Movie Director Flattered That Someone Camcorded And Uploaded His Movie

from the that's-the-spirit dept

While the folks back in Hollywood have been acting as though people with camcorders were a huge threat to the movie business, it appears that some folks outside of the Hollywood machine recognize that it's not such a bad thing at all. TorrentFreak has the story of a popular Norwegian director who seems flattered that people camcorded his movie and put it online:

"I think it's perfectly fine that some people choose to post the movie online. It shows that people are interested in it.... In the IT society of today it's naive to think that this wouldn't happen. We consider it a huge compliment."

In fact, it appears his only real problem is that the quality of recording isn't so great, though he notes that hopefully this will drive more people to the theater to see a better quality version. It's nice to see more folks in the movie business recognizing that unauthorized copies aren't the end of the world.

Filed Under: bittorrent, camcording, director, file sharing, movies, norway

Who Wants To Watch Full Length Movies On Their Mobile Phones?

from the please-tell-me-this-is-an-april-fools-joke dept

We were just talking about how people don't want to watch broadcast TV on their mobile phones, as the content isn't really designed for people on the go, and all of a sudden Sony thinks that people will want to watch full-length feature films on their mobile phones? Yes, Sony has worked out a deal to offer streaming feature films on AT&T mobile phones starting in May. The films are old films that have already had all the marketing life squeezed to death out of them ("Karate Kid," "Ghostbusters," "Bugsy"). While there won't be a charge to watch them, they will include advertisements (because there's nothing people like better than watching commercials on a tiny mobile screen as they wait to see the ending of "Ghostbusters"). Oh yeah, also, viewers have no control over the timing. It's not "on-demand," it'll just be an ongoing loop. Weren't companies like AT&T just complaining about too much bandwidth being wasted?

Filed Under: content, mobile phones, movies, streaming
Companies: at&t, sony

Can A Luxury Theater Get People To The Theater?

from the might-be-tough dept

We've talked for years about how the movie theater industry's real problem was that the movie-going experience was terrible. The prices went up and the actual experience kept getting worse and worse. That drove people to look for alternatives, such as home theater systems. A simple solution would be to make the experience better and convince movie goers that it was a fun social experience to go out to the movies, to be able to experience the movie in a way that was different from the home theater experience. Last week, we pointed out that some theaters were moving more towards things like IMAX screens, which is a start. However, rob wrote in to point out that a few firms have teamed up to build a series of "luxury theaters" around the country, targeting a higher class of movie-goer willing to spend more for a top notch experience. As Variety explains:

Each complex will sport theaters featuring 40 reclining armchair seats with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies, as well as a lounge and bar serving cocktails and appetizers, a concierge service and valet parking. But the circuit will especially push its culinary offerings -- made-to-order meals like sushi and other theater-friendly foods from on-site chefs (a service button at each seat calls a waiter).

That seems like a step in the right direction... other than the fact that the price is probably going to turn an awful lot of people off. It's $35 per movie ticket, and that doesn't include that special on-site chef food. While it definitely makes sense to charge more for tickets to such a theater, a $35 entrance fee, not including any food seems pretty steep. What's wrong with just making the regular theater experience better?

Filed Under: luxury, movie theater, movies, social experience

Putting A Movie On TV Before It's In Theaters

from the Mark-Cuban's-latest-experiment dept

While some movie studio execs are still claiming that it's not "technically possible" to release movies in the theaters and elsewhere at the same time, Mark Cuban forges ahead doing just that. A couple years ago he made news for doing a simultaneous theater and DVD release of a Steven Soderbergh film, recognizing that people want to watch a movie wherever it's most convenient to them. Unfortunately, short-sighted theater owners boycotted the movie and the press quickly condemned this "day and date" technique as a failure. Of course, it didn't help that the movie just wasn't that good.

However, that experience hasn't stopped Cuban from continuing to experiment and push the movie industry into this century. His latest, as pointed out by Carlo, is that the new Demi Moore and Michael Caine movie Flawless is actually debuting on Cuban's HDNet TV channel two days before the theatrical release. Slowly, but surely, perhaps theater owners will recognize that they can't rely on artificial scarcity to get people into the seats. They'll have to start innovating and offering a better experience. Perhaps it's worth noting that Cuban is also a theater owner... and appears to actually be working hard on making the theater experience better and experimenting with unique business models. If he, as a theater owner, isn't scared of "competing" against home theaters, why are other theater owners so afraid?

