I once again take up the bat to beat my favorite dead horse. The future of entertainment. To wit, this article in Variety about studios backing off of production volume for major releases. The article states that the market is oversatured and is currently exceeding consumer demand. I think that is partly right but mostly wrong. Consumers are fed up with the films being offered with exceptions. Studios ignore that the highest grossing films tend to be family films and smaller, less costly productions. The former makes money from sheer volume and the latter makes money from lower production costs which yields higher profits. Take The Chronicles of Narnia and March of the Penguins as examples. Narnia was designed to be a grand sweeping epic and family friendly. March Of The Penguins was made, as documentaries are, on the cheap and with limited market expectations. However, the movie struck a chord with people the world over. It is exceptionally well made and Morgan Freeman's soothing baritone narration only deepens the impact. It became the highest grossing documentary ever produced. (Yes, I know Farenheit 9/11 made more money but in no way do I consider that movie to be anything resembling the truth.)
Martin Scorsese recently said he's burned out by the overlarge production of major Hollywood films and will only be doing a few smaller movies in the coming years. He's getting older and much of this is driven by age and fatigue but overall, I think that's the future for Hollywood.
Other ways to trim costs will be an increase in the use of CGI. Movies like Sky Captain and the World Of Tomorrow eliminates the need for multi-month shoots and location shoots and the like. IIRC, the studio even kept the cost of the film under wraps. I think this measure was largely to protect the industry as a whole. Billionaire Mark Cuban is set to begin the trifecta of simultaneous release. His idea is to have a relase of the DVD, Cable/PPV and theaters on the same day. Critics contend they are dooming themselves to failure by eroding their own market share. Why would one go to the theater when you can watch it at home?
Indeed. However, I ask the question now; why go to the theater at all. For me, going to the theater is a hassle. The local cinema has shrunk the screen to nearly the same size as my crappy TV given the relative size and my distance from the screen. There are entirely too many teenagers with cellphones and bad manners. The tickets and snacks are absurdly priced and most of the movies I want to see are playing once and at a very inconvenient time. Given the cost and the hassle, I can simply buy the DVD and watch it whenever I want. Why wouldn't I? I'm the prime reason they're not going to lose marketshare. Guys like me (and I'm sure there's quite a few of us) who wouldn't see it in a theater at all but would buy the DVD. Simultaneous release capitalizes on marketing push leading up to the release.
Movie theaters misunderstand their role in all this. Moviegoing used to be about the experience of going to the movies. It can (and should) be that again. Create a place that is devoid of the requisite "noiseland arcade" and replace it with a cafe or restaurant. Create a place that is hospitable to families and adults and you'll have a very good draw. Theaters make very little money from ticket sales. Most of their cash is from ancillary services like concessions and videogames. Thus they think they have to cater to teens and their preferences. Not so. If they catered to a more adult crowd they would see equal or better margins. I would pay a premium for a reserved seat at a theater. I would also pay a premium to see someone ejected from the theater for cellphone use or talking. Is there a market for such a model? Maybe. It would be a tougher sell in a smaller town (like mine) but would do well in a major metropolitan area to be sure.
Martin Scorsese recently said he's burned out by the overlarge production of major Hollywood films and will only be doing a few smaller movies in the coming years. He's getting older and much of this is driven by age and fatigue but overall, I think that's the future for Hollywood.
Other ways to trim costs will be an increase in the use of CGI. Movies like Sky Captain and the World Of Tomorrow eliminates the need for multi-month shoots and location shoots and the like. IIRC, the studio even kept the cost of the film under wraps. I think this measure was largely to protect the industry as a whole. Billionaire Mark Cuban is set to begin the trifecta of simultaneous release. His idea is to have a relase of the DVD, Cable/PPV and theaters on the same day. Critics contend they are dooming themselves to failure by eroding their own market share. Why would one go to the theater when you can watch it at home?
Indeed. However, I ask the question now; why go to the theater at all. For me, going to the theater is a hassle. The local cinema has shrunk the screen to nearly the same size as my crappy TV given the relative size and my distance from the screen. There are entirely too many teenagers with cellphones and bad manners. The tickets and snacks are absurdly priced and most of the movies I want to see are playing once and at a very inconvenient time. Given the cost and the hassle, I can simply buy the DVD and watch it whenever I want. Why wouldn't I? I'm the prime reason they're not going to lose marketshare. Guys like me (and I'm sure there's quite a few of us) who wouldn't see it in a theater at all but would buy the DVD. Simultaneous release capitalizes on marketing push leading up to the release.
Movie theaters misunderstand their role in all this. Moviegoing used to be about the experience of going to the movies. It can (and should) be that again. Create a place that is devoid of the requisite "noiseland arcade" and replace it with a cafe or restaurant. Create a place that is hospitable to families and adults and you'll have a very good draw. Theaters make very little money from ticket sales. Most of their cash is from ancillary services like concessions and videogames. Thus they think they have to cater to teens and their preferences. Not so. If they catered to a more adult crowd they would see equal or better margins. I would pay a premium for a reserved seat at a theater. I would also pay a premium to see someone ejected from the theater for cellphone use or talking. Is there a market for such a model? Maybe. It would be a tougher sell in a smaller town (like mine) but would do well in a major metropolitan area to be sure.
Comments