Slashdot Mirror
Movie Industry Blames Texting for Bad Box Office
cybercuzco writes "The movie industry is blaming poor sales of such movies as Gigli, The Hulk and Charlies Angels not on the fact that they were poor quality, but because people text message other people telling them that the movie stinks. Industry executives say that this undermines a carefully crafted marketing image. Expect texting to be banned by the MPAA in the near future."
Here, eat some of this shit. Don't tell anyone that it tastes like... well, shit. Our business model, you ask? As follows:
- Produce crap.
- Hope enough suckers buy it before it's categorized as crap.
- Profit!!!
Yes, I think we just figured out step #2. Impressive!This is just pathetic. I think it's even worse than the telephone marketers complaining about how they're livelyhood is gone because they can't piss people off whenever they want to.
Oh yeah, this "industry" is going down the drain faster than I thought. I hope it dies a fast, painful death, along with the music "industry".
Heh, damn straight. I was laughing my ass off with pearlers like:
"Five years ago, when summer movies were arguably just as bad as they are now..."
and
"No, the executives are not blaming such bombs as The Hulk, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or Gigli on poor quality, lack of originality, or general failure to entertain. There's absolutely nothing new about that."
Though I think for these executives a foot-in-mouth icon might serve better.
It's all relative man. Take a look at the Hulk movie which you used as an example - about $131 million in earnings, on a production budget of $120 million. That's $11 million in profits, or about 9% return. Compared to a lot of successful movies, a 9% return is not all that great. By comparison, I think the stock market's annual return is something like 8%.
Sure, they're breaking sales records, but interest and population are usually growing. That means that if they weren't becoming more efficient or better in their business, with the passage of time you'd expect them to break sales records anyway. For example, look at the number of admissions on blockbusters from 15-20 years ago and today. The disparity is ridiculous.
The movie business is just that - a business. Given their perspective on things (cold hard capitalism) sometimes the things that they do and say can seem strange. (I can imagine a plausible announcement: Microsoft is *disappointed* that they only made a couple of billion during sales period X. Relatively, that's lousy)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
The article being linked to is simply a few bits from a LA Times story which has much more information. The LA Times article has a number of quotes from movie executives that show they realize that word of mouth is key and that they wish to make movies that get good reviews from the initial fans. It does not indicate that the movie companies want to gag anyone - just figure out how to appeal to the initial viewers. In any case bad movies always get a negative word of mouth and good movies hopefully get a good word of movie - improved communications merely helps speeds this up.
New Coke was a fake to get the real "New Coke", a cheaper alternative, onto the market.
"New Coke" is distributed just long enough to exhaust existing stock of old Coke. Everyone hates it.
Coca-cola Classic comes around and tastes more like the actual original Coke, even though it isn't quite the same. The public adores it for NOT being New Coke.
A brilliant marketing triumph. It's so evil I'm getting goosebumps.
Finding Nemo was an example of a great film.
The Hulk wasn't.
What could the moral of this story possibly be? I can't figure it out.
I live in a giant bucket.
It couldn't be the fact that it costs nearly $40 for two people to see a movie with popcorn and drinks, could it?
That wasn't a showstopper for me, but, after paying that and THEN being treated to a trailer with a gaffer who claims that "film piracy" take food off his table, well, that was the last straw for me. That was my last entry into a first run house, with one possible exception: There's a film coming out this winter that I've waited all my life to see. After that, I doubt I will ever subject myself to a first run cinema. And Hollywood have themselves, not me, to blame. I remained a customer through the DMCA, through the Valenti years, and until now. But that was the absolute last straw, to make me pay for the privilege of being lied to and called a theif.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Now add the TV airing rights, DVD sales and other merchandising and you have a FAT profit.
When the remake of Godilla was made the director was told to make the film the way he wanted to as the company execs knew how they would make a profit, by selling stuff and building it up before anyone had even seen the film.
James
>>I'm sure it will be banned, any day now, yep, right around the corner...
