guiduc said:
|
Ail said:
|
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Who would have bet a 600 million$ movie shot entirely in 3D using state of the art technology would have been that successfull, especially when the huge majority of the showings are in 3D and people have been reluctant to wear glasses in a theater ?"
1. Where does it say the majority of showings are in 3D?
2. How does that counter my points? |
75% of Avatar US revenue comes from 3D or Imax showing ( which are more expensive but people are choosing to pay higher ticket price to see it in 3D...
The movie industry isnt that different from the gaming industry by the way, despite it's higher number of revenue streams it's not an industry of high profits and for every Avatar there is a 100 million$ movie loosing money....
You're saying focus less on technology and make supposedly safer games for business.
Avatar success blows that out of the water. You have to take risks and even the casual public at large can embrass the latest technology and graphics...
What do you think the developer or publisher coming out of watching Avatar wants to work on ? Another PS2 clone ? I don't think so...
|
The movie industry is drastically different than the video-game industry because a movie can generate massive revenue from its box-office, follow that up with massive revenue from DVD sales, get decent money from pay-per-view and specialty channels, and then get a steady stream of residual income from regular play on television. Because of all these revenue streams, very few movies lose significant money today regardless of whether they "Flop" in theatres.
Edit: Not to forget the additional revenue movie studios generate from selling the licensing rights to all kinds of merchandise, and books/videogames, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars for a big budget movie.
|
massive revenue maybe, massive profit ?
Here are the top 3 studios by marketshare :
Paramount first 2 quarter of 2008 ( 86 million$ profit) : http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857899&EDATE=
Sony pictures 2008 ( 300 million profit on 7.3 billion revenue) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment
Disney studio last quarter (lost money): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13disney.html
|
In what way did you demonstrate that anything I said was wrong?
My point would be made clearer if I had included the statement "The movies that do lose significant money generally lose hundreds of millions of dollars though"
|
|
You made is sound like investing huge amount of money was a safe bet and very rarely would movie studio loose money on any movie, seeing their financial statement shows this is hardly the case..
|
What's the relevance of the point? Does this is related to the topic?
guidic said:
What's the relevance of the point? Does this is related to the topic?
It does actually:
As an example that big-budget games can be financially viable, Ail is pointing to the movie Avatar as an example that big-budget high-tech movies can be a profitable business model for movie studios. And that big-budget high-tech movies fail routinely. And that movie studios aren't doing that great financially, in spite of having much more revenue streams than the gaming industry.
Note: Edited for jacked up formatting issues.
