Geroge Lucas states that "On Demand" will replace DVD
Dont buy that Blu-Ray of HD-DVD player just yet 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1001524471
THR: There are definitely some dynamics that are changing the economics of the business. What do you think of Mark Cuban's idea of releasing films simultaneously at home and in theaters?
Lucas: I think it'll happen -- it'll have to happen.
THR: Really? Because of the economics?
Lucas: Because of piracy. It's the only way you can stop piracy; there is no other way. You have to get a very, very aggressive enforcement program so that people do have consequences to stealing, but you also have to be able to offer it to them (in the home) for the same price they can get it on the street. It won't be DVDs -- DVDs aren't going to be around too much longer. If you can get it at home for $2, then why would you go on the street and get a bad version?
THR: What do you think will replace DVD?
Lucas: Pay-per-view.
THR: Something that streams in, not prerecorded media?
Lucas: It's the way kids do it today. It's how you do it on your iPod: They just download it. You pay 99 cents for music, and movies will be like two bucks. That will definitely change the economics of the business because (studios) are losing money now.
THR: Somebody was telling me that the studios' profit margins are only about 10%.
Lucas: I don't even think it's that: If you look at the (theatrical) divisions, I don't think they make any money. I don't think they've made money for five or six years.
THR: So it's basically a loss leader for DVD, television, etc.?
Lucas: Yup, all of the ancillary markets. For studios, the fact is that the theatrical film market is less than 10% of their business -- it's very, very small. I mean, you could chop that off in a second, and it wouldn't even bother them -- they're just doing it as a promotional thing.
THR: Do you think the industry will survive that way?
Lucas: I don't think the theatrical exhibition business will go away because I think people will always want to go to the movies, just as they go to the opera, they go to the ballet, and they go to football games. Football is a perfect example, where you can stay at home and watch it in the comfort of your own home and see a much better presentation, but people still sit out in the cold and cheer on (their teams) ... and you can't see anything because it's all distant. And now they have giant screens so you can watch it on television right there -- but they still fill up 100,000-seat (stadiums). We'll end up with fewer theaters with bigger screens and better presentations, and the theater owners will work very hard to make the whole thing an event.
For the whole article click on the link above.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1001524471
THR: There are definitely some dynamics that are changing the economics of the business. What do you think of Mark Cuban's idea of releasing films simultaneously at home and in theaters?
Lucas: I think it'll happen -- it'll have to happen.
THR: Really? Because of the economics?
Lucas: Because of piracy. It's the only way you can stop piracy; there is no other way. You have to get a very, very aggressive enforcement program so that people do have consequences to stealing, but you also have to be able to offer it to them (in the home) for the same price they can get it on the street. It won't be DVDs -- DVDs aren't going to be around too much longer. If you can get it at home for $2, then why would you go on the street and get a bad version?
THR: What do you think will replace DVD?
Lucas: Pay-per-view.
THR: Something that streams in, not prerecorded media?
Lucas: It's the way kids do it today. It's how you do it on your iPod: They just download it. You pay 99 cents for music, and movies will be like two bucks. That will definitely change the economics of the business because (studios) are losing money now.
THR: Somebody was telling me that the studios' profit margins are only about 10%.
Lucas: I don't even think it's that: If you look at the (theatrical) divisions, I don't think they make any money. I don't think they've made money for five or six years.
THR: So it's basically a loss leader for DVD, television, etc.?
Lucas: Yup, all of the ancillary markets. For studios, the fact is that the theatrical film market is less than 10% of their business -- it's very, very small. I mean, you could chop that off in a second, and it wouldn't even bother them -- they're just doing it as a promotional thing.
THR: Do you think the industry will survive that way?
Lucas: I don't think the theatrical exhibition business will go away because I think people will always want to go to the movies, just as they go to the opera, they go to the ballet, and they go to football games. Football is a perfect example, where you can stay at home and watch it in the comfort of your own home and see a much better presentation, but people still sit out in the cold and cheer on (their teams) ... and you can't see anything because it's all distant. And now they have giant screens so you can watch it on television right there -- but they still fill up 100,000-seat (stadiums). We'll end up with fewer theaters with bigger screens and better presentations, and the theater owners will work very hard to make the whole thing an event.
For the whole article click on the link above.
Comments
1: 'If' said streaming ever happens in the near future, you can be sure that the consumer will pay close to the cost of a cinema ticket for the privilege of viewing a lesser quality download (even given that compression techniques will most likely far exceed that of todays technology) which can only be played or viewed for a limited time.
2: Streaming or downloading films, even with new and better copy protection techniques, will always be risky for film companies. There's always going to be someone out there with the 'know-how' to break the copy code.
3: Although DVD as a format will probably give way to a better quality, more compact media design, the consumer will not just abandon the notion of buying a 'hard copy' of their favourite movie in lieu of streaming movies. There is still a lot to be said for owning a good quality copy of a movie to play at any time rather than stream on-demand. Take the current craze of music downloading for example... yes it works and is profitable, but true music enthusiasts prefer a CD and not a compressed download. There is still a lot of money to be made on retail sales of DVD (or whatever replaces it).
My 2c.
My local Cable Company (Time Warner) offers HD-Pay-per-View and if George Lucas believes this is the future why doesnt he convince the 'powers-that-be' to make it available ASAP?
Originally posted by vinney57
He is absolutely 100% correct. How can it be otherwise? It'll take 5 years maybe but its got to happen. Surely this is obvious.
Five years??? Believe me, Steve is already working on this...
Originally posted by MiMac
2: Streaming or downloading films, even with new and better copy protection techniques, will always be risky for film companies. There's always going to be someone out there with the 'know-how' to break the copy code.
