The future of feature films according to DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg

[Shawn Knight]

Just as we are seeing with television, the movie industry will ultimately undergo a change as technology progresses. And one man – DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg – thinks he’s figured out the direction it’s going.

During a recent speaking engagement as part of the Entrepreneurial Leadership in the Corporate World panel at the Milken Global Conference in Beverly Hills, Katzenberg outlined his vision for the future of scheduling and distributing feature films.

The executive said the model will shift so that a feature film is only in theaters for 17 days, or exactly three weekends. Why three weekends? Because 95 percent of the revenue from 98 percent of movies is earned in the first three weeks in theaters. After that – on the 18th day – the film will be made available everywhere to purchase.

The catch is that everyone won’t pay the same price for the flick. Instead, studios will charge a variable rate based on the screen size in which the film will be watched. For example, a movie screen would be charged $15, someone watching on a 75-inch television would pay $4 and a smartphone owner would pay just $1.99.

Katzenberg is confident it will happen and when it does, it’ll reinvent the enterprise of movies.

Assuming it could be enforced as advertised, what do you think about this model? Would you rather everyone pay a flat fee for the same film or do you think pricing should vary based on how big your viewing screen is?

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/56601-the-future-of-feature-films-according-to-dreamworks-animation-chief-jeffrey-katzenberg.html

 

[VitalyT]

Why three weekends? Because 95 percent of the revenue from 98 percent of movies is earned in the first three weeks in theaters.

This won't work in general. Just because 98% of all movies are crap and aren't worth seeing doesn't mean that true masterpieces destined to bring money for several months will bow to this stupid regulation.

Have a look at the earning history of Avatar for one thing, it was going very strong for several months. The first 3 weeks were just a fraction of what it made eventually.

a movie screen would be charged $15, someone watching on a 75-inch television would pay $4 and a smartphone owner would pay just $1.99

To my knowledge, there is no requirements in the TV products to provide such information. And when it comes to mobile devices, expect the hacks everywhere that will "patch" your device to pretend to be a mobile phone. After all, with 1440P coming to phones, it is not going to make much difference in terms of traffic.

Buy a 150" TV and patch it to think it's a mobile phone Whaddya know, those phone screens are getting larger every day!

 

[Burty117]

So wait, If I bought 50 films with my 42 inch TV, but the TV broke and I got a 37 inch TV, would I be entitled to a refund?

Didn't think so...

 

[RenGood08]

Why three weekends? Because 95 percent of the revenue from 98 percent of movies is earned in the first three weeks in theaters.

This won't work in general. Just because 98% of all movies are crap and aren't worth seeing doesn't mean that true masterpieces destined to bring money for several months will bow to this stupid regulation.

Have a look at the earning history of Avatar for one thing, it was going very strong for several months. The first 3 weeks were just a fraction of what it made eventually.

a movie screen would be charged $15, someone watching on a 75-inch television would pay $4 and a smartphone owner would pay just $1.99

To my knowledge, there is no requirements in the TV products to provide such information. And when it comes to mobile devices, expect the hacks everywhere that will "patch" your device to pretend to be a mobile phone. After all, with 1440P coming to phones, it is not going to make much difference in terms of traffic.

Buy a 150" TV and patch it to think it's a mobile phone Whaddya know, those phone screens are getting larger every day!

I agree with your comment on this. I don't hardly go to the theatres anymore. If I want to see something, I wait until it's out on DVD then I might rent it or catch it on Netflix. Theatres are just far too expensive these days. =/

 

[VitalyT]

So wait, If I bought 50 films with my 42 inch TV, but the TV broke and I got a 37 inch TV, would I be entitled to a refund?

Didn't think so...

No worries. That's never gonna work anyway. The device screen size has no meaning these days, and what does is its Resolution + Screen Size, and that would be too cumbersome to work out any price variation that would make sense.

Otherwise, why someone with an old 50" 1368x720 TV panel would pay more than someone with a 1440P phablet? - it wouldn't make any sense.

The future Internet traffic becomes the most important aspect for watching online movies. Watching a movie in native 4K is far heavier than in 1080P. In my opinion, this (resolution/quality) is the only reasonable basis for varying the charging amount. The rest is just nonsense.

 

[Heed4673]

It's already $4.99 to rent new releases from Amazon for some movies, and that's after x number of months since it's been in theater, so how about they charge based on time out rather than screen size? $4.99 for 1 month after digital release, $3.99 for 2 or 3 months after digital release, etc. There are some movies I'm happy going to the theater and paying full price for, but half of the movies I watch I'd be happy paying $4.99 for at home.

 

[GhostRyder]

This idea wounds weird... I mean in all honesty I could see a difference between a smart phone and the TV in price but nothing like different screen sizes lol.

