Is Hollywood Getting Screwed? Are We?

[kaylee]

I read an article in the WaPo yesterday (it's that said that the movie industry is losing 20.5 BILLION DOLLARS a year from piracy, n terms of lost revenue, jobs, and stuff like that. Article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801640.html

That is insane, to me, somehow. I guess I never really thought about how many people pirate movies out there. I wonder if that leads to poor production on movies that could be better, or if it prevents smaller films from ever getting made in the first place? If so, that would suck!

 

[Darth Elektra]

Yes, Hollywood loses alot of money to piracy, There working on it though.

 

[jaguarr]

Smells like pro-industry propaganda to me. Hollywood churns out an endless parade of crappy films that no one wants to see, charges WAY more for viewing them than should be allowed even when they do make something that folks want to see, and then realizes a huge profit on DVD rentals and sales. If they were a little less greedy and a little more prudent about producing films that weren't total crap and managed their business better, maybe they wouldn't have this "problem".

jag

 

[Sofa]

I have trouble feeling sorry for an industry who, regardless of piracy, is making so much money. Sure they're losing, but they're no where near being in trouble.

 

[DOG LIPS]

Poor Hollywood.

 

[Equint77]

hollywood is getting screwed because a bunch of production studios are moving east....

for a few years now there's been a development of TV studios being built in NY.. now all these companies are realizing how much potential there is in Filming in NYC.

Guess what Hollywood... you lose.

 

[jaguarr]

hollywood is getting screwed because a bunch of production studios are moving east....

for a few years now there's been a development of TV studios being built in NY.. now all these companies are realizing how much potential there is in Filming in NYC.

Guess what Hollywood... you lose.

Not to mention all the film and television production happening in Vancouver, B.C. and in New Zealand.

jag

 

[y2jversion1]

Haha..it's like the folks who felt sorry for the NHL players during the lockout.

Why pay $30 for a dvd when you can download or even buy a copy for less than $5?

Same with software.

**** em. Piracy rules.

 

[jaguarr]

Haha..it's like the folks who felt sorry for the NHL players during the lockout.

Why pay $30 for a dvd when you can download or even buy a copy for less than $5?

Same with software.

**** em. Piracy rules.

Majorly overpriced product in the movie, music and software industries has long perpetuated the problems these company's complain about where piracy is concerned. I fully respect their need and right to recoup R&D or production costs and make a healthy profit, but so many of the big players in these industries just try to squeeze their customers for as much as they can possibly get away with (beyond what is reasonable and fair pricing for their products). What they don't realize is that if they'd price their products more reasonably, they'd probably sell more of them and make much more profit than they do today.

jag

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Smells like pro-industry propaganda to me. Hollywood churns out an endless parade of crappy films that no one wants to see, charges WAY more for viewing them than should be allowed even when they do make something that folks want to see, and then realizes a huge profit on DVD rentals and sales. If they were a little less greedy and a little more prudent about producing films that weren't total crap and managed their business better, maybe they wouldn't have this "problem".

jag

I couldn't agree with you more Jag.

In fact: guess what the new standard practice is? Marketing determines what films are and are not greenlit. If a film doesn't have appeal with key demographics, you won't see it made, unless some financial investor takes a risk with an independent co.

Hollywood is responsible for the mess in hollywood; sure, piracy may be a problem, but the major studios need to take a look at the crap they pitch, and the awful scripts that they 'ok' for production. In a business where Autumn is known as the time to dump the 'not so hot properties' on viewers for some extra profit, you'd think that they'd learn to focus more on the product, and not the surrounding things.

I wonder if that leads to poor production on movies that could be better, or if it prevents smaller films from ever getting made

If some suit doesn't think that a great story is 'marketable', it's dismissed. It doesn't matter how great the treatment is. It's disregarded, if no sizeable profit is guaranteed. That's why so many studios are running sequels and franchises into the ground; it's an easier buck, and less of a chance, if the first film in a series is successful.

 

[y2jversion1]

so many of the big players in these industries just try to squeeze their customers for as much as they can possibly get away with (beyond what is reasonable and fair pricing for their products). What they don't realize is that if they'd price their products more reasonably, they'd probably sell more of them and make much more profit than they do today.

jag

Exactly.

I have no probs shelling out from $6.88 (thanks Walmart!) to $9.99 for an original DVD - but $25.99 to $29.99, I don't think so.

(I'm still waiting for Anchorman to drop to $9.99 before I get it..it's hanging on at $12.99 at the moment..a couple months to go..)

