Dreamworks CEO Wants To Charge By Screen Size

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks Animation, says within ten years the industry will be charging by screen size. What do you think? Do you like the idea or not?

“I think the model will change and you won’t pay for the window of availability. A movie will come out and you will have 17 days, that’s exactly three weekends, which is 95% of the revenue for 98% of movies. On the 18th day, these movies will be available everywhere ubiquitously and you will pay for the size. A movie screen will be $15. A 75” TV will be $4.00. A smartphone will be $1.99. That enterprise that will exist throughout the world, when that happens, and it will happen, it will reinvent the enterprise of movies,” he told the crowd.
Click to expand...
 
I charge people for the privilege to bask in my vision. Studios get to pay me for each organ that I use to let the movie give the experience to me.
 
Maybe by then every movie wont be a remake or a rehashed plot line.

Maybe Hollywood will earn my money with some original content for a change.

Maybe
 
I'm all for moving up the availibility of movies, I rather like my home theatre, and popcorn is much cheaper.
 
Phrased that way, it will certainly appeal to industry types and offend geeks. You *could* phrase it differently and most geeks would nod their heads in understanding (while you'd cook the brains of the industry types beyond repair).

Here, lemme try...

It will be more normalized to simultaneously release movies in a number of distinct digital encoding formats. High-compression 720p or even 480p for $1.99, low-compression 1080p for $4.00, or no-compression 4k files for $15.00.
Click to expand...

...see? Perfectly sensible when viewed that way, which is all he's really saying.
 
Thanks, dderidex. That makes a lot more sense. I think that's quite fair as long as you get everything below as well.
 
A smartphone is half the price of a 75" screen? Yeah, that seems fair...

I guess you may be able to use HDMI out on the smartphone, but that still seems silly.
 
Uh... Ask the MPAA. When it comes to them they charge/fine people no matter what the resolution. After all your paying for the right to 'lease' content; right? Because it's all about the 'content'.... right, or am I wrong? Ugh...
Just give everyone the shaft and charge everyone $20 bucks and call it good. You know they will (administer shaft) in the long run anyway.
 
So buy it for my smartphone and cast it to my TV for half the price? Brilliant! Anyway, just sell me the high quality physical media with a DRM free digital copy for $15 or less and I'll be happy.

Also wasn't there some guy last year talking about how in 10 years a movie ticket would be $150+?
 
dderidex said:
Phrased that way, it will certainly appeal to industry types and offend geeks. You *could* phrase it differently and most geeks would nod their heads in understanding (while you'd cook the brains of the industry types beyond repair).

Here, lemme try...



...see? Perfectly sensible when viewed that way, which is all he's really saying.
Click to expand...

But then shouldn't my phone be more than 1.99? It's a 1080x1920 screen. In 10 years I'm sure it'll be a large resolution too.
 
Interesting concept which seems nice 18 days after release it'll be available for the home & mobile market? While great for consumers, theaters will scream rape at the top of their lungs since they need those rare blockbusters that go longer and ends up having the revenue stream go into their pockets.
 
I'm all for this and I'd be okay with paying by the resolution, if that's how they actually sell it. If they try to scam people on resolution, audio quality, compression, # of views, whether or not I actually "own" the content or merely have a license to view it on a device, etc. I would probably actually buy movies if this was the offering. Paying $12 for 2 hours in a theater with annoying people talking or eating food isn't my ideal experience.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Interesting concept which seems nice 18 days after release it'll be available for the home & mobile market? While great for consumers, theaters will scream rape at the top of their lungs since they need those rare blockbusters that go longer and ends up having the revenue stream go into their pockets.
Click to expand...

pshhh, their profit is in concessions. :eek:
 
Actually, things will stay exactly the same. A shitty movie that no one want's to watch will still be 5$ at walmart after its two week box office flop.
 
IMHO, this is how pricing should be. Rentals alone are usually $4+ for 480p movies on most streaming services.
 
