Slashdot Mirror


Movies Losing Popularity at Box Office

andyring writes "Without the slightest mention of piracy, the MPAA said box-office revenues declined by 8 percent last year. About 40 percent of the decline came from the U.S. Now if only they'd realize that the decline is from movies sucking more than my shop vac." It's been a while since a film warranted spending the money to watch it in a room full of strangers.

3 of 795 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why Movies Suck by 3263827 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    e.e. cummings wants his style back...

  2. Re:Why Movies Suck by paran0rmal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You seem pretty age-phobic... remember there are many 15-30 year olds that actually happen to have a shred of intelligence and love good movies. I'm 26, but have enjoyed art-house and foreign movies for well over a decade now. Also, although most people dont do the art-house thing, I don't know many people of my age that didn't enjoy Pulp Fiction, Memento, Leon (The Professional), Crouching Tiger, Run Lola Run, Trainspotting and others that conform to your criteria although being mainstream, which leads me to think that the majority of people would like to see your rules getting applied, not just 40 year olds.

  3. Re:Why Movies Suck by 1u3hr · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    There's still buckets of stuff in the public domain.
    Most of which has been already used in something "new" that is still under copyright, making it a risk to use.

    Rubbish. Look for instance at Sherlock Holmes or Dracula. The original works are long out of copyright; almost every year there is a new adaptation of one or the other. None need to acknowledge any earlier adaptations.

    I think Heinlein's Tunnel In The Sky would make a killer film
    Agreed. But who owns the copyright? Heinlein's been dead for nearly 20 years.

    It's still under copyright of his estate, probably controlled by his wiofe, Ginny. Most likely it is already under an option, though if it will ever be exercised is another story.

    Last estimate showed that 80% of the currently available works are still under copyright but have no known owners.

    That may be true; it would be an obstacle if one wanted to simply republish such a book, that's what the Eldred case was about, I think. However, if a studio wanted to adapt some story published in 1950 they would have no hesitation in spending a few thousand dollars for an investigator to track down the author or his heir. And realistically, while there are undoubtedly some gems amongst that 80%, most of it will be crap (Sturgeon's Law).