I read an interesting article that covered a speech that James Cameron gave recently at the National Association of Broadcasters' (NAB) Digital Cinema Summit. The key focus of his speech was that digital cinema was a good thing because it enabled the production and delivery of 3D films, which would be the saviour of movies.
"...Digital 3-D is a revolutionary form of showmanship that is within our grasp. It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong."
I scrunched my face up a bit puzzled. Why on earth would a company that makes a product (i.e., Hollywood and their product is movies) want to make it so that they would intentionally limit the use and/or enjoyment of that product. The movies that people buy and view on their portable devices makes up a huge amount of the industries revenue. And that is growing...
By 2009, our forecast model predicts a worldwide retail value of US$ 50 Billion, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 5.4% for annual sales value of Hollywood Video Content sold at retail.
Why would you want to cut into that? If you want to pack movie theaters you don't do it by pissing customers off that something they've seen in theater can't be watched at home on their home entertainment system, or a laptop or iPod or whatever else becomes available. That alienates people.
The second point of his speech carries a fundamental flaw as well.
"...one of the strongest reasons I've been pushing 3-D for the past few years because it offers a powerful experience which you can only have in the movie theater."
No matter what kind of experience you deliver via 3D in a theater, given time, it will become available for the home theater. Look at the home theaters today - they rival what you get in a movie theater in terms of sound and quality of the visuals (and the popcorn is cheaper). I find it sad that he finds the strongest reason to make 3D film is a scheme to lock customers in. Wouldn't the strongest reason be because it delivers unique, entertaining, breathtaking and enjoyable content? It always gets back to that eh? The content. Good content will drive people to consume the product. Good content will get consumed in theaters, at home and on portable devices. Hopefully Hollywood will understand that and explain it to Mr. Cameron.
To read the entire article I was referencing just click here.
There is also a few rebel producers this year who are fighting a totally set in tradition in Hollywood which is to release movies in theaters, then later on video, then PPV, then pay movie network, then cable.. it has been like that for years and they think they make the most money like this.
Those producers are releasing their movie at the same time in theaters, dvd and on PPV. I think that is wonderful, and it really gives customers choice.
Some movies you really, really want to see in theater, to fully experience it... as a new parent, I can now appreciate also PPV, since it is very difficult to attend a movie with the family. If I can see a movie when it comes out, at home, rather than wait over 6 months, I'll pay extra!
And not only that... think about the emotional side of things. Sometimes when you are coming out of the theater, excited about a movie.. isn't it just possible that you'll get taken in and buy the DVD right away if it is available?
it certainly doesn't sound like a necessary decrease in revenue to me.
Posted by: Tempus | April 26, 2006 at 01:58 PM