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."
This article made me laugh more then Mario Cantone on the Denis Leary
roast. Who thinks this stuff? Colin Quinn should get this writer on the
payroll for tough crowd.
"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." - Burt Bacharach
obviously reviews and the fact that a new 200 million dollar movie opened each weekend had nothing to do with it?
Mike
So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.
http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
So, earning $131,164,155 in the United States alone and breaking sales records is considered poor sales? Incredible. =)
Word of Mouth Ruled Illegal - Film at 11
Governments are not necessary.
Where's the foot icon?
Surely if the movie wasn't crap, people wouldn't send text messages saying it was.
The solution is to create good movies.
Hmm
.sigs are for losers
Coke retroactively blames the touch-tone phone for poor sales of the New Coke.
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".
So, text-messaging allows people to spread the word about a bad movie too fast?
As opposed to, oh, checking the Tomatometer at or before the day of release? Or reading reviews you trust? Or just making a _phone call_ to your friends instead of texting them?
Text messaging is an incremental improvement in our communications ability, not a revolution.
But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.
.co.uk site so I assume they are talking about Europe?) I guess that instant messenger (a massive communication medium for most people under the age of 26) is having something to do with it (and I guess the ability of AOL's AIM to forward those messages straight to your cell phone (thank the lord for free inbound SMS)). So while mass communication is FASTER these days (24/7 Internet connections, AIM, etc), I doubt that it has any bearing on the movie industry. Would it account for GOOD MOVIES doing better as well? "HEY THIS movE ROX"
.02
I suppose this has SOME bearing on the spread of word of mouth, but I can certainly guarantee that here in the US that text messaging is not as prevelant is the cell phone companies would like (this article is from a
The movies this summer sucked, bad. Gigli, the Hulk (which wasn't terrible), Terminator 3 (again, not terrible), American Wedding, etc, are all going to be dwarfed by such fine examples such as My Boss's Daughter, the Medallion, etc.
I suppose that they have to blame it on something. Mass marketing full of smoke and mirrors can't save bullshit. Let's cut out the teen-heart-throb actors/actresses (My Boss's Daughter) and get back to plot, script, and real entertainment.
Just my worthless
I'd bet that they have the market research to back this up, (if there's one thing that Hollywood doesn't fool around with, it's market research on their targeted demographics) so I would tend to believe the industry on this one.
Of course, this has nothing to do with texting, it's more about instant communication, which they can't do anything about. I suppose they could pressure theaters to disallow cell phones on some other grounds (people can't learn to turn them off during shows. That's a legitimate complaint - they really can't).
This reminds me of the music industry though. What they say in the article is that companies are used to being able to "buy their gross" and avoid negative word of mouth. That, in a way, is a business model. And just as the music industry will have to change their business model to succeed in the face of music sharing (REGARDLESS of whether or not they are able to contain it) so too will the movie industry have to make some changes.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
"By accepting the terms of this license to watch the following movie, you agree to not say anything bad about the movie. If you cannot accept the terms of this license, please leave the theater now and ask for (but don't expect to receive) a full refund of your ticket price."
First the music industry decides to sell us justin timberlake dogshit, the economy goes sour and their sales go down and they sue us. Then the movie industry decides lesbian jennifer lopez mafia hitwoman movies with ben affleck are what the people want, the economy goes sour and their sales go down... can we expect any less from jack valenti?
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
It depends on your definition of success.
If battlefield earth caused a dozen people to get sucked into the scientology cult then it was a success for scientology. They spend nothing (hollywood footed the bill after all) and got new members out of the deal.
War is necrophilia.
If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what will. Pretty much, Sands is saying that enough people will buy his product before the general public realizes his product is useless to break even.
What a *great* business plan.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Hollywood studios don't make movies hoping that people will like them and tell all their friends and then their friends will see it and tell their friends and so on anymore. It used to be that a movie was successful when it stayed in theatres forever and built up a good box office take that way.
