Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Blu-Ray players to PUNISH users who hack

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Blu-Ray players to PUNISH users who hack (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Blu-Ray players to PUNISH users who hack

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-16-2006 11:13 AM

The gross box office receipts are only relevant on a per picture basis. If a movie cost $10M to make and does $30M at the box office, it's successful. If it does $100M it's wildly successful. Home video would be the icing on the cake. "Brokeback Mountain" had a production budget of $16M and has done $106M at the box office. That makes it wildly successful.

If a film cost $150M to make and does $250M at the box office, it's a loser (but may recoup it's losses in home video).

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2006 12:30 PM

Ticket price inflation makes milestones like $100 million pretty meaningless -mainly in terms of how such figures are hyped to the general public.

Don't get wrong, a $100 million gross is great if your picture cost only $10 million to make and a few million to market. But there are hardly any mainstream releases that cost that little anymore. Marketing budgets on a major release can surpass $50 million. Many indie movies are budgeted well under that, but then they don't get to play in very many theaters either (many often have to recoup their investment on video or with cable channels like IFC, Sundance, etc.).

Back in the 1970's and 1980's it was a pretty big deal for a movie to gross $100 million in North America. Today it takes only 12 to 15 million tickets sold (if even that) to hit the $100 million mark.

At least in terms of press reporting for major releases, I believe the movie industry will need to start counting tickets sold and reporting that instead. I think a movie can be qualified as a legitimate hit if it sells 25 million tickets in North America, and it would be a legitimate blockbuster if it does 50 million tickets. 100 million tickets and the movie is in the league with all time box office champions.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-16-2006 01:05 PM

Movie companies will not release figures for actual ticket sales if it doesn't serve their agenda. So if ticket sales have been flat for 5 years, but box office receipts are up, and your job is to spin that, you spin it that box office receipts are up.

There are a million "what ifs" that can be injected into the debate, and a million ways to spin things. The bottom line is the bottom line. Movies are made to make money (if they happen to also create art, it's a bonus). Whether exhibitors remain a major part of the dollar equation is not totally under their control because of rapid technology changes (home video, broadband). It's being argued here that exhibitors should partner with the studios to come up with some technology that trumps 35mm and home video. Actually that already exists (IMAX) but that's pretty much a niche market and will never be successful outside of major markets. An IMAX theater here in Eugene would not be viable. 5/70 will not happen because nobody wants to invest any more $$ in analog film (whether that's a good decision or not has been debated in another thread, ad nauseum. [Wink]

)

The whole thing is about how to capture as much revenue [profit] as possible, as quickly as possible, with or without the help of exhibitors.

Getting back to Blu-Ray etc. a concern I have is that they'll "cheat" when mastering to HD and not give consumers the full capability (resolution) the format is capable of.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2006 01:43 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Ticket price inflation makes milestones like $100 million pretty meaningless

Next time you're burdened with a meaningless $100 million let me know. I'll take it.
Think you'll ever see that much money (in your pocket)in your lifetime?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2006 03:33 PM

quote: Greg Mueller
Next time you're burdened with a meaningless $100 million let me know.

You are deliberately ignoring the point.

A $100 million gross is meaningless if it took $150 million to make the movie and another $50 million to market it. You're still in the hole. You're still losing investors a shit load of money, along with mounting interest payments as well.

quote: David Stambaugh
Movie companies will not release figures for actual ticket sales if it doesn't serve their agenda. So if ticket sales have been flat for 5 years, but box office receipts are up, and your job is to spin that, you spin it that box office receipts are up.

Sure, they can spin their "news" whatever way they like. But I have every right to be unimpressed or to see it as bullshit. A $100 million gross in 2006? Whoopie freaking doo.

quote: David Stambaugh
Getting back to Blu-Ray etc. a concern I have is that they'll "cheat" when mastering to HD and not give consumers the full capability (resolution) the format is capable of.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Will the discs even list what format will be used (720p, 1080i, etc.)? Even more problematic are the limitations showing up in a lot of brand new TV sets.

I just read a review of a new 52" Mitsubishi "1080P" DLP rear projection TV. It turns out the monitor isn't really true 1080P, but rather uses a 960 X 1080 DLP chip and a "wobbulation" technique to fake a real 1080 native rez image. Other bottlenecks in the electronics prevent the monitor from accepting a true 1080p signal from another source, such as a Blu-Ray player or computer system monitor output. These limitations are common for many HDMI-equipped HDTV sets.

These technical problems suggest even more loudly that it will probably be best to stick with DVD-V for at least the first couple or so years after the Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) formats are launched.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2006 04:00 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
You are deliberately ignoring the point.

A $100 million gross is meaningless if it took $150 million to make the movie and another $50 million to market it. You're still in the hole. You're still losing investors a shit load of money, along with mounting interest payments as well.

I think it would be you that is ignoring the obvious.
That's why I posted the simple formula about cost of production vs income. Think "Big Momma's House 2" cost more than 80 million to produce?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2006 09:07 PM

You are still ignoring the point, Greg.

Answer this question, yes or no. And with no smart aleck comments against me either:

Does a movie made in 2006 have to sell as many tickets as a movie made in 1986 to gross $100 million? Yes or no?

