If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   DreamWorks CEO awakens to find he is no longer in touch with reality   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 70
    More: Amusing, DreamWorks CEO, DreamWorks, CEO, display size, Jeffrey Katzenberg  
•       •       •

6413 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2014 at 10:16 PM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 07:50:17 PM
GIS for "world's smallest tv"

blu.stb.s-msn.com
 
2014-04-30 08:09:13 PM
Do I have to calculate all of the screens that I have to come to a figure for how much I'm going to pay based on x dollar/per square inch of screen real estate? What if some of the screens can put out 3d? Do I have to multiply that figure against the others? What if I have a projector with a 3 inch lcd lamp but project it on a 50 ft wall?
 
2014-04-30 08:25:06 PM
I personally prefer the 'go fark yourself' model, where Jeffrey Katzenberg pays for every inch I shove up his ass.
 
2014-04-30 08:26:56 PM

bdub77: I personally prefer the 'go fark yourself' model, where Jeffrey Katzenberg pays for every inch I shove up his ass.


Ha.
 
2014-04-30 08:47:19 PM
"Movies are not a growth business," he said.

Gee... MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME FREAKING ONES OVER AND OVER
 
2014-04-30 08:53:43 PM
Not surprising. Never met a studio suit who had a clue.
 
2014-04-30 09:07:26 PM
Make 50 more Katherine Heigl movies.
 
2014-04-30 09:10:40 PM
"Movies are not a growth business," he said. With this in mind, DreamWorks is diversifying its output to produce shorter films and series intended for TV and digital download, he said.

More direct-to-video crap -- just what international audiences are lining up at cinemas to watch.

How do geniuses like this keep their jobs?
 
2014-04-30 09:42:15 PM
Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.
 
2014-04-30 09:56:06 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-30 10:23:15 PM
It's crazy and wouldn't work, but it's not that crazy -- you usually pay more for high definition streaming and media (see: Amazon, Netflix, Blu-Ray, etc.)
 
2014-04-30 10:36:08 PM
Oh, yea, that's going to work.  Maybe if your profits are down, you might want to look to the quality of your product, as far as I know, there are as many people in the world who CAN go to movies as there ever were...

Stop with "The revenge of batman returns" and the like, give us good stuff.
 
2014-04-30 10:46:27 PM
So going to the IMAX is going to cost me $7000?
 
2014-04-30 10:50:07 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.


Headline: "DreamWorks CEO"

How'd ya guess?
 
2014-04-30 10:50:47 PM

bmwericus: Oh, yea, that's going to work.  Maybe if your profits are down, you might want to look to the quality of your product, as far as I know, there are as many people in the world who CAN go to movies as there ever were...

Stop with "The revenge of batman returns" and the like, give us good stuff.


Yeah, but is it true that profits are down, or is that more RIAA math - where they say "ZOMG we're losing money" but in reality it's more like "ZOMG we're making all-time record money.... but we could squeeze these suckers for MORE if we just lie and say we're not"?

Oh yeah, looks like RIAA math. They're doing just fine.

So yeah, fark 'em. HE's basically just being greedy here, and that shiat will probably just backfire.
 
2014-04-30 10:57:54 PM
It can be done. The studios could re-encode in several resolutions.

But they won't because it's too expensive to keep track of and publish several different resolutions of every single movie. The main cost would be an inventory of extra discs on the shelves or extra space on the media servers.

Netflix proved the subscription model works for movies. Subscribers are fickle enough as it is.
 
2014-04-30 11:08:06 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.

Headline: "DreamWorks CEO"

How'd ya guess?


There's also Stacey Snider, co-CEO of Dreamworks Studios, Eric Ellenbogen and John Engelman, co-CEO's of DreamWorks Classics, DreamWorks Experience (theme park division) CEO Noel Dempsey. DreamWorks Interactive and DreamWorks Records are both now defunct, but each had their own CEO's.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is CEO of DreamWorks Animation.
 
2014-04-30 11:12:14 PM
The only reason why Katzenberg isn't the Biggest Douchebag Executive In The Universe is because Michael Eisner is still alive.
 
