Are Illegal Movie Downloads Hurting The Industry?

[Marvingj]

When did they stop making Money? Money, More Money & Even More Money. Oh Yea I forgot there were a lot of Movie Companies that went belly up in 2004.????????

[johns0]

The mpaa arent losing anything thru piracy,anybody who really wants to watch a movie will go to the theatre or wait to till it comes out on dvd,those who watch a cam version either will rent the much better dvd version when it comes out or are too cheap to begin with,all the mpaa care about is sucking out as much money as they can for their 1.5 million dollar salaries while the real victims are those who lose real money to internet thieves (credit card theft)but we never hear about anything being done about that.

[mysticgohan17]

"No. Bootlegging Has Been Around Forever. They Didn't Complain Then"

I chose this because, they only started to care since piracy has become 'cool' and a part of pop culture. They weren't pummeling NY street corners and sending little old men selling bootleg movies to the clink for a decade 10 years ago, were they?

[oldfart13]

They tried to do just that with the Universal/Disney suite for making off air recordings with VCRs. When that didn't pan out, they claim something else is losing them money. Yet, they also claim to have the biggest year for ticket sales and revenue generation. Well, it can't be both, so someone is lying.

Personally, I don't DL movies. I do DL things that aren't available in any way shape or form, mostly old TV series. I also burn to disc old movies from my own collection that aren't being released for whatever reason. If I like a new movie that much, I make a night of it and see it at the local cinema...

[Nitemare]

Yes! And this is a serious problem!

I voted this way, not because I believe that piracy is actually hurting the industry, but because piracy is challenging the way that these companies do business. The status quo is one of the most fiercely protected things on the planet. Hence the backlash from the studios.

You know, ticket prices aren't even what bother me about theaters, it's the concession stands. To take myself and my two kids to a movie averages about $18/head. With only $7 of that going to our ticket purchase, I fully lay the lame on the refreshment stand. (Yes, $11 for a drink and a popcorn... ridiculous!) I know that I reserve the right to NOT purchase these things, but just TRY that when you're escorting two kids to see Spiderman 2. (I dare you!)

If the studios would turn their attention to price gouging leeches riding their backs instead of the elusive downloader, they'd see much better results.

Seriously though, studios have it tough. Making films that satisfy audiences is getting harder and harder. Very few films made today will get that $18/head out of my wallet. I never saw a single Lord of Rings film until it was on DVD... not even THOSE masterpieces (IMO) could crack open the rusty wallet. Basically, unless my kids refuse to eat until I take them to see (insert movie title here), we stay home and rent.

Still, downloading is illegal. Claiming that downloads are not hurting the industry, while it may be true, is only a rationalization and NOT a justification. I'm not taking the "moral high ground", I'm only pointing out the obvious. In court, all the testimony and "proof" in the world that your download never hurt the industry won't save you.

Regards,
Nitemare

[gitreel]

Tom Cruise does not look like he is starving. Give me a friggin break.

They are not hurting the industry at all. Trading has gone on for years and yet the industry still makes money. Let's see, there has been IRC, newsgroups, darknets and p2p and yet still the industry is making money.

The VCR is not the boston strangler either.

[CaptainVideo]

Technology is challenging the way they do business and they must adapt, however you have to understand how the movie industry works.

A movie DVD can cost the same or even less than the price of a CD. This is due to the fact that releasing a movie in the theater basically subsidizes the cost of the DVD release. If movie (A) is budgeted at $45 million and makes $55 million, they can easily sell the DVD for $19.95. But if movie (B) is budgeted at $100 million and only makes $50 million it would be difficult to price it at $19.95, or better yet, why even release it. Clearly it bombed. They are able to do this because other movies make profits that make up for the bombs, but if people stop going to the movies because they choose to get a movie for free illegally then the whole business process falls apart. And if you think everybody who gets a movie illegally wouldn't buy it or pay to see it in the theaters anyway, you are deluding yourself.

This is why they have to adapt and figure something out. But I suspect their first reaction will be to increase the price of DVD's.

[gitreel]

Then more people will rent rather than buy dvds

[CaptainVideo]

Then more people will rent rather than buy dvds

And they'll be happy with that. This way they'll just go back to the days of VHS and charge the Blockbusters of the world $90 per DVD. Which in turn would increase the cost to rent a DVD.

[gitreel]

Either way, they shoot themselves in the foot.

