[Upd-discuss] huh: Hollywood copes with digital age

[M Featherston]

That's a good question. Movie studios obviously need to make money,
just like any other business, but their chosen line of business is
somewhat unique.

So, if 4 out of ten movies make money, everything is ok for film
companies. In baseball, you are considered a successful hitter if you
succeed 3 out of 10 times.

I think the movies makers, the old guard I mean, will probably do
pretty much the same thing that they have done for decades. I think
market forces beyond their control may eventually change them, but it
is going to have to be something very dramatic. Plus, it makes sense
that film producers look at other way to make money off of films.

MLF

On 6/2/06, Mashilamani Sambasivam <mashi3981@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On how hollywood is coping with filesharing:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5019472.stm
>
> Another interesting programme was:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/22/hollywoodinc.shtml
>
> Extracts from the programme:
> <quote>
> *A film costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.
>
> *For a studio, as an investment, 6 out of 10 films
> fail.
> *For a studio, as an investment, they get 5% return.
> They can get more if they put the money in the bank.
> </quote>
>
> what I am getting at is why do the studios put so much
> effort (0.1 to 1 million dollars per minute of film
> footage), time and money if the studios can get much
> better return on investment elsewhere. The obvious
> is deeply influencing culture. But apart from that,
> what is so important about movies?
>
> anyone have any thoughts on any of the above?
>
> Masi
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>