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."

Comments

uh yeah that's it

[tlacicer]

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.

Re:uh yeah that's it

[B3ryllium]

I think Darl McBride found a new gig as a "wild-ass-theory consultant".

Re:uh yeah that's it

[harley_frog]

Funny, it seems like only a couple weeks ago the MPAA was blaming file sharing as the reason why Charlie's Angel's 2 tanked. What will be the MPAA's scapegoat next week? Power outages in the northeast?

Re:uh yeah that's it

[gfxguy]

Your theory is all wrong, they are making bad movies so they can blame pirates for the drop at the box office. This text-messaging argument is just something to throw us off.

Re:uh yeah that's it

[King Mongo]

My brother's First Rule of film advertising:

>2 commercials on TV in 30 minutes = suck.

Hasn't failed me yet.

Communication a problem?

[ryan76]

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.

Re:Communication a problem?

[bad_fx]

Hey, that's probably a lot easier than getting rid of bad movies. :)

Re:Communication a problem?

[BWJones]

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.

Not only communication, but they are blaming the free market. In other words, consumers are voting with their dollars and when their friends and critics say the show stinks, they spend their $$'s elsewhere. Lesson? Make decent movies and people (who think for themselves) will go see them.

Re:Communication a problem?

[Forgotten]

Essentially, yeah. Open diffuse communication is clearly at odds with centrally coordinated marketing. It's not just true of movie studios, but of all advertising. Even if one were making actual claims about a product it would be muddied by random comments from the peanut gallery (read: you and me). Since real advertising hasn't contained those sorts of claims for years, instead relying on embodiments of lifestyle or similar nebulous glop, real information can only be an unwelcome competitor. It's easy to see how defamation laws might be adapted to prevent people from making comments that contradict the expensive marketing line (which those same people paid for). Indeed this has already happened in some cases, as with SLAPP.

Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact.

Re:Communication a problem?

[Shoten]

No, no, no, that couldn't be it. It must be something about the wireless gateways that translate between SMTP and SMS. For some unknown reason, the phrase

"stunning performances by both Affleck and Lopez and masterful direction bring forth an epic of a quality not seen since 'Doctor Zhivago'"

gets hashed into

"Christ, I hope these two fuckwits don't breed, this movie blows dead monkeys!"

Re:Communication a problem?

[MrLint]

The MPAA is trying to get a bill passed that will let it DDoS SMS systems when they sense a bad review of a movie.

Re:Communication a problem?

[FuzzyDaddy]

Get your facts straight before you start bashing people.

Hey, how about just not bashing people?

Attacking ideas instead of people is a subtle concept, I know, but what's the point? It serves to build animosity, not promote your own point of view.

Re:Communication a problem?

[VistaBoy]

The irony about all this is that their slogan on that stupid "Respect Copyrights" commercial is

"Movies. They're worth it."

Re:Communication a problem?

[Pharmboy]

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.

Hrrmmm

[mao che minh]

So, earning $131,164,155 in the United States alone and breaking sales records is considered poor sales? Incredible. =)

Re:Hrrmmm

[Uruk]

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)

Re:Hrrmmm

[ealar dlanvuli]

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.

Re:Hrrmmm

[oolon]

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

Re:Hrrmmm

[pboulang]

I disagree. I spent about $2000 getting a decent home theatre... 52" high-definition, digital sound (my point being not that I am so swell but that the cost barrier is so low that many people have similar or better setups) and every time a movie comes out, I think about the costs:

a) In Southern California, a movie costs $9.50 per person.

b) A DVD, which has the same + additional materials costs me around $20

c) Cannot bring in own food/bev, forced to spend $3.50 if you want to quench your thirst during a 2 hour movie

Also, there are quite a few disadvantages to being in the theatre such as:

a) Retarded people that think talking / cell phones / deep breaths of shock when the most obvious thing that has been foreshadowed all movie finally happens.

b) No pause button

c) Groping your girlfriend (for both you female-type slashdot readers, boyfriend) during the performance is frowned upon

d) Advertisements disguised as previews before the real previews

e) Most of the audience laughs about 2.5 seconds after I do at comedies and that makes me sad.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that the viewing experience is BETTER at my house, and if I take a date to a movie, I am paying just about the same if I buy the DVD which I can watch repeatedly. Long gone for me is the anticipation of watching something on the big screen with a couple hundred people.. I'll just wait 6-9 months for the DVD release.

It sure as hell isn't because a friend "saved" me from seeing something 'cause they caught an earlier showtime.

