I'm not sure I buy Curt's classification of film as a "first-order product".
While films were once "sold directly to the consumer and the consumer [was]
the one that paid for them" (tho' I have problems with this, too, see below),
in an age of massive merchandising, films are financed in another, very
different way, as well.  Films like _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_, _Batman_,
and _Dick Tracy_ are as much advertisements for other products as they are
products themselves.  Whether the products are directly related to the film
(e.g. the Batman logo) or simply appear prominantly as items consumed by the
film's characters (Domino's Pizza in _TMNTs_).  These films are, then,
something in addition to "first order products." [I'm a bit uncomfortable
with all this "order" stuff, so I won't bother saying what "order" *this*
makes them, tho' I'm open to suggestion.]
 
In addition, before the age of merchandising, there were a number of factors
that made films, particularly Hollywood films, something a little more
complicated than Curt's description of "first order products" (I actually
think most commodities in our society are more complicated than this).  First,
film's are in fact _financed_ long before any consumer has the option to
"pay for" them or not.  Unlike other products, that one might argue can be
reproduced in response to demand (e.g. a particular model car), films are
unique, or at least make some attempt at claiming to be unique.  This means
that they are a gamble being taken by their financial backers, who are often
interested in selling the consumer much in addition to the film (I'm thinking
here of Ayn Rand's film code from the late 1940s which emphasized that movies
should celebrate capitalism and wealth, should under no circumstances glorify
poverty, and should offer only positive views of the U.S., though there are
countless more subtle examples [not to get too paranthetical here, but I'm
really not sure what bearing this has on discourse theory due to a temporary
brain-freeze :-) ]).  Secondly, Hollywood, especially in its early years,
spent much effort selling itself through movies.  Seeing a movie was often
in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s also seeing an advertisement for movies in
general.  This of course insured that future financial gambles would pay off.
If you look at box office returns from the 1920s and 1930s, this strategy was
certainly successful.
 
Uh-oh.  I'm a historian, and the above is looking a bit too much like history,
and a bit too little like theory.  So here's a brief (albeit poor) translation
of the above two points into more general, theoretical ones:  1) Film is an
_extremely_ capital intensive medium.  As its products are unique, or at least
purport to be (unlike TV or radio series), each film constitutes a massive
financial gamble, which these days may in part be payed for through
merchandising.  2)  There are all kinds of financial relationships that may
be created between the producers and consumers of movies that have nothing to
do with the nature of the medium and everything to do with the particular
conditions of its production.
 
-- Ben Alpers