Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
tv shows get signed to stations would 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.
|
The first sentence here makes no sense at all and I have no idea what you are trying to say which makes the second sentence meaningless. Are you saying they would base the pay on similar TV shows? None of what you wrote here really resembles basic 8th grade English so you need to edit it and make what you are trying to say more clear.
Quote:
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.
|
These are examples that are going to be exceptions to the rule. Of course those movies still did well. They were hugely marketed and very highly anticipated. We have no idea of knowing how many downloaders actually then went and paid for a ticket. Also, we aren't talking about a workprint here. You think people will watch the show on TV for free then pay to see it in the theater? There is a big difference between what people would see on TV and a workprint.
I think the number of people who would be willing to pay $20 for a movie is pretty slim. Where I live we have a theater (well it is actually about 25 miles from where I live) that offers a huge buffet of food, giant reclining chairs (like you would have in your living room) all digital screens and the promise of no kids in any movie that is meant for adults. They charge $20 per ticket because they are a "premium" service. I went there once and it was pretty cool. The place was at about 75% capacity on a Saturday night. They tried to open up a second location and it failed because they found out that one location is a novelty and something a lot of people were willing to do on occasion, two locations were too many and couldn't compete with the other theaters that cost half as much.
There are people who would pay $20 for a movie if it really was a great experience, but there are many more who would pay $10, but skip it if it cost $20. Here is a perfect example. I paid the extra couple of bucks and saw Avatar in 3D. I liked it a lot and told my friends about it. Both of them decided not to go see it because their kids wanted to see it and they didn't want to pay the extra money for all of them. So they waited until it was out on DVD. If you have a spouse and 2 kids and you want to go to a movie, $40 is a lot of money, $80 is outrageous.
Quote:
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)
|
This is all fine and good but this is still no 60 trillion/year business. To say that would mean that it is bigger than all of the oil companies and all of the auto companies in the world combined.
This also doesn't address the problem of lost revenue for the the content producer. They are the ones who suffer from piracy. All the increased sales of A/V gear in the world doesn't help them recoup their losses to pirates.
Quote:
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.
|
Again, where do you get this 60 trillion number? As I pointed out in my answer above that is a huge amount. Where is this coming from? Do you have proof or are you just pulling this number out of your ass?
Also, all the great A/V gear in the world isn't worth a pile of shit if you have nothing to play on it. As piracy continues to grow we could see fewer and fewer movies being made. Fewer big budget movies being made and more lower budget, less risky movies made. People complain that there is only crap coming out of Hollywood now. Wait until they start losing more money to piracy and see what they make. The less chance for them to make money that they have the fewer risks they are going to take and the more mundane the crap is going to get.
That aside, I still want to see proof as to how this increase in home theater technology is going to fuel a 60 trillion dollar/ year industry.
Quote:
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.
|
As I said, there are some movies I want to see in the theater. For example, Iron Man 2 I wanted to see in the theater because I wanted the big screen, good sound system etc. But there are only a few of that type of movie each year that really inspire me to go to the theater. Just about every other movie I don't care about the big screen. For example, I just got Shutter Island in the mail today from Netflix. I have wanted to see it for a while, but I could have cared less about seeing it on the big screen.
There are always going to be event movies that will do well no matter if they have large numbers of downloads or not. The movies that benefit the most from a theatrical release are movies like The Hangover. This movie did a lot better than anyone thought it would at the box office. Because of this they sold a lot more DVDs, had a ton more pay-per-view buys and I'm sure they got a pretty handsome price to sell the rights to HBO and other TV/cable providers. Had they released it to all channels at once that very well may not have happened.
I have said all along that you get what you pay for. As you devalue content and treat it like it is filler or garbage to be used and tossed away at your whim, eventually you will get what you pay and chances are you won't like it.