Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hollywood Sets $10 Billion Box Office Record

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the crying-to-the-bank dept.

Movies 276

kamikazearun sends in a TorrentFreak analysis that begins "Claims by the MPAA that illegal downloads are killing the industry and causing billions in losses are once again being shredded. In 2009, the leading Hollywood studios made more films and generated more revenue than ever before, and for the first time in history the domestic box office grosses will surpass $10 billion. ... [N]either the ever-increasing piracy rates nor the global recession could prevent Hollywood having its best year ever in 2009. With an estimated $10.6 billion in consumer spending at the US and Canadian box office, the movie industry will break the 2008 record by nearly a billion dollars."

cancel ×

276 comments

Big Suprise! (1, Funny)

LordofEntropy (250334) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426534)

I'm shocked...

Re:Big Suprise! (2, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427042)

Just think how much money they could have made if everybody here stopped stealing all their movies. At least another couple million dollars!

HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426536)

Wait, this the MPAA? Sorry, I get my robber baron Associations of America mixed up from time to time. Carry on.

How the MPAA thinks: (4, Funny)

gooman (709147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426540)

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426602)

You forgot the next bits...

"Then by doubling ticket prices, changing a few laws and ripping our customers off repeatedly we can make that 30 billion."

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (2, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427136)

So, what's 30 billion minus 20 billion? Uhh...

80 billion! Doubling ticket prices, changing some laws and ripping off customers will make them 80 billion dollars.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427186)

"And if we push for more copyright legislation, we can make that 160 billion! OOooh, yeah!"

(At this point the exec will be in his bunk, probably.)

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426708)

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

Don't worry, they'll simply sue ten thousand people for a million dollars each to get their money back. They may need a government bailout in the meantime. Nearly every single one of your elected officials have enjoyed soft money from the MPAA to ensure that everyone rolls over and sits when the MPAA instructs them to.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426744)

every single one of your elected officials has
I don't understand: English is one of the least inflected languages ever spoken and yet people still have a way of picking the wrong verb form with remarkable consistency.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426730)

Since when is holywood into pxrn ?

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (5, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426760)

That's unlikely. They'll claim they spend more than ever to make movies and just barely make a profit. What they think is "We need new laws and ways to prevent consumers from watching the same movie twice without paying both times, watching movies on hardware not made by the same companies that own the movie studios or watching movies not made by the big studios."

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426850)

Hollywood has never turned a profit.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (3, Insightful)

InMSWeAntitrust (994158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427080)

According to Hollywood's accountants.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426960)

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

So, the success of the Music / Entertainment Industry is justification to pirate? We hate them and can rip them off because they are rich? Well, because that's what the whining here sounds like.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427036)

It sounds no worse than their "piracy takes money from the poor starving artists" while they use creative accounting to make more and more money and DRM & politicians to screw their customers more and more.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427046)

No, but it is justification to call the "problem" of copyright infringement insignificant.

It is also justification for the viewpoint that copyright as it stands now is more than adequate to ensure more production of works. Were it not, they would have produced LESS each year. Since that is the only Constitutional purpose of copyright, we need add no more protections.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427248)

And it shall remain insignificant as long as the common person cannot see a theatre-screen-sized, hd quality rip of movies. What I love is that noone ever blames their lack of profit in either recording industry on the possibility that their product just wasn't worth buying....

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427256)

Increasing revenues correlating with increasing piracy also dovetails with the argument that piracy helps sales - piracy leads to more viewing leads to more discussion leads to more people being interested leads to more sales. I'm not sure I agree with this premise, but this data would seem to make it plausible at any rate.

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427056)

Uh, wouldn't you?

Re:How the MPAA thinks: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427082)

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

And it's okay to take away 10 billion in income??? The only reason for the increase are higher ticket prices. Ticket sales have been falling for a few years now inspite of a growing population. Also comparing ticket sales isn't accurate it mainly hurts DVD and other sources. Those sales have slowed considerably in recent years. There seems to be two consistent arguments, "Hollywood is just plain greedy" and "downloaders wouldn't have bought in the first place". Both arguments are inaccurate. Hollywood is a business and businesses make profits or they die, period. Oil companies and drug companies dwarf Hollywood profits. Microsoft alone is bigger than the entire US film industry. One company! Also the argument that downloaders never buy is silly. Did they simply not buy or watch films before downloading got popular? What cave were they hiding in before torrents? With all the earth shaking problems we face it is mind numbing that the single biggest issue seems to be free movies, music, and games. Oddly enough that's my lowest priority. It's rare that a day goes by when there aren't two or three posts on Slashdot on this very subject and I've seen more posts in a day. There just seems to be better uses for our time than making the same arguments day after day. I think EVERY post should be marked redundant unless they truly make an original statement because it's all been covered before. And yes I know some one will think it's cute to mark this post as redundant. It's why I only post such things AC.

