Yeah, some prejudice.

Yeah, some prejudice. by bulletproofheeb

The Future of Movie Theatres

Movies and the theatres they are shown in are in for a change. It's a silly jump to say they are in trouble, though that's what the entertainment industry loves to cry. It is fair to say they are in trouble if they don't recognize and adapt to the coming shift.

I am a bit of an arm chair futurist. I read up on and write about a lot of technical and social trends. At this point I think it's as safe to say for me as for anyone that I'm good at calling upcoming technological trends. Copyright and copyleft are of particular interest to me as I see this as the coming battleground for how ideas are to be regarded in the future.

I have a friend who makes no budget independent films. I thought he would be happy when I told him my prediction for movies and film. I told him that higher quality movies would be made for less money, that with the rising interest in home theatres and consumer level high definition (both in terms of viewing and producing) theatres would become less and less relevant to film distribution. I also feel that motion picture film, as with still film now, will never stop being used but will become more of a niche production market than the standard it represents today. To my surprise he did not agree with or look favourably on these ideas.

But all that seems to be the way the movie industry is headed. People are noticing the strong trends of remakes, reboots and adaptations. But instead of actually thinking about the “why” of this trend they resort to the lazy English major's brushoff off “There are no originals ideas anymore” which, to be frank, is bullshit. Anyone who looks for new contemporary writers will find new ideas every few novels or so. And looking for new writers doesn't mean picking up the best seller list for names. It takes hunting, but saying that there are no new ideas is crap. There are tons of new ideas and concepts being explored in the medium of the written word and this does not exclude that of film scripts. But none of that answers the question of “why” for all of these rehashed ideas in Hollywood. The reason for that is simple: return on investment.

Film studios are taking the same amount of money and channelling it into few numbers of films. That's not to say they are putting out a fewer number of total films but rather the money is strongly skewed to a smaller number. Small budget films get smaller budgets and large budget films get larger budgets. The problem is the budget is now the method for profit prediction. “The more expensive a film the more it should make” is not just the general rule; it is now the law of film. If you real it again you'll notice that law makes no mention of quality. Which is fine since it doesn't have to. Wolverine was recently released and while critics and fans generally gave it the thumbs down it did very well the opening weekend. As a creative adaptation and character piece it was a failure. As a movie put out by Fox Studios it was a success. It might not have been “good” but it certainly proved to be “good enough”.

And that's fine. There has always been a place in film for the spectacle along side the character study and the brooding drama. It is a perfectly valid movie type to make. And, like more artistically eyed and (usually) less commercially viable movies, those films should be accepted for the types of success they strive for.

Back to issue. Putting all of the money in theses select blockbusters means that studios are specializing. The problem is they don't realize it yet. Big name studios are now excelling at large budget spectacle works that push the edge of technology. And for the first time we are seeing a system where trickle-down theory works. Lucas championed HD digital for the Star Wars prequels and already we have hand held video cameras that record with broadcast television quality. And it is precisely this level of technology that is opening the door for smaller film makers to produce professional looking films. Theses people are able to make films that look like “real” movies, though not the spectacles that still require huge budgets. So now big studios take comfort in making remakes since a movie that's been made once has already proven itself and, in the cases of franchises, already has a fan base which is guaranteed cash for at least the first instalment. But because of camera technology these no and low budget film makers now have the ability to step into the gap in films that has come with this specialization.

So what have we covered?

• Movies with big budgets are less risky because huge profit, rather than good profit, is a necessity.

• Studios are focusing on the “spectacle” genre more and more, leaving other types of film off their lists.

• Small budget film makers have the ability to produce professional looking movies that large studios aren't making.

And all of that brings us to the other half of the film ecosystem: the theatre. Well, other half for now. The key to this section is to remember that with new technology comes new markets. This is the pay-off so pay attention. Movie theatres aren't dead (if they adapt) but they are no longer the only viable path for success. It used to be that a movie came out in theatres to do well and on home video to make a small profit, if a profit at all. If not now then soon, this will no longer be the case! And home video isn't the only alternative path.

Right now I'd like to explicitly state that there is a coming split in how movies can be looked at. Completely independent of quality the split is “big budget” and “no budget”. Low budget is in there too since budget is a gradient rather than on/off qualifier but let's put that in with the big budget/studio side for now. So big and no budget it is. That's the production side of things. Now we're getting in the other half of the paradigm shift and that is distribution. This side is no less important to so don't write if off as such.

