Iger makes a death threat?

Moonliner · 08-19-2005, 10:51 AM

Interesting article.

Apparently Robert Iger has suggeted releasing DVD's along with theartrical debutes and the idea was not warmly accepted by therater folks.

Matterhorn Fan · 08-19-2005, 11:04 AM

Releasing the film in theaters first gets many people to pay for the movie twice--once to see in the theater (per person), and again when something is released on DVD (per copy). Disney would end up with less money, and yes, theaters would suffer.

That said, I do prefer to watch movies at home. And I paid about nine bucks each to see Star Wars and Charlie & the Choc. Factory this summer in the theater--neither of which I plan to purchase a DVD of. Hmmm.

Moonliner · 08-19-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matterhorn Fan

Releasing the film in theaters first gets many people to pay for the movie twice--once to see in the theater (per person), and again when something is released on DVD (per copy). Disney would end up with less money, and yes, theaters would suffer.

That said, I do prefer to watch movies at home. And I paid about nine bucks each to see Star Wars and Charlie & the Choc. Factory this summer in the theater--neither of which I plan to purchase a DVD of. Hmmm.

Less money? Perhaps, but my assumption on this would be that the initial release DVD's would be considerably more expensive than a standard DVD. Rather like a hardback compared to a paperback. I suppose you could also limit the DVD sales to inside theater lobbies so you could only purchase one if you had paid to see the movie.

Disneyphile · 08-19-2005, 11:20 AM

My gods, the man's an idiot.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-19-2005, 11:25 AM

I think he's quite astute in that it would drive DVD sales higher and significantly reduce marketing costs. It will reduce cost by consolidating marketing efforts. Right now, they spend millions marketing a movie for the theater release, and then 6, 8, 10 months later have to fire up the marketing again to drive DVD sales. By releasing them simultaneously, the initial marketing blitz serves double duty with little to no extra cost. I think it will increase DVD sales because if the DVD is available during the first big push of hype, people are still excited about it and want it, whereas half a year or more down the line, it's old news. It really does make business sense.

I think it spells death for creativity, however. For a movie to do well in theaters, it has to be good enough to last several weeks, it needs good reviews and good word of mouth. Big opening weekends are a good start, but if a movie sucks, no matter how big the opening weekend, it will often fizzle. But with DVDs, it won't matter as much. Fill the stores with DVDs, hype the movie, DVD sells out day one, movie's made a profit. Who cares if it's good or not, as long as it's got a good pre-release marketing angle? Not good news.

Brigitte · 08-19-2005, 11:27 AM

I know what's keeping people out of the theaters. You have to take out a loan just to go see a movie. It cost us $50 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we didn't have to pay for one of the admissions (he's 2). We could avoid snacks I suppose, but the idea of going out to see a movie is a treat for the kids, we don't believe in telling them they can't have a treat while they watch. That was just popcorn and drinks.

Moonliner · 08-19-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brigitte

I know what's keeping people out of the theaters. You have to take out a loan just to go see a movie. It cost us $50 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we didn't have to pay for one of the admissions (he's 2). We could avoid snacks I suppose, but the idea of going out to see a movie is a treat for the kids, we don't believe in telling them they can't have a treat while they watch. That was just popcorn and drinks.

I've taken to scheduling lunch out just prior to an afternoon movie. After a large lunch, they typically don't even ask for popcorn. It costs the same or less and it's better for them.

scaeagles · 08-19-2005, 11:55 AM

If we take the kids, it's to a Sat matinee where it costs 5 or 6 rather than 9 or 10 per person. Helps a lot.

I am not sure what I think about it. As far as it being the death of the movie theatre inductry, it may very well be, but the free enterprise system means constantly having to adapt. Perhaps as GD suggested, theatre could offer cut rate DVDs for sale with a ticket to the same movie.

I do not know if it does stiffle creativity. It could have the opposite effect for the big blockbuster movies. For example, the average movie goer does not have huge in home theatres with surround sound and giant theatre quality screens. A movie like Episode III or Batman begins is a much diffent experience in a theatre than at home. Chick flicks probably don't lose much at home vs. in theatres.

