Slashdot Mirror

What makes you say that people aren't willing to pay for books, music and films?

Yes, e-books are gaining popularity now that the technology is becoming more portable and easier. This just means that it is easier for some/most people than carrying around/keeping shelves worth of books (compare how much space a season of TV takes up when comparing VHS and DVD).

Yes, because it is digital it is easier to copy. But what about the people scanning print books to create digital versions of them (legitimately for out of copyright works on sites like guttenberg, or illegally)?

Pirates will be pirates.

You say how do people make their money, but lets think about this...
  * 2009 is the first time that films in cinemas have grossed over $10 billion!
  * 2008's The Dark Knight made over $500 million in the US and over $1 billion worldwide. [1]
  * Avatar has the second biggest opening week performance, below The Dark Knight, and is well set to becoming the 5th film to earn over $1 billion worldwide (Titanic [1997], Lord of * the Rings: Return of the King [2003], Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest [2006], The Dark Knight [2008]) -- all when piracy is supposed to be killing the movie industry. [1]
  * Then there are runaway indie hits like Paranormal Activity ($107 miilion for a $15 thousand budget!) [3]

For music and books, i don't know what the figures are, but:
  * Nine Inch Nails released an album for $4 or $5 (with limited edition versions for a lot more that sold out very quickly) and as a thank you released an album for free under the creative commons license, giving you permission to rework and remix it how you want
  * Sandie Thom's career was launched via a webcast
  * Various artists (such as Helen Austen, Poko Lambro and Lizzie Hibbert) are using YouTube and MySpace to help promote themselves as well as performing in pubs and bars, allowing them to gain a wider fan base
  * The internet and the digital age are helping authors and musicians reach a wider audience (I like a lot of German music artists) -- especially new and upcoming authors and artists (I read quite a bit of internet fiction and buy some of their work where possible as a thank you)
  * Self-publishing sites such as lulu.com are helping would-be authors publish their own work

The digital book formats are helping would-be authors publish their own works.

As for advertising, why would I want to have that take up space on a website I am viewing, be forced to watch it on the DVDs I own or have to be interrupted while watching a TV program or film with annoying adverts (Sheila's Wheels, anyone!). If the solution is to put advertising in the middle of electronic books for any of the new books from major publishers, then count me out (same with DRM).

And before you ask, I buy CDs, DVDs and books (but will be buying more electronic books in the future).

[1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#alltime
[2] http://www.movienewsmovietrailers.com/hollywood-breaks-box-office-records-in-2009/90348
[3] http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=paranormalactivity.htm

Actions taken that damage it directly affect our own ability to survive within this system. Cutting down a tree isn't just ruining a pretty view, it's drilling a hole in the lifeboat.

Drilling holes in the lifeboat? That sounds bad. We better ban modern society then. Or perhaps we could use analogies with a little more nuance.

How are washable diapers equally harmful with disposable ones?You're comparing the resource extraction, manufacture, distribution, and landfilling of disposables with the one-time cost of manufacture of cloth nappies and the cost of washing after use. How could this not have a lower impact?

Turns out washing diapers has a lot of impact. You have to deal with the waste stream (throwing diapers away is a much simpler process). You have to account for the extra time consumed by parents which also has a significant impact in societies where time is already at a premium.

Does this only mean he's annoying or does it mean that not only is he annoying but the cause itself is also bunk? I can't stand televangelists and the Christian right. They're big proponents of families. Does this mean that I reject families because I reject them? No. I support families and reject their attempts at trying to politicize what it means to be a family and turning the concept into a wedge issue.

Yes, I think the presence of high profile parasites in a cause is a negative indicator for its validity. It implies the cause wasn't important enough to get them out of the way. Remember televangelists aren't merely "for family", they have a complex belief system that you have to buy into. Similarly, Cameron's environmental evangelism isn't just about saving the environment, but has other elements of the belief system (eg, marines and corporations are bad).

Having said that, Cameron appears to be raking it in. Can't argue with success.