I agree -- it's just a matter of time.
Look how far we've come. Twenty years ago, legalese was rare at the consumer level. Now, it seems like packaging and advertising for every conceivable consumer product includes micro-print disclaimers wordsmithed by a small army of attorneys. As a consumer, you have to question everything and jealously guard your privacy during every interaction with retailers. Our culture is being damaged from this insane structure.
I think that banning commentary is a natural extention of where we are right now. Think about it -- it's not unusual for companies to ban the publishing of benchmark testing results as part of their EULA. *cough*DOTNET*cough* This amounts to a banning of criticism, because it prohibits this dissemination of information, particularly those with objective measures.
How long before the MPAA prints something to the effect of "By purchasing and redeeming this movie ticket, you agree to the terms of usage as published at http://www.WeOwnYou.com which may change at any time, without further notice"? Of course, the "agreement" will prohibit the moviegoer from communicating any opinion to a third party regarding the content of the film with the advance written permission of the studio, lest it harm precious sales.
The fact that fast-communicating audiences are "scuppering carefully crafted marketing campaigns" doesn't register to the movie moguls as MAKE BETTER MOVIES. Talk about living in your own pocket universe.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
They've done this, sorta. They've been nailed for hiring people to set up half-ass web sites talking about a movie and made to look like amateur jobs. If I remember correctly, slashdot had an article about some guy who got $10,000 a pop for each such page a while back. To give the page credibility they would "leak" screenshots or other information to the website. I can't remember the term for it, but it's a well practiced form of marketing in marketingville.
This is another example of how the MPAA will not evolve/adjust to the new communications/internet world. Why are the paying in excess of $20 million for stars that are overpaid, overqualify media whores (i.e. Gigli stars)???
And don't tell me there are not perfect examples of this already working out there! What about Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bend It Like Beckham, and my personal favorite this year 28 Days Later. Made on a budjet of $8.7 million with previously unheard of actors AND with digital cameras! Not to mention actually paying a little extra for a good script from a good writer (Alex Garland).
In fact one studio is already doing just what I have said so maybe they are learning: Strategy of FOX Searchlight
Where the Music Matters
Nice try.
The best movie of the season was almost certainly Finding Nemo, which was 100% CGI.
The worst movie of the season was almost certainly Gigli, which I don't think had any CGI at all.
Oops!
D
But sometimes all they need is a huge opening weekend...after all, that's what their marketing campaigns are designed to produce. Take Independence Day, for example. Enormous hype, mega opening weekend, and a fizzle after that, but the opening weekend was so big that it's total box office take puts above the Empire Strikes Bakc, and just below Return of the Jedi.
Word of mouth generally takes time, even when spread via SMS. The stinkier the movie, the faster word spreads, even before the advent of cell phones much less texting.
What a pity. The industry can't hoodwink the public any more by slapping PR lipstick on a pig and getting enough early rubes through the door to make back some of their money. Recording sales have been dropping too, and I wonder if the RIAA has the same hyper-fast word-of-mouth problem with CDs, and it isn't the file sharing. That would be sweet, sweet justice ...
Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact.
I have spent many years in the marketing biz, and you do have a point. My job is to push the buttons necessary to get customers to buy. Its not my job to give a 100% accurate description of the product so the consumer can decide. This is balanced with the fact that I MUST be factual in how I describe. (really)
This is why colas sell 'image' instead of 'this cola tastes good', for instance. Its called 'selling the sizzle, not the steak', and is pretty much 101 in marketing. If I am selling winter coats, for instance, I don't show you how warm you will be, I show you how good you might look, how others are impressed with your good taste in clothes, and maybe, just maybe, girls will flock to you because you are now so cool. I didn't say anything about how warm it makes you, so if the wind cuts through it like a hot knife through butter, then I have not lied.
