Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney flexing its muscles by raising film rentals

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Disney flexing its muscles by raising film rentals (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Disney flexing its muscles by raising film rentals

Mike Frese
Master Film Handler

Posts: 465
From: Holts Summit, MO
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 04-21-2013 03:09 PM

quote: Frank Angel
If there is no theatrical run, all they have is a made-for-tv-movie, and we know how little money those brough in. We know that because the studios don't even bother making them any more. Or what they have is a Direct-to-DVD movie. Some producers do that....and you never even hear the name of those titles, much less hear about them making millions in rental grosses.

I have 20+ years in the video store rental business. Direct-to-video is still going strong. Studios know that most adults have reduced their theater going habits. Why spend the money to get movies to the theater.

Made for TV is very strong right now. Producers who used to work theatrically are now on TV. Creator of The Walking Dead was involved with Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Not too shabby of a resume. The same can be said for actors too.

TV Series rent well for video stores. They may not be made for tv movies but instead are even better, TV shows. Do I need to even list the amount of quality shows on TV now?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-28-2013 01:41 PM

Surely you are not comparing the profits that can be squeezed out of a Direct-to-DVD production with that of a Hollywood blockbuster like IRON MAN n or TRANSFORMERS n or any of the other tent-pole titles? There is a reason no Direct-to-DVD production has ever won an Oscar, or spawned a merchandising market or a tie-in with the likes of McDonalds or Burger King.

We are comparing apples and oranges here...very small, unappealing oranges at that.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-28-2013 01:55 PM

quote: Mike Frese
Creator of The Walking Dead was involved with Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Not too shabby of a resume.

There are lots of people who like movies shown in theaters, and lots who do not care where they see movies. The studios, if they're smart, will serve BOTH groups.

Who's to say the Walking Dead guy isn't wishing with all his heart that he'll get another theatrical project someday?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-28-2013 05:51 PM

Looks like Disney gave in. They think they had the last deal and high hand, but the owners still hold the trump card.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 04-28-2013 06:19 PM

I don't think Frank Darabont has to worry about getting a movie job if he wants one. But Darabont, like many other creative types, feels television is the place to be at the moment. Why else would he, once freed from his role as creative consultant on The Walking Dead, would he go to TNT and pitch a show based on John Buntin's book L.A. Noir (now called Lost Angels)? Because long-form programs are the place where creative types can truly be creative.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-28-2013 08:36 PM

quote: Edward Havens
Why else would he, once freed from his role as creative consultant on The Walking Dead, would he go to TNT and pitch a show based on John Buntin's book L.A. Noir (now called Lost Angels)? Because long-form programs are the place where creative types can truly be creative.

I'm guessing a better answer would be "because it's a good payday and basic cable is a good place for long-form programs that are too long to play in movie theaters."

TNT isn't exactly the big leagues.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Thomas
Master Film Handler

Posts: 273
From: Pearland, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012

posted 04-28-2013 11:03 PM

There are lots of filmmakers who are looking to TV as another outlet for their artistic expression. There are some stories that can be told in two hours and there are some stories that need to be serialized. The other reason for a lot of guys who were in features moving towards TV is there is more freedom to do original work instead of being forced into drawing solely from current I.P.s.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 04-29-2013 09:32 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
TNT isn't exactly the big leagues.

Even if that was true, which it isn't (you may have heard of a show of theirs called The Closer, featuring Emmy winner Kyra Sedgwick, which may not have been as sexy as Mad Men but constantly drew more viewers per episode week in and week out), that's exactly why TNT goes for a show pitched to them by Frank Darabont. Three-time Oscar nominated filmmaker wants to put a show on your network? If it makes financial sense, of course you go for it. Two or three shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Walking Dead turn you from a joke of a classic movie channel to a bad ass cable powerhouse.

| IP: Logged

Mike Frese
Master Film Handler

Posts: 465
From: Holts Summit, MO
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 04-29-2013 10:22 PM

quote: Frank Angel
Surely you are not comparing the profits that can be squeezed out of a Direct-to-DVD production with that of a Hollywood blockbuster like IRON MAN n or TRANSFORMERS n or any of the other tent-pole titles? There is a reason no Direct-to-DVD production has ever won an Oscar, or spawned a merchandising market or a tie-in with the likes of McDonalds or Burger King.

We are comparing apples and oranges here...very small, unappealing oranges at that.

We have plenty of tent-pole titles. This summer's lineup is as big as I can remember it. Can we really handle any more on the schedule? Did anyone ever think that any exhibitor was not going to play Iron Man 3? I did not.

