Hollywood Keeps Breaking Box Office Records... While Still Insisting That The Internet Is Killing Movies
from the because-if-the-story-sounds-good,-why-bother-with-the-facts dept
Hollywood is still 100% focused on trying to blame the internet for any of its woes, mostly with bogus attacks on internet companies it doesn't like. And yet... it seems to keep on setting box office records. The latest is that Universal Pictures has broken a new record in bringing in $2 billion in box office revenue faster than any other studio in history, pushed over the top by the successful opening weekend of "Straight Outta Compton" (a movie that seems to have some big fans in Silicon Valley).Thanks to the overperformance of N.W.A biopic “Straight Outta Compton,” Universal Pictures is tracking to cross the $2 billion mark at the domestic box office on Saturday, setting a new speed record in doing so.That does not sound like an industry that is having a problem getting people into the theaters, even if the movies are available via infringement. But, people will argue, these services are actually harming the "home video" revenue stream. But that's questionable as well. First off, it was Hollywood that angrily fought against ever allowing a home video market in the first place (remember that?). And, more to the point, we've seen over and over again that when the industry actually adapts and offers content in a reasonable format at a reasonable fee, people will pay at home, just like they do in theaters.
Universal’s historic climb will break Warner Bros.’ previous record of reaching $2 billion by December 25, 2009. The studio is also extremely likely to break the record for all-time domestic box office high, which was set by WB in 2009 with $2.1 billion.
But, of course, due to continued Hollywood confusion and jealousy, it's still holding back lots of movies from Netflix streaming -- one successful service that has shown that it's totally possible to "compete" with infringing content.
So, again, it's confusing as to what Hollywood's real complaint is. It's shown that if it makes good films, people will go out to the theaters to see them, rather than just watch them online. And if it offers them in a reasonable manner for a reasonable price online, people will pay for that as well. And yet, it doesn't do a very good job of this and then blames the internet for its own failures to adapt. Seems like a weird strategy. If I were an investor in those companies, I'd wonder why they've spent the better part of two decades so focused on "stopping piracy" rather than doing a better job delivering what the public wants.
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: adapting, box office, business models, hollywood, internet, movies, records
Companies: netflix, universal pictures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But if it wasn't for piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it wasn't for piracy
Some 7 billion people on the planet each going to the cinema and the studio ends up with some $3 per person...
Copyright Math!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But if it wasn't for piracy
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod
https://youtu.be/GZadCj8O1-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damage calculations
Suppose somebody has put a song illegally onto the internet, and some other people might have downloaded it.
a) We calculate damages from the actual amount of people who downloaded it, and multiply it with the sales price. Yes, the people who had downloaded it might also put it onto the internet illegally, but then these people violate copyright, and not that somebody that put it initially there. So these need to be sued separately. This has a further problem that it's very hard to quantify if using peer2peer technology, but we could divide the outgoing peer2peer traffic of the file by the size of it, and get a number. Probably something like 20, multiplied by $1.
b) We deem the first person to put it up illegally to be responsible for all the infringement that might arise further down. Since we don't sue everyone else, we don't have any numbers who might have re-published it, and whether they've even republished it. With peer2peer, we can at least assume they've republished it illegally. So we could take the above figure and assume that everyone republished it 20 times. So this would end up at something around $400 for the above example. Now, since bandwidth is finite, sharing multiple songs and other materials would probably lead to smaller amounts of the work being sent out illegally, so a whole album might be sent out only 5 times at all, so this still wouldn't amount to a lot, maybe 5x5x$12 = $300 for the above example.
Obviously, it's rather difficult to even get exact traffic stats, and they also could be inflated artificially by the rights holder himself, this is probably not the right way to do it.
We could instead base the whole damages upon something else:
c) The amount of people that could have bought the song, if it hadn't been made available illegally. As it happens, the number is 0. Because those people spent their money somewhere else in the economy: The bought coffee, computer games, went to the movies, etc. So that's not really a good number, and we can't discern people who didn't buy the song but a cup of coffee instead, from the people who didn't buy it because they bought a weeks food instead.
d) The amount of people who would have bought it, if it hadn't been made available illegally. This is more interesting, but also hard to figure out. Obviously all fans would have bought it. You might get a ballpark figure of how many there are from homepages, social media and concerts. But it will probably be lower than the amount of songs already sold. You might use past sales, but then, you already have illegal copies in there, so these will be less than the possible amount. Probably the only way to find out is a survey and do statistics. Just ask a random set of people, worldwide, and ask them if they already bought, or would buy the song for $1. Which would be a huge effort.
