The Importance Of The Social Experience At Movies

from the it's-a-big-deal dept

For years, as the MPAA complained about the so-called "threat" of the internet, we've tried to point out that the movie business shouldn't have much to worry about, if they stopped thinking that movies were all about the content. The truth is that movies have always been about the social experience of "going out" to the movies and having a good time. Just as people still go out to eat at restaurants even though they can eat for much less at home, people will always go out to the movies if the experience is enjoyable. Unfortunately, the studios and the theater owners (for the most part) still don't get this and seem to have gone out of their way to make the experience considerably worse over time. A new study, though, is highlighting the importance of the social experience in determining how a movie is received. Pointed out by Slashdot, the study found that the presence of other people around enhances the movie-watching experience. It turns out that, with people around, the overall experience is shared and spread across the crowd, leading to greater enjoyment. Hopefully, it's research like this that will lead the studios and theater owners to stop worrying about things like piracy or even simultaneous DVD releases and realize that if they build a better experience people will always want to go out to the movies.

Filed Under: movies, social experience

So Why Did Canada Need A Special Extra Law For Camcording Movies?

from the remind-us-again dept

Back during the big debate over the need for new laws against "camcording" a movie in Canada, Michael Geist pointed out that existing laws were already perfectly fine in dealing with the problem. Of course, despite all of that, the power of the movie industry lobbyists was too strong and the bill still became law. So, isn't interesting to find out (via Geist again) that a recent arrest for camcording in a movie theater didn't even happen under the new law, but under the old copyright law. So, once again, can someone explain why the MPAA needed that new law and why Canadian politicians agreed to it?

Filed Under: camcording, canada, copyright, movies, mpaa

MovieBeam Finally Dead For Real

from the how-much-money-was-wasted-on-that? dept

Back in 2003, Disney's brilliant idea to "compete" with TiVo and Netflix was to start MovieBeam. Just the fact that Disney felt it needed to compete with TiVo and Netflix shows you how backwards the thinking was at the point. Moviebeam was a terrible idea from the start. People were expected to buy (yet another) expensive set top box from Disney, which would basically be a very limited DVR. The hard drive would come packed with about 100 movies, and each week some would disappear and others would magically "beam" into the box. Despite the fact that you already had to pay for the box, you still had to pay each time you wanted to watch a movie -- and, you were only given a 24-hour time period in which to watch that movie. Two years into the program (with only a few small test markets) Disney shut down the program. At the time, we figured it was gone for good, but somehow, some VCs and Cisco were convinced to pony up $50 million to bring this idea back to life as a spinoff from Disney. Yet, when the offering was relaunched (with a few small improvements) people still didn't care. Earlier this year, the company was basically sold off for next to nothing, and now the company has announced that it's shutting down operations next week. Who knows, though, maybe it'll rise from the dead again, so that it can fail a few more times.

Filed Under: downloads, movies, settop box
Companies: disney, moviebeam

Like $200 Million In Invesment Money Is Going To Make A Difference In Hollywood?

from the it'll-make-one-crappy-movie dept

We've discussed in the past the idea that Wall Street might start investing directly in movies, hoping that if that happened it would help kick the studios into realizing that their old model of doing things wasn't working out so well. With that in mind, it's not too surprising to hear that JPMorgan is planning to start investing in Hollywood, hiring some former Hollywood bigshots as advisors and setting aside $200 million for investments. Wait... $200 million? Isn't that what Hollywood insiders falsely insist a good movie has to cost to make these days? In other words, isn't that pocket change? It's hard to see how that kind of money makes any difference at all in Hollywood unless JPMorgan is really planning to embrace the Silicon Valley model of making films, where less money is put to more efficient work. Hopefully, that's where it's heading (though, hiring those bigshots suggests otherwise). If it's simply going to throw that money into the traditional Hollywood machine, it seems quite unlikely that it will last very long or go very far.

