Warren Spector on Licensing

An anonymous reader writes about an "interview with Warren Spector about his thoughts on licensing movies for games. From the article: 'At these Hollywood meetings, the same thing has happened to me more than once, with multiple people...I describe the game I want to do. I tell them I can deliver you a triple-A title for this cost...Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big...They think it over. Then they say...What could you do with twice as much money?'"

Comments

Hollywood's next move

[bigwavejas]

It's no wonder Hollywood is considering alternatives, they've just experienced their worst box-office slump in 20 years. Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.

Hollywood is going through a transition and struggling to find its next niche. It's evident the gaming industry experiencing a virtual explosion (with games like WoW posting users at 3.5 mil) so I'm not surprised they're considering this move... advertisers have already jumped on the bandwagon, displaying their logo's throughout the installation process for many games.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[hobbesx]

Don't forget the rise of the home theater, and the terrific increase in public assholes...

Re:Hollywood's next move

[op12]

Hollywood is going through a transition and struggling to find its next niche.

Maybe they could go back to being creative...that seemed to work well. It's the boatload of sequels (often sequels of pseudo-flops) and remakes that's killing the industry. Sure, they want to guarantee a profit, but relying on sequels usually doesn't work, with few exceptions.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Iriel]

WIth the previous dominance of movies in the entertainment industry, one has to think about the possibilities. Movies still have quite a bit of pressence when marketed properly, and I've been seeing more and more movies coming out that would have never been made in such large numbers in the past because nobody thought so many 'geeks' would watch movies based on games/comics/sci-fi. What makes me curious is the possibility of seeing a game that is one day brought to you by $foo Studios and MGM. I know it may be far fetched, but rather than die out or just become media conglomerates, I think the movie studios would rather try to form some sort of symbiosis.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[LuciferBlack]

Oh I'm sure that the MPAA would list P2P networks as the biggest cause. Because it most certainly can't be the fault of Dukes of Hazzard, Deuce Bigelow, etc etc....

Re:Hollywood's next move

[hobbesx]

Oh God, did I just post that?! It always looks ok before the [Submit]...

/me cries...

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Pxtl]

My opinion on the solution - start cutting costs, hire independants, and cut the ticket prices in half. Yes, it flies in the face of the "bigger is better" mentality in Hollywood, but so many industries are hitting hard times from making projects bigger than they can support, thinking that bigger budgets create bigger successes. The truth is that having a huge field of innovations allows the sucesses to bubble to the top.

Alternately, find a way to make a 200-player game of Super-Smash Brothers and give every person in the theatre a gamepad. I'd pay to play that (or any other shared-screen multiplayer game on a full theatre).

Re:Hollywood's next move

[networkBoy]

"start cutting costs, hire independants, and cut the ticket prices in half. "

To some extent that is what was done on LoTR. Turned out to be a smash hit, mostly because no one actor was the (primadonna) centerpiece (IMHO). Too bad they didn't take your ticket price idea though :(
-nB

Re:Hollywood's next move

[cblanc]

Right, and I'm glad its starting to open some eyes in the industry. You don't survive by attempting to force the 'old way' on your market, you adapt because after all it is that market that drives you; not the other way around.
Hollywood just needs to get back to making movies, not well crafted fads that have an average life cycle of a few months. I personally have not seen very many movies this year because most of them are remakes or sequels.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[rben]

While more people may be playing games, I wouldn't say the industry is all that healthy. WoW has some serious problems that have many users unhappy. I expect many will leave as soon as there is a new MMORPG to play.

In the meantime, there are fewer and fewer new games that show any originality, and quality seems to be decreasing rather than increasing.

The last thing we need to add to the game industry is the same kind of myopic management that has created such horrible movies as we've seen this year.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[andi75]

advertisers have already jumped on the bandwagon, displaying their logo's throughout the installation process for many games.

So, that's why it takes so long to install games these days. They can show more ads that way!

Play indie games: Gish, Oasis, Zuma, GLtron, Threadmarks, Savage, Puzzle-Pirates etc.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[AKAImBatman]

I think most of us got that it was a play on "Public Assets". (Or maybe I'm hearing the Battlestar Galactica remake in my head: "I got thrown in the brig for striking a superior asshole, sir.")

I wouldn't be too worried about it. The Chicago Red Eye just ran a story the other day called "The Bling Culture." They managed to dig up mid 20's people who were making $50,000/yr salaries, yet buying $2000 guici bags monthly and driving HumVees. Their point was that a LOT of people are currently living far outside their means. The problem is that they're young enough to not yet feel the effects of their spending. It's a rather hideous sitation, and it may result in disasterous economic consequences.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

Indeed, they're experiencing what may be a significant problem with American-style capitalism. There is no place for innovation (due to the risk of not making immediate profit) in Big Business American-style capitalism. That's clearly displayed in the vast selection of sequals and triquels Hollywood puts out today. But the unwillingness of the Big Boys of Hollywood to truly innovate (ie. produce new movies) actually decreases quality, and thus purchases. Their revenue, and thus profits, decrease.

Now, in true capitalism these businesses would either exit the market or would fold. Profits are the potential benefit of risk. Profits are not to be expected in a true capitalistic marketplace, but are the reward for those who successfully innovate and make a worthwhile contribution to the market. But that is not how American-style Big Business capitalism works. Profits are treated as a right, regardless of the products that the firms produce. It is that socialistic-corporate view of profits as a God-given right that is giving us these shitty movies year after year.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ChefAndCoder]

The only people talking about the slump are those who are being spoon fed from the movie industry. There's a heavy vested interest on the part of the industry to act like they're in a slump and blame it on something (piracy especially).

I quote from Dave Poland:http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.butto n/2005_thb/050621_tue.html/

Three of the eight highest grossing domestic releases of all time were released last year in February (Passion of the Christ), May (Shrek 2) and July (Spider-Man 2). The top two films of last year release by this date has put $740 million into the till by now. This year, the top two have been good for $530 million by this date... a different of about $210 million, which by itself makes up for all but about $90 million (or about a 2% drop from last year) of the current "slump."

There is no slump.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

The Hollywood "box office slump" is highly overrated. They are, indeed, down 8% on last year. That is, they are down by about 1 bloakcbuster film, like say "The Passion of Christ" which managed to draw a lot of cash out of an otherwise non-movie going demographic. Given the remarkable year on year growth (this year is still up on 2003) with little levelling out and no dips, it makes as much sense to call 2004 anomolously successful as it does to this year unsuccessful. They are still making bucket loads of cash, more than they did in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 the list goes on.

I'm interested to know why people are apparently interested in pitching this year as "unsuccessful" or "performing poorly". I wonder whether that's a product of the studio and resulting media obsession with "first weekend box office takings", and hence a general media focus on immediate box office returns. I also wonder if it isn't in some part a pitch on the part of studios to queue up some more lobbied legislation while whining about the pirates destroying their profits.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[WinterSolstice]

WoW is pretty awesome, but I see a lot of issues with the endgame. I have only gotten to lvl 24, but I know a lot of lvl 60s who are bored stiff.

Maybe WoW needs to be a movie? :)

In response:
Not all those who wander are lost
-Tolkien

-WS

Re:Hollywood's next move

[pete6677]

It would be nice if Hollywood finally realized that almost all movies that revolve around a big-name actor end up bombing. How many horrible movies was Bruce Willis in? They were bad because they relied on his presence to make the movie a success, as opposed to coming up with a real plot, storyline, etc. Good stories make good movies, not just big-name actors combined with special effects.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[kenneth_martens]

It's no wonder Hollywood is considering alternatives, they've just experienced their worst box-office slump in 20 years. Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004.

A mere 8% downturn in ticket sales doesn't mean the industry is in a slump. Sure it sucks for the companies that operate the cinemas, but for the film industry as a whole, ticket sales are now only a part of the equation. DVD rentals and sales are now a big part of the industry--so much so that we're routinely seeing DVD releases within six months of the theater release date.

The downturn in ticket sales does not indicate that movie studios are suddenly in dire need of new revenue streams. They've already got their new revenue stream: DVDs.

However, you're right about one thing: Hollywood studios aren't going to pass up what might be a lucrative new market in licensed video game. It's not because the studios are "struggling" and in dire need of money to keep from collapsing, though. Hollywood is doing fine. It's just good business sense to investigate any licensing deals that look like easy money.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

The Videogame adaptation of Goldeneye was very well-received, from what I recall. Additionally, while not directly movie->videogame, some of the star wars spinoff games have turned out quite well (X-Wing/Tie Fighter, The later Jedi Knight games)

In the end, I think movie->video game works best when a game is based off the movie's universe, rather than on the plot of the movie directly.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ShieldW0lf]

Hollywood: We've been chugging out sequel after sequel and they're just not making very much money. We notice that you guys in the game industry are doing well. How would you like to partner with us, and we'll fund you and give you licenses for the right to make your game a sequel of one of our movies?

Game Maker: What, am I stupid?

Hollywood: We were thinking of a budget of 100 million dollars.

Game Maker: Ok, I was thinking of changing careers in the next few years or so anyways.

Game Player: Scrabble anyone?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's no wonder Hollywood is considering alternatives, they've just experienced their worst box-office slump in 20 years. Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.

There is no slump!

This so called "slump" is just political marketing on the part of the big studios. There is no slump as far as they are concerned. In fact, their theaterical revenues went UP 10% from $797M to $870M for the first 3 quarters of the year.
REF: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/US205MPA.htm

The real hit has been to indie and otherwise non-MPAA films, they are the ones that have been losing out at the box office. You can find more details in the pair of articles here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2123286/

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Their point was that a LOT of people are currently living far outside their means. The problem is that they're young enough to not yet feel the effects of their spending. It's a rather hideous sitation, and it may result in disasterous economic consequences.

The US trade deficit is appalling. And what's worse it's very steadily gowing. Quite simply this is not sustainable. At some point the current account deficit is going to have to turn around and start decreasing - the question is, what could cause that. Massive reductions is budget deficits would be a good start, but that doesn't seem to be happening (for those who will quote Bush speeches about reductions: it's largely book keeping and managing to push Iraq and Afghanistan expenses off the books for a while). A shift in consumer buying habits reducing the massive demand for imported goods might help a little - but as you say, the culture just isn't headed that way. The other option is for the US Dollar to drop significantly. That may not be pretty.

The US current account deficit is running at over 6% of GDP. That is, quite simply ridiculously high. 6% of GDP is the point where economists usually start getting very worried. It's the level that places like Argentina, and Indonesia were running before things broke badly. The US can hold out longer because the the US Dollar is the defacto global currency, so people are far more inclined to hold it. Somethign better start reversing the trend in the current account soon though, because this really can't go on forever, and if it snaps the way, say, Argentina did, things will not be pretty.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

"Game Player: Scrabble anyone?"

This isn't so far from the truth. My grandson recently was given for his birthday the game that was released with the recent Star Wars movie. After initial trouble installing it (it didn't like his video drivers or something), he probably played it for about an hour before he had enough of it.

He told me about it the last time I saw him. I believe his quote was, "Gramps, this game fucking sucks." He's not one to swear much, so I knew he was truly disappointed. I suggested we play a good old game of Monopoly, and so we did. And you know what? He had fun. He improved his math skills, too.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[EpsCylonB]

Your right of course, the studios are still making a huge amount of money. However another aspect that is worth noting is DVD sales, they are through the roof and generating more revenue than the box office.

Personally I love the cinema experience and don't think that it will die out anytime soon, but I also enjoy watching films at home (protected from those annoying people who talk in cinema's), so do at lot of other people going by DVD sales. DVD's are just one half of the home entertainment pie though, consoles are the other, so its not too saurprising to see the hollywood studios take an intrest in video games.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[RM6f9]

It's not just about growth, it's about rate of growth and fast-twitch responses to statistical noise by investors - "immediate returns" is a good phrase to look at, as very few people can see past those opening weekends. The instant gratification culture will be (rightfully) its own downfall.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[blueadept1]

Although the site is not responding, I would still like to discuss this claim.

Does he take into account:
a) Inflation, and
b)Market Growth

Because if he does not, these may not be the highest grossing releases of all time. This misconception can also be seen in media stating that oil is 'at an all time high', while failing to realize inflation.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[robertjw]

Maybe they could go back to being creative...that seemed to work well.

That and

1. Get rid of the half hour of commercials
2. Get some ushers to keep other people from being noisy and rude at the theatre
3. Reduce the price of tickets

In that order. I like going to the movies, and I can afford the $9 once in a while, although I'd go more often if the price was lower. What I will not tolerate is watching actual advertising before the movie. Previews are one thing, but commercials are, for me, unacceptable. The other thing I will not tolerate is noise in the theatre. Why would I go and pay for a movie when I miss a significant part of it due to people talking or babies crying.

These three factors have changed movie going from something I will do on the spur of the moment to something that I really consider before doing. Used to be you could go see a mediocre movie and not feel guilty about it. Now, if the movie is not something I really want to see on a big screen, like Star Wars, I'll just wait two months for the DVD.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

Indeed, any truly competent economist is very worried about the situation. But what can he or she really do or even say? Of course the obvious thing to do would be to suggest stop wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars on various wars of aggression. But then he or she will be labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or a "liberal".

Perhaps the problem is that American is innundated with morons. Morons don't understand economics. Morons find it easier to label people as "supporters of terror" than actually improving the situation. A strong economy is earned through hard work, investment and productivity increases. Morons are not particularly interested in such things.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Chosen Reject]

I think you are correct. With home theaters as they are, people are fine with watching stuff at home, especially since they don't have to deal with the jerks in the theater answering their cell phones. I rather liked the way you put it.
During Revenge of the Sith I sat next to a stupid lady who's phone rang four times. Three times she answered it and then got up and walked out of the theater and had to walk in front of me to get out. I wanted to smack her. Phone calls are not that important that you can't hold them off two hours. And if they are, why the trash are you in the theater!?!!!

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "Banana republic" don't you understand? We're livin' the dream, baby! Too bad for the little people.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Your right of course, the studios are still making a huge amount of money. However another aspect that is worth noting is DVD sales, they are through the roof and generating more revenue than the box office.

Which the studios adore! Due to an anachronistic accoutnign quirk video and DVD profits for a film get booked at a flat 20% of gross income. The remaining 80% is written off as "production and marketing expenses" regardless of how much it cost to produce or market the DVD. Given that most studios now have their own in house production and marketing of DVDs, and given that these days production and marketing costs are nothing like 80% of the gross income on DVDs, that's a huge amount of money going straight to studio coffers that never has to be booked as gross income for the film, and hence need not be shared with any participants signed up for a percentage of (not just net, even gross!) profits.

That is to say DVD is an absolute goldmine for studios because, for accouting purposes, they barely make any money at all, yet they make the studio a fortune.

Watch out for the coming trend: Simultaneous theatre and DVD release so that the studio can do simultaneous marketing and save themselves even more of that "80%". A very basic DVD will be released the same time as the film. Various higher quality with added features and new deluxe editions will then be released to milk the DVD business for all it's worth.

Don't think the studios are concerned about DVDs. They love them. The only people who should be worried about DVDs are the theatre owners who insist on putting 20 minutes of ads before the movie.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[eebra82]

Hollywood is crap. Seriously, how many good movies do they actually produce? I mean, say that you're uncle Scrooge with one hundred million dollars to waste on a movie, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY FAIL?

Some movies are really great and innovative, but most stuff is just random crap that you see too often. I remember the good old days when computer graphics enhancement was new to people. I actually enjoyed the some 4-10 minutes of animations. Nowadays they put either near 0 % computer animations or next to 100 and they make the effects so surreal that it's, well, unrealistic.

When Independence Day was released, well, that movie was something new. They copied the alien attack movies with a crapload of super-sized alien ships and basically kicked the living crap out of people. I remember that the effects didn't look unrealistic at all, because they didn't use them way too much. Compare that to Star Wars I and II, where they basically put so much of that crap, it just loses its sense.

