The death of the Blockbuster?

[Jawa Ex Machina]

http://io9.com/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaredef+%28jason+hirschhorn%27s+Media+ReDEFined%29#!5748577/are-we-witnessing-the-death-spiral-of-the-hollywood-blockbuster

Really interesting article.

Hasn't George Lucas talked about the death of the blockbuster for years though?
I know I've heard a lot of Hollywood filmmakers mention it for a long time.

To me it only makes sense with the lack of original content these and the possibility of lower production costs with cheaper technology.
Not just DSLRs and Reds, but also software and computers. The price drops on everything while the technology just keeps getting better.

Independent low budget filmmaking rocks.

 

[Postmaster]

Can you update that link please, my brain is shrinking.

Thanks, Frank

 

[Batutta]

http://io9.com/#!5748577/are-we-witnessing-the-death-spiral-of-the-hollywood-blockbuster

 

[arroway]

That was not a very well-written article...

Hollywood has tried to use 3-D to bump up ticket revenue, but it hasn't really helped.

This line in particular is...retarded. IMAX and 3D have been an incredible boon to the theatrical bottom line. This isn't even debatable.

Number of tickets sold appeared to peak in 2004 with just over 1.5 billion tickets sold, and since then the trend has been flat or downwards. (As this article points out, if you adjust U.S. box office revenue for inflation, it's been going down for years.)

Ticket sales and inflation have precisely nothing to do with one another.

It used to be that a movie would open in theaters, and then months later it would turn up on cable, and sometime after that, there'd be a DVD.

This was never the case.


What IS true, what the author DID get right, is that ticket sales (not profits) are declining while DVD sales are free falling (along with profits), and this will have an effect on the budgets of all movies, including blockbusters. If the secondary market gets bad enough we may see a scenario where it makes more financial sense to only show ones products in the theater and never release the easily-pirated copies and streams to the secondary market. This is exactly what Hollywood did before the VCR. The only thing is, like the author mentioned, cinema attendance was much higher than it is today for lack of piracy and competing entertainment options.

The next decade will be an interesting one.

 

[adkimery]

That was not a very well-written article...

This line in particular is...retarded. IMAX and 3D have been an incredible boon to the theatrical bottom line. This isn't even debatable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not debatable.

Has 3D Already Failed? The sequel, part one: RealDlighted is a good article talking about 3D's performance compared to 2D.


-Andrew

 

[noworries]

The problem isn't piracy... it's that things have changed.

The cost of making movies could be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper with current technology.
The method of distribution could be significantly cheaper if they embraced streaming video via high speed internet
Way more people have large screen HDTV and surround sound then they did 7 years ago in 2004

I hope to contribute my own movie(s) one day to society.

What they need to do is itunes hollywood. Sure they won't make the ridiculous amounts of money they made in the past. But if people had a choice of pay $5-$10 to watch a movie via the internet vs. the hassle and risk of downloading a movie... most would pay. Think of all the money itunes made when people could still download the same music for free. People will pay if it's convenient. What does hollywood do? You got a choice... go to the movies... or wait 6 months to get it on DVD... or download it for free and watch it now. They try and force feed you the same way they have for years... and it's not working.

You can't go to the drive in anymore...and guess what... movie theaters are next.

 

[arroway]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not debatable.

Has 3D Already Failed? The sequel, part one: RealDlighted is a good article talking about 3D's performance compared to 2D.

That was a good article. Thanks for posting it.

However, one under-performing 3D anomaly (Toy Story 3) does not substantiate the previous authors claim that 3D surcharges haven't helped fatten box office revenues when all evidence points to the contrary. Nor did it under-perform enough to warrant the hyperbolic title "has 3D already failed?" as the author basically admits to with this:

Toy Story 3 had made 60% of its opening weekend box office on 3D screens, while Shrek Forever After (released May 21) had made 61% and Alice in Wonderland (March 5) had made 70%.

The reason The Polar Express and Beowolf had such disproportionate 3D to 2D revenues is because they were the only 3D films playing at the time. There wasn't another 3D film stepping on their heels, forcing them off the digital screens a week or two later. Now there's a glut of 3D films, far outpacing the availability of actual screens. Less time on screen = less revenue.

As for the cost of 3D being worth it, that is something economies of scale should naturally rectify in the coming years. I would hazard a guess that early film's adoption of recorded sound and color were also overly expensive at their onset. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was a common belief around all such onsets that only certain types of films warranted the newest technology of the day while other types of films were better left silent and or black and white.

The problem isn't piracy... it's that things have changed.

Well, I would agree that piracy isn't the only problem...

The cost of making movies could be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper with current technology.

How...exactly?

What "current technology" do you believe isn't being fiscally utilized by Hollywood?

What they need to do is itunes hollywood. Sure they won't make the ridiculous amounts of money they made in the past. But if people had a choice of pay $5-$10 to watch a movie via the internet vs. the hassle and risk of downloading a movie... most would pay. Think of all the money itunes made when people could still download the same music for free. People will pay if it's convenient. What does hollywood do? You got a choice... go to the movies... or wait 6 months to get it on DVD... or download it for free and watch it now.

Itunes is not self-sustaining. It's a drop in the bucket compared to analog revenues. Were the recording industry to stop pressing CDs tomorrow and rely entirely on digital sales, streaming subscriptions, and streaming ad-rates, the industry would diminish to a infinitesimal kernel of its formal self. Most everyone involved would lose their jobs and the ones that didn't would take drastic pay cuts. Recording budgets, video budgets, marketing budgets, artist advances and royalties...all of it would be instantly swirling the toilet bowl.