It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
I agree that it's scalable to some, but it's not as easily done as has been implied. Installing a decent sized screen with a good projector is one thing, a decent audio set up is another.
And that's all depending on whether you actually have a space to do it.
I am lucky to have that (I really enjoy having friends over to watch films on my screen, I even padded 3 out of 4 walls of the room), but for many it's not feasible and for them, a big screen experience isn't scalable. It's either a big screen experience or it isn't.
I still quite enjoy watching films with a crowd though, so I can see the point of view of both camps.
That's fair. And as a disclaimer, I definitely do not have a good home theatre set up. :P But it's reasonable and I enjoy watching films with it.
I'm with ya @NickTwentyTwo. Plus I can put subtitles on at home. AND pause the movie to pee!
The cons outweigh the pros for a theatre experience. But it depends where you live too. Usually people have phones out and talk during the movie.
Yeah @Pierce2Daniel what are exactly your credentials for being so disrespectful to a board member with obvious industry connections?
Someone who has offered their take on things and generously supplied information.
Please tell us what makes you so arrogant?
Apart from being some fanboy with an inflated opinion of himself that uses this forum at times if he was some entertainment guru we all wait for an update from with baited breath (we don't by the way).
I am sorry if my comments were taken out of context. I have spades of respect for @antovolk - in fact, I value his opinion massively. He's a hugely valuable member of the forum and, in fact, he's one of the few people here who I tend to get excited when I see he posted (he always gets the news first!)
Simply put, I disagree with @antovolk on the VOD point and I don't think his point makes any sense. That's all.
But there you go.
Interesting stuff, thanks for the info. Your posts are good reading.
Benjamin is talking about how people seek out these things though: it doesn't matter how much it costs the makers but how much it costs the consumers. A film doesn't cost a significantly larger amount to purchase than a film does. I think he's right: I'll only try to find a dodgy download if I can't find any way to buy something, because buying or renting is way more convenient.
Indeed, and every continuing month that I'm furloughed an extra £100 that I would usually spend on commuting is going straight into my speaker upgrade fund :)
I know what he's talking about, I just think it's a false equivalence because it actually does matter what it costs to the makers because it ultimately comes down to the fact that a significant percentage of people who would have seen NTTD at the the theatres wouldn't pay for a streaming and/or download; I would absolutely refute the notion that piracy is less convenient than renting or purchasing for most people. But that's just from my own experience. I've seen plenty of low budget guys actively use piracy to get themselves ahead, because they know how rampant it is. There is a very substantial number of people on this planet who are quite happy to not pay for anything if they can get an equally high-quality alternative for free.
Basically, what I'm saying ultimately is that it's unwise to assume that just because people can pay for something, it means they will. Especially now, when they're thinking of a million other things.
Redistributing funds that would go to not-needed fixed costs is definitely a fringe benefit of quarantine. :P I'm fortunately pretty flush with cash now due to not spending much and benefits from the Canadian government, but I'm pretty scared to spend any of it in case the quarantine lasts a long time. Just did a $100 booze run though lol.
Here's the thing, i have watched a lot of bond film's with my cousin and he have a bad habit of rewind a few scenes or shots to understand it better and it get's annoying. When you are in theatre nothing can stop, rewind or forward it, it feels more natural. I get your point, even i want to install an home theatre for my father as he doesn't like to go to theater for many reasons.
Will do the same after the pandemic but shutting the lights off are to start an actual theatre experience, we would shut the lights off in an home theatre as well and the interval's are there because one shouldn't stare at any screen for such a long time.
The size of the screen is indeed a big factor and if the crowd is decent (which most aren't, sadly).
Anyways we are forgetting one thing that streaming piracy and film's piracy are two very different things especially in terms of quality. Film piracy doesn't affect the overall revenue because of the shitty quality of the video. Streaming shows/film's on the other hand provide better quality content.
I don't enjoy any film as much on the TV. Proper films should be seen in the cinema. Anything else is always second best.
I'm not really following the logic there?
Well I wouldn't. You have to be reasonably tech-savy to make it work, especially to get a pirated film on your TV. Whereas a much larger group of people have some sort of cable TV package, with which you get film rental included. It's just easier not to bother pirating.
Low budget filmmakers? I don't follow.
I don't think anyone ever assumes that and no-one is suggesting it. Prices would be lower on pretty much anything if producers didn't have to cover the costs of shrinkage. That's how the world works.
Perhaps. Personally, I've never understood what the big deal about the cinema is. I don't have access to an IMAX theatre or anything like that (there's only one in the entire country), so going to the local cinema is only going to offer you the opportunity to watch a film on a bigger screen with surround sound. I don't require a massive screen or surround sound to enjoy a film, and if you add the ticket prices and the rude people you're likely to encounter during the screening of a film, there's really nothing special about going to the cinema at all. I only go if it's part of a night out with friends, and generally prefer watching a film at home. I'd actually prefer it if I watched NTTD for the first time at home, undisturbed.