It also feels like most movie studios spy on each other like crazy. A dinosaur movie is often followed by another one or more, and same goes with every Pixar movie like a Bug's Life and the one that looked just like it, but with other insects. Or how about the sudden appearance of all the sharks?

And while I'm at it, why didn't they make Terminator 3 good? They had to use all the nonsense bumbo jumbo crap effects in every scene they could find and basically killed the whole feeling. The computer graphics made the robots feel like they were totally indestructable. At least in the old movies, they had flaws, but Arnold was like a big chunk of metal who could penetrate 50 restrooms with the tip of his finger..

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no wonder Hollywood is considering alternatives, they've just experienced their worst box-office slump in 20 years. Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004.

Insightful?? Um, no. This guy pulled these figures out of his ass. Why don't you try these figures which show 2005 as being right about where it should be considering the year is just a little over half over and the Holidays aren't here yet. 2004 also had the most movies ever.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

Re:Hollywood's next move

[MBraynard]

Account deficits are irrelevant. What brouught down those other economies was not caused by any account deficit but by a poorly 'managed' economy.

Account deficits are a sign of financial health. Budget deficits are not. Chinese get $ and buy either US businesses, property, or debt.

But the living beyond your means thing - yeah, that's messed up on a personal level.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[droptone]

What they mean by "slump" is not that there are no successful films, but overall there are not an 'acceptible' number of sucessful films. Sure, Spider -Man/Shrek/PotC may gross huge sums, but compared with the big-budget flops....they are losing. I have no sympathy for the movie producers/companies about this problem. The last movie I went to go see in theaters was Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and that was only because one of my all-time favorite emcees, Mos Def, played a starring role. This partially because I'm a broke college student, and also because there hasn't been a movie that I felt deserved my money (even though I did see Hotel Rwanda, and House of the Flying Daggars before HHGG). Cool trailers don't do it for me, they all have those. "Reviewers" don't phase me, as their tastes don't match mine and they generally are coerced into liking crap. Instead, I wait for people I trust to see it before me and enjoy it OR wait for it on DVD (even though then the film has to fight for my money versus the comparatively wide selection of independent films in this college town).

So in short, Hollywood has enough blockbusters and too many overpriced action films that flop (because they suck and are uninventive).

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Chosen Reject]

The only people who should be worried about DVDs are the theatre owners who insist on putting 20 minutes of ads before the movie.

But some DVDs are now also coming with ads. If I ever end up with a DVD with ads on it, I'll be upset. And if those ads are unskippable the first thing I will do is rip the DVD to my compy eliminate the ads and then return the DVD to the studio and demand a refund. I didn't pay money for ads; I wanted a movie.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Txiasaeia]

If you'd like to encourage your grandson to become a more social gamer (he likes monopoly, so it's very possible), I'd suggest a more "hard-core" board game like Carcassonne or Settlers of Catan. I don't know how old your grandson is, but I know kids as young as 12 that enjoy both.

There's a huge slump in video gaming lately, mostly to do with the fact that new consoles are a year away (so who wants to put out a blockbuster game for the older ones?) and PC gaming's been going downhill for years. Unless you want to give him GTA:SA or Battlefield 2, there's nothing good out for the PC lately. I know that I just shrug and go back to playing Steve Jackson's Hacker or Carcassonne: Hunters & Gatherers, but I don't know how many people out there know that there are some incredible board games that rival anything video gaming has to offer (Puerto Rico & Tigris and Euphrates, for instance.) Board Game Geek has the full story :)

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the boatload of sequels (often sequels of pseudo-flops) and remakes that's killing the industry.

Exactly. When was the last time there was a sequel to a genuinely excellent film - as opposed to a mediocre film that made a lot of money only because it was hyped to death?

The law of diminishing returns kicks in - a mediocre sequel to a mediocre film doesn't do as well as the original because they can't hype it to death - people have already made their minds up one way or the other.

Sometimes I think that the film industry would be so much better off if advertising was banned. It's like payola, except it's legal.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OldeTimeGeek]

It would be nice if Hollywood finally realized that almost all movies that revolve around a big-name actor end up bombing.

I always love it when I read this one. Along with being untrue, it's also illogical. Actors can demand and get huge salaries because - suprise, surprise - people do go to see moves based upon nothing other than the star being in them. This is why they are a star.

Look at it this way. You have a certain amount of money to invest in films. You can either (1) use it to fund a marginal property that makes a bunch of money with a star that people know (yet another the Deuce Bigalow movie, for instance) or (2) Fund a couple of art flicks (which do notoriously badly at the box office) with people that nobody ever heard of. Incidentally, the board of directors and stockholders, none of which are particulary interested in ars gratia artis, will hand you your walking papers if you choose badly. Now. Which will you pick?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ArcticCelt]

Another thing that get on my nerves is to hear the glorious noise of an army of cows ruminating jumbo buckets of triple sauce Nachos/Popcorn and slurping their barrel of coke. I am sure they will sell pork chops and fried chicken very soon.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[shotfeel]

And on top of all of that, Hollywood needs to realize they aren't the only show in town any more. There are more things vying for our entertainment dollar and leisure time than there were 20 years ago. The internet and game consoles being two big ones.

Which (IMO) is why they want to get into the game market.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[mbelly]

I can't think of a better reply than... "Amen"

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Dunbal]

advertisers have already jumped on the bandwagon, displaying their logo's throughout the installation process for many games.

      Yeah, I am an old fart. And I have been a gamer all my life. I've seen the whole industry slide downhill and sell out over the past 30 years.

      The purpose of the opening screen, way back when, was to give the user something interesting to look at WHILE THE GAME LOADED in the background. Sometimes on the old cassette tapes, and even on 5.25" floppies, it would take quite a while to load a game. So you got a pretty graphic, and maybe some simple animation, while the main program was put into memory.

      But now it has become the complete opposite. You are actually waiting for the intro movie to load (and God forbid, advertising), and the whole purpose has become to make you go "oooo" with some really nice graphics (usually the best graphics in the whole game). Then you have to wait for the game to load. Then you get some silly, ugly start menu screen.

      The tail is now wagging the dog, in my opinion. And that's just not right. Fun is more important than graphics to make a game successful. But you can't show fun in a magazine ad - it won't hypnotize some 12 year old, make him drool and nag the hell out of his parents.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Get rid of the half hour of commercials
Get some ushers to keep other people from being noisy and rude at the theatre
Reduce the price of tickets


I go to a small second run cinema down the road from me to see my movies these days. The theatres are smaller but the screens are still big and the sound system is good. Because it's (a) smaller and (b) second run it is also generally a little quieter and doesn't have as many of the noisy teens that you see at mainstream multiplexes. They also don't bother with much in the way of ads before the film (they usually have 1 ad and 2-3 previews). Best of all tickets are $4.25 Canadian for evening sessions and only $3 on Tuesdays and for matinee sessions.

What do I lose out on? Well I don't get to see films the week, or even the month they're released. I have to wait about 2-3 months for it to hit the second run whent he theatre can get it cheaper. On average it hits the second run about half way between initial theatrical release and eventual DVD release.

Hunt around and see if there's a second run cinema near you - you get the benefits of a theatrical experience (big screen and good sound) without the annoyances and for a very reasonable price. If you're willing to wait for DVDs then waiting for second run shoudln't be a problem.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Monkelectric]

I'm glad im not the only one who thinks its *FUCKED* to pay 9$ to sit and watch commercials. I dont even want to see previews.

Secondly, I won't rent DVDs because most of them now have non-skippable commercials. Nothing like being forced to watch an advert for a movie you never wanted to see which isn't even in theaters anymore. I think even a few consumer dvd releases have commericals of this type?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[bdcrazy]

One of the Loews Theatre Complexes by my parents house already sell fried chicken/hot dogs/hamburgers/ribs/etc. Its rather rediculous. But then, people like my sister love it. She can go with her daughter and grab dinner and a movie in the same place.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[stonedonkey]

Mod parent up. Movies really don't make as much as they used to.

Here's a link to the top 100 films, by domestic gross, adjusted for inflation. It tells a very different story. Titanic isn't even in the top 5.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[renderhead]

Are there any wars that aren't "wars of aggression"? Isn't all war wasteful? You obviously don't believe that the war in which the U.S. is currently engaged is worth the money we spend on it, but it's not as though the administration invaded Iraq just because they enjoy that kind of thing.

War is dangerous and expensive, but the U.S. doesn't go to war unless it intends to do something very important (note that I say "intends", not necessarily "succeeds"). Given that fact, the importance of the goal justifies the cost in dollars to the supporters of the objective.

Heck, it's pretty expensive to even have a military! Why not dismantle the whole thing and save a bundle? And arresting criminals costs us millions of dollars and the lives of many policemen every year. It's high time we stopped wasting these resources!

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Account deficits are a sign of financial health. Budget deficits are not. Chinese get $ and buy either US businesses, property, or debt.

The current account deficit can be looks on as foreign investment in the US and thus a good thing, yes. Certainly having a current account deficit is not necessarily bad. Having such a large current account deficit (as a percentage of GDP) is not good though. Having a consistently growing current account deficit is bad. Eventually that trend will have to reverse. Eventually China will get tired of buying US debt (they are already beginning to tire). The inevitable result is a fall in the value of the US Dollar.

It is possible to run a current account deficit if the countries with whom you have the debt have confidence in your economy and your ability to (eventually) service that debt. There is a lot of faith in the US economy, so it can afford to run large deficits, and can generally expect no problems. If it gets too big people start losing confidence. If the US keeps demanding more and more via an ever increasing trade deficit - well eventually that's just not going to work. Eventually people are going to want to cash in their cheques so to speak.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[SupaKoopa]

GASP! a LIBERAL?! Ma, Pa, get the pitchforks, we gotta drive em outta town!

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

Indeed, any truly competent economist is very worried about the situation.

No, any competent economist (as opposed to editorial writers for the New York Times) understands that trade deficits are completely irrelevant.

We are the number one importer in the world. We are also the number one exporter in the world. Furthermore, we are the number one economy in the world (Japan is #2). In other words, we are the economic envy of the world. We're rich. Filthy, stinking rich. Our "poor" people wear $100 shoes and $200 sports-logo jackets. People in northern states regard air conditioning as an "essential" rather than the extravagant luxury which most countries in similar climates would consider it to be.

All a trade deficit means is that there are a lot of US dollars floating around outside of US borders. That's a good thing.

Now, if you want to hand-wring about the federal budget deficit, that's a whole other discussion.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

The total box office may be down, but Hollywood doesn't care. The 6 major studios are doing just fine - box office revenues are up for the year for them. It's the indy films that are doing so poorly at the box office.

And anyway, the box office is a money-loser for Hollywood. But it helps drive their DVD and TV business, and that has them rolling in money.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[FLEB]

And, on the other side, going to see a movie in the theater is really less social than watching at home, considering that everyone tells me to shut up when I make comments during a theater show.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[FreeUser]

I believe his quote was, "Gramps, this game fucking sucks."

Real stand up grand kid ya got there, pops. So did you do a crummy job raising your son, and this is just the by-product of it, or did that loose tramp of a daughter-in-law result in that garbaged mouth punk?

Go back to church and prostrate yourself before your psychopathic, misogynous, murderous God and let the rest of us get back to living life--normally.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The current account deficit will be reduced. Either because the US is producing more goods that the world wants. Or because the dollar falls relative to other currencies. I am about to place a bet on the latter, by investing retirement funds in European stocks. I'm not comfortable with Hong Kong; that may (or may not; who knows) keep me away from east asian funds.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

From the site:

Adjusted to the estimated 2005 average ticket price of $6.40.

WTF! I wish I could find a theater that only charged 6.40 for a Movie. It's always >$7.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[FLEB]

The first thing I will do is rip the DVD to my compy eliminate the ads and then return the DVD to the studio and demand a refund.

You know, you'd probably have a solid ethical stand there if you just picked one of the two.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[stonedonkey]

I think that price point includes matinee and non-urban prices. The West Coast and Northeast tend to get gouged as well. Seeing a flick in middle America is generally significantly cheaper than, say, Manhattan, San Francisco, or Los Angeles.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

What you are talking about is only a problem if you begin with the assumption that all current trends will continue forever, when there's inadequate reason to make that leap. A very common mistake.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Fareq]

Incidentally, notice how badly this goes when taken the other way.

Can you think of a single videogame-turned-movie that was any good?

The only one I can think of that isn't pretty universally hated is Final Fantasy... I didn't like it much, but some people did. Other than that... I can't think of any.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

"but it's not as though the administration invaded Iraq just because they enjoy that kind of thing.

With anyone other than Bush in office this statement might have been plausible.

"the U.S. doesn't go to war unless it intends to do something very important (note that I say "intends", not necessarily "succeeds").

If by important you mean kill to secure future middle-eastern oil interests, then yes, they intended to do something important in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder why people claim that PC gaming goes downhill. True, if you only go for titles published by EA and co., you might be right. But the PC is basicly the only system where you can have tons of free games without feeling guilt. Right, I talk about freeware, games made in the tradition of the early days. No big budget, just lot's of thought put into the gameplay.

Well, I guess you are already too good a consumer.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the purchase of Carcassonne, for it's a game that can appeal to both the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer, since the rules are very pick-up-and-play (much, much moreso than most of the current popular strategy games) but gamers need to be able to plan ahead and foresee how the board will be laid out.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

No, any competent economist (as opposed to editorial writers for the New York Times) understands that trade deficits are completely irrelevant

We can presume then that Paul Volcker (Greenspan's predecessor as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and former head of research at the World Bank) and the current head of the IMF, to pick two random examples, are not competent economists.

Yes, a current account deficit is not necessarily a bad thing, and a strong economy can easily carry one. The US current account deficit is, however, getting rather too large, and, more importantly, it is only continuing to grow, with no sign of levelling of or decreasing. That is bad no matter how you slice it.

If you want a nice detailed account of the US current account deficit, how it can be viewed, why it has been successfully carried in the past but may not work out so well now, try this paper which lays things out fairly well. It's old (2002), but covers the main points well.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[mfterman]

For those who think that Hollywood is dying because of shrinking box office revenues, think again. Hollywood is doing just fine on its movies. Yes, when you look at the box office returns, a surprisingly high percentage of movies actually are pulling a loss when you deduct profits from box office against marketting.

Of course they make all of that and more off the DVD sales. Most Hollywood flicks are making far more money now off the DVD sales than they are off the theatrical runs and to some extent, licensing for television. But after Hollywood got over their fear of DVDs and realized what a profit center they were, most movies these days have the DVD planned out in conjunction with the movie.

Expect to see a future where the movie theatrical run is just viewed as advertising of sorts for the DVD run as well as the other media tie-ins such as video games.

I can easily forsee a future when a script is tossed back for revision because "it won't make a good videogame" or "the videogame designers want A, B and C out of the movie and X, Y, and Z put into the movie" and as a result, the script gets revised.

I can see the future of Hollywood IP being a war between the movie producers and the game producers each of whom want something different to produce the best possible product. What makes for a good movie can make a bad game and vice versa.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

A "war of agression" from the pespective of America. The Iraqi citizens are in a "war of defence" against the American and British invaders. It's all a matter of perspective. In response to the previous poster's post, it is concerning an American perspective on the situation.

Remember, the citizenry of the US is very different and very separate from those who are actually calling the shots. While the citizens do their little election dance every four years, it makes very little difference. They're choosing between two people from basically the same group. The people running the country do benefit financially from war. They aren't dying; it's the sons and daughters of the American citizenry who are over there right now.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Nimrangul]

Not me, I thought it was insightful. There are a lot more public assholes today than there were 20 years ago.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

The choices are:

1. Pay $9 to sit in new stadium-style seats and watch a near-perfect print of the film on opening weekend with a big crowd who's going out of their way to see the movie.