Filed Under: movies, wall street
Companies: jpmorgan

Movie Director Thrilled About Downloaders... But Producer Still Suing

from the left-hand,-meet-right-hand dept

Remember how some independent movie directors and producers were thrilled that people found their movies worthwhile to download? Well, here's a disturbing twist on those types of stories. TorrentFreak tells us about how the director of a popular Norwegian film is thrilled that people are downloading copies of his movie, and even admits that he uses BitTorrent to download stuff himself: "It's flattering that people are making copies of the movie and releasing it on the internet. Besides, all movies today are released onto the web. It would have been worse if no one wanted to share the movie." So what's the twist? The production company behind the movie is going after those people who were file sharing the movie, asking the police to file charges against 14 people accused of sharing the movie. Once again, it seems like the left-hand isn't paying attention to what the right-hand is doing.

Filed Under: downloads, movies

Hollywood Faces A Swarm Of New Competitors

from the video-startups dept

A lot of people seemed to be interpreting my post about the writer's strike a couple of weeks ago as taking the studios' side. That wasn't really my point. I don't know enough about the details of writers' compensations structures to have any opinion about which side is being more unreasonable in the dispute. Rather, my point was that a protracted strike is going to hurt everyone in Hollywood—studios and writers alike. There's a very real risk that a protracted strike will create an opening for outsiders to attract viewers who would otherwise be watching Hollywood fare, and that at the end of the strike a lot of those viewers might never come back. That would hurt the studios the most, obviously, but it wouldn't be good for the writers either.

Two recent stories illustrate the sort of threats Hollywood is facing. First, the New York Times profiles some of the many online video startups that have sprung up in the last couple of years. These sites develop a variety of different types of content and are built on a variety of different business models. Some are producing "webisodes": scripted, episodic video programs. Others are creating low-budget comedy clips to spread virally. For example, this silly clip of Will Farrell arguing with a 2-year-old has apparently racked up nearly 50 million views. At the opposite extreme, TechCrunch reports on Blowtorch, which has raised $50 million in venture capital to launch a new low-budget movie studio. The company plans to produce movies for about $5 million each, and has lined up 600 theaters near college campuses to show their movies. They're planning to solicit short films on their websites, and show the best short films on the big screen before their movies. It is, as TechCrunch puts it, "a movie company that is thinking like a cable channel": providing users with content whenever and whereever they want it, instead of trying to force users to watch content on the studio's schedule.

Now, it should be emphasized that it's far from certain that any given company will succeed. A lot of the content on these sites isn't that great. But with so many companies trying so many different approaches, it seems likely that some of them will create some hits. And if the flow of new content from Hollywood dries up, that's obviously going to create a huge opening for these sites. And once one of these companies creates a loyal following, Hollywood is going to find it awfully difficult to lure them back.

Filed Under: content, hollywood, movies, studios, writers' strike
Companies: blowtorch

Independent Film Makers Thrilled That People 'Pirated' Their Movie

from the understanding-buzz dept

On the same day that the guy who was caught filming the Simpson's movie with his mobile phone (which still doesn't make sense to us) was fined in Australia, some independent film makers are talking up how wonderful it is that people are "pirating" their film. The website rslog.net reviewed their film, The Man from Earth, and pointed out the many places online where it could be downloaded. It turned out that people really seemed to love the movie. Thousands downloaded it... and they started promoting it to others. The movie's ranking on IMDB shot up and it's getting attention from all over the place. The producer of the movie wrote to rslog to thank them for promoting the movie, noting that next time he'll probably upload his next movie to various torrent sites himself.

The director of the movie also chimed in with his support. He notes that they definitely view this a bit as "doing a Radiohead," but that's perfectly reasonable. They're hoping many people do decide to buy the DVD or donate money to the project, which seems like a reasonable request. However, what may be more likely is that they can use this groundswell to push for both theater showings of the movie and a distribution deal for their followup. And while this shows an example of moviemakers using the Radiohead example -- there's a big difference here as well. Many critics have been falsely dismissing the Radiohead experiment by saying that only big, well known bands can pull it off. However, what the folks behind this movie are doing is exactly the opposite. They're smaller names, who are generating tremendous publicity and opportunity for themselves by not treating their fans as criminals -- even those who clearly are downloading unauthorized versions. Instead, they're embracing them for the free publicity they're providing the movie and helping to turn it into a hit. Once again, the old saying is true: obscurity is a much bigger threat to creative works than piracy.

