DVD's ruin movie business? Yeah right.......
W. Long
Can you beleive this garbage? If they would stop making these pg-13 & barely R
rated junk flicks maybe someone would see a movie more than once. And to
insult consumers for trying to save a dime...
OF course this is one of the guys responsible for both of those lousy Star Wars
prequels.
Peace!
-----------------------------
- for film & music talk, art, mp3's,
dj mixes, discography, MIDI prod
& stuff -
visit http://www.wyndelllong.com/
Ronald O. Christian
Well, a few points:
As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
A great many theaters are in terrible disrepair. The sound sucks.
The projectionist doesn't know what he's doing. The seats are sticky.
The floors are unmentionable. If the Theater Experience was
comfortable, perhaps we'd go more often.
Except for a very few dinner theaters and microbrew/theaters, the
refreshments suck. Every single Regal has exactly the same stuff and
most of it wasn't popular in the eighties when the menu was first
adopted, let alone now. If we could get decent food and drink at a
reasonable price, perhaps we'd go more often.
These days, movies go through a "running time" cut to fit more
viewings into operating hours. The longer (and sometimes only
coherent) version is then released on DVD at some later time. If the
full, comprehensible version of the film was shown in theaters,
instead of a stripped-down, choppy, reader's digest version, perhaps
we'd go more often.
And finally, if the movies didn't SUCK, perhaps we'd go more often.
Given a choice between seeing the latest Hollywood Craptacular in
theater or watching a decent, but older film at home, what do you
think I'm going to pick?
The Hollywood film industry is self-destructing. They couldn't do
more damage to themselves if they were doing it deliberately. It's
pretty much as simple as that. Blaming DVDs or the consumer or the
few paltry internet video pirates is just a way to make them feel
better about it.
Ron
Derek Janssen
>
> As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
> a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
> multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
> Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
And we can pretty well pass off most of the second half of the article
("Why will people go to theaters, when they can download them for
free?") as the traditional "Sheltered studio executives believing every
single thing they hear reported on CNN as New Trends, for lack of own
personal experience":
The majority of the movie audience can't even FIND most of those
"illegal free movies on the Internet that will singlehandedly destroy
the industry", and those few fringe hacker niches that can (or aren't
laughed off of Usenet every single time for asking) deserve to watch
what they find.
> A great many theaters are in terrible disrepair. The sound sucks.
> The projectionist doesn't know what he's doing. The seats are sticky.
> The floors are unmentionable. If the Theater Experience was
> comfortable, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
> Except for a very few dinner theaters and microbrew/theaters, the
> refreshments suck. Every single Regal has exactly the same stuff and
> most of it wasn't popular in the eighties when the menu was first
> adopted, let alone now. If we could get decent food and drink at a
> reasonable price, perhaps we'd go more often.
Wouldn't use Regal as a benchmark--
Round here, AMC is just starting to take over, and it's usually the
chains that make nachos and espresso "mandatory" for movie viewing, and
the ones that start the "10-Minute Feature Countdown" while they blast
the Marine recruitment ads.
>
> And finally, if the movies didn't SUCK, perhaps we'd go more often.
> Given a choice between seeing the latest Hollywood Craptacular in
> theater or watching a decent, but older film at home, what do you
> think I'm going to pick?
>
> The Hollywood film industry is self-destructing. They couldn't do
> more damage to themselves if they were doing it deliberately. It's
> pretty much as simple as that. Blaming DVDs or the consumer or the
> few paltry internet video pirates is just a way to make them feel
> better about it.
"Blaming" DVD's is on the edge of Getting It, and "sour grapes" may be
too strong a word--
But at least they're finally picking up that DVD (unlike the "tamed"
VHS) finally got right what the chains got wrong during the building boom:
That, with a little luck, you can *maybe* sell an audience a Friday
night movie, but you can't sell them a $6 box of popcorn with a $3
Pepsi, and they won't be impressed if you blast the DTS speakers.
We're still there for the movie, we watch it when it's on screen and we
walk out of the theater when it's finished, and if the price isn't
"disposable" enough, we won't immediately repeat the experience unless
we have to.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>>
>> As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
>> a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
>> multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
>> Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
>And we can pretty well pass off most of the second half of the article
>("Why will people go to theaters, when they can download them for
>free?") as the traditional "Sheltered studio executives believing every
>single thing they hear reported on CNN as New Trends, for lack of own
>personal experience":
>The majority of the movie audience can't even FIND most of those
>"illegal free movies on the Internet that will singlehandedly destroy
>the industry", and those few fringe hacker niches that can (or aren't
>laughed off of Usenet every single time for asking) deserve to watch
>what they find.
Besides that, most people have no idea how long it takes to download a
180 minute movie in anything approaching watchable quality. It's not
practical.
Ron
warchild
wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
Ways.
Quit yer Bitchin' Them thar DVDs are making you RICH!
"W. Long" <wynde...@aol.comTimelord> wrote in message
news:20021017144813...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came into
>wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
>Ways.
Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
Ron
Hitman of Las Vegas
Back in my vhs days I would 'pass' on seeing a borderline film in the
theaters, knowing that I could rent the movie for 3 bucks for a
weekend in about a year, max.