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:

Nine... *The audience leans forward, waiting for Myoral Candidate Lois Griffin's next word*
Eleven. *Raucous Cheering* It was near the end of 2001, and people were sheepishly afraid of gathering in large groups (except at church). Once they stared renting DVDs more at home, they realized that they liked it better.

Or, maybe it was the advent of the HDTVs

Or: The reason ticket sales are down 12% since 2002? Higher ticket prices.

From the article:
"The 2009 total was aided by a 28 cent increase in ticket prices from the year before to an average $7.46.

The total number of tickets sold, or admissions, is expected to reach 1.4 billion, up from 1.34 billion in 2008. Still, that figure is not expected to break the record 1.6 billion tickets sold in 2002, said Hollywood.com Box Office."

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:
2002->2009 = 9.2% Growth in 7 years, 1.3% per year (using the $10 billion number, not the $9,782.4 for 2009)
To put that in perspective, 1.3% is less than the growth of inflation.

In other news, the number of AIDS patients is higher than ever, and yet, the average lifespan continues to grow. I'm sure we all can see the correlation here: AIDS = longer lifespans. Torrent Freak spins reality even more than FOX news. I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

Ars recently had a story about how Paramount was using Star Trek as an example of how piracy is out of control.
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/11/paramount-pictures-over-five-million-copies-of-star-trek-stolen.ars

Poor darlings. They only grossed $400M... at the box office alone.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=startrek11.htm

But Paramount cry poor. Their executives must be living out of dumpsters on their own lot. Well, let's we the public make a deal:

1. The public shall stop downloading torrents so long as
2. The studios make them available online immediately without DRM for a reasonable price AND I MEAN REASONABLE.. $400M suggests you're milking it *
3. The public backlash is being fueled by hatred at the erosion of fair use rights. Like the Sono Bono Copyright Extension act which has stopped works owned by filthy rich corporations from entering the public domain. So if Congress repeals that glutinous piece of legislation (and Disney cedes the rights to Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh to the public domain) then we'll have a deal. **
4. And stop bribing politicians too. Lobbyists who exchange cash or favours or "donations" should go to jail as the people who receive them.

* = and don't pull any of your Hollywood Accounting scams to try and "tell us you made a loss" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting )
** = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

then the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house

now the internet is supposed to kill the cinema house

meanwhile:

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

lesson: people fear losing control. as if control had anything to do with making money off media in the first place

in your desperate attempt to retain control, dear media execs, you might want to notice you are wasting a lot of energy over issues that have nothing to do with your bottom line. only your fear tells you this is the case

in your business strategies, you need more zen, less mafia goons

Haha, I thought the same. Since when The Lawnmower Man is a classic movie? It's been panned by the critics of the time and rates poorly at 5.0 with 11.000 votes on Imdb. Still, it made money back in 1992; I guess for some people that all it takes to make a classic!

For everyone who is raving about Moon:
It was a very limited release

It opened in 8 theaters, peaked at ~250 and is currently showing at 100 theaters.
If you didn't live next to a few major cities, you can't and won't see it.

I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies.

The box office recepits for Wall-E ($535M lifetime) and Up! ($142M in two weeks) lead me to a different conclusion.

I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies.

The box office recepits for Wall-E ($535M lifetime) and Up! ($142M in two weeks) lead me to a different conclusion.

That list isn't adjusted for inflation, either. Gone with the Wind dominated the charts for a long time, inflation-adjusted.

OK, here's the inflation adjusted list too. :-P

Cheers

Hurt it's appeal??? For Chirsts sake it's the second most moneymaking movie of all time and broke more than a dozen box office recrords!!!

Iron Man did make money, but it's nowhere near the second highest grossing film of all time.

Domestically, that's Dark Knight, with Iron Man in 21st place. Worldwide, Iron Man is in 48th overall -- -- it is the second highest grossing for 2008.

It did well, but not quite as well as you suggest. You are, however, correct in saying it certainly doesn't seem that the character in Iron Man hurt it's appeal to movie-goers.

