No Time to Die production thread

17617627647667671208

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,009
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s because watching a Bond film in a theater on day 1 is first and foremost pure excitement, is an experience, beside the obvious technical incomparable aspects.

    I mean there's no point in arguing with any of you on this, because you're obviously set in your ways, but the technical scale of a movie theatre is only the way it is so they can cram as many people into the theatre is possible, so they can make money. If you only have a few people in your living room, all of these "technical incomparable aspects" are obviously scalable. And there's also the cinema 'benefit' of a hundred noisy and annoying strangers.

    May as well just leave it be now, so we can discuss all the new NTTD production news that's breaking. ;)

    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.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s because watching a Bond film in a theater on day 1 is first and foremost pure excitement, is an experience, beside the obvious technical incomparable aspects.

    I mean there's no point in arguing with any of you on this, because you're obviously set in your ways, but the technical scale of a movie theatre is only the way it is so they can cram as many people into the theatre is possible, so they can make money. If you only have a few people in your living room, all of these "technical incomparable aspects" are obviously scalable. And there's also the cinema 'benefit' of a hundred noisy and annoying strangers.

    May as well just leave it be now, so we can discuss all the new NTTD production news that's breaking. ;)

    I agree that it's scalable, 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.
  • matt_u wrote: »
    It’s because watching a Bond film in a theater on day 1 is first and foremost pure excitement, is an experience, beside the obvious technical incomparable aspects.

    I mean there's no point in arguing with any of you on this, because you're obviously set in your ways, but the technical scale of a movie theatre is only the way it is so they can cram as many people into the theatre is possible, so they can make money. If you only have a few people in your living room, all of these "technical incomparable aspects" are obviously scalable. And there's also the cinema 'benefit' of a hundred noisy and annoying strangers.

    May as well just leave it be now, so we can discuss all the new NTTD production news that's breaking. ;)

    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.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Thanks for the informed posts, @antovolk

    @Pierce2Daniel the way you change your stance on things makes it seem like there's more than one person in charge of your account. Weren't you in favour of a phased rollout at one point, and downplayed the impact of piracy when everyone else raised it as an issue?

    It doesn't seem like you actually read antovolk's post, either. These are just hypotheticals at this point, not an argument for it.

    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).
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,247
    Nothing beats the Cinema....I think Cinemas can even hide flaws in a film, Coz the Gargantuan nature of the Screen makes everything majestic. I remember watching Michael Bay's Age Of Extinction at the Cinema in 2014....and I was blown away by the film.....not in terms of it's narrative, but by it's spectacle. I don't go into a Michael film, expecting a Convoluted plot. I watched the film at home, months later in Blu-Ray on a good set-up....but it did not feel like the Cinema Experience.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,400
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Thanks for the informed posts, @antovolk

    @Pierce2Daniel the way you change your stance on things makes it seem like there's more than one person in charge of your account. Weren't you in favour of a phased rollout at one point, and downplayed the impact of piracy when everyone else raised it as an issue?

    It doesn't seem like you actually read antovolk's post, either. These are just hypotheticals at this point, not an argument for it.

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    That would be because he wasn't making an argument for VOD.

    But there you go.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,343
    Regarding the discussions about November yes or no, today Walter Ricciardi (prominent member of OMS) stated that a late summer/early autumn second wave is basically certain. As I said many times, theaters won't open this year.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    antovolk wrote: »
    @antovolk A question for you, if I may: if cinemas re-open by July/August, but with minimal capacity (say 50% of a full audience at most) for the rest of the year, can studios/cinemas force indie/small budget films to go straight to VOD, so that big tentpole films like Bond, Tenet, Mulan, Black Widow, etc, get extra showings to minimize the tickets lost due to the limited allowed capacity?

    Yup yup, feels like a foregone conclusion at this point.
    https://www.insider.com/when-will-movie-theaters-reopen-masks-social-distancing-2020-4
    For instance, with regards to Tenet:
    "It's not just showing the movie, but offering so many showtimes as a thank-you to Warner Bros. for having faith in us and not giving up on theatrical," one theater owner told Insider.

    Interesting stuff, thanks for the info. Your posts are good reading.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Music videos don't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

    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.
  • The_Return wrote: »
    Guys, Europe is already starting to open up again (schools in Denmark were reopened this week). Cinemas will reopen LONG before November and NTTD will not be delayed.

    Having said that, I am absolutely stunned that @Getafix wrote that he has no desire to see it on VOD. The way most of us experienced most Bond films was at home on a small screen. I don't dislike DN or TB any less just because I never saw them at the cinemas, and I believe most fans feel the same way.

