Must Some Movies Fail Miserably Just So Others Can Be A Hit?
from the tournament-of-champions dept
The movie industry is understood to be a winner-take-all marketplace, as a few blockbusters typically grab the lion's share of box-office receipts, while the majority of films that get made fight it out for the scraps. One of the main reasons for this is the scarcity of screens. As word of mouth causes more people to go to a film, theaters start showing it on more screens, reducing the space for its competitors. The upshot is that even if you have several very good movies out at once, inherently they can't all do well. And the long tail? Forget about it. But the dynamics at play in the film industry are not found to the same extent elsewhere. One author is taking umbrage with the oft-repeated line (via Boing Boing) that the marketplace for books, like films, is a blockbuster-driven, winner-take-all tournament. It may be true that the publishing industry has failed so far to grasp the power of the long tail, as evidenced by its reluctance to see the value in online book searching. But just look at a typical book store; as prominently displayed as the top-sellers are, there's usually tons of space for books that sell far less. And even before Amazon, bookstores could order books that weren't on its shelves per a customer request. For a long time, the film industry had to settle for this situation, as there was no other model of distribution. But now that there are alternatives, the industry is hanging on to its old ways for dear life. Developing distribution models that don't require some films to be losers in order to make way for winners, as in books, will help return the studios to solid ground.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution!
But of course, availability of showings isn't the real problem.
The problem is that its far too expensive to go to the theatre. Hardly anyone wants to go UNLESS its for a super blockbuster.
How good was it?
a) See it in theatre
b) wait for the dvd
c) just netflix it
d) wait for cable (ppv is not an option)
e) skip it altogether
Thats the rating system I have been using with everyone I ever talk to about movies.
Theatre may provide the best consuming experience, however, its inconvenient as hell, and far too expensive to make me want to put up with the inconvenience.
The "industry" needs to realize that we are in an age where convenience is becoming the MOST important factor in delivering services. Entertainment is nothing more than a service. There are several other products that I can consume to fulfill my entertainment quota, and if the others are cheaper/more convenient.... Then I will (and do) consume them more often than movies.
They don't seem to get that convenience thing yet... not yet... maybe someday..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going to the theather SUCKS! It is expensive in every respect (tickets, snacks), inconvenient (you can;t stop it when your kids are being noisy or you have to go to the bathroom, can't rewind to see that "awesome" scene again) and you have to watch it at the theater's schedule, not your own (at 2:00 AM).
I have a cheapo projector in my basement, cheapo surround sound setup and I honestly have not been to a theatre since (about 2 years now).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's right!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrrg, convenience please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two cents worth
I also feel that way about movies; very few interest me enough to go to the theater. If I do go, if I don't like it, I get up and leave.
You can make a $250,000,000.00 piece of excrement; it is still a piece of excrement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also...
I'm one of those types that go to the movies at least once a week, and actually would go more often than that but for one thing: There's nothing to see.
Not being a fan of "stupid" dumb-dumber movies, nor most animated kid flicks, I often find that there's nothing to see, even at my local 24-screen-plex where there's not exactly a scarcity of screens.
Yeah, there may be some good movies hidden in the tail, but even Anderson says that, for the most part, "the tail is full of crap".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie Theater is Gone!
Everybody wants to make money, people want to save money, but we still want to be entertained. So let's come up with something that will make most people happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie Theater is Gone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
Author's write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]