Since I got my DVD setup, and have amassed my collection, I find
myself missing most films in the theater, except big 'event' films
that I very much anticipate (like Spider-Man or Star Wars: AOTC, or he
Lord of the Rings).
I find myself passing on almost everything for a few reasons.
1. Genuinely no interest in the movie. Let's face it, True Beliver,
movies like xXx and the typical hollywood fare leave me cold. I'll
likely miss most of the current crop on rental and on video.
I have some interest in seeing the movie about Bob Crane, but unless I
can motivate myself to see a $5 matinee, I'll probably just rent the
dvd.
The next movie I really want to see is the next Lord of the Rings
film. After that, no idea.
2. In my few years of collecting DVDs, I have a nice sized collection
and I like to watch older movies I own.
3. The expense, aggravation, frustration of going to the movies.
People tend to act like they are in their living rooms when they are
at the movies. They are loud, talk too much, and insensitive to
others I prefer watching a nice DVD of a movie i want to see on my
32" screen.
All this adds up to staying away from the theattrical release of most
films.
If the biz made movies I actually wanted to see, I would probably come
back. As long as 'xXx' and 'Swept Away' are in the works, I'll just
stay home.
Cardinal Chunder
> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>
> >As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
> >a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
> >multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
> >Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
>
> And we can pretty well pass off most of the second half of the article
> ("Why will people go to theaters, when they can download them for
> free?") as the traditional "Sheltered studio executives believing every
> single thing they hear reported on CNN as New Trends, for lack of own
> personal experience":
"Downloading for free" is the biggest joke going. Even in the best of
circumstances, downloading something substantial takes hours if not days
to complete. I'm trying to grab Red Hat 8.0 at the moment and its taking
me days, but even with an ultrafast T3 line it would still require the
better part of the day assuming I'm talking to some random server.
It would be even worse on a p2p system, where you're dealing with cable
modems, queues a 100 long and worse. I expect most people attempting to
grab a movie will get them *eventually* but it will take them the better
part of a day or day to manage it, with constant attention to queues
etc. So unless their time is free, it would be cheaper to just go out
and buy the thing.
Derek Janssen
>
> >This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came into
> >wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
> >Ways.
>
> Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
Probably by increasing DLP saturation at the plexes (once anyone else
besides Lucas or Disney finally catches on)--
Won't improve the experience drastically, but looks better, and at least
studios will feel better about "See? We're giving you DVD's, like you
wanted! : } "
(And where, as it also has the advantage that right now, most big-screen
ads CAN'T be shown.) : )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Bob
Hitman of Las Vegas wrote:
>
>
> If the biz made movies I actually wanted to see, I would probably come
> back. As long as 'xXx' and 'Swept Away' are in the works, I'll just
> stay home.
There are a few good things out there. Most recently I enjoyed "Big Fat
Greek Wedding", and I thought "The Banger Sisters" was great fun, also. (
Of course, I remember some of the groupies during the folk music era -
fond memories .)
Bob
Vince Yim
barely R
> rated junk flicks maybe someone would see a movie more than once. And to
> insult consumers for trying to save a dime...
>
> OF course this is one of the guys responsible for both of those lousy Star
Wars
> prequels.
I can count three films where I paid twice to see the movie, and I watch
dozens of films in the theatre a year. Given that the ticket prices have
been jacked up so ridiculously high, it's a really tough sell for me to feed
the actors wallets.
This is something I've had a serious beef about for the longest time.
Actors get too greedy, ask for $25M+ to be in a film. On top of that, they
also get a percentage of grosses, regardless of how well the film performs.
As a result, a top grossing film like "The Grinch" has yet to make profit
for the studio. Also as a result, the studios start putting the squeeze on
the theatres to get more money out of them. Then, the theatres are forced
to raise ticket prices to retain profitibility.
It won't stop unless everyone at a higher level is willing to take a smaller
piece of the pie. I mean, do you seriously need $25M to live comfortably?
Most people won't even make that much money in their lifetimes.
Peace,
Vince Yim
Panic
news:bl3uqug6as4bhcjgj...@4ax.com:
Amen to that! I couldn't of said it better.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Never eat at Arby's on Lake Street."
Panic
They'll just get unconstitutional laws passed that work in their favor. We
don't have a Government that's as willing to stand up to corporate crap as
we did in the '50s.
Alan said...
Completely agreed, they should either take the gigantic flat rate or the
percentage, but not both! Going at that route only lands them in typecasting
hell, which any actor abhors (then they espouse about how they "received a
small pay, because I wanted to do this unique movie", simply because that's all
that unique fare can afford). When actors switch from blockbuster to indie
fare, they only look hypocritical.
Also troubling is that even though SFX artists say that CGI effects should get
cheaper in ongoing years, the newer the tools they get, the higher the budgets
are. It's a sick catch-22.
... said Alan S Emerson.
Alan said...
>I find myself passing on almost everything for a few reasons.
<insightful post snipped>
You're living my life, Hitman. But I'll add another caveat to Hollywood...