,the movie can fade into oblivion and the hollywood execs are too busy counting their money to care.
These days, Hollywood puts out pure garbage, and hypes the hell out of it, hoping everyone will be so hyped up about it they'll want to see it immediately after it's released. They count on the fact that people who go and see it won't be able to tell that many people it sucks until the opening weekend is already past, and they've raked in their millions, generated purely from marketing. After the multi-million dollar opening weekend
Here's an idea: maybe Hollywood could start making movies people actually want to see more than once, and make their movie that way.
However, I would imagine that hollywood is by and large safe because the majority of people do not have cell phones that support "text-messaging".
What we would really have to watch out for is if some technological renegade could come up with some way that "text messaging" messages could be encoded into normal speech, allowing people without even cell phones to "text mssage" each other warnings about bad movies simply by coming within a close physical radius. If that happens, Hollywood is doomed.
Although I am a bit perplexed. They suggest people did not go to see Gigli because these "text messages" warned them it was a bad movie. However, I do not have a "text message" capable cell-phone, yet I knew Gigli was a bad movie anyway, becuase all the media outlets I follow had been consistently running stories for two weeks before Gigli was released warning me that it was going to be a bad movie. Perhaps this "text messaging" of which they speak has somehow hijacked cnn.com and nyt.com, causing "text messages" warning of bad movies to masquerade as normal news? Wouldn't that be illegal? Hmm.
Clearly there is much to think about here.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm not going to go to watch a stupid movie when it costs $20 without food/drinks for me and my woman ($35 if you get 2 tickets, 2 drinks, and a box of popcorn in NYC)
I'm not going to buy a cd when it costs $15+ for a cd of 8 tracks, 6 of which suck
I'm not going to listen to the radio since all of the radio stations I get are the same 30 songs in rotation, some at the same time
You know what I'm going to do? Pick up a book and go to the park. At least the view is nice (still warm enough for women in skimpy clothes) and there are still decent books to be read
The studios are relying on the fact that they'll get at least good sales on opening night even for a bad movie, as long as the marketing campaign makes it look good. Instead, the first viewers are warning their friends on Thursday and Friday nights "naw, go see something else, Gigli stinks." The Thursday/Friday night opening night crowds used to be a captive market.
It seems never to have occurred to them that some people might be texting to say "you have to see this movie!" for movies that didn't get the full court marketing press? And that the whole thing just cancels out (well, it would if there were as many surprise good movies as there are expensive bad movies).
Grassroots word of mouth is without a doubt the best marketing tool any product can have. If the word of mouth is against you, it's because you don't have good product.
Word of mouth spreads a LOT faster than it used to. It means that the movie has to actually be good and/or at least properly entertaining to make it up to the $200-250 million range, which is how it *should* be.
Basically, if you properly market a good movie then it's not going to tank... and good riddence to the practice of pumping up mediocrity with a ton of marketing to get first weekend gross w/o legs.
Make better movies. Your movies suck. Face it.
Get better actors, they all suck too.
You try to cover up the fact that the plot sucks ass and the actors are retard droolers by overloading the senses with loud ass music, shit blowing up and other gee-whiz special effects.
You are hoping that no one will notice the fact that the entire movie sucks.
I DARE you to make a movie without loud music and ANY special effects of any kind, CGI or old school. You won't because you can't.
You can't produce a movie that will stand on the fact that the plot is good and the actors are good because those days are gone.
Hollywood is washed up. Fold up and go home, we don't want your crappy movies any more.
...rapid communication in general that has been improved/enabled by our new fangled networks.
:P) They will have links to dozens of reviews before a movie is even released.
Like, an example is http://www.rottentomatoes.com. (No, not affiliated,
When 40 out of 40 reviewers all say 'Gigli' is an abhorrent, unoriginal, poorly written, disastrous mess, I'm sure not shelling out moolah for a theatre ticket.