Cheers

Hurt it's appeal??? For Chirsts sake it's the second most moneymaking movie of all time and broke more than a dozen box office recrords!!!

Iron Man did make money, but it's nowhere near the second highest grossing film of all time.

Domestically, that's Dark Knight, with Iron Man in 21st place. Worldwide, Iron Man is in 48th overall -- -- it is the second highest grossing for 2008.

It did well, but not quite as well as you suggest. You are, however, correct in saying it certainly doesn't seem that the character in Iron Man hurt it's appeal to movie-goers.

Cheers

Hurt it's appeal??? For Chirsts sake it's the second most moneymaking movie of all time and broke more than a dozen box office recrords!!!

Iron Man did make money, but it's nowhere near the second highest grossing film of all time.

Domestically, that's Dark Knight, with Iron Man in 21st place. Worldwide, Iron Man is in 48th overall -- -- it is the second highest grossing for 2008.

It did well, but not quite as well as you suggest. You are, however, correct in saying it certainly doesn't seem that the character in Iron Man hurt it's appeal to movie-goers.

Cheers

because the laughter heightens the experience

the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv in the 1950s for chirssake. and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? because we are social animals. despite babies and cell phones, people actually like the laughs and oohs of the crowds around them, it enhances the experience of the movie

not that there aren't asocial outliers such as yourself. there's always cranks

fact is, they could make movie tickets $20/ head, have crying babies and cell phones as mandatory background noise, and moviehouses would still do gangbuster business

sure, you can talk about home theatre systems, which most people can't afford, and you can talk about inviting your friends over, which is not something easy to coordinate. not even your closest friends want to watch the latest crank high voltage movie with you on the spur of the moment, out of other commitments, they don't like that movie, or they actually do hate your smoking, etc. and just try to coordinate more than 2 friends. no: you're watching alone. which is lame

the moviegoing experience has a long and profitable future ahead of it, in spite of all the whiny cranks. because, in the end, your spoken words don't actually match your actions (that is, you whine, but still go back to the theatre anyways). or, if you actually don't go to the movie theatres for what are actually minor complaints, then you are just a vanishing small minority that can be safely ignored: the chronically unsatisfiable crank. your opinion has no meaningful value as to the behavior of most of us, as your opinion and behavior is a tiny minority of actual human behavior that has no resonance

tv was supposed to kill theatres, then vcrs, then dvds, the internet, then hd theatre... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

this is the reality of the "dying" cinema:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.

I did not do well. You need to look closer at how movies are made and sold. The cost of production may have been covered, but the marketing, distribution and promotion costs of big movies can rival the production costs (which according to Box Office Mojo are $150M for Watchmen, not $100M). And $55M was a big disappointment. 300 did better out of the gate, and it was also R and debuted on the same weekend of the year.

But honestly, that's all just nibbling around the edges.

Here's the short version:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=watchmen.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fastandthefurious4.htm

Fast and Furious made more out of the gate, it made much more overall (in less than half the time!), and it costs a lot less to make. That's it, end of story. Hollywood will follow the money. PG-13, simple story, lots of car crashes and sequels until you cry. In short, the Michael Bay formula.

No producer is going to be as happy just about breaking even (as you say) when they could have instead made a pile of money.

Honestly, they never should have made the movie. Zack Snyder (I hate to say it) did about as good a job as anyone could have expected. And he still couldn't overcome the problem that the story does not resonate with the crowd who actually sees movies. People who are 25 were 7 when the Berlin Wall fell, they just don't remember the Cold War. They sure don't remember Nixon.

Add in the fact that watching the movie requires some thinking (especially given how much it had to be shortened from the comic) and you've got a big problem.

To Hollywood, Watchmen was an expensive experiment that failed. And it will affect everything the produce in the near future.

The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.

I did not do well. You need to look closer at how movies are made and sold. The cost of production may have been covered, but the marketing, distribution and promotion costs of big movies can rival the production costs (which according to Box Office Mojo are $150M for Watchmen, not $100M). And $55M was a big disappointment. 300 did better out of the gate, and it was also R and debuted on the same weekend of the year.