As I said, the old split used to be film release verse home video release and there was a stigma against the latter. It was like a class system with film being the affluent 2%ers. Now let's look at distribution in light of all the options people have now and will have in the very near future. Key points to pay attention to:

• HD at home is becoming the standard

• Media computers attached to TVs is becoming more and more prevelant (PS3, Xbox 360, Apple TV in addition to media center PCs)

• The big names are now doing home distribution through this method via streaming websites like NBC.com, Fox.com, ABC.com, Hulu.com, etc.

• Film or TV release is fast becoming an optional path to success rather than the only path

That last one might make you wonder if I'm more optimist than realist but I assure you it's true. Like most trends this starts where the money is and trickles down when price drops. The problem is self release is a boon mainly to the no budget people but has to start with the high budget people, who have less to gain from it. However, look to the music industry. They have been hitting the snags that all media is or will face but faster since the turnover rate of both pop-culture trends and technology move so much faster in the music industry. Their big studios are facing distribution problems and rather than adapt chose to fight it. Where did it get them? Why, bigger names are shifting over to, not dropping down to, self publication. REM, Nine Inch Nails, Madonna, Radiohead... the list goes on and on and will only get larger. Now these people are distributing on the same networks as any old shmoe on Myspace or with their own dot com. And we're seeing this same shift in other media like movies, TV and print.

Now let's look at the film industry. We are already seeing big names look to alternative pricution and distribution. Both Zoe Bell and Rosario Dawson have internet only series out. And if you want one that epitomizes success in a new medium then look at Dr. Horrible. Self produced on all levels, self distributed and both a commercial and critical success. Now, self made movies have been around for a long time but with the internet self distribution is a completely feasible alternative. Granted, it's still new territory so it will most likely need to be cleared by those people with more money than the average no budget film maker, but the land is there soon it will be ready to be settled.

Which brings me to my second split. So far we have big/no budgets with low falling somewhere between. Traditionally neither one has been more or less valid of a movie type. Each has its own pros and cons. Big budget tend to look more polished but have less artistic content. Low/no budget tend to make less but get better critical review. The second dichotomy is in terms of release. Soon there will be a theatre/self release split. And like the budget ranking, both of these will have ups and downs. Theatre will have more of a guaranteed audience but will take a much larger investment to make happen and will therefore require a larger return to break even. Self release will be much cheaper and therefore have a much better possible profit with a small audience but marketing will be much more difficult and the audience will most likely not reach theatre numbers.

The obvious match up is big budget to theatres and low/no budget to self release but there will be crossovers. Imagine something like the Blair Witch Project except without the restrictions of working in a cheap looking medium. That's a no budget/theatre pairing. Web series and no budget HD is still a newborn form but I assure you that there will be a few breakout money makers from the no budget/self release as well. And then once that happens things will get interesting.

Imagine a trend of high budget/self releases. Viral only, big name projects. It's being tested now and Dr. Horrible walks the line, being a low budget but big name production. There's also the fact that once a production proves itself in a low budget form it is ripe for the spectacle pick-up. Something made cheap and put out there for the world to see, if successful, can guarantee quality and/or audience. Want an example of that? How about the upcoming Peter Jackson production Sector 9. It was a short film that was made from the low/no budget side of film making that so impressed people that it was picked up to be a big film. So while it's technically a remake it is still completely new to more than 99% of viewers.

There's a big split coming. Hollywood and theatres have been driving up prices because they are making a fatal flaw. They are still viewing themselves as the sole valid means of film success. But they are unarguably specializing in pure money makers more and more. Their big problem is that they are cutting out markets that still have demand and then wondering why their business is suffering. They are cutting out quality as a standard and quality is a big market. The spectacle cash cow is valid too, but money does not always equate quality so people are looking elsewhere as well as feeling less obliged to follow traditional consumer methods. Piracy may be up but it's a logical argument to say that a lot of spectacle movies aren't worth the ticket price. To people brought up on technology there's not a huge difference between pirating a crappy movie and renting it. The studio doesn't see much money from rentals (they tried to make that illegal once too) so what's the difference to the consumer? Cash in their pocket and little else.

Should Hollywood get out of the quality business all together and leave that to the no/low budget film makers out there? No. But they do need to recognize that they need to evolve in a changing market and actually have, by specializing. They need to realize that internet releases and distribution through DVD only sources like Netflix is not the second tier home video market it used to be. The real thesis is that there are new methods of production and distribution in the film world and the only people ignoring them so far are the big studios and the theatre chains. Is there a reason why a movie made for less should be regarded as lower quality? Then why should a movie made available through a web site be any less valid than a theatrical release. Hell, why are non-theatre releases not looked at for second runs on the big screen? Is it any question that Dr. Horrible would make some sort of profit it put out in theatres?

