Hollywood Desperate To Blame Bad Opening Box Office Of Expendables 3 On Piracy Rather Than The Fact That It Sucked
from the might-be-another-factor... dept
It's been kind of crazy to watch movie studio Lionsgate go absolutely crazy over the fact that The Expendables 3 leaked online a few weeks ago. Within a few days, Lionsgate had filed a massive lawsuit, been granted a restraining order and followed it up with thousands of takedown notices, combined with targeting everyone from hosting providers to domain registrars, in a quixotic attempt to make the leaked files disappear.The movie finally opened for real and the results -- $16.2 million -- were considered a disappointment. The credulous reporters over at Variety immediately have decided to pin the blame on the leak, rather than the fact that almost everyone agrees the movie sucks and that the third film in a crappy franchise almost never does particularly well anyway. The report points to some research claiming that when a film leaks, "it loses nearly 20 percent of its potential revenue." Variety conveniently leaves out the fact that the research was done via a program "made possible through a gift from the MPAA," which kinda seems relevant....
Meanwhile, it seems relevant that another study of a leak a few years ago of Wolverine under fairly similar circumstances suggested that the leak actually helped the film at the box office. At best, it seems that Hollywood might legitimately claim that the leaked copy made people realize that the movie sucked and told their friends not to go, but then they're left arguing that they "made a movie so bad that pirates--who paid nothing to watch--told people it wasn't worth seeing." That doesn't really sound like it's the leak's fault... so much as the fact that the movie sucked.
As always, the same basic rule has applied to movies: make a good product and any leak isn't going to have significant impact at the box office. People go out to the movies for the social experience of it. A good movie is an event. Make a good movie and the fact that it leaks online isn't going to have much of an impact. That's not what happened here.
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: box office, copyright, expendables 3, infringement, leaks, piracy, quality
Companies: lionsgate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Twice.
I'm at a loss on how in the hell the conclusion was drawn to say Variety "put the blame" on piracy, all the while citing factors indicating the movie franchise could have suffered from the fast release times and competition at the box office.
It even cited the same Wolverine leak as a debunk.
So please explain how this conclusion was made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leaked copy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I didn't go watch it, but I sure as hell won't download that piece of trash, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Word of mouth"
In other words, people knew that it was a crappy movie without having to pay to find this out. It's more of the studios blaming social media for broadcasting the message that a movie isn't worth watching.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe the last sentence in the article? *shrugs*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
20 million a success?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Leaked copy
I wouldn't watch that movie if you paid me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somewhere there is an exec spinning this story as hard as possible in order to keep the job after greenlighting yet another crapfest.
The well is dry, we have millions of stories and ideas... but they are all locked up in copyright laws that made to convoluted to transverse.
O M G a bunch of senior citizens make a movie about them being bad asses and are SHOCKED that freaking exploding teenage turtles did better. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Awful
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lionsgate leaks Expendables
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm fairly certain that the ticket sales should actually be negative since anyone that actually sat through any of it should not only get a refund, but should be paid for the pain and suffering it has caused them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Perhaps the headline they choose to use: "‘Expendables 3′ Flops: Is Piracy to Blame?".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Leaked copy
Who thought making more Expendables was a good idea?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hollywood will never get my money again, last time I was at a US cinema, it was 2009.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to worry...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Plus they have quotes from people saying probably not, and note that it was up against Guardians and TMNT.
Mike cherrypicked as much as he's accusing Variety of doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There's a tremendous difference between a question mark and a period/exclamation mark.
Bait trapping headlines are nothing new, but the context of the article is important, and nothing in the article indicates piracy is to blame.
If anything, it's pretty much identical to this article, indicating it's not a justifiable blame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Leaked copy
A mediocre action film with a bunch starring a bunch of has-beens? You're seriously going to blame failure of THAT on piracy.
No. What you have here is a failure of the formula and the bean counter approach to creating art.
Even art created for commerce or entertainment needs a creative spark that accountants lack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
is it tat 1 lsts a wk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awful
No way I would pay additional money to see either of them though, much less a cheesier-looking sequel. I'll probably look at Exp. 3 when it finds it's way to Netflix streaming.