But there still might be another way: Statistics on economy and spending.
e) Since the money not spent on paying for the song, the money was spent on something else. That "something else" is totally uninteresting if it's food or housing or other necessities. It's only interesting if money was spent on entertainment, and the amount happens to be known for a lot of countries. From this we can actually figure out the percentages for the different kinds of entertainment (in the US it's around $1000 a year for audio, but including equipment), so we need the number spent for audio recordings alone. If we divide that number by the average total amount of audio recordings acquired within a year (from sources published legally and illegaly both, as well as free/open content/commons/public domain; probably needs a survey), this will give us a price somebody will actually pay for a song. (And now I've gotten lost on the damages part, but that price is in itself interesting, because it's the price you want to sell your songs at).
Ah yes, we need to know what percentage of the population, on average, has a certain song. This will be rather low. Multiply that with the population times the price somebody will pay, you've got your damages.
Needed for (e) are surveys on the amount of songs acquired in a year, on average; and on the chance a song has to be among them, on average. But this actually sounds doable, at least in certain countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not make a movie about it?
If I google 'movies about *', I get a big black box up the top of the search results saying 'Movies frequently mentioned on the web':
'Movies about terrorism'? Munich > United 93 > Iron Man > The Path to 9/11 > The Siege > Zero Dark Thirty > The Kingdom > True Lies > etc...
'Movies about human trafficking'? Human Trafficking > Taken > Call + Response > Trade > The Whistleblower > Eden > Trading Women > Redlight > etc...
'Movies about nuclear war'? The Day After > Threads > Dr. Strangelove > The War Game > Wargames > On the Beach > Failsafe > Testament > etc...
'Movies about film piracy'?...nope, no black bar at the top of the search results.
...Actually, I don't know if there's ANY films about movie piracy, black bar up the top of google searches or not. Or music piracy. Or ebook piracy. Or game piracy. Or anything digital piracy-ish.
Maybe it's about time that we had a blockbuster that covers this very subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not make a movie about it?
I can't think of any movies directly about the subject, however. Good old fashioned piracy on the high seas, plenty, but nothing to do with the subject at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not make a movie about it?
How about both, from this segment of 1987's 'Amazon Women on the Moon' -- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7I5dVBezF9k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not make a movie about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not make a movie about it?
Not made by Hollywood though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not make a movie about it?
Anyway, I'm sure that if they did produce such a thing, it would have the same level of honesty and technical accuracy as their laughable propaganda videos, or pretty much anything dealing with hacking or the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understandable
Even stars like Johnny Depp can't afford a real privat island anymore, just some small island for $4m in Greece where he has to put aside some part of the beach for the public.
Can you imagine? People who download your movie because they can't afford it share a beach with you? That must be torture!
I feel really sorry for those poor poor Hollywood people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although it's stated in the quoted text, it's worth emphasising that this is *domestic* revenue. Internationally, Jurassic World alone has taken $1.6 billion. Now, distribution and other factors might mean that a lot of that money is not going directly back to Universal, but the real figure is undoubtedly much higher than the domestic figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Create a company that produces a thing, another company charges fees for that thing and the first company never makes profit.
That is not a bug, that is a feature of accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Better yet, let the consumer download it...."
Lots of people would happily pay if this were allowed. If they can't make it to the theatre and they're not allowed, many still do. Hence the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real complaint
This is the basic outlook of `supranational' corporations (and the film studios are among them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real failure is the social enginering of what we are allowed to see
He told me 'if I ever shipped a load of ripe peaches, they would be the last I would ever sell'.
Shelf-life dictates what we get to buy.
AND
My Godfather directed more than 140 films. Because the 'Studios' confiscated almost all of his work through 'copyright', almost no one will ever see but a few westerns.
7 Women?
Sergeant Rutledge?
Cheyenne Autumn?
The Horse Soldiers?
Gideon of Scotland Yard?
The Rising of the Moon?
Mogambo?
The Sun Shines Bright?
3 Godfathers?
The Fugitive?
December 7th?
The Battle of Midway?
The World Moves On?
Sex Hygiene (Academe Award)
Judge Priest?