Ok, this post doesn't really reply well to your post, so here is an on topic response:

They're just explaining why their profits are down. It makes sense.

No it doesn't.

Re:Hrrmmm

[aSiTiC]

``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.''

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

News Flash

[gurutechanimal]

Word of Mouth Ruled Illegal - Film at 11

Okay....

[X86Daddy]

Where's the foot icon?

Re:Okay....

[bad_fx]

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.

The Movie Stinks

[harryman100]

Surely if the movie wasn't crap, people wouldn't send text messages saying it was.

The solution is to create good movies.

Hmm

Re:The Movie Stinks

[NivenHuH]

Where is Jay Sherman when you need him.. *sigh*

Re:The Movie Stinks

[josh_freeman]

Maybe I'm just getting more discerning in my old age, but there has been a noticeable decline in film quality. Most of the huge summer blockbusters that I have seen in the last several years can be described as "What the !@#$ was the director smoking?!?!?!?!?!?"

Personally, I blame it all on CGI. What is has made films too easy to produce. Star Wars: A New Hope was brilliant, because Lucas had to tell a story. He couldn't rely on computer-generated anthropomorphic creatures to move the story along, or more importantly, to move overpriced tie-in merchandise of the shelves. Once the barrier for entry was removed, and just about anyone who could get financing could afford spectacular effects, that became the standard and the whole idea of telling a story was lost.

Films are nothing more than glorified story telling. Once they become a showcase for someone's l33t programming skillz, they are irrelevant

Re:The Movie Stinks

[daviddennis]

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

Re:The Movie Stinks

[Kibo]

I think he acctually comes close to the mark without knowing it though.

What made movies great, were the limitations, and the cleverness that had to be employed to tell the story inspite of those. In the case of movies made today, with the capabilities of computer graphics, the limit is really, cycles, money and imagination. If you've got the coin, then if you can think it, you can see it. With all that choice, it's easy to lose sight of the real aim, telling the story. The crappy animatronic shark in jaws, and its notorious unreliablity being one example. A swift look at the Star Wars prequel making of features makes this painfully appearent. (Not that Lucas has any ability at all to tell a decent story anymore) But look at all the time, money and effort manipulating crap in the computer that not only added nothing in any way to the story, not only would have certainly gone unnoticed even by people who were in the movie, but could have just been done right the first time anyway.

It probably takes a person with a very special talent for clarity to helm a big budget movie now days. To see their story, and find there way to it undistracted by the innumerable possibilities.

Re:The Movie Stinks

[Walter Wart]

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

Re:The Movie Stinks

[Nucleon500]

You're unfamiliar with corporate logic. This branch of thought stems from the self-evident truth that one is entitled to increasing profits. This axiom supercedes laws of supply and demand, copyright law and theory, basic human rights, and many other equally false conjectures.

For example, suppose you sell overpriced and unoriginal music. Suddenly it's easy to copy and distribute music, so sales lag. The solution? Under the "old" logic, you would improve the quality (both artistic quality and media convenience) and reduce the price. The new logic, on the other hand, dictates that you should lower the your product's quality and ease of use, and that you should sue your customers. This is justified, because you have a right to a bigger profit than last year.

Suppose you are a Unix vendor whose product sucks. You try to catch the Linux bandwagon, but you have nothing to offer, and your company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Under the old logic, you would diversify your business away from proprietary Unix, using your name to sell services. But remember, your rights have been taken away! You cannot sit idly by; you must inflate your stock with insane claims about your competitors, annoy large companies, and completely destroy your name. The courts, the media, and the investors are your friends, and you must trust they will return to you your much-deserved profits.

Now that you know more about the logic that runs the world, you can understand the ideal course of action for the MPAA. Do you succumb to the outmoded free market theories, improve your products, and stop saturating the market with overhyped films? No! You should lash out against free speech, a discredited idea which has been pirating your profits for far too long.

In other news...

[Plix]

Coke retroactively blames the touch-tone phone for poor sales of the New Coke.

Re:In other news...

[proj_2501]

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.

Re:In other news...

[renderhead]

*Sigh*

That's a popular myth, but it simply doesn't wash. Check out the article that snopes.com did on why New Coke wasn't a marketing ploy to sell classic Coke.

This is grand

[The Bungi]

"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."

Here, eat some of this shit. Don't tell anyone that it tastes like... well, shit. Our business model, you ask? As follows:

1. Produce crap.
2. Hope enough suckers buy it before it's categorized as crap.
3. 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".

This is new?

[Christopher Thomas]

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.

nah, it's just speed communication.

[garcia]

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.