 

[jaguarr]

The second the bean-counters and marketing pukes took over Hollywood, it was doomed.

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I believe that the computer programs, books and movies I enjoy are worth paying for.

As an artist, I can create pieces of art, but I want nothing to do with promotion, distribution or the business end of things.

If I created a movie, or an album, or a video game, it would be devastating to find out that I had a million fans, but none of them paid a cent to me or the "business end" people who'd agreed to help me get my art seen by as many people as possible.


Sorry, pro-pirate people, there have been inumerable stories of a great film-maker making a life-changingly awesome movie that bombed at the box office, and then being allowed to make more awesomely life-changing movies ONLY because after the theatrical bomb, his movie went on to SELL so many VHS tapes/DVDs, because of word of mouth, etc.

If the reproductions of the movie don't SELL big numbers, then the "business" people are going to be less inclined to give a great artist millions of dollars in the future.


Pirates remind me of:

1) the leech who is living at my house right now. When I politely mentioned that I was going to work everyday to pay for him to have a place to play World of Warcraft all day, he said, "Well, yeah, but...you'd be paying the same ammount of rent whether I was here or not."

2) The people who say, "I'm against killing animals for fur, but I wear this fur coat because, well, the raccoons that make it up were already killed, so wearing it can't hurt them.

People who only think of themselves, as long as they get to Rock out, or watch the movie, that's all that matters, and they're so simple minded that it never occurs to them that our actions have consequences, that everything and everyone is interconnected.

 

[jaguarr]

I believe that the computer programs, books and movies I enjoy are worth paying for.

As an artist, I can create pieces of art, but I want nothing to do with promotion, distribution or the business end of things.

If I created a movie, or an album, or a video game, it would be devastating to find out that I had a million fans, but none of them paid a cent to me or the "business end" people who'd agreed to help me get my art seen by as many people as possible.


Sorry, pro-pirate people, there have been inumerable stories of a great film-maker making a life-changingly awesome movie that bombed at the box office, and then being allowed to make more awesomely life-changing movies ONLY because after the theatrical bomb, his movie went on to SELL so many VHS tapes/DVDs, because of word of mouth, etc.

If the reproductions of the movie don't SELL big numbers, then the "business" people are going to be less inclined to give a great artist millions of dollars in the future.


Pirates remind me of:

1) the leech who is living at my house right now. When I politely mentioned that I was going to work everyday to pay for him to have a place to play World of Warcraft all day, he said, "Well, yeah, but...you'd be paying the same ammount of rent whether I was here or not."

2) The people who say, "I'm against killing animals for fur, but I wear this fur coat because, well, the raccoons that make it up were already killed, so wearing it can't hurt them.

People who only think of themselves, as long as they get to Rock out, or watch the movie, that's all that matters, and they're so simple minded that it never occurs to them that our actions have consequences, that everything and everyone is interconnected.

Just so you're clear, I'm not advocating piracy. I'm simply saying that these businesses have very much contributed to their own problems in this arena with outdated business models and greed. Don't forget that I am an artist too, but I'm much more involved in the business end. Personally, I'd be HORRIFIED to learn how much money these companies make off of MY artistic genius in comparison with how little they actually share with me as an artist. Particularly when they are gouging my fans by overpricing my product.

jag

 

[kaylee]

Smells like pro-industry propaganda to me. Hollywood churns out an endless parade of crappy films that no one wants to see, charges WAY more for viewing them than should be allowed even when they do make something that folks want to see, and then realizes a huge profit on DVD rentals and sales. If they were a little less greedy and a little more prudent about producing films that weren't total crap and managed their business better, maybe they wouldn't have this "problem".

Well every kind of product has particular types of it that are not as good as others, that doesn't make it okay to just take whatever under the banner of "oh well, it all sucks anyway and I'd pay money if it were better but its not." Piracy is still theft, right? I mean, I used to be a hardcore academic and I feel the same way about plagiarizing and that kind of thing, it kind of upsets me because I'd think about how I'd feel if someone tried to steal something I'd put a lot into personally, as well because it's normalizing an idea that isn't really a good one. (Shouldn't piracy always be bad?) Did any of that make sense, I feel like it sounded more coherent in my head.)

Anyway, I don't know that I'm even thinking so much about the big name studios losing money in terms of this, but doesn't it also affect sort of the average person who works in movies? I mean, if studios set a budget that the feel they have to have because they're speculating they'll lose X amount on people pirating it instead of buying tickets, does it stand to reason that they'll hire fewer people or finance fewer films or something, so the average, I don't know, boom mike operator or something, might not have a job anymore? And the kinds of movies that I love are always smaller films, so those might conceivably not get financed as often, if the studios have to focus on big blockbuster (uggh) type movies because they make more money?

