Black Magic Cinema Camera price drop: $1,999

Gillvane said:
Market value is based on supply and demand, not cost of production.

Paranormal grossed 100 million, but costs only 15,000 to make.

John Carter cost 200 million dollars to make, but didn't come close to making it's money back.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Disney - for whatever reason - has really tried to paint CARTER as a bomb. It in fact did very well overseas as well as on DVD/Bluray domestically (it was the #1 scifi/fantasy seller on Amazon for some time). It's grossed over $280 million in theaters alone. Now it's clearly nothing close to a hit, because of its massive budget ($250 mil), but it's a mile away from something like R.I.P.D., which is a true flop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpi...n-carters-trip-to-mars-is-finally-profitable/

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2013/...c-flop-continues-to-gain-new-passionate-fans/
 
I've said that before in these forums too: Carter was a bomb in the US, but not elsewhere, and if you go by the usual rule (only about half of the box office gross goes to you, but if your box office is equal to your budget, you'll make money once DVDs and the rest come in) it did kind of OK ($250M budget, $280M box office). It didn't give them a 1000% return on investment as Avatar did, but hey, if you're gonna cry every time you don't make triple-digit ROI...
 
jdv said:
Not quite true. Disney - for whatever reason - has really tried to paint CARTER as a bomb. It in fact did very well overseas as well as on DVD/Bluray domestically (it was the #1 scifi/fantasy seller on Amazon for some time). It's grossed over $280 million in theaters alone. Now it's clearly nothing close to a hit, because of its massive budget ($250 mil), but it's a mile away from something like R.I.P.D., which is a true flop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpi...n-carters-trip-to-mars-is-finally-profitable/

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2013/...c-flop-continues-to-gain-new-passionate-fans/
Click to expand...

The point is because you spend a million dollars to make something doesn't make it worth a million dollars. Because you spend a dollar to make something doesn't mean it can't be worth a million dollars.
 
Gillvane said:
The point is because you spend a million dollars to make something doesn't make it worth a million dollars. Because you spend a dollar to make something doesn't mean it can't be worth a million dollars.
Click to expand...

Well, again, that's not quite true - if you spend a million dollars on a picture it's worth exactly a million dollars, at least in terms of debt. What's it worth as a long term investment (which is what all films ultimately are) may justify that investment, and it may not. But that debt remains... until it doesn't.

But of course you're quite right that something that only costs a buck has, in theory, the potential to make a million - every producers dream scenario.

I think what you're getting at is that there are no guarantees in this business, no matter how much is spent, which of course might be the only real rule there is. There are dozens of films made every single year by seasoned professionals costing hundreds of millions of dollars that are total crap, and generally speaking those pictures don't return on that investment of time and money (cough GREEN LANTERN cough).

And there are similar pictures in terms of cost that are excellent films, but only find their audiences years after initial release - THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, KICK ASS, CHILDREN OF MEN, and perhaps eventually JOHN CARTER - are all fine films that did poorly in theaters, yet later found lots of fans. THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, and KICK ASS - because of their popularity outside of cineplexes - all got or are getting sequels years after the fact, something their producers could only pray for after the first weekend's worth of receipts.

All of which means a film's true worth - particularly a good film - is difficult to judge in the first year or two after it's out. Heck, even bad film's value is hard to judge initially - look at Ed Wood's flicks or MANOS - THE HANDS OF FATE - those films will last longer then many good films released those years. Who could have known about things like MST3K at the time of their release? SHARKNADO now worth far more then is was the day before it was released (when it lit up Twitter like a firework display), while THE LONE RANGER is not. Film fate is truly fickle.
 
Last edited:
Some of the comments are really hilarious. I never thought this Black Magic camera will raise such varied and deep emotions in people.

Everytime, Black Magic has faltered in execution, then have tried to rewrite the rules of the game with audacious pricing. It is good to have a disruptive player so that the existing guys will be pushed to offer attractive things for customers. In my past life, I used to be a strategy consultant. This becomes a very good case study.