The Informer?
Flesh?
The Grapes of Wrath?
The Hurricane?
Napoleon's Barber?
Fortunately, the first film that John Wayne produced 'The Angel And The Bad Man' slipped away from Hollywood's censers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real failure is the social enginering of what we are allowed to see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also releated, did that pedowood thing stopped or they still have the casting couch for little girls?
These people are insane, why do you expect them to be reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's 100% legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the MPAA:
And yet, despite me not pirating the damn things you chalk your imaginary, box office-breaking "losses" up to piracy and demand laws on each and every device that I own, each and every brand I walk past on the street and every time someone celebrates their birthday.
Gee, can't imagine why the average man on the street doesn't care about copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the MPAA:
No. "not paying for your movies kills your revenue". It doesn't matter whether I don't buy the blueray or don't go to a theatre, or don't pay for a download. It's all the same. Whether I'm still watching the movie, or a different movie, or read a book, doesn't matter at all.
Or to put it differently: You only get revenue from me, if you get me to pay for your movie. This means:
- Offer something I like
- At a point in time I like
- To a price I'm willing to pay
- Without mistreating me (like: searching me for cameras, or putting DRM onto your products etc.)
It's simple. http://www.gog.com/ can do it for computer games, you could do it for movies just as easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To the MPAA:
The studios are actually better off if you watch it without paying - even illegally - than if you don't watch it at all. Though you'll never hear them admit that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
Don't you see, piracy has been responsible for single-handedly removing trillions of dollars from the global economy on a monthly basis. Every single person on earth would be rolling in wealth were it not for piracy and the devastating effects it has on the economy!
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Poe's Law. There are people who really do think like that. The rest of us are just tired of them being held up as the reason for forcing DRM, region restrictions, high prices, fragmented marketplaces, etc. onto people who don't, especially when there's enough of the latter to bring them record profits to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
These "Pirates" are begging to be turned into customers. Look past the "I want it for free" mentality, and look at the underlying issues. The pot of gold is right in front of them and they are too stupid, stubborn, and short sighted to see it.
I used to torrent games... My problem was never money, it was the platform. I would scratch my disks and poof, had to drop another 50 bucks. Steam came along, saw the need, and I've never looked back. I can't tell you when the last time I pirated a game, and it's not because I'm afraid of getting caught or anything the game studio's did with warnings or threats, it's because the need to do so is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The frustrating thing is, there's already such a platform: Netflix. The problem (from the studio perspective) is that they don't control it. (yes I know there are others)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
non-sequitur concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: non-sequitur concept
For example, if a person pirates a movie, there's no way to know what their action would have been had the pirated copy not been available. Would they have gone to the cinema to see it? Would they have waited for the DVD release? Would they have waited for it to be on Netflix or in a $5 bargain bin, or simply borrowed a copy from a friend? There's no way to really quantify that, just as there's no way to quantify how many people did pirate but then ended up spending money afterwards anyway (e.g. someone who couldn't make it to the cinema but then pre-orders the Blu - I know at least 2 people who did this with Mad Max: Fury Road).
There's a lot of factors involved, and unless you make the most obvious but clearly incorrect assumptions (e.g., the oft-debunked "every download is a lost sale at full retail price"), you can't show solid figures on what's been "lost". Thus, the argument continues because any lost revenue, real or imagined, automatically because about piracy rather than bad product, bad advertising, unavailability of product due to windowing, etc. The shareholders are being told "our movie tanked because of piracy" not "we released a terrible movie on the same day our rivals released the best reviewed blockbuster of the year" or "our rules state we have to make people in country X wait 6 months for no apparent reason and people had already seen it by then".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remake VS Original
why has "Stranger in a strange land" never been on film?
it's a 50's book that started the 60's sexual revolution.
it's also a great story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remake VS Original
See: "Starship Troopers" (1997)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remake VS Original
I'd prefer to see the Moon is a Harsh Mistress as a movie though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remake VS Original
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remake VS Original
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Remake VS Original
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning before movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning before movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning before movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning before movies
"Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft (or) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state"
However, copyright infringement is not; it's civil law, not criminal law (except in some countries where real criminals wrote the law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Warning before movies
However, copyright infringement is not; it's civil law, not criminal law (except in some countries where real criminals wrote the law).