That very simple equation is exactly why a $100 million gross is not impressive anymore as a news item. A very good illustration of this is in how lots of news outlets judge movies now on whether they gross $100 million in the opening weekend.

Also the language has been box office gross. That is a very different thing than actual profit.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2006 10:00 PM

So when did we jump from dollars and cents to butts in seats?

The answer is obviously no (if you want to change the topic). But 100 million dollars is still a chunk of change dude! And as I keep trying to teach you GROSS MINUS COSTS = PROFIT This is not a tricky concept. You think these have been "smart aleck comments"? (This is going to be a bigger job than I first thought)

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-16-2006 10:12 PM

Bobby, did you even read my posts? I already pointed out the profitability angle has to be considered for each individual release, based on its production (and marketing) cost and its box office gross. Did you not see that? The box office gross is a completely useless figure to work from if you don't know how much the movie cost to make and market.

Here's exactly what I said before:

quote: David Stambaugh
The gross box office receipts are only relevant on a per picture basis. If a movie cost $10M to make and does $30M at the box office, it's successful. If it does $100M it's wildly successful. Home video would be the icing on the cake. "Brokeback Mountain" had a production budget of $16M and has done $106M at the box office. That makes it wildly successful.

If a film cost $150M to make and does $250M at the box office, it's a loser (but may recoup it's losses in home video).

As far as "they have to start reporting ticket sales", why do they have to do that? Who in the general public cares whether they report the number of tickets vs. the number of dollars? Industry insiders are fully aware of the actual number of tickets sold. It's not like they're stupid. (someone will pop in now and say they ARE stupid)

Go to www.regalcinemas.com (investor relations) and look at how a publicly-traded exhibitor reports the numbers. It's all about the revenue vs. expenses. Even the shareholders don't care about how many tickets were sold as long as the company is adequately profitable, which Regal seems to be right now. (I bet the actual ticket sales is contained in their annual report though, for those interested in such things.)

You know what exhibitors should be required to report? The per cap income from concessions! Whether the average moviegoer is willing to spend $10 for a Coke and a tub of popcorn could be a critical leading indicator of how the overall economy is doing. [Wink]

This side discussion is now officially pointless. I'm dropping out of it (to everyone's relief no doubt). [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2006 10:21 PM

Yah go ahead and get the last word Bobby, if it turns your crank. This IS hopeless

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-17-2006 12:39 AM

Ummm... he hasn't even responded and you've posted twice.

| IP: Logged

Robert Burtcher
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 194
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 02-17-2006 03:11 AM

If I may butt in... Bobby's original point was simply that a film that does

quote: David Stambaugh
over $80 Million

in GROSS sales is not necessarially a good, profitable movie. As well, since the cost of each ticket is higher, it is not as impressive to hear about a film that's raked in $100 Million as it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago.

Honestly, to me, you guys seem to be in violent agreement.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-17-2006 09:18 AM

Yes Robert I have acknowledged that, but I'll say it again. It takes less butts in seats to equal $100 million than it did in the past. However what's not being acknowledged is that a movie can still be wildly profitable and still not break $100 million. To something Like Blair Witch which could not have cost more than about a dollar (in costs) and if it were to have a gross of $100 million would have been an incredible success because Gross minus Costs equal Profit. In my example $100 million (gross) minus $1 (costs) equal $99,999,999 (profit)

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-17-2006 10:32 AM

Yes, I agree, a movie can be extremely profitable and come nowhere close to $100 million in gross sales. Some low budget indie movies do very well in that regard. But then again, most indie movies don't bother to brag about how much profit they made in their marketing. Usually they like to brag about what film festival awards they collected.

I don't classify Big Momma's House 2 as a low budget indie flick. That's a major studio release playing on thousands of screens. Its $80 million gross may just cover the budget (possibly) and then take care of some of the marketing costs. If Big Momma's House 2 took in $200 million I would call it a legitimate hit. The show would have to sell around 25 million tickets to get to that level of attendance today.

Back in 1975 when Jaws reached the $100 million gross level, more than 50 million people had to see the film for it to manage that. To make that show's earnings even more impressive, the United States had just over 200 million in population at the time. We're now at 300 million. So that show had to get a much greater percentage of the population to attend to hit the $100 million level. Drive-in movie theaters were still common. I was only 8 years old when I saw it with my family. My parents, brother and I watched it at the Crest Drive-In in Yuma, AZ at a price of just $2 per carload. One payment brought in four, or however many people, were in a car.

The only way $100 million is impressive for any major release these days is if it makes that $100 million within the first weekend of release. Some press people fault major releases if they come up short of that $100 million. King Kong was a recent example of such criticism.

I still think counting ticket sales would be a better idea. The movie theater circuits and distributors certainly should be tracking it exactly whether they make that information available to the public or not. If they go by dollar figures alone, they lose the crucial data on exactly how well they're doing in attendance.

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 02-17-2006 11:23 AM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bigmommashouse2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm

Most films have a marketing budget (in addition to the reported projection budget) of up to a 1/3rd of the production budget.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.