Movies becoming less and less important.

I wonder how much of that TV revenue comes from reality shows that, relatively speaking, are dirt cheap to produce?
 
Perhaps movies will become "loss leaders" for these companies, as they are used for establishing franchises, merchandising, etc. Not that that doesn't happen already, but the big studios may see this as a more clear-cut path to continuing film production.

On top of that, yeah, TV is generally speaking much cheaper to produce. Not to mention the material can be reused on many levels (graphics in production can be reused, and the final episodes themselves are syndicated, as two examples). Films are constructed from the ground up, and have much higher budgets to begin with, plus you have the ad campaigns that go into them, nearly rivaling (many times eclipsing) the budget of the film itself. Makes me wonder how these films are even sustainable sometimes...
 
I think movies are stuck in the old system. They used to bring in so much profit, and the entire system is based around that. The way they work, the way they produce, the expensive cast, the way they market, the equipment, etc. As much as I'm grateful that it brings in jobs, it just feels like they need to take a lesson from indy productions so they can have the turn-around profit that reality shows have.

I'm curious to see what the breakdowns are, such as 3D movies, genres, maybe reality shows vs dramas...
 
Maybe if executives aren't so stupid, and don't throw $200 million dollars into films that are poorly conceived tent poles they wouldn't be losing so much money! the only system seems so much smarter...ten movies, with a budget of ten million each vs one movie with a 100 million budget that will make or break the studio.
 
robmneilson said:
Maybe if executives aren't so stupid, and don't throw $200 million dollars into films that are poorly conceived tent poles they wouldn't be losing so much money! the only system seems so much smarter...ten movies, with a budget of ten million each vs one movie with a 100 million budget that will make or break the studio.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, just on sheer volume alone movies can't compete with TV. Even if they made cheaper, better quality films there are only so many movies their distribution channels can squeeze through the pipeline. One season of a hit show can produce as many hours of entertainment as a studios entire yearly slate of movies.
 
Last edited:
And the budgets of some shows over the course of a season is approaching that of a movie, with the network taking care of promotion. That said, the money spent is all there on the screen. There is a lot of crap on tv at the moment and I tend not to watch (besides the fact I can't stand advertising) but I've been finding quite a few tv shows worth buying on dvd over the last couple of years.

I have wondered a number of times over the last few years how long movies can continue to be made in the way they are. It might not be a bad thing. Like the stock market there's been a bubble swelling in hollywood for some time and maybe the correction will be a good thing when it bursts. I'm not well enough versed to know whether the comparison is a good one but the 'golden age' of hollywood came to an end and the industry went on. The increasing cost of film production has far outstripped the economy, remember when 200 million was unfathomable? The fuss made about the cost of Waterworld? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read somewhere on these forums of an independent movie at sundance costing 50 million. What the hell?!

But as long as men are cheap, unromantic bastards there has to be movies. Otherwise a date is just dinner. It already migrates fast enough to pizza in front of the tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top