The world of film is changing. Hollywood is changing. Home video releases are changing. Does this mean that the age of the theatre and big budgets and big names is over? No but the market that feeds them is not locked in anymore. One way or another Hollywood will realize this, though whether it's while they are growing and developing more efficient techniques or while they watch their consumer base shift to home theatres and rampant piracy is up to them. And that's only half of the equation. No/low budget producers and directors better start analysing their options to get in on the new markets early. And while both sides will need to embrace the coming changes out of necessity it's Hollywood that has the handicap of assuming it can ignore it longer than the amateur film maker. Their money has created a complacency that they really can't afford any longer

Appendix

And that's about it. There are still many other factors that can be looked at for a more accurate prediction and examples out there to learn from. Creative commons will eventually have a huge impact in film and music. Also, different methods of releasing physical media will play a huge role in all types of viewing. For example, I can give you two examples of movies that you can hold viewings for yourself without paying the makers a cent and legally collecting 100% of the ticket money.

• RiP: Remix – a documentary about Creative Commons and music, focusing on Girl Talk as a dynamic example.

• Sita Sings the Blues – A great independent animated movie. What's amazing about her business model is that through her you can order digial tapes, a DVD, 35mm prints or even a hard drive with the digital versions of all those formats. Or you can download the digital version of any of those formats for free. Read up on her page to see why.
  
  

• Hunt For Gollum – While this might not be groundbreaking as a film in its own right, watch this 40 minute, $6,000 fan film and just compare the quality with the budget. With the budget twice that of Clerks it looks, visually, much more than twice as impressive. Now imagine if these guys made something for $12,000 that was based on an original concept. It's not this film so much as the possibilities it represents in for the shifting budget to visual quality ratio. Not to mention it's already had exposure in not only nerd-circles but also on NPR.

• Dr. Horrible – If you haven't seen this yet then... just do.

• Countless documentaries on Netflix have been made with more love than budget but still do a great job at showing people a world they never knew about. Hunt around for some.

The Future of Movie Theatres

Movies and the theatres they are shown in are in for a change. It's a silly jump to say they are in trouble, though that's what the entertainment industry loves to cry. It is fair to say they are in trouble if they don't recognize and adapt to the coming shift.

 

I am a bit of an arm chair futurist. I read up on and write about a lot of technical and social trends. At this point I think it's as safe to say for me as for anyone that I'm good at calling upcoming technological trends. Copyright and copyleft are of particular interest to me as I see this as the coming battleground for how ideas are to be regarded in the future.

 

I have a friend who makes no budget independent films. I thought he would be happy when I told him my prediction for movies and film. I told him that higher quality movies would be made for less money, that with the rising interest in home theatres and consumer level high definition (both in terms of viewing and producing) theatres would become less and less relevant to film distribution. I also feel that motion picture film, as with still film now, will never stop being used but will become more of a niche production market than the standard it represents today. To my surprise he did not agree with or look favourably on these ideas.

 

But all that seems to be the way the movie industry is headed. People are noticing the strong trends of remakes, reboots and adaptations. But instead of actually thinking about the “why” of this trend they resort to the lazy English major's brushoff off “There are no originals ideas anymore” which, to be frank, is bullshit. Anyone who looks for new contemporary writers will find new ideas every few novels or so. And looking for new writers doesn't mean picking up the best seller list for names. It takes hunting, but saying that there are no new ideas is crap. There are tons of new ideas and concepts being explored in the medium of the written word and this does not exclude that of film scripts. But none of that answers the question of “why” for all of these rehashed ideas in Hollywood. The reason for that is simple: return on investment.

 

Film studios are taking the same amount of money and channelling it into few numbers of films. That's not to say they are putting out a fewer number of total films but rather the money is strongly skewed to a smaller number. Small budget films get smaller budgets and large budget films get larger budgets. The problem is the budget is now the method for profit prediction. “The more expensive a film the more it should make” is not just the general rule; it is now the law of film. If you real it again you'll notice that law makes no mention of quality. Which is fine since it doesn't have to. Wolverine was recently released and while critics and fans generally gave it the thumbs down it did very well the opening weekend. As a creative adaptation and character piece it was a failure. As a movie put out by Fox Studios it was a success. It might not have been “good” but it certainly proved to be “good enough”.

