of those films. The people that had no intention of paying top shelf price for those films are not. Yet the budgets for films have gone way up so that these studio's can compete with each other. Yet, the growth of ticket sales hasn't grown at the same rate (while rentals have stayed fairly static, just the distribution channels have changed somewhat) - so their profit margins have become less. So he's complaining that the people who had no intention of paying to see those films, are not paying to see those films and because they've chosen to raise the budgets of those films significantly, its killing their business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films Films like Titanic and Waterworld were notoriously expensive for their time. Now that's considered nearly an average budget for a blockbuster - inflation sure as hell hasn't gone up by that much, and costs of actual production have gone down with going to digital media, digital editing etc.... What they really need to focus on, is less extravagant budgets. Take a leaf out of the book of TV. Lost, which is a notoriously expensive TV show to produce, cost $44 million dollars for the first season which consisted of 25 episodes at 44 minutes running time each... or roughly 0.04 million dollars per minute of entertainment for the end viewer. Similarly, lets look at Spiderman 3.. Sony Pictures most expensive film, $258 million dollars cost with a running time of 139 minutes, or 1.86 million dollars per minute of entertainment for the end viewer. See the big divide there? It's really a function of cost of production.

radu_floricica 17y ago
I watched a few of those movies, and I simply cannot see where those budgets went. You sure it's not just creative accounting somewhere?
johnnybgoode 17y ago
You said their business model wasn't at all being made obsolete. Now you're saying they need to take a page from TV and focus on less extravagant budgets to survive? I guess if you just mean they'll still make movies, then sure. The dollar per minute figures are slightly misleading, because if you took just the first couple of episodes of Lost, the number would be much higher. The pilot cost $10 to $14 million to produce. That's about 0.14 million dollars per minute. Of course the average cost goes down as more episodes of the same show are made. That's why they filmed some movies (like LOTR and the Pirates sequels, I think) back-to-back.
- froo 17y ago
  Umm, no, the business model is fundamentally sound, it's just they need to reduce unnecessary costs which they've increased themselves. In the case of the LOTR and Pirates sequels being filmed back to back, that was a situation consisting of continuity more than anything because the story is an ongoing saga. If you look at that list of most expensive films ever made, the Pirates sequels come in at number 1 and 4... I don't think budget considerations were part of the equation. (Also take note, Lord of the Rings isn't on there anywhere, because Pete Jackson reduced costs by setting up Weta Digital to do lots of their special effects inhouse. The cost of the entire trilogy was $285 million, less than the cost of the third Pirates movie) Last I heard, Disney were considering making a 4th "Pirates" film, and given the subject matter (probably the fountain of youth as was suggested at the end of At Worlds End) - it might be another extravagant budget as well. Also, in your argument of pilots vs ongoing costs, have you ever wondered how much of that is due to cost of sets? With TV, generally they're re-using sets over and over, so of course the cost goes down, because the cost per episode is reduced. With Film, the medium calls for lots of "throwaway" shots, which means lots and lots of sets. Consider your average Michael Bay film, they might have explosions that cost several hundred thousand dollars each, yet are only 1 or 2 seconds of onscreen action and they might film them several times if there are any major faults. But at the end of the day, it's all time wasting entertainment. I'd watch 6 episodes of Frasier (which were relatively cheap to produce) over a generic Michael Bay film any day - so why should the latter cost orders of magnitude more to produce? It's the same amount of entertainment for the viewer.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure budget considerations were part of the equation. Why take a gamble by committing to two or more big-budget movies at once? If the Pirates sequels had been filmed separately, they would've cost even more to make. As for the sets in TV shows, yes, exactly. And though perhaps not to the same extent as it's done in TV, they do reuse sets in films. Edit: In answer to your question about Frasier vs. Michael Bay films, it's because not everyone has taste as good as yours. ;)
    - 17y ago

by froo 17y ago

radu_floricica 17y ago

I watched a few of those movies, and I simply cannot see where those budgets went. You sure it's not just creative accounting somewhere?

johnnybgoode 17y ago

You said their business model wasn't at all being made obsolete. Now you're saying they need to take a page from TV and focus on less extravagant budgets to survive? I guess if you just mean they'll still make movies, then sure. The dollar per minute figures are slightly misleading, because if you took just the first couple of episodes of Lost, the number would be much higher. The pilot cost $10 to $14 million to produce. That's about 0.14 million dollars per minute. Of course the average cost goes down as more episodes of the same show are made. That's why they filmed some movies (like LOTR and the Pirates sequels, I think) back-to-back.

froo 17y ago
Umm, no, the business model is fundamentally sound, it's just they need to reduce unnecessary costs which they've increased themselves. In the case of the LOTR and Pirates sequels being filmed back to back, that was a situation consisting of continuity more than anything because the story is an ongoing saga. If you look at that list of most expensive films ever made, the Pirates sequels come in at number 1 and 4... I don't think budget considerations were part of the equation. (Also take note, Lord of the Rings isn't on there anywhere, because Pete Jackson reduced costs by setting up Weta Digital to do lots of their special effects inhouse. The cost of the entire trilogy was $285 million, less than the cost of the third Pirates movie) Last I heard, Disney were considering making a 4th "Pirates" film, and given the subject matter (probably the fountain of youth as was suggested at the end of At Worlds End) - it might be another extravagant budget as well. Also, in your argument of pilots vs ongoing costs, have you ever wondered how much of that is due to cost of sets? With TV, generally they're re-using sets over and over, so of course the cost goes down, because the cost per episode is reduced. With Film, the medium calls for lots of "throwaway" shots, which means lots and lots of sets. Consider your average Michael Bay film, they might have explosions that cost several hundred thousand dollars each, yet are only 1 or 2 seconds of onscreen action and they might film them several times if there are any major faults. But at the end of the day, it's all time wasting entertainment. I'd watch 6 episodes of Frasier (which were relatively cheap to produce) over a generic Michael Bay film any day - so why should the latter cost orders of magnitude more to produce? It's the same amount of entertainment for the viewer.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  I'm pretty sure budget considerations were part of the equation. Why take a gamble by committing to two or more big-budget movies at once? If the Pirates sequels had been filmed separately, they would've cost even more to make. As for the sets in TV shows, yes, exactly. And though perhaps not to the same extent as it's done in TV, they do reuse sets in films. Edit: In answer to your question about Frasier vs. Michael Bay films, it's because not everyone has taste as good as yours. ;)
  - 17y ago