Study Says Piracy Has A Negligible Effect on Box Office

[matrix_ghost]

Does anyone know why they don't release films worldwide at closer dates (or on the same date altogether)?

One of the factors is definately that the movies released in certain markets also have to open as well which can compete with other releases.
FOr example if Hollywood would basically show all their movies as the same time in the foreign markets , when will for example spanish movies or french movies or dutch movies have the time of the screens to be released.

ANother factor is also important sports events. For example it would be the dumbest idea ever to release a blockbuster during the time when the World Cup FOotball opens.

 

[dark_b]

i agree.

 

[Rocketman]

Maybe when Hollywood stops stealing material, audiences will too.

Seriously, every romantic comedy, every children's CG animated movie, every teen movie, and every Michael Bay-Wannabe summer blockbuster (Battleship, and virtually everything else)... It's all crap. Even the last quarter of Oct/Nov/Dec is all Oscar-hungry crap now.

I don't care if anyone says, "Well blah blah, no idea is original, blah blah." That's not the point. I know there's no original idea. The difference is, make a good movie. Don't make a crap movie. Would I pay $9 to see Battleship or John Carter? Hell no. People will pirate those movies.

I would have to be a total moron if I wanted to pirate Drive or Inception, arguably the two best movies in friggin' years.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Eh, the bad quality of the modern films is why I don't feel bad about pirated films. I'm not saying that it's right for people to pirate films but it's also not right for Hollywood to make such bad films and for those films to cost 10 to 20 dollars per viewing.

 

[craigdbfan]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

 

[rogue trooper]

Would I pay $9 to see Battleship or John Carter? Hell no. People will pirate those movies.

I wouldn't pay to see Battleship, at least not from what I've seen so far, but I'm definately planning to see John Carter. It's looking good to me so far!

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's what my film professor told me, who works in the industry. Because of piracy, less money is being spent on more films. If anything, more money is going to the bigger tentpole films.

If I were to have a quality original drama and send it to the studio, they would probably rather make the script with name recognition, or a sequel, or reboot, remake, etc. Because that is less of a risk.

 

[Rocketman]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.

 

[dark_b]

It's what my film professor told me, who works in the industry. Because of piracy, less money is being spent on more films. If anything, more money is going to the bigger tentpole films.

If I were to have a quality original drama and send it to the studio, they would probably rather make the script with name recognition, or a sequel, or reboot, remake, etc. Because that is less of a risk.

i think the producers and excecs take more money insted of investing it more on smaller movies like District 9. those producers are insane rich.


can we agree that in 2012 summer we have way to many blockbuster action movies? there is just no way for me to watch every big movie this summer. where should i get the time,money? some movies will underperform and bomb in summer 2012.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.

My thoughts exactly. The problem is that too many movies are being made.

 

[Destructus86]

I don't know about bootlegging...but I used to go to the movies A LOT. Now, not so much anymore. I wait for DVD because most movies are just not worth the price and money is getting tighter so only the best of the best get seen by me.

Studios just won't want to admit they keep releasing crappy material.

 

[Rocketman]

My thoughts exactly. The problem is that too many movies are being made.

Exactly. I hate the "More the merrier" mentality, as if that means that more people with different tastes are getting more variety for their personal likings. More movies =/= Everyone's tastes are satisfied. We essentially get 5 movies a year:

1. Big Dumb Summer Blockbuster (Superheroes included) - 3D
2. Romantic Comedy (most comedies are starting to have a romantic element to them now - bleh)
3. Oscar-Bait Drama - October/November/December
4. CGI Animated Kids Movie - in 3D
5. Horror Movie (Cheaply Made) - Oftentimes in 3D now

We get like 45 of each category per year. We could easily lose 20 of them, lol.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Exactly. I hate the "More the merrier" mentality, as if that means that more people with different tastes are getting more variety for their personal likings. More movies =/= Everyone's tastes are satisfied. We essentially get 5 movies a year:

1. Big Dumb Summer Blockbuster (Superheroes included) - 3D
2. Romantic Comedy (most comedies are starting to have a romantic element to them now - bleh)
3. Oscar-Bait Drama - October/November/December
4. CGI Animated Kids Movie - in 3D
5. Horror Movie (Cheaply Made) - Oftentimes in 3D now

We get like 45 of each category per year. We could easily lose 20 of them, lol.