2014-04-30 11:17:35 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: More direct-to-video crap -- just what international audiences are lining up at cinemas to watch.


Direct-to-video has generated some really excellent flicks.  Witness:

www.1888pressrelease.com
 
2014-04-30 11:18:36 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.

Headline: "DreamWorks CEO"

How'd ya guess?

There's also Stacey Snider, co-CEO of Dreamworks Studios, Eric Ellenbogen and John Engelman, co-CEO's of DreamWorks Classics, DreamWorks Experience (theme park division) CEO Noel Dempsey. DreamWorks Interactive and DreamWorks Records are both now defunct, but each had their own CEO's.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is CEO of DreamWorks Animation.


I'd say that only reduces the chance of Katzenburg down to 99% since the others aren't as well-known, and their titles would likely be spelled out.
 
2014-04-30 11:19:06 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: It can be done. The studios could re-encode in several resolutions.

But they won't because it's too expensive to keep track of and publish several different resolutions of every single movie. The main cost would be an inventory of extra discs on the shelves or extra space on the media servers.

Netflix proved the subscription model works for movies. Subscribers are fickle enough as it is.


He's not even that clued in. You're thinking 720-1080-4k. He's talking smartphone, large TV, private theater. YOUR idea makes sense and would be doable. His idea would require decoders aware of the screen size.

Besides, if I buy a digital copy I expect it to work everywhere. Although I'd expect new content in 4k to cost more.

Personally, if the story is good a movie can be watched on an iPhone.
 
2014-04-30 11:27:20 PM
You know, I think I've come to understand how the hell dreamworks lost around $57 million on Peabody and sherman...
 
2014-04-30 11:30:53 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.

Headline: "DreamWorks CEO"

How'd ya guess?

There's also Stacey Snider, co-CEO of Dreamworks Studios, Eric Ellenbogen and John Engelman, co-CEO's of DreamWorks Classics, DreamWorks Experience (theme park division) CEO Noel Dempsey. DreamWorks Interactive and DreamWorks Records are both now defunct, but each had their own CEO's.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is CEO of DreamWorks Animation.

I'd say that only reduces the chance of Katzenburg down to 99% since the others aren't as well-known, and their titles would likely be spelled out.


And, since you also blindsided me with the other companies, I had to check the 10K. Those are all "recent" subsidiaries of Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc, of which Jeffrey Katzenberg is the CEO and a director.

So, when people talk about DreamWorks, they think Katzenberg (or possibly Geffen or Spielberg.. you know.. SKG). Those inside the business may know of the others, but I doubt anyone else does.

*I say "recent" because I remember when DreamWorks SKG started up.
 
2014-04-30 11:48:18 PM

wildcardjack: Wake Up Sheeple: It can be done. The studios could re-encode in several resolutions.

But they won't because it's too expensive to keep track of and publish several different resolutions of every single movie. The main cost would be an inventory of extra discs on the shelves or extra space on the media servers.

Netflix proved the subscription model works for movies. Subscribers are fickle enough as it is.

He's not even that clued in. You're thinking 720-1080-4k. He's talking smartphone, large TV, private theater. YOUR idea makes sense and would be doable. His idea would require decoders aware of the screen size.

Besides, if I buy a digital copy I expect it to work everywhere. Although I'd expect new content in 4k to cost more.

Personally, if the story is good a movie can be watched on an iPhone.


Don't mistake me for defending his idea, I'm not. But the screensize in encoding is roughly analogous to the encoded resolution. If he is actually thinking of this as a separate concept, then he is an idiot.

As we've all seen, if someone wants to view the movie that badly for free, they'll take the horribly encoded nano-ipod resolution and watch that on their 21" high-res monitor with tinny piezo speakers. The movie studios gain nothing from this "market segment."  Moving the pricing to per-movie and screensize instead of the current subscription will only anger and certainly erode from the people who currently pay $15/month for near-unlimited full-res movies.

