Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by TA (A) on October 28, 2004 at 18:24:23

In Reply to: Hey, you want better quality movies? Then posted by tinear on October 28, 2004 at 04:51:16:

> Vegging at home and renting films means the "better" films are losing their best chance at a decent gross.

I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not convinced this is the way to go.

First, we're not going to put the films we like into any competitive league with the big boy films on the weekend gross tables. That a film opens at number 1 or number 2 means more than that a film opens at number 150 or 151.

Second, you are wrong to assume that movies get no "credit" for a rental versus a theater ticket. Renting a film encourages your rental source to stock more copies. I would even suggest that in the long run, a film gets more milage out of an extra copy on the rental shelf forever than an extra boost in its theatrical run. Keep it on the shelf, and more people will see it, then more people will support the filmmaker's next projects.

Third, you are wrong to think that gross revenues is the key to encouraging more like films to be made. Move up the chain, and you'll find investors who are looking to make a profit. Going to the theater supports *theaters*, renting a film supports *rental stores* ... but isn't it the people making the art that we really want to support after all?

Fourth is a tricky argument. As indies become more successful, have you noticed how they look more and more like Hollywood movies than the sort of films that we thought of as "indie" films? The kind of films guys on this board like ... well, we like 'em just they way they are. Financed by people who are interested in putting a vision on the screen (and not losing their shirt), not guys charmed by gross figures. Start making indies into a real money machine, and as indie investors turn to financing hitmakers instead of the artists, you're just going to ruin the field.

Fifth, you're thinking of the movie business like it's 1975 -- no VCRs, no cable, no airline showing. The market for films after their theatrical run (licensing to cable, dvd sales, rental, etc.) makes up a huge part of the business. I'm talking like over half of what a film takes in. That's considered in the overall picture for financing a film. Whether you support a film in the theater or after ... as long as you're not pirating the film, you're gonna do good for the bottom line of the film.

(There's a funny line in Four Rooms when Quentin Tarrentino complains that back when they made Jaws, no one ever said, "We'll make it back on video")

Finally, of all the art in the world to throw my money at, why films? Classical music and jazz need more support than indie films. I'd be more upset if my local jazz club shut down than if Woody Allen couldn't make his next film. I applaud people like Victor for sitting on his ass at home and putting money into his local orchestra (check out the BAT website) instead of his local AMC Theater.

Sittin' on my ass and damn proud of it!!! (patriotic hymn playing in background)

"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus