Slashdot Mirror

The vast majority of people loved TLJ. It's consistently polled high, it had extremely high ratings when viewers were polled on opening day, and Blu-ray sales are through the roof.

Here is some of SWTLJ's unprecedented popularity and success.:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/... So successful that they stopped showing it. But hey - thd Chinses market means absolutely nothing, it's nonexistent amirite? Disney doesn't need any money from them.

Fiugurine/promotional item sales are through the roof - never better! http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/...

That's okay, no one needs that stuff anyhow.

https://www.theguardian.com/fi...

Everything is doing so well that they put further spinoff movies off. Becoming more popular by austerity.

You sound like an SJW version of Republicans defending Trickle-down theory. Other than that - I've managed to be pretty successful in life by thanking people when I get criticisms, analyzing them, and acting on them to improve my product. I recently retired from running an event that had thousands of passionate fans. They stayed passionate because I respected that and them. Even if I disagreed with them. This doesn't mean I would take actual abuse. I had rules of no name calling, no threats, and keep swearing to a minimum. But they always knew I would listen. And they kept sending money so the happieness index was high.

As one wag noted about Rian Johnson's reaction to criticism - positively, I mimght add!"Eventually, Rian Johnson would hear the criticism made by fans, but ultimately decide it didn't matter." https://www.cinemablend.com/ne...

By the way - that would have been Johnson's last act in my employ. He'd be escorted out of the building by security. You work for me - you don't ignore the customer.

I take it that you approve of the idea that any criticsm must be responded to by calling the person offring it a sexist, racist, and too weak to handle your product. Because that was the Pro-TLJ narrative. https://www.salon.com/2018/07/...

Look - a critic might be wrong. But you don't just reject them by calling them names. They did care for your product enough to make the criticism. A variation on the "If we ignore the customer long enough, they'll quit bothering us"

Then there is the golden age of name calling: https://www.starwarsnewsnet.co... JJ. Abrams called them sexist and racist, but he really didn't because they are racist and sexist. Anytime you need your statements clarified its interesting.

Next time you get a performance review, try personally attacking your boss, if they offer anything other than glowing reviews of your perfection. Then deciding to ignore any critique. Then let us know how that works out for ya.

As I've told climate deniers, young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, and now SJW Star Wars sycophants - You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Not even your alternative facts, Kellyanne!

The vast majority of people loved TLJ. It's consistently polled high, it had extremely high ratings when viewers were polled on opening day, and Blu-ray sales are through the roof.

There's a long standing myth it did badly, largely because a small but loud group of "fans" kept posting the same ten page essays on "Why I didn't like TLJ" because they were upset by.... I'm still unsure what by, I mean, they claim it's not the purple haired woman, but then they call her "Admiral SJW" so there's that. Interestingly there's at least some evidence the IRA (the Russian troll outfit, not the Catholic Terror organization) had a hand in early trolling on the subject.

Bottom line: TLJ did well and was well received. Solo did badly because... to be honest, it wasn't a movie I heard anyone say they were looking forward to, and I also watched it and thought it was awful and told my friends the same thing, but there are some people out there who liked it, which is fine, good for you I guess. But TLJ? Stop beating that dead horse. If BD sales had been terrible I'd have assumed people were right about it generating some kind of backlash despite huge audiences, but BD sales are great. Audience polling is great. It did well. Not surprised, it was a great movie.

Other than the fact that two years later, Ghostbusters has totaled $229M worldwide and a little more than a month after it came out The Last Jedi has grossed about $1.3B.

Other than that, it's an utter failure.

cite:

https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

Other than the fact that two years later, Ghostbusters has totaled $229M worldwide and a little more than a month after it came out The Last Jedi has grossed about $1.3B.

Other than that, it's an utter failure.

cite:

https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

That is said a lot, it's not really true. The cinema was never "cheap entertainment."

The average cost of a movie ticket in 1977 was $2.23, and inflation alone puts that at $9.25 today.

Except the average ticket price is $8.93 in 2017 - multiple sources confirm this.

Remember Pulp Fiction? The $5 shake. Seemed so outrageous, a $5 dollar shake?!

Inflation bitches.

Based upon what I've read on sites like http://www.the-numbers.com/ and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ everything he/she wrote was correct

Tickets sales are WAAY down.