2. Wait 3 months to pay five bucks and see a ratty print while sitting in a ratty seat within a ratty theater, surrounded by cheapskates and bored people who have seen the movie several times, and only came to watch their favorite scenes while chatting with their friends.

3. Wait 4 months, put the movie into my NetFlix queue, and watch it in my own recliner at home with a great picture and a sound system which is superior to anything I've ever seen in a second-run theater.

Option 2 is pretty much the least attractive of the three. If I'm going to spend money to go to a movie at all anymore, I want the big spectacle.

In fact, the only movie I've seen in the theater in the last few months is the IMAX edition of Batman Begins, and it was worth every penny of the $16 I paid to get in.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Fishstick]

I think you just described the scene in Crawford:

Crosses vandalized at antiwar mom's Texas camp site


Michelle Mulkey, a spokeswoman for Sheehan, said protesters were still awake on Monday night when a truck dragging a pipe and chains drove over a portion of the area where the crosses were standing.

Sheehan's vigil has attracted anti-war activists from all over the United States -- many of them also relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq -- who arrived to cheer her on and join in rallies.

But not everyone in this farming town of just over 700 people is happy about the presence of Camp Casey and the accompanying media circus. One resident, neighbor Larry Mattlage, fired shots into the air on Sunday from his ranch near Bush's 1,600-acre (648-hectare) property.

I read this and just pictured the scene. Cindy Sheehan and others are camped outside Bush's ranch, protesting the war. Ol' man Mattlage ain't none too tickled about all 'em liberal pantywaists hangin' round, so he squeezes off a couple rounds in the air.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

What you are talking about is only a problem if you begin with the assumption that all current trends will continue forever, when there's inadequate reason to make that leap. A very common mistake.

Not in the least. I am starting with the assumption that this current cannot last forever. The current account deficit cannot continue to grow indefinitely. The question, therefore, is "what will it take to reverse the trend?" There are several options including significant reduction in foreign investment, budget surpluses, massive increases in US exports coupled with levelling or reduction in imports, and significant devaluation of the US dollar. Some combination of some or all of those will be required, the question is simply a matter of what mix it will be. Budget surpluses currently look unlikely, and current trends on imports vs. exports mean the dramatic change required there is currently unlikely (without, say, devaluation of the US dollar to boost exports). That means there is a reasonable possibility of reduced foreign investment and a falling US Dollar. The US Dollar already took a fall last year and has stabilised while the fed continues to march up interest rates. They can't do that forever because they will (1) burst the housing bubble (2) strangle and economy still coming out of recession. Once they stop the downward pressure on the dollar is going to weigh in again.

There is still plenty of time for things to work out, but to ignore it and say there isn't a problem here is remarkably foolish.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Some wars are defensive, rather than a war of aggressive. E.g. Soviet Union in WWII. They were attacked; they fought back.

At this point in time, I believe that George W. Bush declared war in Iraq to gather political capital. To him and his closest advisors, that was very important.

9/11 was an excuse. "The U.S." didn't intend anything; there was no poll of the 300 million residents. There was an elite group of individuals that conspired with each other and manipulated and cajoled the congress, the media, and the public to go along. In large part, they did this by fixing the intelligence around the policy.

Why, if the goal of the war was very important, has it shifted like the ocean waves. WMDs! No, restructuring the Middle East! No, a liberal democracy! Freedom for half of the Iraqis, and burkas for the other half.

What was the greater purpose for which Casey Sheehan's organization risked and lost his life?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

We can presume then that Paul Volcker (Greenspan's predecessor as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and former head of research at the World Bank) and the current head of the IMF, to pick two random examples, are not competent economists.

Given the track record of the World Bank, the IMF, and the US economy prior to Greenspan's arrival, we can pretty much presume that anyway.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ComputerizedYoga]

I'm no economist, but ... aren't most of the things that war consumes made in the USA? The tanks, the planes, the bullets, etc. Not to mention the troops, who would otherwise be in the work force competing for jobs, driving unemployment higher and salaries down (as more people would be competing for the same jobs).

Since that spending is pretty much internal to the economy, it has NOTHING to do with trade deficits. As far as I can see, the only things that war really negatively impacts in our economy are overall government spending (budget deficits != trade deficits) and negative public opinion.

Hard work and increased production do NOT a healthy economy make. Overproduction was a major driving force in the depression, about a century ago. Increased production has to match increased consumption, and war is GREAT at consuming a LOT of things from our own economy, ostensibly dumping the money back into American hands.

If you want to address the trade deficit, you need to reduce imports and improve exports. Things like reducing dependency on foreign oil, manufacturing more high-tech and end-user goods here instead of overseas, counteracting the outsourcing trend, and getting the steel industry's head out of it's ass and back into competitive production would go pretty far in that direction. Not that all of that is exactly trivial ...

Now, budget deficit on the other hand ... war definitely hits that pretty hard.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Belial6]

I agree, but let me be the the voice of middle ground. While theaters NEED ushers to keep it quite. It would not be hard for theaters to install quite rooms. You know, a room behind glass in the back of the theater that anyone with babies, or wanting to make noise can go. I understand that many churches have these, and they work quite well.

I don't want to stop other people from being noisy. I just won't go to movies if I have to hear them. Theis means that the theaters need to either choose between me and the crying babies, OR figure out a way that they can be noisy while I don't here it.

Honestly, crying babies save me a fair amount of money in lost ticket sales.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[aslate]

As the above poster said, Goldeneye is a very good example of film -> game going well. But that's because the game was innovative, interesting and challenging, as well as having great multiplayer.

Turn to today and you get a load of film-based games, often sequals, all the same shoot-people-and-then-win style games. There's nothing interesting and no reason to play the newer games.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OwnedByTwoCats]

It all depends on what is important. If giving the up-and-coming challenger to America's dominance in the world (i.e. Communist China) the keys to the fiscal health of America isn't important, then don't worry about the deficit.

China gets dollars by running a trade surplus with the US. They then use those dollars to buy U.S. Government securities. And U.S. companies. Unocal? Each of those dollars floating around outside of US borders represents a claim against the US for goods and services. When those claims are asserted, there will be trouble.

Read about 1956, Britain, France, and the Suez.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Txiasaeia]

(Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a graphics whore.)

What freeware games released in 2005 are as *fun* as the Fallout series, or System Shock 2, or Deus Ex? I'm a regular visitor of Home of the Underdogs, and I haven't seen anything yet this year that's worth playing for more than a few seconds. Fate is the one indie game that might be an exception, but it's shareware. So? Suggestions?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

The leveling off of the impact from such pendulum swings is exactly what we have a Federal Reserve for in the first place.

Given the rather serious troubled water the Fed has gotten us through, on and off, over the last 20 years or so, I have a lot of confidence in those crusty old bankers to keep pulling the right strings to keep the trains running on time, and do it without mixing metaphors.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Very few DVDs for popular films come out 4 months after release. It's more like 6 months to a year. I'm also sorry to hear you have such poor second run cinemas - the ones here are really quite nice with good seating, great prints, and no issues with people talking suring the film. Sucks to be you I guess.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I only label someone a "liberal" if they moronically attached their personal agenda to a issue that is clearly separate, and in this case actually the opposite of the point they are trying to make.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[bob_herrick]

I believe you confuse the economic term 'profit' as in an excess rent earned due to monopoly or some similar situation with the more common use of the term as 'return on invested capital.' The first does get driven out of efficient markets by competition, without the second no one invests.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[shreak]

I also bought Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan a few months ago. Fantastic!

A few years ago I totally gave up on Computer based games and went totally console. I play console games when the wife goes out and the kids are in bed. Fun playing when no one else is around, better than reality TV.

When I go out I typically hook up with friends for some kind of miniature wargame. Fun interaction and competition.

The kids really like Carcassonne. 8 and 9 and no trouble picking it up (less trouble than the grand parents had...). It's also nice because it's mostly benign (no real way to attack someone). Once we added "Princess and Dragon" we got to add some lessons on how to be a good sport when someone jacks your castle :)

=Shreak

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Scott Byer]

current head of the IMF, to pick two random examples, are not competent economists.

Uhm... most of those involved with the IMF can be labelled as incompetent. Prescribing currency devaluation to troubled economies is not a sign of intelligent thought.

The trade deficit is troubling. But realize that a reasonable and not insignificant percentage of that can be attributed to one thing: China

With an artificially low currency that is still pegged to the dollar, it essentially targets the US as a dumping ground for China's exports, artificially raising the import figure, while at the same time the excessive piracy rates reduce the US's export figure (connecting us back to the topic).

This will evolve into an interesting symbiosis, as I think that China needs to keep the US economy heathy enough and may use it's currency evaluation to tweak the US trade deficit if the deficit looks like it may cause economic instability in this country.

But make no mistake about it, China is in the driver's seat.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[renderhead]

Just so you know, invoking the name of Cindy (not Casey) Sheehan is not a very good way to strengthen your credibility. People who are already opposed to the war like her. People who aren't see her as an opportunist who is exploiting the death of her son (who, it appears, probably supported the war) to grab the spotlight and lash out at Bush.

You may respect her, but she won't help you win an argument.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

It all depends on what is important. If giving the up-and-coming challenger to America's dominance in the world (i.e. Communist China) the keys to the fiscal health of America isn't important, then don't worry about the deficit.

The very fact that you insist on calling the PRC "Communist China" has given me permission to ignore you forever. Your opinion is obviously motivated more by xenophobia than economics.

The truth is, our ruthless, capitalistic econemy is more socialized than theirs at the moment. It's just that we don't want to admit how socialist we really are any more than they want to admit how capitalist they are.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

You, sir, are a fool, and clearly need to brush up on your history. If you want more examples though, how about Alan Greenspan. Clearly he's incompetent too.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[JourneyExpertApe]

"That is, they are down by about 1 bloakcbuster film, like say "The Passion of Christ" which managed to draw a lot of cash out of an otherwise non-movie going demographic."

But, The Passion was an independent film, so it didn't really make Hollywood any money. When you take that into account, this year looks even less like a slump.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

You, sir, are a fool, and clearly need to brush up on your history.

You, sir, are a humorless prig, and clearly need to lighten up.

(Ah, I do so enjoy these high levels of rational debate between great minds. It's like we've got our very own on-line Algonquin Round Table going on here!)

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

There is only so much the Fed can do. If things go well they can comfortably and easily soften the blow, if things go badly there is basically nothing they can do about it. There are a lot of factors lining up here: Continuing large budget deficits (over which the Fed has no actual influence), a nation with a culture of living beyond it's means (over which the Fed has zero influence), an only barely floated (and effectively still pegged) yuan (over which the Fed has no influence), a housing bubble from the very low interest rates of the last 3 years (which puts limits on how fast and how high the Fed can push interest rates), and an increasing unwillingness on the part of China and Japan (the two biggest foreign holder of US debt) to continue buying debt (over which the Fed has little influence).

Please read this paper (I linked to it in one of my other comments as well). It provides an excellent and balanced analysis of issues with the current account deficit. Yes things could go well and the Fed can cushion things nicely. No that does not mean things will go well and no, there's not necessarily anything the Fed can do about it. Is there reason for panic? No. Is there reason to be concerned? Yes, and any sensible economist is actually somewhat concerned and watching the current account closely.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Tachys]

You mean

Game Maker: Awesome Idea where do I sign.

Everyone seems to complain about hollywood making sequels and remakes.But the game industary is actually worse then hollywood, and it works great for them.

Every single Playstation 2 game I own is a sequel or remake of something else. The last original game I bought was probably Tribes. Of course I have also bought Tribes 2 and Tribes Vengeance

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ShieldW0lf]

You said a mouthful there. I don't pay a bunch of money to go waste my time being brainwashed.

Last movie I went to see, based on my earnings, the advertising was more expensive than admission. As in, if I worked at home during the ads and showed up late, I would have made enough to pay for the show.

So, um, yeah. I don't go to movies anymore. I don't even watch them on DVD, because they try to make me watch commercials there too. Therefore, I have no wish to own the media. Until and unless they come out with something I'd actually take pleasure in owning, I'll stick to renting and ripping, thanks. It's a pain in the ass, and I'd rather not go to the trouble, but as long as it's the only way to remain in control, I'll continue to do it.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ShadyG]

Wow, their "inflation" methodology sucks. They're using change in ticket prices to measure inflation. So if movies in general become more popular and demand goes up, prices go up, movie companies make more money, but that gets discounted by this method. What they're really doing basically is just counting the number of people who paid to see these films, not revenue.

They should try a little something I like to call the "CPI". It at least attempts to measure the general buying power of a dollar in different time periods.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[duncf]

• You could always show up for the movie 20 minutes after its start time. That's what we do, and it works great, we arrive just in time.
  
• Never by food in the theatre, purchase it at a nearby grocery store and "smuggle" it in. Most employees don't care, and I've never heard anyone ask "what's that big cylindrical thing in your pocket?".

Re:Hollywood's next move

[romiz]

Movies really don't make as much as they used to.

From the box-office point of view, yes. But if you add revenues for TV licensing, DVD, pay-per-view and merchandising, the numbers are quite different. Box-office accounts for less than a half of a film's revenue.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-read the sentence. He meant to say son (not organization, too much Bush thought). As for winning the argument, he did that in the preceding four paragraphs. Bush's sending the sons and daughters of other people to die on behalf of an ignoble cause is inexcusable. What exactly are Bush's daughters doing today anyhow?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[eebra82]

What he's telling is true, actually. Also, if you think for a second, you'll probably understand that he's comparing figures so far to the exact same period last year. M A T H _ A N D _ L O G I C

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry, but one thing really stuck out about this post. ""The U.S." didn't intend anything; there was no poll of the 300 million residents. There was an elite group of individuals that conspired with each other and manipulated and cajoled the congress, the media, and the public to go along. In large part, they did this by fixing the intelligence around the policy." It usually comes down to what another poster said previously, about the "election dance." That is precisely what it is, and that point is driven even further home when one understands the difference between a republic(which we are not) and a representative democracy(which we are, sorta, if you disregard the "choice" we supposedly have that isn't, really.)

Re:Hollywood's next move

[DaltonRS]

Hear hear! I second that. That, alone, is enough of a reason to keep me from any movie theater, and has done so for the past 8 or so years. Sure, I may miss out on the "experience" of going to movie theater, but I can't honestly say I miss it in the slightest.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Em Adespoton]

Here's a thought:

In the "real world," we have games like Monopoly, Taboo, Baulderdash, Scrabble, Yahtzee, numerous card games, etc. These games have been around for years and years, and still play the same way, with no rule upgrades, extra pieces added, new hardware requirements, etc.

In the Movie world, we have every movie ever made being stuck on DVD.

In the computer world, old DOS games still work.

The point I'm getting at is that the world of entertainment is actually quite crowded. It is getting increasingly difficult to create something new and unique.

Why should I continue to go out and purchase new entertainment when the stuff I've owned for 5-20 years still has great replay value? After all, we can watch our favorite TV shows from the 70's and 80's on DVD, play the same board games, and we still have Fallout, System Shock 2, and Deus Ex.

The only thing that new entertainment has going for it other than the possibility of a new interface or higher quality feedback is the "newness" angle. People like things they've never experienced before. However, more than that, people like things that they are used to that let them show off their skills to their friends.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[mikael]

You must have read this story from bash.org,

<skycreatoR> hehe awesome
<skycreatoR> today at my job (i work in a cinema) we had the premiere on shrek 2
<skycreatoR> and because of the ocation, green popcorn
<skycreatoR> then some little girl came over to my booth and asked why the popcorns were green
<skycreatoR> i said it was because we put mashed shrek down in the popcorn machine
>skycreatoR< then she began crying and ran away

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Pollardito]

they also don't re-release movies much anymore, how many times have "Gone with the Wind" and "Star Wars" been pushed back out to the theaters?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

What the USA needs is a republican government who will lower taxes and increase spending on wars with countries that aren't a threat.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[budgenator]

A big part of the problem is instant gratifaction is glorified in the media, long gone are the people who not only worried about their own economic well-being, but that of their children and grand-children. Today a CEO worries more about the next quarter as a final goal rather than an intermediate step to what the company will be in 10 years. A good and strong legacy for your progeny also means the morons will have it better as well.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Moofie]

And Tribes, of course, was the first game where you "shoot" things from a first-person "point of view".

