The film market has been roughly the same since the 20's. Studios produce a bunch of movies for revenue and awards every year, for an affordable ticket price, at roughly the same box office run. Why in the world would it change after nearly a century?
...and of course there's the bigger issue of finite individual time vs. many and growing entertainment choices.
I suspect that those are the two main things at work. And, yeah, like somebody said, hey, these two guys are, like, nearly the two guys responsible for the blockbuster model. And now they're wisely disparaging it? Seems kind of sideways to me. Seems kind of like a sideways way for them to admit that the premium cable and internet providers are doing it, in some ways, better these days. But they don't want to quite admit it flat out, either.
And does the evidence really support their dire prediction? Maybe. But I doubt that it will be because there's going to be a watershed season in which half a dozen tent poles die at the box office and explode the current model. More likely, I'll bet, it will be far less dramatic; they'll simply not be able to compete with the "many and growing entertainment choices" which require far less overhead to produce and far less risk, while at the same time garnering lots of viewership and enthusiasm.
Anyway. I remember when way back in the olden days, 1995, when it was such a scandal that
Waterworld's budget was reputed to be 100 million. I'm sure that's what it was supposed to be back then, and remember how ape-**** people, or at least the media went over that. Now I see that IMDb puts it at 175 million. And I think it was not long after that that people were saying that spectaculars would just not be able to be made anymore because of those rising costs. And yet, here we are, more than a decade and half later, and look at the amazing budgets and the amazing spectaculars still being made.
Look at "After Earth" - $135 million production budget, $100 million marketing budget, who knows how much Will Smith made but I'm guessing it was far less than the marketing budget. Even with some success in foreign sales they haven't even covered the marketing budget yet after a few weeks in release.
Seems like it could support what Lu-Berg are (is?) predicting. On the other hand, being a little more cynical, I might suggest that any of us could have given them a measured assessment of their pitch and not given it the green light --and saved them the money and the trouble. You want to spend 135 million (before the marketing costs, as you pointed out IDOM) on a vehicle for your son? Okay, that's nice. You want to go with
that story? Hmmmmm. Hey, Will, why don't we find a better vehicle, huh? Does it prove Lu-Berg right? Or is it just one more example of not the best decision making on one project, which happens...like s*** happens.
Anyway, I'm guessing that going to movies at the cinema is doomed. I know there are a lot of vested interests in it now. But since when did that stop the pain of such change?
I think this is the clearest window into what's happening...now.
"...many and growing entertainment choices."
The other day I saw this thing at a local store.
LG 84" 4K TV
You could buy a cheaper car or put a down payment on a condo with that much money, etc. But of course the prices will come down, as they "always" do with such electronics. I don't have any proof, of course, but it just seems to me that Hollywood and other content deliverers will abandon the practice of bothering to release in theaters and will move to more direct delivery systems...particularly as broadband access becomes more ubiquitous.
Maybe it will take a while yet. But I'll also bet that it will be sooner than we might expect. Seems to me that that's the more apparent trend happening as we speak...er.