49241133.jpg
 
seems alright to me, $15 per ticket does seem a bit steep tho i think its like 8$ a ticket around here, if you make movie tickets too high tho and only 3 weeks to stream or buy blu-ray then you will push normal movie goers to just wait and pay $4 for the whole family to watch it vs $30-75 + the price of popcorn and drinks.

if the 15$ includes a drink and popcorn then that is fine
 
Wildace said:
seems alright to me, $15 per ticket does seem a bit steep tho i think its like 8$ a ticket around here, if you make movie tickets too high tho and only 3 weeks to stream or buy blu-ray then you will push normal movie goers to just wait and pay $4 for the whole family to watch it vs $30-75 + the price of popcorn and drinks.

if the 15$ includes a drink and popcorn then that is fine
Click to expand...

If they did this "set in stone" where each movie followed the schedule, the theater industry would suffer.
 
$4 to get a movie for home? I'd pick home every time... I don't like the theater that much..
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
IMHO, this is how pricing should be. Rentals alone are usually $4+ for 480p movies on most streaming services.
Click to expand...

And here's where you screwed up.

He's talking about ACTUAL SCREEN SIZE (not resolution). You're talking about resolution (480p), not screen size.

So you'd pay more to see it on a 27" 1920x1080 monitor than you would on a 20" 1920x1080 monitor.

If they wanted to base it off normal resolutions, SD, HD, SHD, great. I can see paying more that way, as HD and SHD streams require higher bandwidth.

But this luddite jackass wants to charge basedly solely on the dimensions of the screen.

Never mind that resolution has been thoroughly decoupled from screen size for years now.

This makes his idea probably the dumbest, craziest possible suggestion.

It's so dumb that he's overblown my quota for idiocy this quarter.
 
Looking back.

A plan like this would have cost The Avengers roughly 1.1 BILLION in ticket revenues.

This plan would have also cost Avatar roughly 2 BILLION in ticket revenues.

Maybe this flash-in-the-pan metric fits for Dreamworks films. But his harebrained scheme would cost the industry billions of dollars in revenue every year.
 
I think trying to fit the whole industry into a single model, any model, is foolish. The way the film industry is going to thrive is if there are multiple distribution & revenue paths available. Let each studio decide what's best for each one of their movies, and let people experiment with new ways of selling their product. Though I will say this for his plan. If you shrink the window from theatrical release to home availability down to less than three weeks, theater revenue is going to drop significantly. Then the theaters are going to try and make up that revenue elsewhere, by increasing ticket prices even more, or charging even crazier concession prices, or making the price premium for 3D movies even more ridiculous. And that's just going to drive even more people away.
 
Chas said:
Looking back.

A plan like this would have cost The Avengers roughly 1.1 BILLION in ticket revenues.

This plan would have also cost Avatar roughly 2 BILLION in ticket revenues.

Maybe this flash-in-the-pan metric fits for Dreamworks films. But his harebrained scheme would cost the industry billions of dollars in revenue every year.
Click to expand...

Excellent.
 
Chas said:
Looking back.

A plan like this would have cost The Avengers roughly 1.1 BILLION in ticket revenues.

This plan would have also cost Avatar roughly 2 BILLION in ticket revenues.

Maybe this flash-in-the-pan metric fits for Dreamworks films. But his harebrained scheme would cost the industry billions of dollars in revenue every year.
Click to expand...

How do you get that it would have cost them money when these proposed ticket prices are about 50% higher than current ones?
 
pretty sure when he said "screen size" he was generalizing.

the $1.99 phone version would most def. be a low res version not designed for your tv and would look like SD video trying to watch it on a tv.

