You said their business model wasn't at all being made obsolete. Now you're saying they need to take a page from TV and focus on less extravagant budgets to survive? I guess if you just mean they'll still make movies, then sure.
The dollar per minute figures are slightly misleading, because if you took just the first couple of episodes of Lost, the number would be much higher. The pilot cost $10 to $14 million to produce. That's about 0.14 million dollars per minute. Of course the average cost goes down as more episodes of the same show are made. That's why they filmed some movies (like LOTR and the Pirates sequels, I think) back-to-back.
Umm, no, the business model is fundamentally sound, it's just they need to reduce unnecessary costs which they've increased themselves.
In the case of the LOTR and Pirates sequels being filmed back to back, that was a situation consisting of continuity more than anything because the story is an ongoing saga.
If you look at that list of most expensive films ever made, the Pirates sequels come in at number 1 and 4... I don't think budget considerations were part of the equation.
(Also take note, Lord of the Rings isn't on there anywhere, because Pete Jackson reduced costs by setting up Weta Digital to do lots of their special effects inhouse. The cost of the entire trilogy was $285 million, less than the cost of the third Pirates movie)
Last I heard, Disney were considering making a 4th "Pirates" film, and given the subject matter (probably the fountain of youth as was suggested at the end of At Worlds End) - it might be another extravagant budget as well.
Also, in your argument of pilots vs ongoing costs, have you ever wondered how much of that is due to cost of sets?
With TV, generally they're re-using sets over and over, so of course the cost goes down, because the cost per episode is reduced.
With Film, the medium calls for lots of "throwaway" shots, which means lots and lots of sets.
Consider your average Michael Bay film, they might have explosions that cost several hundred thousand dollars each, yet are only 1 or 2 seconds of onscreen action and they might film them several times if there are any major faults.
But at the end of the day, it's all time wasting entertainment. I'd watch 6 episodes of Frasier (which were relatively cheap to produce) over a generic Michael Bay film any day - so why should the latter cost orders of magnitude more to produce? It's the same amount of entertainment for the viewer.
I'm pretty sure budget considerations were part of the equation. Why take a gamble by committing to two or more big-budget movies at once? If the Pirates sequels had been filmed separately, they would've cost even more to make.
As for the sets in TV shows, yes, exactly. And though perhaps not to the same extent as it's done in TV, they do reuse sets in films.
Edit: In answer to your question about Frasier vs. Michael Bay films, it's because not everyone has taste as good as yours. ;)
Well, Pirates of the Caribbean has been a Disneyland staple attraction since the 1950's, so they've got nearly 50 years of data to go on, on whether they should continue it or not - it's exactly why they made the first film.
When you consider how much the first film made, given it's actual cost (and the acclaim Depp got for his character) - the 2nd and 3rd weren't really that much of a gamble, but one that ultimately paid off.
The film industry isn't entirely an exact science, WALL-E for example had an entirely different ending which Pixar redid after it's first screening, after Andrew Stanton realised he had made an error in the way the story flows.
You also have major blunders - Waterworld anyone? It cost nearly double the budget that was set aside for it and it's gross revenue was barely more than that. The budget doesn't take into account the marketing costs, so money was lost on that film.
That's my point. A big-budget film is a big risk. Film studios wouldn't take on the added risk of two or more big-budget movies at once without a good reason. The benefit is that it saves money in production, so they do it when the financial success of the sequel(s) is close to a sure thing.
What about your average romantic comedy, especially those horrible ones with Hugh Grant - They have little more production value than a Frasier episode.
I would definitely pay to go see Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde Pierce in a Frasier movie.
The dollar per minute figures are slightly misleading, because if you took just the first couple of episodes of Lost, the number would be much higher. The pilot cost $10 to $14 million to produce. That's about 0.14 million dollars per minute. Of course the average cost goes down as more episodes of the same show are made. That's why they filmed some movies (like LOTR and the Pirates sequels, I think) back-to-back.