The actual evidence says otherwise. Movie ticket sales have been a good approximation of constant for the last decade including last year. Revenues are up substantially as they are charging more per ticket.

Box office ticket sales have hovered around 1.3 million per year for over two decades. Some years have sold a couple million more, some have sold a couple million less, but the trend is relatively flat. There has been no huge drop in people going to see movies.

I'd say the Marvel shows cater to a niche audience.

Judging by the bulk of recent years Hollywood top hits, the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Hollywood is... not struggling with ticket sales:
http://www.the-numbers.com/mar...

They have crossed 10 billion total box office revenue mark back in record 2009 then 11 billion in 2012, and are still roughly in that ballpark.
Average ticket price is also going up steadily.

Here's one site showing domestic box office totals. It shows attendance is actually decreasing slowly since 2001, but revenues are basically holding steady (thanks to higher ticket prices).

And Here's an article about 2015 numbers showing that global box office revenues hit a record $38B+ that year.

Over here, a sound-bite box mentions that (presumably domestic) revenues from at-home movie-viewing surpassed the box office in 2015 (11B to 10B).

So, AFAICT, the movie industry is whining about something that isn't a true problem: their box-office revenues are higher than ever, and they're even making more money on home viewing (the legal kind that people have to pay for) than they're making in theaters. Another sound-bite box at that last link mentions cinema advertising, so they (not sure which 'they') are making even more money that way, since you can't ad-block ads in a cinema; who knows how much they're pulling in from that. So for them to complain about piracy smacks of pure greed. "We're making more money than ever, but it's not enough! People are stealing our content and it must stop!"

Personally I only saw the first Hobbit movie, and was rather unimpressed, not only by the story but also the FX. It looked really fake in many places. The 3D and HFR was technically impressive, but I didn't think it was really great overall. It is weird how different those movies were from the LotR movies. Are we sure they were made by the same Peter Jackson? Maybe the real one was killed and he was replaced by an evil clone. That would explain it. Or perhaps he has an evil twin brother who knocked him off.

Anyway, the problem I see is that even if there's 20 worthwhile movies, that's still only about 2.5 per year. That just doesn't seem like enough to keep very many theaters going, maybe not even any. However, that brings me back to my prior post: what are the box-office sales really like? Well, according to this doom-and-gloom article, plus these domestic ticket sales numbers from 1995 to now, it's really not that bad. Just in the US, the number of tickets sold seems to really have been rather constant since 1995: it was 1.33B (billion!) tickets in 2016, up from 1.22B in '95. Of course, most years in between '97--'15 were higher, but not that much. 2010 and 2011 were even worse, as was 2014. But overall, these numbers look fairly constant to me. So even with all the "theaters suck!" comments here, obviously someone's buying these tickets, and it makes sense since so many anti-theater comments are complaining about the other patrons. Now if you look at these numbers on a per-capita basis, it doesn't look so great since the population has grown since '95, but still, it sure doesn't look like the theaters are in danger of losing all their viewers any time soon. If they can't figure out how to stay in the black and keep their doors open with all these willing theater-goers, then they're doing something else very wrong. Honestly, this sounds to me like an industry that's whining and moaning because they think they're entitled to constant growth, and they're no longer getting it, but this is nothing new: theaters used to be a LOT more popular (per capita) way back before the color TV became commonplace, or before TVs became affordable.

Much like some of their other enterprises.

James Bond franchise total gross: $7,077,929,291
http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

Star Wars franchise total gross: $7,127,290,925
http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

This despite the Bond franchise putting out 25 films to the 9 accounted for Star Wars, not to mention the SW merchandising rights, which are work far far more than Bond.

James Bond franchise total gross: $7,077,929,291
http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

Star Wars franchise total gross: $7,127,290,925
http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

This despite the Bond franchise putting out 25 films to the 9 accounted for Star Wars, not to mention the SW merchandising rights, which are work far far more than Bond.

You are part of a shrinking culture.

I always assumed such, but your comment prompted me to look it up - shockingly ticket sales are roughly the same as 20 years ago, gross revenue is double. I suppose population has increased which would indicate a declining share but I am very surprised. We have so many more avenues for entertainment now it is remarkable that watching film in theaters is holding up so well.