I think people get too carried away on here, thinking they're gonna convince everyone you're right, when we need to remember that people are lot more stubborn than that. No-ones gonna turn around and say "you're 100% right" so we just go back and forth in a debate that doesn't go anywhere.
Look, the film will come out, when it comes out. Barbara isn't reading these posts for ideas on what to do. She's gonna do whatever the best business decision is at the time, and she's not gonna start thinking philosophically about cinemas and TV screens.
She'll do what's the best for the film, not you.
The logic that it's a false equivalence to compare a music video that doesn't need a big viewership to make a it worthwhile to a several hundred budget film that does? You can't simply dismiss the budgets involved here, it's a huge aspect. Music videos don't have budgets to recoup. I know exactly what he was talking about - it's just a bad comparison.
It is a very basic thing to do. It requires little to no technical skills and a huge number of people already have experience doing it. This wouldn't be their first time. However, the flip side here, as opposed to pirating a theatrical release, is that most of those people will only want to watch good copies - which is why piracy impacts home video more than theatrical runs.
Just an example of piracy being used by people for a positive thing because most people are aware its a rampant and inevitable thing. The contrast being offered there is that the filmmakers mentioned above effectively allowed it to happen at the time, knowing more people would see their stuff if it was free.
I didn't say they were suggesting it, but they are evidently certainly underestimating it and the impact it would have.
Yes that's what the discussion is, what is best for the film and whether people will be happy with that.
In the meantime if the idea of people talking about what they'd personally prefer is annoying to you then message boards probably aren't the places to be looking at.
Agreed, that's what matters most. I sure hope she doesn't read these boards, anyway. ;)
Music videos? No one pirates music videos, they're freely available. We're talking about albums etc. which aren't exactly cheap. The idea that music producers don't want to make their money back because they have smaller budgets isn't really logical.
It's really not that basic, and certainly not as basic as pressing on a big picture of a film star with your remote control. I can't think of anyone I know over the age of 30 who can be bothered to hook their laptop up to their TV etc. for the sake of five pounds or whatever it is to rent a movie, especially not with the security concerns of these streaming sites. That's the point we're making: the easier they make it to rent these things the less point there is in going to the bother of finding it illegally. Yes, there will always be some people who do steal your product, but that's what shrinkage is and that's why its covered in the price. If it were so terrible then they wouldn't bother selling these things at all, and yet I notice I can download the latest Star Wars for a price today. It would be up to them to work out how to cost it to cover the shrinkage.
Sorry, I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. This is like student filmmakers distributing their stuff through torrents and things is it? That doesn't seem relevant.
If you're not saying anyone is suggesting it I have no idea why you're arguing against it :D You had to chop out the rest of my post there I notice.
Sorry, I read music videos in dear Benny's original post. I would say the point still stands to a degree, in fact maybe more so - how much does an album cost to produce and distribute these days? The reason why you don't find it logical is because you're misquoting/incorrectly paraphrasing me. I never said "want". Of course, everyone wants to make as much money back as they can. No, I said the amount that is "needed" to be sold in order for the amount spent on a budget to be worthwhile. Hence why I said it's a mistake to be so blissfully dismissive of a product's budget when talking about these things. Are you with me now?
Ah, of course. Well, if you don't know anyone who would do it, then I guess it mustn't be a concern.
I'm glad you used that example. The latest Star Wars had a theatrical release and made over a billion dollars before it went to streaming, feeding into my thoughts above about piracy and home releases in comparison with films still in theatres. Go figure.
Which brings me back around again to saying that I completely understand the point being made, it's just not correct here. Your point about shrinkage seems to be rooted in the thought that the cost of streaming will go hand in hand with its convenience. It's not a given that it would be. The shrinkage involved in covering the costs of NTTD (the film we're specifically talking about here!) would mean it would cost a helluva lot more than five pounds to rent; a few people have suggested different pricing ideas over the last twenty pages or so, and none of them were close to that figure from what I can recall. This is what will put a chunk of people off and increase the number of people obtaining copies of it elsewhere. It's not Star Wars, it hasn't made its money yet. It would have an impact. How much of an impact remains to be seen; considering they'd take more home from this revenue stream than sharing with a distributor. But it would be interesting to see how heavily it would be felt.
I wasn't aware low-budget could be interpreted as being "student". Interesting. I'm not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about, then! :)
Ah, okay. You're taking the piss now. I see. That's cool. I didn't have to, but I did because it was repetitive. I think I've pretty much covered everything now, including why "shrinkage" and "how the world works" is actually part of the problem in this case and why the budget shouldn't be dismissed in the way that it was in your original posts.
Has there been any indication from Warner Bros. regarding TENET yet, @DaltonCraig007?