Um, what about inflation? (5, Insightful)

602 (652745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426568)

Why is it that news stories about movie revenues never take inflation into account?

Re:Um, what about inflation? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426608)

Well my paycheck doesn't, so why the hell should Hollywood's?

Re:Um, what about inflation? (1)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426636)

parent++;

Re:Um, what about inflation? (1, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426660)

Minimum wage in many countries actually increases with inflation.

Re:Um, what about inflation? (0)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426784)

This is about the domestic box office, so other countries aren't involved.

Re:Um, what about inflation? (4, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426614)

Inflation would need to be nearly 10% for Hollywood to not have higher inflation adjusted revenues this year than last year.

Re:Um, what about inflation? (5, Informative)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426840)

Inflation would need to be nearly 10% for Hollywood to not have higher inflation adjusted revenues this year than last year.

And we've had deflation since March. The highest inflation rate since 2008 has been 5.6%.
Current Inflation [inflationdata.com]

Re:Um, what about inflation? (4, Insightful)

dikdik (1696426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427004)

For a while I have been arguing that the debate should not be framed in the "innovator versus freeloader" view but in a "constitutional rights and individual property rights versus expansive intellectual property" view. Most Americans do not accept the idea that you have a right to give away a copy of a song to anyone who wants it. While we hear constantly about those numbers that "40% of internet users said they saw nothing wrong with pirating music" we cannot go by that. Americans are just like any other people; when we think we can get away with something that doesn't seem to directly hurt someone we do it. Downloading bootlegs doesn't seem to hurt anyone, but it can. If I had bootlegged the entire new Android Lust album instead of buying it on iTunes I would have not sent the chick behind AL any money. iTunes allowed me to send her maybe $2 for the album which I paid $10, probably a good $5 less than what I would have paid for a CD copy. We need to stress to the government that iTunes, not more legislation, is the key to getting the system working. We need to show them that bands like Metallica refuse to do their part because they want an all or nothing. Buy 20-30 songs on iTunes and you give Apple more ammo to counter the claims that piracy has no solution. They can just shrug in front of Congress and say "it's not our side, the legal downloading side, that has dropped the ball. They refuse to let people buy their tracks one by one because they want them to buy them all or nothing." There will always be politicians who will rail against piracy and ignore iTunes and other legal services, but many politicians will just look at these industries and say "the mechanisms are in place, why aren't you being a team player, why are you coming to us for help when there are companies dying to make the market work for you?" Politicans tend to be lazy, just look at how many Senate votes that John Kerry has missed in the past 12 years. Something like 1000 or more a year according to Fox News. We can appeal to the public by pointing out the supremacy of the 1st amendment over Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The first amendment was ratified later so it supercedes everything in the original constitution, just as all parts of the constitution must be read in the context of the Bill of Rights. We should also point out how anti-backup provisions and attitudes like Jack Valenti's "if you want a backup, buy another copy" are against common sense, American tradition and capitalist principles. I have yet to read of a prominent capitalist theorist who would support the DMCA. Rand, Ricardo, Hayek and Smith are probably spinning in their graves over the DMCA and similar "seller protection legislation." The hollywood position is built on pure, unprincipled greed. Defeating it only means that we need to be consistant and show the public where the law is going to start biting them in the ass if they don't care now.

Re:Um, what about inflation? (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427264)

Why is it that news stories about movie revenues never take inflation into account?

From the summary: "With an estimated $10.6 billion in consumer spending at the US and Canadian box office, the movie industry will break the 2008 record by nearly a billion dollars."

If inflation were somewhere around 10%, I would imagine that we'd have bigger problems to deal with.

Re:Um, what about inflation? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427390)

Or simply ticket stubs sold?

typical spin job (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426586)

If the box office receipts were way DOWN, someone here would post, "Clearly, the Hollywood moguls are out of touch with what moviegoers are interest in seeing. Maybe they should stop taking two martini lunches and doing coke in the back of stretch limos with starlets, and stop hiring yesterday's stars like Tom Cruise for $20 million a flick. Hello? That, not downloading, is what ails Hollywood today".

