Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Again, this will never happen. Part of the reason movies are released in theaters is because that helps set the value of them. A movie that does well in theaters will command more viewers when it makes its way to regular TV and thus command a larger licensing fee. While movies that don't do as well don't command as big of fees.
So are you suggesting that the movie studios simply share in the revenue brought in from the commercials sold on their broadcasts? If not how do you determine the value of a movie and how much to charge for a licensing fee?
|
tv shows get signed to stations without establishing their audience levels in the theaters
it an insanely stupid arguement to say that the same thing methodology could not be uses for simalcast movies.
Quote:
|
I think this is wishful thinking. Very few people would watch a movie on TV for free then pay $20 to go see it on the big screen. There might be a few people that would do this because there are people who pay to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but the number would be very small.
|
x-men orgins was leaked before the theatrical release, as a work print (inferior version)
and millions of the people who downloaded it went to the theater to see the commercial version
avatar had the same effect (cam vs 3d version)
if crappy 3d with stupid glasses made that much of a difference image what 3d generated by such a gradient differences in color without crapy glasses would do.
or add experiences like the smells of the rain forrest, wind, changes in temp, and 12 surround sound.
if the movie was reasonably good in the context of story, and i was told about all the extra stuff i could get in the theater i would definately pay $20 to see it again.
Quote:
|
Again I ask is this how you get 60 trillion/year of additional income into the economy as you stated before?
|
the equipement to upgrade the theaters
the equipment to film at the higher level
the pre production cost (people to run, training etc) to utilize the equipement
post production to downgrade to dvd/tv quality
the sale of all the tvs that would need to be upgraded when that technology becomes more afforable (3 stages, early adopter, influencers, mass market)
the sale price of the playing equipment
support cost of the new technology (installing, repair, delivering, etc)
repeat with the new technology (since when it hit mass market the theaters would need to implement a new technology to create the justification to see it in the theater)
Quote:
|
That is my point. You said all of this new revenue from the sale of technology (at least I am assuming this because you haven't said where this new revenue is coming from) would offset the loss in revenue due to piracy. The problem with this is that they are often two different companies so while one company gains, the other - the one producing the content- still loses.
|
ok let assume that some how your right, and the common practise of being able to resell the content in a better remastered version magically disappears from the standard technological upgrade cycle (vcr -> dvd-> blue ray)
so what
why should the fact that content producers lose out because an abuse of their monopoly is eliminated justify letting that abuse continue.
we are talking about 60 trillion dollars of jobs to protect 300 million in jobs.
Real world physical goods have way more jobs created then digital content.
physical things have to be delivered, they have to be fixed they have to be installed. Those jobs are local so they don't get outsourced to foreign countries.
internally created they benefit the countries economy more then content creation.
Quote:
|
As I said above this, to me, is all basically wishful thinking. There are some people who would be willing to pay just for the experience of a movie in the theater. I'm one of those people. There are some movies that come out that I just want to see on the big screen. But most movies it doesn't matter to me one way or the other and I would rather wait until it is on DVD and I can watch it at home instead of paying $10 to see it in the theater. If it were available on DVD/pay-per-view at the same time as the release in theaters I will still just get the DVD and in almost every case watching it on DVD would never convince me to now go pay more to watch it on the big screen.
|
but the experience is really not that different then what you can get at home.
when the difference is great (3d vs non 3d or work print vs full movie) the number prove people will go and see the "real" version
your arguement basically proves the point i am making, you don't care because for most movies the difference isn't worth going to the theater to see.
create a technological superiority for the theaters and you go back to the days when we went to see star wars multiple times because the sound of the ships flying by actually seemed to move back right to front left (4 point vs standard stereo)
when the movie was an immersive experience.