Dark Knight Proves Again: Give People A Reason To Go To The Movies And They Will
from the silly-MPAA dept
While the MPAA still wants you to believe that movie piracy is a huge problem, it's never quite able to explain how the movies that are most likely to be available for free online also happen to be the biggest box office winners. The latest example is with The Dark Knight, the latest Batman installment. It's getting tremendous reviews and had a record opening week, despite the fact that you could download it online. This isn't a surprise. Piracy has never really been a threat to the movie business -- which has always been more about selling the experience than the movie itself. And, things are even better with The Dark Knight because it's actually designed to look amazing on IMAX screens, which is an experience you just can't replicate at home. Somehow, though, we doubt the MPAA will give up its pointless claims about the "threat" of movie downloads.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: batman, dark knight, movies, mpaa, piracy
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
MPAA pointless claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA pointless claims
I imagine there's a love/hate thing in Hollywood with movies like this. On the one hand it's like a licence to print money for a period of time, and on the other hand it only serves to shoot their position that piracy is killing them full of holes right in front of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
They did, in the end, make more money cause I could download. If a movie I downloaded was good I'd go buy the DVD so I could have a higher quality format than what I got online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
Some of the downloaders will watch the downloaded copy and never buy tickets. Other downloaders will watch the downloaded copy, and then go to the theater to see a better quality presentation. Some of the latter will be people who never would have bought tickets without having seen the download. It balances, though I think that, all-in-all, the value of promotion outweighs the loss of ticket sales. Why? Because those satisfied with watching only the downloaded copy are people who were unlikely to buy tickets, anyway.
Check out the US Pirate Party report to see the effect that piracy has REALLY had on the MPAA. Box office sales were at near-record highs last year, and 2008 is on track to shatter that record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA's claims
It seems more likely to me,that downloading movies is costing book publishing companies, or videogame companies more money than the movie companies, because people would rather watch a free bad movie than pay $10 for an award winning paperback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MPAA's claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hrmph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what got people to the theater - the morbid fascination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I went to see the movie because I knew it was going to be awesome, not because I have some sort of lingering interest in seeing a dead man on the big screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wasn't disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
downloaded before I saw in theatres
Downloaded to see if I like it, saw it in theatre for theatre experience.
Liked theatre experience, turns out they're IMAX'ing it at a theatre nearby, thus I am going with my family for $14/ticket imax as well. Triple income for the movie industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I made the statement to her, that hollywood should think of pirated flicks as free advertisement. Considering the fact that I had seen the movie for free and she hasn't, I pretty much told her "We have to go see this movie".
We would not have went at all if I didn't see the free version first.
So if any of you hollywood net cops are reading, make GOOD movies and people will pay to see them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does that prove??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does that prove??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What does that prove??
(If MPAA/movie company stops enforcing law or law is changed, it would become "freely available")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
A really great movie is going to be seen, downloads or no.. but an average or crappy movie isn't... and rather than just make fewer, better movies (the real issue), or make the movie experience better, they choose to litigate and bs.
Of course, the MPAA misjudges its audience.. most of us are smart enough to avoid bombs like "Meet Dave" and let it drop from the top 10 within a week or two of release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that's fair, after all, when you buy a DVD there are many more reasons to own it than to see the movie more than one time. Yet, there's only one reason to buy a movie ticket, to see it one time. These days, the price difference is minimal, what like 30 for a DVD and 10 for a ticket? So going by law these people may be in the wrong, but going by value they have the right, and it's the industry and MPAA who are the true thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TDN is an exceptional movie. But what about not-so-popular-but-still-good movies? If you dont like a movie then just dont watch it or wait for DVD rental or wait until it arrives in your local library (my fav way!).
Piracy is unethical and would make even the genuine fans not to spend on those movies (why go to theater to watch "The squid and the whale" when you can watch it at home for free, especially since it does not have great special effects and you wouldnt hear about the spoilers as the movie is not famous anyways!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In some countries libraries have to pay the authors every time a book/DVD is borrowed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA
He told me the story and I said "It's not like I can't go out and download it right now". He responded "I already have it".
I don't think the MPAA is doing anything that actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie Viewing
Going to the movies used to be a very pleasent escape for us on a regular basis, but the quality of the movie going experience has been declining for us recently. There is alot more garbage out there on the screens and frankly it is alot more enjoyable for us to use the home theator for the movies we want to see when we want to see them.
We are big netflix fans and it works much much better than anything else except maybe redbox these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie Viewing
The downloadable cam versions of the film, which is the only thing available for download, are crap. The quality is horrible even on the "best" cams, as is the audio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think if someone was stealing flowers from your garden on a daily basis, you'd probably be a little ticked off too.
: )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just kill one of the stars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie Review
The reason downloading flicks has not eclipsed the theater is the lag between the film being released and the quality of audio/video of camera-shot downloads.
Normally the film comes out, and within minutes there is a cam version of the movie on your favorite bit torrent site, however the quality is horrid and usually unwatchable.
What they should do is on the day movie is released in theaters, release the movie on cable or internet or even DVD for a fee of course.
People are always talking about the experience of the theater.
What an experience...sitting in the dark with a bunch of strangers. Having to deal with people whispering, kids screaming, cell phones vibrating, popcorn crunching, with over-priced food, scrunched up beside some moron fighting for control of the armrest. Not to mention the inconvenience of NO pause button (for long movies, and after drinking the BIGGIE soda).
I know the BIG sound and screen make it exciting, but with the prices of home theaters and big screen HDTVs going down, it hardly seems to make sense to have theaters being the only showcase for new movies.
And BTW...
The Dark Knight made $158 million over 3 days, but factor in the rising price of movie tickets. I mean in 10 years, a movie might bring in over $200 million in an opening weekend, but if tickets are $20 each, it's not as impressive.
I absolutely loved this movie (Heath Ledger deserves the Oscar hands down), but fact is Spiderman 3 sold more tickets last year in its opening, but the price of tickets was slightly lower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Works for the Knight...
If all you want to see are the half-dozen "blockbusters" showing at your local theater, then by all means consider this as your "proof" of concept.
If, however, you want more choice in your moviegoing fare, then you might need to consider many films that to make their bones at the box office and need DVD and download sales to make up the difference and pay the bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two points
"Sure, we set a record for most money taken in on one day, but we could have made more if people hadn't downloaded it."
Second, and this is the question that I'd like someone to answer:
If a regularly-priced movie ticket is $10 (for example) and I see an afternoon showing for $6.00, have I somehow "stolen" or "taken money away" from the studio or MPAA?
Do they calculate this as a "loss"? If not, how can the claim a "loss" if someone downloads the movie with no intent of even seeing in the theaters?
Suppose 100 people were in an afternoon showing and only paid $6.00. Does this mean that this group of "evil" early-show watchers effectively stole $400?
If the regular ticket price was $12, does this mean they "stole" $6 per person, for a total of $600?
What about all the other afternoon shows? My god, hundreds of people could be paying less than full price to *legally* see the movie! The studio could be losing gazillions or even bazillions because of these people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how it works
"If a regularly-priced movie ticket is $10 (for example) and I see an afternoon showing for $6.00, have I somehow "stolen" or "taken money away" from the studio or MPAA?"
The theater paid the studio to screen the movie. Even if the theater screens the movie for free, the loss is theirs, not the studio's or MPAA's.
"Do they calculate this as a "loss"? If not, how can the claim a "loss" if someone downloads the movie with no intent of even seeing in the theaters?"
See, your question is already answered. They did not authorize the download, so anytime anyone downloads it, they will consider it a loss.
And pray, if someone has no intent of even seeing it in the theaters, why do they download it in the first place? Probably because they do not want to pay to watch a movie.