I say that not to contradict you, but to point out that enjoyable games are not always original ideas.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[pete6677]

So why wasn't Gigli a success? It had at least 2 very well known actor/actresses?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Get yourself a player that lets you skip "unskippable" commercials. I wouldn't put up with that crap on DVDs I pay for, but for a rental I've always just skipped them, and never had a problem. You can often find replacement BIOS patches for your DVD player online that don't honour the "unskippable" flag.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Tachys]

And Tribes, of course, was the first game where you "shoot" things from a first-person "point of view".

Well you know nothing is truly original. But I get your point

But I just remembered Tribes was a sequel to Starsiege.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Moofie]

Wasn't Starsiege more of a RTS sort of thing? I don't recall...I've slept since then.

I guess I'd say that it's wise to evaluate things like games and movies on their own terms. I happened to like the new remake of The Italian Job more than I liked the original. Would it have been a better movie had they not paid homage to the original? Don't know, but regardless of what had gone before, I had fun in that movie.

Conversely, I loathed Starship Troopers and I, Robot because they seemed expressly designed to obliterate their source material.

Tribes is a great game. Sequels to great games are sometimes great games. (and sometimes not so great.) Either something is fun and entertaining, or it's not. I'm not sure whether there's a strong correlation between crappiness and sequel-arity.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why whiny reactionaries are ignored by both the public and those that they rail against, they take any reasonable complaint so far that nobody's willing to back them.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Courageous]

...Furthermore, we are the number one economy in the world (Japan is #2)...

Measured how? Last I checked, China's GDP was something like almost twice Japans...

Anyway, nitpicks aside, I agree with you.

C//

Re:Hollywood's next move

[bjelkeman]

Kind of funny. I probably watch as many films in the cinema as I ever did. I spend a lot more time with the internet than before. What lost out? TV. Not even the news anymore...

Re:Hollywood's next move

[TheUser0x58]

No, any competent economist (as opposed to editorial writers for the New York Times) understands that trade deficits are completely irrelevant.

uhh, Paul Krugman, NYT editorialist, is professor of economics at Princeton University. So id lay a fair wager he counts as a competent economist. Or perhaps you simply define competent economists as those who agree with you.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ArcticCelt]

One of the Loews Theatre Complexes by my parents house already sell fried chicken/hot dogs/hamburgers/ribs/etc.

Definitively another of the signs that the apocalypse is coming!

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Java Ape]

Not only has the theatre experience become progressively more expensive and less pleasant, home theatres are simultaniously becoming both better and less expensive. The combination makes it a rarity for me to go to the movies.

My home theatre is modest, but sufficient. We can watch a DVD on a high-resolution screen with very nice sound, sitting on comfortable furniture, at a time of our choosing. No commericals, ticket lines, drunks, cellphones etc. Just the two of us watching a movie. We can neck (or go for broke) if we feel like it.

Overall, it's not only a better value, but a better experience than driving to the overcrowded theatre and fighting hordes of ill-mannered teenagers for a sticky, soda-covered chair in a noisy room. The theatre is doomed to become the domain of poor and/or uncultured.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Detritus]

Some wars are defensive, rather than a war of aggressive. E.g. Soviet Union in WWII. They were attacked; they fought back.

Tell that to the Poles, Finns and the citizens of the Baltic states. They might disagree with you.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[lgw]

I didn't understand why people had a problem with I, Robot. It was a good yarn set in the world of Asimov's robot stories. It wasn't the story from "I, Robot", but who cares, it fit the world as well as could be expected.

The one that mystifies my is "Bicentennial Man". Not a bad performance by Robin Williams, IIRC, a so-so movie. But no where at all is Asimov mentioned - not on the box, nor anywhere in the credits (though IMBD knows, of course). I can't figure out how that deal was made.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Moofie]

No, actually, it was a completely different story with a completely different world with some names from Asimov's book pasted on because some marketing flack somewhere thought it would be a good idea. The movie was already in production under the title "Hard Wired" or something, until they did the hack job on it.

"Good yarn"? Did you see the same movie I did?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[syousef]

Screw or be screwed is an ethic too. He perceives he's being screwed, and finds a way to counter-screw. Never mind the fact that it'll wind him up in jail eventually, that just makes him stupid. He's got an ethic, just not one you'd approve of.

Reminds me of the quote "The problem with 'An eye for an eye' is that eventually everyone ends up blind".

Re:Hollywood's next move

[arose]

Maybe there will be a new NetHack release this year... There is always something new from the interactive fiction community well.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Filthy, stinking rich. Our "poor" people wear $100 shoes and $200 sports-logo jackets.

Please tell me where you live so I can move there.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer watching a DVD at home, so reducing the cinema price won't increase my total cinema spend.

I do think it's a good idea though to put James Bond-style hidden attachments in the seats, so anybody who makes too much noise can be quickly sedated with an injection into the buttocks.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[lgw]

Apparantly. The three laws were the same. The positronic psychologist was a good approximation of the same character. The basic premise of "here are the three laws - and here's how they don't stop things from going wrong" was the same. It was a basic action flick - like much of Asimov's writing was basic page-turners - with the occasional interesting idea thrown in.

Does it matter that it wasn't one of Asimovs actual stories? Do you believe the many hundreds (thousands?) of stories with his name on them were all written by him? Does it matter? The style matched and it was fun - what was missing?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Moofie]

Obviously, it wasn't fun for me. Therefore...

I'm not trying to tell you that you weren't allowed to enjoy the movie. I'm telling you why I didn't enjoy it.

The Laws were bolted in. They weren't central to the story. The positronic psychologist had about four seconds of screen time, and then became the generic "chick that needs to be saved" for the rest of the movie.

It was a mediocre sci-fi shoot 'em up tarted up with Asimov's name, and I didn't enjoy it. Sorry...

Oh yeah, Paycheck was the same movie and it sucked too.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is a good thing as far as Starship Troopers is concerned.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[jasenj1]

I'd like to see theaters modify the price based on the size of the screen.

My local AMC 24 has 4 GIANT screens where most movies spend one week. Then they get shuffled down to the medium sized screens, and finally end up on the slightly-larger-than-a-home-theater screen.

I'm glad to pay $8 for the giant theater experience, but I'm not going to pay full price for a dinky screen with sound quality no better than I have at home, and the film so worn by then that the DVD will be much clearer.

There used to be dollar theaters for this sort of thing, but I think they've mostly gone under because by the time movies make it to them, the DVD has been released and people just rent it.

But that's probably not so much a Hollywood issue as a theater owner issue.

- Jasen.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[patternjuggler]

socialistic-corporate view of profits as a God-given right

This is exactly the sort of language we need to expand upon. Take all the right-wing anti-socialism diatribes from the '90s and earlier and insert corporations where welfare mamas used to be- and it paints a perfect picture of where some special interests are taking this country. Start phoning that shit into AM radio and whatnot, get the masses riled up.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree - if he hasn't already, get him half life 2!

In my region (Australia) there was a lot of people around me that had to be pushed into getting that game, and its great value... good seperate multiplayer game, and fantastic (if a bit short) single player.... And mods such as Garys mod are mentally stimulating too

Re:Hollywood's next move

[lgw]

Well, it's not just you - the geek crowd in general panned I, Robot. I still don't get it, LOL. Well, I try my best to have low standard for enjoyment - maybe it's working.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[1u3hr]

TV. Not even the news anymore...

TV news is the greatest waste of time on the box. Except for coverage of disasters where cameras happen to be present (9/11, shuttle crashes), much better coverage for breaking news from radio (BBC preferably), newspapers for detail and analysis, net for more obscure interests. In a 30 minute bulletin, 12 minutes of ads, 10 minutes of sports (zero interest), 5 minutes of "human interest", 5 miutes of actual news. Dedicated news channels like CNN are mostly filler betwen real news.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no slump.

Exactly!

For the last 30 years the studios have been trying to apply "Accounting for Widget Makers" to the film business and now their expectations have become so tightly wound that it is biting them in the ass. This year's films are definitely making money, they just aren't making as much money as last year's films so they are "failures" creating a "slump" in Hollywood's eyes.

Why aren't they making as much money? Well anyone with sense will tell you that last year had two huge movies that brought hordes of people to the theaters who don't usually go to movies: Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11. Now think hard: Did you see anything in the theater this year that might do that? No. Your ultra-religious aunt didn't hit Deus Bigalow 2 or The Dukes of Hazzard. Neither did your ultra-left-wing dad. These two didn't make Batman Begins either because "CAP ALERT said the Lord's name was taken in vain three times" and "Batman is a crypto-fascist, bourgeois tool of The Man" respectively.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Ripping and returning a movie because it has ads makes you a reactionary? They do not make 'em like they use to.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Grishnakh]

Uhm... most of those involved with the IMF can be labelled as incompetent. Prescribing currency devaluation to troubled economies is not a sign of intelligent thought.

Why not? You seem to be assuming that the IMF is actually interested in improving troubled economies, rather than taking advantage of them.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Grishnakh]

Back in my youth when I used to go to church, the crying room helped, but was not a cure by any means for crying babies. The problem was that there were a fair number of people who thought they and their infants were too good for the cry room, so inevitably in every mass someone's kid would start screaming and interrupt the proceedings. Luckily, for a while we had a priest who didn't care for this rudeness and would stop what he was doing and stare at the family until they left.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Grishnakh]

Even worse, if you're like me you don't want to see the movie in the first week because it's just too crowded, so by waiting you get stuck with the crappy small screens.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[1gor]

> No, any competent economist....understands

You are wrong. Even competent economists don't understand anything. ;-)

> ...that trade deficits are completely irrelevant

CURRENCY SPECULATOR: You are so right! Go, spend more, babe! Don't mind the deficit and value of your currency.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[qval]

Question: That list is adjusted for ticket price inflation. In 1939, America was still very much in the Great Depression, so cheap tickets would have been expected. Also, how does ticket price inflation line up with general inflation as measured by Consumer Price Index. My guess is that ticket prices have gone up much faster than other goods, although I must admit that the last 3 or 4 years have shown fairly constant prices at ~9 bucks..

Re:Hollywood's next move

[qval]

"We are also the number one exporter in the world." In fact, Germany has been the highest exporter in the world for 2003 and 2004. The numbers for 2005 aren't out yet as far as I can tell; It could have changed. I seem to recall that the top three are Germany, the US, and China, but Japan could be there in someone else's stead. references (I don't know if you need an account to see this): http://www.economist.com/countries/Germany/profile .cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet also, a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Economy

Re:Hollywood's next move

[BeeRockxs]

We are also the number one exporter in the world

No you're not. That's Germany.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Murasaki Skies]

...overall government spending (budget deficits != trade deficits)...

Actually, budget deficits ultimately mean a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher future taxes. The deficit is paid with treasuries, upon which interest is paid. Most of these are bought by foreigners who end up getting paid back more than they paid. This means money leaves the country (eventually). No, you can't pay back your debt by creating new debt (issuing more treasuries (among other things)) forever; America is trying, but it will fail (currency devaluation) pretty soon. The rest of the treasuries are bought by Americans who get back more than they paid, thus causing the deficit to widen, thus causing a mix of a higher future trade deficit and possible higher taxes.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

Some wars are defensive, rather than a war of aggressive.

Anyone can claim victim status and submit that their actions are defensive. For example, Nazi aggressors viewed themselves as the front line defenders against communism.

E.g. Soviet Union in WWII. They were attacked; they fought back.

The German and Soviet governments acted as aggressors when they invaded Poland (which is accepted as the first action in WWII). Neither were provoked: so how is it that the Soviet Union was reacting to attack, defensively?

The Soviet Union had an active hand in starting WWII. Please read a different history book - I wouldn't trust the one you're currently using.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[QuantaStarFire]

Half-Life 2 is okay. The single player was good, but I found Doom3 to be much, much better in that regard. Half-Life 2 had a lot of moments where you would be travelling alot with very little action on the way, whereas Doom3 was more action-packed.

The multiplayer in HL2 is probably better than Doom3. I've only tried Doom3's Deathmatch and ROE's CTF mode once, and I wasn't thoroughly impressed by either.

It sucks 'cuz I loved Threewave CTF in Quake2, but for some reason they never, ever, EVER add the powerups when they do CTF for a new game, or the grappling hook, which were what made CTF extremely fun IMO. They really could have made things awesome if they had at least added the Grabber to CTF and given it the ability to pull you to the spot you fired at.

I'm hoping that Quake4 multiplayer is a vast improvement though, especially with the CTF (bring back powerups!). I miss it so much.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[WesternActor]

Krugman is anti-Bush. That's all. He makes mistakes about economics in his columns all the time, simple things that he really should know better about, but doesn't consider important because all that matters to him is getting Bush out of the White House. If Krugman was sane at one point, it was before I started reading him and becoming aware of the many, many errors he makes on an almost weekly basis. He's an embarrassment, and based on his output over the last couple of years, doesn't seem qualified to write for The New York Times or any other publication about economics. Politics is another story, but, refresh my memory, what are his qualifications there...?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Some_Llama]

"Secondly, I won't rent DVDs because most of them now have non-skippable commercials. "

Boy do I hate these as well as previews and the legal notices.. so lately what I have been doing is pop the DVD into the player before everyone is ready to watch the movie, or go pop my popcorn, continue watching TV etc...

While I am getting ready/doing this other stuff the DVD will play it's unskippable stuff and eventually end up on the main menu, so by the time i'm ready, i switch over to the video input that the DVD is on and hit enter to play the movie from the main menu (where ic an also setup surround sound effects if the DVD has that submenu) and voila! no crap just movie...

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

"neck"? Are you what, 12?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[UnapprovedThought]

Hollywood: We've been chugging out sequel after sequel and they're just not making very much money. We notice that you guys in the game industry are doing well. So, since we have run out of ideas, we think you should pay us licensing fees so that you can use our stale ideas in your games and add the same sorts of restrictions and ads that we claim people enjoy to death in their DVDs.

Game Maker: ROFL.... So, you want me to pay you a bunch of fees, charge higher prices and piss off my customer base, just so you can keep stuffing those tired old ideas into peoples' neurons, in the hopes that a dim memory will work as a hook to get them to go see one of your remakes someday? What do I get out of it?

Hollywood: We will release your tired old ideas in a movie version.

Game Maker: But if all we're doing is recycling each other's old ideas, where will the new ideas come from?

Hollywood: *shrugs* Dunno.

Game Player: Scrabble anyone?

Hollywood: I've got it! We'll make "Scrabble -- The Movie."

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Destoo]

"Movie theatres are just restaurants where they happen to show movies".
(can't remember who said that)

The owner's revenue doesn't come from the ticket price anymore. They give all of that to the distributor.

They make their money on the popcorn and snacks.

What is a "triple A" title?

[CyricZ]

What exactly is a "triple A" title? Is that marketing speak for all those shitty movie-themed games released at the same time as movies? The ones that places like GameSpot and GameFAQs overhype just because they're being paid to provide such hype?