But honestly, that's all just nibbling around the edges.

Here's the short version:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=watchmen.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fastandthefurious4.htm

Fast and Furious made more out of the gate, it made much more overall (in less than half the time!), and it costs a lot less to make. That's it, end of story. Hollywood will follow the money. PG-13, simple story, lots of car crashes and sequels until you cry. In short, the Michael Bay formula.

No producer is going to be as happy just about breaking even (as you say) when they could have instead made a pile of money.

Honestly, they never should have made the movie. Zack Snyder (I hate to say it) did about as good a job as anyone could have expected. And he still couldn't overcome the problem that the story does not resonate with the crowd who actually sees movies. People who are 25 were 7 when the Berlin Wall fell, they just don't remember the Cold War. They sure don't remember Nixon.

Add in the fact that watching the movie requires some thinking (especially given how much it had to be shortened from the comic) and you've got a big problem.

To Hollywood, Watchmen was an expensive experiment that failed. And it will affect everything the produce in the near future.

Adjusted for inflation 9 of the top 10 films are over 25 years old. Many well over.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

How exactly do you see an upside on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ ?

Ticket SALES have been declining for the past 6 years. 2008's ticket sales were the worst since 1997.

Sure they are making more money, but that must be by charging more. It's like the reverse of the old joke: We lose 10 cents on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume!

Theaters are losing their audience. Slowly, but surely. 3D and the "new" technologies are basically crap, and there is no indication of any "real 3d" coming down the pipe any time soon.

I for one much prefer to sit in my basement with my friends and watch 1 year old rentals on my 100" 7.1 projection setup. The $6000 investment was more than worth in IMHO. Also, if you just wait a year, it's still new to you. Why get caught up in the stupid sheep hype to be the first to see it?

that's the next horizon for moviegoing, none of which you can do at home (cheaply)

what you describe is very personal, and very historical. coming from times square myself, believe me, i can describe similar changes, notably: the death of the porn theatres in the 1990s due to porn going private with the rise of vcrs and dvd and the internet. which is wonderful. sure, some freaks in new york decry the disneyfication of times square, but for me, prostitutes and heroin addicts and midnight cowboy is not a wonderful environment. no more seedy sticky theatres. yeah!

meanwhile, all of the changes you describe are just unimportant churn. everything changes. just deal with it. there is no grand death of some undescribable quality that is so important to you. in terms of quantifiable terms, your complaints are completely unimportant. you have a lot of nostalgia, but so what?

go watch cinema paradiso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Paradiso

the whole story is built around the changes in moviegoing. its a nice weepie that nicely tracks what you just wrote above. but it has nothing to do with a valid commentary on the moviegoing BUSINESS, which, by the way, is all about giving people what they want, and people seem to be gettig what they want, by financial returns. and financial returns is a better indicator of the health of moviegoing than any nostalgic yarn of yours. you're just fixated on the past. which is fine. but it renders your judgment on PRAGMATIC reality invalid

here's the financial reality, which is all that matters, and its all upside:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

Not yet, they haven't. Production costs weren't $100 Million, they were $150 Million. Plus some amount for distribution costs, and traditionally studios take %55 of the box. The worldwide boxoffice for Watchmen is $181 Million (as of now), so they haven't even made back production costs. Not even close.

You're seriously comparing a movie that did $180 million worldwide to a movie that did $34 million worldwide?? And don't tell me to look at the budgets, granted Serenity's was less but it didn't even make it up.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the hell out of that movie, but using it to predict Watchmen's performance is a little fallacious...

When Watchmen shot out of the blocks to an opening weekend of $55m in the US back at the start of March, there were some mutterings of discontent that this wasn't quite the kind of number that Warner Bros was looking for.

Well, to be fair, stateside that puts it at #6 for opening weekend for a Rated R movie. And 64th overall. Worldwide so far it's sitting at $180+ million and, like the article said, DVD and Blu-Ray sales often make a big difference.

