(06-25-2013 08:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote: Superman: Man of Steel opened on something like 18,000 screens.
It's not crazy to think that in the future, a top movie might open on only 1,000 screens and charge $50 or $100 and run in the theatres for six months to a year instead of 2 to 4 weeks before moving to the dollar screens.
That's what Hollywood might like to happen, but like I've said, I think it's heading in the exact opposite direction where content is going to have to be aggregated with other types of content in order to reach consumers. Trying to stand alone (whether you're Alabama in selling games or Warner Bros. in opening up Superman and Batman movies) is not going to be viable with the way that we consume mass market entertainment.
Now, people have shown to pay a premium for special "experiences". Hence, your experience going to a Broadway show, paying for good seats at a sporting event, seeing acts like the Rolling Stones in concert, etc. These are experiences that you can't easily replicate in your own home.
However, with respect to movies (and I believe with major sports unless you're sitting in great seats), I think what Lucas and Spielberg are arguing is to attempt to turn back time in a way that ultimately can't really work. Movies used to have runs in theaters lasting a year or more (and would be re-released in subsequent years if they were popular enough) in the pre-VCR days, but that time passed for a reason. Hollywood *wants* going to the movies to be that type of unparalleled "experience", but it's tough because of how much better technology is in our own homes. In fact, it's hard enough to get people to watch the tent pole movies like Man of Steel compared to 20 years ago, much less the ones that aren't associated with major franchises. People increasingly don't mind waiting a few months for the Blu-Ray or even a couple of years for a movie to be streamed on Netflix. Movie and TV producers are going to have to adapt to this world of aggregated and easy access to content in the same way that musical artists had to face almost immediately at the dawn of the wide use of the Internet with Napster and other file sharing services. Musical artists eventually had to find a price point to mitigate piracy (which meant selling singles for around $1 as opposed to trying to force us to buy entire albums for $15 or $20). No one will ever completely get rid of piracy, but music is now being sold at a level where most people don't have the need to find it for free in reaction to a feeling that they're getting ripped off if they pay for it. Selling movie tickets for $50 or $100 is, in essence, trying to get people to buy entire music albums again when they clearly don't want that and would only supercharge the piracy market.
Plus, once again, if Alabama thought that this pricing structure was going to permeate in the future, then why in the heck did they just GIVE UP their third tier rights where they were already doing exactly what you are proposing (i.e. sell rights on their own or charge for PPV)? It's because they can't (and don't) want to just rely on their hardcore fan base alone. The state of Alabama itself isn't that valuable in the scheme of things. A school that has great access to Texas, Florida and Georgia on top of owning the state of Alabama via the SEC, though, is extremely valuable.
Aggregation is still where we're heading - we want access to a huge suite of content for one "reasonable" price. The increasing rejection of basic cable is NOT a rejection of "buffet" pricing, but rather it's based in a belief that the price is no longer "reasonable". This is MUCH different than thinking that people will revert to PPV viewing habits, which they have continuously shown to hate compared to paying for basic cable or Netflix.
/
If Movies Cost $100 what will happen to sports?