I can easily see that this pricing, despite the customer needing to spend more for SSDs, preamps and rigs to make the BMC work, will bring in many new users. A lot of DSLR crowd will be pulled in. People will try to make this work for them due to the low price.

There are some exciting times ahead.
 
This is phenomenal. Ten years ago I directed my first feature film. We shot it on a Canon XL1 which my buddy paid $3K for. Stardard definition, 60i, small chip, that recorded to tape. Now you can buy a BMC for $2k that shoots High Definition, 24p, large sensor, raw, 13 stops DR to SSD for 2/3 the price.

I would say that in 10 years that's a pretty good leap forward. A camera we would have only dreamed of having back then.
 
jdv said:
Well, again, that's not quite true - if you spend a million dollars on a picture it's worth exactly a million dollars, at least in terms of debt. What's it worth as a long term investment (which is what all films ultimately are) may justify that investment, and it may not. But that debt remains... until it doesn't.

But of course you're quite right that something that only costs a buck has, in theory, the potential to make a million - every producers dream scenario.

I think what you're getting at is that there are no guarantees in this business, no matter how much is spent, which of course might be the only real rule there is. There are dozens of films made every single year by seasoned professionals costing hundreds of millions of dollars that are total crap, and generally speaking those pictures don't return on that investment of time and money (cough GREEN LANTERN cough).

And there are similar pictures in terms of cost that are excellent films, but only find their audiences years after initial release - THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, KICK ASS, CHILDREN OF MEN, and perhaps eventually JOHN CARTER - are all fine films that did poorly in theaters, yet later found lots of fans. THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, and KICK ASS - because of their popularity outside of cineplexes - all got or are getting sequels years after the fact, something their producers could only pray for after the first weekend's worth of receipts.

All of which means a film's true worth - particularly a good film - is difficult to judge in the first year or two after it's out. Heck, even bad film's value is hard to judge initially - look at Ed Wood's flicks or MANOS - THE HANDS OF FATE - those films will last longer then many good films released those years. Who could have known about things like MST3K at the time of their release? SHARKNADO now worth far more then is was the day before it was released (when it lit up Twitter like a firework display), while THE LONE RANGER is not. Film fate is truly fickle.
Click to expand...

My point is that supply and demand determine market price, not cost of production (that determines profit), and not "greed".

A BMCC with resolve is worth what people are willing to pay for it, no more, and no less. It's really irrelevant if Black Magic made the camera for a dollar and they are making a million percent profit, or they made the camera for a million dollars and they are losing about a million bucks on each sale.

It just seems that many on this site struggle with very basic economic and business principles, like market share, pricing strategies, production costs, market price, etc. It turns into some discussion about the evil greedy corporations versus the saintly artists and supporters of the arts, which has nothing to do with sound business practices that keep a companies doors open and products going out the door year after year.

I think movie profits are tied heavily to the time value of money. That simply means a dollar today is worth much more than a dollar tomorrow. When you win the lottery you can get a smaller lump sum now, or much more money in yearly payments. Which one is better? They are actually the same because of the time value of money.

A movie studio would rather make it's money back right now, during the theater run, than later over time with DVD sales or streaming. Just using small simple numbers, I'd rather make 1 million now, than 10 million over twenty years. Why? Because I can make my money back, and put it into another movie right now. And that new movie can make me money, right now, and I can use those profits to make another movie, and so on.

If i'm waiting to make my money back over years, how many movies have I not made while I'm waiting because I have no capital? How much lost profit is that? How much has my branding suffered? Am I still competitive in the market to get stars and directors for my projects? In terms of real dollars the flash in the pan hit that makes me a lot of money right now but is not destined to be a classic is probably much more valuable than the movie that is lackluster at the box office, but stands the test of time and people are still buying the DVD 20 years later.
 
Gillvane said:
It just seems that many on this site struggle with very basic economic and business principles, like market share, pricing strategies, production costs, market price, etc. It turns into some discussion about the evil greedy corporations versus the saintly artists and supporters of the arts, which has nothing to do with sound business practices that keep a companies doors open and products going out the door year after year.
Click to expand...


image843.gif
 
Gillvane said:
In terms of real dollars the flash in the pan hit that makes me a lot of money right now but is not destined to be a classic is probably much more valuable than the movie that is lackluster at the box office, but stands the test of time and people are still buying the DVD 20 years later.
Click to expand...