This becomes a huge problem when someone downloads a copy, burns it on a DVD, makes tens of thousands of copies and sells them in the black market, which incidentally is the norm in China, India, Malaysia and Thailand, and quite likely a whole host of other developing nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perspecitve on value for money
The only time we go to the cinema is for a movie like the "Lord Of The Rings", "Star Wars", and the "Dark Knight" that are in a totally different world on the big screen.
So why don't we go to the cinema; (1) the cost for the tickets & the food (2) the lack of control of the viewing environment. A couple of movie tickets and some chips and drinks (and through in parking) and you ain't got much change from $50, add a couple of kids into the mix and there goes the family's entertainment budget for the month. Now for under $20 I can rent three new-release videos, buy the chips and drinks, and the family can sit at home in front of the large screen plasma with the home hifi & subwoofer and have almost the same view as the cinema with the ultimate power over the viewing experience (e.g. pause, rewind, volume control).
As for the films I download, they fall into two distinct categories; (1) I got to see it now because the DVD ain't out yet {which 99.9% of the time I end up renting or purchasing on DVD because of the quality of the video and she hates CAM films}, and (2) I was not going to watch it anyway {but it is late I can't sleep and there ain't anything good on TV.
Another perspective on legality; is it "legal" to rent a video on cheapy-tuesday then dvd-shrink it to the harddrive and then watch it on saturday, download the mp3s of an album to listen to it a couple of times before realizing there was only one good track on it {p.s. my favorite artists I always buy their CDs}, download tv shows that won't be available in your country for 1 to 2 years, or download a magazine that is not even sold in your country.
Question; in reality what percentage of society actually has the technological knowledge to download and then use the media. In my associated family; my parent's, my bother and sisters families are not capable. Yet I am the one encouraging then to watch a tv series like Dextar, or telling them they have got to rent this dvd... one downloader but four purchasers.
The movie, music, and tv industries need to wake up to the digital download age ... as music artists have done knowing that you can't download the experience of a live performance.
The movie industry needs to release all films around the world at the same time, cinemas should sell multi-session viewing tickets, dvd releases and official downloads should be within a couple of months of cinema release. For example in Australia some of the TV stations started showing the latest episode of a show a couple of day's after it was shown in the states. Hence why would I bother downloading it in this case. So if the DVD was available in a month or two of the cinema release then why would I download it when in a few weeks I can rent it on DVD.
p.s. Did you realize that most insurance companies won't cover your mp3 or avi collection but they will fully cover your CD and DVD collections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another view
Also, the dumb windowing of theatrical releases means that those of us unfortunate enough not to live in the US have to wait. 1 week for the UK release, I have to wait 3 weeks here in Spain. With the hype this movie's getting, some people don't want to wait that long so will download a copy - again, not instead of paying money, but to fill the gap waiting to be allowed to do so. Same as we have to do with Hellboy 2 - hell, I could buy the US DVD of the original Hellboy before the UK theatrical release.
The apparent difference between The Dark Knight and other movies is that even if you see a pirate copy of TDK, it's still worth paying money for. If Hollywood are losing any money, it's because you just can't say that about the quality of most movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on target
We meet again, and yes, we agree again. I simply don't understand why Hollywood, with such a huge global audience, wants to try and delay DVD releases in an age when stuff appears online in matter of hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on target
Oh, I know why the windowing happens but it's no less dumb.
They think that simultaneous DVD releases would cannibalise the market and theaters would be put out of business. I think there's always tension between the studios and theater owners, and DVD releases are always a sore point - look, for instance, at theaters banning Soderberg's movie "Bubble" when it had a simultaneous release.
I understand where they're coming from, but it's just dumb. I think back to the 80s, when studios withheld their product from video because of the same fear. Now, they make huge profits on DVD and the theatrical business is still going strong. If only they'd recognise the "piracy" as being an expression of market desires rather than trying to block it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By downloading movies, the only thing people are doing is weeding out the garbage they are curious to see but would not spend money on. If these movies weren't free I don't think people would spend money on them any way especially with the current economy. People are demanding quality for their money and I don't see anything wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]