adelevet, it’s an interesting point about needing to attract financing. But when I say “good movie” (or when they say “good movie”) I don’t think anyone means a movie that has no box office appeal. They certainly don’t want something that is an artistic success but boring. The whole point of the Winter’s Bone example is that the movie succeeded because it was good and it was intelligently rolled-out. It didn’t have stars, it had quality.
One of the appealing things about the strategy as put forth in the SHM is that it appears to be a sound strategy. “But the reality is if you have a good movie and you put it in the right theatre, you’ll start to create some buzz, you’ll start to create some word of mouth and then you can expand, or stop if necessary, before you go to DVD and Blu-ray.”
In other words, they would be looking for good reviews and word-of-mouth to generate an audience, which makes a lot of sense because, as we know, TDGI is not able to spend a lot on advertising. So you get a good movie, a promising movie, you put it out there slowly and intelligently and see if you can develop an audience. If not, you go to DVD without having expended a great deal of money.
As to your statement, “some wavering off that ideal is not exactly surprising” that is also a good point. I don’t mind if they jump on an opportunity that doesn’t meet the criteria of their basic plan, but the statement from the recent meeting indicates that they now have a whole new idea, an idea not very well thought out. “More significant titles with greater commercial appeal.” What does that mean? Bigger budgets? Flashier?
A third point you make is also interesting. “That this whole company is a rather organic process and not a linear model has become quite clear over time.” What a kind way of putting it.