I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly? You've made the #6 most popular R rated movie by opening weekend in the United States. Job well done. I assure you that DVD and Blu-Ray sales will net you a lot of money. Especially with that Curse of the Black Freighter stuff you withheld from the movie.

It was always going to be a harder sell than a Batman or Spider-man movie ...

For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.

The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.

When Watchmen shot out of the blocks to an opening weekend of $55m in the US back at the start of March, there were some mutterings of discontent that this wasn't quite the kind of number that Warner Bros was looking for.

Well, to be fair, stateside that puts it at #6 for opening weekend for a Rated R movie. And 64th overall. Worldwide so far it's sitting at $180+ million and, like the article said, DVD and Blu-Ray sales often make a big difference.

I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly? You've made the #6 most popular R rated movie by opening weekend in the United States. Job well done. I assure you that DVD and Blu-Ray sales will net you a lot of money. Especially with that Curse of the Black Freighter stuff you withheld from the movie.

It was always going to be a harder sell than a Batman or Spider-man movie ...

For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.

The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.

Yes, it won't be huge profit, but come on, for such violent and anti-mainstream experiment they got nice cash back. It is 165m (costed 120m), and it is only third week.

Pretty much everything you've posted there is wrong.

First off, it has only made 160 million dollars. Secondly, the production budget alone was 150 million, not 120. That number doesn't include an advertising budget that was certainly well north of 20 million dollars (30 seconds of tv advertising costs about one hundred thousand dollars during prime-time. And they had a lot of tv spots). On top of that, they had to settle a lawsuit with Fox over distribution rights that cost them 10 million dollars plus their own legal fees, plus between 5% and 8.5% of the worldwide gross. There is no way this movie is going to make money unless it crosses the 200 million dollar mark, which it won't do at home, since domestic audience attendance has been dropping by more than 60% each week (right now it is on pace to make less than 5 million this week). They will be lucky to make 10 million dollars more in the US, which means they will have to make 30 million more in international markets.

sangreal66 has already covered the way that Warners' decision to go single-format is what finished off HD-DVD. They're also, the highest grossing studio of 2008.

But that's more about discussing the importance of the various studios on a Global basis. I'm talking specifically about Superhero films, where it helps to have a well-known brand name before you start. Rule out the DC Universe, and you're both down a fair proportion of your options, and most likely trying to have a conversation with Marvel, who the article states don't want to make R-Rated stuff either.

Basically, you're probably stuck either trying to ape the success of Hancock with an original character, or adapting someone most people in the US won't have heard of, like Judge Dredd. Neither of which did particularly well, considering their budget and stars.

Well, looking at the numbers, it won't make money. It's actually going to be a fairly sizable flop. This is definately the reason that WB is abandoning the R rated comic book movie.

Box Office Mojo puts it at a production budget of 150 million, with a wide release of 3600 screens (another 12.6 million in printing costs). Then, throw in the 40 million for advertising and you have a movie that costs the studio 202.6 million to make.

Total box office take is $160 world wide. The studio will get the standard 85% of the opening weekend take of 55 million (46 million) and maybe half of the rest (another 53 million or so, the actual percentage falls lower each week), with very little more to be made in the theatre since it's dropped down to nearly nothing this week. That means the movie has pulled in about 99 million to cover a cost of 202.6. I seriously doubt it will make 100 million in DVD sales.

Your argument for copyright is that you can't think of any other way to pay for producing stuff?
Ironman may have had a $140 million dollar production budget http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm and LoTR $280 (for all three combined).
But just because movies are expensive it doesn't follow that the only way to finance them is to grant a monopoly on distribution to the creators.

So now .torrents are moral acts?

How to square this.

London to Brighton cost $120k to film. It won the Edinburgh Film Festival New Director's award and a host of other awards. Probably the most sucessful UK independent for 2006.

It grossed $442,981 worldwide. tbh I don't know what that means in net terms.