4. Some films I can't even find in my local blockbuster-only venues, I can
easily have on DVD (Waking Life is a big example, as will be Spirited Away when
that arrives).
Rico
news:9mduqukllstd516b6...@4ax.com...
> The expense, aggravation, frustration
> of going to the movies. People tend to act
> like they are in their living rooms when
> they are at the movies. They are loud,
> talk too much, and insensitive to others....
> All this adds up to staying away from the
> theatrical release of most films.
I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that when I go to
movies made for morons, there are morons in the theater.
The local art house in my new town has 3 or four films showing
at a time. (Currently 'The Good Girl', 'Mostly Martha', and
'Secretary.') I've been there twice so far, seen two good movies,
and there wasn't a rude dumbshit in the audience either time.
Based on the type of film shown there, I expect this trend will
continue, and the overall experience will be a hundred times
better than the megaplex, where I often went (when free time was
more abundant) and had experiences like yours.
Your mileage may vary.
Jim
technology that opens up new choices for them. Look at the way the music
business is scrambling over downloads. If DVD's make the movie industry
scramble to adapt, then we should all be grateful. When these guys are off
balance, they have to try new things. And when they do that, their
audiences benefit. Let's just hope we have an interesting time for awhile,
before the studios get everything nailed down again. As for movie
downloads, others have pointed out that they aren't a real threat at this
point. DVD's spread so fast because they offer BETTER quality and
convenience. Downloads aren't going to be up that level for a long while
yet.
Rico
news:xGTr9.4444$Rp4....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> If DVD's make the movie industry
> scramble to adapt, then we should all
> be grateful. When these guys are off
> balance, they have to try new things.
> And when they do that, their
> audiences benefit.
Intelligent insights. (Who let you in here? ;-) )
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>>
>> >This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came into
>> >wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
>> >Ways.
>>
>> Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
>
>Probably by increasing DLP saturation at the plexes (once anyone else
>besides Lucas or Disney finally catches on)--
>Won't improve the experience drastically, but looks better, and at least
>studios will feel better about "See? We're giving you DVD's, like you
>wanted! : } "
On the other hand, the requirement for already strapped theaters to
acquire DLP hardware and expertise on their own dime may start the
final chain reaction.
>(And where, as it also has the advantage that right now, most big-screen
>ads CAN'T be shown.) : )
Well, *that* would be an advantage.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
>Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote in
>news:lnbuqu0a2vms75o4k...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:24:13 -0700, "warchild" <warc...@warchild.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came
>>>into wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented
>>>in New Ways.
>>
>> Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
>
>They'll just get unconstitutional laws passed that work in their favor.
That would be my guess.
Ron (at least, they'll try...)
Raymond Chuang
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:bl3uqug6as4bhcjgj...@4ax.com...
> As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
> a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
> multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
> Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
You can say that again. The price of a single ticket for evening shows are
hitting US$10 for adults and US$6 for children and seniors. Even matinees
are reaching the US$6 range. No wonder why people don't see any many movies
in the theaters as they used to.
> A great many theaters are in terrible disrepair. The sound sucks.
> The projectionist doesn't know what he's doing. The seats are sticky.
> The floors are unmentionable. If the Theater Experience was
> comfortable, perhaps we'd go more often.
With the exception of the Century 20 Great Mall in Milpitas, CA and Century
25 Union Landing in Union City, CA with their all-screen THX-certified
setups, I really agree with your assessments! Don't forget the bad habits of
other movie patrons--talking loudly while the film is running, having
cellphone ringers active during the movie, bringing crying babies to movies,
and so on. :-(
> Except for a very few dinner theaters and microbrew/theaters, the
> refreshments suck. Every single Regal has exactly the same stuff and
> most of it wasn't popular in the eighties when the menu was first
> adopted, let alone now. If we could get decent food and drink at a
> reasonable price, perhaps we'd go more often.
The price of concessions are getting exorbitant, to say the least. I've
heard that most of a movie theater's profits come from concessions, so no
wonder they charge nosebleed prices for them.
> These days, movies go through a "running time" cut to fit more
> viewings into operating hours. The longer (and sometimes only
> coherent) version is then released on DVD at some later time. If the
> full, comprehensible version of the film was shown in theaters,
> instead of a stripped-down, choppy, reader's digest version, perhaps
> we'd go more often.
With the price of DVD players dropping to very reasonable levels (you can
get good console players for US$100 or less!), sales of DVD's are really
rocketing to very high levels. Many movie patrons _are_ waiting for the DVD
release because your assessment that the DVD release often is far better
than the theatrical release is so very true indeed.
> And finally, if the movies didn't SUCK, perhaps we'd go more often.
> Given a choice between seeing the latest Hollywood Craptacular in
> theater or watching a decent, but older film at home, what do you
> think I'm going to pick?
Yes, I do agree there is just too much _dreck_ being released in the
theaters nowadays. A lot of sequels and "action films" for summer release
are just flat-out terrible, and late-year movies for Oscar consideration
nowadays aren't much better either (remember the movie MAJESTIC from last
year, which was supposed to be an Oscar-quality film for Jim Carrey?).