Even though I believe artists and studios should be paid for their works, that war has been lost, and now the distribution models should reflect that most people will be pirates, and the price structure needs to reflect a "better-than-nothing" strategy, rather than attempting to make blood wine with that turnip.
 
2014-04-30 11:49:55 PM
Since I typically read TotalFalk on my 10 inch tablet, then Drew should make my monthly membership fee about Three Fifty.
 
2014-04-30 11:56:28 PM
Well, it's ten bucks to see a movie, and that's ... what, 20x50 feet? At that rate it should cost me a buck fifty for my 42" at home. I'm ok with that.
 
2014-05-01 12:18:15 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-05-01 12:31:09 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death: Somehow I knew it was Katzenberg before clicking the link.

Headline: "DreamWorks CEO"

How'd ya guess?

There's also Stacey Snider, co-CEO of Dreamworks Studios, Eric Ellenbogen and John Engelman, co-CEO's of DreamWorks Classics, DreamWorks Experience (theme park division) CEO Noel Dempsey. DreamWorks Interactive and DreamWorks Records are both now defunct, but each had their own CEO's.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is CEO of DreamWorks Animation.

I'd say that only reduces the chance of Katzenburg down to 99% since the others aren't as well-known, and their titles would likely be spelled out.

And, since you also blindsided me with the other companies, I had to check the 10K. Those are all "recent" subsidiaries of Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc, of which Jeffrey Katzenberg is the CEO and a director.

So, when people talk about DreamWorks, they think Katzenberg (or possibly Geffen or Spielberg.. you know.. SKG). Those inside the business may know of the others, but I doubt anyone else does.

*I say "recent" because I remember when DreamWorks SKG started up.


Yeah. I was thinking, with Geffen gone, that Spielberg and Katzenberg were now co-CEO's with Stacey Snider, the only one on that list that I've heard of. I remember when she left Universal to partner up with Spielberg and run DreamWorks Studios division. But Spielberg is listed as Principal Partner on the DW website.

I knew DW had several divisions, but I had to look them up. I wasn't trying to blindside you, merely trying to illustrate that, in my mind, it wasn't so clear a choice. Rather than 99%, it was more like one in three, because I knew about Stacey Snider being a co-CEO, and I was totally wrong about Spielberg being a CEO.
 
2014-05-01 12:31:19 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: wildcardjack: Wake Up Sheeple: It can be done. The studios could re-encode in several resolutions.

But they won't because it's too expensive to keep track of and publish several different resolutions of every single movie. The main cost would be an inventory of extra discs on the shelves or extra space on the media servers.

Netflix proved the subscription model works for movies. Subscribers are fickle enough as it is.

He's not even that clued in. You're thinking 720-1080-4k. He's talking smartphone, large TV, private theater. YOUR idea makes sense and would be doable. His idea would require decoders aware of the screen size.

Besides, if I buy a digital copy I expect it to work everywhere. Although I'd expect new content in 4k to cost more.

Personally, if the story is good a movie can be watched on an iPhone.

Don't mistake me for defending his idea, I'm not. But the screensize in encoding is roughly analogous to the encoded resolution. If he is actually thinking of this as a separate concept, then he is an idiot.

As we've all seen, if someone wants to view the movie that badly for free, they'll take the horribly encoded nano-ipod resolution and watch that on their 21" high-res monitor with tinny piezo speakers. The movie studios gain nothing from this "market segment."  Moving the pricing to per-movie and screensize instead of the current subscription will only anger and certainly erode from the people who currently pay $15/month for near-unlimited full-res movies.

Even though I believe artists and studios should be paid for their works, that war has been lost, and now the distribution models should reflect that most people will be pirates, and the price structure needs to reflect a "better-than-nothing" strategy, rather than attempting to make blood wine with that turnip.


They do not even have to do that.  In my experience, most people are willing to pay for streaming.  The problem is that movie studios keep farking the streaming customers up the ass.  Movies take years to be available for streaming, and a large portion NEVER become available for it.

