Damn, Hollywood. (Page 1 of 2)

Well, based off that article I just bought her book.  So I'm doing my part for that revenue stream at least...

For that first 60 years the movie industry had a much bigger market to sell to - in the past few decades movies have consistently lost market share to television (there used to be maybe ten channels in any given market, now there are hundreds), video games, the internet, etc.  Home video has been keeping the studios alive while they continued to lose ground to all those other things.   

This is why they've been so adamant about paying low residuals on home video, through numerous strikes by writers and actors etc.

And studios would love to sell their product all over the world, all the time, as much as possible.  It just isn't that easy.   Countries have laws about foreign imports, they have their own movie industries to protect and promote, and there are a finite number of theaters in every country.   Overseas releases have all kinds of local conditions and restrictions to deal with - it's not a matter of picking a date and having theaters available.  They may not be.

For example, the only countries where Carruth's movie isn't for sale online already are the very few where the movie has yet to be released in theaters.   Releasing a movie in theaters requires the hiring of a distribution company who become partners in the release - they book the theaters and take a share of the profits etc.   So I'm guessing his movie isn't online in those markets because that was a requirement by the releasing company. Why go to all that effort to put out a niche movie with tiny market potential as it is - if it's already online?

Movie studios are scrambling to make use of all these new markets, but it's not easy... there are an awful lot of laws and union restrictions and global trade issues to hack through.   And all the while, the market for movies in general continues to shrink.

In the end, I suspect Spielberg and Lucas are right, tentpoles will become fewer, movie production in general will scale down, and that's not necessarily bad.  But there will be a lot more company failures along the way, and jobs will continue to disappear and never come back.

Funny, I was about to make the same point. The Videogame industry has basically gone through the exact same thing as hollywood, but on an accelerated time-scale of about 15 years. Numerous video-game studios and publishers have gone out of business the last 5 years, and its gotten to the point that the only ones still around are either tiny indie game companies or massive studios making AAA titles for hundreds of millions of dollars. The budgets are definitely getting up there in the 150-200 million dollar range for many of these games now, and they face the same all or nothing problem, hence mostly game sequels to successful properties, or reboots of older titles.

In fact, I think the videogame industry may be a sign of what's to come for movies, because the last 3 years have seen a revolution in self-financing, crowd-funding, and digital distribution that have led to a huge resurgence and success for small indie-games. I wouldn't be surprised to see the film industry in a similar place in 10 years, with small production companies making content directly for web distributors like Netflix, or their own distribution channels.

Video games may crash first, simply because of the high costs to consumers. Studios are pushing out unfinished games, and consumers are getting pissed. A movie you can throw money at to finish quickly. Games, apparently, you can't. I'm not a big gamer, but the turkey that was Dragon Age 2 really got me angry. Take years to develop an incredibly deep game, then rush out a sequel that is incredibly incomplete (not to mention makes the actions of the first game pointless. Don't promise actions will matter if following through will be impossible).

Add to that the whole preorder system, and another crash probably is in the offering.

I think we'll see budgets geared more to break-even at the box office, because at least that's a reasonably predictable metric.

This would probably mean a couple of things:

• More formulaic, safe plots.

• More off-shoring to get the look without the outlay.

• Fewer releases with a focus on tent pole films.

• Even more sequels.

It's not a pretty picture, but the players are losing their profit margin. Until things stabilise more I think most will buckle down (not all, you have to innovate to get out of a slump).

At which point film moves to becoming art, surrendering the mass market business part to TV. People making movies to make movies, and if one turns a profit as opposed to just paying for itself, great!

Avengers of Steel Caribbean Hobbits and Furious IV:  The Kitchen Sinkening

featuring Twilight Sparkle as Spiderman.  Special appearance by Hologram Ian MacKellen

You just know they'll end up making that Expendables-style team-up action movie starring digital versions of dead classic-era Hollywood actors, the one George Lucas was threatening to do for awhile. Orson Welles IS Batman, Cary Grant IS Superman, and....introducing Robert Downey Sr as Iron Man

No, we're talking about the future, not the present.

I can't remember where I read this, it might even have been on the podcast but wasn't there a trend about 10 years ago where A-listers were being digitally scanned so that their young CG likeness could star in films forever more?