So that's $320k left to spend after production. I have no idea what the marketing & distributing costs are but that's not a lot to go round. The actors & crew will also be on profit share points for that.

Here's your chance to stick it to the man

Demand destruction is also incentive destruction.

Reeves is in no way suitable for this role. Not even close. His voice lacks the gravely, emotional sarcasm that Spike is portrayed as having. His near monotone delivery will kill the character and reduce him to a mere shell of the original. Not to mention his hair won't be anywhere near as flowing as Spike's.

The only thing he has going for him is in the looks. His face has a similar appearance to the comic and his body is more or less the same build. Other than that, it's, "Whoa!" all over again.

But hey, since it's a semi-geek thing, I'm sure it will do as well as Serenity did.

Last time I checked 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Shawshank Redemption' weren't based on video games and I will admit there are always exceptions. You also chose two movies that are considered classics but didn't receive popular praise until later in their runs. 'Shawshank Redemption' barely made a profit in the theaters and while 'Pulp Fiction' made hefty money during its run it was initially very underrated. I know because I am a huge Tarantino fan and was at opening night - with only 20 other people in an entire 350 seat theater. Somewhat anecdotal I know, but it was one of those word-of-mouth, Oscar-contender boosted movies.

You might consider it a stupid generalization however, and since it's the start of Oscar season, you are somewhat right. The ratio is better than I thought it was but for every 'Michael Clayton' or 'The Departed' there's 4 or 5 movies like 'Man of the Year', 'The Marine', 'Marie Antoinette', 'Saw 3', 'Two For The Money', 'The Fog', 'The Legend Of Zorro', "The Heartbreak Kid', or 'The Comebacks'. The funny thing is that 'Marie Antoinette' was supposed to to be an Oscar contender... oops!

They put movies that most likely won't be very popular at this time for a few reasons. First, action/popcorn movies have a chance to make some scratch where they'd otherwise get lost or ignored in the summer. Second, Oscar contenders aren't typically popular movies and need to be released as close to the new year as possible to up their chances for nominations.

I would love for this movie to be good, I thought Max Payne was a great game. The trailer looks good but when they started showing some sort of angels or demons, and one pulling someone from a window I had to worry. That could just be in the context of the drugs (a main theme in the game) but it seemed really out of place.

Last time I checked 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Shawshank Redemption' weren't based on video games and I will admit there are always exceptions. You also chose two movies that are considered classics but didn't receive popular praise until later in their runs. 'Shawshank Redemption' barely made a profit in the theaters and while 'Pulp Fiction' made hefty money during its run it was initially very underrated. I know because I am a huge Tarantino fan and was at opening night - with only 20 other people in an entire 350 seat theater. Somewhat anecdotal I know, but it was one of those word-of-mouth, Oscar-contender boosted movies.

You might consider it a stupid generalization however, and since it's the start of Oscar season, you are somewhat right. The ratio is better than I thought it was but for every 'Michael Clayton' or 'The Departed' there's 4 or 5 movies like 'Man of the Year', 'The Marine', 'Marie Antoinette', 'Saw 3', 'Two For The Money', 'The Fog', 'The Legend Of Zorro', "The Heartbreak Kid', or 'The Comebacks'. The funny thing is that 'Marie Antoinette' was supposed to to be an Oscar contender... oops!

They put movies that most likely won't be very popular at this time for a few reasons. First, action/popcorn movies have a chance to make some scratch where they'd otherwise get lost or ignored in the summer. Second, Oscar contenders aren't typically popular movies and need to be released as close to the new year as possible to up their chances for nominations.

I would love for this movie to be good, I thought Max Payne was a great game. The trailer looks good but when they started showing some sort of angels or demons, and one pulling someone from a window I had to worry. That could just be in the context of the drugs (a main theme in the game) but it seemed really out of place.