I have a $16/mo netflix sub, Amazon Prime, and Hulu +.  I shell out plenty.  I support the movie industry...within reason.  But I'm not going to pay $15 per person for the "privilege" of driving 40 minutes (round trip), paying more for parking, fighting for shiatty seats, waiting 10 minutes, then waiting another 10 minutes to watch advertisements, just so I can have the "experience" of sitting in a dirty food covered shiathole full of loud asshats ruining my movie when I should be able to watch it at home.  Theaters suck, and I refuse to use them.

Part of my Netflix sub includes DvDs by mail, but that takes 5-7 days generally for you to get a single disc.  In many ways, when it comes to being able to watch a movie whenever you want, it's significantly inferior to the old rental models it replaced.  Certainly, when it comes to things like having friends visit and watching multiple movies in a row, or trying to watch an entire TV show (Babylon 5, for example, is 35 farking discs), it's not a viable solution.

Streaming is a reasonably priced service.  But if studios deliberately attempt to make streaming inadequate, leaving only piracy as the only convenient and affordable option, they should not be surprised at the result.  Hint for idiots at the MPAA: the result won't be a magical return to the 80s.
 
2014-05-01 12:52:40 AM
Danger Avoid Death:
. I wasn't trying to blindside you,

I know you weren't. I was just saying I was ignorant. :D  I had to go educate myself.
 
2014-05-01 12:52:56 AM

AWAKENS, you dolt.

 
2014-05-01 01:03:06 AM
ajikaslafma.wikispaces.com
 
2014-05-01 01:13:53 AM
Music should be sold based one speaker size as well. This guy really does have rotten smelling shiat for brains.
 
2014-05-01 01:14:52 AM

China White Tea: [ajikaslafma.wikispaces.com image 200x148]


Heh... I'm stealin' that one

/I know someone I want to use it on
//thanks
 
2014-05-01 01:23:26 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: Danger Avoid Death:
. I wasn't trying to blindside you,

I know you weren't. I was just saying I was ignorant. :D  I had to go educate myself.


Yeah. Me too. :>)
 
2014-05-01 01:31:10 AM
What's stopping people from using their phone with Cromecast or a HDMI out/MHL
 
2014-05-01 02:02:20 AM
More Seth Rogan crap .... argh....
 
2014-05-01 02:19:16 AM
Affluenza, it's turning into an epidemic.
 
2014-05-01 02:21:45 AM

starsrift: Affluenza, it's turning into an epidemic.


Let's hope it can be cured with fire, like other pathogens.
 
2014-05-01 02:27:36 AM

mongbiohazard: bmwericus: Oh, yea, that's going to work.  Maybe if your profits are down, you might want to look to the quality of your product, as far as I know, there are as many people in the world who CAN go to movies as there ever were...

Stop with "The revenge of batman returns" and the like, give us good stuff.

Yeah, but is it true that profits are down, or is that more RIAA math - where they say "ZOMG we're losing money" but in reality it's more like "ZOMG we're making all-time record money.... but we could squeeze these suckers for MORE if we just lie and say we're not"?

Oh yeah, looks like RIAA math. They're doing just fine.

So yeah, fark 'em. HE's basically just being greedy here, and that shiat will probably just backfire.

RIAA math equation for calculating revenue losses to be blamed on piracy:

P = WR

Where:
P = the amount of revenue losses to blame solely on Piracy,
R = what their sales Revenues Really were in Reality, and
W = what they Wish those revenues Were.
 
2014-05-01 02:41:42 AM
Good thing my 15' x 20' movie theater screen self-identifies as a 2.5" sony watchman. Your move, katzenburglar.
 
2014-05-01 03:10:41 AM
We are rapidly entering the age of responsive design and he wants a pricing model that reflects resolution size?

That's an utterly obsolete way of thinking. It's like a VCR solution for a DVD market.
 
2014-05-01 03:21:29 AM

Ishkur: We are rapidly entering the age of responsive design and he wants a pricing model that reflects resolution size?

That's an utterly obsolete way of thinking. It's like a VCR solution for a DVD market.


Be kind. Rewind.
 