So what would happen is that mega plex owners would have to come up with ways to make it worth while to be in the theatres. The creative juices will have to flow to come up with a way to preserve their industry.

As more and more consumers end up with huge home theatres, even more innovations will have to take place.

Now, granted, that's not at the movie making level. but the same thing will effect the movie making industry. As most know, almost the entire ticket price at a theatre goes to the movie, not the theatres. Theatres make their money on concessions. So what that means is that a family of 5 who spend 40-50 bucks on movie tickets may just spend 19.99 on the DVD. That's a huge loss to the movie industry.

In fact, as I think about that last point, perhaps that means they must raise the DVD price significantly, or that it is not a realistic fiscal possibility.

Prudence · 08-19-2005, 11:56 AM

I think Iger has a point. Yes, the film selection sucks this summer. But for years now I haven't wanted to see movies in the theater.

Why? Because of all the damn people. Why pay big bucks per person to fight for a parking spot, sit behind World's Tallest Human, relieve myself in bathrooms that haven't been cleaned since the bronze age, all so that I can watch glowing blue cell screens and listen to chats about last night's rendez-vous instead of experiencing the movie?

Why not wait until the movie comes out on DVD, invite over friends you actually like (or no one at all!), eat the snacks of your choice, use the bathroom whenever you want, thanks to the magic of the pause button, sit on your own comfortable furniture, and leave the car in the gargage? And all for a flat fee?

However, right now I end up not seeing movies at all. I don't want to put up with the theater "experience," but then the movie leaves the theater and I forget that I wanted to see it. Hubby says "let's go rent a movie" and I say "I can't think of anything I want to see." Or, by the time it gets to DVD I've heard that so-and-so didn't like it so I'm not going to bother.

And I can't think of any movie that I've seen on the big screen plus have on DVD. No, that's not quite true -- I went to the outdoor showing of the Holy Grail. But that doesn't really count. Mostly I see it either in the theater or at home. Usually if it's something I think is going to be really good and have repeat viewing value, I just wait for the DVD. Why pay for it twice?

I think GD's right and quality might suffer more than it already does. I think it has ever since you could first rent movies for home viewing. But as far as marketing goes, I'm probably an example of the type of consumer Iger's was thinking about.

innerSpaceman · 08-19-2005, 12:00 PM

Ghoulish is right. DVD's sold day and date with theater release is absolutely round the corner. It will be done in-theaters only, to start, and the rollout of that is already in the works.

DVD revenue is predicted to outpace box office revenue by 4-to-1 by 2010, and so consolidation of marketing expenses in favor of DVD is only what's economically prudent.

Theater owners may not be happy. Neither were makers of the Edsel.