 

And that's fine. There has always been a place in film for the spectacle along side the character study and the brooding drama. It is a perfectly valid movie type to make. And, like more artistically eyed and (usually) less commercially viable movies, those films should be accepted for the types of success they strive for.

 

Back to issue. Putting all of the money in theses select blockbusters means that studios are specializing. The problem is they don't realize it yet. Big name studios are now excelling at large budget spectacle works that push the edge of technology. And for the first time we are seeing a system where trickle-down theory works. Lucas championed HD digital for the Star Wars prequels and already we have hand held video cameras that record with broadcast television quality. And it is precisely this level of technology that is opening the door for smaller film makers to produce professional looking films. Theses people are able to make films that look like “real” movies, though not the spectacles that still require huge budgets. So now big studios take comfort in making remakes since a movie that's been made once has already proven itself and, in the cases of franchises, already has a fan base which is guaranteed cash for at least the first instalment. But because of camera technology these no and low budget film makers now have the ability to step into the gap in films that has come with this specialization.

 

So what have we covered?

• Movies with big budgets are less risky because huge profit, rather than good profit, is a necessity.

• Studios are focusing on the “spectacle” genre more and more, leaving other types of film off their lists.

• Small budget film makers have the ability to produce professional looking movies that large studios aren't making.

 

And all of that brings us to the other half of the film ecosystem: the theatre. Well, other half for now. The key to this section is to remember that with new technology comes new markets. This is the pay-off so pay attention. Movie theatres aren't dead (if they adapt) but they are no longer the only viable path for success. It used to be that a movie came out in theatres to do well and on home video to make a small profit, if a profit at all. If not now then soon, this will no longer be the case! And home video isn't the only alternative path.

 

Right now I'd like to explicitly state that there is a coming split in how movies can be looked at. Completely independent of quality the split is “big budget” and “no budget”. Low budget is in there too since budget is a gradient rather than on/off qualifier but let's put that in with the big budget/studio side for now. So big and no budget it is. That's the production side of things. Now we're getting in the other half of the paradigm shift and that is distribution. This side is no less important to so don't write if off as such.

 

As I said, the old split used to be film release verse home video release and there was a stigma against the latter. It was like a class system with film being the affluent 2%ers. Now let's look at distribution in light of all the options people have now and will have in the very near future. Key points to pay attention to:

• HD at home is becoming the standard

• Media computers attached to TVs is becoming more and more prevelant (PS3, Xbox 360, Apple TV in addition to media center PCs)

• The big names are now doing home distribution through this method via streaming websites like NBC.com, Fox.com, ABC.com, Hulu.com, etc.

• Film or TV release is fast becoming an optional path to success rather than the only path

 

That last one might make you wonder if I'm more optimist than realist but I assure you it's true. Like most trends this starts where the money is and trickles down when price drops. The problem is self release is a boon mainly to the no budget people but has to start with the high budget people, who have less to gain from it. However, look to the music industry. They have been hitting the snags that all media is or will face but faster since the turnover rate of both pop-culture trends and technology move so much faster in the music industry. Their big studios are facing distribution problems and rather than adapt chose to fight it. Where did it get them? Why, bigger names are shifting over to, not dropping down to, self publication. REM, Nine Inch Nails, Madonna, Radiohead... the list goes on and on and will only get larger. Now these people are distributing on the same networks as any old shmoe on Myspace or with their own dot com. And we're seeing this same shift in other media like movies, TV and print.

 

Now let's look at the film industry. We are already seeing big names look to alternative pricution and distribution. Both Zoe Bell and Rosario Dawson have internet only series out. And if you want one that epitomizes success in a new medium then look at Dr. Horrible. Self produced on all levels, self distributed and both a commercial and critical success. Now, self made movies have been around for a long time but with the internet self distribution is a completely feasible alternative. Granted, it's still new territory so it will most likely need to be cleared by those people with more money than the average no budget film maker, but the land is there soon it will be ready to be settled.

 

Which brings me to my second split. So far we have big/no budgets with low falling somewhere between. Traditionally neither one has been more or less valid of a movie type. Each has its own pros and cons. Big budget tend to look more polished but have less artistic content. Low/no budget tend to make less but get better critical review. The second dichotomy is in terms of release. Soon there will be a theatre/self release split. And like the budget ranking, both of these will have ups and downs. Theatre will have more of a guaranteed audience but will take a much larger investment to make happen and will therefore require a larger return to break even. Self release will be much cheaper and therefore have a much better possible profit with a small audience but marketing will be much more difficult and the audience will most likely not reach theatre numbers.