Schlock actioners like this make a huge amount of their money overseas, and a leaked digital copy gives the DVD pirates a head start, hence the furious reaction, though doubtless too late.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Leaked copy
The studios now make most of their box office profit overseas, so that's the market they cater to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not to worry...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any time you put a bunch of well known actors into cameo shots, it isn't about the theme of the movie. It's about hoping you'll spend the money to see your favorite actor. Since this is a movie with far too many well knowns, not many are going to have time to develop a character in the movie. Why would I go pay money for that? It's not even worth wasting the bandwidth to download if I were inclined to watch it; which I am not.
Nothing less than a total lack of interest in this film is my guiding thoughts. It doesn't even rank up there with ho-hum. I needed no guessing to figure out this was a crap movie and not to waste time nor money on it.
It's been more interesting to see the antics Lionsgate has pulled trying to protect its' precious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leaked copy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As the dwindling numbers trickled in over the weekend, studio executives privately pointed the finger at a leaked copy of the film that hit the internet three weeks before its debut and was seen by 2.2 million people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. Don't really know anything about that, seeing that my generation was "current" about 30 years ago.....
Bait trapping headlines are nothing new, but the context of the article is important, and nothing in the article indicates piracy is to blame.
In my opinion, the Variety article definitely slants towards blaming piracy, even if they didn't actually come out and say it outright.
Two of the three people they quoted basically said: "Piracy definitely hurt this movie and ah, oh yeah, the fact that people thought it sucked didn't help."
The third guy, who was sort of debunking the piracy side, still had to include "Even taking piracy out of the equation..." almost like it was already a forgone conclusion that piracy hurt sales.
So yeah, even though it wasn't stated outright, that article reads like piracy is to blame, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leaked copy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sure there was something like that out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Maybe they should advertise their movies, I only learned of this one because of the news about the leak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wHATS wRONG WITH THIS?
Las thing I saw was a year ago..
I dont have Cable, Broadcast TV, didnt show anything.
WHY is it that they are basing the Value a movie makes on 1 weekend?
I think it has been shown that MUCh of the money used to make Films, tends to disappear. Inflated Paychecks($1000 per day isnt bad) to Strange supply companies that disappear after the Publication.
Anyone think they could CUT losses y 1/2...Or is this just a scam to make more money with TONS of subcontractors that dont pay anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Movie selection advice
When the name of a movie ends in a number, usually, with few exceptions, it is going to suck.
Making cookie cutter movies out of the same basic idea is a perfect example of the lack of creativity in Hollywood. Similarly, comic book movies. Old TV remake movies.
But what do we NOT get? Hard sci-fi movies. Movies in space. Movies that have at least some respect for the laws of physics. Movies that aren't full of plot holes.
It's not that there aren't people with new, novel ideas for a story. It's just that the Hollywood system acts as a filter for those kinds of ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HFvhKxWumcc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wHATS wRONG WITH THIS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honestly
What can I say? Sometimes I just enjoy watching a few hours of mindless violence. Kinda annoyed got knocked down to PG-13, but whatever.
Don't films like these usually have a mediocre box office performance and then hit the motherload with DVD sales anyway?
Not to mention the movie was competing against Guardians of the Galaxy, Bay's incarnation of TMNT, and Let's Be Cops, the latter two films being worse than Expendables 3, if we treat the Tomatometer Critics' opinions as the gospel truth, so it feels to me like Hollywood's just bitching about the movie being leaked more than anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sadly, they could have a point
I use a rule of thumb to judge in advance whether a movie is likely to be good: The intensity of advertising immediately prior to opening; with higher intensities corresponding to worse movies. I have speculated that the theory is this: If a movie sucks, then you must run a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding" advertising campaign designed to ensure everyone sees it opening weekend. If it is a great movie, you hardly need to advertise it at all, because of all the word of mouth advertising you get.