    If i ever get the opportunity i would definitely want to watch every single bond film in theatre even if i have seen most of them on TV.

    Why not get a projetor to watch them on? It's not the full cinema experience for sure, but it's close to it.

    Close doesn't count, i want the actual cinema experience. At some point i would think of that but not at the moment.

    Surely it would improve your home video viewing? Wouldn't you rather watch films at home in a way that is closer to the theatrical experience? My setup is actually probably better than a lot of non mulitplex cinemas.

    I could see a proper home set up would exceed the big-box theatre experience, and it wouldn't even need to be that complex. A big enough TV (or projector) and a good surround sound system (I would think this would be pretty key). Then you could include only those you want to (nobody on phones, talking, etc), no expensive snacks, etc.

    Streaming would be a big no, but the opportunity to download and then watch offline, yes. And I agree having discussed it that the studios would never go this route, but I'm saying it wouldn't be as bad as it may seem.

    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 :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    Music videos don't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

    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.

    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.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    The_Return wrote: »
    Guys, Europe is already starting to open up again (schools in Denmark were reopened this week). Cinemas will reopen LONG before November and NTTD will not be delayed.

    Having said that, I am absolutely stunned that @Getafix wrote that he has no desire to see it on VOD. The way most of us experienced most Bond films was at home on a small screen. I don't dislike DN or TB any less just because I never saw them at the cinemas, and I believe most fans feel the same way.

    If i ever get the opportunity i would definitely want to watch every single bond film in theatre even if i have seen most of them on TV.

    Why not get a projetor to watch them on? It's not the full cinema experience for sure, but it's close to it.

    Close doesn't count, i want the actual cinema experience. At some point i would think of that but not at the moment.

    Surely it would improve your home video viewing? Wouldn't you rather watch films at home in a way that is closer to the theatrical experience? My setup is actually probably better than a lot of non mulitplex cinemas.

    I could see a proper home set up would exceed the big-box theatre experience, and it wouldn't even need to be that complex. A big enough TV (or projector) and a good surround sound system (I would think this would be pretty key). Then you could include only those you want to (nobody on phones, talking, etc), no expensive snacks, etc.

    Streaming would be a big no, but the opportunity to download and then watch offline, yes. And I agree having discussed it that the studios would never go this route, but I'm saying it wouldn't be as bad as it may seem.

    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 :)

    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.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    The_Return wrote: »
    Guys, Europe is already starting to open up again (schools in Denmark were reopened this week). Cinemas will reopen LONG before November and NTTD will not be delayed.

    Having said that, I am absolutely stunned that @Getafix wrote that he has no desire to see it on VOD. The way most of us experienced most Bond films was at home on a small screen. I don't dislike DN or TB any less just because I never saw them at the cinemas, and I believe most fans feel the same way.

    If i ever get the opportunity i would definitely want to watch every single bond film in theatre even if i have seen most of them on TV.

    Why not get a projetor to watch them on? It's not the full cinema experience for sure, but it's close to it.

    Close doesn't count, i want the actual cinema experience. At some point i would think of that but not at the moment.

    Surely it would improve your home video viewing? Wouldn't you rather watch films at home in a way that is closer to the theatrical experience? My setup is actually probably better than a lot of non mulitplex cinemas.

    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.
    Univex wrote: »
    Coincidently I bought a 77'' LG some days before total lockdown, so I wouldn't be against it. Not at all. Phones turned off, no popcorn, lights off, no exit signs, no annoying adverts, no interval (yes, they have breaks here). Yes, I'd pay good money for that, I must admit.

    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.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Honestly I'm happy to wait. If it's released online or whatever (which I don't it will) I'll watch it, but I would 100% prefer seeing it in the cinemas, and no a projector isn't the same haha even if I do have one that I do love :)

    Is it just the size of the screen for you then?

    I do think there's something in the energy of being surrounded by people with the same anticipatory excitement as you. But aside from that intangible, I think a good theatre experience is replicable at home.

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2020 Posts: 15,686
    South Korean cinema chains have asked for a bailout from the government. Not because they have been closed for too long (only 30% of all cinemas are closed there), but because their ticket sales have completely tanked due to the coronavirus. They are bleeding money remaining open when they don't have any customers. It seems that re-opening cinemas (and the economy as a whole) will be a lot harder than anticipated). South Korea is 23rd in terms of total cases and 30th in terms of total deaths.
  • Posts: 1,693
    Is it a generational thing that some people would be fine with seeing Bond at home as opposed to being in a theater? Personally I can't imagine seeing a Bond film for the very first time in my house, no matter how big or opulent the screen.
  • Posts: 11,425
    delfloria wrote: »
    Is it a generational thing that some people would be fine with seeing Bond at home as opposed to being in a theater? Personally I can't imagine seeing a Bond film for the very first time in my house, no matter how big or opulent the screen.