 

The obvious match up is big budget to theatres and low/no budget to self release but there will be crossovers. Imagine something like the Blair Witch Project except without the restrictions of working in a cheap looking medium. That's a no budget/theatre pairing. Web series and no budget HD is still a newborn form but I assure you that there will be a few breakout money makers from the no budget/self release as well. And then once that happens things will get interesting.

 

Imagine a trend of high budget/self releases. Viral only, big name projects. It's being tested now and Dr. Horrible walks the line, being a low budget but big name production. There's also the fact that once a production proves itself in a low budget form it is ripe for the spectacle pick-up. Something made cheap and put out there for the world to see, if successful, can guarantee quality and/or audience. Want an example of that? How about the upcoming Peter Jackson production Sector 9. It was a short film that was made from the low/no budget side of film making that so impressed people that it was picked up to be a big film. So while it's technically a remake it is still completely new to more than 99% of viewers.

 

There's a big split coming. Hollywood and theatres have been driving up prices because they are making a fatal flaw. They are still viewing themselves as the sole valid means of film success. But they are unarguably specializing in pure money makers more and more. Their big problem is that they are cutting out markets that still have demand and then wondering why their business is suffering. They are cutting out quality as a standard and quality is a big market. The spectacle cash cow is valid too, but money does not always equate quality so people are looking elsewhere as well as feeling less obliged to follow traditional consumer methods. Piracy may be up but it's a logical argument to say that a lot of spectacle movies aren't worth the ticket price. To people brought up on technology there's not a huge difference between pirating a crappy movie and renting it. The studio doesn't see much money from rentals (they tried to make that illegal once too) so what's the difference to the consumer? Cash in their pocket and little else.

 

Should Hollywood get out of the quality business all together and leave that to the no/low budget film makers out there? No. But they do need to recognize that they need to evolve in a changing market and actually have, by specializing. They need to realize that internet releases and distribution through DVD only sources like Netflix is not the second tier home video market it used to be. The real thesis is that there are new methods of production and distribution in the film world and the only people ignoring them so far are the big studios and the theatre chains. Is there a reason why a movie made for less should be regarded as lower quality? Then why should a movie made available through a web site be any less valid than a theatrical release. Hell, why are non-theatre releases not looked at for second runs on the big screen? Is it any question that Dr. Horrible would make some sort of profit it put out in theatres?

The world of film is changing. Hollywood is changing. Home video releases are changing. Does this mean that the age of the theatre and big budgets and big names is over? No but the market that feeds them is not locked in anymore. One way or another Hollywood will realize this, though whether it's while they are growing and developing more efficient techniques or while they watch their consumer base shift to home theatres and rampant piracy is up to them. And that's only half of the equation. No/low budget producers and directors better start analysing their options to get in on the new markets early. And while both sides will need to embrace the coming changes out of necessity it's Hollywood that has the handicap of assuming it can ignore it longer than the amateur film maker. Their money has created a complacency that they really can't afford any longer

 

Appendix

 

And that's about it. There are still many other factors that can be looked at for a more accurate prediction and examples out there to learn from. Creative commons will eventually have a huge impact in film and music. Also, different methods of releasing physical media will play a huge role in all types of viewing. For example, I can give you two examples of movies that you can hold viewings for yourself without paying the makers a cent and legally collecting 100% of the ticket money.

 

• RiP: Remix – a documentary about Creative Commons and music, focusing on Girl Talk as a dynamic example.

• Sita Sings the Blues – A great independent animated movie. What's amazing about her business model is that through her you can order digial tapes, a DVD, 35mm prints or even a hard drive with the digital versions of all those formats. Or you can download the digital version of any of those formats for free. Read up on her page to see why.
   

• Hunt For Gollum – While this might not be groundbreaking as a film in its own right, watch this 40 minute, $6,000 fan film and just compare the quality with the budget. With the budget twice that of Clerks it looks, visually, much more than twice as impressive. Now imagine if these guys made something for $12,000 that was based on an original concept. It's not this film so much as the possibilities it represents in for the shifting budget to visual quality ratio. Not to mention it's already had exposure in not only nerd-circles but also on NPR.

• Dr. Horrible – If you haven't seen this yet then... just do.

• Countless documentaries on Netflix have been made with more love than budget but still do a great job at showing people a world they never knew about. Hunt around for some.