In "the old days" you'd maybe read a single review in a newspaper, which wasn't nearly as disuading as a whole battalion of naysayers all lined up.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
So they admit that their product stinks, but through the use of "carefully crafted" marketing they can make people think junk = treasure. But that plan only worked as long as they could keep word of mouth from spreading too quickly. In other words, they don't like reality, but prefer their crafted message designed to fool people into seeing garbage.
And it would have worked too if it hand't been for you meddlin' kids!
Naw. Expect a counter attack. Hire spammers, to pimp movies via text messaging. If they can manage to make it appear as if it came from someone in your address book, so to speak, so much the better.
If I was evil, and wanted to sell crap that no one wanted to people, that's what I would do.
What they're really missing is, how this means they don't have to pay for advertising.
Look at successes like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Whale Rider (by far the best acting in a movie ever). They can just make something good, do minimal promotion, and let the people advertise for them.
Strike "Word of Mouth Ruled Illegal", I have another suggestion:
Slander/Libel law broadened to include "negative and harmful" speech towards economic activity.
I personally know a guy who was successfully sued for posting a negative opinion of one company's products in a forum devoted to discussion of products in a particular hobby area. (In his case, outdoor water gardens)
-- 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.
Please mod the original article down -2 for trolling and flamebait. :-)
Jouni
Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
I can just imagine it. Buy your ticket for 9 bucks and then sign a non-disclosure agreement before viewing. Anybody found violating said agreement will be forced to work craft services for J-Lo's next movie.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
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.
>>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.
IMDB readers rated Gigli as the worst film of all time. Even Ed Wood movies don't suck nearly as bad. Word-of-mouth whether spoken, or through text messaging has always been the most influential form of review. If banning PDAs and cellphones from theatres is the MPAA's plan now, it won't work. The few who actually pay to see terrible movies will still warn us off as soon as they leave.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I don't see a lot of controversy or conspiracy theory in this article. The industry expert quoted all but says that the slowness of word-of-mouth was factored into past releases so that even bombs could recover their costs in the first weekend if they were hyped enough.
All this article says to me is that the movie industry was slightly blindsided by how text messaging changed the speed of the "word of mouth" effect. Doesn't seem like there's much conspiracy about this.
I find this fascinating, however, in that it shows that social systems tend toward democracy. Just as physical systems tend toward chaos and energy must be supplied to impose order, so it goes with social systems. The movie industry has imposed order by inserting money, thus maintaining control. With the democratization of the marketing message, however, they will have to change and learn how to harness the chaos... or insert MORE money per film (perhaps by giving away movie-related merchandise to all viewers or by further engaging viewers during the filming) to impose order on this more democratic system.
Or they could just make good movies.
Nah. Stupid idea.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
You say that as a joke, but it is important to keep in mind that
Copyright was originally instituted as a means for the British Crown to censor the printing press, a new technology (at that time) which they felt threatened by.
The domain, authority, and severity of copyright have grown and grown repeatedly throughout our history, as the tiny minority of people it benefits and the cartels they have formed demand greater privileges and greater profits. It is the only provision in the constitution that trumps freedom of expression and the press. Each time it grows, your freedom of speech shrinks by a corresponding amount (at least). Now that communicating certain information that can be construed as circumventing copy protection (this could, BTW, include memorization of certain inf
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The "Defense" Industry and the Energy Industry got together to get a massive government subsidy to make war on some poor schmuck Third World dictatorship and take over its energy resources, coincidentally among the largest in the world.
All the MPAA and RIAA have to do is think up a War on Irate Consumers or something, and have the government spend billions of dollars over a period of, say, 50 years in order ot bolster the MPAA's and RIAA's dim-witted business models.
Yes, they are, and they're probably right.
They should get rid of free speech.
I know that the **AA is just below SCO and M$ on the list of most hated groups around here, but they never advocated anything of the time - it was simply a guy making an observation that their marketing schemes aren't as effective as they used to be. Nothing more. So perhaps we can wait to let loose with our anti-**AA tirades until they do something ro really deserve it. At their rate, that should require approximately three /. stories from now.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
More likely they'll pull a page from SCO and make anybody who actually wants to watch a movie sign a non-disclosure agreement before they can enter the theater....
