James2 - 5:23 pm on Jan 13, 2011 (gmt 0)
I dunno. Films cost an incredible amount of money to make and distribute. Look at MGM, they are only just starting the new Bond film as they nearly went bust. They were due to start ages ago. One bad film can break a studio, every film is a risk which is why a lot of them are generic and less likely to break the mould. Because they are safer bets for a return on the investment let alone a profit.
It's understandable to feel that the distribution channels rape the muscians for example but without them the artists wouldn't get promoted. Cover art, marketing, production costs (in all forms, studio time, producers, remixes etc), touring costs (venues/ roadies/ equipment/ lighting/ sound) cost a significant outlay. The labels must first invest in these and they pay the artists an advance against potential earnings which are estimated. The artists then have to cover their advance etc before they can start receiving royalties etc. A lot goes on behind the scenes which costs a lot of money. And then it's still a risk. Robbie Williams signed to some label for 80mil and didn't make anywhere near that back for them.
There are rare example obviously like the Arctic Monkeys or Nizlopi who make it on their own (or say Kevin Smith in film) but they are rare examples and the majority can't cover the initial expenses so need label's or film studio's money.
7 minutes of adverts is hardly a huge imposition. Just because a film takes almost two hours to watch doesn't mean it took that time to make. Preproduction, shooting, star salary, post production, promotion, reshooting, props make up, sound, staff, distribution etc. They take years often.