Slashdot Mirror
Despite Piracy Claims, North American Box Office Hits Record $11.4 Billion In 2016 (variety.com)
Slashdot reader rudy_wayne writes: Despite constant claims of losing billions of dollars to "piracy", the North American box office closed out 2016 with $11.4 billion in ticket sales. That marks a new record for the industry, bypassing the previous record of $11.1 billion that was established in 2015.
Disney had four of the top five highest-grossing films, including "Finding Dory," the year's top film with $486.3 million. "When holdovers are taken into account, Disney had six of the year's ten highest-grossing releases, a group that includes Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which debuted in 2015," reports Variety. Other top films include Rogue One: A Star Wars Story ($408.2 million), Captain America: Civil War ($408.1 million), The Secret Life of Pets ($368.4 million), and The Jungle Book ($364 million).
Disney "controlled more than a quarter of the domestic market share despite releasing fewer films than any of the major studios," according to the article, which notes that the record was achieved despite the absence of big releases in several major movie franchises partly through higher ticket prices (and possibly also inflation).
Disney had four of the top five highest-grossing films, including "Finding Dory," the year's top film with $486.3 million. "When holdovers are taken into account, Disney had six of the year's ten highest-grossing releases, a group that includes Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which debuted in 2015," reports Variety. Other top films include Rogue One: A Star Wars Story ($408.2 million), Captain America: Civil War ($408.1 million), The Secret Life of Pets ($368.4 million), and The Jungle Book ($364 million).
Disney "controlled more than a quarter of the domestic market share despite releasing fewer films than any of the major studios," according to the article, which notes that the record was achieved despite the absence of big releases in several major movie franchises partly through higher ticket prices (and possibly also inflation).
It was the introduction of IMAX. Replacing the experience outside a movie theater is too expensive.
Why do the worst movies make the most money?
This is what they do, they whine and complain and pretend to be the victim no matter how much money they stuff into their pockets. It's never enough for this fucking tribe.
what these numbers don't seem to keep into account it the increase in ticketprices... Also the production costs of the movies are again higher than in 2015. So comparing the years purely on boxoffice income is useless..
Imagine all the possible lost due to piracy. The industries could literally be $6 Trillions bigger!
Our money only gets more wothless. Just sayin.
Because Piracy doesn't have the impact that the "study's" have projected and failed to take into account people who watch to see if its good then buys a copy or sees it in the cinema.
Piracy isn't theft, nothing tangible is lost while it is morally wrong to view work you haven't paid for so walking by a busker and not putting in money or going to a "free" art galley, viewing art and not paying the artist or reading a book at a library and not paying the author.
My morality is a little tarnished by my piracy but I do buy content I enjoy
captchal; Bondage
If you look at the list of the most pirated TV series (releaseby TorrentFreak) and compare it to the most profitable TV series, you can almost mix up the two lists...
People really still go to movies? Why?
We set up a beamer in our living room, with a pull-down projection screen. The sound runs through our stereo. The picture at least as large (perceptually) as you get in a theater. There's no noisy neighbor, you don't have to yell at the idiot in front of you to put away their phone, the floor isn't sticky, and you don't have to drive there and park, so you can enjoy a couple of glasses of your favorite tipple while watching. Oh, and you can control the volume - last time I was in a theater, I thought they were trying to make the whole audience deaf - geez...
Side benefit: There's no ugly TV that you have to look at when its off. The beamer is up out of the way, and the projection screen rolls up into a nearly invisible case.
With today's technology, why does anyone still go to a theater to see a movie?
The films that cost a lot less to make, but eventually paid back their investors on the profits of small screening runs, video cassettes and DVDs are a dying, if not dead breed. The future is barnstorming blockbusters that make their budget back in the first week or so. The "long tail" was just a bullshit hypothesis that didn't pan out.
The "piracy problem" is a sideshow, Hollywood (and music / TV industry) always wants more cocaine to shove up its, and politicians collective nose, while they all collude to sell defective products that the pirates fix (removing DRM from DVD / BluRay / data CDs passed of as Red Book Standard audio CDs etc).
Take Nobody's Word For It.
And, no, don't go all "But they had expenses!" because most of those are self-inflicted (see Hollywood accounting) and I don't get to deduct required living expenses from my income before tax.
+1
It almost looks like what should be happening here is a kind of natural selection process where Hollywood shifts their money spent making theatrical films where the theater plays a major role.
1) Animated films oriented towards kids. When our son was younger, we went to a lot of animated film because it was a reasonable family activity that got everyone out of the house.
2) Visual-heavy blockbusters which do well in the various IMAX/3D formats or for which all but the most elaborate home theater isn't competitive with a large-scale cinema screen.
They should make fewer traditional films oriented towards "theatrical" distribution because there's little reason to see these in a theater unless the theater experience (going out, meeting friends, a date, etc) itself is nearly more important than whatever it is you see.
This money should be spent instead on making "mini-series" or other multi-episode films or streaming series, since it seems like the economics of a six episode serial is about the same as a 2 hour theatrical film.
What part exactly? The sound that's too loud when something explodes or too soft when someone's talking? The sticky floors? The people talking on the phone? The overpriced popcorn?
Wow dude, except for the overpriced popcorn I have to ask where did you find such a crappy theater. I go to movie theaters with some regularity since there are some movies that really are best seen on the biggest possible screen. Sometimes you want to see dinosaurs life sized instead of just 70 inches tall. It's also a nice way to go on a date with your significant other - cuddle close and no talking necessary for 2-3 hours. The sound is generally excellent, I can't remember the last time someone talked loud enough for me to be bothered by it and I certainly haven't seen anyone answer their phone in ages. Hell they even do a pretty good job cleaning the floors these days. I'm not saying none of those things happen but it's been my experience that the movie theaters are actually working pretty hard to make it a nice experience. I've seen them kick trouble makers out. Occasionally you run into some selfish assclown who tries to ruin it for everyone else but mostly people are pretty respectful and just trying to have a good time just like you and me.
As for the popcorn, do you understand the business model of a movie theater? Let me break it down. When you go to see Rogue One, the theater gets to keep something like 20% of the ticket price - the rest goes to the studio. They get to keep a bit more the longer the movie runs but they never get to keep most of it. That means when 30 people show up to a showing they might make $60 if tickets are $10 each. That isn't enough money to keep the doors open. That means they have to have other sources of income. You can think of movie theaters something like a concession stand that uses movies to get you to show up and buy something. (kind of like petrol stations in that respect - they don't make much if any profit on the fuel itself) So yeah, they jack up the price of the popcorn. But you know what? You don't have to buy it. But most do anyway because they enjoy it. Just because it isn't as cheap as possible doesn't mean it isn't good value for money. If people really thought the popcorn was overpriced then they wouldn't buy it and the theater would have to lower prices. Believe it or not you can see a movie without eating popcorn.
>The Great Obama Recession. Data ? Source ? Links ?
It almost looks like what should be happening here is a kind of natural selection process where Hollywood shifts their money spent making theatrical films where the theater plays a major role.
Exactly right. There is really not much point in going to a movie theater unless they can offer you something you cannot get at home. I have a 70" flat screen with a decent sound system in my house. That means that seeing a movie in a theater that doesn't involve a LOT of visual/audio wow-factor really is a pointless exercise. I can see a romcom in my living room and the experience is not lessened for it. But very few people have a home theater where you can really get the full experience of seeing Godzilla full sized. I bother going to see The Avengers in the theater because it adds something to the experience over what I can do at home. If it didn't then there would be no point in going. I think movie theaters have recognized this fact and you are seeing it reflected (for better or worse) in the sorts of movies being offered for theatrical release.
If you are fine watching movies on a (comparatively) tiny screen or on your phone that's fine but it misses the point. There is no reason for movie theaters to exist unless they can offer us something special. That means they necessarily are going to have to focus on certain types of movies and certain types of customers more than others. And that is totally fine. I don't need to go to a theater to see every movie released. I'm fine with seeing some stuff through streaming at home and other stuff at the theater when it suits the venue. In principle, piracy of a movie shouldn't be a huge problem for a theater because the viewing experience cannot be easily replicated if they are doing it right. Yes it will siphon off some marginal customers but most people go to a theater because it offers them something more than just a basic viewing of a movie.
Just because the entertainment industry is making record breaking money doesn't mean that they are also not losing alot to piracy. The "despite" term in the Slashdot headline is inaccurate and clearly shows a leech slant.
For blockbusters, and that mandates a certain number of screenings on minimum size screens.And for some high profile, the theatre may have to pay 110% of the ticket price or more (yes,paying out of their profit), because if you don't get the biggest blockbusters,you lose customers to competing theatres, and if you don't agree to the conditions, you won't get this movie or the next few from the distributor.
What happens when you actually make good movies that aren't all trailer fluff that people actually want to see. Even though I still haven't seen Suicide squad, I just felt that I had to see Captain America, Rogue One, and I was amazed at how well done Jungle Book was. I am sure piracy is still big, but those were really people who probably wouldn't pay for a movie ticket anyways.
