Forum Moderators: open
I know we have HBO and a few other movie channels, but most of these play films already seen or hardly known.
I could go to the cinema which at its minimum would cost 120 Baht (US$ 4.X) in Thailand (maybe a little cheaper in the week) or up to close to 1000 (devide by 33 today) for the VIP sections.
So why is it that there is so much noise about piracy (about the same price people tell me - but which of course is absolutely wrong)?
Would you not click a button to watch the very latest movie on your new home entertainment system? Just like you do some sports? Get in charged to your card and not worry.
Why do they not do this? I have a lot of DVD's but I would much prefer to spend X to watch the very latest movie at home.
After all how many times do we watch a DVD more than once or even twice? Me, very rarely.
I would probably watch 3 or 4 movies a week (paid) if I could watch the absolute latest.
I am a little confused, am I missing something?
That said, most directors/producers would prefer to have their movie aired on the big screen first I'm sure. It's also hard to control numbers of viewers of a TV set versus number of seats ticketed in a cinema.
I could watch the absolute latest
I agree. I don't mind the cinema having a 4-8 week headstart, then let me have it online in HD format.
Why should terrestrial TV viewers, by far the biggest viewer group, be the people who have to wait the longest? The only reason for the delay is to ensure that the cinemas can abuse their monopoly on the film, followed by DVD release and their wider monopoly, then satellite networks and finally terrestrial TV. Monopoly abuse all the way.
Movies make the bulk of their money on the first weekend in theatres; TV cannot afford to match that basis (and probably doesn't wish to); so far, niether can the 3" screen Internet.
If you force studios to go to other media first, then (1)cinemas would die and (2) big movies would not be made.
If you want a world with no cinemas, no big movies, and a diet of 100% "tv movies", that's a matter of personal taste.
But not a choice you'd hear from a movie lover.
It's not monopoly abuse, it's business.
Yes, I get that but if you think of the millions of homes around the world that could watch a release at the same time paying X, would not that make them more money.
Would it not cut out piracy to some extent?
I was looking at my DVD selection and wondering why I have so many, when there are only a few I would watch now and again.
Surely the producers could help me by showing the movies on release for a cost. Would this not also save people from going out to get a pirate.
In fact, while I love the cinema, US$1 per househld would probably make the movie industry more than what they get now? Wouldn't it?
Could they not charge more for a 1-10 release, a little less for a 11 - 30 day release, and less for 31+ days etc?
I would pay a lot more than the 120 Baht (about 4 dollars) for a movie direct to my TV if it had just been released.
[slate.com...]
Last year, the six major studios—Disney, Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount, Universal, Sony, and their subsidiaries—had total revenues of $7.4 billion from world box-office sales, $20.9 billion from world video sales, and $17.7 billion from world television licensing. Revenues, however, are what companies record, not what they earn. And, in the case of Hollywood, the revenues from movies, DVDs, and TV yield very different earnings.
Thats before expenses. I guess to be fair you waould have to equally divide the total expenses. TV of course doesn't cost them anything is nearly all profit.
The reason you don't see DVD quality material streaming across your cable connection is because of piracy concern of course. Every major format including the current crop of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD video has fallen victim to decryption. Simply put the old saying "if it can be seen it can be copied" has yet to be proven false.
To me it smacks of an abuse of monopoly that cinemas get things first.
It goes beyond just cinemas to DVD's themselves. The world is divided into regions, if you buy a DVD in asia and bring it home to the U.S. it won't play.
[en.wikipedia.org...]
The purpose of this is to allow motion picture studios to control aspects of a release, including content, release date, and, especially, price, according to the region. Many DVD players are or can be modified to be region-free, allowing playback of all discs.
The studios want complete control of everything and if they had their way you will pay for every second of video you watch. What's ironic about the region coding is it exacerbates the the problem of piracy. If a film get released in the U.S. and not anywhere else and someone wants it the only choice they have is to get it through illegitimate sources.
They need a reality check and enter the 21st century, the business model has always been to resell you the same thing over and over and that will simply not work anymore. If the studios got together and launched their own youtube like website with the ability to view commercial laden video for free or purchase non DRM video for a reasonable price they would make fortune.
It goes beyond just cinemas to DVD's themselves. The world is divided into regions, if you buy a DVD in asia and bring it home to the U.S. it won't play.
Yes, that used to be the case here (in Thailand), but now thankfully all DVD's from any region can be watched on any of the DVD players. Before it require a little modification. For example my old Sony won't play some DVD's but my new one will play all of them, and that is from the official Sont shop.
I just reckon they would make more money doing it direct at a surplus (with the cinema slightly less) and on demand than they would right now.
I never buy pirate DVD's but I am sure those that do at 100 Baht a Master would buy a lot less if they did this.
Or Am I missing something?
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 5:35 pm (utc) on July 5, 2008]