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 .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"

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 .02

Wow

[Uruk]

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.

Texting defeats marketing strategy

[eln]

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.

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 ,the movie can fade into oblivion and the hollywood execs are too busy counting their money to care.

Here's an idea: maybe Hollywood could start making movies people actually want to see more than once, and make their movie that way.

This "texting" sounds dangerous.

[mcc]

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.

Re: This "texting" sounds dangerous.

[gidds]

The majority of people do not have cell phones that support "text-messaging".

That may be true where you are, such as the technological backwater that is the US [fx: ducks]; here in Europe mobile phones have all supported texting pretty much since they started becoming popular something like 4 years ago. And lots of folk use it; even my mum knows how. It's certainly become popular enough not to need quotes every time you mention it!

what I'm not going to do

[kootch]

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

Re:what I'm not going to do

[mosch]

This is slashdot, your response is supposed to be to download unlicensed mp3s of all 8 tracks, including the 6 that suck, download a 'FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION' divx copy of the movie, and then whine about how you'd pay for these things if they didn't suck.

I hope you know that by reading a book, and going outside, you may lose your posting privileges.

The Death of the Captive Market

[kalidasa]

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.

Oh boo-f**king-hoo, cry me a river!

[pair-a-noyd]

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.

I think it's just...

[Wraithlyn]

...rapid communication in general that has been improved/enabled by our new fangled networks.

Like, an example is http://www.rottentomatoes.com. (No, not affiliated, :P) They will have links to dozens of reviews before a movie is even released.

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.

Obligatory Scooby-Doo reference

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Industry executives say that this undermines a carefully crafted marketing image."

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!

Re:let's blame everything but the obvious....

[Thud457]

These people sound as greedy and stupid as three-year-olds!

Next they'll steal a page from Microsoft, and flash a EULA on the screen saying that by viewing the film, you agree not to make negative comments about it to friends and family!

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:let's blame everything but the obvious....

[scalis]

Nah, people are just not doing what they are supposed to do. They listen to their friends instead of falling for the flashy commercial. I say we impose a MPAA tax on text messages to cover up the lost profits.
Either that, or outlaw friendship.

Slight amendment...

[Uruk]

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)

Bad article - read the orginal for more details

[MarkLR]

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.

Maybe we can sign some NDAs

[KU_Fletch]

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.

Precident for banning criticism

[JonTurner]

>>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.

Re:addendum:

[uncoveror]

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.

You Say that as a Joke, But...

[FreeUser]

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.

You say that as a joke, but it is important to keep in mind that

• copyright is the only thing in the constitution that is explicitly allowed to trump freedom of the press (i.e. freedom of speech).
  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.
• Copyright was later "reformed" in the Statute of Anne to give authors rights theoretically equal to those of the (by then) entrenched publishing cartel. This is the point in history that copyright advocates will try to pass off as the "beginning" of copyright, ignoring its much darker, earlier past, and the original reason for its inception: censorship.
• That same publishing cartel ignored the statute and fought it in the courts for nearly a century thereafter, before the highest court ruled they had to respect author's rights and pay to publish their works.
• It was this form of copyright that was encoded into the US constitution, with a significant change: said copyright was intended to be for a limited time, indeed, it was the intention of the founding fathers that it be a very limited time: originally 14 years plus an option to extend for another 14 years if the author was still living.
• Copyright, even in its original form, was hardly benign. Under the guise of insuring that authors and publishers receive compensation (since when is a government mandated monopoly a requirement for one to get compensation?), information in the age of the printing press was quite stringently controlled, both in the British empire and, within a generation after the ratification of the US constitution, in the United States.
• Copyright in its original form only applied to books. It's purview was then extended dramatically to include
  • cartography (maps)
  • sheet music
  • player piano music encodings
  • grammophone and other recordings
  • photographs
  • moving pictures
  • executable instructions (software)
• Copyright was also extended numerous times in duration, now reaching life+70 years for individuals and 90 years for works-for-hire, with no end in sight now that the supreme court has ruled that retroactive extentions are now "constitutional", despite the obvious conflict that entails with the constitutions own requirement that terms be of limited length.
• In addition, government has extended copyright's authority, making it a criminal offense for the first time in this nation's 200 year history, giving individual copyright cartels and corporations police and judicial powers to issue subpeonas and have people arrested, and banning certain creative works and expressions outright (anything that can be construed to circumvent a copy restriction scheme, which includes haiku poems describing how to decrypt DVDs for playback on Linux systems).
• The DMCA allows web sites and persons to be silenced as a result of mere allegations of copyright violation, with no due process, no trial, no conviction, no proof required, and no opportunity for appeal. Copyright has come full circle, returning to its origins as the primary means of modern day censorship.