You win this one. RTFA. They're finally admitting what you scream and holler about every time theres some statement made about internet piracy:
They realize that they're earning less because their product is not worth 15 bucks a head to see, and the public is on to them.
Noone had to tell me Gigli was a terrible movie. I'm already sick to death of "Bennifer", neither have any talent, and it was obvious to me that a vehicle for two pretty airheads was not something I'd be interested in.
Now speaking of movies, who else saw "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"? Geezus christ.
If you ever imagined that Captain Nemo, Jeckle/Hyde, the invisble man, one of the chicks from dracula, the guy from King Solomon's Mines and Dorian Gray got together in some sort of 19th century version of the X-Men to fight Dr Moriarty for some reason? If so, have you ever imagined that this story would be written by someone who'd NEVER READ ANY OF THE ORIGINAL BOOKS AND HAS A SATURDAY MORNING CARTOON IDEA OF THE CHARACTERS? Shit, Jeckle/Hyde was portrayed as an incredible hulk kind of guy. And yeah - that Dorian Gray - the one from the Wilde book "I will destroy you with the power of Sodomy!"
Sad thing is everyone else liked it. When Dorian Gray came onscreen I said "Uh oh Connery, you better watch your butt!", there was a sole fit of laughter from someone way in the back who'd no doubt read the book - or seen a decent movie adaptation of it.
Anyways.
The MPAA is realizing the era of "throw some big names and a pile of FX into any old shlocky script" blockbuster era is over. We've seen all the explosions and stunts we're gonna see. They know they have to either do better - or perhaps do it cheaper. I would have seen the hulk for 5 bucks - IF that included a soda (which is only worth like a dime to them for fuck sakes). Ok, I know the theatres and the movie producers are two seperate entities, but they could work it out.
People want value for their entertainment dollar, and they know they aren't going to get it from Gigli. My 8 and 6 year old kids know that. For the cost to take them to a movie, we can stop by Babbages and pick out a console title and be more entertained.
Ok, end of story. Now relax. And turn your fucking phones off in the theater, text mode or not, it's still annoying. If you dont like the movie, leave, and text/talk/bleep/bloop in the damn parking lot.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
People are already gagging as they leave the theater, after having paid $$ to watch the latest JLo POS.
If you read the article (rather than just the blurb), nowhere do the movie people actually say that this is a bad thing, that they don't like this turn of events, or that they want to do anything to change it.
It could well be a good thing overall, such that they can release good movies with staying power rather than going for glitzy special effects that make good ads. The movie business, unlike the music business, actually likes to produce good stuff, but they haven't been able to do so successfully very often, because it was so much more effective to focus on advertizing than on good movies.
The old way was a case of a degenerate strategy which sucks for everyone but is successful; using a more pleasent strategy just isn't cost effective. If people ignore ads and hear whether movies are any good from their friends, there is a much better chance of good movies not flopping in the box office like they have before.
Isn't something that causes bad movies to loose money a good thing? From a market driven economy point of view. If bad expensive movies loss money then studios will stop making them. Instead of spending huge amounts of money for big names and effects they might start looking for better stories , new idea, and even new talent. Maybe the will drop the ticket prices a little and not charge so much for popcorn. I am convinced that gram for gram movie popcorn may be the most expensive substance on earth.
Naw. There must be a problem when good marketing can not sell a bad product!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
why would teenagers message their friends that a movie stinks?
maybe, just maybe, it's because the movie stinks.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
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.
The internet may have made word of mouth travel faster, but I think three bigger reasons for bad ticket sales are:
1) The price of movies and condiments are just ludicrous. Prices have triped and quadrupled in the last 15 years.
2) Second run movie houses have become more popular. Why spend $15.00 to see a movie when you can wait 6 weeks and see the same flick for $6.00?
