Michael Morris
First Post
Stupidity like that is what encourages legitimate consumers to resort to piracy.
Spider-Man 2 tanks at the box office this weekend
- Thread starter Kai Lord
- Start date
Heretic Apostate
First Post
Yup. I'd end up copying like crazy, at that point...
I mean, I'm already paying an average of about $12-$14 for DVDs (I buy a lot from the huge bargain bin at Wal-Mart). And I only watch movies when I'm in the mood--which hasn't been the case in the last couple of weeks. So I'd be stuck buying the now higher-priced DVDs-without-expiration-dates.
Aren't DVDs priced high enough already? Sheesh...
I mean, I'm already paying an average of about $12-$14 for DVDs (I buy a lot from the huge bargain bin at Wal-Mart). And I only watch movies when I'm in the mood--which hasn't been the case in the last couple of weeks. So I'd be stuck buying the now higher-priced DVDs-without-expiration-dates.
Aren't DVDs priced high enough already? Sheesh...
Green Knight
First Post
Counting its overseas take, Spider-Man 2 has already made $223.1 million. So if the budget is, in fact, $210 million, then it's already made a $13 million profit in only 6 days. I'd say that investment was MORE then worth it. And as Henry said, it'll likely make more money the the first Spider-Man movie, which made $821.7 million worldwide. So Spider-Man 2 will likely make back somewhere in the neighborhood of 400% of the investment put into it. That's a pretty good neighborhood, when you get right down to it.
And besides, while percentages are nice, actual dollar amounts are better. It's better to make a 400% profit on a movie which cost $210 million then it is to make a 400% profit on a movie which cost $15 million. The risk is greater, but if it pays off, WHOA MAMA!
And besides, while percentages are nice, actual dollar amounts are better. It's better to make a 400% profit on a movie which cost $210 million then it is to make a 400% profit on a movie which cost $15 million. The risk is greater, but if it pays off, WHOA MAMA!
There is number of plays and then there is the expiring date that Microsoft is working on, smart chip in DVD, that causes the DVD to die after a period of time, viewed or not viewed, which pisses me off, it is part of their anti-piracy stuff, the smart chip updates are service fee and registration.Datt said:
Dimwhit
Explorer
I read an article yesterday that said Spider-Man 2 cost about $200 million to make and market (don't forget the marketing costs!). So yeah, it's going to make a ton of profit in the theater along. Probably in the $600-$700 million range.
Which of course makes Sam Raimi a God at Sony (I think that's the studio). So hopefully a fourth Evil Dead will be on the way soon...
There are websites that adjust movie box office numbers for inflations. Doesn't give number if tickets, but it's close. I believe Gone With the Wind still kicks every other movie out there (including Titanic) for total tickets sold. People still don't see movies today as much as they did in the golden days of Hollywood (40's and 50's or so).
Edit: Here is a good site with inflation-adjusted numbers. (Well, doesn't have the dollars, but it ranks the movies--interesting list.)
Which of course makes Sam Raimi a God at Sony (I think that's the studio). So hopefully a fourth Evil Dead will be on the way soon...
Heretic Apostate said:
There are websites that adjust movie box office numbers for inflations. Doesn't give number if tickets, but it's close. I believe Gone With the Wind still kicks every other movie out there (including Titanic) for total tickets sold. People still don't see movies today as much as they did in the golden days of Hollywood (40's and 50's or so).
Edit: Here is a good site with inflation-adjusted numbers. (Well, doesn't have the dollars, but it ranks the movies--interesting list.)
Last edited:
MojoGM
First Post
Fast Learner said:
It's already been tried and failed. DIVX was a format created by Circuit City. It didn't auto destruct, but it did charge you each time you played it (you had a DIVX machine hooked to your phone line with credit card info).
Now, I suppose if they create limited view DVDs it is different than charging you, but I still think it will ultimately fail.
Plus, think of all the trash it will generate. Aren't the discarded AOL CDs enough?
Fiery James
First Post
The cost to make Spider-Man 2 was just over $200 million. Advertising and Marketing costs were about an additional $50 million.
Don't forget that releasing movies in non-domestic markets (read: not North America) racks up additional costs in production (language dubbing where necessary, print costs) and marketing.