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA
Raymond Chuang
> Besides that, most people have no idea how long it takes to download a
> 180 minute movie in anything approaching watchable quality. It's not
> practical.
The problem is that a DiVX file of a movie is several HUNDRED megabytes in
size, something that is a daunting download even for folks with broadband
connections! Given the reasonable price of DVD's nowadays the incentive to
pirate movies is actually not as big as many people claim.
andy
"Vince Yim" <vinceyim(NOSPAM)@[Imeanit!]telus.net> wrote in message
news:CxKr9.18737$wU3.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
Hey, the actors have every right to ask for whatever they can get. The
studios have an equal right to refuse this nonsense, but
they don't.
Same thing in professional sports, but at least there they can implement a
salary cap to keep it under control. Maybe the SAG union needs to implement
some sort of salary cap as well :-)
>
> Peace,
> Vince Yim
>
>
>
>
Ronald O. Christian
<rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>With the price of DVD players dropping to very reasonable levels (you can
>get good console players for US$100 or less!),
$69 at the local department store, as of last weekend. Plays DVDs,
VCDs, MP3, etc etc.
> sales of DVD's are really
>rocketing to very high levels. Many movie patrons _are_ waiting for the DVD
>release because your assessment that the DVD release often is far better
>than the theatrical release is so very true indeed.
Sometimes, you have to wait for the second DVD release. (Still
waiting for the full version of FotR and Spy Kids.)
Ron
Derek Janssen
>
> > As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
> > a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
> > multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
> > Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
> You can say that again. The price of a single ticket for evening shows are
> hitting US$10 for adults and US$6 for children and seniors. Even matinees
> are reaching the US$6 range. No wonder why people don't see any many movies
> in the theaters as they used to.
The headline of the article asked, "Why'd they keep going back to
Titanic, but they don't now? Huh?"
Well, for the two reasons we ever DO go back to theaters to see a movie
more than once, in this post-DVD age:
1) The movie was a "theatrical experience" that had to be seen on a big
screen and might "lose everything" if you saw it on video first (Lord of
the Rings, Spiderman)
and
2) Those who liked it had to go back and drag uneasily-convinced friends
and neighbors that hey, it was pretty good after all, and *didn't* stink
like it did in the previews (Sixth Sense, The Others, My Big Fat Greek Wedding)
There's only two or three hit films that ever come out of a Big-Studio
Summer/Christmas anymore, and you now know which kinds. The rest, we'll
wait for the disk.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
timeOday
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/17/film.dvd.reut/index.html
>
> Can you beleive this garbage? If they would stop making these pg-13 &
> barely R
> rated junk flicks maybe someone would see a movie more than once. And to
> insult consumers for trying to save a dime...
>
> OF course this is one of the guys responsible for both of those lousy Star
> Wars prequels.
>
>
>
Even if DVD sales DO decrease ticket sales, who cares? The money is going
to the same people anyways.
Oh, a bit of their new revenue stream is coming from their old revenue
stream? Boo hoo.
timeOday
so why should the movie industry complain?
timeOday
I think the studios are stuck in 1999 mode, assuming that we'll all have
fiber hookups "pretty soon." But bandwidth is actually getting MORE
expensive for home users right now, not less.
Animeg3282
>And we can pretty well pass off most of the second half of the article
>("Why will people go to theaters, when they can download them for
>free?") as the traditional "Sheltered studio executives believing every
>single thing they hear reported on CNN as New Trends, for lack of own
>
>personal experience":
>The majority of the movie audience can't even FIND most of those
>"illegal free movies on the Internet that will singlehandedly destroy
>the industry", and those few fringe hacker niches that can (or aren't
>laughed off of Usenet every singl
>e time for asking) deserve to watch
>what they find.
>
Maybe some of the people don't want to wait hours (or maybe even days) to d/l a
low quality version of a film to show in a tiny sqaure on their home computers?
Personally, if I was going to go to all that effort, I'd just plunk down the $5
and get the movie in perfect quality and great sound.
Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Archives up.
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/ <---Fancy Lala Club! Updated 10/17
w/ essays!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <mailing list for Lala fans
Hitman of Las Vegas
wrote:
Hey Alan,
Very true!! Truth is, I just don't miss going to the movies much.
Like I said, if they made movies I really wanted to see, I'd be there
amost weekly, I'd bet. As it stands now, though, I'd probably pass on
a new 'Indiana Jones' film (haha!), but if they just made a steady
diet of good movies I would pay my money, take a date, and deal with
the aggravation.
Until then, pass on most, I'll catch the rest on DVD.
I was thinking of the post I wrote when I walked by my local Hollywood
Video, trumpeting the DVD releases of 'Scooby Doo' and 'Mr Deeds,' and
thinking 'pass, pass!' haha!
I might rent 'Signs,' when it comes out, but I'll certainly buy the
DVD of Casino Royale!! Haha!
So its up to the movie companies really - make good movies people want
to see, and the people will come.
Hitman of Las Vegas
wrote:
> I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that when I go to
>movies made for morons, there are morons in the theater.
Great thoughts!! You are right, but the standard fare is pretty
'mainstream,' that is, made for morons. So I tend to stay out of the
theaters unless its something I very much want to see.