Such as the US I suppose (some copyright infringement in the US is criminal).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a film can break records and make millions cos a a movie ticket is 10 dollars vs 5 dollars in the 80s .
many movies are released in a few theatres they make money
from netflix,dvd sales , amazon ,itunes downloads .
This is about control ,the mpaa and riaa will bring in any laws they can sopa ,etc even if it breaks the web .
Many american services vod, streaming channels are not avaidable outside america .
many people prefer watching films on a large tv at home ,subscribe to netflix or watch on bbc or sky tv europe,
satellite tv.
They have given up renting or buying dvd,s .
Its alot cheaper to subscribe to netflix or a movie channel than buy dozens of dvds .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So? By definition in that case, they've increased their revenue even if they're doing so from a smaller number of ticket sales. In fact, this is by design, as one of the reasons for pushing things like 3D and digital projection is to allow them to charge more money for a lower long term overhead - even as many audience members feel they get a lower quality product as a result.
The amount by which a ticket price has risen can be overstated (see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/) - it's certainly more than the 80s, but so is everything. Also, attendance is down compared to a peak in the early 2000s, but there's actually more tickets being sold than in the 80s. On top of that, there's more movies to watch in theatres. OK, there may be a lot of short run and limited releases included in that, but most of those films are using it as a marketing tactic rather than trying to break even on cinema tickets alone. That's not a bad thing.
"They have given up renting or buying dvd,s .
Its alot cheaper to subscribe to netflix or a movie channel than buy dozens of dvds"
Now, here you have an actual point, but as you note, it's got nothing to do with piracy. There was a time where it could be almost as cheap to buy a new release DVD as it would be to rent a couple of times, especially when late fees, large store using them as loss leaders and other factors were considered. But today, most general audiences have realised they don't watch them enough to justify the prices after all, especially when there's Netflix and other services around. They're also lost a part of the market like myself, film fans who love to see documentaries, commentaries, etc. but got tired of being double and triple dipped. I tend to restrict myself to carefully considered purchases rather than buying a bunch of discs at once that lose resale value immediately and may take me a while to even watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that's my pet peeve with all such 'best selling movie' lists: what's the measuring metric?
Here's a good example: I'm old enough to remember when Star Wars (now known as Episode 4: A New Hope) came out. Only one theater in the whole county showed it; only 6 in the whole state. When The Empire Strikes Back came out the same pattern repeated: 1 theater in my county (the same one in fact), 6 in the state. Then Return Of The Jedi came out and guess what: 20 theaters in my county showed it; I don't know how many in the state but it was certainly a lot more than 6. So naturally the headlines the next week: Return Of The Jedi's gross stomps everybody, including it's 2 predecessors. DUH! 20 theaters showing the same movie will produce a bigger gross than 1 theater.
Price of tickets? Yep that's changed. Gone With The Wind and Ben Hur were successful presentations in their day but rarely show up on any current list without price factoring.
Number of available screens and seats? That's changed, too. Today there might be more screens and seats, but that's because most theaters today are 'multiplex' theaters. It's rare today to find a theater with only one screen and drive-in theaters are all but extinct. So number of tickets sold is not always a good metric: a movie being shown on 100 screens might sell more tickets than a movie being shown on 1000 screens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Depend on the one you look at.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/
On that page, there's domestic (purely box office grosses in the US), international (grosses worldwide) and adjusted for inflation (essentially ticket sales, I believe, although this does appear to be domestic only).
According to the latter, Gone With The Wind has remained #1 forever. The first two, of course, will always have newer blockbusters higher in the charts as ticket prices are higher.
There's always imbalances. The adjusted chart tends to include re-releases, for example.
I'm not sure which metric you'd prefer, but I think every metric is flawed - that's why I try look look at several.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solutions to Record Breaking motion pictures
I'm not sure what can be done about the other kind of record breaking motion pictures. Specifically, the kind of motion pictures that are so bad that you are enraged at how much you paid to see an overhyped movie, and resort to breaking records to express your frustration.
Finally, if we are talking about movies bringing in money which exceeds that of past box office receipts, then someone should be screaming about Hollywood Accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
"It's shown that if it makes good films, people will go out to the theaters to see them, rather than just watch them online." -- Ha, ha. "Good films"!? Only to you kids steeped in violence and 'splosions. Let's stick to "attractive" as neutral adjective. But anyway, people have been watching movies for over a hundred years, and their drawing power comes as revelation to YOU?