Filed Under: downloads, movies

Can Movies Be Financed Like Tech Startups?

from the venture-capital dept

I wrote last week about the perversity of having a one-size-fits-all contract in an industry that's becoming more diverse and dynamic by the month. Netscape co-founder (and now Ning co-founder) Marc Andreessen made some similar comments last week, but today he's gone further and pointed out an interesting alternative model for organizing the movie industry. He points out that a fundamental weakness of Hollywood's traditional model is that everybody works for a small number of big, bureaucratic studios that hire all the necessary talent and oversee production, distribution and marketing. He points out that this leads to talent getting paid (and behaving) like hired guns. Because they don't share much in the profits, they have little reason to go above and beyond to make the production a success. And if they feel they're getting a raw deal, they don't have a lot of options since there aren't very many studios to choose from. So they go on strike seeking a bigger share of a shrinking pie, instead of looking for ways to make the whole pie bigger.

The technology industry is different. If a talented employee at Microsoft or Yahoo doesn't feel he's getting compensated fairly, he doesn't go on strike. Instead, he proves his point by starting his own company. Employees at small Silicon Valley firms are often given significant equity in lieu of other compensation. The ones who get in early at a really successful startup get filthy rich. As a result, they're part owners of the companies they're working for and they act like it. There's much less friction between management and labor in Silicon Valley because almost anyone who wants to can become part of management by starting a new company or joining a company already in the early startup phase. "Labor" and "management" aren't two separate categories, they're often the same people at different stages in their careers. Andreessen persuasively argues that a similar model can work for Hollywood. Two of the traditional functions of the studios, distribution and marketing, are rapidly being displaced by Internet-based distribution and viral marketing. The equipment required for producing high-quality video is falling quickly in price. The main thing that's still expensive is labor, and that can be had the same way it's obtained in Silicon Valley: by raising venture capital and paying talent partly with equity. A lot of talent will likely be willing to accept a smaller paycheck in exchange for a significant share of the profits from a successful film. And a lot of investors will jump at the chance to be business partners with talented (and maybe famous) actors, writers, and directors. It certainly sounds like a more productive model than the protracted strike we're facing now.

Filed Under: hollywood, movies, ownership, silicon valley

No, The Blockbuster Movie Isn't Dead

from the it's-got-plenty-of-life dept

Cory Doctorow, who can often write and speak quite convincingly concerning copyright issues, has written a new article for The Guardian in the UK that is unfortunately unconvincing. The discussion surrounds the question that has been asked of me in the past when discussing copyrights and movies: if there were no copyrights, how does the $200 million blockbuster movie get made? Cory's answer is that it doesn't get made... and that's okay. His argument is, effectively, that there's a tradeoff. And, instead of a few $300 million blockbusters (inflation, apparently, has driven up the price), we'll get many more smaller, independent films or amateur creators creating their own works. In other words, the long tail takes over and the "short head" disappears. He has some well known company, by the way. As we've mentioned, George Lucas seems to believe the era of the $200 million blockbuster is over. To Cory (and to many others, I'm sure) the idea that there would be more, cheaper indie films and less Hollywood blockbusters, seems like a worthy tradeoff. I have no opinion on whether one scenario is better than the other or if it's a worthwhile tradeoff. I don't think there's really any tradeoff to deal with at all. In fact, from everything I've seen, the blockbusters can still stick around without freakishly worrying about copyright -- and you'll still get more of the quirky independent films. In other words, everyone wins (and yet, I'm quite sure the big movie industry folks who frequent this site will insist what I'm describing means the death of their films).

