I think DVDs and the number of films coming out at the cinema may be to blame.

These days unless a film is a huge release it will not stay at the cinema for very long at all. I am a very busy guy and I have missed virtually every film I wanted to see at the cinema this year. Everytime a window of opportunity comes the film has already been taken off the schedule!

However the DVD's are released very quickly after the cinema release too. We used to have to wait months and months for a new film to be released for rental, let alone to buy. These days things move very fast. In fact a number of the big US releases are released onto DVD in places like Hong Kong almost at the same time they are in the cinema over here in the UK!

I had Kung Fu Hustle, and Danny The Dog (Unleashed) before their release in Uk cinemas (on totally legit studio released DVD's I might add before anyone accuses me of bootlegging!)

So I would imagine that many people these days simply decide to wait for the DVD. Why go to a place where you have rustling crisp packets, talking during the movie etc, when you can watch the film in high quality with just as good (if not better) quality surround sound in your own home? A BenQ 6100 projector only costs 500UKP these days. That's less expensive than many widescreen TV's! So I can have a huge screen to watch movies on too.

I believe that DVD sales outstrip the cinema releases at the moment.

All valid points.

But it seems to me, unsophisticated Jethro that I may be, that it's a lot easier to recover costs and perhaps make a profit on $10 million invested, than, say, $100 million.

My question is, how do investors get talked into tossing huge sums of money into these bottomless pits? Wouldn't you rather invest $10 million ten times and hope for a hit that would recoup your entire $100 million, instead of putting the entire $100 million into ONE film (one roll of the dice?) Or maybe fund a series of $1 million films, being satisfied with a MODEST profit on $$$ invested, and keep doing this through the years thereby getting rich SLOWLY?

If I open a restaurant for $50,000 maybe there's a chance I'll sell enough burgers to recoup investment and then perhaps make a profit. But what are the odds I'll sell enough burgers to recoup the investment if my restaurant costs $50 million? There comes a point where it's foolish to expect any profit, ever.

Wouldn't you be satisfied if, as an investor, you put up some $$$ and, two years later, you'd earned 35%? I get the feeling Hollywood wants a Mel Gibson PASSION OF THE CHRIST-esque "$25 million eventually earns $500 million" scenario, EVERY time.

Can't blame them for WANTING it, but I sure blame them for seeming to EXPECT it, then crying when their precious $$$ goes down the toilet.

because they still make a proffit, they just don't make the profit from the big screen. They have video games, toys, posters, soundtracks, liscences, sequels, vidoe/DVD releases, etc.

They don't mention money they bring in from those things because then htey don't look like they're in trouble. a movie isn't just a studio & a big screen anymore, it's every type of media out there.

All valid points.


The problem is how do you get a $10 million dollar film noticed? You don't get a cast of A-list stars for that price. Stars don't work on smaller scale movies unless the script is truly outstanding and they think the whole project will come off successfully. If your script is Reservoir Dogs, you can get some top talent. If not, you are going to be scrambling to find a cast and it's probably won't be a cast that guarantees cable and foreign sales. Look at Miramax. They started off by acquiring adventurous indies and ended up producing bland romantic comedies in the 5-15 million dollar range. These movies were very Hollywood in style and content, they were just at budget that Hollywood didn't work in any more.

Also as a producer once said about the days of true-low-budget indies, "How do you steal a million dollars from a million dollar film?"

:::These movies were very Hollywood in style and content, they were just at budget that Hollywood didn't work in any more.:::

Here in OKC where I live, we can listen to the Bob and Tom radio show, a nationally syndicated program that plays in about 150 mid-sized markets. I understand that Bob and Tom (or their syndicator) specifically decided to go for these markets and avoid the big cities on the coasts, leaving those to Howard Stern or whoever else owns those towns / morning drive time slots.

My point is, if everyone is trying to be Howard Stern and only go Big Time, a lot of good stuff gets left on the table. There's a place for modestly-budgeted films. Let's say you can scrape up $10 million---$5 million for the production and another $5 million for marketing. I have the feeling that a saavy marketer could put that $$$ to good use, and find enough people willing to hit the theaters / buy the DVDs.