3) Home theatre systems have improved to the point where picture quality and sound are really, really good.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Headline should have been: Acknowledges Texting Effects Bad Box Office Turnout. The article was short sort and what was said was even handed. Slashdot clip is totally off base and seems to be talking about a different article. Nothing sinister here, just a Slashdot spin on an innocent (and insightful) comment by a Miramax guy.
Quack, quack.
While I'm sitting there watching a movie at the theater I text all my friends vivid details of what's going on. It's almost like downloading the "cam" version off the internet anyhow... this just saves them all time...
*hangs his head and sticks out his arms ready for the cuffs*
I think its called "astroturfing" - essentially a fake "grassroots" effort.
Whats next, a "walk thru EULA"?
.....Money not refundable in the event that you do not agree to these conditions.....""
"..... By walking through these cimema doors you agree to the following conditions....
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
I can turn my thumb down a lot faster than I can push 8 4-4 4-4-4 7-7-7-7 6 6-6-6 8-8-8 4-4-4 3-3 7-7-7-7 8-8 2-2-2 5-5 7-7-7-7
Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
The article basically argues that communication channels are now so fast that bad word of mouth spreads much quicker than ever before. But this is the "half empty" scenario. What these pricks don't understand is that the reverse logic applies too. Good movies, even small independent movies get a nice shot in the arm as people recommend them. Remember the Blair Witch project? Bowling for Columbine? These were movies that got big through the Internet, or based off of Internet hype, not massive advertising budgets. All Miramax, hmm...
This has GOT to be the worst case of corperate whining that I have ever seen!
Technoli
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 ...
Maybe the average European teen is just dumber then their US counterparts. I was waiting in line at the movies the other day, and heard some teenagers asking for tickets to "2 Fast 2 Furious". Oh, goddamnit.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Actually, that does happen, and that is why all the jokes about the MPAA banning text messaging are silly.
Movies that have benefited greatly from word of mouth in the last year or so?
Spider-Man
the LotR movies (past the geeks, the movies got a lot of play among mainstream movie goers because of word of mouth)
Pirates of the Caribeean (sp?) This more than likely is the best example. This was expected to be filler, instead good word of mouth turned it into one of the biggest hits of the summer
That Greek Wedding movie
At least as many movies are helped by word of mouth as are hurt by it.
The rest of the world blames lame movies and high prices. SCO blames Linux.
http://www.tuxrocks.com/
The marketing for Charlies Angles 2 in the UK was hilarious. There were two distinct styles of ads, one which urged people to see it early "to be one of the first", and one which urged people to go see it with a large groups of friends because they'd enjoy it more. It was so transparent that they wanted people to see it early before someone warned them not to bother and see it in a large group so one person wouldn't warn all their friends. I loved the original film and I was looking forward to the sequel, but those ads pretty much told me (a) it sucked and (b) the studio KNEW it sucked.
Obviously, which I granted in my original post. But what we need to understand is 1) they could give two shits if the /. community is kind to them, and 2) the general geek lobby doesn't gain any credibility by turning any story about movies or music into a personal rights debate.
And that's what it comes down to. You have 20,000 flaming idiots on this site who don't read the actual article, reading instead the inflammatory titles posted by (invariably) michael. From this they garner that the industry is certainly attempting to steal their rights to text message someone, when this is preposterous and false.
The actual situation is that some poor exec is wishing for the good old days when they could make money of a shitty movie by promo'ing it. That's all. His job is to make money - his job is now harder. Allowing the poor bastard to be wistful for a moment without calling him a Nazi wouldn't kill us, would it?
Bottom line is I stand by my original point - save the flaming and foaming at the mouth for when something actually happens, stop crying "wolf"/"chicken little," and wait until something actually happens to bitch about the **AA. Or at least until the next SCO story.
And no, I don't need more **AA links. I read them when they come out. I'm no **AA fan (particularly Jack Valenti), but a little objectivity wouldn't kill us as a whole.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I'd just walk through the doors and ignore the "agreement". I'd just add violating it to the list of everyday illegal things that I do. Everybody breaks the law in trivial ways.