It's easy to break all kinds of financial records when you print an ungodly amount of currency. US monetary base is up almost 500% since year 2000. Let that one sink in.
Just because the entertainment industry is making record breaking money doesn't mean that they are also not losing alot to piracy.
Actually it means EXACTLY that. Piracy is not necessarily a bad thing for the industry and the relationship between piracy and profits is complicated. The simplistic notion that every pirated copy equals a lost sale of equivalent value is demonstrably nonsense. Most pirated content would not have resulting in additional sales. It's been demonstrated that piracy in many cases actually INCREASES sales.
Movie theaters aren't (or shouldn't be) selling a mere viewing of a movie. I can get that without involving them. They have to be selling something I cannot get elsewhere. A huge screen and an awesome sound system that I cannot replicate at home. Smarter theaters like Alamo Draft House sell pretty decent dining as well. Some theaters offer super comfy seats and other amenities. One near me has a bowling alley and bar. Many have video arcades. THAT is what I am paying for and it is not possible to pirate that experience. If all people wanted was to watch the movie on whatever crappy screen I could find then movie theaters would have been out of business a long time ago. Sure piracy might lose a few marginal customers but if their business model was so poor that piracy could make a real dent then they deserve to lose money.
Movie theaters aren't in the business of selling movie viewings. They are in the business of renting large projection and sound systems and providing entertainment. The movie is just the loss leader to get you in the door. It's like Las Vegas. Nobody really needs to go there just to gamble. I have three casinos in my home town. I go there for an experience that I cannot get at those local casinos and that those local casinos cannot really replicate.
Despite Piracy Claims, North American Box Office Hits Record $11.4 Billion In 2016
And despite their being murders, the birth rate is up.
Something no one ever seems to acknowledge - there are a fuck of a lot more people than there used to be. The population has literally doubled in less than 30 years. Star Wars was not a good movie, there are just more, significantly more, people (yes, children and teens and their parents are all people) in the pool to buy tickets in the first place, and they are paying higher prices than they used to. Population density is a factor in *everything* in the 21st century, and naturally, corporate greed is boundless!
Is it possible that some folks in the movie industry are falsifying their records, and eventually it will be revealed that they aren't actually making anywhere near as much money as they claim to be making?
An the total box office for the world is $38.4B, in terms of box office revenue.
Whereas the global video games revenue for 2016 was $101B.
Just thought that'd be an interesting comparison to the Slashdot crowd.
The industry has you (and many others) brainwashed into substituting the word "Piracy" for "Copyright Infringement". Even the U.S. federal government uses the P word.
If you want to have a rational conversation about Copyright Infringement, stop referring to it as Piracy or Intellectual Property.
What a miserable life you must lead. Is there something I can do to help you out?
Actually participation levels have increased under Obama. They just haven't reached pre-Great Recession levels. What is interesting is a massive difference in metro (urban and suburban) and non-metro (small town and rural) participation. Check out this source, which also explain an important fact about the 2016 election: the widening of the rural/urban split.
To complete this picture you have to add rural flight. This explains why the number of jobs in metro areas has grown robustly but the unemployment situation is only so-do. Metro areas do have an immigration problem, it's just not foreign migrants taking jobs.
So what we have is a picture of two Americas experiencing very different things: a metro America that may have problems, but is largely on track employment-wise; and a rural America that is still dealing with nearly decade-long catastrophe. The reasons for this are complicated and confounded, but the picture itself is stark.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Translation: I just made the claim up
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What a miserable life you must lead. Is there something I can do to help you out?
Kill yourself NOW.
I and many others make them lose billions by not watching at all anything that's not on Netflix or Amazon Prime. Oh, the horror!
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
last time i wnet popcorn was 17.07 CDN OH SAVE 1$
10$ to get in and the god awful pop was like nearly 10bucks
no thanks
ill use the above cash and get a hooker
10$ to get in and the god awful pop was like nearly 10bucks
Nobody forced you to buy a drink. If you don't like the price then don't go. None of us will care I promise you. Personally I enjoy going to the theater now and then. Makes for a nice date night with my wife. And no I don't really care if the popcorn costs $6. If that's too much for your budget then don't buy popcorn. It won't affect the movie one bit.
ill use the above cash and get a hooker
Wow, a $25 hooker. Going to splurge for the AIDS test you will need afterwards?
Always remember this rule of thumb:
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', and there is no such thing as 'anecdata'.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I can see a romcom in my living room and the experience is not lessened for it.
You mean aside from it being a romcom?
for this trash, more money?
The local theater chain near me now has "Prime Seating". They changed the color of the two rows of seats in the exact center of the auditorium, and CHARGE EXTRA to sit in them. If you sit behind those seats (which now have reclining mechs) you get the "priviledge" of having your knees attacked as if you were on an airliner.