Just to jump in on this. You're right, for you 9or whoever bankrolled it) right now that is more important. However as a culture or society or even as a human race, the long term investment is better and what money you spent or lost doesn't matter because the film exists where it had not before.

I was going to bring this up with John Carter or any film. If the film makes back what it cost to make within a year or two of release, I think that's still a good gamble. If it can be afforded. I would bet that for a studio like Disney it can be. But even if it didn't make a penny more than breaking even, it still gave the people who made the film a job which allowed them to put food on their table. It also brought a film into existence that can be enjoyed by people till the end of humanity.

So while I don't disagree with anything you're saying, just presenting another perspective.
 
I think there is price drop. because, soon, they will drop out BMCC II, which will have active MFT mount.. There is not logic that pocketcam can have active mount and BMCC not..

So, we figured out your plans BM, so drop price another 500$ :))

Just kidding, I am very happy for the latest price drop..relax, buy one and make som nice video..

.
 
roxics said:
Just to jump in on this. You're right, for you 9or whoever bankrolled it) right now that is more important. However as a culture or society or even as a human race, the long term investment is better and what money you spent or lost doesn't matter because the film exists where it had not before.

I was going to bring this up with John Carter or any film. If the film makes back what it cost to make within a year or two of release, I think that's still a good gamble. If it can be afforded. I would bet that for a studio like Disney it can be. But even if it didn't make a penny more than breaking even, it still gave the people who made the film a job which allowed them to put food on their table. It also brought a film into existence that can be enjoyed by people till the end of humanity.

So while I don't disagree with anything you're saying, just presenting another perspective.
Click to expand...

So, that's not a good gamble.

A successful business is about more than just making your money back, eventually.

What if Disney has another project in the works but they need the revenue from John Carter to go ahead with it and that revenue falls short? That means delaying the project until funding is available.

What if they have backers that were going to finance the new project won't risk it after Carter fails to make money right away so they look for better investments?

What is stock prices go down (they did a little), which means less assets to leverage for another project?

Which means you may have lost the director, or the star for that project. It means that the project could have been made already, released, and making money while you're waiting that year and a half to recoup spending on John Carter, so all that revenue is lost for that year.

Investment is not a static one time thing. You don't just put down your 200 million, forget about it, and hope eventually it makes you 201 million so you can declare a profit.

That's working capital and you need it back as quickly as possible so it can be making your share holders money on new projects. Every day that 200 mil is out there and not working for you on a new project is lost revenue.
 
Gillvane, all flicks are gambles, whether they cost $50 grand or $200 million. And of course producers would rather make a basket full of money fast, rather than wait for years. No one is arguing otherwise in the slightest. Yet no producer would ever turn down future monies or a large fan base after disappointment at the box office either. It's not like movie companies don't get to choose, any more than they get to chose whether or not people love their movies at all.

You said JOHN CARTER wouldn't come close to making its money back, yet that's not true. It did, and may in fact garner enough fans to justify a sequel - better than nothing is also better than losing millions. Disney certainly didn't delay any production based on slow sales of JOHN CARTER - in fact, they spent billions on buying the rights to STAR WARS. And I'm sure we'll be seeing them trying to put that investment to work.

Again, they are no guarantees in movie making. Would Disney re-think making THE LONE RANGER in hindsight? Dang skippy they would. But how could they know it would bomb? They sure as heck didn't go into it looking to lose their shirts. There is little endeavor more useless than Monday afternoon quarterbacking.

Roxics, I couldn't agree with you more - the development of video cameras has truly been amazing over the past ten years. Whatever BMMC'S business model is, or their rationale is for lowing price, it certainly does put added market pressure on other manufacturers - a good thing for all of us trying to become the next Walt Disney. Which is why it's eminently relevant whether or not a smallish company can stay in business while making quality cameras for low prices - something they wouldn't be able to do if they're losing bucket loads of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top