I’m not remotely sure what the point of this nitpick is. Even if an album cost $500,000 to produce, that’s less than what the star of your average summer blockbuster spends on hookers during principle photography.
The way I heard it, the studios offered Blockbuster the same deal for DVD’s they had for tapes, and Blockbuster said no. The deal I think had less to do with pricing, and more about the timing of the release. Blockbuster got to rent the movies for X amount of time before they would go on sale, and in exchange, paid a percentage of the rental fees back to the studio.
Sorry, it was late, maybe I misunderstood. You’re right that movies by and large have more ground to make up and a greater startup cost due to the very nature of making them, but with modern bands and their studio time, advances, music video production costs (and I’m talking the bigger acts here), its into the millions of dollars too.
I guess I just saw that “few thousand” and in my sleep-deprived mode thought “What? That’s not necessarily true!”.
I worked in one of the very first video stores in the country. There were about a dozen films out, and about two dozen pornos. :rolleyes: That’s it.
They were $80 or so new, so rental was a brilliant idea at the time. I remember Japanese business men would drive to our store and were very excited by the whole rental idea. 
In what universe is a book free to write?
What does it cost, then? (Don’t say time.)
Most of the cost of making a movie is time: the time of the actors, the crew, the prop builders, the editors, etc. What else is time but money?
As far as rental pricing of VHS tapes go, I believe that most of the posts here have the causality reversed. Tapes weren’t rented because they were expensive. They were expensive because they were priced to rent. It was a profit maximizing price based on the assumption that many people would view a single rental copy (and that they’d be willing to spend a few dollars for a viewing). Not that different from the way films are distributed, except it was simpler to just sell expensive tapes to rental outlets (or, a few die-hard private buyers) than it was to try to keep track of royalties per rental.
Once it became clear that many people wanted to buy personal copies of movies, the early high pricing was maintained during an initial (usually 6-month) period, then dropped, as a form of price discrimination to maximize the income from rental outlets and individuals.
Yes, but I think the point is that if there is no rush, an author can write a quality book in his spare time.
Even if we don’t consider the writing time free, a movie needs a script, which require at least as much time and effort as writing book. Then we add all the other stuff on top of that.
I think you’re off by a factor of ten or more.
Star Wars was budegtted for $7M (a cheapo movie) and cost $9M; a few years later, Superman cost $20M and that was astronomical. Treasure Planet reputedly cost over $100M and pretty much closed down the animation section of Disney with its performance. Nowadays, even a plain movie is in the 10’s of millions and a star can expect several million for a few months work.
Albums, according to the numbers tossed around in the copyright debate, can cost $200K to $500K to produce and distribute. The record labels charge anything and everything to that cost and bill it to the group, so very few albums actually “make” money for the group beyond the advance, they just pay the label executives’ padded expenses.
Books are still free to write, provided the computer is already paid for. In essense, the book is even cheaper for teh publisher now because it arrives in electronic format and does not need to be re-typed for typesetting.
I agree; early movies were priced near $100 and did not sell well. IIRC Fox was the one who experimented with $29.95 tapes and made a killing, thus pointing the way for others. At $100 each, a rental for $9.95 seemed a good deal. Cheap movies have just driven down the value of the rental market too. Why rent when you can buy the thing for $9.99 in the bargain bin?
The problem, as mentioned above, is that music we listen to over and over. Movies, except for some really special ones, we watch once. The DVD market is tanking as people realize (a) they usually only watch video once and (b) with modern consumer services, the movie will be there if they want to see it again. Also (c) there’s so much variety and so much choice, people are less likely to buy because the “kinda” liked that movie. It has to be on their top 10 classics list or something.
There’s also the issue of durability. A tape was good for so many playings; a DVD with proper handling is good pretty much forever, and with DVDFab and similar programs, you can make backup copies anytime that are as good as the original. I avoided spending $100/movie, or even $19.95/movie, on VHS that was likely only good for a few viewings. I have hundreds of DVDs. Rental also makes sense in that case.
Interesting discussion tactic right there. Tell me I’m wrong - by a factor of 10, even - and then write 3 paragraphs supporting me. Very postmodern.
Another factor to consider: the model for enjoying movies was already in a “pay per viewing” mode. The standard model was going to movie theaters, well beyond watching the “movie of the week” on TV channels. Renting gave broader access than theaters or MOTW, and without the editing of MOTW (content, running time).
I think you’re neglecting the cost of inflation over time here. Star Wars, for example was made a third of a century ago – $7 million was not a ‘cheapo’ movie at that time. If you adjusted these figures to keep a constant dollar value, the figures would be much more comparable.
How much longer can a company like Blockbuster stay in business with the increasing popularity of Netflix?
My parents bought the wife and I a year’s subscription for Christmas and I have to say, I absolutely love it and would never consider renting another movie again, especially since I can watch an “instant” movie from any computer I wish, my Wii will stream my “instant” movies to my HDTV at home, and for those movies they only offer via DVD through mail the turnaround is awfully fast.
Send it in the mail on Monday, get new movie on Wednesday. No late fees.
Its a pretty amazing service.
I have a friend who buys bunches of used DVDs thru eBay, then after watching them, repackages them (not necessarily in the same grouping) and resells them on eBay. He claims the net result is zero cost to watch movies.
Not knowing the pricing structure, I can’t verify his claim, but if true, it’s a way around the buy/rent dilemma.
But a bit of a hassle, eh?
Well, yeah, the time of the author is money. So is the time of the editors, copyeditors, layout editors, people doing the actual binding.
Err no. Do you have any idea how expensive pro-quality cameras, lights, rigs, etc. are? Even if it’s being produced by a major studio that already owns the equipment, they have to upgrade their gear all the time. Then there are astronomical location fees, cranes and dollies and helicopters to rent, expensive production insurance, filming permits, props to be designed, sets to be built, etc. Not to mention the travel expenses for the entire cast, crew, and all that gear they’re hauling if you’re shooting on location.
There are a lot of expenses in making a movie, and although salaries are a big chunk of it, especially when you have A-list talent, it’s hardly accurate to say “most of the cost of making a movie is time”.
It’s very possible to rent audio books.
Simply Audiobooks·www.simplyaudiobooks.com
Rent audiobooks on CD and Tape. 20,000+ titles, free delivery!
Rent or Buy Audio Books·www.recordedbooks.com
Amazing Narrators, Best Sellers, Classics, Mystery, History and more…
Audio Book Rentals·audio.book-club-offers.com
Books by mail - 2 week free trial! Get unlimited audiobooks - Join Now
He doesn’t think so, but I would. I guess he likes the activity and uncertainty of what he is getting.