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    Music videos don't cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

    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.

    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'm not really following the logic there?
    I would absolutely refute the notion that piracy is less convenient than renting or purchasing for most people.

    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.
    I've seen plenty of low budget guys actively use piracy to get themselves ahead, because they know how rampant it is.

    Low budget filmmakers? I don't follow.
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 17,241
    delfloria wrote: »
    Is it a generational thing that some people would be fine with seeing Bond at home as opposed to being in a theater? Personally I can't imagine seeing a Bond film for the very first time in my house, no matter how big or opulent the screen.

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Yeah I can quite happily enjoy a film at home. Is the screen even that much bigger in your vision if you're sitting towards the back of the auditorium versus a reasonably sized-TV screen?

    tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo3_250.gif
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,834
    I just can't wait for this film to come out so we can talk about something other than the importance of cinemas and how big your screen is. Also half the reason people want it on demand anyway because of impatience, not because of their opinions on cinema and screen sizes. There are people who want to see it as soon as possible, and will do so, and people who will wait for the cinema release, end of.

    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.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I think the Serialized Nature of Craig's Era, doesn't help Patience in a Great Deal of fans....fans want to know what's in the next installment. I think Patience work better when the films are Standalone Adventures. But Still, I will wait for the film to open as it usually opens....we're so lucky the film is even ready. It would have been much worse, if they halted filming due to the Current Situation.
  • Posts: 6,665
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think the Serialized Nature of Craig's Era, doesn't help Patience in a Great Deal of fans....fans want to know what's in the next installment. I think Patience work better when the films are Standalone Adventures. But Still, I will wait for the film to open as it usually opens....we're so lucky the film is even ready. It would have been much worse, if they halted filming due to the Current Situation.

    All true.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not really following the logic there?

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    mtm wrote: »
    Low budget filmmakers? I don't follow.

    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.



    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think anyone ever assumes that and no-one is suggesting it.

    I didn't say they were suggesting it, but they are evidently certainly underestimating it and the impact it would have.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2020 Posts: 15,686
    Spain has conceded that most of their tourism and leisure activities will not be re-started until the end of the year. I doubt they will be the only country to will take such drastic decision. For now it's best to wait until late May/June to see if Tenet & Wonder Woman get delayed to late 2020/summer 2021. By then some of the late 2020 films will start getting pushed to 2021 if cinemas are still closed for the foreseeable future.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I just can't wait for this film to come out so we can talk about something other than the importance of cinemas and how big your screen is. Also half the reason people want it on demand anyway because of impatience, not because of their opinions on cinema and screen sizes. There are people who want to see it as soon as possible, and will do so, and people who will wait for the cinema release, end of.

    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.

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I just can't wait for this film to come out so we can talk about something other than the importance of cinemas and how big your screen is. Also half the reason people want it on demand anyway because of impatience, not because of their opinions on cinema and screen sizes. There are people who want to see it as soon as possible, and will do so, and people who will wait for the cinema release, end of.

    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.

    Agreed, that's what matters most. I sure hope she doesn't read these boards, anyway. ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not really following the logic there?

    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.

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    mtm wrote: »
    Low budget filmmakers? I don't follow.

    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.

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think anyone ever assumes that and no-one is suggesting it.

    I didn't say they were suggesting it, but they are evidently certainly underestimating it and the impact it would have.

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not really following the logic there?

    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.

    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.

    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?
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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! :)
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    Spain has conceded that most of their tourism and leisure activities will not be re-started until the end of the year. I doubt they will be the only country to will take such drastic decision. For now it's best to wait until late May/June to see if Tenet & Wonder Woman get delayed to late 2020/summer 2021. By then some of the late 2020 films will start getting pushed to 2021 if cinemas are still closed for the foreseeable future.

    Has there been any indication from Warner Bros. regarding TENET yet, @DaltonCraig007?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2020 Posts: 15,686
    @CraigMooreOHMSS Nothing yet I think. If a delay becomes inevitable, I'd imagine they would confirm it in the second half of May. Perhaps @antovolk can give us more info or a more specific timetable if Mulan/Tenet/Wonder Woman 1984 need to get pushed back.
Sign In or Register to comment.