1. Spider-Man 3
2. Shrek the Third
3. Transformers
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
6. I Am Legend
7. Bourne Ultimatum
8. National Treasure: Book of Secrets
9. Alvin and the Chipmunks
10. 300
11. Ratatouille
12. The Simpsons Movie
13. Wild Hogs
14. Knocked Up
15. Rush Hour 3
16. Juno
17. Live Free or Die Hard
18. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
19. American Gangster
20. Enchanted
//Bolded all the iterative ones..

8/20? Ouch, worse than I thought. All those remakes and third-ofs must have slipped my mind, though I will confess, I really liked Bourne Ultimatum... (Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2007&p=.htm)

Now that would be the holy grail of, at least, the entertainment industry, which as others have pointed out drives much of the quest for greater processing power.

Yup a 400% return is pretty damn good, but the risk level of that kind of investment is worse then buying junk bonds! You are promised a fat return on your investment, but the risk of a flop is very very high. That was 94 Million to make it plus another 50 million to market it and that equals 144 million invested. 377 million Gross so about 233 million net, well maybe net, or it might be the Net Net.. :). So really it is only about a 260% ROI.

And those poor bastards who invested millions to make 'Ishtar"... I think they know the meaning of "Junk Bonds" because the ROI on that little gem was -50%... Yup it cost 30 million to make and GROSSED 14 million and that is in 1987 money!. Can you say, OUCH!

See I'm not even sure about that one (big budget movies). Originally I was trying to find a breakdown of where the money went in making Lord of the rings, the closest I came was here, where it says about a third of the budget went into marketing. The second thing I noticed though is that the lifetime gross is four times that of its production cost. Now I'm not sure if lifetime gross for movies includes dvd, merchandise sales or not, or if production budget really includes everything spent on the making of the movie, but I'd guess it adds up to a pretty nice profit at the end of the day despite downloading.

So maybe big budget movies still have their place in the theaters, and its only dvd sales that would suffer if anything. The original thing I was trying to get evidence for is that the big budget isn't even necessary for a good movie, or even the big budget look. Computer games however are more interesting since it's almost completely a software industry, but in my opinion there are far too many games these days repeating the same old thing anyway and it could use some trimming down. In fact I would probably be more likely to pay a developing team I like upfront for a good game with a high level of replay value than to simply go out there today and pick up a game(still playing Age of Empires II). My little brother, on the other hand, buys half the new 360 games that come out and plays them for a month then moves on to the next one, so that seems to be the new strategy for big budget videogames which isn't really good for gamers anyway.

The bottom line is that at least 90 percent of entertainment is only out to get your money for something you don't really need anyway. And by the way I've been using two "br" tags in between my paragraphs to get them separated, whats the proper thing to do.

Which is actually pretty stupid considering how tiny Hollywood's contribution to GDP really is. Quick google search estimates Hollywood's revenues are somewhere on the order of $10 billion / year. and the music industry has revenues of about $15 billion/ year.

Compare that to Microsoft's revenues last year of 60 billion Microsoft's net profit ($16 billion) is larger than gross revenue of either of the two entire industries...

Obviously, their other customers are far more important to their success than anything the entertainment industry could throw at them, so it stands to reason that if they're introducing fundamentally crippling technology to their OS, they must have some reason in addition to helping Hollywood out.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

LotR - RotK - $1.1 billion
LotR - TTT - $926 million
LotR - FotR - $874 million

Total - $2.9 billion

RotK is the second highest grossing film of all time behind Titanic.

All three films are in the top 15 of all time.

DVD sales and ancillary merchandising made billions more for each film.

Paramount is the biggest studio of 2007 with 18% market share.

January 1-August 19, 2007
Overall Gross: $6.585 billion
Rank Distributor Market
Share Total
Gross* Movies
Tracked 2007
Movies**
1 Paramount 18.1% $1,189.5 15 11
2 Warner Bros. 14.8% $974.8 23 13
3 Buena Vista 14.1% $930.6 16 8
4 Sony / Columbia 14.0% $924.6 19 16
5 Universal 11.3% $745.0 13 11
6 20th Century Fox 10.9% $719.9 17 9

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/

Which is very true. However, the USA consumes more entertainment than anywhere else, though I won't go so far as to say per capita, because I'm not sure. For example, take a look at VGChartz. Japan has purchased slightly more consoles as the rest of the world, but the USA has Japan beat by 5.5 million units. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows sold 11 million copies in the first 24 hours of a 93-country release, 8.3 million of which were in the USA alone. Looking at worldwide movie grosses you'll see that in nearly every case the USA accounts for nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of a movies box office success.