[milste]

I don't really know how these bootlegs could be hurting the industry. Every bootleg I've ever seen looks like crap and is hardly worth watching compared to going to the theatre or renting. I don't even bother with bootlegs anymore.

[popeye1497]

I don't really know how these bootlegs could be hurting the industry. Every bootleg I've ever seen looks like crap and is hardly worth watching compared to going to the theatre or renting. I don't even bother with bootlegs anymore.

...not all boolegs are created equally. You gotta know what to look for, some are way better quality then you think. I'll tell you this, I saw a bootleg the other day that was very, very good quality(Raising Helen).

Do I think its hurting the industry, hell no! Look @ the numbers,

Spiderman 2 has made already, as of yesterday $64 mil.
Shrek 2 $402 mil.
Harry potter $217 mil.

..by the way, some say that Sony spent $200 million on production for SpiderMan 2

[CaptainVideo]

..by the way, some say that Sony spent $200 million on production for SpiderMan 2

How about $210 million! Whoa boy. Check it out HERE

[Conquest10]

How about on promotion?

[oldfart13]

"Very few films made today will get that $18/head out of my wallet"

Where are you living??? Spiderman 2: $8.50CAD 1st run theatre with multiple Digital sound systems. It was a blast! The sound system really ups the ante while watching these kinds of films...

[popeye1497]

Locally, South Florida, Its as much as 9.50 i think...that was like 6 months ago.

[mysticgohan17]

$6.00 here. Man you guys are getting screwed.

[overloaded_ide]

I did not read the posts so far yet.

But I voted NO, big bugets kill them!

When they pay some crumby actor more money for a few months work than I will earn in my LIFETIME they do not NEED my crappy $20 bill!

If I want the movie I buy it, if not I do without, but in all reality they just don't need my $20 anyway when paying out $1,000,000 to one actor for one movie! NO-ONE is worth that kind of money for anything in one year or less!!!!

[Nitemare]

oldfart13 Posted: Jul 04, 2004 11:20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Very few films made today will get that $18/head out of my wallet"

Where are you living??? Spiderman 2: $8.50CAD 1st run theatre with multiple Digital sound systems. It was a blast! The sound system really ups the ante while watching these kinds of films...

earlier in that same post:

To take myself and my two kids to a movie averages about $18/head. With only $7 of that going to our ticket purchase, I fully lay the blame on the refreshment stand. (Yes, $11 for a drink and a popcorn... ridiculous!)

The point made was that ticket prices don't bother me. A climate controlled bigscreen theater with surround sound... TOTALLY worth the ticket price... but the refreshement stand empties the wallet of everyone who stops by. The whole "theater experience" would be awesome except for this kind of blatant raping. Taking kids in there and hoping to avoid visiting the refreshment stand is a fools dream. This boosts the price to $18/$20 per head... and no movie made today is worth that (to me).

IF I had high-speed internet I'd download the movie until I could buy the DVD... I'd even pay the distributing company for this privilege, provided I could download it, burn it to disc, and let the kids watch it on the TV. The problem is that all of the legal options for downloading anything ruin it with their strict controls over the data.

You can download music but can ONLY listen to it in the format they offer and on the PC you downloaded it to. Options like this make the legal way of doing it worthless. I understand that I'm not trusted to buy the DVD (or CD) later, and I understand that they "need" to control the property, BUT they haven't found a palatable way to do this yet. When they do, we'll all be doing it the legal way... until then... well, I still have dial-up access so I have no choice but to stay legal.

Regards,
Nitemare

[vettesea]

In my opinion the industry are to blame. i cannot speak for the American market, but here in the UK we are having to pay up to £20 for a new movie (that is over $30 I believe). How can they expect us not be interested in a cheap, good copy when they charge that much.

The same can be said for the music industry we have to pay up to £15 ($25) for a new CD. Again, how can they expect us to pay such proces when we can get perfect copies for cheaper.

I would be happy to pay more for an original than a copy so they do not have to price match, simply retail at a more realistic price.

[birdygal]

I don't think so the people who download and watch them would not pay to go see them anyway. It may be hurting the rental buisness more than the movie companies I rent alot and only buy after I have seen them and know I like it.

Putting out crappy movies is what hurts them. Who wants to revisit the theater when you leave a movie saying to yourself what a waste of money. Word of mouth is what makes a sucessful movie and destroys it.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

The answer to this questions is obviously, a huge resounding NOOOOOOOOO.