"And if it offers them in a reasonable manner for a reasonable price online, people will pay for that as well." -- First, online has really only been possible for last ten years, depending on location. 2nd, this too is a revelation? 3rd, PAYING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ESSENTIAL POINT. 4th, This is only possible after hammered piracy down to "reasonable" levels.
"And yet, it doesn't do a very good job of this and then blames the internet for its own failures to adapt." -- No business can "adapt" to theft, so RIGHTLY BLAME PIRATES. Widespread piracy prevents confidence to make huge investments in either production or distribution. -- Pirates do a good job at stealing, then blame the industry for worrying about their thefts!
Yet another piece in which a few simple reversals put matters right. That's because Masnick switched and blithely claims as obvious what he's previously denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
The above statement is why you'll be playing whack a mole until the end of time. You would rather call your customer base thief's and assign blame, than address the underlying issues regarding why they do what they do in the first place. It's like thinking that building more prisons will solve our overpopulated prison problem.
Forest for the tree's you tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "call your customer base thief's and assign blame,"
And learn how to spell "thieves". You make pirates look stupid besides criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "call your customer base thief's and assign blame,"
Well, they never will be if you refuse to actually address the reason why they're pirating. No, "it's available" is not the primary reason nor is "it's free".
"You make pirates look stupid besides criminal."
Whereas you make the studios look desperate. If this is the best quality shill they can get, they're never going to get the message across.
As ever, I'll be over here >>> legally paying for content despite your industry's best attempts to stop me. It just won't necessarily be MPAA provided content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "call your customer base thief's and assign blame,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "call your customer base thief's and assign blame,"
...he says while blindly ignoring multiple studies that show that pirates are in fact damn good customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"No business can adapt to theft"
Make up your damn mind! Are they fading or not? Are they adapting or not?
It's like you copyright fanboys were born with your heads stuck up your ass.
Enjoy your DMCA vote chucklefuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
Ah, I see the problem. You're addressing the fictional strawman reality you set up in your own head where the people here have been saying such things, and where the people discussing them are "pirates".
In fact, in the real world, it's the MPAA who have been whining about dropping profits and falling revenue while the paying customers here have been trying to suggest ways in which they can increase their revenue and expand their market. We just prefer it be without trying to destroy the internet, reduce their content's value, attack said paying customers or any of the other things you've been supporting. Especially where there are demonstrable areas where poor product and poor word of mouth have lowered profits (the recent Fantastic Four reboot), while there are plenty of examples of piracy being reduced simply by having decent legal options available. What form these taken have changed massively over the years, so it seems a little strange that you oppose any improvement to what's being offered.
Oh, and a quick style suggestion - if you left out the outright lies, personal attacks and other meandering rubbish that you included here, not only would have saved about 2/3rds of your typing, but you'd have avoided giving the impression that you're an obsessed child. That would get you taken seriously instead of mocked.
I hope that clears things up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "doomed dinosaurs" in Hollywood are actually STILL doing well, eh? Then YOU have been wrong about them fading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're deluded if you don't believe that content theft doesn't negatively impact musicians, filmmakers, authors, etc.
You justify piracy at every turn and it's growing old. It's just stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The accounting practices of the studios, labels and publishers is just legalised stealing from those who do the actual creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because you're not getting extra kickbacks from these profits doesn't mean it's the fault of the paying customer (or the person who chooses to do without), no matter how much you'd like it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But they have to compensate for all the piracy by making the films so much better than they used to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's just stealing."
No, it's not, no matter many times you people try to redefine the words. If you can't understand the very real, very pertinent reason why there are fundamental differences, then you're arguing a strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if it wasn't for the IRS, it would be $20 billion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm all for them making money. I just don't see why they feel the need to call customers and fans theives, hack away at the first amendment and try to block innovation in the process.
Do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We all know the MPAA takes a strong dislike to piracy, but this isn't the MPAA, it's one studio, not even the largest, and it's not "hollywood".
Get your bogeymen in order, it's getting tiring reading you. (though it's like a train crash - you can't turn away)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being a part of something doesn't make you "it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would you believe the MPAA isn't directly representing Universal's interests as they see them? They must surely agree, especially since there's so few other members being represented. Why would they remain if they didn't agree?