Definitely given me stuff to think about, anyway.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Smells like pro-industry propaganda to me. Hollywood churns out an endless parade of crappy films that no one wants to see, charges WAY more for viewing them than should be allowed even when they do make something that folks want to see, and then realizes a huge profit on DVD rentals and sales. If they were a little less greedy and a little more prudent about producing films that weren't total crap and managed their business better, maybe they wouldn't have this "problem".

jag

yeah, whenever I hear that they paid someone 20 million dollars to pretend he's something on camera for 3 months I totally feel bad about piracy.

 

[Erzengel]

I download all my music from itunes or from cds.

I only use kazaa, to download 2 types of musics. Ones that I can't find on Itunes and ones I'm too embarassed to download itunes. Let's just leave that there. Oh and porn. But seriously wouldn't you want just a folder full of porn and not hundreds of dvds that you have to hide from guests.

That takes me to movies. I don't download movies and I only buy movies that I think I might watch more than once.

Now with shows coming to DVD quicker, I'm less inclined to download those. However, I was watching JLU but having a life I couldn't be home at 10:30 on Saturday Nights. Now they just released or about to release the first season of that. So I'm suppose to wait 2 years to get those 4 episodes I missed? Those are the only shows I've ever downloaded.

I'm not saying it's right but it is very convenient and I don't think I'm an abuser and don't have hundreds of movies and bootleged songs on my computer.

 

[Lackey]

I read an article in the WaPo yesterday (it's that said that the movie industry is losing 20.5 BILLION DOLLARS a year from piracy, n terms of lost revenue, jobs, and stuff like that. Article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801640.html

That is insane, to me, somehow. I guess I never really thought about how many people pirate movies out there. I wonder if that leads to poor production on movies that could be better, or if it prevents smaller films from ever getting made in the first place? If so, that would suck!

that's a bullsh** statistic... not every movie that's pirated would have been legally paid for otherwise.

 

[jaguarr]

Well every kind of product has particular types of it that are not as good as others, that doesn't make it okay to just take whatever under the banner of "oh well, it all sucks anyway and I'd pay money if it were better but its not." Piracy is still theft, right? I mean, I used to be a hardcore academic and I feel the same way about plagiarizing and that kind of thing, it kind of upsets me because I'd think about how I'd feel if someone tried to steal something I'd put a lot into personally, as well because it's normalizing an idea that isn't really a good one. (Shouldn't piracy always be bad?) Did any of that make sense, I feel like it sounded more coherent in my head.)

Anyway, I don't know that I'm even thinking so much about the big name studios losing money in terms of this, but doesn't it also affect sort of the average person who works in movies? I mean, if studios set a budget that the feel they have to have because they're speculating they'll lose X amount on people pirating it instead of buying tickets, does it stand to reason that they'll hire fewer people or finance fewer films or something, so the average, I don't know, boom mike operator or something, might not have a job anymore? And the kinds of movies that I love are always smaller films, so those might conceivably not get financed as often, if the studios have to focus on big blockbuster (uggh) type movies because they make more money?

Definitely given me stuff to think about, anyway.

What it often comes down to is intellectual property, though. Usually, these big studios and record companies wind up owning the work product outright, unless the filmmaker or artists managed to work out some royalty or percentage deal. They pay the agreed upon financing to the artists, and then they are out of the picture and the company is free to do with the product what they want to. That's why you see so many directors and producers working deals where they have a say in marketing and distribution and retaining some sort of creative control after the film is completed; to prevent the overarching studio from destroying their vision. Only the more established directors get that luxury.

jag

 

[Mike_D202]

20.5 billion? they'd make that much releasing "garfield 3: the last meow" in just the U.S.

 

[y2jversion1]

If a movie looks appealing to me, I'll watch it in the theatre.
If I enjoy the movie very much, I'll download the movie or get a pirate copy.
When the original DVD for that movie that I enjoyed comes out, I'll buy the DVD when it hits a price of my liking.

Same with music - there are 3 bands that I ALWAYS buy CDs of - Sam Roberts, Matchbox Twenty & Linkin Park. I'll hear their songs on the radio first, then I'll download their album from a torrent or limewire when it's released and I'll go and buy their CD.

