Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bananawind who wrote (24237)	3/15/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

jim, I am in that part of the business, doing alot of hollywood releases. Your estimates are very low. Regards, Michael

To: bananawind who wrote (24237)	3/15/1999 10:34:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

You are correct as to the distribution controlling. One factor you did not mention is that, whereas in the past, a movie would open in New York, LA and maybe a few smaller markets shortly after that. The distribution would widen as "word of mouth" spread that the movie is good. Today, however, movies open on thousands of screens all over the country on the same weekend, heavily supported by advertising campaigns and marketing tie-ins. As a result, the number of prints needed and upfront cost for prints are dramatically higher. Digital distribution can cut the expense greatly and is efficient in view of the time frame involved. I don't buy your figures on the split. The movie industry is notorious for its accounting practices, something akin to the Russian Rule Against Perpetuities: All moneys go to the distributor or there shall be no lives in being. Nevertheless, your three way split points out that by comparing to the cash cost of prints, etc., the industry should be able to come to an agreement on how to split the cost between the distributors and the operators. However, part of the problem arises in the way that movie contracts and finances are structured in the above and below the line costs. If I recall (it's been a few years since I did one) distribution costs under traditional contracts are charged against the movie. The producers and many of the major talent (actors, directors) may have to agree to a special way of calculating distribution costs to make it work. As to the latter, why should they give up their percentage in order to fund the new equipment? My point is that there may be contractual stumbling blocks to simply cutting a deal between the distribtuion companies and the operators. Perhaps there are some lawyers or agents from California on the thread who have a better handle on the current details than I do; like I said it's been quite awhile since I practiced entertainment law.

To: bananawind who wrote (24237)	3/15/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: SKIP PAUL	Respond to of 152472

Internet Movie Database lib.virginia.edu Click on "Internet movie database" and then select "statistics". I think this goes back to Day one and includes worldwide production. IMDb Statistics Titles: 189,570 156,155 movies released theatrically. 14,541 made for TV movies. 10,064 TV series. 7,103 direct to video movies. 1,424 mini series. 283 live action video games.

To: bananawind who wrote (24237)	3/16/1999 1:09:00 AM
From: JMD	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Jim, re: "FWIW this one should be fun to watch for another reason. I've always been told that distribution is the choke point for all of Hollywood, ie. he who controls distribution, controls the industry. A change like this will likely bring into play more than a few very vested interests and gawd-only-knows how many of those tiny Hollywood ego's we have all heard about. Witness George Lucas as the first to dip his toe into the digital ring." The analogy here, it seems to me, is that this Cinecomm/Mighty Q combo is going to assault the distribution choke point for flicks in precisely the same manner that MP3 nailed the music dudes. George Lucas is obviously big enough not to give a flying fig about traditional Hollywood, and is probably getting an enormous hoot out of scaring the crap out of 'em by flirting with the Star Wars trailer. Hell, Lucas could command Hollywood to deliver Star Wars by rickshaw if he wanted to, and they'd happily comply. This is just an enormously exciting CDMA application that nobody banked on, and that could wind up having some serious financial firepower in the bargain. I've got a bud in the "independent" film biz, and he's jacked out of his mind. The celluloid cost kills the little guys exhibiting "art" movies; he thinks he could now employ narrow casting (or even narrower) like the cable tv dudes do. Holy Q! Best regards, SM