Drumm...@aol.com
wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/17/film.dvd.reut/index.html
>
>Can you beleive this garbage? If they would stop making these pg-13 & barely R
>rated junk flicks maybe someone would see a movie more than once. And to
>insult consumers for trying to save a dime...
>
>OF course this is one of the guys responsible for both of those lousy Star Wars
>prequels.
>
It's a pretty dumb article. Holding "Titanic" as the standard for the
effect a film should have at the box office is unreasonable. There
are several reasons why Hollywood is in bad shape.
1) The movies SUCK. People want something different, like "My Big Fat
Greek Wedding." I have 3 major theaters within close range of me
(Northern Virginia). NONE of them are showing "Punch Drunk Love" or
"Auto Focus" today. Luckily, 1 had "Rules of Attraction" last week.
2) The movie going experience is miserable. Unless management takes
action against cell-phones and yackers, I'll be keeping my distance on
"undecided" movies.
3) The MPAA, along with the RIAA, are doing everything possible to
alienate every single last person on earth. If studios where
increasing their DVD profits, they'd say, "Yeah, but we'd be making
MORE if those damn kids weren't on the internet!" (This is EXACTLY
what the RIAA did a couple years ago).
Raymond Chuang
news:5131ruk3ihnovls0s...@4ax.com...
> 3) The MPAA, along with the RIAA, are doing everything possible to
> alienate every single last person on earth. If studios where
> increasing their DVD profits, they'd say, "Yeah, but we'd be making
> MORE if those damn kids weren't on the internet!" (This is EXACTLY
> what the RIAA did a couple years ago).
Interestingly enough, here in the USA movie piracy over the Internet is not
that common, mostly because 1) a high-quality DiVX file of a movie is
something like 700+ _megabytes_ in size (a daunting download even for
broadband users!) and 2) DVD's are so cheap that the economic incentive to
pirate a movie is very low.
in TODD we trust
By contrast, music CDs are priced way too high and MP3s are relatively
easy to download, even if you are stuck on dial up service.
The solution? That's right. Make MP3s much, much bigger :-)
Cheers,
Todd "gives new meaning to megahit" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Alan said...
>
>Very true!! Truth is, I just don't miss going to the movies much.
>
>Like I said, if they made movies I really wanted to see, I'd be there
>amost weekly, I'd bet. As it stands now, though, I'd probably pass on
>a new 'Indiana Jones' film (haha!), but if they just made a steady
>diet of good movies I would pay my money, take a date, and deal with
>the aggravation.
>
>Until then, pass on most, I'll catch the rest on DVD.
>
>I was thinking of the post I wrote when I walked by my local Hollywood
>Video, trumpeting the DVD releases of 'Scooby Doo' and 'Mr Deeds,' and
>thinking 'pass, pass!' haha!
I'm doing that to movie trailers, dividing them into categories like "video
bait", "must see now!", or "wait til a friend rents it or watch it on HBO" (or
"second-hand bait" for short).
>
>I might rent 'Signs,' when it comes out, but I'll certainly buy the
>DVD of Casino Royale!! Haha!
>
>So its up to the movie companies really - make good movies people want
>to see, and the people will come.
Plus, there's that nagging, sporadically unavoidable bonus of a director's cut
over a theatrical version. Even having both in the same set (yay for E.T, but
Legend only needed the European cut, for what it's worth), and with all the
featurette-o-rama behind scenes goodies on most popular faves, it gets to be
gravy choosing the DVD experience over wailing babies and beeper junkies.
Although my local matinee theater deems to show the occassional classic 60s-70s
film print, to the point when I might even pig out at the concession stand to
keep that practice going.
Chris Tan
> circumstances, downloading something substantial takes hours if not days
> to complete. I'm trying to grab Red Hat 8.0 at the moment and its taking
> me days, but even with an ultrafast T3 line it would still require the
> better part of the day assuming I'm talking to some random server.
>
> It would be even worse on a p2p system, where you're dealing with cable
> modems, queues a 100 long and worse. I expect most people attempting to
> grab a movie will get them *eventually* but it will take them the better
> part of a day or day to manage it, with constant attention to queues
> etc. So unless their time is free, it would be cheaper to just go out
> and buy the thing.
>
Not exactly. One can download high quality dvdrips with relative ease without having to worry about
queues and such, on a p2p system. You just need the right software. Sure, it could take up to
several days, but if you download many movies in one go, you can practically watch one movie every
day, and still can't keep up with the incoming movies. The issue of cost only crops up when one
factors in the electricity bill for keeping your PC on 24/7.
R. Cohen
> Well, a few points:
>
> As the article says, in going to the movies once you've already spent
> a substantial cost of buying the DVD. (We're talking seeing a film
> multiple times, so let's ignore rentals for now.) If the Theater
> Experience was cost-effective, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
> The projectionist doesn't know what he's doing. The seats are sticky.
> comfortable, perhaps we'd go more often.