And every post contributing in support of that conclusion would be modded up. Maybe we'll get that a year from now.

Re:typical spin job (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427134)

Who says that isn't still the case, even if they are making lots of money?

Re:typical spin job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427194)

heh, I myself am amazed that Cruise is still getting $20 million. But this blog piece just shows how silly the spinning can get: profits go down, it's because they're jerks. Profits go up, it's because they're jerks. It's the same kind of logic we see on the political sites.

Re:typical spin job (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427370)

Well if they're jerks, they're jerks, right? They're either jerks with more or less profit.

Put another way, their jerkiness is not defined by their profits, their profits are defined by their jerkiness.

Re:typical spin job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427206)

what moviegoers are interested in seeing = what moviegoers have paid to see
repeat ad filthyricheum

Re:typical spin job (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427210)

Of course Slashdot is going to spin everything its own way; what else would you expect? I don't really know enough about the numbers, but there is a saying around here that correlation != causation; I would caution that just because Hollywood is setting box office records doesn't mean piracy doesn't hurt them. Obviously it doesn't to the extent they would like you to believe, but sometimes I wonder what would happen if piracy were not an option; would more people buy more copies, or would they just make do without? I honestly don't know the answer.

Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions (5, Interesting)

The0retical (307064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426592)

There was an article a while back (no I can't find it with the 2 minutes of searching I did) where a magazine compared the ticket sales of economic recessions during the 90's and early 2000's. The summation of the article was that even with major blockbuster films, like Starwars ep 1, Hollywood made less money than the year before because times were good and people were doing things besides going to the movies, but in economic downturns they actually made more money. The theory was that audiences will attend movies to distract them from all the problems that they have instead of stewing in them.

I'll post it if I can find it but the laziness is running deep tonight.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions (1)

HemlockSoup (1699676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426610)

The theory was that audiences will attend movies to distract them from all the problems that they have instead of stewing in them.

I have also heard of this. I believe it was in one of my High School history classes.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427142)

I don't agree with that theory. I'd say that going to a movie is simply cheaper than other forms of entertainment. People want entertainment no matter what the economy or what's going on. That's why births tend to spike 9 months after a days-long power outage. Not a whole lot else to do to entertain yourself ;)

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions (4, Informative)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427336)

That's why births tend to spike 9 months after a days-long power outage. Not a whole lot else to do to entertain yourself ;)

While it is an entertaining idea, it is false [snopes.com] .

Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426598)

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

Someone should make an anti-anti-piracy ad with the same exact thing except when they look up they say, "I can't feed my family ... because even though my employer posts record revenues, the justice system makes you are a perfectly legitimate scapegoat."

Odds that the profits from this revenue make it back to the people who genuinely need it to keep the system healthy? Slim to none. Executive producer gets more executive while life risking stunt double gets poorer.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426736)

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands

In the USA, pretty much everyone 'backstage' in the movie business is part of a union.
That's why so many movies are made in Canada, Prague, or other random foreign countries: lower labor rates.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426958)

"Canada, Prague, or other random foreign countries"

Its good to know that geography teaching is US schools is reaching such high levels, despite the constant job losses!

That would be... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427018)

It's, not Its.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427110)

Would you prefer that they list every country that a movie has ever been filmed in across the globe?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (2, Funny)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427156)

Yeah, how stupid is he, not knowing that Canada is a state?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427160)

Indeed. Everyone knows that being a country requires you to have some non-beaver residents.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (2, Informative)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426976)

canada and australia have unions too.

its mostly just maximizing the value of the dollar, cost of supplies, etc. also getting the best deals on appropriate locations.

Remember these Anti-Unionist are Democrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427316)

Remember these Anti-Unionist are Democrats

Remember that when they yell at you that all the ReThuglican are exporting jobs overseas.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426832)

Actually, in LA a lot of companies have gone under because Hollywood pretty much pulled out.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427078)

> Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my
> family."

And you believed it. Sucker.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427278)

Yeah, they were just hired actors the whole time!

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427312)

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

If I remember correctly, the amusing part of that is that the only ones that get paid royalties are the big-name groups, like the writer, director (I think), and actors. I don't think any of the construction workers, camera operators, or costume designers get anything other than a straight salary.