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Enzo the Baker]

I think it has something to do with Vin Diesel.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Pxtl]

I'm curious about this too. I've been seeing the "triple A" buzzword come around recently, and it scares me. I assume it refers to the budget and hype level of a title. This means that the industry has totally given up on considering games based on their quality, just on the amount of labour poured into the game and it's promotion.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[MaestroSartori]

In my experience with my previous employer (I work in the games industry), triple-A means virtually nothing in practice. It's a goal, an aim, and a bunch of marketing drivel designed to make something sound better than it is. What they failed to realise was that while it may be possible to polish a turd, all you end up with is a shiny turd. But I digress...

Real triple-A titles are those which achieve critical and commercial success. So, things like Deus Ex, Half-Life, Mario 64, Zelda (not that I like it personally), Goldeneye, GTA3, etc.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[lowe0]

Whose 1 licensed game, oddly enough, was better than the movie. I hope his own studio (Tigon, I think) continues to make games based on his movies - Riddick was a fun game with its own story, rather than a tired rehash of the movie.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[bohemian72]

Other than road side service, what "triple A" makes me think of is the highest tier of minor league baseball before the majors. So maybe he means "second rate?"

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[MilenCent]

Real triple-A titles are those which achieve critical and commercial success. So, things like Deus Ex, Half-Life, Mario 64, Zelda (not that I like it personally), Goldeneye, GTA3, etc.

This is off the topic, but I'm curious. You mention liking Mario 64, but not (I assume Ocarina of Time) Zelda.

I've wondered, in a way, how anyone can not like Zelda. I mean I'm sure it's possible, but when I get to the specifics of it, it doesn't fit into my brain, I guess.

Would you mind explaining what it is about it that doesn't agree with you? I'm not intending to ask this in an argumentative way, just out of curosity, my own theories of game design might benefit from an answer.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Deadguy2322]

I can't speak for the GP, but I did not like Zelda 64 due to the interface and graphics. The blurry textures really bothered me, giving me a migraine after about 30 minutes, and the auto-jumping in the control scheme pulled me right out of the game. If I control the character, I should control EVERY movment. I felt it made the game artificial-feeling. It seemed like the designers were saying "We think you can solve the puzzles, but we don't think you can handle jumping from one ledge to the other." To be honest, I preferred Shadow Man for a similar type of experience, but more immersive. The dark and disturbing tone is not the reason, the control over the character and the possibilities for environmental interaction were just better. FYI - I played the Dreamcast version, the N64 version had the same issues with blurry graphics as Zelda, which was a 64 hallmark, and the draw distance was too short to see what was going on.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[3dr]

If that were me, I would have offered a Five Star product.

Of course, not to be confused with a Top Choice game, or a Gamer's Choice, or a TenTenths production, or the coveted Kick-Ass! Award, or A-1, or ...

All that said, I have a soft spot for a local plumbing company called AAA Aardvark plumbing. They may very well be Teh F1rs7 Po5t!! in the phonebook.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the industry, and even I'm not sure exactly what everyone means when they say it, but I would wager a guess that "Triple A" essentially has the same meaning as "Blockbuster". A title which is very well done, very well liked, and makes oodles of money as a result.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[CyricZ]

Well, I'm not a fan of Zelda games either. They're just not fun. Perhaps it's the story line more than anything. I can't relate to some young little boy dancing around in some medievel fantasy world with Deku trees and all that. I don't care if he can't find his magical flute. At least a game like Mario 64 is a bit closer to reality. And a game like Goldeneye even more so.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Anonymous Coward]

AAA titles are basically titles that are pretty much guaranteed to sell well, and therefore more money is usually appropriated to them. They are developed by established developers, and published by a big name and will have good marketing. They're usually based on "safe" gameplay concepts or established characters or worlds.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[PixelSlut]

This has got to be about the best question I've seen asked on Slashdot in a long time.

I also work in the gaming industry right now (and am trying desperately to get out!) and I, too, wonder what exactly this means. My boss talks about AAA titles, and I ask him what it means. He just sort of dodges the question by trying that, "what, are you stupid?" kind of response.

It seems to be a buzzword roughly meaning "over-hyped, high-budget" and is well-loved by stuffy execs and wannabe big-shots.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[BlackCobra43]

At least a game like Mario 64 is a bit closer to reality.

I want some of what you're smoking if you think a plumber/olympic gymnast (come on, the triple jump?) going (by means of magical, oversized pipes no less) to a castle to save a princess from a giant fire-breathing, monstrous turtle is in any way closer to reality.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Fareq]

They had to add the autojumping thing because the movement and control was so bad that if you had to do it yourself you'd never manage it.

Same with autotarget. The game's UI was so unplayably bad that they had to make a "do it for me" button...

This is not the only [extremely popular] game to suffer from this problem. For instance Metroid Prime -- a huge hit -- also has such an unplayably bad interface that they had to add things like autotarget.

And I truly despise both games because they took something fun and made in completely pointless and unplayable just so they could do it "all 3d"

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[oscarmv]

Sir, I see you don't get the point.

Go back to playing Counterstrike.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a game to which a company intends to spend extensive marketing and development resources toward, because the end project is considered to be more likely to make money. So, as an example, Halo was a AAA title - Moonbase Commander was not.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[MilenCent]

Perhaps it's the story line more than anything. I can't relate to some young little boy dancing around in some medievel fantasy world with Deku trees and all that. I don't care if he can't find his magical flute.

Spoken like a man who's never fought Ganon in Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker....

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[grumbel]

### I've wondered, in a way, how anyone can not like Zelda.

I'll bite, I liked Zelda at the times of the NES, I liked it as well on the SNES, I loved it on the Gameboy with Links Awakening and recently I had plenty of fun with Zelda - FourSwords. But the rest of the series just bores me quite a bit, maybe not because its bad, but simply because its so annoying predictable and uninteresting for me. Its for most part the same pointless 'kill ganon' plot with no supprising twists throughout each and every game. All the characters are so empty and unreal, they just guide you from puzzle to puzzle, but don't really have any live of their own. The whole puzzles also have this totally fake feel to them, they feel like a level designer placed them there, basically never does a puzzle feel like it could have evolved out of the dynamics of the gameworld itself. Everything just feels extremly constructed. The the whole game boils down to:

1) walk around
2) find puzzle
3) solve puzzle
4) goto 1

With no real fun inbetween and the puzzles also end up being more annoying then fun, they also end up feeling the same, bomb here, move block there, play melodie, kill this monster, kill that monster... an endless pointless oddysee.

On the NES and SNES I might have fun with it because it was still something new and maybe because I was younger back then. LinksAwakening on the other side had by far the best story of all Zeldas around. FourSwords was fun because it was cooperative and had some new gameplay elements. But the rest, included OoT, just feld extremly tedious.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[edwdig]

Jumping in a fully 3D world sucks. To make it managable, you need a fully adjustable camera. There were two reasons Zelda didn't do this. The first is it would've taken away at least 3 of the C buttons, cramping the controls. The other is Zelda is based around tight passageways, which don't go well with free cameras.

As for the targeting, what other choice did they have? The only alternative really is to make the game use a Resident Evil like control scheme, which would just make the whole game suck.

Autotargeting in Metroid Prime isn't a cludge around a bad interface. The game is about exploration and strategy. If they put traditional FPS controls on it, it wouldn't feel at all like a Metroid game. It you were expecting a game about blowing things up, you picked the wrong game. It's an adventure game that happens to be in a first person view. Think about how much the game uses the face buttons, and realize how much you'd lose if the controls were designed so that your right thumb was on the analog stick most of the time.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Fareq]

Think about how much the game uses the face buttons, and realize how much you'd lose if the controls were designed so that your right thumb was on the analog stick most of the time.

You've just made my point. They didn't do it because that's ideal from a gameplay perspective. They did it because it was the only way they could make the interface playable without having more thumbs.

I seem to have given the wrong impression... I didn't want Metroid Prime to be an FPS. My biggest complaint with the game is that they took Metroid, a game that I ADORE and made it into a cross between Metroid and (insert favorite FPS here) -- and the result was a mediocre-at-best Metroid game and a mediocre-at-best-FPS all in one.

I don't think they failed because the interface is rough. I think the interface is rough because they failed to bring Metroid -- the same Metroid I know and love from the 2d consoles -- to 3d. Metroid Prime never felt like a Metroid game to me. It always felt like... a bad FPS with a little adventuriness...

I realize that's my opinion, and the enormous sucess of Metroid Prime proves that I'm in the minority on this one (if the arguments friends start with me that all begin "you're insane!" or "are you insane?" regarding this game weren't hint enough).

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[edwdig]

You've just made my point. They didn't do it because that's ideal from a gameplay perspective. They did it because it was the only way they could make the interface playable without having more thumbs.

Well, I do think it's ideal. To me, Metroid Prime feels like Super Metroid with a different camera angle. By the time I made it through the intro level, the controls felt natural and I didn't really have to think about them. The only thing that really felt awkward was the grappling beam, and at that, only when you had to do the trickier maneuvers. Basically, if you had to double jump while looking up in order to reach the grappling point.

I don't really like FPS games that much, as I don't like the precision aiming necessary. I'd much rather focus on an objective than on aiming.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[QuantaStarFire]

I agree on OoT--for some reason, I didn't have nearly as much fun as I did compared to it's predecessors, or it's children. WindWaker was actually really fun to play, the best of the 3D Zeldas IMO, which is weird because it was probably the most tedious out of all of them; that ocean is HUGE, and getting all the Triforce shards is a chore I would not like to relive anytime soon.

I think that the best Zelda games by far have to be the Oracle series though. It's one of the few times I just kept playing and playing a Zelda game. They're the best.

Hopefully Twilight Princess will be decent, and won't have the tedium of WindWaker. I'll have to rent it when it comes out.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[sesshomaru]

I understand you. The Metroid Prime series is a spinoff of the Metroid series. It's sort of a modders dreamland version of Metroid Quake, but it is only tangentially related to the Metroid series that began on the NES and continues on the Gameboy (or should that be continued, past tense, since Metroid Prime is the series on the DS).

This of course has been the relentless march of "3-D" versus "2-D," killing off popular "2-D" game series in order to replace them with new series using similar "3-D" versions of the art and sometimes similar storylines.

However, I consider it quite correct that if you are going to make a "3-D" game and call it Metroid, it is best to use a tried-and-true "3-D" style game. In this case, the first person adventure, a hybrid of RPG and FPS that an early example of was Ultima: Underworld and later examples were System Shock. I'm not opposed to spin-offs except when they kill off the original, still popular game series that spawned them for pure marketing reasons.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Oraseth]

A triple A is a analysis rating given to a company, it shows that the company is a safe investment and has a high probability to pay back that investment = borrow at a low interest rate.

In this case its probably stands for a product/project that's risk ratio shows a high prob. of payin back any investment put in.

Same ol Same ol

[Zediker]

yea, non interactive media just isnt that fun anymore. Sure you get a few good movies/shows, but the rest is just turid crap.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[CyricZ]

But that's the same with everything. There is just a lot of shit out there, regardless of the item in question. You have a gem like Ruby on Rails, but you have far more utter crap like ASP, ColdFusion, and PHP. It's the same with movies and TV shows. For every good show or movie there are tens of shittier shows/movies.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[Pxtl]

The term you're looking for is Sturgeon's Law. "90% of Science Fiction... of everything, really... is crap".

The problem is that Sturgeon's Law only defines how much is crap, not how good the remaining 10% is. The problem with movies is that the remaining 10% has become "watchable" instead of "spectacular". I blame bigger budgets - these mega-budget movies constrain geniuses. The geniuses can't break out in an increasingly expensive and ignored indie market, and even if they do, they remain constrained by the managers watching the money. Only the old geniuses (like Tim Burton) get to play with ideas and create things that are truly cool.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[Xzzy]

The problem with movies is that the remaining 10% has become "watchable" instead of "spectacular". I blame bigger budgets - these mega-budget movies constrain geniuses.

You can't blame ALL of this on the studios. People who watch movies experience diminishing returns at being "wowed" for each new movie they see, meaning studios have to raise the bar somehow. It's humanly impossible to maintain an upward trend indefinetly. Yet, that appears to be exactly what people expect.

I'm not saying it's a viewer's fault, just that movie studios have been painted into a corner by desensitzing. Even snipping out the special effects and I'd hazard a majority of the "mediocre" movies we've seen this year would have a huge impact on audiences 50 years ago.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[CyricZ]

I would hardly call Tim Burton a cinematic genius. Look at the tripe he has directed recently: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I would hardly call that innovative. Besides the fact that it is based on a book that is decades old, and already cinematically done decades ago as well, it just isn't creative in any way. All he did was look next door to Michael Jackson's boy ranch for inspiration. Hell, he even used the persona and image of Michael Jackson for the character of Willy Wonka! Sorry, but anyone who uses Michael Jackson as a source of inspiration isn't a "genius".

Re:Same ol Same ol

[Zediker]

yes, exactly! While most of TV/Cinema has been garbage, the ammount of Great media has steadily declined. Budgets definatly have alot to do with why good shows die. A classic example would be how Farscape was essentially replaced by the utter filth that was Tremors: The Series due to budget problems. Why they didnt just hose tremors and keep farscape, i will never know. Because of the amount of utter crap on TV now adays, I just cant get myself to watch any of the networks stations anymore, its just too painful and litteraly mind numbing to watch. I dont care if they have shows like Lost (which i have never seen due to the above reason) I wont watch the alphabet networks because 99% of the time, they are utter flaming dog@*&#.

What do I watch? I usually end up watching the premium channels (showtime/hbo), History channels (history or international history), Sci-fi, Cartoon Network (Adult Swim is awsome, most unique programming in years), and Comedy Central (The Daily Show).

History channel usualy has a 8:1 Good vs. crap rating, with only a 3:1 good vs. relentless WWII rating.

Showtime/HBO movies 4:1 ok vs crap, and a original shows 10:1 good vs crap.

Sci-Fi, not doing as well recently, slipping to a 1:4 good vs crap.

Cartoon Netork is more of a nostalgic network, you either like it or you dont, but adult swim rates for its shows 3:1 hillarious vs F'n hillarious and for anime about a 3:1 cool vs WTF!?

Comedy Central unfortunatly is about the same as sci-fi at a 1:4 good vs crap.

At least, thats my opinion, yours of course will vary.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[over_exposed]

It's (loosely) based on the book Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. That book was cinematically done before, yes. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the story of Charlie (the kid from Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory) after he inherited the factory from Willie. It's a continuation of the story line. It hasn't been done before. I wouldn't go around calling things 'tripe' if you haven't even bothered to see it or even read more than a review or two.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[grimharvest]

Perhaps, but The Nightmare Before Christmas, Sleepy Hollow and Corpse Bride (while not my kind of movie) are creative, the point being that when Burton gets to do the kind of movie he wants to, he is very creative. And despite what we might think of the current incarnation of Willi Wonka, the box office disagrees with us.

Re:Same ol Same ol

[Fareq]

They don't have to keep getting better -- they just can't all be exactly-the-same-as-the-one-we-saw-last-week.

Re:Same ol Same ol

['nother poster]

But go look at the movies from the 30's, 40's, and 50's. A few big ones a vear, and then lots of them put out on modest budgets to make modest profits. Pretty much the definition of your "watchable" movies. Why is it a crime these days to make a movie for say $35m, have a gross income of $60m, and a net loss of $5m on the books through the wonders of accounting, and move on to the next picture?

Re:Same ol Same ol

[mydn]

Yeah, and Peter Jackson, too. I mean, c'mon, how old are those Lord of the Rings books anyway? And there was already a movie before, too. What a copycat hack, sheesh. Get some creativity, for chrissake!

twice as much money?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So you plan a great game, ask for the money. Get it twice then release yet another awful platformer (or side scrolling beat 'em up)..

How the hell does that work?

Re:twice as much money?

[fireduck]

it doesn't. no one's ever given him the money. you find this out on page 3 or thereabouts. he's never done a liscensed game, despite the fact that he's the biggest cheerleader of liscensing.

What happened to html?

