One of the ideas that instantly caught my eye was that of a adjusting the costs of movie tickets based on what the budget of said movie was. Should a smaller budget film cost less to watch than a big budget film? This would bring problems such as, as one of the comments mentioned, the many times wrong idea that a low budget movie would be a low quality movie. If I pay less for watching this film, does it mean it is not as good?
As multiple examples have shown throughout the history of cinema, movies that cost less are many times better, as far as art and technicality (except for effects, of course) and story, characters, among many other things considered in this art form. While it is proven that movies backed up with big money are many times triumphants at the box office, quality is never a guarantee.
By making a low budget movie less expensive, wouldn´t that scare away people? Personally, I think it is a matter of the public, not the industry. The film companies give people what they want, and if a big movie with big FX and a well known cast is what the public wants, that´s what they will give to them. At the same time, one must consider: the most profitable movies ever made were small budget movies. Films such as the Blair Witch Project have made big money out of a minimum budget. Maybe small quality films should be considered by distribution companies after all.
How about you? Do you prefer watching big budget movies, small budget movies of middle budget movies? Why?
You can find the link to the article I talked about and where I got some of the info right here:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/the-.html
http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2009/06/10-movies-you-should-have-invested-in-the-most-profitable-films-ever-made/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment away!