And bleeding everyone is what the big entertainment industry is forced to do to stay afloat

Fewer people go to the cinema, but industry revenues are not declining because higher ticket prices more than make up for fewer customers. Here is a graph.

Maybe instead of focusing on dollar amounts, they should focus on the ratio of tickets available (seats in theatre * showings/day * days) to the number of tickets sold. After all, with ticket prices the way they are now there is no comparing a movie from the 70s - lets say Star Wars on opening weekend at a whopping 1.5 million, essentially petty cash in todays numbers - to anything released today. Oh, but the first SW movie was unknown - but Empire Strikes Back grossed a big $4.9 million on its opening weekend... still pocket change compared to The Force Awakens with $247.9 million on its opening weekend.... numbers pulled from http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

Well, if they wanted a movie about a city on the moon they would have done the excellent "The Moon is a harsh mistress" ...

Too late. 20th Century Fox is already working on a film adaption. It is tentatively called "Uprising". Besides, there is no reason to have only one film about moon colonization. I will see both, as will many others. The scifi film market is huge. If you look at the biggest movies off all time, the list is dominated by scifi and fantasy.

Ignoring inflation, Wrath of Kahn was up against ET:

http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

Star Trek Into Darkness was up against Well, not much:

http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

And Abrams' Trek movies are more “tent pole” films than the old ones ever were. It’s well known that Harve Bennett had to beg Paramont for the money after the lackluster performance of the first film. I doubt it had the marketing and promotion of the reboots.

Ignoring inflation, Wrath of Kahn was up against ET:

http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

Star Trek Into Darkness was up against Well, not much:

http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

And Abrams' Trek movies are more “tent pole” films than the old ones ever were. It’s well known that Harve Bennett had to beg Paramont for the money after the lackluster performance of the first film. I doubt it had the marketing and promotion of the reboots.

Lets look at big budget movies. Notice that most of them returned much more than the investment.

Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not.

Every public company in the free market has a legal obligation to make a profit. There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars. It is a money pit. Why would any responsible company throw money at Mars with little or no hope of profit? They would have a better chance of getting their money bay by buying a lottery ticket. Company board members would be sued for investing in manned Mars missions. Mars 1 is a nonprofit that has no way of actually making money. All they are doing is soliciting investment from people and companies.

*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence

I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene

http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-...

Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units

DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales

Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...

Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.

All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi...

Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat

Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence

I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene

http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-...

Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units

DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales

Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...

Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.

All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi...

Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat

Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence

I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene

http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-...

Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units

DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales

Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...

Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.

All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi...

Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat

Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

*slow clap* because anecdotal evidence

I hate to break it to you (actually no, I enjoy it) but Blu-Ray is a dead format, Sony won the physical media war just in time for digital media to enter the scene

http://www.zdnet.com/whatever-...

Want an eye opener? Ok!
Blu-Ray sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Frozen with 7 million units

DVD sales (ending June 29th)
http://www.the-numbers.com/wee...
Biggest seller? Transformers with 16 million units, oh and there are more big numbers in that list adding up to an overwhelming difference in per unit sales

Maybe it's just a slow month you say? Here are the numbers for 2013:
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...
http://www.the-numbers.com/hom...

Same story. DVD is still consistently moving more units, much to my surprise, I honestly thought it would be closer.

All this format war / pissing match conversation is pointless anyway because the day of the disc is done and digital sales will continue to increase.

http://bgr.com/2014/01/08/digi...

Turns out a stream from Netflix is good enough for most people, packaged media is dead meat

Personally speaking, I prefer the BluRay copy of "Breaking Bad" then a not quite always HD stream... then again I have a record collection, so what does that say about me

Most movie goers want an hour and a half to two hours of explosions

Think about it: When that's what they show, those are the people who will be going.

Then remember that those movie goers are actually so few people that the cinemas and MPAA continuously complain about lack of income.

You'd have a point, but the top 20 highest grossing movies says otherwise. There are still movies that are not 2 hours of gun shots and explosions, but they rarely do well.

What hate? The mention in the summary is because Pluto Nash was an enormous flop. A "flop" is not a hate thing. A "flop" is a movie that cost far more to make than it made in revenue, and Pluto Nash is one of the worst, or the worst flop in history.