On average, a movie makes 55% of its revenue through home video. Bigger blockbusters that have high purchase ratios can make even more -- you'll see this on monster blockbusters that rake in huge at the theatre and STILL make hundreds of millions via DVD.
The DVD technology that was tested by Disney was something that I was initially involved in, but my company backed out due to time and resource constraints. Either way, I got to handle the Disposable DVDs in the early stages. They were, for the most part, catalogue title DVDs with ZERO bells & whistles -- possibly the movie trailer, but nothing extra, like audio commentary or extra features. They are regular DVDs that are covered with a special coating that begins oxydizing when they are exposed to air. The DVD turns black and is unplayable after 48 hours (in my testing, they actually lasted about 96 hours or more, but consider that a safety margin).
There are a lot of issues with this technology, and you won't see it's widespread adoption by other studios. It's a novelty that was tried out for various reasons (read: the end results were not necessarily to introduce it to the market, but could be seen as part of a political game played by the studios and retailers), and it won't be replacing traditional DVD any time soon.
The big DVD changes on the horizon will be the result of the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray DVD technology. Both allow much more data to be held on a DVD. The studios are currently split on their support, which will hinder the development of this technology. One side wants to further theirs because they own a piece of the technology (much like Warner benefits from all DVD sales-- witness their rush releases and low-priced catalogue early in the evolution of DVD to help it's adoption), while other studios are supporting the side that allows backwards compatibility.
That's some info in a nutshell, and probably more than anyone wanted or asked for, but I've been in the home video industry for nearly 15 years and this stuff just bubbles forth sometimes.
* Spider-Man figures don't even take into consideration the licensing fees and ancillary products sold. Remember that Lion King made over a BILLION DOLLARS thanks to the theatrical release, VHS, CDs and stuffed animals!
- James
Don't forget that releasing movies in non-domestic markets (read: not North America) racks up additional costs in production (language dubbing where necessary, print costs) and marketing.
On average, a movie makes 55% of its revenue through home video. Bigger blockbusters that have high purchase ratios can make even more -- you'll see this on monster blockbusters that rake in huge at the theatre and STILL make hundreds of millions via DVD.
The DVD technology that was tested by Disney was something that I was initially involved in, but my company backed out due to time and resource constraints. Either way, I got to handle the Disposable DVDs in the early stages. They were, for the most part, catalogue title DVDs with ZERO bells & whistles -- possibly the movie trailer, but nothing extra, like audio commentary or extra features. They are regular DVDs that are covered with a special coating that begins oxydizing when they are exposed to air. The DVD turns black and is unplayable after 48 hours (in my testing, they actually lasted about 96 hours or more, but consider that a safety margin).
There are a lot of issues with this technology, and you won't see it's widespread adoption by other studios. It's a novelty that was tried out for various reasons (read: the end results were not necessarily to introduce it to the market, but could be seen as part of a political game played by the studios and retailers), and it won't be replacing traditional DVD any time soon.
The big DVD changes on the horizon will be the result of the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray DVD technology. Both allow much more data to be held on a DVD. The studios are currently split on their support, which will hinder the development of this technology. One side wants to further theirs because they own a piece of the technology (much like Warner benefits from all DVD sales-- witness their rush releases and low-priced catalogue early in the evolution of DVD to help it's adoption), while other studios are supporting the side that allows backwards compatibility.
That's some info in a nutshell, and probably more than anyone wanted or asked for, but I've been in the home video industry for nearly 15 years and this stuff just bubbles forth sometimes.
* Spider-Man figures don't even take into consideration the licensing fees and ancillary products sold. Remember that Lion King made over a BILLION DOLLARS thanks to the theatrical release, VHS, CDs and stuffed animals!
- James
Fast Learner said:
From what I understand, a movie generally has to earn 3x it's cost to break even once you take into account distribution and advertising costs. Though I suspect the multiplier may be lower with very expensive films.
For example if you've got the movie opening on 2,500 screens that means you need 2,500 copies of the film and at aproximately $2,000 dollars a film, that's $5 mil just for the copies of the film.
Then think of all the comercials you see for a film and remember that each one of those that's shown is a minimum of several thousand dollars (superbowl comercials can run millions for a single 30 sec spot).
Similar Threads