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

Re:You Say that as a Joke, But...

[DavidBrown]

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!

RTFA

[siskbc]

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure?

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.

Re:RTFA

[Mattcelt]

but they never advocated anything of the time - it was simply a guy making an observation

Well, if they weren't on record already trying to limit or take away our freedoms , rights, and liberties, I think the /. community would be a little bit kinder.

Don't you?

Oh, and here are a couple of extras for
good measure.

Re:This just in!!!

[Iphtashu Fitz]

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....

NOW HEAR THIS

[stratjakt]

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.

Re:This just in!!!

[tomhudson]

**We will actively be gagging people as they leave the theater" said the MPAA spokesperson.**

People are already gagging as they leave the theater, after having paid $$ to watch the latest JLo POS.

They aren't saying it's bad

[iabervon]

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.

this movie stinks

[Purificator]

why would teenagers message their friends that a movie stinks?

maybe, just maybe, it's because the movie stinks.

Re:this movie stinks

[FyRE666]

why would teenagers message their friends that a movie stinks?

maybe, just maybe, it's because the movie stinks.

Damn straight. When a new movie appears, I pay no attention to the trailers or "Quotes" on the posters. I check IMDB, and ask friends who have seen it (of course, it helps if you have lemmings for friends who'll go and see anything ;-). Too many movies these days just show all the highlights in the trailers - so you've seen everything worth watching before you even pay for admission...

What these greedy manipulative cretins in Hollywood fail to realise is that their audiences aren't all braindead morons who'll slap down their cash with a dribbling moon-faced, slack-jawed grin after seeing their favourite overpaid, rude obnoxious actor/actress slapped up 12 feed high on a billboard. Well, excepting the Britney Spears fans I guess...

Re:this movie stinks

[Johnny5000]

The problem that comes with having friends who will see anything is that generally, they'll see anything and *like* it.

There's no accounting for taste- I really only have one or two friends whose taste in movies I actually trust.

Re:this movie stinks

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"In a World..."

'nuff said.

Re:this movie stinks

[tkg]

They're not denying that the movies stink. They're complaining about the word getting out sooner that it used to.

From the article:
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."

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.

The fact that the movie industry depends on hype and an uninformed public to recoup their investment in a bomb doesn't surprise me, but their blatant admission does. Perhaps the realization that this won't work anymore will result in better quality pictures. Well, one can only hope.

Re:Yep

[onyxruby]

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.

Cost of Movies

[Ridgelift]

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.

It's true...

[BMonger]

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*

Re:Yep

[barista]

I think its called "astroturfing" - essentially a fake "grassroots" effort.

Its not just movies

[blackmonday]

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...

Re:let's blame everything but the obvious....

[fishbowl]

"These people sound as greedy and stupid as three-year-olds!"

Three year olds don't have the lobbying power to get Federal laws enacted.

Re:addendum:

[jtosburn]

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.

Our friends the MPAA/RIAA

[John Jorsett]

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 ...

Re:European attendance is up

[netsharc]

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.

Re:That's Illogical, Spock.

[CashCarSTAR]

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.

Charlies Angels marketing

[Andy Smith]

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.

I get it, but the point's still the same

[siskbc]

Well, if they weren't on record already trying to limit or take away our freedoms , rights, and liberties, I think the /. community would be a little bit kinder.

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.

Re:addendum:

[sketerpot]

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.

Re:So this means

[iocat]

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."

Re:let's blame everything but the obvious....

[Strudelkugel]

What used to take a week to happen, with just the bad reviews and new movies coming out each week, now happens in a day or two.

I think the decline is accelerated by my favorite one-word-critique: "Rental"

The local drug store rents DVDs for 99 cents. I have to hear someone tell me "You have to see XYZ on the big screen" to get me to go. People are far less tolerant of a mediocre, let alone bad movie experience if they have to option to rent the DVD a while later. JMHO

Re:addendum:

[Rhone]

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.

For idiots too incompetent to google

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:How about corporate propaganda?

[Rimbo]

"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.

Re:let's blame everything but the obvious....

[Quasar1999]

Three year olds don't have the lobbying power to get Federal laws enacted.

Obviously you've never stood in line at a grocery store with a 3 year old wanting a candy bar... half the people in the line offer to buy the entire damn candy isle, just to shut the litte snot up. That kind of power can go a loooooong way in lobbying Federal laws... ;)

This is a farce

[Feztaa]

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.