BTW, its good to have a healthy disrespect for your own industry (which I do) but it is the CONSUMER'S job to make sure its the right product for them. So yes, a company that makes bad 'coats' doesn't want anyone to know that. The problem is, the MPAA's head is too big for its own good, and they seem to blame the people who bought their product and discovered it sucked and it hasn't lived up to their expectations. The customer is the problem, and their text messaging is clearly interfering with their marketing, so they blame (and virtually lash out) against them. This is the SCO way of doing things.
Personally, I don't worry about it too much. The MPAA seems perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot, and as long as they blame the sorry customers for not enjoying the movie, then they are sealing their own fate. Fortunately, movies are a very profitable industry, and I have high hopes that some studios will work to fill the void, so this lull in movie quality won't last forever. Meanwhile, this blame game serves to reduce the influence of the MPAA with the public, creating more resentment. With high bandwidth, faster computers, new software and P2P as strong as ever, they make it more likely that people will steal movies rather than buy them, because they feel no sorrow for anything related to the MPAA.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
That's certainly part of it. We are still at the stage where people expect us to go "ooh" and "aah" at the Great and Terrible Wizard of Oz and to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
This hope may not be justified. A generation ago the first three Star Wars movies did spectacularly well on the strength of the special effects and CGI. It certainly wasn't the acting (which was barely adequate), the story (which was trite and hackneyed) or anything else of the sort. It was that George Lucas could put his personal vision on the screen exactly as he imagined it.
Close to thirty years later he is still doing that. But the movies aren't making the same kind of money because people are used to the pretty lights. Once they see past them it is apparent that Lucas really isn't a very good story teller.
I use him merely as an object lesson. Jurassic Park 2-3, Godzilla, and any number of other computer generated turkeys would do just as well.
CGI has been the death of special effects wizardry. If you can imagine it, you can put it on the screen by throwing enough computers at it. In earlier times you had to think about how to do the special effects. And audiences could still be surprised and amazed when a particularly clever effect or dramatic stunt worked.
I am reminded of an earlier technical revolution - the movie camera. Acting in front of an audience is a completely different skill than doing it in front of a camera. In live theater there is a conversation of sorts between the cast and the audience. The actors gain or lose energy from this interaction, and the performances are never exactly the same twice except for long-running statistical outliers like "The King and I". In movies everything is done and redone until it is exactly how the director wants it. The audience is, quite literally, out of the picture.
The ability to sustain acting skills and character is less important these days than "star quality". In fact, being too good an actor is a detriment because people will forget that they are seeing fill in name of starlet or c**t-throb of the moment and believe they are seeing the actual character.
Shadow of the Vampire had a couple really good lines along this line. The lead actress tells how she gains life and vitality from an audience but "this [the camera] sucks the life from me".
CGIfying everything simply continues the process of removing life and acting from, well, acting
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Yeah, this is probably a good reason why it hasn't caught on. For me, calling is totally free on nights and weekends, and basically free during the day (I get 400 minutes/month, and never come close to using it all). So my monthly bill is always the same, no matter how much talking I do. However, every single text message I send costs $0.10, and every received message costs $0.02, on top of my monthly bill. Why would I want to pay extra when I can just call?
You know, I may be a bit off-topic here, but your discussion of the historical basis of copyright reminded me of something.
I was having dinner outside at a restaurant across the alleyway from an Irish pub (in Sonoma, CA). There was a band at the pub. At one point in the evening they played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Only it wasn't the hymn. I was corrected by my friend, Susan, who's from Ireland, and who explained to me that the tune to the hymm was lifted from an Irish song.
I already knew that we stole the music to the Star Spangled Banner (an English pub song), America the Beautiful (God Save the Queen), and When Johnny Comes Marching Home (an anti-war English song). But the Battle Hymn of the Republic? That's beyond the pale.
My god, this nation was created on the basis of violations of copyright!
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Hey when i worked at the box office of my local theatre, we were not allowed to tell a customer we didnt like the movie. We either had to say it was good (or preferbly great) or say we hadnt seen it all.