>
> Except for a very few dinner theaters and microbrew/theaters, the
> refreshments suck. Every single Regal has exactly the same stuff and
> most of it wasn't popular in the eighties when the menu was first
> adopted, let alone now. If we could get decent food and drink at a
>
The newer theatres with the huge screen, super sound system, stadium
seating etc. are definitely becoming more and more popular around my
neck of the woods. There are certain type of movies that remain
better to watch in those kind of movie theatres. The Spiderman, LOTR,
Star Wars movies of the world.
That and better movies... In fact DVD's may help the crappiers
movies worthwhile. Would I spend good money to see junk movies like
"The Time Machine" or Battlefield Earth? Hell no, but they might be
worth a rental.
> These days, movies go through a "running time" cut to fit more
> viewings into operating hours. The longer (and sometimes only
> coherent) version is then released on DVD at some later time. If the
> full, comprehensible version of the film was shown in theaters,
> instead of a stripped-down, choppy, reader's digest version, perhaps
> we'd go more often.
>
> And finally, if the movies didn't SUCK, perhaps we'd go more often.
> Given a choice between seeing the latest Hollywood Craptacular in
> theater or watching a decent, but older film at home, what do you
> think I'm going to pick?
>
> The Hollywood film industry is self-destructing. They couldn't do
> more damage to themselves if they were doing it deliberately. It's
> pretty much as simple as that. Blaming DVDs or the consumer or the
> few paltry internet video pirates is just a way to make them feel
> better about it.
>
>
> Ron
>
> http://roc85.home.attbi.com
Ronald O. Christian
>That and better movies... In fact DVD's may help the crappiers
>movies worthwhile. Would I spend good money to see junk movies like
>"The Time Machine" or Battlefield Earth? Hell no, but they might be
>worth a rental.
Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
the dreck out of your mind.
Ron
Derek Janssen
>
> >Would I spend good money to see junk movies like
> >"The Time Machine" or Battlefield Earth? Hell no, but they might be
> >worth a rental.
>
> Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
> waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
> the dreck out of your mind.
Tall-tale legends aside, "Battlefield"'s not even *good* bad:
If you tune in to the first five minutes expecting to see Ed Wood Jr.
with a budget, you'll be subjected to another two hours of Sci-Fi
Channel's "Dune"--
"We're cool, because we have SPECIAL EFFECTS!"
Derek Janssen (now, "Time Machine", THAT was bad...And no, not good bad either)
dja...@rcn.com
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>>
>> >Would I spend good money to see junk movies like
>> >"The Time Machine" or Battlefield Earth? Hell no, but they might be
>> >worth a rental.
>>
>> Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
>> waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
>> the dreck out of your mind.
>
>Tall-tale legends aside, "Battlefield"'s not even *good* bad:
>If you tune in to the first five minutes expecting to see Ed Wood Jr.
>with a budget, you'll be subjected to another two hours of Sci-Fi
>Channel's "Dune"--
>"We're cool, because we have SPECIAL EFFECTS!"
I must disagree, Derek. Dune was merely boring. Battlefield Earth
was offensive. And you call those special effects?
Ron
Derek Janssen
>
> >> >Would I spend good money to see junk movies like
> >> >"The Time Machine" or Battlefield Earth? Hell no, but they might be
> >> >worth a rental.
> >>
> >> Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
> >> waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
> >> the dreck out of your mind.
> >
> >Tall-tale legends aside, "Battlefield"'s not even *good* bad:
> >If you tune in to the first five minutes expecting to see Ed Wood Jr.
> >with a budget, you'll be subjected to another two hours of Sci-Fi
> >Channel's "Dune"--
> >"We're cool, because we have SPECIAL EFFECTS!"
>
> I must disagree, Derek. Dune was merely boring. Battlefield Earth
> was offensive.
No, no, B:E *was* merely boring--
That opening, with our cave-heroes leaping around like the Joffrey
Ballet, held such......promise at the beginning.
And left so unrealized throughout the rest of the film. : (
Derek Janssen (but what were we talking about?--Oh, yeah, I waited for
the disk on that one, too!)
dja...@rcn.com
M.L.
> days) to d/l a low quality version of a film to show in a tiny sqaure
> on their home computers? Personally, if I was going to go to all that
> effort, I'd just plunk down the $5 and get the movie in perfect
> quality and great sound.
Isn't part of the enticement to download due to the fact that pirated movies
are available long before the DVD version comes out?
Derek Janssen
...Yes, but the download time evens it out.
Derek Janssen (I mean, what with most DVD's taking three months to get
to the shelves, and all)
dja...@rcn.com
W. Long
>If the biz made movies I actually wanted to see, I would probably come
>back. As long as 'xXx' and 'Swept Away' are in the works, I'll just
>stay home.
Yeah, after a matinee of "the transporter" I would have preferred to have wait
for the dvd rental. That money could have went towards something I'll remember
10 minutes later.
You take a big chance on movies these days as far as trying to push the
envelope and give you something you've never seen before. Minority Report is a
perfect example. The first half was exciting, and the 2nd half was the typical
"A list" director "test audiance" manipulation techniques. That sucked. If you
read the current Cinefex article on it you wonder why did they go the boring
route after putting so much work into it. Typical.