It doesn't matter. If they allow streaming, there will be warez copies floating around the Net within days. If they don't allow streaming, there will be warez copies floating around the Net within days. But with streaming there is almost no reason to download illegally, since it will be so cheap and easy to stream legally.
I've watched movies on cable VOD and it's pretty convenient. If every movie and TV show was available for VOD I wouldn't bother with anything else (except really good movies which I would buy on DVD).
Originally posted by _ alliance _
what about those who do not have broadband and do not have anything but basic cable (which does not support VOD) or no cable at all, but want to watch a movie? i know there are fewer and fewer out there these days, but i guess this would be a forced upgrade.
If George Lucas decided to only make HD versions of all his movies available only via 'pay-per-view' it would have a huge impact.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
what about those who do not have broadband and do not have anything but basic cable (which does not support VOD) or no cable at all, but want to watch a movie? i know there are fewer and fewer out there these days, but i guess this would be a forced upgrade.
When we all move to digital TV in 2008, our cable system will be digital too.
The ones who are out of luck are the people w/ antennas. Theatres and rentals are still their only choices.
Originally posted by kmok1
The ones who are out of luck are the people w/ antennas. Theatres and rentals are still their only choices.
rentals of what? i thought the point of this was that this would be the only option...
Originally posted by _ alliance _
what about those who do not have broadband and do not have anything but basic cable (which does not support VOD) or no cable at all, but want to watch a movie? i know there are fewer and fewer out there these days, but i guess this would be a forced upgrade.
I concur. Ok, Broadband is practically everywhere these days but there are still quite a large number of people who either do not want it or have no access to it. A forced upgrade indeed. One major problem with streaming movies across a broadband connection is the amount of bandwidth needed to do it successfully to a large audience. All those pipes need to be paid for. An expensive procedure.
IMHO Mr Lucas has his head up his ass if he believes that VOD (streaming or otherwise) will replace DVD or 'hard-copy' movies.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
rentals of what? i thought the point of this was that this would be the only option...
'Only option'? That would be boring! :-)
There is this "digital divide" where some people will not receive any digital 'stuff' due to either their income or lack of knowledge. Also, there is problem with the last mile of the internet where it costs too much to build. Many people out in the countryside has only dialup access and very likely for a very long time to come. So, hey, rental stores will still be around.
I think he's wrong about DVDs because there will always be people who want to build a library of movies they want to keep long term, just like they keep books they enjoy.
There is also a group I belong to - the business traveler. I take DVDs with me on overseas business trips to watch on long flights or in a hotel room. Most of them came from the used DVD/CD store (which is a fantastic source of cheap DVDs) and some I get on sale in traditional stores. Never over $9.99 and there is a great selection. The $5 specials even have a gem or two in the pile.
I guess that I'll use VOD a bit after I get a HDTV and retire, but I'm rather happy with today's options.
Originally posted by kmok1
'Only option'? That would be boring! :-)
There is this "digital divide" where some people will not receive any digital 'stuff' due to either their income or lack of knowledge. Also, there is problem with the last mile of the internet where it costs too much to build. Many people out in the countryside has only dialup access and very likely for a very long time to come. So, hey, rental stores will still be around.
no, you're missing the point. you keep saying there will be rental stores, but the whole point i'm trying to make is that this idea would mean the end of dvds and hard copies altogether. theregore, anyone without cable and broadband would be SOL if they want to watch a movie (other than at a theatre). how could there be rental stores if there are no longer hard copies.
therefore, i hope this never happens. it is way too controlling and i am 100% against it.
I think, if done right, some other alternatives would do well. These include a "dinner theater" of sorts, drive-ins could make a comeback, and even 3-D movies like Spy Kids and Chicken Little have done lately. The movie theater experience needs to break away from that which you can get at home.
One thing of Lucas' that I don't buy is the notion that studios will miss that "10%." It's still money in their pockets. Their going to keep as much as possible.
While it sucks, and seems like we are losing more rights as consumers, this has potential to be very beneficial in the long run. Us law-biding citizens have been shafted for sometime. Some people really DO make backups of their CDs/DVDs etc, most people do not. The trouble is they want to take away that right, which blows, but you have to understand where it is coming from. So now if you buy a DVD it won't play on your ipod or on certain computers etc, and it sucks.
NOW, the solution, if it done properly, when you purchase a movie (or anything really) you obtain the rights to view that movie, that's what you're paying for (for the sake of argument let's leave out collectors edition packaging etc) NOW, you own the rights to that movie, IF every piece of gear you own is capable of playing that media you can play it ANYTIME on anything, and you only download the media once.
it cuts WAY down on piracy, you might think it would increase it in the digital/network domain, but if in the future there ARE no PHYSICAL discs then you can't copy and burn to start with.
It sounds shady, but if done properly it will allow law-biding citizens all the rights that come along with purchasing a movie. It's almost like having an iLok, or a Dongle, something that you carry with you at all times that just carries your licenses, and nothing else...this way EVERY player/TV etc is capable of playing every movie/tv show/video/song etc EVER made....if every player is connected to this network every player worldwide can play anything, and the only way it CAN play is if you have your dongle plugged in to authorize it to play. Sounds like a pain in the ass, but I am sure they will have some biometric system in the future.
thoughts?
-Roy
(I know Episode III was "better" than the first two but it didn't take much effort to outdo those two steamers.)
i spent $19 to take myself and my girlfriend to a movie this weekend (with $2 for parking as well). ludicrous. i wanted to wait til the dvd came out, watch it once, and then throw it away--would still save money.