 

[Guest]

What happens if I cast/share my mobile screen to my big screen TV?

I agree with the other comments; most movies coming out these days are junk or retreads. Pay x based on y days since release.

 

[misor]

What happens if I cast/share my mobile screen to my big screen TV?

I agree with the other comments; most movies coming out these days are junk or retreads. Pay x based on y days since release.

the payment method is per screen use.
the guest will pay 1.99$ for the phone plus 4$ for the tv... greed warrants additional fees whenever it can.
(just like ISPs charging extra for 'dedicated' Netflix use.)

 

[Railman]

If they charged $15 to see a film at the cinema I would not consider going to see a movie. I would not consider spending more than £9 to see a movie and I would only pay that if it was in 3D. It is unclear in the article what you would be paying for when it is available for purchase. Would that be for a single viewing or would it be purchase for life? I buy DVDs but I tend to wait a while so I can purchase the DVDs at a discounted rate.

 

[St1ckM4n]

Ha, good luck finding out a way to enforce this.

I'd rather wait until Civic video has it on bluray, then go down on a Tuesday and get ans many as I like for $1ea.

 

[gamoniac]

Base on his plan, even though 98% of their revenue is in the first three weekends, nobody would pay for it on the last weekend, so they will have no choice but to stretch the premier period out a bit. Eventually, they probably will end up charging a flat $8-$12 for new movie rentals for the first 1-2 months.

 

[captaincranky]

OK boys and girls, are you really going to let one more over-achieving sociopath with a god complex, get you all riled up?

This is why I think streaming sucks, everybody needs a DVD drive, a huge a** hard drive, (or several), and an account at Blockbuster.

As soon as you convince yourselves that these things aren't necessary, you can live your digital life through a tablet, or your toy smart phone, and streaming is the only way entertainment is meant to be enjoyed, you're going to be listening to jacka**es like this one, time upon time again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 

[VitalyT]

OK boys and girls, are you really going to let one more over-achieving sociopath with a god complex, get you all riled up?

This is why I think streaming sucks, everybody needs a DVD drive, a huge a** hard drive, (or several), and an account at Blockbuster.

As soon as you convince yourselves that these things aren't necessary, you can live your digital life through a tablet, or your toy smart phone, and streaming is the only way entertainment is meant to be enjoyed, you're going to be listening to jacka**es like this one, time upon time again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Dude, you live in the past. Everyone agrees today that investing in a media is a waste of money when the media format has been changing so many times and with such short intervals.

First, owners of video tapes thought they got raped, then the those of DVD-s, now blu-rays. And you are suggesting that people should keep investing into those?

Like it or not, online streaming is all we got now. The best thing one can get next to a hard copy is a home server with downloaded + ripped movies on it.

 

[Saintnsinner]

Hollywood is on life support. Everyone is sick of the garbage they keep pumping out for the brain dead masses. It doesn't matter what the sales model is if you don't have a worthy product it won't sell well. I'll just keep waiting for the movies to come out as a rental on blu-ray so I can catch what few gems that do come out. But sad to say that's fewer and fewer these days. Thankfully video streaming is here. I'm already watching the majority of my programming via video streaming. The indie studios and network original programming are making way more quality products.

 

[captaincranky]

Dude, you live in the past. Everyone agrees today that investing in a media is a waste of money when the media format has been changing so many times and with such short intervals.

Apparently not everyone. And it's nice back here. We don't have imbeciles that think self driving cars are the way to go.We don't have voyeurs with "Google Glass". We have a school system that isn't infested with crack babies, and knife or gun wielding lunatics. We have a tax base that supports the amount of children we have to educate. We still get enjoyment form 480i media. Our pleasure is derived from content not from techno-crap.

First, owners of video tapes thought they got raped, then the those of DVD-s, now blu-rays. And you are suggesting that people should keep investing into those?

Well, video tape did suck, since so much is lost in the analog copy process.

Like it or not, online streaming is all we got now. The best thing one can get next to a hard copy is a home server with downloaded + ripped movies on it.

No, streaming is all you're allowed to have. Basically what you've allowed to be rammed down your throats, in the pursuit of being the first kids on the block to have the latest and "greatest" s*** which the uber rich have made in China to placate you.

You've been pissing up money up a wall since cable was introduced. Do you really need 200 channels of garbage to pick from?

Or does "Angry Birds" really fill a hole in you love starved lives?

Dude, when I say "Redbox", I actually mean, "Redbox", $1.20 a DVD for a night. So no, I wasn't suggesting people invest in home media, just borrowing it. For your $1.20 you get to watch your movie, on whatever you want, without some creep telling you how much have to pay, for what you want to watch it on.