[mustafap]

Man, I hope web pages like these are not the future, or my broadband costs are going to rocket.

Does anyone write 25kb html pages any more?

Re:What happened to html?

[heinousjay]

It has one of those compelling interfaces, too. I spent half a minute trying to figure out how to read the article.

Re:What happened to html?

[mustafap]

lol.

Just how I felt :o)

Re:What happened to html?

[kfg]

"Does anyone write 25kb html pages any more?"

People who aren't selling something.

KFG

Re:What happened to html?

[MrCopilot]

There is room on the web for a print layout style. So some of you don't like it, color me shocked.

Every once in a while its refreshing. Fullscreen the browser and it's similar to reading an article from a periodical (or Magazine, yes that's where zine comes from, damn kids /grumpy old man.)

I thought it was stylistic, and more to the point it made me turn the page past this article to the next. For contrast, you can just open the http://www.gnu.org/ site to balance out your Web Shui. There all better.

Re:What happened to html?

[snuf23]

I just hate the tendency for style to outweigh functionality. You can achieve both.
I really hate sites that force a tiny font size. This one also does white on black text at a tiny size. You can't even bump the text size up, because if you do part of the article text becomes hidden.
It isn't a well designed site.

Re:What happened to html?

[ralphart]

"Does anyone write 25kb html pages any more?"

No...they all hire Graphic Designers who think installing Dreamweaver and Flash MX makes them web gurus. Besides, they have broadband...don't you?

Re:What happened to html?

[heinousjay]

At least they explain in their technical FAQ that it's all intentional.

My take is that using a print layout on the web is akin to trying to make a printed page scroll, but they're free to make all the mistakes they want. Graphic designers so often have trouble adjusting their work to the relative nature of the web.

Triple-A Title

[bigtallmofo]

I've played that Triple-A game before. It's boring as hell.

You drive around all day, helping stranded motorists. Talk about repetition.

Re:Triple-A Title

[jgoemat]

I thought that was the baseball game where you could play all the AAA teams like the Bertendorf Mudthumpers...

Re:Triple-A Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The hot coffee mod really made it worth while though. It allowed me to stay awake while searching for the discounted lodging. The downside is I had to pull over every 30 minutes and risk death in the perilous disease-filled-gas-station-bathroom-from-hell. Overall it added a lot to the game though.

Re:Triple-A Title

[damiam]

That might actually make for a cool GTA minigame.

Re:Triple-A Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least an interesting vehicle/crate...

Re:Triple-A Title

[rohlfinator]

You think a lot like Rockstar. Just toss in any random idea anyone comes up with.

"Hmm... that DDR game is kinda popular."
or
"I wonder if people will enjoy collecting oysters?"

What could you do with twice as much money?

[earnest murderer]

Finance my own game later. #ifdef the sex scenes in the game. Rape the industry for all it's worth. Buy Paul Allens "old" yacht.

Let me get this straight....

[DoctaWatson]

Spector is sitting here telling us that Hollywood is bending over backwards to give him lucrative big budget liscensed projects. He's telling developers not to shy away from them and that they provide "cool sandboxes to play in" and that they working within the boundaries of a liscense is a rewarding experience. And yet...

Warren Spector has never once made a liscensed game.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[ultramk]

Warren Spector has never once made a liscensed game.

You mean he hasn't shipped one. No telling how many are in the wings.

m-

Re:Let me get this straight....

[Anonymous Coward]

But then working on an established franchise like Ultima is very similar to the constraints of licensing.

OT: remedial website design

[clem]

Good Lord, that article made my eyes hurt. Obviously the article's content mattered less than ensuring the cool background graphics were aligned with a specific font size. The result is that one can't punch up the font size without the text overlapping.

Attention web designers of Slashdot: one of you probably knows the individuals who developed this site. If you do, it is now your professional and moral obligation to smack some sense into them. That is all.

Re:OT: remedial website design

[pete6677]

Yikes, that's pretty bad. That site is what happens when a print media company starts publishing online and has no clue about the web, so they take the same form and layout that worked for print and make their website just like it. Hmm, much like the RIAA and MPAA refusal to adapt to a new media, how fitting.

Re:OT: remedial website design

[Dunbal]

Obviously the article's content mattered less than ensuring the cool background graphics were

      This is usually the case in the gaming industry anyway. Graphics and eye candy are WAY more important than trivial details like actual content or functionality. The article is merely trying to be true to form.

Re:OT: remedial website design

[hurfy]

yikes, i couldn't read it at all some columns are pushed off the LEFT side of screen after the 1st one !?!?

I hope innovative movies and games work better than innovative web design.

If the web designer can't spend more than 60 sec making his page work i am NOT spending more than 60 sec trying to figure it out.

Slashdot finally links to a story with more than one paragraph and you cant read past the 1st paragraph.....

Re:OT: remedial website design

[ladadadada]

Well, at least it's real text. They could have scanned the whole magazine and just displayed it as a single image per page.

No matter how interesting this interview might be,

[c0l0]

I'm not gonna read it, because the layout of the page it's on causes pain to my eyes. My screen resolution is not 800x600, so why should I stick with this ultratiny iframe-ish piece of crap?
 
If there's enough screen-real-estate to use, use it, ffs!

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you missed the "next" button at the bottom right?

The real problem

[Red Flayer]

FTA: [Greg Kostikyan says] "[There's] nothing wrong with sequels and licensed products - in moderation. The problem [...] is that they're beginning to overwhelm original work. Here we are, like Balboa, shocked with wild surmise as we face a vast unknown Pacific of enormous creative possibility - and all we can do is licensed drivel?"

The movie industry is try to overcome a lack of diversity in content with a diversity of delivery mechanisms.

Although, this could be a step towards immersive interactive movies.

Hahaha

[hexalite]

"The biggest names in Hollywood want to get into games"

Halo 3, starring Brad Pitt.

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was busy fucking Angelena Jolie all day I'd ever take the time to make another movie again. My day would consist of:

a. Wake up
b. Fucking Angelena Jolie
c. Break for a quick lunch
d. Fucking Angelena Jolie
e. Play some Guild Wars, snacks
f. Fucking Angelena Jolie
g. Sleep

Re:Hahaha

[Dunbal]

A game called "Tomb Raider", starring Angelina Jolie. Oh, wait...

Re:Hahaha

[MrHanky]

Funny? Perhaps, but Samuel L. Jackson and some other rather big names did voice acting for GTA: San Andreas. Good dialogue and voice acting can add quite a bit to a game.

I hope they use better actors if they ever decide to make a Deus Ex 2.

Re:Hahaha

[lgw]

Didn't Samual Jackson do the voice acting for the "alien slave" race (V-something) in Half-Life 2 as well? I was surprised to see him in the credits.

Ow wow

[cliveholloway]

My first powerpoint article. Or was I the only one sat there, hung over, wondering why my scroll wheen was broken?

Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[AnotherEscobar]

A. Twice as many hookers and twice as much blow

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[Dunbal]

A. Twice as many hookers and twice as much blow

      I am suddenly reminded of the obese african american nurse in Mel Brooks' "Life Stinks!".

"CAPACITY! WE HAVE REACHED CAPACITY!"

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

How about get more code monkeys and let up on the whip?

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[fred_sanford]

A. I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[AnotherEscobar]

I believe that warrants a 'fuckin A'

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, this reminds me of a scene I've recently seen, umm... somewhere...

waiter: What would you like to drink, sir?

(movie) executive #1: I'll have water.

(movie) executive #2: I'll have water too, but with a twist of lemon

(movie) executive #3: I'll have a Sam Adams.

(movie) executive #2: Sam Adams? It's nine-thirty in the morning!!

(movie) executive #3: Yeah, but I have to get the taste of weed and hooker spit out of my mouth.

(movie) executive #4: I'll have a Sam Adams too...

:P

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have a Sam Adams, a joint, a shot of hooker spit, and a twist of lemon

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of another scene.

executive 1: I'll have water.

executive 2: I'll have water too, but with a twist of lemon

executive 3: I'll have a Sam Jackson.

Samuel L. Jackson: Good choice motherfucker! Saaaam Jackson! Lovingly handcrafted by me, Samuel L. Jackson! It'll get you drunk! You'll be fucking fat chicks in no time! You might even fight a nigger or two! Mmmmmm mmmmmm, bitch!

Re:Q. What could you do with twice as much money?

[syousef]

2 * 0 = 0

Spector?

[WormholeFiend]

isnt that guy on trial for shooting a B-movie actress in the head while getting a BJ?

Re:Spector?

[Jerry Rivers]

" isnt that guy on trial for shooting a B-movie actress in the head while getting a BJ?"

You're thinking of Phil Spector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

Re:Spector?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what happens when you don't swallow biotch

Re:No matter how interesting this interview might

[hapwned]

There's a PDF download. That should allow you and your enormous amounts of screen-real-estate to roam free.

Just read Escapist already!

[DevolvingSpud]

This is like the 5th article from Escapist that Slashdot has linked to since the magazine started its publication. So far, just about every article is of interest to the Slashdot gaming crowd. So, just read the magazine already! It's free and stuff!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/

Great opportunities ahead, BUT...

[teutonic_leech]

... looks like the movie studios are falling into the same trap like the dotcomers in the late 90s: drop more money into it and it'll be bigger/better/shinier/etc... I've run software development projects before and the lessons I've learned is that there is a certain 'sweet spot' - no matter WHAT you do - may it be developing a J2EE app, a PS2 game, an Indie movie, or a TV show (I've been on both sides of the spectrum): if you throw too much money at it people tend to become too complacent and whatever you build will be bloated and will have no soul. Maybe too many opinions and/or opportunities when there's too much money available. I really think that human beings are at their best when they're under pressure AND when they're inspired at the same time. It's a strange phenomenon and I could probably write a long posting about that but I'm sure most of you know what I mean. Come on - what was that killer P2P app you were working on in your dorm? ;-) The stuff you're doing now might be corporate crap compared with that - I'm personally guilty of the very same. Anyway, these studios probably COULD help make great games and bring in capabilities that would enhance the experience, but they should only throw in as much money as is necessary. I know many of you will start bitching about how Hollywood is all evil and that they only produce crap - well, there were always periods where good movies came out and periods (like today) when only crap was released. Most of the time it were outsiders that forced Hollywood to release good stuff - experiments that paid off. If you leave it up to those money grabbing suits you get the usual canned recepy crap that we've had to endure this summer. Hey, maybe the game industry is going to wind up buying the entertainment industry - it happened with AOL/TW ;-)

Re:Great opportunities ahead, BUT...

[Maximum Prophet]

You're absolutly right about the sweet spot with respect to the soul of a creative work. But these people are playing the lottery, mostly with other people's money. There's no pain if a movie has no soul, and really only mild pain at the top for a flop. In places like Hollywood, you'll feel much more pain for breaking the rules than failing.

Deus Ex ... movie?

[VGR]

Did anyone else catch the bit in the rust-colored box about a movie producer who has the "film rights to Deus Ex"?

I just hope Denton doesn't spend all his time in the movie hacking bank terminals.

Re:Deus Ex ... movie?

[SeekerDarksteel]

I can't even begin to imagine the amount of backlash and bad press that a Deus Ex movie would generate. Given the fact that that JC eventually helps people who would be portrayed for half the movie as terrorists (including blowing up the Statue of Liberty), fighting against the UN and the US government. Further, they would either have to end the movie with a) Denton blowing up Area 51 (oh noes! Terrorism!), b) conspiring with a secret organization to control the world, or c) essentially taking over the world. I can't imagine any of those endings not pissing a lot of people off for "glorifying" what they percieve as evil.

Of course if they understood the actual plotline it wouldn't be an issue, but I don't count on mainstream Americans to think rationally about things anymore. That being said, I still think it would be funny as hell seeing all the over-reactions.

Re:Deus Ex ... movie?

[meringuoid]

I just hope Denton doesn't spend all his time in the movie hacking bank terminals.

He'd have to, given that UNATCO are so tight that he has to buy most of his own ammo.

But nah - it'd make a much better movie if he spent all his time sneaking around vent shafts and occasionally hacking into security systems, then gloating at the distant sounds of gun turrets and the screams of guards...

Re:Deus Ex ... movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

And being unable to climb over chain-link fences...

Liked the vision the other poster made re: distant screams. And UNATCO were *real* stingy with their cash.

Another lovely Escapist article *Gag*

[Fr05t]

Again I have been tricked into reading a terrible Escapist article! This will be the last time I swear.

Now why didn't Warren Spector just write the damn thing? Close to 75% of it is just quotes directly from him.

Ffor fun go and count how many times the author uses the words "said" and, "says".

Why is this terrible rag still getting /. posts anyway?

Re:Another lovely Escapist article *Gag*

[Dunbal]

Dude you're not supposed to read the articles. Sheesh! No wonder you're having a hard time.

Re:Another lovely Escapist article *Gag*

[Fr05t]

Fr05t (69968)

I believe is was around the 100000s people stopped RTFA.

Re:Another lovely Escapist article *Gag*

[Alamar3]

Now why didn't Warren Spector just write the damn thing? Close to 75% of it is just quotes directly from him.

Eh? The /. post has "Warren Spector interview" in the first sentence... what were you expecting, three pages of the interviewer's ruminations on the games industry, with one quote per page from Spector? And why didn't he write it? I've yet to see anyone interview themself. Also, I suspect that Warren is being kept busy getting his new studio in order.

Personally, I'd rather see an article reporting the thoughts of someone actually involved in the games industry, rather than some amateurish hack spewing out copy on his own, clearly authoritative and omniscient, views on the state of play (like some commercial mags I could mention).

Re:Another lovely Escapist article *Gag*

[lgw]

Yup, pretty close. ;)

90% of everything is crap

[Thud457]

There's always a lot of crap movies, we just remember to notably good (or bad) ones in retrospect.

Look at the movies that were out the same year as Casablanca (And that's just the ones beginning with "C"!)

Indeed! Goldeneye is a perfect example.

[CyricZ]

Indeed. A game like Goldeneye is truly a masterpiece. It drew from the best of both the gaming and movie worlds. You get the rock-solid story of the 007 movie, and combine it with the fantastically original and playable Goldeneye gaming engine.

Neat

[Dunbal]

They think it over. Then they say...What could you do with twice as much money?

      Let me get this straight, this is the same Hollywood who the MPAA claim are losing thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars a year from piracy, right? Yeah, they sound really strapped for cash alright...poor bastards.

HA!

[SlayerofGods]

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/deve loperId,127/
Shows he worked on
Backyard Wrestling: Don't Try This at Home
Which as you can see says it was a licensed title.
:P

Re:HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...because we all know how good Backyard Wresting turned out...ok...I'm sorry...that was a horrible joke. =P

Re:HA!

[ZosX]

He didn't really work on it. He was listed in the "Special Thanks" which means that maybe the designers of the games were just fans or something.

Oh well. At least you got some easy karma. :)

Re:HA!

[SlayerofGods]

I was really going for funny rather then informative.
Weird how the karma flows some times.

Good, let the bastards do it

[defile]

Maybe after Hollywood's sustained saturation bombing campaign of ``Meet the Fockers: The Game'' and ``Deuce Bigolo in Thailand Happy Ending'', game publishers will be begging for independent game developers to take them back, along with this thing they call "original ideas".

Confusing

[biodeo]

Why do people still listen to this guy?

This is the guy who ruined Deus Ex, his own franchise. Why on earth should we want to hear what he has to say about what to do with other franchises?

Don't do it - it's a trap!

[RichDice]

Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big...They think it over. Then they say...What could you do with twice as much money?'"

In this situation, your natural feeling is to think that you're on top of the world and that everything is going to be hunkie-dorie from here on it. So you lead back in your chair, think about it, and 45 seconds later you give them an honest and reasonable answer. (After all, they're being reasonable, nice guys who just gave you a warm fuzzy, right?)