Absolutely, there are plenty of each any given year and most of them are bad. We soo do not need more films being made.

 

[craigdbfan]

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.

Yeah, I don't buy that for a second.

216+ films alone were made within the Hollywood system last year. I'd hardly call that a crisis or a sign of decline in the amount of movies being made.

 

[Ajendo]

This is why I spend money on foreign films and buy older Hollywood movies. Luckily for me, we have the Internet I know a lady who sells DVD quality bootlegs, wether I buy from her or not is another matter. The fact is, it's criminal for Hollywood to make crap and expect the audience to pay premium prices for their trite. Well, sniff sniff and boohoo to Hollywood. Do your job abs stop dishing our crappy products.

 

[batman44]

Wow, as soon as I scrolled down to this image a song with a violin started to play from a computer.

 

[jmc]

Look, I don't condone piracy, but the lag time between when the US gets films and the rest of us borders on absurd sometimes. We live in an age now where word spreads like a bushfire when something is good, the sooner studios realize this the better it will be for both us and them. You want to kill piracy? Guess what, you can't, but you can suffocate it, you make it available for people to watch at a decent time at a reasonable price and people will pay. People who pirate are going to do so regardless, most honest people are willing to pay but when you're having to wait months what option do they have especially if it's a movie they really want to see what option do they have? Why am I having to wait 3 months for the new Pixar movie that has a 96% RT rating? It's 2012 for Christ sake, we live in an age of Twitter and Facebook, we are a global community now and studios need to understand that. You will never stop piracy as long as you try to implement old methods of business. I maintain that the first studio to remodel their approach as to how they do business will be rewarded.

 

[BestGirl]

One of the factors is definately that the movies released in certain markets also have to open as well which can compete with other releases.
FOr example if Hollywood would basically show all their movies as the same time in the foreign markets , when will for example spanish movies or french movies or dutch movies have the time of the screens to be released.

ANother factor is also important sports events. For example it would be the dumbest idea ever to release a blockbuster during the time when the World Cup FOotball opens.

Still, you'd think that US releases and international releases would be only a couple of weeks apart, at most. Not the months apart they sometimes are.

 

[Max J Power]

I figure video streaming services are a big factor on declining box office returns. For the price of one person going to one movie in a theater, a whole family or group of friends could have Netflix for a month. Roger Ebert posted something to this effect on his website awhile back, saying he thought the theater companies couldn't rely on blockbusters and 3D to keep them afloat. On a side note, he pointed out that two or three of the top five most popular movies on Netflix Instant Watch were foreign, and indicated that theaters were underestimating how much people would watch things that are different from Hollywood norms.

As for piracy, I have little doubt it has a non-trivial, detrimental effect on the film industry, but I don't think it's crashing the business as much as the studios say. I still don't agree with the mindset that the studios deserve it for making bad movies, though.

 

[Rocketman]

Also, I'm not a business expert or anything, but...

If you brought the prices down, wouldn't you make more money in the long run? Wouldn't more people go to the theater if it were cheaper?

Most matinee prices are around $5.00/$5.75 (for a first showing of the day). What if movies were always $5.00? Call me crazy, but not only would you get more people to go (in which case, you'd make the same amount anyway), or, a crap-ton more people go, and you really make a profit.

Imagine if it had only cost $5.00 to see Avatar in 3D. Don't you think the movie would've made even more money? Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm just going by high school economics, which was 7 years ago for me. Supply and demand. If the demand for something isn't high (people wanting to go to the theater), why make it cost more? Wouldn't any business/company have a "Clearance" price to make the demand higher?

It's just like the Cinemark Dollar Theater in my hometown. The dollar theater, from what I was told (out of curiosity) does better business than Cinemark 15, the new release theater not even a quarter-mile down the road? Why?:

- The freakin' movies are only a dollar to see in the theater.
- The movies are all new releases (two weeks after they were at Cinemark 15)
- People only need to wait two weeks for a new release to move a quarter-mile down the road, and they save $8.50.