It seems the kid's movies (especially the CGI animation releases) are the genre
that really push the envelope with each new release in story, picture, and
sound. I guess cuz they don't have to pay an ant or monster $20 million to
star in it.
Hollywood is suffereing cuz they forgot to regulate themselves along the way.
Maybe if they sensibly budget their projects, paid actors what they are really
worth (the perks they get are unreal), and take some pride and care in their
work they might get some "repeat business". Until then Smallville, 24, CSI,
and DVD classic releases will more than make up for that lack of good films to
see for me. Seeing a 20 year old movie on DVD is like watching it for the
first time.
Is it me or are DVD movies goingg up in price?
Peace!
-----------------------------
- for film & music talk, art, mp3's,
dj mixes, discography, MIDI prod
& stuff -
visit http://www.wyndelllong.com/
W. Long
>effect a film should have at the box office is unreasonable. There
>are several reasons why Hollywood is in bad shape.
>
>1) The movies SUCK. People want something different, like "My Big Fat
>Greek Wedding." I have 3 major theaters within close range of me
>(Northern Virginia). NONE of them are showing "Punch Drunk Love" or
>"Auto Focus" today. Luckily, 1 had "Rules of Attraction" last week.
>
>2) The movie going experience is miserable. Unless management takes
>action against cell-phones and yackers, I'll be keeping my distance on
>"undecided" movies.
>
>3) The MPAA, along with the RIAA, are doing everything possible to
>alienate every single last person on earth. If studios where
>increasing their DVD profits, they'd say, "Yeah, but we'd be making
>MORE if those damn kids weren't on the internet!" (This is EXACTLY
>what the RIAA did a couple years ago).
Amen.
I had to watch the Transporter in a GKC multiplex THX certified theater room
with a blown right front channel. The same one that was their 3-4 months back
when I saw Bourne Identity. They better start taking the customer seriously
cuz my Denon 5.1 dolby digital is starting to make the wait for DVD a lot
easier.
THe RIAA are crazy. Why are CD's $18 each? Will DVD prices go up in this way?
Hope not.
W. Long
>
>Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
>waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
>the dreck out of your mind.
>
>
> Ron
Not if you rent it as a comedy. I thought it was funnier than Austin Power's
last outing.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > Isn't part of the enticement to download due to the fact that pirated
movies
> are available long before the DVD version comes out?
...Yes, but the download time evens it out. >>
LOL
R. Cohen
*hehehe* Well I did say *might*. The point is that mediocre movies
might be worth a "rental" as opposed to the serious money of a movie.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
How "long before" could it be, with DVDs coming out one to three
months after theatrical release? Or in some cases, still in theaters
when the DVD comes out?
Ron
fiziwig
I heard a rumor that there's a 12-year old kid in New Jersey who actually
liked B.E. Personally, I kind of doubt it. It's probably one of those
urban ledgends.
--gary
>
> Ron
>
> http://roc85.home.attbi.com
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>> Maybe some of the people don't want to wait hours (or maybe even
No... Most of the attraction is the geek bragging rights of having it
in the first place. To pirate junkies, it's more about collecting
trophies...
Cheers,
Todd "Oddly, it isn't a terribly hard trophy to collect" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
>The newer theatres with the huge screen, super sound system, stadium
>seating etc. are definitely becoming more and more popular around my
>neck of the woods. There are certain type of movies that remain
>better to watch in those kind of movie theatres. The Spiderman, LOTR,
>Star Wars movies of the world.
Not to mention Monster's Ball, Punch Drunk Love, and One Hour Photo...
Movies don't have to be effects driven to be worth seeing on the
screen. They only need to be good.
Cheers,
Todd "which disqualifies all the new Star Wars films" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
<timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote:
>W. Long wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/17/film.dvd.reut/index.html
>>
>> Can you beleive this garbage? If they would stop making these pg-13 &
>> barely R
>> rated junk flicks maybe someone would see a movie more than once. And to
>> insult consumers for trying to save a dime...
>>
>> OF course this is one of the guys responsible for both of those lousy Star
>> Wars prequels.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Even if DVD sales DO decrease ticket sales, who cares? The money is going
>to the same people anyways.
>
>Oh, a bit of their new revenue stream is coming from their old revenue
>stream? Boo hoo.
Not even remotely true. It isn't just studio bosses, actors and
directors making money... In Wilmington, Ohio there is a Technicolor
Labs site employing a fair number of regular folks who create and
package 35mil reels for distribution. It is located there because
across the road is a central hub for Airborne Express, who employs an
airport full of people, pilots, and truck drivers who ultimately
deliver each reel to theaters around the country.
Then there's Coke and Pepsi. Aside from bigwigs, there is a metric
shitload of guys working in bottling plants, packaging centers, and
distribution centers that service theaters.
Somebody makes Goobers. There must be people in the Nacho industry.
The Pace computer network that sells you your tickets and tracks
concession inventory is serviced by a trainload of IT guys.
If ticket sales decrease, it isn't just a shift in revenue streams for
a few guys who already own Ferraris. It means significant job loss,
lower stock prices, etc...
