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
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!
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.
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.
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!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
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.
True ravers don't need drugs
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.
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....
People are already gagging as they leave the theater, after having paid $$ to watch the latest JLo POS.
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:
No it doesn't.This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
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.
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 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
This is another example of how the MPAA will not evolve/adjust to the new communications/internet world. Why are the paying in excess of $20 million for stars that are overpaid, overqualify media whores (i.e. Gigli stars)???
And don't tell me there are not perfect examples of this already working out there! What about Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bend It Like Beckham, and my personal favorite this year 28 Days Later. Made on a budjet of $8.7 million with previously unheard of actors AND with digital cameras! Not to mention actually paying a little extra for a good script from a good writer (Alex Garland).
In fact one studio is already doing just what I have said so maybe they are learning: Strategy of FOX Searchlight
Where the Music Matters
I think its called "astroturfing" - essentially a fake "grassroots" effort.
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.
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
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