 |
| 11. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Oct 13, 2011, 21:51 |
PHJF |
|
|
I could also point out that Dark Knight and Avatar were movies targeted directly at the 15-25 demographic, a demographic synonymous with the internet/downloading things. What's more likely to get downloaded, a fantasy epic or a British murder mystery?
As a counter-point I'd offer the the direct-to-home film industry...who isn't exactly rolling in cash cranking out lower-budget movies that pale in comparison to nearly identical, bigger budget films in the exact same market who are just back for a second helping.
"Direct to DVD", 99% of the time, means a movies wasn't good enough for a theatrical release. Wide theatrical releases require tons of money and marketing to succeed, and often enough movies with both fail hard at the box office regardless (Scott Pilgrim comes to mind). The American movie goer is fickle. If a movie is so bad that studio execs think it'd be throwing away money releasing it to theaters, it can either go to DVD or end up as a Sci Fi Channel movie, both of which run far less of a risk. Movies get one shot at a theater, that's it. A couple of months and your movie either made all the money it would or lost a fortune. A DVD can sit on a rack at Best Buy for years waiting for some random passerby to pick it up. There are scores of movies sitting on the shelf at Blockbuster with huge megastars in them (Edison Force comes to mind, a movie with Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey that never saw a theatrical release in USA) that were just such bad movies that releasing them to DVD was the only way they might actually make some money (in the long run). "Direct to DVD" is a nice way of saying "this movie sucks."
That's without assuming that the US market may be more consumer driven and eager to buy and own their own copy of a film on DVD than the international market(pure speculation on my part)
Exactly, pure speculation. And a much SAFER assumption would be to assume that, because Avatar did 2.8~ times as much theatrical business internationally that it did domestically, the DVD sales might follow suit. Assuming that, Avatar would have made over five hundred million internationally from DVDs alone. Five hundred million dollars, on top of a hundred ninety domestic, without factoring in rental/streaming and eventual cable TV broadcasts. |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Oct 13, 10:30 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Kajetan |
| |
2. |
Oct 13, 13:29 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ruffiana |
| |
3. |
Oct 13, 14:26 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Creston |
| |
4. |
Oct 13, 17:20 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ruffiana |
| |
5. |
Oct 13, 17:47 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Prez |
| |
7. |
Oct 13, 18:49 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ruffiana |
| |
9. |
Oct 13, 19:34 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
PHJF |
| |
10. |
Oct 13, 20:49 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ruffiana |
| >> |
11. |
Oct 13, 21:51 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
PHJF |
| |
12. |
Oct 14, 08:28 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Prez |
| |
6. |
Oct 13, 18:46 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ventura |
| |
8. |
Oct 13, 19:26 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ruffiana |
| |
13. |
Oct 14, 09:31 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Lobster |
| |
14. |
Oct 14, 10:23 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Prez |
|
|
Twitter 