So, if my theory is valid, then a pre-leak of a bad movie is seriously damaging to its first weekend take because everyone learns it is bad before the opening; the advertising doesn't work. (Conversely, I'd expect pre-leaks to make good movie returns even better.)
The only question remaining is, did Expendables 3 advertising campaign qualify as a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding"? I kind of think it did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Awful
what does it say that i have no clue at all what any of these movies are and i could only tell you that stallone is apparently in them and i only know that because of an article that was on [H].
i would have to think that if your major release movie is so bad that not one person i know has said anything to me about these movies ever, and i have not even come across so much as an add on youtube for ANY of the existing three movies... you have made some serious errors that started way back when the first person said "yes! lets do this movie!!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Money and effort spent on doing something about it: none
Effect piracy has on Hollywood's bottom line: pretty low
Money and effort spent on doing something about it: hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours from countless politicians and shills
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sadly, they could have a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
*clicks report and moves on*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Movie
Especially if quoting from "Rotten Tomatoes".
Yet, 16.2 million is a lot, which I think the movie is good for what it is. Then again, I could be wrong because I never watched it. Haha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First off, it's not just the "it sucked" part of the article above, but the overall production of the thing. To begin with, it's the third movie in a series. As soon as something becomes a trilogy, the third part usually falls off compared to the second. Even Pirates Of The Carribean took a significant dive with the 3rd part. The reason is that not every film needs a sequel. If the second part sucks, or just disappoints, then less people return for the third. Now, this certainly isn't always guaranteed, but despite the Rotten Tomatoes ratings, I know a lot of people who really disliked the second film. If you thought the second film sucked, would you be sitting there for the third on opening weekend? Yes, I know this happens with the Transformers series somehow, but I can think of numerous franchises where even the better films in the series underperformed because the previous entry sucked.
On top of that, there was the decision to go PG-13. This indicates to fans of the series that the violence they want in the film will be missing. The biggest complaint I've heard is that the film's been toned down. This can lead to bigger audiences sometimes, but if you've built a franchise on an R rating you might just alienate the audience you already had while not attracting a new one. Not a formula for success.
Then, there's the performance of movies related to, but outside of, the Expendables franchise. It's not pretty. Stallone's last 3 movies have underperformed, with Bullet To The Head being a notable flop. Schwarzenegger's last 3 movies all opened at under $10 million domestically, with Sabotage being a total flop. Statham's movies have also been very variable in their performance, his saving grace appearing to be the sheer number he pumps out rather than their individual quality. If the main pull of The Expendables is that these people appear together, but their own movies never break $25 million, why should the series continue to be a success when that gimmick wears thin?
Also, there's competition and marketing. I have at least one friend who opted to go and see Guardians Of The Galaxy instead of Expendables 3, despite having been at the last two on opening weekend. The guy I'm thinking of hasn't seen a pirated copy. The marketing didn't do much for the film, far too jokey with the "OMG look at the names we have!" gimmick wearing very thin. Especially since the main additions seem to have been Harrison Ford (sorry dude, most of your recent films were terrible), recent ex-convict Wesley Snipes, anti-semite Mel Gibson and Kelsey Grammar (in an action movie for some reason?). Each actor has their niche and appeal, but is it really enough to carry a tired formula?
Finally, there's what might perhaps be a hard truth - for many people, this franchise is not a summer blockbuster, watch on the big screen kind of franchise. It's a throw it on, late at night, catch it while on Netflix or with friends and a beer kind of franchise. If piracy has harmed the movie, it's because the studio's business model dictates that this kind of viewing experience can't happen until after a predetermined theatrical run. Perhaps it's finally time to seriously reconsider that model. I, for one, will definitely be catching it on Netflix, as I did with the first two. Should that option not be available, I won't be suddenly going to the cinema to see it, but I also won't be pirating.
Now, this argument can (and probably will continue), but there's a lot more to it than "it was piracy". What a shame there still can't be a real discussion, because studio heads need piracy as the scapegoat when they make bad moves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sadly, they could have a point
A good movie will always get attendees. A bad movie gets a spike until people know it's bad. When the movie is leaked, that spike might not happen, because people already know it's bad before opening night (otoh, people are still going to see TMNT).