First of all, it's important to separate out the $200 million (or $300 million) part from the "blockbuster" part. I have a problem with anyone phrasing the question in terms of the requirements on the cost side. First of all, studies have shown that while the biggest costs for most of those blockbuster movies is the fees paid out to the name-brand stars, those stars don't help a movie do any better. In other words, movie makers are overpaying for stars. That shouldn't be a surprise, actually. When you come from a world where "$200 million" is automatically attached to "blockbuster" there's little reason to think about ways to make a movie more efficiently. You just think about driving up the budget so that the movie is considered a blockbuster because of how much is spent. This doesn't mean, by the way, that you don't hire stars. You just figure out ways to pay them more reasonable rates. At the same time, in just about every other part of the creativity world, the cost of making content is decreasing. Better tools and technologies are making it much cheaper to make much higher quality movies every day. So really what we have is a situation where adding a little competition to the market doesn't mean that the blockbuster, super high quality flicks go away -- but that perhaps they get a little more dollar conscious on the spend side, allowing them to make movies more intelligently to save money. We had hoped that with Wall Street's new found interest in investing in films, that perhaps they would force some of this to happen.

At the same time, there are still plenty of ways for big, expensive movies to make a ton of money -- even if the focus isn't on copyright. It just requires a shift in thinking. We've been saying it for years, for example, but the movie industry has never really relied on the sale of its content to make money before. It thinks it has, but it's always been selling a combined service with the theaters. It's been selling the "experience" of going out to the theater and having a good time with dates, friends or family and getting to watch a new flick on a big screen in comfy seats and a great sound system. It's only more recently, with much of the industry being confused about what they're actually selling, that the movie going experience has declined -- which is a hurting the industry much more than a few downloads ever will. So even if you were in a world without any copyright, there would still be demand for people to go out to watch movies in the theaters -- and the movie industry can continue to make an awful lot of money that way. The restaurant business isn't suffering from the fact that people can cook much cheaper food at home. People like to go out and have a good time -- and they're willing to pay for it.

Furthermore, there are a ton of interesting business models that you can start to build on top of this. These include doing things like selling a DVD with a bunch of extras of the movie people just saw as they leave the theater. That's the point at which they're going to be most interested (assuming they liked the movie) and if the DVD comes with a ton of extras in a useful format and a convenient interface, that's going to be worth buying -- even if they could download the content for free online. Or you could start to include other incentives. Since sequels are so popular these days, why not offer a discount on admission to folks who have the movie stub from the first movie in the series? Or offering a contest where a ticketstub or DVD purchase receipt gets you entered into a raffle to be an extra on another film? These are small examples, but it doesn't take long to come up with a hundred more examples, where the focus is on providing additional value that people will pay for -- even if the content itself is available for free. When you start to look at those models, and start to put a few of them together, you begin to realize that there are more ways than ever to make a lot of money in the movie business, even if copyrights are not an issue at all.

Finally, long tail markets don't exist in a vacuum. They follow the power law curve, meaning that there will remain blockbusters -- it's just that the bottom part of the market does open up for many more producers to enter with more niche-focused content. However, demand will still remain for blockbusters, and that's great. With the demand there, smart business people will start to adopt the business models that allow those people to be satisfied with the next big blockbuster flick. And, don't underestimate other sources of funding films as well. BMW realized that it made sense to make short films a few years back, without worrying too much about monetizing those films directly. Don't think they (or others) couldn't do the same for much larger films as well. So, yes, blockbusters will remain -- though the business models to support them may start to look a little different.

Filed Under: blockbusters, long tail, movies

Die Hard Packages Digital Copy With Its DVD

from the yippee-kay-yay-kay-yo dept

In a special edition of its upcoming release of the latest Die Hard DVD, 20th Century Fox has announced that it will include a DRM-free digital version of the movie on the DVD. In order to copy the WMV file to a local computer, movie watchers will need to input a 16 digit code that is found on the DVD box. It seems ironic to require people to enter some code to get at the supposedly DRM-free file. This is a step in the right direction, but it still seems like they're making people jump through unnecessary hoops. Still, this feature will finally allow consumers to legally watch the movie on their computer and portable devices without having to pay again for that right... or having to use a third party ripping tool. Perhaps this move is more evidence that the studios find the DMCA unreasonable. As we've seen before, by embracing these formats, consumers will begin to find more value from the media, and, as a result, their consumption should increase, which is ultimately good for the entire movie industry.

Filed Under: dvd, movies