For movies that I've watched and the theatre and did not like, i.e. Superman Returns - it doesn't make sense for me to go and spend money on an original DVD - I spent money on the theatrical release and thought it sucked, why should I spend more money on something that sucked for me? I'll download it or burn it, incase I feel like watching the odd action sequence or whatever. Heck I got a pirate for SR but guess what, I can't even bring myself to watch it!

Nacho Libre - one of my favourite movies this summer..watched it in the theatre 2 times and then got a pirate copy. Guess what - when the original DVD comes out, I'll be sure to get it - however again, at a price of my liking and not $30.00.

I'm not a huge hip-hop/rap fan, however I do enjoy the odd song of that genre - it doesn't make sense for me to drop $15-$20 on a CD when I might just like that 1 song and not the rest. I'll download the album, and keep the songs I like and delete the rest.

 

[Mike_D202]

the only time i ever rip movies is as if my local video stores doesnt have the movie anymore (if its something from the 80s, mostly horror).

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Just so you're clear, I'm not advocating piracy. I'm simply saying that these businesses have very much contributed to their own problems in this arena with outdated business models and greed. Don't forget that I am an artist too, but I'm much more involved in the business end. Personally, I'd be HORRIFIED to learn how much money these companies make off of MY artistic genius in comparison with how little they actually share with me as an artist. Particularly when they are gouging my fans by overpricing my product.

jag

heh, the thing is though, I am bewildered by how cheap art is.

How much is, say, Led Zeppelin 4, worth, to me?

priceless. Judging by what it's done to my life, I'd start the fee for getting to listen to it at around 389 quadrillion dollars.

How would I've ever heard it without all the greedy middle men?
Would Jimmy Page just have to pack up a wagon with speakers and tour every inch of the globe?
Well even if he did, that wouldn't be sufficient, because he's just one man, and so am I. I want to hear the music whenever I want, and there's no way Jimmy Page could've gotten that music to millions of people on his own.

Now, because of technology, people have little promotion, distribution and manufacturing factories in their bedrooms, and if they want to use that power, GREAT.....but a pirate doesn't bother to ASK the artist how he wants his art to be dealt with...he imposes himSELF on the process.
And no artist has a gun to his head forcing him to sign any contracts with the greedy middle men.

If he did it, it was because he wanted to. It's not the audiences right to step in there and decide, "mmMMMm....no, you guys are asking for $9 for the privelege of watching that movie you slaved on for years? I don't think so, I think....let's say ONE dollar. Yeah."

It's so gross.

 

[jaguarr]

heh, the thing is though, I am bewildered by how cheap art is.

How much is, say, Led Zeppelin 4, worth, to me?

priceless. Judging by what it's done to my life, I'd start the fee for getting to listen to it at around 389 quadrillion dollars.

How would I've ever heard it without all the greedy middle men?
Would Jimmy Page just have to pack up a wagon with speakers and tour every inch of the globe?
Well even if he did, that wouldn't be sufficient, because he's just one man, and so am I. I want to hear the music whenever I want, and there's no way Jimmy Page could've gotten that music to millions of people on his own.

Now, because of technology, people have little promotion, distribution and manufacturing factories in their bedrooms, and if they want to use that power, GREAT.....but a pirate doesn't bother to ASK the artist how he wants his art to be dealt with...he imposes himSELF on the process.
And no artist has a gun to his head forcing him to sign any contracts with the greedy middle men.

If he did it, it was because he wanted to. It's not the audiences right to step in there and decide, "mmMMMm....no, you guys are asking for $9 for the privelege of watching that movie you slaved on for years? I don't think so, I think....let's say ONE dollar. Yeah."

It's so gross.

I'm a big fan and supporter of independent artists, filmmakers and software developers, personally. Not just because their product is usually much better, but because I know that when I pay my money the person who actually created that product is going to benefit the most rather than some fatcat a-hole who's giving the artist bare minimum and keeping the rest for himself. In today's day and age, there's little need for these big corporate run conglomerates. The production and distribution channels, and even marketing, are all available to nearly anyone who wants them.

jag

 

[y2jversion1]

As for boo-hooing about people who lose their jobs - maybe it should be the production companies like Universal & Sony and their big-wigs who bring home the fat paycheques who should be thinking of that.

Why should a guy like Tom Cruise be paid in 10s of millions for portraying a fictional character while the boom operater makes $20/hr?

Maybe it's the production companies as a whole who need to look at this and possibly impose some sort of "salary cap" for actors so they can market & sell their products at reasonable prices to curb piracy etc.