Filed Under: day and date, demi moore, hdnet, mark cuban, michael caine, movies, tv
Companies: hdnet

Paramount Recognizes That Clips Of Movies Act As Advertising For The Movie Itself

from the what-a-concept dept

It really is amazing how little entertainment industries recognize how clips of their content online promotes the rest of their content. When people talk about scenes in TV shows or movies, it's become quite natural to search for video of those clips to show. Such clips don't take away from the commercial value of the movie or television show, they enhance it -- giving people additional reasons to watch the full version. Yet, rather than recognizing that, you have entertainment firms like Viacom suing YouTube for $1 billion for facilitating such a free marketing tool. However, it appears that not everyone at Viacom is thinking so narrowly. Paramount Pictures, which is owned by Viacom, has now started releasing snippets from its various movies for fans to make use of within Facebook. It's a little silly that it's only on Facebook, but given the lawsuit against YouTube, Paramount execs probably recognized they had to stay away from YouTube. This definitely seems like a good idea, though it's a bit amusing to have a Paramount exec say that this project could become "ad supported" at some point. Does he not realize that the clips are ads themselves?

Also, the article points out that just getting permission to get these clips online is quite difficult, and other studios probably won't follow. A big part of the problem? All the different people who have to give their permission, thanks to ridiculous royalty policies, like the one the TV/movie writer's guild fought for. In other words, just as we predicted, the agreement cutting the writers in on online royalties is making it more difficult for the studios to adapt to the web. When everyone has to give approval and get a cut, you get innovation by committee -- and that rarely works. You almost always get someone who will veto the effort. In fact, it's rather impressive that Paramount was able to get any movie clips up at all.

Filed Under: advertising, movies, promotions. clips, youtube
Companies: paramount, viacom

Go To The Movie, Get The Soundtrack For Free

from the yet-another-idea dept

It always amazes me when movie industry execs complain that the models we discuss wouldn't work for the movie industry. That's ridiculous, because in many ways, it's already working for the industry. As Marcus Loew once famously said: "We sell tickets to theaters, not movies." The movie has never been the "product." The experience of seeing the movie is the product, and so the focus shouldn't be freaking out about "pirates" while making the movie-going experience worse. It should be the opposite. It should be about enticing people to want to go out to the movies by giving them something extra that makes it worthwhile. Going to the movies is a social experience. It's much cheaper to eat dinner at home, but plenty of people go out to eat at restaurants because those restaurants (while more expensive) give people a reason to go (better food quality, better service, a chance for a night out, no need to cook or wash the dishes, etc.). There's no reason why the movie industry can't do the same.

While we've talked about a number of different ideas for enticing more people to go to the theaters (beyond making the experience better, why not let people buy a discounted DVD of the movie they just saw as they exit the theater -- if they really liked it, many will want to own it to see again, and to see the extras). Mark Cuban, who has actually been at the forefront of many of these ideas (and, also happens to be very involved in the industry, though more on the independent side) has an interesting new suggestion. He points out that only a small number of people actually buy the soundtracks associated with movies -- but if you want to attract more people to go to the movie, why not give them the ability to download the soundtrack of any movie they go see in the theaters. Put a special code on the ticket stub that takes them to a download store -- and on that store include the soundtrack as well as extras, such as the script from the film. Obviously, this content will be spread around and can be accessed by others, but many will value the fact that by seeing the actual movie they get access to the official content. As Cuban notes, this can also be a win for the music industry, as a portion of the movie ticket sales can be used to compensate them as well. It's yet another example of the model we've discussed repeatedly: using infinite goods (music, script) to make the scarce good (seats in a theater for a show) appear to be more valuable.

Filed Under: free, mark cuban, movies, music, soundtrack

Why Is The Hollywood Tail Wagging The Dog Of Academia?

from the that-seems-backwards dept

Hollywood's admission last week that its campus piracy stats were bogus raises an interesting question: why have colleges been so quick to roll over and accede to Hollywood's demands? Greg Sandoval points out that universities could have done their own studies a long time ago and had hard numbers to dispute the industry's accusations. If, as now appears to be the case, colleges are only responsible for a fairly small fraction of illegal file sharing, it makes the industry's demands that academia bend over backwards to help Hollywood in its anti-piracy fight a little unreasonable. The really screwy thing about this is that the movie industry is a relatively small part of the American economy. The industry's revenues in 2006 were just $42 billion. For comparison, Harvard alone has an endowment of $35 billion, and altogether the higher education sector has assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If they chose to stand up to Hollywood's bullying techniques, they would have little trouble mounting an effective legal defense. And given that Hollywood seems determined to paint students—academia's customers—in the worst possible light, it seems only appropriate that colleges be more proactive about countering unfair negative stereotypes of college campuses.