So then they give you 60% of the original amount of money discussed (after all, noone had ever cut a cheque that big before), and they hold you to delivering on the "2x as big a budget" pie-in-the-sky dreaming version. This, after all is how the state of the art is advanced -- stretch goals.

Cheers,
Richard

Please god, I beg you...

[Ath]

Do not allow such design styles in websites to become popular. Please! I'll do anything! PLEASE!

Re:Please god, I beg you...

[advid]

Looking at the source, it's actually not awful. My only complaint is that they're creating a background image with a table. (It's 12 250px x 195px images in a 4 x 3 grid.) Then they move everything else, which is fairly sanely marked up over the table with CSS.

If they dumped the table, the whole thing would render quite nicely with CSS turned off. (Firefox: View -> Page Style -> No Style)

aren't you forgetting something?

[huded]

like an endif, maybe?
hope you don't forget to drop anchor before you go to sleep aboard his old yacht, matey.

The problem with licensed games

[tgibbs]

I'd be happy if the biggest problem with licensed games was lack of innovation. The major problem is that most of them suck. If the industry is finally getting away from the "we don't need to make it good, we got a license" mentality, that is a good thing.

We are beginning to see real quality in license-based games (the Riddick game comes to mind), but most of them still clearly have that "rushed to make the movie release date" feel. If the game is to be a product on its own, and not just a marketing gimmick for the movie, then it should be just fine if the game comes out along with the movie DVD, or even the release to cable.

More IMAX movies is the answer

[llZENll]

Its not video games, piracy, sequels, or crappy movies which are killing them, its DVD and home movie theatres. Why the hell would I want to see a movie in a theatre when I have a system at home with better audio, better video, no screaming idiots, no cell phones, and yay, the floor isn't sticky!

The ONLY reason I go see a movie these days if its at the IMAX, which is well worth the money IMO, the resolution, screen, and audio are the best, they all have standard theatre seating, and its so fracking loud people talking and eating snacks doesn't matter. I saw Batman Begins 2 days ago.

To save the box office they need to 1) upgrade theaters and 2) raise, yes raise ticket prices.

Re:No matter how interesting this interview might

[CaptnMArk]

You mean paper-real-estate. PDFs are not really useful except for printing.

Any excuse to bash Hollywood

[grimharvest]

We keep hearing how the movies are getting worse. Would that be worse than John Wayne westerns, worse than John Wayne WWII movies, worse than Clint Eastwood shoot'em ups or maybe worse than your average Gary Cooper movie. Or are we talking worse than a Fred Astaire musical? By all mean, show me a time in history when we've had a greater variety of movies out there. Because movies like Casablanca are one in a million, not the norm for the old days. Classics are classics because they were rare jewels amongst so much broken glass. Which is part of this is hard for people to understand?

Game Licensing

[__aajwxe560]

The history of Hollywood and gaming has really been a mixed blessing. We have Lucasfilm Games Ltd, which came out with such imaginative, original games as Sam & Max, Monkey Island (the first 2 anyhow), then even branched into cross-licensing an Indiana Jones adventure-RPG game that was very decent for its time, and even a few early Star Wars games that were entertaining.

With exception to those few rare early gems, I find that most games that stem from a movie just plain, well, suck. This seems to be related my desire to find a game that is both creative AND fun, and the majority of the time they lack the former, and its a 30/70 shot if they get anywhere near the later. Rather, most games of this genre stick with a tried and tested formula in order to try and cash in maximum revenue from the accompying movie franchise. Is it possible for some great games to come from movie franchises? You bet - but as long as Hollywood keeps sticking with the cookie-cutter mentality with their movies (i.e. more special effects! more horror movies this year, then comedies next!), why should we expect anything better from their influence on games?

Warren adds the interesting perspective of having been a member of a number of studios that were once successful, and eventually ended up closing. The days of Lord British and Chuckles sitting around and making Autoduel together are no more, and eventually grew into Roberts Williams, husband Ken, and a few artists bringing us some wonderful games at a small company called Sierra. This then grew into a small team including a few programmers, a few graphics artists, a seperate sound tech, and maybe a director of development at a company called Lucasfilm, Access Software, or you name it. Then a producer came in, special 3d effects artist, etc. and Lucasfilm became LucasArts, Sierra was bought out, etc. etc. The money to compete in the game market these days may only be available from Hollywood studios (unless you sign your soul to EA).

Re:Game Licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood sucks.

Gaming merging w/ Hollywood will make games suck.

Time to find a new hobby.

Why would you goto a theater?

[Duncan3]

I've recently been to a theater after not going for a long time, I guess I needed a reminder why I never go. This is what happened...

1. 30 minutes of commercials.
2. Talking idiots
3. Cell phones ringing every 5 minutes.
4. Air conditioning set at "cryogenic"

So screw em, I'll stay home and if I want to see a movie, I'll goto the library and checkout the DVD for free.

That all the movies are now remakes/ripoffs of movies from 20 years ago doesn't help either.

Re:Why would you goto a theater?

[gothzilla]

I had a dream/nightmare once about cellphones in theaters. This one theater set up RF detectors and spotlights and if your phone went off the spotlights lit you up until you hung up. I hated waking up from that one.

Re:Why would you goto a theater?

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Cell phones ringing every 5 minutes.

Just move to a country/state/city that isn't full of arseholes. You'll find it makes other aspects of life more pleasant too.

linked page rendering

[james_shoemaker]

Did the linked article render as poorly for other readers? After the first page the left margin was out of the border of the window so the text was cut off.

Re:linked page rendering

[zerocommazero]

I had the same problem. All text ran off on the left side of the browser.

Re:linked page rendering

[Alamar3]

After the first page the left margin was out of the border of the window so the text was cut off.

A poorly designed website, I believe (either that, or it doesn't like Firefox... which is basically the same thing). However, there's a little link at the bottom right where you can download a .pdf version of the magazine, which reads fine.

Re:No matter how interesting this interview might

[toad3k]

Try changing X's resolution changing shortcut ('ctl'-'alt'-'keypad+').

I agree, this layout sucks, and my normal zooming in firefox only butchers the page.

subscriptions...

[Tominva1045]

With movie prices high and nairdowells pirating dvd's via the internet it's no wonder they like the gaming option- best if it can be turned into a subscription service whose economic model cannot be subverted.

Re:subscriptions...

[pandrijeczko]

Sure you can subvert it - just don't subscribe to it...

Re:subscriptions...

[Anonymous Coward]

With movie prices high and ne'er-do-wells pirating DVDs via the internet, it's no wonder that they like the gaming option. Though I think it would be best if it could be turned into a subscription service whose economic model could not be subverted.

Advertising before the movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very true. I always hear people complaining during the ads before the movie starts. Regal Cinemas even has what they call "The Twenty" which is about twenty minutes of crap and ads. The last movie I went to we walked in just as "The Twenty" was finishing and it says something like "Did you catch all of The Twenty? If not, be sure to arrive a little earlier next time." In a normal voice that wouldn't carry more than a few rows I said "Cool, we managed to completely miss `The Twenty'!" The people who heard started laughing pretty hard. Then there was a ripple effect as people asked what was so funny. People hate it so much that it got an overblown reaction. The part that was funny to me was that I wasn't trying to be funny. It was my honest reaction.

Re:Advertising before the movie.

[Grishnakh]

The problem with coming late and missing all the crap before the movie is that you're stuck with a crappy seat.

Next button

[Devistater]

Am I the only one who missed seeing the tiny little NEXT button on the bottom right and spent 5 mins trying to figure out how to read the article and thinking that /. was linking to a article you had to purchase on paper to read?

Re:No matter how interesting this interview might

[bdcrazy]

PDFs are becoming the de facto archive and deliverable format of choice for a lot of engineering firms and state DOTs. Everybody can read them, you can protect them (though it seems lots of people don't really like this), they print out the same everywhere. And the new addition of 3d modelling and viewing that adobe has just added make quick correspondence and checks to complex issues available to everyone.

Don't forget information...

[shmlco]

Another cause for the overall decline, that's often forgotten, is information.

Blogs, independent review sites, aggregators (Rotten Tomatoe), and other sources are giving moviegoers more information up front about what movies are really worth seeing, and which ones are over-hyped and over-priced.

This as opposed to what we had just a few years ago, when the newspaper and TV reviewers gushed and drooled over every latest "blockbuster" release. Still do in fact, but now we have better sources.

I really don't think Hollywood is producing that many more bad movies... it just seems like it because we've been warned beforehand.

Re:Don't forget information...

[patternjuggler]

Blogs, independent review sites, aggregators (Rotten Tomatoe), and other sources are giving moviegoers more information up front about what movies are really worth seeing, and which ones are over-hyped and over-priced.

It's funny, because as much as I support the principal of spreading information about a product to the consumer (the success of capitalism per se depending on that, etc.), I never read a review of a movie I'm already pretty sure I'm going to watch eventually. Most of the time the preview is enough to go on, and I keep expectations low anyhow. I really enjoy reading reviews afterwards to see if the other people felt the same as me, but if I had read them earlier I wouldn't be able to tell if that was me being biased by reading it or not. I don't like spoilers either, even of events only a few minutes into the movie.

Let's do lunch

[Animats]

That's so Hollywood. You can waste vast amounts of time doing pitches or being pitched at. You can have lunch at good restaurants. None of this necessarily means anything is actually going to happen.

In some circles, this is called "development hell".

I used to sell software to Hollywood companies. It's amusing. Projects in development have trouble coming up with a valid credit card number. Projects in production want new features yesterday.

Hollywood

[RenegadeRunner]

Hollywood + Gaming When you're browsing titles, time and time again, it's always the licensed Hollywood titles that make me wince. What I'm afraid of is the Atari all over again. The Atari came out, and it was a revolution in gameplay and the entire industry. People made millions for the first time. When Hollywood saw the cashflow, and wanted a piece. They began signing over big theatrical releases for games. It all just went downhill from there; it just became a huge commercial to the point where you might have been manipulating a little pixelated Kool-Aid man.

Don't let anyone fool you. It's all about money. It's not about better gameplay and better releases. Spector even said that the licensed games were the "safer" bets, and that they were more of a garauntee of profit. In practically the same breath, he says that the unlicensed games (Vice City, Diablo) were the ones that were truly groundbreaking; the ones that everyone wanted to have. The games that made top 20. And really, consumers only wanted the top 20's anyways.

A blessing in disguise? I don't think so. Hollywood, by all means, stick to the theatres, and out of my console.

Sequals

[jurt1235]

Game maker: We make sequals too, we have a special company for that called "EA games" with a motto "challenge everything" which was originally in the brainstorm session "sequal everything". So if you want a sequal to your movie in game style, I am you man.

Escapist website

[symbolic]

The Escapist web site is for the web what Wired was to print media. It is completely over-designed to the point that it defeats its purpose - miserably. To its credit, Wired calmed down after a bit- let's hope that the Escapist has the same epiphany.

Video games of movies--look at the reviews

[metamatic]

Almost all video game conversions of movies (and TV shows) fucking suck, just like all movie versions of video games fucking suck.

Looking at the Metacritic list of PS2 games in score order, the best movie game ever is Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, at 85%--but that puts it at #183 on the chart. So basically, there are hundreds of games better than the very best video game ever based on a movie.

Now look at the bottom of the chart. By my count, 15 of the 40 worst PS2 games ever are movie/TV games.

Personally, I find it amazing that people are still willing to throw money at developing video game tie-ins for movies and TV, and even more amazing that suckers are willing to buy them.

Re:Video games of movies--look at the reviews

[PsiPsiStar]

What they should do is focus on movie-game mod packs for movies. Imagine a "lord of the rings" mod of James Bond complete with a multiplayer version of 'take the ring to mordor, orc generators, etc. I think it would satisfy the need for a tie-in without making the movie drive the game.

Fans would buy it for $10 or so. And it would be fairly cheap to make.

Re:Video games of movies--look at the reviews

[Have Blue]

Try the Xbox list. The Chronicles of Riddick game is at #41 (not all-time classic territory, but much better than #183) and rated 89%. And it really was a great game, one of the best games no one played last year.

Also, there was once a licensed game that is still cited frequently as one of the best games ever made (Goldeneye).

Great opportunities ...

[MrCopilot]

Ok maybe a little insightful.
Wow look at that. It's like I paused my stream of conciousness.

Whoa extra emphasis on the fact that I'm changing the paragraph.

If only someone would be kind enough to show you then maybe you wouldn't make my brain hurt so much. Yeah thats it. Nobody loved you, I get it. Her ya go man, if you type br enclosed in less than and greater than symbols that will cause a new line. If you type p also enclosed that will cause a new paragraph.

Its pretty easy you can even copy paste em from the bottom of the form where it says Allowed Html.

Re:Great opportunities ...

[teutonic_leech]

1st option: LOL :-) point well taken. I was so anxious to get it out that I forgot that I was typing into a textfield. I tend to agree - long winded badly formatted comments make my brain hurt.

2nd option: hey - get bent!

You pick which one you like better ;-)

Re:Great opportunities ...

[MrCopilot]

I'll take option 1. On a side note, I'm a bit ashamed, I couldn't remember how to show a >. symbol.

Still not, damn.

Bucket of hooey

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really easy to talk loudly out your ass when you haven't even experienced what you're talking loudly about. I am of course referring to Spector's comments on licensed games.

He is being naive and idealistic. It is so easy to look at the flaws in licensed games and think "I would have done X Y and Z differently", when you were not behind the scenes and do not know the reasons why X Y and Z are so flawed.

Imagine for example that you are the developer and you have some GREAT ideas for a licensed game. Publisher takes those ideas and talks with the movie Licensing Department A**holes (LDA from hereon). The LDAs say "no, you can't to X with our character" and "You can do Y but only if you do it this way...". And then those things in turn affect part Z.

What do you do? Well first you argue with the publisher. But they are just the messenger. You might be lucky and some members of the development company will get to attend one of these meetings with the LDA along with the publisher, but that goes nowhere either. Why? Because the LDA aren't game players. They aren't even movie-makers. They are LICENSING people. Suits for the most part. Not a creative bone in their body. They don't understand artistic license, games, and especially not what makes a game great. They just want to hear "it's like Grand Theft Auto". That makes them drool. Then they go and give you a list of 20 things you can't do.

And the publisher, who is supposed to "go to bat" for the developer on these issues can;t do anything because they are faced with contracts and risk of losing the license if they don't bow down to the LDA gods.

Warren Spector hasn't experienced this. He will learn the hard way. Just watch.

Reap what you sow....

[gosand]

Its not video games, piracy, sequels, or crappy movies which are killing them, its DVD and home movie theatres. Why the hell would I want to see a movie in a theatre when I have a system at home with better audio, better video, no screaming idiots, no cell phones, and yay, the floor isn't sticky!

The emperor has no clothes.

What they don't realize, and the record industry too, is that we don't need them. We want them. We WANT them to produce good movies, we really really do. But I don't need to put up with all the crap to see them. I can wait until it comes out on DVD. And even if there is a movie I want to see, but am not willing to risk seeing it in the theater, and for some reason I don't rent it when it comes out on DVD, I am still OK.

See, they have tried to create this idea that we HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! Even though it hasn't been released yet, all these people are quoted as saying it is "the best movie this year". It's a blockbuster, a movie event, a must see, something I can't afford to miss. You know what - they are full of shit. All it takes is seeing one over-hyped shitty movie for me to take notice. Look around, at TV, radio, etc. Everything is over-hyped. That "hit new series" on TV, that "television event", that "critically acclaimed" whatever - it is all BS. Nothing is genuine. It's all about getting money in the first two weekends. Pump and dump. Some Disney commercial for one of their pathetic animated movies said something to the effect that "if you have only seen this movie once, you haven't seen anything!" Oh, so now we have to watch it more than once in the theater?