2014-05-01 04:12:09 AM
There's no way this would fail in the world of wearable computers with 2' screens directly in front of the eye.
 
2014-05-01 04:17:16 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: Don't mistake me for defending his idea, I'm not. But the screensize in encoding is roughly analogous to the encoded resolution. If he is actually thinking of this as a separate concept, then he is an idiot.

As we've all seen, if someone wants to view the movie that badly for free, they'll take the horribly encoded nano-ipod resolution and watch that on their 21" high-res monitor with tinny piezo speakers. The movie studios gain nothing from this "market segment."  Moving the pricing to per-movie and screensize instead of the current subscription will only anger and certainly erode from the people who currently pay $15/month for near-unlimited full-res movies.

Even though I believe artists and studios should be paid for their works, that war has been lost, and now the distribution models should reflect that most people will be pirates, and the price structure needs to reflect a "better-than-nothing" strategy, rather than attempting to make blood wine with that turnip.


But actually, most people aren't pirates. Or more accurately, many people spend some and pirate some.

What the movie and music industries can't understand is that movies and music have, since VCRs, been about value and income. What do you, the viewer, think this thing is worth and can you afford to spend it?

In the last month or so, I've paid for an Amazon Instant sub, bought 2 albums, rented 5 movies for streaming, and bought 4 cinema tickets. That was all to stuff I looked at and thought "yeah, that looks worth the price you're asking". And that's what everyone does, based on their own level. Students and the unemployed don't have much money, so they bootleg everything. Rich folks don't because they have plenty of money.

I'm watching some bootlegged TV series because when I looked at the legal price, it's ridiculous. Now, did I deprive someone of income by watching a bootlegged TV series? Let's put it another way - if I couldn't get it illegally, would I pay the price they were asking? and the answer is no.

All the content companies can do is to make life as easy as possible for people who will hand over their money, to make the value look good. I watched the rather good Safety Not Guaranteed because my streaming company had it for £1 one night. That's like "OK, I'll take a risk". If it had been the normal £3.50, I wouldn't have done. If you sell a DVD, give me a digital copy via Ultraviolet.
 
2014-05-01 05:16:22 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: What's stopping people from using their phone with Cromecast or a HDMI out/MHL


I'm assuming it would be different resolutions, but knowing these assclowns he might think he can prevent people from capturing the stream or whatever.
 
2014-05-01 06:28:04 AM

farkeruk: All the content companies can do is to make life as easy as possible for people who will hand over their money, to make the value look good.


Good luck with that.  People have been screaming this at the industry for a couple decades now, and they've been deaf to it.
 
2014-05-01 06:40:04 AM

Bin_jammin: Well, it's ten bucks to see a movie, and that's ... what, 20x50 feet? At that rate it should cost me a buck fifty for my 42" at home. I'm ok with that.


Yeah, at 4 bucks for a 75inch screen, and decreasing from there, people with the 32 and 52 inch screens will be getting a good deal.

Not sure why everyone in the thread is up in arms.  The technological barriers are not that steep.  Many pc's and pretty much all phones can detect their models of display, it wouldn't be a leap to compare that to a database.

I'd be fine with a 5$ movie download that I can save on my hard drive or phone or whatever.  20 bucks for no packaging(ie design and distribution fees) is a bit steep in principle.
 
2014-05-01 07:19:40 AM
Gotta love these Hollywood liberals.
 
2014-05-01 07:51:30 AM
"Movies are not a growth business," he said. With this in mind, DreamWorks is diversifying its output to produce shorter films and series intended for TV and digital download, he said"

Movies are not a growth business?  Bullshiat.  Every business has the potential for growth which is done through innovation that  drives interest in your product.  If movies were not a growth business, why would studios plunk down millions of dollars to hire A list actors/actresses?  Why would Pixar continue to improve their CGI?  For the fun of it?  No, because movie studios are trying to go for the next best thing to get people to watch their movies.  If you're losing money, it's not because of pirates, it's because you're releasing movies that are on par with Super Mario Bros.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report