Filed Under: academia, movies, mpaa, piracy, students, studies
Companies: mpaa

Is Modern Technology Taking Away The Thrill And Drama In Movies?

from the period-pieces dept

Textually points us to a movie critic speculating that so many new thriller movies are set in the recent past because of the lack of technology like mobile phones and the internet. The reasoning is a little thin, as it basically says that since things like mobile phones make tracking people easier and the internet makes researching people easier, it takes away much of the drama. Of course, that ignores the many movies out there these days that use those technologies as a part of the plot. The article does mention these movies, but brushes them off by saying that people are sick of "technothrillers," without offering any actual proof of that. It does, however, have this fantastic line: "The public doesn't want to see bad guys get hacked. They want to see bad guys get whacked," making me wonder if the entire thesis was built around that line. It's an interesting thesis, clearly, but there doesn't seem to be very much to support it other than the fact that there have been a few recent movies set in the 60s and 70s.

Filed Under: movies, technology

Hollywood's Worried About The Wrong Thing When It Comes To Digital Archives

from the misplaced-worries dept

Is it really any kind of surprise that Hollywood is worried about the wrong thing? The NY Times ran an interesting article this past weekend about how Hollywood is starting to freak out over the potential costs of digitally archiving movies. Currently, film archives are simply stored in cool places, like salt mines -- but Hollywood doesn't quite know what to do with digital archives, and a new report has them freaking out about just how expensive it will be to store digital content. There are many reasons why this worry is misplaced -- starting with the simple fact that whatever it costs today is only getting cheaper, and that trend is only going to continue for the foreseeable future. However, we've talked about the risks of digital archiving and "digital extinction" before, and the threat is completely overblown and often misplaced.

The problem isn't with what it costs to store content. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. The real problem is that those doing the archiving keep wanting to put their content into proprietary formats which will rapidly go extinct. If, instead, Hollywood focused on storing (and making many, many copies) of the content in more open, easily accessible formats, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Hell, I'm sure the experts over at the Internet Archive, Google or Amazon would all be thrilled to help Hollywood preserve its digital films. However, since Hollywood is so freaked out by technology these days, the chances of them letting any of those organizations help out (even a not-for-profit one like the Internet Archive) seems slim to none.

In the meantime, why not get creative? How hard would it be to create a system that would build a p2p storage system for Hollywood archives, where lots of folks could store bits and pieces of movies for the studios in exchange for... say... a free sneak preview of an upcoming blockbuster? It's the sort of thing that the community would love to take part in... but, of course, in MPAA land anything P2P must be evil.

Filed Under: archives, digital, hollywood, movies

Jackass 2.5: Good Concept, Mediocre Execution

from the close-but-no-cigar dept

Paramount is touting the release of "Jackass 2.5" as the first studio-backed film to be released online. In a lot of ways, Jackass seems like an ideal candidate for an experiment like this: it's a series of short vignettes that would likely get tiresome in a single sitting anyway, so it makes good sense to allow users to watch it in segments online. It was extremely cheap to produce, so there's little reason to worry about cannibalizing sales in other channels. And it's precisely the kind of gag humor that I can see being a good candidate for viral distribution. Unfortunately, the Times story suggests that Paramount's release strategy is rather confused. The video will apparently be released exclusively through Blockbuster's Movielink site for the first week, suggesting that Mac users like me won't be welcome. A week later, the movie will apparently be offered for purchase for $10-15 online or $30 on DVD. And then starting in January, it will once again be available for free on sites like Joost. It's rather confusing. The idea seems to be to experiment with different outlets to see which ones generate the most traffic, but it's hard to imagine why anyone would pay $10 for an iTunes download of a movie that had been available for free viewing (on Movielink) a week earlier and would be available for free viewing again (on Joost) a week later. It seems like all these format switches are just going to confuse and annoy viewers, who have to keep track of which sites will have the video on which weeks. Paramount apparently does know how to distribute video in an embeddable Flash-based format. It seems like it would have made more sense to simply distribute the whole movie that way from the outset. Or even better, given that Jackass isn't so much a coherent movie as a series of discrete segments, an even better idea might have been to release one segment per day over a period of weeks, increasing the chances of viral distribution and getting users in the habit of visiting the site regularly. That would generate a lot more buzz, and it would still leave them the option of selling a DVD of the whole thing once the final clip had been released. So Paramount deserves some credit for experimenting with new distribution strategies, but they still don't seem to quite get Internet distribution.

Filed Under: jackass, movies, online distribution
Companies: paramount