:::Stars don't work on smaller scale movies unless the script is truly outstanding and they think the whole project will come off successfully.:::

See one of my previous posts about story uber alles.

Even this far along in the Digital Revolution, with recording artists who have managed to completely bypass the old paradigm of getting signed to a major label (some start their own label!), filmmakers seem stuck. We still tend to think that a movie sucks if it doesn't have a huge budget and big stars. We still tend to think that a movie is best shown in a dark theater where the popcorn is really expensive and the air-conditioning is set to "arctic."

But maybe this is normal. Maybe the technology of production and delivery changes, but it's a long time before minds and methods change in response.

I guess I wonder why, with home theater capability, HD TV, 5.1 sound, and DVDs, the movie theater even matters anymore----to movie fans OR production teams?

"I guess I wonder why, with home theater capability, HD TV, 5.1 sound, and DVDs, the movie theater even matters anymore----to movie fans OR production teams?"

Movie and $5 popcorn for my family is easily a $75 evening. We wait for the DVD now and pop our own popcorn.

We might go to the theater two or three times a year - it used to be a monthly event. But as the ticket price keeps going up and the quality of selection goes down, it should be a no-brainer to Hollywood why people aren't going to the movies any more.

Our local chain recently announced that since attendance is down, they are raising the ticket prices again.

Morons.

Exactly right about the technology thing.

We now have a very nice 62" DLP monitor and surround sound in the living room--why the heck would we want to go to a theater to see essentially the same thing?

There are a couple of reasons, actually--it's kind of a "date" thing, bonding with other viewers, finding gum to chew under your seat or on the floor... Now that I'm older, those reasons don't matter any more to me.

I'm still surprised that you still have to wait for 6 months or so before getting a movie in DVD form. To me it implies that NO ONE would go to the cineamplex if they could get the new movie on a DVD at the same time.

suprising as it sounds, my local theature has risen prices only once in the past decade. That was from $3.50 for adults to $5 & that was about 6-7 years ago (children have always been $3 & on thursdays everybody is $3)

they've also got a huge screen & great sound.

Actually, I live in NYC (OK a borough but technically it still counts) and I like the "Bob & Tom" show - Much better than "Howard".

Got to say I have not been in a movie theater for a couple a years, however we are lucky enough to have a drive-in about 20 minutes away, first run movies, sound through the car stereo, we have a blast. Go at least 5 or 6 times a summer, matter of fact leaving a few to see Charlie and the choclate factory, who knows if we feel like it we may see the second feature daisy dukes!!
5 bucks a carload, bring your own beer.

We have a huge cruise in car show every Tuesday and I have to use the nearby movie theatre to go pee-pee. But the last time I was at a movie theatre. was to watch the original Star Wars, and the dirty, filthy place (it was almost new) and ill-mannered and raunchy gutter-minded kids made me realize never again.

JJK

I stand corrected about Bob & Tom in NYC; my info was based on an old article I read online about how they purposely decided to focus on non-major radio markets. But I guess they won't pass a major market up if they can get it!

After my crying about the movie-going experience, I think it's only fair to add that there is a theater here in OKC where I really love going.

Tickets are $5 (if you're a member, $7 if you're not) and the crowd is always well-behaved, you never hear a cell phone ringing (actually, you see people deactivating their phones en masse before the show starts...an amazing spectacle!) and they don't even sell concessions. There are hardly ever any kids in the theater, except when they have kid-oriented films. I've not been to one of those, but I would imagine those kids are well-behaved, too.

It's the Noble Theater, which is part of the OKC Museum of Art. They show some great foreign films, great docs, occasional classics like CITIZEN KANE, etc. It's what a movie theater should be, and CAN be if folks offer something different than the norm.

This link won't do you guys much good unless you happen to be passing through town and want to catch a show, but as an idea of what's possible (even in a cowtown like OKC), you might want to check it out anyway:

http://okcmoa.org/programs_film_cal.htm

Cheers---
John