I'm sure we can point to direct actions taken by Universal that are just as dangerous and counter-productive if you prefer, but I'm equally sure you'll find some way to wave those away as ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anerchy of change
She just sold her mom & pop company for 1.5 bil.
Same audience, new business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's not. Trust me. I know. He's completely serious. Same person who comments on all our copyright related stories, saying similar things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you've got people that off the rails, it can be all too easy to think, "No, they can't be serious, that's got to be a joke or sarcasm, right?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reading comprehension fail. Again.
Your question, if you'd actually read and understood the article, should be "How dare they claim year after year that piracy is killing the movie industry, while revenues increase year after year".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a sarcastic restatement of his perception of what Mike wrote. He is claiming that this article promotes the idea that Hollywood studios should not be allowed to make any money, and he's mocking that (fictional) idea. He's constructed a nice little straw man, and is using sarcasm to attack it. JMT's post was an attempt to explain what the article is actually saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, we've been here before. Once Valenti stopped raving about the Boston Strangler and the industry embraced home video technology, both sides benefited massively. We're just waiting for the raving and drooling to stop this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Hollywood really wants...
For all I can understand, the answer is "control".
They want the money of course, but they mostly want control because it makes things easier for them.
Control means they can decide who watches what, for how long and how much... This way they have an easier way making trends and directing the public away from a variety of offers into a few box office titles. It allows a smaller offer to provide a much higher ROI.
They don't want to provide the public what it wants. They want the public to buy what they offer. Once again, their goal is definitely not "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as written in the US Constitution... but to restrain it for their own profit.
So the idea is that they want to freeze the world into their "tried and proved" business model from the past 20-30 years.
That seems to be the logical conclusion coming from giving them a dictatorial power over individual pieces of our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Hollywood really wants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it would safe to assume that much like Disney, the MPAA & RIAA like the world of make believe too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daaaammmmnnnn!!!!!!
Now that the internet has freed media and made it, for a change, more beneficial to the consumer they cry piracy and theft.
This is like someone who steals your car suing you because you took it back.
I don't care what happens to them as i will get the content i want however i want it but one thing that is pissing me off is that they refuse to allow netfix full access to their library, and that is only so they can create multiple websites demanding multiple payments for basically the same content with a few additions or subtractions, this is called fraud and the government should be stopping this right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't even get me started on the glut of bodice rippers and sh!tty first drafts being spewed out in the Amazon self-publishing slush pile either. I'm going to have to give the major houses the edge on this one: Amazon doesn't have a Picoult or a Grisham. It has Fifty Shades, and fifty million other wannabe Fifty Shades, not to mention fan fiction and the bizarre sign of the apocalypse that is "dinosaur erotica." The gatekeepers may have let Twilight slip through (and did eventually pick up Fifty Shades), but there's no way they'd hand over a contract to whatever attention-seeking hack wrote "Taken By the T-Rex" or any of those obsessive stalker novels about Rob Gronkowski.
As for television, well, TV has always been called the idiot box and for good reason. Occasionally you'll get a MASH or a Seinfeld out of the mix, but for the most part it's always been one-season wonders and inane ratings stunts. The franchise series is relatively new; yes, there was Maude, but you didn't have 5 Law & Orders and a dozen CSIs and NCISes and other alphabet soup shows where a spinoff is spawned just by plunking a push pin into a spot on the map. What does Netflix have? Art-house women's prison porn and a show about Kevin Spacey as a better president than anyone in the 2016 clown car could ever be. The rest is reality garbage and game shows.
So I don't think it's necessarily piracy that's killing the industry so much as an industry that's run out of ideas, both in the major studio (or publisher) machine and the DIY circuit. The core problem is that the public just isn't very imaginative and nobody can exactly pinpoint what's "good," though we certainly have more than an idea of what's awful. But BitTorrent has nothing to do with the fact that nobody with two brain cells to put together wants to fork over cash for Adam Sandler's latest nonsense or for anything coming out of Amazon's incoherent monkey room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This should be no surprise - Hollywood is primarily run by people with no interest in the art. They're there to make money, and make "safe" investments. That means middle of the road, populist, inoffensive, generic. Sure, some break the mould, but this is the way Hollywood and every other mass market medium is run.
If their current trends don't satisfy you, but they make a huge amount of money, then the current top 10 isn't made for you. Look elsewhere, there's great cinema being produced all the time. The same goes for any other medium - and it always has.