Just seems like common sense to me.

When two businesses are at "war" with each other over the same product, one has to compete to stay on the battlefield with the other. In this case, it's:

- Movie Theaters / DVD/Blu-Ray
- Pirating

How do movie theaters compete against pirates? They lower the prices.
Or, in recent attempts, they make something that causes challenges to pirates: 3D. You can't pirate 3D movies.
The only problem is, nobody gives a crap about 3D either. At least I don't (and neither do the people I know, who are serious movie-goers).

So, they need a new way to compete. This could be done a couple of ways.

1. Lower theater prices.
2. Make great movies again.

Hell, it could be both. Why the hell not?

 

[EML420]

Ive always thought one of the reasons we are getting so many remakes and adaptations is because studios are afraid to take risks on movies that may not be embraced by movie goers. At least in these hard economic times.
So they look at older movies and movies based off of books because there names people recognize there brands it kind of bothers me that brand names are being picked over a new idea were getting a movie based off a board game.

 

[Rocketman]

But that doesn't make sense, because 4th quarter movies (Oscar-bait films) are usually NEVER remakes and rehashes of other stuff.

I mean, usually, they're based on books or plays.

Doubt
Revolutionary Road
The Ides of March
Moneyball
The Help
Carnage
Drive

I could keep going, but the point is, these movies are technically "original" in the Hollywood sense.

My issue is that these types of movies aren't given more room to breathe throughout the year. They cram all of it into two months, and it's exhausting, because I essentially wait 10 months to see good movies, and then cram 20+ movies within a 2 month timespan. This past year, not so much, because 2011 largely sucked. The two best movies of 2011 were The Tree of Life and Drive.

And honestly, there are only two movies in the past decade that truly earn the title "original" in my eyes and they are [BLACKOUT]Inception[/BLACKOUT] and [BLACKOUT]The Tree of Life[/BLACKOUT].

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[mr. peasant]

Also, I'm not a business expert or anything, but...

If you brought the prices down, wouldn't you make more money in the long run? Wouldn't more people go to the theater if it were cheaper?

Most matinee prices are around $5.00/$5.75 (for a first showing of the day). What if movies were always $5.00? Call me crazy, but not only would you get more people to go (in which case, you'd make the same amount anyway), or, a crap-ton more people go, and you really make a profit.

Imagine if it had only cost $5.00 to see Avatar in 3D. Don't you think the movie would've made even more money? Maybe I'm wrong.

It's possible but it would depend on how much an increase in viewers a price reduction would produce. For instance, if they dropped the price of tickets by 10% and only got an increase of viewers by 10%, they would be losing 1%. Taking it to a more extreme value, halving the price would require cinemas to sell twice as many tickets to break even. As such, it's a balancing act. Complicating matters is that the number of tickets is a limited resource (e.g. a sold out cinema); whereby lowering ticket prices would result in cinemas lowering their profit potential (and consequently, actual profits in the event demand outstrips supply).

But that doesn't make sense, because 4th quarter movies (Oscar-bait films) are usually NEVER remakes and rehashes of other stuff.

On the other hand, these are seen as riskier ventures. As such, need to be balanced out by established franchises (which are seen as safer). Hugely successful movies help compensate for those that underperform.

As for why Oscar-bait movies aren't more spaced out, its very name suggests the reason - it's Oscar season. Movie-makers want to release their films as close to nomination time as possible so that their movie remains fresh on people's minds when it comes time to vote. Releasing a movie too early will likely cause it to be forgotten come nomination time and be overshadowed more recent films that are fresh in the public consciousness.

Another potential reason is fear of competition. I think it's generally perceived that flashy, effects-heavy action movies tend to have wider appeal than artsy ones. As such, trying to go head-to-head against them would likely reduce the number of people who would want to see the artsy movie.

 

[dark_b]

i was reading last week an article that i can not find. it was about how we the fans and general public can control how much money the studios make in the first and second week. for example the studios wants you to watch the movie the first day or the first week. if not the first then the second. so if we dont agree with them and if we dont like their promotion we shoudl watch movies in the 3rd week.

so what do you think? would this work? could this send the studios a message?