Was in Blockbuster the other day. There was a rack that was 1/2 full of some "new release" that was a knockoff, straight-to-video movie. The title, cover, and premise was similar to some popular movie. It was obvious that the company had simply purchased the space on the rack. There was NO WAY that they needed 40 copies of that movie. But sure enough, some dope walked up and said "this looks good" and took one. It's all about catering to those who are distracted by shiny, pretty objects.

The thing is, people will hopefully eventually wake up. It happened with the record industry. Stuff they are releasing and pushing follows the formula to the letter - and people are sick of it. Back in the late 90s, when digital music was taking off, they had a real opportunity to tap into a known solid market by offering music digitally. People were screaming for it, and that screaming took the voice of Napster. Here we are 6 or 7 years later, and they are still fighting the digital music format. They create this aura of "you HAVE to have this!" Now now now! Get it before it is gone... Well, you created this culture of "gotta have it now", so why are you surprised that we aren't going to sit on our asses and wait for 10 or 15 years for you to figure out how to offer music digitally? The movie industry lives on hype, so they shall die by it. You'll push and push, even though people don't want a half hour of advertising before movies, you'll cram it down our throats anyway, won't you? You'll buy good movie reviews. You'll spend a big chunk of your budget on advertising and marketing, then wonder why people won't see your latest rehashed tripe. As soon as you hit on something that works, you will turn it into a formula and start force-feeding it. Then question why people aren't going to the theater as much?

Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.

Re:Reap what you sow....

[llZENll]

"people don't want a half hour of advertising before movies"

oh ya I forgot to hit on this in my first post, the IMAX Batman movie had 1!, yes 1 preview that was about 3 minutes long for Stealth. Previews are even a treat to see as you are dumbfounded by the size and quality of the movie in the IMAX long enough to not even realize you're watching a preview :) Then the movie started immediatley, no beginning credits or anything...

Clever girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now Taco is posting the weekly Escapist ad. How clever of him not to mention the magazine name in the write-up. Still, I have the feeling that tomorrow Zonk's going to either dupe this or post something else to pimp the new issue.

PS:

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: I forgot to add: How are game designers supposed to turn C grade crap (movies) into AAA gold (video games)?

Very small sandboxes

[jasenj1]

First, I'm not "in the biz" so this may all be talking out my a**.

Developing compelling interesting gameplay with licensed characters is great and all, until the owners of said property have to sign off on what you've done. Stretch the gameplay into uncharted territory just a bit and they're likely to pull you back to generic first person shooter land.

-----

Yeah, that website was awful! Blech.

- Jasen.

Rated I for ILLEGAL

[HunterZ]

Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.

No, it's due to pirating. Haven't you seen the little "Rated I" placards at the ticket booth and the commercials full of pleas from starving moviemakers?

I'm being sarcastic of course - I agree with the parent poster. The scary thing is that it sounds like they think they can try the same tactics in the game's industry, and we all know that that's just going to make it sink like the movie industry is now.

I could

[robertjw]

Yes, I could show up for a movie 20 minutes after the start. Last movie I went to I did just that an caught the matinee on a Saturday afternoon while it was 105 degrees outside, so it only cost me $4.25. Also, I rarely buy food in a theatre. Sometimes popcorn, but that's harder to smuggle in.

Thing is all of these workarounds are a hassle. Now not only do I have to go to the movie, I have to go to the store, figure out when to get to the movie 20 minutes late, pay $9.00, sit in the front row because all of the seats are taken and still have to deal with noisy people. Way easier to put it on my Netflix list.

from someone in the industry

[adnausium]

As someone who has worked in the Audio & Video production industry for the better part of a decade, I can tell you the problem inherant in the whole movie making system: GREED. Although there are some exceptions to the rule movie making has been getting cheaper not more exspensive. They take less time to make, methods of production are easier and the digital revolution has made the mediums on which a movie is created much less exspensive. What studios could start doing (aside from avoiding sequals and crappy remakes of crappy 80's TV shows) is looking for cheaper talent...these maybe should be getting a piece of the pie (i.e. revenues) but not as large of a slice as they are currently. For every big name actor demanding 30 mil for a part, there are thousands of very talented up and coming actors & actress who could do it (and would do it) for less. Less exspensive movie productions can contribute directly to cheaper movie tickets. And stop making these mammoth F'ing multi-plexes!! Hell the sound is better in a smaller room anyway.

Re:from someone in the industry

[16K Ram Pack]

It would be nice, but the problem is that for many people the star is their barometer of the movie.

I've been in a situation of recommending movies to people, and the most often asked question is "who's in it".

"poor" people...

[hackwrench]

most sensible "poor" people buy $30 shoes and don't go in for sports-logo jackets.

Mischaracterization

[hackwrench]

You make it sound as if he cares if they are liberal or conservative. It makes sense to me that he just doesn't like uninvited people hanging around his property.

Re:Mischaracterization

[Some_Llama]

"It makes sense to me that he just doesn't like uninvited people hanging around his property."

Well then maybe he shouldn't have applied for the job of President which carries along with it being responsible to the people you are working for.

Just because he feels that he needs a vacation doesn't mean he no longer needs to be held accountable for the job he is doing.

The next time you screw the pooch at YOUR job, try telling your boss "I'm gonna take a few weeks off to get on with my life".

I bet your boss will agree to give you as much time as you need, without having to worry to come back, I think we should do the same with this President if his job, and the responsibilities that come with it, is getting in the way of his "personal life".

Re:Mischaracterization

[hackwrench]

We were talking about Mattlage, not Bush.

Re:We're #1 and Ready For a Reckoning

[mpapet]

The "We're #1" party line is a quickie-mart reduction that completely and utterly fails to address the risks Americans have assumed with the trade deficit.

As our dollars fly out of the country to other nations, the nationals holding the currency need some place to *spend* it. For example, China's Oil company wanted to buy the big American Oil company not too many weeks ago. Well, they couldn't for whatever reason.

Now what *exactly* will China do with all the american currency piling up in the country? Ideally, they spend it on American goods, thereby "balancing" trade. If they can't spend it then what is it worth? Nothing. And then the devaluation spiral begins.

Will there be a large adjustment to the value of the dollar? Maybe. Maybe not. When? No one knows.

This concludes today's lesson on the benefits of balanced trade.

When those claims are asserted...

[hackwrench]

there will be full employment. It's not completely clear which scenario will bear out.

I wonder, though

[phorm]

The majority of movies I've seen this year have been been decent to good. None have really been downright bad (ok, I'll admit that I didn't really like HHGTG in comparison to the book... some things are better in print):

Batman begins
War of the worlds
Fantastic Four
Wedding Crashers
Chocolate Factory

There are plenty of others as well... maybe I'm just better at avoiding sucky movies lately but I haven't felt cheated nearly so badly as I didn seeing some of the trash that came out the previous few years.

Re:I wonder, though

[hobbesx]

I think that these movies seem different in comparison to the popularity of movies that we've seen in the last few years.

Spider-man
LOTR 1, 2, & 3
Harry Potter 1, 2, & 3
Shrek 1 & 2
Pirates of the Carribean
The Incredibles
Star Wars I, II, III

Worldwide total: $28,524,243,485.00
  http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region= world-wide
No guarantees for my fat fingers with the calculator, but that's a ton of money. This years movies don't really compare to me, even just scanning over the list for 2005.

Re:I wonder, though

[AvitarX]

I feel a shift of smaller budget movies coming up (or mayb e I am noticing).

But the big theatres where I am all carried "Happy Endings", "Crash", "Sideways", "Motorcycle Diaries" and "Kinsey". They are all movies that Iw ould have expected to go out of my way to an indie theatre for a year ago. All of these were movies I would rate from good to great. Even Wedding crashers had more of an indie feel (though maybe Swingers and Made gave it that).

These are good movies though that don't need to do great to make a good profit and I would be shocked if they didn't.

Even "Sin City" and "Spider-man" were fairly cheap movies to make compared to the the big movies of the past (I guess Sin City wasn't so big though).

Hollywood can make more money with less ticket sales if they keep putting out decent movies.

PS, with the exclusion of the mice getting smooshed I could not imagine HGTTG being adapted to screen much better.

Hollywood's Money To Burn

[mpapet]

My wife was a card carrying SAG actor and she gave me some insight into the business. Most of which is common sense.

1. NEVER believe what the studios tell you about grosses and profit. It's arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Unions are strong in entertainment and one of the reasons is there's plenty of money to pay everyone.
2. Those weekend box office reports don't count. They don't make money at the theaters. Merchandising, DVD's and Broadcast rights is where the profits are.
3. The entire industry has very convoluted accounting and royalty structures. It's not clear to most people even inside the studios what's successful and that's the preferred order of business. For example, today's box-office lemon becomes a television movie staple for 10 years. Guess what? Huge revenues.
4. Hollywood is busting at the seams with money. Have you noticed how the budget-busting productions DON'T send a studio into bankruptcy? They don't spend their own money on making movies anymore. They get investors to fund production because everyone with too much money finds the risk/reward and "glamour" too tempting to pass up.

Two Biggest Sins

[BraceletWinner]

The half hour of commercials and previews is what truly kills me these days. "The Twenty" plays at my local theaters and they try to bill it as "pre-show entertainment" like they're doing us a fucking favor by throwing in some extra goodies. Previews are just as bad now. Although I have saved lots of money because many times I have seen a preview of a movie I was interested in, and since the preview showed all the funny lines and the entire plot, I saved $9.00. But most previews are of crap movies I wouldn't be interested in at all. Theaters don't try to match trailers with movies anymore. When I worked in theaters in the late 80s - mid 90s, we tried to show kids trailers with kids movies, horror with horror, etc... Now when I see the five or six trailers on the beginning of any movie, they seem randomly put together. If I am watching The Devil's Rejects, I am almost certainly not interested in Must Love Dogs and Sky High.

The problem with ushers keeping people quiet is that theater employees (managers included) don't seem to care about their jobs. I held every job possible in movie theaters over several years, and none of them are terribly difficult. Employees make minimum wage and managers don't make much more, so there is no motivation to speed up the lines or keep an especially clean or quiet theater. They know that most people won't complain and they'll come back next week anyway, so why work harder?

One of the best things that we did when I was an employee was have contests with tangible prizes. For example, in concessions whoever had the most dollar revenue or number of combo specials sold won Six Flags passes or a gift card or something similar (and the theater got these for free by trading passes - no actual cost). This kept everyone moving the lines quickly and the competition was fun (or at least a distraction from the boring job) for the employees, so most were in a good mood. All I get now when I go to a concession counter is a blank stare until I initiate the conversation. They get paid by the hour, not by the customer, and no one will reprimand them anymore for bad service, so I can't really blame them.

Try Lego Star Wars

[SuperKendall]

I'm sure that was the EPIII game - you had to really want to like it, then it did have some redeeming qualities (like the alternate ending to EPIII).

However a far more fun game, that both of you can/should play together is Lego Star Wars. That's a huge amount of fun because it takes some liberties with the licence and is just a really fun game to play, for any age.

Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

The Iraqi citizens are in a "war of defence" against the American and British invaders.

It sure is odd then they keep blowing up Iraqis to fight this war "against the invaders", like Iraqi police. How is that a war of defense again?

Polls of real Iraqis instead of the Saudis you seem to think are Iraqis say they want us out but support our being there until it's time to go.

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

Egregiously bad mistake: dancing around the truth of how Warren Specter butt-fscked Thief: Deady Shadows.

the $9 movie ticket

[TheJorge]

Number 3! Number 3! I haven't had much problem with the first two (though commercials do piss me off in the theater), but the third is exactly what I've been thinking for a while. There's something very strange about the price of a movie. At $6.50, I'll go to pretty much any crap for something to do when I've got time on my hands. Back at that price, I'd often go to the local 30-plex without even having a specific movie in mind. For $2.50 more, though, I think I watch one, maybe two movies in the theater a year. For some reason, there's a subconsious threshold between $6.50 and $9 that makes me actually want to get my money's worth. It's probably just that i'm uncommon, but it's possible that a $2 reduction in ticket prices would reverse this glut instantly. I don't mind watching loud, flashy crap sometimes if we all agree it's loud, flashy crap. Just don't give me loud, flashy crap and tell me it's high-quality filmmaking with a high-quality filmmaking price.

Re:the $9 movie ticket

[robertjw]

For some reason, there's a subconsious threshold between $6.50 and $9 that makes me actually want to get my money's worth. It's probably just that i'm uncommon, but it's possible that a $2 reduction in ticket prices would reverse this glut instantly.

Appearantly you aren't uncommon because the movie industry is suffering. There must be millions of people like you and I.

CSS isnt the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be valid, but it still fucking sucks to read, doesn;t work if your screen isn't big enough, and is incredibly poorly thought out.

Scary!!!

[FurryFeet]

From the article:


What's the last movie you went to see?
Stealth. Laura Ziskin, who produced it, optioned the film rights to Deus Ex and she let me read the Stealth script like three years ago, so I had to see the finished film!

I'm scared about the Deus Ex movie now (and I bet Warren is freaking panicking).

Incompetence happens with Ivies too.

[sethstorm]

(Dunno or care about the parent poster's intentions, applies anyhow)

uhh, Paul Krugman, NYT editorialist, is professor of economics at Princeton University. So id lay a fair wager he counts as a competent economist. Or perhaps you simply define competent economists as those who agree with you.

I'll put my bets against this one, and wait to hear from someone not blessed with a degree from the Ivy League (as well as all equivalents- East, West, and Flyover Country) - so far they've given themselves a black eye for at least 15 years. Whether it be using "globalism", and the concept of "impractical freedom"**, I'll wait for someone who has gone to somewhere with open admissions and doesnt play the "MIT Tuition Game"* to speak about economics.

* - The practice of using high tuition and free ride scholarships to exclude 90%+ of the population, leaving room for allowing Ivy League Idiots to buy their way in if they did not make the numbers. This is not exclusive to MIT, but applies to ignoble places such as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and others.
** - Impractical freedom is the concept of using economics and exclusionism to generate force to get around safeguards protecting freedom.

Re:Incompetence happens with Ivies too.

[ExMember]

MIT Tuition Game: The practice of using high tuition and free ride scholarships to exclude 90%+ of the population, leaving room for allowing Ivy League Idiots to buy their way in if they did not make the numbers.

For the record, all MIT financial aid is need-based, none is awarded on merit. There is no room to "buy your way in".

While I'm picking nits, MIT is not an Ivy League school.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic. . .

Re:Incompetence happens with Ivies too.

[Anonymous Coward]

(posting anon as this has gone far off the cliff)
Even though MIT is not Ivy League, it has not gone far from the practices of them, and exhibits a lot of the characteristics of one in all but membership to such football league.

As for the term Ivy League Idiot, that refers to a group of people who make up in personal connections and money where they lack in intelligence to get in virtually anywhere. Even if the place is a non Ivy (MIT, or Stanford), these people either end up nowhere(fail) or or somehow graduate with some difficulty and nothing to their name. ...and back to Licensing with Warren Spector.

warren spector and Hollywood

[klept]

Well I am glad to read Mr Spector is flying first class at someone else's expense. But one thing he has to understand is that so far it is all talk. And there is a big distance between that and a deal. Dealing with the higher end of Hollywood is actually very pleasant, based on my experience. However, even representing a "named" product doesn't guarentee a deal. There are so many hurdles, issues, and people to resolve when you are talking with the name studios, producers, and agents. For example, dont know about right now, but when I briefly was dealing in that enviorment, there were many large firms that would not pursue a deal unless it could gross so much for them. And then there is the issue of copyright, and believe me, that will apply to games. Just remember the lines from the movie the Maltese Falcon, "$10000? We were talking about a lot more money" "Yes we were, sir. But that was just talk. This is genuine coin of the realm. With a dollar of this you can buy $10 of talk".