• by adam , Shelly Palmer , March 9, 2006

A few great gowns, a few fashion faux pas, some embarrassing acceptance speeches, some wonderful acceptance speeches... all in all, 2006 offered a pretty typical night at the Oscars. Except this was an atypical year. Box office receipts were down, the ratings for the show were down, and the industry was closing ranks and thinking small. I don't know what was more disturbing, the clip packages or the big screen sales pitches.

Sid Ganis, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, walked onto the stage and delivered an impassioned plea for consumers to stop watching DVDs and other small screens and "enjoy the experience of going to the movies in a theater."

Has he been out to the movies lately? I have, and it's not that much fun. First of all, it's expensive. In midtown Manhattan, a trip to the local multiplex can cost you upwards of $40 per couple. You'll spend $10-$12 per ticket (depending upon how you purchase them) and another $20+ for popcorn and a couple of sodas. A DVD is a few bucks (or less from Netflix) to rent and can be less than the price of a movie to buy. I can download a movie from iWatchNow.com for $.99, or be a big spender and get one at Movielink or CinemaNow for just a little bit more. Then there's the fact that Hollywood has not released a blockbuster or "must-see" movie this year. I might be willing to put up with lots of noisy people chewing on salty snacks and talking on their cell phones during a movie if it was truly a "must-see," but this year I was not so compelled.

And what was up with the endless montages of old movie clips with completely unrelated music accompanying them? Ugh! It was as if the industry was saying, "hey, we used to make great movies--remember?" Yes. I do remember when Hollywood used to make great movies. At least I thought they were great when they were released.

Now, the industry is run by bankers and risk managers who are trying to maximize their investments. They don't make many films that interest me. I like films that tell stories, have beginnings, middles and endings and that take me someplace or that make me think. Hollywood refers to them as "little films." Little films are being made by independent filmmakers and the pundits say that those are the films that this year's Academy voters responded to. Maybe. It is also possible that no major studio made a blockbuster film worth watching this year. Was there one? Not a sequel, not a remake, something new and wonderful that captured the imagination and broke new ground... nope. Not this year.

As we enter the age of ubiquitous broadband video distribution, we will have more and more opportunities to watch content that we are individually interested in. Personalized video experiences are the natural evolution of our current technology. We have enjoyed personal music for decades; portable and personal video is not next, it's now.

The film industry can do as many commercials as it wants for the "big screen" experience. Home theaters, Video iPods, IP Video, DVDs, video-on-demand and other programming choices must be incorporated into Hollywood's business models if they are to prosper during this technological transition. Will they be able to make a profit creating and distributing "little" films? Can a blockbuster truly prosper in a file-sharing world?

Was this just a bad year creatively and part of the normal cycle of hits and flops, or is this year truly the portent of a downward trend? These are questions that smart movie executives should be asking themselves. The answer is not old clips and admonitions about the diminished value of movies on alternative platforms. Thinking small and asking people to look backwards to a simpler time just shines a very bright klieg light on tired old hands grasping at the past. Hey, Hollywood, they're not movies--they're content!