I'm waiting for them to bring in the pay toilets and parking meters soon.... :P
Pretty graph you can gape at.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unemployment_and_employment_statistics_for_the_US_since_2000.png
See how the Employment-Population ratio plummeted.
They better have increased revenue, because the cost to make a movie will eat up a huge chunk of money...these days movies are more expensive than ever. Remember when Avatar was considered a big budget? Consider the LOTR movies or any of the X-Men movies.
Captain America: Civil War cost somewhere around $250 million, so there goes a big piece of 11 billion. Finding Dory was probably about the same cost - there goes another piece. Batman v. Superman supposedly cost more than $400 million. They damn well better make a ton of money each...Studios are making 10 movies a year with the expectation they will make half a billion dollars like those three - that didn't used to be the case. They used to make 40 or so, hoping one might go blockbuster and make $100 million.
just to be informative: top 10 most expensive movies 2016
They put out some good movies and the revenue goes up despite piracy. So crazy.
I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
You mean the recession that started in 2007 thanks to tax cuts, deregulation and wars?
And WHO was President when TARP was enacted into law?
Did you golden boy Obama do anything at all for the past 8 years???
You do realize - or are you really too stupid - that they can make record profits AND lose billions to piracy at the same time, don't you? If they could have made 20 billion but lost 9 billion to piracy, that's a very substantial loss and 9 billion reasons to fight piracy.
Just because they make WAY more than you do doesn't mean that it isn't lost opportunity. If you made $90 last year - a damn good salary, well above that of teh average American - and then found out you could have made $100k but that your employer gypped you out of $10k, you'd be livid about that loss, wouldn't you? Would you then appreciate me scolding you and telling you to go eff yourself and that you should be more than happy with your above average $90k? Yea, I didn't think so.
Doesn't take a genius to notice homelessness doubled or trippled.
source: Alt Right Fake News Internet Standard
The "Civilian Employment-Population Ratio" is greatly influenced by an aging population. A 3% change over 8 years is not unexpected given the number of people leaving the workforce. Best to not read too much into it. The unemployment rate is a better indicator of economic health.
If it wasn't for piracy, they would have made $100 Billion
This is like saying the world population is going up in spite of homicides, so homicides are now ethical.
And don't forget Microsoft's purchase of LinkedIn for $26.2B, that puts things in perspective for me.
A social network that no one actually uses is worth more than twice the entire revenue of of the movie industry in North America on a record breaking year.
The losses are not the box office but the old fashioned video sales DVD/Bluray/Digital distribution. If the studios would just release their digital versions faster and with no DRM and drop the price to a more reasonable level they would make a lot more money. Right now, it's far easier to pirate and get what you want sooner and for free. This is how music piracy was before Apple iTunes started the turn around. You have to make it easier to be legit.
The movies are released in theaters overseas sometimes months prior to the USA theaters and their DVD/BluRay's are released early as well. All it takes is one guy in Vietnam to rip a movie and upload it and now you have millions downloading copies of it weeks before it hits the stores or even local on demand viewing. The file is high quality and has no DRM. A few months prior there are HD camcorder releases filmed in cinemas overseas. These are still very popular even though the quality is quite low.
The Internet is a global network, stop messing around with borders and distribution deals and start releasing stuff much faster and everywhere at once. There is no excuse to restrict distribution spread out over months to different regions. DRM angers end users who can only play it on certain devices and certain software. e.g. Apple iTunes only works on Apple systems. Digital downloads sell for the same price as DVD/Bluray, that's just wrong.
Plan for success against piracy:
1. Release On Demand and Streaming Rentals for the usual $5 a few short weeks after leaving theaters
2. Release downloads for $10 thirty days after On Demand / Streaming offers
3. Release it globally at the same time on all services all at once
4. Ditch DRM it only angers customers and doesn't stop the pirates at all
5. Release on physical media using same old slow channels, really who cares?
6. Release old classics online as well. Disney is guilty of not distributing some older content except for special release now and then.
Do not release in overseas markets first. You must release in theaters globally at the same time within a few weeks time.
eBooks same problem, try registering for Amazon or iBooks using an overseas credit card and address and you will find a seriously hampered catalog of what is available in the US/UK. It's down right dumb. It's all based on century old rules and regulations that no longer make sense in the age of super fast Internet.
I don't NOT go to the cinema because I can get a copy of the film (legitimately or otherwise) on my PC. The experience is completely difference - it's a shared entertainment option that costs me £15, and almost entirely unrelated.