Frank, you mentioned that direct to dvd was dead and that made for tv was a joke. Made for TV is big right now for many reasons that have already been mentioned. And plenty of people are making good money for it. Many of these TV seasons are costing as much as the decent titles that are made each year theatrically.

BTW, when do tent pole titles win any oscars? Happens about once every 15 years maybe? BTW, by my experience at least half of people do not care what the critics say anyway.

There was a run of titles starring Jim Caviezel that made me as much money (when I owned video stores) as many of the $200m grossing movies did: Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, Madison, & Unknown (all solid 6.0+ IMDB scores).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-29-2013 10:59 PM

You keep comparing the movie business to the video business. Even though they overlap in terms of product, they are not the same thing.

There are many movies from the early 2000s that are fondly remembered today. Let's see you name one direct-to-video program made ten years ago that's still remembered fondly today.

By contrast, 2003's biggest movies included Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Finding Nemo, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Secondhand Lions, Elf, School of Rock, and Catch Me If You Can. That list doesn't even include the "academy award winners" that weren't big grossers for us.

TV accounts for more "dollars" than movies because of the sheer numbers of TV households involved. But as disposable as modern movies are, TV is an even more disposable medium, simply due to the breakneck pace at which it devours its stars and hit series.

| IP: Logged

Mike Frese
Master Film Handler

Posts: 465
From: Holts Summit, MO
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 04-30-2013 08:07 AM

No Mike. I was trying to show where Frank was wrong about direct to video and made for tv. I never said that either of those would replace theatrical. What I did was share the news story and how it will affect the small exhibitors like you.

As you know, the majority of the forum contributors are more booth oriented vs. back office. Which is why I shared the story to begin with.

Mike they go hand in hand with each other. Both are important and related. Home Video historically has made a lot of money for the studios. That amount of money earned has dropped with the dying of video stores. Some of that has been replaced with made for tv. Lionsgate for example produces Mad Men.

I would say the buzz over TV shows is pretty equivalent to the biggest movies each year. And that is growing.

Questions for you Mike: Is this summer packed with big movies? Do we really need anymore tent-pole titles? My son and I counted 16 movies we would like to see this summer starting with Iron Man 3. Yes, it would be nice to have the movies spread out but the movie going consumer just does not go to the movies all year.

Most importantly to me: Can we get the adult (over 25 years olds) to come to the theaters? I only go to the movies with my kids (9 & 11). I can wait for everything else to watch in the comfort of my home (including movies I played in our theater!). And I am a tight-ass. That story sounds very similar to many.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-30-2013 11:28 AM

I realize that the two industries need each other. It just always bugs me that the TV "universe" feels like they make all the hits, when it's just not true.

As for this summer, it's front-loaded, like always. There is room for more "tentpoles" in August.

It's been proven time and time again that people will go to movies any time of the year. Look at how they flocked to the first Ice Age or Rio or The Lorax, which all came out in early spring. We did just fine with Lincoln, which was a Christmas movie but didn't make it to the "hinterlands" until February.

It's the studios who can't seem to get over the idea that it must come out in the summer if it's a big movie. Every time something like "Hunger Games" comes along in the off season and does killer business, you would think they'd figure it out. People want to go to movies ALL year, not just summertime.

And...keep in mind that not everybody has young kids. Within a few years your kids probably won't be caught dead being seen at the movies with you! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Jarod Reddig
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 513
From: Hays, Ks
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 05-01-2013 01:25 AM

It's really true what you say Mike B. It doesn't matter what time of year it is if a good movie comes out people will go see it. Last week my folks and my wife and I went to see 42 and it was a sold out show. On a Wednesday night as well. Great movie IMO too This may be the norm at some places but at my local cinema the only sell outs are big blockbuster midnite releases and occasionally Saturday nights. And it had been there a week already. Word gets out and people want to see a great flick. Hollywood is always trying to crack the code on how to make more money. It's easy just make good moves. It's been provin time and time again wether it's winter, spring, summer, or fall.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 05-01-2013 01:37 AM

You've got that right Jarod. Unfortunately for exhibitors Hollywood has for the last couple of decades apparently developed the attitude that if a film is promoted heavily it will succeed. The public has gotten wise to that scam and is staying away from the boxoffice in droves.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-01-2013 01:55 AM

quote: Robert E. Allen
The public has gotten wise to that scam and is staying away from the boxoffice in droves.

Actually 2012 boxoffice admissions were UP over 2011, as much as the doom-sayers hate to admit it as they're predicting the industry's demise (again).

Fortunately, week after week we get nice crowds who come out of the theater commenting on how much they liked the movie. I never hear anybody griping that "all of today's movies suck," except from people who never go to movies.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.