>If the RIAA music is so shit why do some many people want to steal it?
If McDonald's food is so bad (compared to, let's say, an expensive steak house), why do so many people eat it?
Popularity != Quality.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I can see text messaging in Europe, where it's cheaper than a call, but why bother in the US, where it's frequently more expensive than a call, unless you're on a very minute limited plan? It also takes way long to text "dood that mov1e suck3d" than it does to say "dude that movie sucked."
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
It's simply because of herd mentality. If something is perceived as popular, people will like it, because admiting that they don't like it would be admiting that they are different from the majority.
There was an experament some people conducted in a New York resturaunt. They were selling "Luxury Bottled Water for Europe" for $7 per bottle, and people were buying, and saying how GREAT it was, and no wonder it is #1 in all of Italy, and how can I get it reguarly. It was just chilled NYC municipal tap water in a fancy bottle.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
How many people do you think actually do that through? Perhaps you belong to a particularly moral group of friends, and you really think to yourselves..
I go back and forth on this one. I like to think that most people actually go and buy the stuff they like, then I hear about people queuing and downloading and burning whole albums sight unseen.
What I tend to think, though, is that the people who don't buy now are the same people who didn't buy before. I think we've all always known people who only bought one cd every two years, and people who buy one every two days. I don't think things have changed that much, except the ones who don't buy them get the music anyway. And maybe go to the concert.
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?
Also, if you look at international gross, ID4 actually grossed more than all the Star Wars pictures except for Phantom Menace. How such a stupid movie gets the third highest gross of all time is beyond me.
Because it has "Star Wars" in the title. Lucas could release a movie called "Star Wars: This One Really Sucks Ass" or "Star Wars: The Jar Jar Saga" and hordes of Star Wars fan sheep (including plenty who read this site--you know who you are) would be lined up to watch it.
Wow Talking out your ass gets you modded to +5. Please tell me what article or what admendment in the constitution that even mentions copyrights. There is nothing.
For dumbfucks too lazy to google, lest others be misled by their inane spewage:
The US Constitution
clause 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
And for mindless trolls too literal to comprehend the above as it relates to US copyright and patent law:
Findlaw's Tretise of US copyright law.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Propaganda is bad, right?"
;)
Propaganda is only bad when you disagree with it.
But seriously -- propaganda is any kind of advertising intended to convince you of the merits of a certain point of view. It is not necessarily misleading. "Zest gets you cleaner than soap because it doesn't leave a filmy residue" is a true fact, and not misleading at all; the question is, do you want to be so clean that even the natural oils on your skin have been removed?
Both Zest's ad and my response to it are propaganda. My question is a very leading question, and I've posted it here in a public place.
There is advertising which is propaganda, and propaganda which is misleading, which comes from a political entity, that may or may not have control over the media, deliberately done to spread manipulative misinformation for the benefit of the political entity. I've seen it myself. But it's not the only kind of speech out there. And it very much is speech.
I'm a big First Amendment type here. I believe the best way to defeat a lie is by telling the truth, and keeping on telling the truth. I believe -- no offense -- that what you and the former poster said is misinformation, so I'm responding to it for that very reason. At the same time, what we're talking about here is far less important than the real lies out there -- such as that hackers are all basically criminals, that file-sharing will kill off the RIAA/MPAA, that we have to re-interpret liberties in the post-9/11/2001 world, and that God wants us to kill infidels wherever they may be.
Coming to a theatre near you...
Jason vs Aliens vs Predator vs GODZILLA vs J-LO's gargantuan booty
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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.
======
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
No, text messaging MUST be the reason why less people are seeing movies! I mean, before text messaging, humans really didn't have any kind of communication that they could use to warn their buddies about crappy movies.
Why people are texting each other bad-mouthing the movies?
I think we're back to "Because the movies suck."