75" TV was $4 which basically means a resolution designed for the home which really right now that is about 1080p content since 4k is not really mainstream yet because the delivery methods for 4k content is limited.

so your 4$ purchase would purchase a high quality 1080p content for TV sizes ranging from 21" upto 75" and your 1.99 purchase if for lower res phone size screen where capacity of the mobile device and small screen will get away with buying a lower res version and it will be just fine.

i really don't think he means if you have a 52" tv you will pay a different price than someone with a 32" tv there is no way that would be marketable unless you have to register your tv's serial number in what ever streaming service you are using for them to verify "screen size"

all he means is, theaters will have a set price, home viewing will have a set price, and mobile phones will have a set price. sure you can buy that 1.99 video for your phone and send it to the tv but the quality all stretched will likely suck.
 
dderidex said:
Phrased that way, it will certainly appeal to industry types and offend geeks. You *could* phrase it differently and most geeks would nod their heads in understanding (while you'd cook the brains of the industry types beyond repair).

Here, lemme try...



...see? Perfectly sensible when viewed that way, which is all he's really saying.
Click to expand...

He is not even saying that, what he said is that resolution being the only thing worth charging for because the content sucks. :p
 
fuck that... I give very little money to Hollywood as it is... People and their fucking business models... fuck them. That's why we have the newsgroups. Doesn't discriminate screen sizes or devices.
 
Wildace said:
seems alright to me, $15 per ticket does seem a bit steep tho i think its like 8$ a ticket around here, if you make movie tickets too high tho and only 3 weeks to stream or buy blu-ray then you will push normal movie goers to just wait and pay $4 for the whole family to watch it vs $30-75 + the price of popcorn and drinks.

if the 15$ includes a drink and popcorn then that is fine
Click to expand...

$15 including a drink and popcorn? LOL

$12 at any theater within a 30 minute drive just for a ticket, which doesn't include any additional fees for imax or 3d(which can jack the price up to $18 a ticket). And if you bought the tickets online, you're paying a convenience fee on top of that. Even the child's ticket price that only goes up to age 7 if I remember right ends up as high as $15. A family of 4(2 adults, and 2 children that still qualify for the discount) you're looking at almost $70 not including junk food from the concession stand.

$5+ for a soda

$6+ for popcorn

What third world do you live in where a movie ticket is still only $8? I haven't seen a regular ticket that low since maybe 2003? Even the early bird matinee first showing of the day at theaters(the ones that still even do that) for an 11:30am showing on weekdays only is $7.50 because everyone is at work or in school.

Then on top of the insane prices you're paying, you still end up in a filthy theater with sticky floors and crap under the seats.

I would GLADLY pay $4 to see a movie in my own home if the quality is decent, using my own HT setup and my own couch with my own snacks and drinks, getting a much better viewing experience, than pay the insane prices that theaters charge.
 
Merc1138 said:
$15 including a drink and popcorn? LOL

$12 at any theater within a 30 minute drive just for a ticket, which doesn't include any additional fees for imax or 3d(which can jack the price up to $18 a ticket). And if you bought the tickets online, you're paying a convenience fee on top of that. Even the child's ticket price that only goes up to age 7 if I remember right ends up as high as $15. A family of 4(2 adults, and 2 children that still qualify for the discount) you're looking at almost $70 not including junk food from the concession stand.

$5+ for a soda

$6+ for popcorn

What third world do you live in where a movie ticket is still only $8? I haven't seen a regular ticket that low since maybe 2003? Even the early bird matinee first showing of the day at theaters(the ones that still even do that) for an 11:30am showing on weekdays only is $7.50 because everyone is at work or in school.

Then on top of the insane prices you're paying, you still end up in a filthy theater with sticky floors and crap under the seats.

I would GLADLY pay $4 to see a movie in my own home if the quality is decent, using my own HT setup and my own couch with my own snacks and drinks, getting a much better viewing experience, than pay the insane prices that theaters charge.
Click to expand...

Then you're doing it wrong or you're not looking hard enough. Hell , I even get free tickets for movie screenings via gofobo. For AMC , you can buy 2 tickets for $15 at Costco. Which is good at AMC's dine in theater ( and this is in Los Angeles)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top