"he problem is that the amateurs aren't producing anything of merit either. YouTube shows are as twee and insufferable as anything Nickelodeon or Disney churn out, because all three are targeted to the teen market"
You clearly watch different videos to me. Might I suggest not looking at the ones produced for a teen market?
"I'm going to have to give the major houses the edge on this one: Amazon doesn't have a Picoult or a Grisham. It has Fifty Shades, and fifty million other wannabe Fifty Shades"
Erm, I'm not sure where the hell you were going with this one. Although they do have a publishing arm, they didn't publish Fifty Shades. Being primarily a retailer, they most assuredly do have Picoult (and Grisham - a strange choice of an example for someone railing against generic populist fiction), among many thousands of other authors, ranging from the greatest literature ever written to trashy crap. This, again, is how things have always been, apart from the current ease of self-publishing potentially increasing the numbers.
"Occasionally you'll get a MASH or a Seinfeld out of the mix, but for the most part it's always been one-season wonders and inane ratings stunts."
If it's "always" been this way, what's your sudden issue with it now?
"What does Netflix have? Art-house women's prison porn and a show about Kevin Spacey as a better president than anyone in the 2016 clown car could ever be."
Sure, if you want to cherry pick 2 things they produced out of a much larger selection, and a massive selection of available pre-existing content larger then you could ever watch. You don't have to watch those things if you don't like them.
"The rest is reality garbage and game shows."
It's also The Wire, Breaking Bad, Sons Of Anarchy, Justified, Louie, Silicon Valley, Hannibal, The Killing, True Detective, to name a few off the top of my head. Thanks to Netflix and similar services, I can't remember the last time I was subjected to a reality, soap or game show. Because I choose not to.
"the fact that nobody with two brain cells to put together wants to fork over cash for Adam Sandler's latest nonsense"
the fact that nobody with two brain cells to put together wants to fork over cash for Jerry Lewis's latest nonsense
the fact that nobody with two brain cells to put together wants to fork over cash for the Three Stooges's latest nonsense
You're not only stuck on repeat, you're repeating stuff from many decades ago... There's plenty out there if you dislike that particular actor. If his films are successful despite your distaste for him, watch something else.
"anything coming out of Amazon's incoherent monkey room"
What, specifically, do you have against this particular retailer? Why are you expecting a "coherent" set of offerings from a store who don't produce 99% of the things they sell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a funny way of looking at math
The wealth of adult oriented but still reasonably budgeted fare, like the many classic thrillers of the 1990s ,have now been killed off by piracy. Now we have gigantic comic book films and no-money indies. These indies have budgets so small there isn't even an economically feasible way to spend much time refining the script - not unless you have rich parents.
Speaking of feature scriptwriting, that entire trade has been decimated. it doesn't take many writers to work on the small handful of studio films that are released now that home video has been largely eaten by pirates. and writing for indies is not a real paying job.
There is no way to measure how many wonderful films would now be part of cultural history, but are not, because of piracy.
Netflix pays crappy amounts fo money for features, and that;s the simple reason why Hollywood does not want to sell to them. And.. Once your film is on Netflix, it is worth about $0 everywhere else.
Please learn something about our business before commenting on it so "knowingly".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have a funny way of looking at math
The wealth of adult oriented but still reasonably budgeted fare, like the many classic thrillers of the 1990s ,have now been killed off by piracy. Now we have gigantic comic book films and no-money indies. These indies have budgets so small there isn't even an economically feasible way to spend much time refining the script - not unless you have rich parents.
If this were true, we'd be seeing a corresponding decline in movie releases -- but we're not. In fact, year by year the number of movies released goes up. 2015 was a huge leap from 2014, with well over 2000 films released, according to Nash Information Services.
There is no way to measure how many wonderful films would now be part of cultural history, but are not, because of piracy.
Why do you blame piracy? Again, the numbers show that the most pirated films are also the most successful films, suggesting that piracy isn't necessarily harming films. Meanwhile, services like Netflix have shown that people are absolutely willing to pay for movies. And things like Kickstarter are funding more and more films outside of the old studio system.
The market has changed in that the big studios no longer control all the gates, but there are a wealth of new films out there.
Please learn something about our business before commenting on it so "knowingly".
I might suggest the same for you. Thanks for commenting, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]