Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

A new revenue model?

Hmm- that sounds like a backdoor marketing/ponzi scheme more than anything. I mean studios betting on their own movies? Does that mean if they don't bet on a particular film they are not confident in it? Why they wouldn't want to bet hard on all movies is a mystery to me. But oh well, it's the internet- anyone can put up a site and see if it sticks.

Noah
 
Given that something like 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 6 studio films don't earn their budget in theatrical release, who knows?

A perfect example was Weinstein Co. and Inglorious Basterds -they didn't fully believe in Tarantino -even though he was the house Miramax was built upon- they sold of 50% of the rights to other backers in a hedge on their risk. I'm sure Harvey wishes he hadn't done that now.
 
It just seems kinda silly- I mean aren't studios in a risky investment already. Why would they then turn to a fake stock market game to second-guess their projects? And if I directed a movie that my own studio was betting against I'd be pretty po'd.

Noah
 
Throw enough stuff against a wall and something will stick...and of course the real revenue is in the ancillary markets, but even that is shrinking. It's sort of become a common knowledge that theatrical is a loss leader but in the end it generates awareness and legitimacy to a given title -brand recognition.

That said, the one thing that I found intriguing is the possibility of social networking to influence the outcomes both ways -and I'm thinking about non-studio films here. But then if this thing takes off it could end up being subject to manipulation by the insiders -making inflationary 'double downs' with the hope people are paying attention...

And the other idea comes in the last sentence: "The new markets also present an opportunity for people and companies to put their money into a movie project that they otherwise had no opportunity to invest in." Will it be possible to spin it into gap scenario, or will it in fact create huge headaches for investors who might have the rug pulled out from under them if the distrib decides to hedge, and thus pushing their recoupment back?

So I guess one needs to ask -at what point can a film become listed, and what is the criteria for being able to be listed?
 
Torrie said:
Given that something like 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 6 studio films don't earn their budget in theatrical release, who knows?

A perfect example was Weinstein Co. and Inglorious Basterds -they didn't fully believe in Tarantino -even though he was the house Miramax was built upon
Click to expand...

Ouch..yes that 4 out of 5 of studio films seems right..don't want to
even think about what it would be for independent films.

Think what happended with Inglorious Basterds is Weinstein Co.
had trouble getting the money together by themselves..from script
they knew they'd hit with that movie..just couldn't do it by themselves.

Problem was Grindhouse..budget and promotion for that was around
$100 million...that one almost put them out of business.

Grindhouse Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $25,037,897 98.5%
+ Foreign: $384,191 1.5%
Worldwide: $25,422,088

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grindhouse.htm
 
Last edited:
I have seen no indication that the Weinsteins are anything less than 100% in the Tarantino business. Lack of faith? If that were true they would never have put him at the helm of a Brad Pitt film.
 
Noah Kadner said:
It just seems kinda silly- I mean aren't studios in a risky investment already. Why would they then turn to a fake stock market game to second-guess their projects? And if I directed a movie that my own studio was betting against I'd be pretty po'd.

Noah
Click to expand...
Wouldn't call it a fake stock market game. It is simply a place where hedgers and speculators meet. Speculators take risks and hedgers avoid risks. This is very good for the movie business.

additional: If a director got p.o.'d, then the producers could have said to just go put your money on the movie if you want to gamble.
 
I wonder what this'll do to the advertising system. If a lot of people have a lot of money invested in a film's success then you might see a lot of guerrilla marketing on the part of investors to see a product succeed.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I wonder what this'll do to the advertising system. If a lot of people have a lot of money invested in a film's success then you might see a lot of guerrilla marketing on the part of investors to see a product succeed.
Click to expand...

Sorta like one of the Hunts trying to corner the silver market, back in the '80s I think? But I don't think you can overly influence the public if the movie is bad to begin with. But maybe on a mediocre one you could. Still, long positions pushing the movie could be offset by short positions panning the movie, so they would probably be a wash.
 
I've been playing the HSX game for years. Looking forward to this real futures market.
Don't know why it took 10 years to get to be a real market with real money. I thought it was a great idea 10 years ago. By the way, you are not investing in a movie. This market basically let's you legally bet on the box office take of a film as being a hit or a flop.
If you can guess that film is going to be a hit or a flop before other investors, you make money. But just like any stock market, for every winner, someone is losing.

And trust me, studios will watch this market. A market where people risk real money on futures, turns out to be a very accurate model to predict future outcomes when enough people participate.
 

There's a litany of films that have come out in the last few years that could be deemed either mediocre or bad...um, can anyone say Wild Hogs? Or Old Dogs? Or Valentine's Day?But yet they made money...it all comes down to P&A, and that's part of the smoke & mirrors of The Hollywood Film Machine -if you see enough ads on TV and they're cut together down to a nice 29 seconds to convince you that this is next hottest flick, then the obligatory interviews in the local and national papers, and maybe some ET coverage on the star doing something totally unrelated to anything with the film...well, we know what happens. People go, and then regret it.

I seemed to recall a story years ago about Japanese audiences launching a mass lawsuit against a certain studio for flase advertising. I never did know what happened as a result, but I often feel like I've been mugged after I've left the theater.
 
Well studio's don't "false" advertise as much but wasn't there some for Blair Witch? I do think they do this whole "false" advertising a bit too much though, though there is a point where if you've seen enough of these advertisements and you've watched enough films to be able to go and say something looks good and is entertaining but isn't going to be like a massive hit...though obviously there's times when people are wrong and a film either blows them away or more chances then not just disappoints.

The thing is for futures this is just going to fuel studios more on the whole advertising front...like any of them though its murky water but at least this is rather more public accessible...still though...this can only end in a rather self destructive movement towards a revamp eventually...

Kind of like a discussion I had the other day about films prior to 1995 were all seriously amazing...they have a particular feeling to them and now days it's all about the advertising and the cash return it seems...or for the student population all I see coming is "arty" films rather then genuine passion...hence this would just fuel this arguement more that advertising costs will soar upwards if this idea takes off...

Once that happens...costs drop for making a film in order to keep costs low enough to support the high advertising structure that will take over...

Just my 2cents though...

Interesting Avatar was predicted to flop...I'd have thought with all that hype they'd have gone with a win...
 
Wish the article had explained why the MPAA is against this. If I may don my Speculator hat, perhaps it's because they think this may dilute the ability of the major studios to get the best scripts, directors, actors, etc. and thus bring new and more diversified entities into the business of making movies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top