08-19-2005, 10:51 AM	#1
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Iger makes a death threat? Interesting article. Apparently Robert Iger has suggeted releasing DVD's along with theartrical debutes and the idea was not warmly accepted by therater folks. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:04 AM	#2
Matterhorn Fan Double Agent Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Back East Posts: 2,071	Releasing the film in theaters first gets many people to pay for the movie twice--once to see in the theater (per person), and again when something is released on DVD (per copy). Disney would end up with less money, and yes, theaters would suffer. That said, I do prefer to watch movies at home. And I paid about nine bucks each to see Star Wars and Charlie & the Choc. Factory this summer in the theater--neither of which I plan to purchase a DVD of. Hmmm.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:20 AM	#4
Disneyphile SQUIRREL! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: On the curbside. Posts: 5,098	My gods, the man's an idiot.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:25 AM	#5
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I think he's quite astute in that it would drive DVD sales higher and significantly reduce marketing costs. It will reduce cost by consolidating marketing efforts. Right now, they spend millions marketing a movie for the theater release, and then 6, 8, 10 months later have to fire up the marketing again to drive DVD sales. By releasing them simultaneously, the initial marketing blitz serves double duty with little to no extra cost. I think it will increase DVD sales because if the DVD is available during the first big push of hype, people are still excited about it and want it, whereas half a year or more down the line, it's old news. It really does make business sense. I think it spells death for creativity, however. For a movie to do well in theaters, it has to be good enough to last several weeks, it needs good reviews and good word of mouth. Big opening weekends are a good start, but if a movie sucks, no matter how big the opening weekend, it will often fizzle. But with DVDs, it won't matter as much. Fill the stores with DVDs, hype the movie, DVD sells out day one, movie's made a profit. Who cares if it's good or not, as long as it's got a good pre-release marketing angle? Not good news. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:27 AM	#6
Brigitte Whatcha doin'? Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Loungin' with the kids Posts: 418	I know what's keeping people out of the theaters. You have to take out a loan just to go see a movie. It cost us $50 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we didn't have to pay for one of the admissions (he's 2). We could avoid snacks I suppose, but the idea of going out to see a movie is a treat for the kids, we don't believe in telling them they can't have a treat while they watch. That was just popcorn and drinks.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:55 AM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	If we take the kids, it's to a Sat matinee where it costs 5 or 6 rather than 9 or 10 per person. Helps a lot. I am not sure what I think about it. As far as it being the death of the movie theatre inductry, it may very well be, but the free enterprise system means constantly having to adapt. Perhaps as GD suggested, theatre could offer cut rate DVDs for sale with a ticket to the same movie. I do not know if it does stiffle creativity. It could have the opposite effect for the big blockbuster movies. For example, the average movie goer does not have huge in home theatres with surround sound and giant theatre quality screens. A movie like Episode III or Batman begins is a much diffent experience in a theatre than at home. Chick flicks probably don't lose much at home vs. in theatres. So what would happen is that mega plex owners would have to come up with ways to make it worth while to be in the theatres. The creative juices will have to flow to come up with a way to preserve their industry. As more and more consumers end up with huge home theatres, even more innovations will have to take place. Now, granted, that's not at the movie making level. but the same thing will effect the movie making industry. As most know, almost the entire ticket price at a theatre goes to the movie, not the theatres. Theatres make their money on concessions. So what that means is that a family of 5 who spend 40-50 bucks on movie tickets may just spend 19.99 on the DVD. That's a huge loss to the movie industry. In fact, as I think about that last point, perhaps that means they must raise the DVD price significantly, or that it is not a realistic fiscal possibility.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 11:56 AM	#9
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I think Iger has a point. Yes, the film selection sucks this summer. But for years now I haven't wanted to see movies in the theater. Why? Because of all the damn people. Why pay big bucks per person to fight for a parking spot, sit behind World's Tallest Human, relieve myself in bathrooms that haven't been cleaned since the bronze age, all so that I can watch glowing blue cell screens and listen to chats about last night's rendez-vous instead of experiencing the movie? Why not wait until the movie comes out on DVD, invite over friends you actually like (or no one at all!), eat the snacks of your choice, use the bathroom whenever you want, thanks to the magic of the pause button, sit on your own comfortable furniture, and leave the car in the gargage? And all for a flat fee? However, right now I end up not seeing movies at all. I don't want to put up with the theater "experience," but then the movie leaves the theater and I forget that I wanted to see it. Hubby says "let's go rent a movie" and I say "I can't think of anything I want to see." Or, by the time it gets to DVD I've heard that so-and-so didn't like it so I'm not going to bother. And I can't think of any movie that I've seen on the big screen plus have on DVD. No, that's not quite true -- I went to the outdoor showing of the Holy Grail. But that doesn't really count. Mostly I see it either in the theater or at home. Usually if it's something I think is going to be really good and have repeat viewing value, I just wait for the DVD. Why pay for it twice? I think GD's right and quality might suffer more than it already does. I think it has ever since you could first rent movies for home viewing. But as far as marketing goes, I'm probably an example of the type of consumer Iger's was thinking about. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 12:00 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ghoulish is right. DVD's sold day and date with theater release is absolutely round the corner. It will be done in-theaters only, to start, and the rollout of that is already in the works. DVD revenue is predicted to outpace box office revenue by 4-to-1 by 2010, and so consolidation of marketing expenses in favor of DVD is only what's economically prudent. Theater owners may not be happy. Neither were makers of the Edsel.
	Submit to Quotes