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to imply specific hate here, I just meant generalized overall hate...I just don't understand why it did so poorly in the box office, when so many other movies of comparable quality did well or even great. I mean, even the Nutty Professor 2, a movie in which people should have known what they were getting into, turned a profit, and it cost nearly as much! For a sci-fi movie of any caibre to do that badly, there had to have been some sort of semi-organized smear campaign going on, either that or it was released opposite some heavy-hitters...but scanning the list, I just can't see that either.

It's just one of those things, I guess...

Drive in theaters and theaters in general are not popular because for many people the additional cost is not reflected in additional quality and user experience.

For not being popular... why are there nearly twice as many screens as there were twenty five years ago? How did the top five movies released in 2012 collectively gross two billion dollars? Who bought the 1.37 billion movie tickets sold in the US in 2012?
 

That said implying the outdoor theatre is dead simply because operators are making a rational decision not to invest in their firms is a bit overreaching. There are two theaters in my city that show live and filmed entertainment. They are both free. They are both jam packed.

Brace yourself - I have a shocker for you... "your city" != "all of the US". (In fact, I suspect it's not even close to being typical.)

If Space X has only spent $375 million to get where it is today, imagine what NASA could do if it wasn't plagued by pork and had actual funding. Movies have bugets of $300 million: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

As a human race, we have some pretty mixed priorities.

The centre for economic and policy research postulates a tax deductable "artistic freedom voucher":
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights

Then there is Kickstarter.

Or you could look to how artistic works got created in the past - patronage.

Wanna know where that movie or music money goes? Well sometimes it goes to the star (McCartney is worth almost $800 mil, Cruise around $250 mil). But a huge wedge goes to the publishers and distributors.

The future for music may be a mix of live concerts and possible fan funded development. The film industry spending $250 million on a film may be doomed, but the quality and diversity of the films is likely to go up as a result. Super Size Me cost $65k to make and netted 30 million (although to be fair I don't know how much marketing cost). Source http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

But then the movie industry is rather thuggish too.

The movie business has—yet again—run up record numbers at the box office. In 2010, theaters around the world reported a combined total revenue of $31.8 billion, up 8 percent from 2009. While the industry certainly has its share of piracy problems, they aren't affecting box office receipts.

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/piracy-once-again-fails-to-get-in-way-of-record-box-office/

as casual piracy really is hurting the industry.

Really?

The movie business has—yet again—run up record numbers at the box office. In 2010, theaters around the world reported a combined total revenue of $31.8 billion, up 8 percent from 2009. While the industry certainly has its share of piracy problems, they aren't affecting box office receipts.

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/piracy-once-again-fails-to-get-in-way-of-record-box-office/

Not really. At $150,000 for willful infringement, and 330,000 copies, he's looking at $49,500,000,000, in damages. (SRC: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)).*

That's about 1/3 of Hollywood's combined gross for every movie released 1996 and 2012 (as of last weekend). (SRC: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/)

No due process problem with that.

--AC

*Actually, the statutory damages are per work, not per infringing act, so the real number would be reduced to reflect the number of titles he copied, not the number of copies he made).

And this statement is based on what exactly?

Well, basic arithmetic, for one thing.

Hollywood might sell 50,000,000-100,000,000 tickets for a blockbuster hit, and that's just people going out to see the movie. Obviously many more people then see it for the first time on DVD/BD, or when it's shown on TV.

Can you cite any source that shows even 1% of that many people up in arms over standardising DRM?

... "what do you think the mathematical symbol for chipmunk would be."

If they can sing, the symbol is "$$$"...

Red Cliff box office
IP Man
The interesting thing (for me at least) is the budget for these movies - 40 million for red cliff - very expensive compared to others like IP Man and Reign of Assassins (12 million). The entire budgets would not even pay for a top line Hollywood actor let alone produce a movie of the standard of the three mentioned. Regardless of whether Hollywood would consider them a flop, I thought they were great movies - just a bit curious why the box office numbers are so low in the US, the movies have all the ingredients to be very popular over there (imo).

Oh, Michelle Yeoh is awesome!

Red Cliff box office
IP Man
The interesting thing (for me at least) is the budget for these movies - 40 million for red cliff - very expensive compared to others like IP Man and Reign of Assassins (12 million). The entire budgets would not even pay for a top line Hollywood actor let alone produce a movie of the standard of the three mentioned. Regardless of whether Hollywood would consider them a flop, I thought they were great movies - just a bit curious why the box office numbers are so low in the US, the movies have all the ingredients to be very popular over there (imo).