What does it say when your business model relies on the ignorance of people to pay for your product before they know it's bad?
Add to this the massive vapidity of the current movie industry built on wall-to-wall adaptations of kids novels, cartoons, and sequels. Maybe, just maybe because a type of movie worked well for about five or ten years, based on a few good ones and a lot of mediocre to bad ones, doesn't mean that it's going to forever. Maybe it's time for Hollywood to change direction.
It's Coke from the faucet all over again.
Yehuda
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sadly, they could have a point
Only if the movie's bad, or even not necessarily then (see Wolverine). In actual fact, it could be argued that the free publicity gained as a result of a leak can be a positive gain.
Of course, some studios do depend on audience ignorance if they know they have a bad movie on their hands (think of movies that don't have preview screenings for professional critics). They just can't admit to shareholders that the reason they failed was because they delivered a bad product.
"A good movie will always get attendees. A bad movie gets a spike until people know it's bad. When the movie is leaked, that spike might not happen, because people already know it's bad before opening night (otoh, people are still going to see TMNT)."
Works both ways. There's plenty of movies that have opened poorly but gained popularity as good word of mouth got around, becoming hits, even leading to successful sequels, etc. It's just that this often happens after the initial theatrical run, as studios pull product before they've had a chance to gain momentum if they didn't hit the ground running.
The problem with the modern industry is that they place too much stock in opening weekend rather than the quality of their product. It's hard to see how this can change right now, as not only does the industry seem stuck in that mindset, but it's hard to guarantee a quality movie all the time. Hopefully they will realise that they have to do more than throw money at effects and marketing to deliver something people actually want to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sequels are usually garbage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If it hadn't leaker
That's the bottom line of all this shit the movie studios are trying to pull and are constantly whining about.
They hate movie reviewers they weren't able to buy (aka, all those free peoples on the internet) and they hate not being able to screw people over by attempting to take everyones money on the opening weekend and then not bothering with anyone disappointed.
You know how to make good money from movies Hollywood?
By making good ones like Guardians.
Everyone I know that likes the genre already went and watch it at least twice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Awful
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Once Again...Marketing.....
I don't have cable.
I do most of my entertainment online.
The only place I even heard of that movie? On the Tonight Show, with Jimmy Fallon. 2 days before opening.
It's summer. People make plans. You can't do a pitiful marketing campaign at last minute and expect the numbers to come in.
It's like I didn't even know Robin Williams was in a movie released in May.
How about this, you dumbass marketing people. Put someone in the middle of the country. See if your campaign reaches out there.
If you don't have Joe Blow in Farmersville, USA talking about your movie, show, product, whatever, it's a failure in Marketing.
End of discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Once Again...Marketing.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pig in a poke.
Anyone who downloaded this turkey via p2p would certainly refuse to spend money on it afterwards and would likely tell all their friends it was a major flop as well.
The MPAA prefers you buy a "pig in a poke" and pay them for the privilege of learning that the movie sucks.
They hate that you can now watch a shitty tele-sinc or cam version of the flick, (sent in from Russia or China where the MPAA sends all its movies months before the American market to insure such copies are available), in order to decide if you want to spend the small fortune the MPAA demands for a DVD, or fork out the ridiculous price of a movie theater.
File Sharing (piracy needs boats and water) may indeed be hurting their sales of crap films.
Can't say that I feel sorry for them though.
Dinosaurs need to learn new tricks or become fossils.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mind you, it would have to be voluntary career as I'm certain with that attitude, the MPAA would never consider hiring you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lionsgate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Expendables Anti-Gun Hypocrites
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then to get that stupid bitch into the movie just to shut the gender equality idiots up was another pain in the ass!
Irrespective of what changes are happening in the world today,that sort of environment is not for females and faggots!
I really enjoyed the first two and purchased their dvd's(legally!) and this one I don't want even if it's recorded on a pure gold disc!Keep it!It fucking sucks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]