Because of all this you would expect the USA to have a higher adoption rate than anywhere else, and because of that, the HD format of choice will most likely be won in the USA. So pointing to what US adoption rates of a form of entertainment is a valid argument even if it doesn't represent the rest of the world.

Umm, according to Box Office Mojo, Fahrenheit 911 pulled in $222 million worldwide. I don't think Moore needs a payout from political parties.

Netcraft confirms it, the movie industry is ...

Oh wait, Spiderman 3 seems to have done over $150M on it's opening weekend. Perhaps I won't start crying for them yet.

Both Tomb Raider movies did quite well so you should not be quite so dismissive.

Tomb Raider 1, World wide gross $274,703,340

Tomb Raider 2, World wide gross $156,505,388

Compare those one of the flops you mention:

Super Mario Bros, Gross (only domestic) $20,915,465

Or even a movie that a lot of slashdot users love:

Serenity, World wide gross $38,869,464

Both Tomb Raider movies did quite well so you should not be quite so dismissive.

Tomb Raider 1, World wide gross $274,703,340

Tomb Raider 2, World wide gross $156,505,388

Compare those one of the flops you mention:

Super Mario Bros, Gross (only domestic) $20,915,465

Or even a movie that a lot of slashdot users love:

Serenity, World wide gross $38,869,464

Both Tomb Raider movies did quite well so you should not be quite so dismissive.

Tomb Raider 1, World wide gross $274,703,340

Tomb Raider 2, World wide gross $156,505,388

Compare those one of the flops you mention:

Super Mario Bros, Gross (only domestic) $20,915,465

Or even a movie that a lot of slashdot users love:

Serenity, World wide gross $38,869,464

Both Tomb Raider movies did quite well so you should not be quite so dismissive.

Tomb Raider 1, World wide gross $274,703,340

Tomb Raider 2, World wide gross $156,505,388

Compare those one of the flops you mention:

Super Mario Bros, Gross (only domestic) $20,915,465

Or even a movie that a lot of slashdot users love:

Serenity, World wide gross $38,869,464

The box office number you quoted is accurate, but you're leaving out the fact that the production budget was $39 million. In addition, a movie is going to have an additional budget for promotion and prints somewhere between 50 and 100 percent of its budget. So it would have actually cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 million to $80 million. When a movie costs that much, but only grosses $25.5 million, it's a disaster.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.h tm

David

psychologists have done studies showing that people actually subconsciously like the ooohs and aahs and laughs and startles of their fellow popcorn munchers at a movie. yes, a site like slashdot won't admit to the fact, but people apparently have an enhanced emotional experience in a packed theatre... subconciously

consciously they won't admit that fact. they will complain about babies and cell phones, but that's what a lot of people do: whine and bitch and moan... and still go to the movies. people whine about greenhouse gases and global warming, but they still get in their cars every day too. people whine. and then forget about it. cest la vie

look the experience of watching a first run movie at a giant screen surrounded by other people as emotionally enthralled as you. you've never seen it before. everyone else is anonymous to you, their reactions are real and honest. it's almost like church and you're a religious ecstatic: the presence of others and the overwhelming audio/ visual media greatly enhances your enjoyment

And yet, Casino Royale made assloads of money with a relative unknown taking over a familiar spot. Star "branding" is bullshit that's pushed to make overpaid actors more so. Putting Tom Hanks in "Gigli" might have gotten it a million more at the box office, but even he couldn't have saved that piece of shit, even with Affleck and J-Lo's "brands" along for the ride.