New movies keep coming out and breaking box office records with each new hit (ie. Shrek 2, Spiderman 2).

They are making MORE than enough on gate revenues even BEFORE the movies hit the shelves.

They are predicting Spiderman 2 to possibly be the 3rd movie to eclipse 1 billion. It cost 250M to make. Even if it only takes in 750M at the gate, thats already a 500 MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT. Not including merchandising which is SURELY a huge chunk o cash.

So they "lose" a few million on rentals (huge is in parenthases because its a fictious number that cant really be forecasted).

They arent losing any money. Dont kid yourselves

LG

[Conquest10]

$6.00 here. Man you guys are getting screwed.

Yup $6.50 right here. Food is like $15 though so got to eat at McDonalds first and save $10.

[haloblack]

they just don't need my $20 anyway when paying out $1,000,000 to one actor for one movie! NO-ONE is worth that kind of money for anything in one year or less!!!!

Overloaded, let me ask you a question. (and fyi, I don't mean this as a flame or as a personal attack - I just like playing Devil's advocate.)

I don't know what you do for a living, but let's say you bake cakes. Good ones. Now there are a lot of people who can make cakes - hell, anybody who can read the back of a box can do it - but let's say you're really good at it. So good, in fact, that two people in your store are fighting over the same cake. One offers you $10, the other offers you $20. The bidding heats up, words gets all over town, and pretty soon the money's just flying all over the place. There are bakeries all over your city and cakes aren't at all in short supply, but everybody wants yours. You can only make 10 cakes a day and since there are 1,000 people fighting for them they're all willing to outbid each other to get yours, while the baker down the block can't sell his for $5. Soon, someone offers you $1,000,000 for a single birthday cake.

So what do you do?

You're doing essentially the exact same thing as every baker in town but there's this certain intangible something that makes people run to your bakery in a frenzied riot while Bob the Baker can't give his food away. Do you say "hey, people! I'll sell my cakes for the exact same price as Bob, since a cake is a cake is a cake." Or do you accept the fact that people are willing to pay more for what they value more? Do you just throw the money back in their faces and say "It's just a cake, dammit! It's not worth $1,000,000! Bob deserves just as much money as I do!"

Do you?

Okay, so what if you're an actor?

Better yet, what if you're a producer who's looking for an actor?

Let's say you're casting for a new project that you think is an absolute brilliant script that's so utterly wonderful that it might cure cancer, lower the deficit, and bring peace to the middle east. You need a star, right? Well, Russell Crowe is available... but he wants $5,000,00. Sure, his last ten movies have earned over $100,000,000, but it's not because he's the star is it? Because you could always get Carrot Top for about $20,000, you know. Sure, his last three movies averaged... well, okay... he just has the one movie, and it did about $3,000,000 at the box office, but all actors are equal, right? Why pay Russell Crowe $5,000,000 when you can get Carrot Top for $20,000? Or better yet, why not get one of those guys who walks the streets of L.A. with a sign around his neck that says "PUT ME IN YOUR MOVIE!" You could get him for free, and it'd be just as good as Russell Crowe, right? There's no reason to pay that much money for someone that the public loves and will show up by the thousands to see, right?

Right?

-------------------------------------------------------

Okay, one more point and I'll end this long-ass post. Thanks for sticking with me if you're still here.

For those of you complaining about the ridiculously high concession stand prices, you should know that there's a reason for it. Not a good one, but at least it's a reason. Studios get a percentage of the ticket price at the cinema. A big one - like 80% or so, and even more if the title is expected to be a smash. If you're a theater owner and the studio says "We get 85% or you don't get Spiderman 2," what are you going to do, say "bite me!" and be the only theater in town without Spiderman? And sure, Spiderman is going to pack the house - but what happens when you have a screen devoted to Gigli? Or The Butterfly Effect? Or Raising Helen? There's no firm reason that any of those movies should have totally stiffed at the box office, but they all did - and for every showing of each of those movies, the theater probably took a loss. Add up the employees, the $10,000 projectors with the $500 bulbs, the rent, the electricity, and compare that against the seven people in the theater who really wanted to see Bennifer onscreen, and the only thing keeping that theater from bleeding money is the $9 Twizzlers. The studio could care less that the theater owner gambled on Gigli and lost. They still get their rental fee for the film and they still get their percentage. If it weren't for the concessions - which is the only money that the owners get to keep 100% of - a lot of theaters would be shutting down, and that's a cold fact.

