Spielberg Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry

[bigdaddy]

No one will ever pay $25 for a movie when stealing it is so much easier. Even if DVD and disc and owning it goes up to $40 a movie, no one will spend insane amounts to see a movie, it's just stupid.

But they really need to rein in the spending. You want to know where the money goes? Towards hiring hundreds of crew members to sit around for two weeks as you close downtown Rochester NY to film two damn scenes. I watched for hours and they never filmed anything.

Also in 1982 very few people had VSRs to play movies on, so yeah movies stayed in theaters longer.

 

[Tulin]

(Meanwhile, a name like Steven Soderbergh with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon as talent, can't seem to secure funding for theatrical release).

...in America. Behind the Candelabra is having a theatrical run here in Ireland and probably elsewhere. Not sure what the story is behind that, possibly the deal with HBO was only for American TV?

In Australia as well in a few weeks.

 

[Relayer1]

My family normally go to the cinema on a Saturday morning - it's almost empty and it's about £7 each - £21 is plenty to pay to see a film. I just wouldn't pay more.

I only go to see big budget special effects type blockbusters anyway - they're the only thing that makes the outlay worthwhile. I watched the Moonrise Kingdom Bluray last week on my 46'' HD TV. I really enjoyed it but it absolutely would not have benefited from being seen in a cinema.

The Bluray cost £5.

 

[Mysterion]

Well, at least in my city, theaters are dwindling. In the city limits there are currently two movie theaters: one is small "art house" type theater, the other offers "second run" films. Ten years age there were three or four times the number of available screens in this town showing movies.

Many of the smaller independant theaters that are still left at this point are struggling to keep up. The second run theater I mentioned above just recently, and barely, managed to raise the money needed to convert to digital equipment so they can remain in business past this year (or is it next year that it all changes over?).

Personally, I am motivated less and less to schep all the way to a crowded theater full of noisy a-holes to see a film. I can just wait a couple months and see it in the comfort of my own home and watch it at a time of my choosing.

 

[JarodRussell]

If they'd stop paying any hotshot that had 1 successful film 20+ million dollars, budgets would be pretty moderate. These are actors, directors and producers, for crying out loud. They entertain, they don't save lives. Then they would also be able to properly pay those who are really doing the important jobs nowadays: VFX people.

Any time the movie industry, or big sport industries like football, complain about their financial situation, I laugh out loud.

 

[sojourner]

It all really depends on whether or not theatres can "up the ante" when 3D TVs become ubiquitous. If they can't, in turn, make IMAX much more accessible, something will have to change.

This may never happen. As a sign of how poorly the 3d tv industry is doing, The channel ESPN3d is not going to be 3d anymore. If a sports channel, with the huge built in audience that sports has, can't make it work, I doubt many other channels will try.

 

[bigdaddy]

Just out of interest what do people pay in the US for cinema ticket these days?

When I was living off the coast there were two theaters, one tiny one playing garbage was $10.75 I think. (I never went) and the new $26 million dollar theatre was $13, plus a fee of $1.75 if you bought the ticket online, but you had to buy the ticket online as they were never open.

 

[jayceee]

On the same topic, a recent article by another movie producer (Lynda Obst) lamenting how Hollywood is today. She recently wrote an entire book about this.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/lynda-obst/51b0e5affe34441ea50001d8
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...BMa7QEV3oc7H?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Books

 

[jayceee]

^

A recent lecture by Lynda Obst. (It's about an hour long).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b79NqUm1t68

 

[RandyS]

If they'd stop paying any hotshot that had 1 successful film 20+ million dollars, budgets would be pretty moderate. These are actors, directors and producers, for crying out loud. They entertain, they don't save lives. Then they would also be able to properly pay those who are really doing the important jobs nowadays: VFX people.

Any time the movie industry, or big sport industries like football, complain about their financial situation, I laugh out loud.

Indeed.

 

[Snaploud]

TV has been surpassing cinema for a long time now. The latter really only exists as an excuse to get out of the house.

 

[Random_Spock]

They are already experimenting with $50 tickets:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...you-pay-50-to-see-world-war-z-two-days-early/

O_o <-- are they insane?! No one, except for the rich could ever afford tickets as expensive as that. Yes there are ones that cost that much for concerts... but come on... movies? They're supposed to be an escape, not a tax bill -- another added stressor . If something like that happens, the movie industry can go just take it and SHOVE it.

Me too.

Exactly. It wouldn't be worth seeing ANY movie at that price, no matter how good it is. And if that would be the movie industries way of getting back at movie piracy, then they're downright INSANE. It'll still happen no matter what.

Yep. And due to them starting to switch over to digital projectors, it's already starting . Heard about some theaters in my area that might not be able to stay open due to the high cost of those projectors. They may not be able to afford them.

What I said on another forum about said issue.

As for the experimentation -- I wonder how many people actually went to the movie early and actually paid that price to do so. Imho, that would help to KILL the movie industry, more than anything else. The general public wouldn't be able to afford to go out and see a movie.

 

[wamdue]

ok I am struck by two things

1) There really is no reason all movie should cost the same, or even start off with the same base rate, each movie is its own product, so the idea that each movie sets its own price is not madness by itself.

2) I think the reality is that, cinemas will go with the more expensive blockbuster movie, that after all is what put bums on seats, opting not to show a movie like Lincoln, there are only so many screens, and maybe you can make more money running Avengers 2 over 3 screens, rather than 2 screens, and 1 screen airing a more Worthy" movie. This obviously has the effect of pushing smaller movies, to smaller (or art house) cinemas, which will most likely see costs going up not down. I dont think a family who wanted to see the latest blockbuster will go see a more art house movie, simply because its cheaper.

 

[RoJoHen]

Just out of interest what do people pay in the US for cinema ticket these days?

Just saw "Man of Steel" yesterday and paid $7.50 for a matinee. I think regular tickets are $9.00.


The only way I'd start paying variable prices for different movies is if I got something than just the movie. I'll definitely pay $25 to see the next Iron Man...if they also give me dinner.

 

[Tulin]

It is such a novel and quaint thing that America still does "matinees".

It sounds so 1930's to me, as if it is a different experience, going at 2:00, compared to the 8:00pm showing.

My local cinema(not theatre - that's where I saw "Driving Miss Daisy" last night with Angela Lansbury and James Earl Jones - BRILLIANT, BTW!)just offers a loyalty card and it's $11 any time - easy!

 

[CorporalClegg]

It sounds so 1930's to me, as if it is a different experience, going at 2:00, compared to the 8:00pm showing.

Um. It is?

 

[Professor Zoom]

It is such a novel and quaint thing that America still does "matinees".

It sounds so 1930's to me, as if it is a different experience, going at 2:00, compared to the 8:00pm showing.

But it IS a different experience. Cheaper, for one. And generally less crowded. In some ways, I prefer the matinee.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Plus the audience atmosphere is very different.

Oh. And it's light out.

 

[Tulin]

So the film has bits cut out?

They show a longer film at night?

Cannot understand why it's cheaper in the day time. Strange that the land of capitalism and money gauge would short change itself!

 

[Tulin]

Don't get me wrong - it's good for you guys and good on ya for taking advantage of a cinema short-changing itself, but I just don't get it.

It's the same film.

So in a way, this "different prices for different films" already happens in the US - it's just a "different price for different times" thing.

Weird to me.