Cheers,
Todd "We should start seeing the economy as all of us" McNeeley
Marty Feldman
you know, i think that's what they're aiming for, with these new 5.1
surround formats for CDs...which works out to be much, much bigger MP3
sizes.
then again, there's all those nsync fans who pride themselves on their
low-tech, anti-geek ways. 5.1? HUH? BYE, BYE, BYE!!!
James Anatidae
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:24:13 -0700, "warchild" <warc...@warchild.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came
into
> >wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
> >Ways.
>
> Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
>
SMELL-O-VISION!
Yes, now at your local multiplex, you can smell the movie as well as watch
in the latest releases! All your favorite stars such as:
Jim Carey!
Adam Sandler!
Marlon Brando!
Tickets available for only $35! $28 for matinee.
James Anatidae
>
> Somebody makes Goobers.
>
Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing anybody eating Goobers outside a
theater. I certainly haven't.
Alan said...
Depends on which studio releases them, and how long you wait for price
fluctuations. Warners and MGM discs tend to drop gradually as time passes
(except for the absolute popular choices), whereas Paramount and Universal (the
so-called "Collector's Edition" series) seem to think half of their stuff is
gold, which sets the price either high or too high. Paramount FINALLY dropped
the prices to Ferris Bueller and South Park, right after I got them at full
price (gee, thanks dickheads!!), and I liked Mallrats, but for $30???? (with no
juicy extras to boot)
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>Is it me or are DVD movies goingg up in price?
It's you. I buy most of mine from the cutout bins or
previously-viewed at Hollywood Video. Between $6 and $17. Mind you,
if you're looking for Anime, the prices are outrageous.
Ron
Derek Janssen
>
> > >This is the same complaint that Hollywood voiced when Television came
> into
> > >wide use in the late '50s. The answer - Better Movies Presented in New
> > >Ways.
> >
> > Yep. I wonder what answer they're going to come up with this time.
> >
> SMELL-O-VISION!
It'll never work.
(Signed, Carl Stalling.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Nadia
> >
> >Trust me, Battlefield Earth is not worth a rental. It's not just a
> >waste of time, you'll be spending the next several days trying to get
> >the dreck out of your mind.
> >
> >
> > Ron
>
> Not if you rent it as a comedy. I thought it was funnier than Austin Power's
> last outing.
>
Exactly. Why does this movie get such a bad rep? It's quite obviously
a satire on movie making, poking fun at movie techniques by going in
the exact opposite direction of a movie by way of having incredibly
weak hammy acting and directorial techniques that had me in stitches.
Wonderful stuff! Except like... not.
Nadia
in TODD we trust
Weird fact: Goobers are incapable of holding their molecular structure
outside a movie theater.
Cheers,
Todd "It's like an anomaly, or something" McNeeley
NOSPA...@sebastian9.com
According to Vince Yim <vinceyim(NOSPAM)@[Imeanit!]telus.net>:
> I can count three films where I paid twice to see the movie, and I watch
> dozens of films in the theatre a year. Given that the ticket prices have
> been jacked up so ridiculously high, it's a really tough sell for me to feed
> the actors wallets.
Then you don't have to go. If enough people make that decision,
based on the ticket prices, then ticket prices will come down.
> This is something I've had a serious beef about for the longest time.
> Actors get too greedy, ask for $25M+ to be in a film. On top of that, they
> also get a percentage of grosses, regardless of how well the film performs.
> As a result, a top grossing film like "The Grinch" has yet to make profit
> for the studio. Also as a result, the studios start putting the squeeze on
> the theatres to get more money out of them. Then, the theatres are forced
> to raise ticket prices to retain profitibility.
No, I think you have cause and effect reversed. It's the record-setting
grosses (especially opening-weekend grosses) that makes the studios
willing to pay those $25M+ salaries to those few actors that they
think can boost the gross enough to be worth it to them.
Once the film is in the can, it doesn't matter how much it cost to
make - they will set the prices based on whatever they think will
maximize the gross (more or less). Did they give out cheaper tickets to
the Blair Witch Project because it cost so little to make? Of course not -
they viewed it as a huge money-maker. Did they raise ticket prices
to Waterworld because it cost so much to make? If they did, they
would have taken an even bigger bath financially.
And the reason a few actors/directors get a percentage of the gross is
because the studios have shown in the past that they can manipulate
the figures to make it look like almost any film isn't quite profitable
yet. Those who got burned in the past by taking a percentage of the
net profits, only to find that the studio claimed that their top-grosser
wasn't profitable, learned to ask for a percentage of the gross, which is
less subject to manipulation by the studio. It's been going on for years,
and you should take any claims that a given movie isn't profitable with
a huge grain of salt.
> It won't stop unless everyone at a higher level is willing to take a smaller
> piece of the pie. I mean, do you seriously need $25M to live comfortably?
> Most people won't even make that much money in their lifetimes.
No, it won't stop until audiences stop going to the theater at
a given price. If high ticket prices start cutting into their profits,
they will lower them to draw in more people. If movies stop
making so much money overall, studios will cut back on their budgets,
including how much they give the stars.
--
Dave Wallace (Remove NOSPAM from my address to email me)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.