.message ends

[Rookie64]

Let's say you're casting for a new project that you think is an absolute brilliant script that's so utterly wonderful that it might cure cancer, lower the deficit, and bring peace to the middle east. You need a star, right?

Nah...we're talking Hollywood - they aren't interested in brilliant scripts or doing good for mankind or saving the world.
They simply want movies that sell - stick with formula 'cause it's the least risky investment. An occasional current event hot topic won't hurt either.

If you're a writer and want to sell your script -
rule # 1 do not attempt to write the greastest story ever told.
Hollywood isn't looking for the next Ingmar Bergman - they want to appeal to the largest crowd possible. Think of writing a script as you were building a new ride at an amusement park - it's not about art, it's all about thrills and excitement. It's a business and it's all about making profits - big profits. Think big big big!

rule #2 do not take yourself or your script personally or seriously - be very prepared to have your script/story/idea changed to the point where you won't even recognize your own script or idea.

rule #3 keep the writing level on the scale of Dick and Jane - the average Joe moviegoer doesn't have their phd in philosophy.

example - latest pitch for a Sly Stallone movie:

See Sly run...run run run

See Sly jump...jump jump jump

See Sly run and jump


You just wrote yourself a 100 million dollar screenplay :P


rule # 4, if the first 3 rules fail, be controversal...be very controversal.
controversy and sex are sure ways to turn a big profit...
Just ask Michael Moore

Well, Russell Crowe is available... but he wants $5,000,00. Sure, his last ten movies have earned over $100,000,000, but it's not because he's the star is it? Because you could always get Carrot Top for about $20,000, you know. Sure, his last three movies averaged... well, okay...

I've said it once and I'll say it again, justifying piracy by saying that the actors are overpaid is 100% garbage. They don't throw $20M at random actors and hope for a hit. Once an actor has proven to be a draw then the money starts rolling in, and that's as quick to go as it is to come.

True...big well known actor = clout

Say Russell Crowe's next movie bombs at the box office - well, big studio isn't going to be offering Russell Crowe $5,000,00 for his next movie.
In hollywood, you're only as good as your last film.

If you're on top today, enjoy your 15 minutes - 'cause it sure ain't gonna last!

heh...dare I even say all I got paid was a modest 4 bucks an hour when I acted in a big studio production - and on top of that, I was cheated an hour's pay.

They do not pay everyone the same salary - that's for sure


However, downloading movies isn't gonna make the actors or crew lose money - we don't get percentages.
You get paid at the end of your shift - and that's it.


The only thing downloading is hurting is the big studios' egos.

[mh2360]

BJ_M wrote:


Moore’s views have not been well received by Hollywood’s establishment, which is fighting a war against the online pirates it claims cost the industry £1.6 billion a year in lost sales.




Is 1.6 BILLION a figure they just plucked out of the air or have they got any sort of evidence to support it?...

I'm quoting myself from another thread...

The answer is probably NO!

An analogy...

If my house burns to the ground, and the insurance guy turns up and says, "OK so what did you loose", and i say "Well, I lost a 30 inch plasma TV, my 4Gz Pentium 5 PC, My Blue laser DVD/DIVX player, and $3000 worth of stereo equipment...", the first thing he's going to ask is "where's the proof".

The Hollywood studios are asking governments around the world to change/create laws, based on what they SAY is happening, without providing any real proof...

[haloblack]

rule #2 do not take yourself or your script personally or seriously - be very prepared to have your script/story/idea changed to the point where you won't even recognize your own script or idea.

Heh... you must be in the business.

[proxyx99]

@Rookie64
that was a fun post

Back to the subject: as per BJM they claim to be loosing 1.6 billion pounds a year... does that mean that their growth curve is by this much off axis?

What we get is desperate appeals to stop piracy supported by pictures of mass DVD/CD destruction operations (to give us a visual idea, shake us even more...) in... China and... Russia. This is the only support they have for a monumental scam and assault on American public. Soon to be further backed up by a new material from Lesotho and Cambodia. That should be enough, I recon, to pass all the legislation they want in... USA.

I wonder what is the amount of estimated average sale lost in Laos for example...?