Oh, Michelle Yeoh is awesome!

It was shunned by the same 48 people who weren't going to see it anyway.

Meanwhile...

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL.php

Production Budget $15,000,000

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $17,017,811
International Gross $32,660,965
Worldwide Gross $49,678,776

Home Market Performance
US DVD Sales: $33,721,130

Boycotting a movie - why bother? No-one cares what movie you're going to watch/not watch.

Yup, there's been a marked decline in the amount of money Hollywood is making over the last decade and a half. They're really hurting now. Oh wait, no there hasn't: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/.

Pull the other one!

Absolutely! At no point did I say that copyright infringement doesn't affect the sale of media by artists or their publishers, and the money they make from it.

Oh, wait a minute... Looking at MPAA figures for movie ticket sales, from 1995 to 2010 revenue has steadily increased. http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

It seems that the music industry is doing pretty well too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/mar/12/demise-music-industry-facts

To address your final sentence, I expect content to be produced the same way it should always have been; By people who create content because they must do it, because it is what drives them and what fulfils their lives. We need distinctly less JLS's, Britney Spears', and other manufactured and bulk produced filler in the music market. We need less re-hashes of good old films with more explosions and CGI effects just to cash in on the brand. Art should be created for passion, not profit. People will pay for what is worthy of payment.

Disclaimer: I haven't downloaded unlicensed copyrighted media for many years, and ended up buying licensed copies of what I downloaded anyway. Last album I downloaded was Master of Puppets; I've since bought the entire back catalogue of Metallica (excluding St Anger. What were they thinking?). That was after they performed the whole album at Download in 2006.

According to the RIAA:

Digital revenues have grown from nearly $200 million in '04 to $2.3 billion in '07 (estimates for '08 - $3 billion), accounting for 25 percent of all retail value revenue (upwards of 30 percent at end of '08).

That gives us a 2008 estimate of 12 billion dollars in revenue for retail sale of music. Presumably for the RIAA, who "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States". So a total of about $14.2 billion in revenue.

Now, obviously we also need to take the MPAA into consideration. Again, using 2008 numbers:
Ticket sales grossed about $10 billion. And since quite a lot of people seem to claim (and no, I have no source handy) that home video sales is about the same as ticket sales, then we're looking at around $20 billion in 2008.

Apple's revenue for 2008 in the Americas was $14.5 billion. Granted, that's a larger geographical area than RIAA's numbers, but then again Apple is a relatively small company in the IT landscape.

How about some of the bigger fish?

IBM reported revenue of $103.6 billion, and pre-tax profit of $16.7 billion.

So, the movie and music industry combined gets up to around $35 billion in 2008 in the US.

IBM (world wide) - $103 billion
Apple (Americas) - $14.5 billion
Google (world wide) - $21.8 billion
Microsoft (world wide?) - $60.4 billion
Oracle (world wide?) - 22.4 billion
Dell (world wide?) - 61 billion

Seriously - why the fuck are the IT giants just turning their back on the complete and utter gang rape on things like the Internet, when most of their products would die off the moment it stops working the way it should.

Just buy out the fuckers, boot the executives, lawyers, assistants etc. from their penthouse offices (literally boot them out over the balcony) and just kill off these massively debilitating parasites.

Software piracy has been around since at least the early 80's. You would be hard-pressed to find a Spectrum or Commodore owner that didn't copy games for their friends and family, and since those days piracy has only gotten easier, and hence more widespread.

So, with this in mind, why haven't we already seen this widespread change of mindset amongst the consumers? Despite how much they moan about lost sales, the movie, and gaming industries are at worst maintaining a slow upward trend, and at best are positively booming; how are they seeing revenue continue to rise for the most part if increased piracy means less people are willing to buy even when they're able?

Sources: Video game industry revenue, Movie industry revenue (look under chart for sales figures).

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...

Yes, piracy is killing movies. Except the number of movies produced each year has been has doubled since 2004, and profits have too been rising:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1152 Total Combined Gross: $10,844,907,249

So if someone's losing their job, it's not because the industry lacks money - possibly someone is taking more than their fair part...