Going to the movies is different than buying one (4, Insightful)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426626)

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426820)

I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Bad movies & remakes hurt dvd sales & box office more than piracy.
As does hollywood accounting.
As does their constant desire to waste ridiculous amounts of money on SFX & overpriced actors.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (1)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426872)

Have you never been to a store around this time of year and looked at the DVD sections? That is one of the first sections that get destroyed by the soccer moms.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426988)

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

This is actually true. I saw NO MOVIES on the big screen this year due to my financial situation, but we did download a few, on NETFLIX. The same with TV Shows (Legend of the Seeker in HD). What hasnt hit NETFLIX we have DL in HD and used a streamer to go to the Xbox360 or PS3, and then if we felt it was worthy of buying we did so at AMAZON when on sale, or BESTBUY / Wal-Mart.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (2, Interesting)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427000)

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Overall people don't mind going to movies. After all, if the film is good and the projectionist is good, then it is (or should be) a great experience. It's not the same thing as the recorded music business, which was never about providing the total experience like movies have been for ages. I suppose a better parallel to a movie is a music concert. Again, it's about the whole experience and people don't mind paying for that. (Well, most people anyway. Enough to make it potentially very profitable.)

The threat posed by the internet to movies is not really piracy. It's that it is a different, new thing for Joe Sixpack to spend his entertainment money on. Is that a problem yet for the movie industry? Probably not, but that's where the real issue is. Note that this is not a legal threat. It's a threat to the very basis of getting such a large proportion of the national entertainment spend. Hollywood have long tried to counter this with things like film tie-ins, special websites, etc, with varying success. Will that change? No idea.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (2, Insightful)

Jeff Carr (684298) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427010)

Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Yes, and it should.

If I want to pirate a movie, I can go to a single site, find multiple options (1080p, 720p, ipod, ect) for just about every movie in existence. All of which are "in stock" and most of which I can download to my computer in less time it would take to drive to the store. The movie is presented to me without unskippable ads, without worry of scratching or losing, and can be archived without taking up space on my shelf.

All of this is free.

As most technical people are very aware, if I'm selling a product in a marketplace where a virtually identical product is available, I need to add value in order to get people to purchase through me instead of the competition. Adding value for movie studios is easy. They are selling legal copies and supporting the people who made the movies. The added value is already there. However, to add value, they need to provide an equivalent experience.

Currently, they aren't even close.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427356)

They added value by making the damned thing in the first place, you fucking imbecile.

Unbelievable growth (5, Interesting)

easyEmu (977903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426640)

To me, it is remarkable that for an industry that has been around for more than a century, is this large, and has become so integral to the lives of North Americans, that somehow, a growth rate of over 11% is achievable.

Such utter bullshit - My rant (2, Interesting)

dikdik (1696426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427016)

This back and forth about piracy and morality and P2P is such bullshit.

Everyone -- yes, every goddamn one -- knows that the Hollywood/MPAA (and the RIAA music fight) boils down to one thing: money in the pockets of executives. That's it. It's only about technology insofar how that technology impacts the bottom-line. It's not about art. It's about making sure a select group of executives make sure they can keep the mortgage payments on their Bel-Air mansions and can keep memberships in their country clubs. That's it. That's where my, yours, and everyone else's dollars are going: to buy some titanium fucking Big Bertha golf club for the peabrained asshole who's been crowned king of the other peabrained assholes working beneath him.

Valenti wants to make sure the cash keeps flowing into his pocket and into the pocket of every other overpaid, dim-bulb, "I can green-light this" executive motherfucker working the valley.

You want goddamn immorality? It's the entertainment industry and the people that run it that are at the very foundations of the "immorality" of piracy. Forget Janet Jackson's nipple. Forget Powell's sudden decision to attempt to regulate *cable* television today (!). Forget the fact (and I'll digress here) that the fundamentalist assholes that have gone to see Mel Gibson's "Passion" claim that it's a fantastic movie yet in the same breath decry Janet Jackson's nipple, the state of marriage, and the violence in contemporary culture -- overlooking perhaps that the Passion is more "violent" than any number of Grand Theft Auto games strung together and more "explicit" than any svelt little nipple hiding behind a sun-shaped nipple medallion. The hypocrisy of Valenti and his immoral executive motherfuckers is astounding. It boggles the mind.

10 Billion and only one movie I liked (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30426672)

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (2, Funny)

wbav (223901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426696)

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

You read slashdot and have a girlfriend. I think most will excuse you for being whipped.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (4, Funny)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426700)

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

My wife loved the new Star Trek and she wouldn't be caught dead going to Twilight. Sucks to be you.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427074)

The new Star Trek was a hip prequel done right. Unlike that other "Star" franchise that ruined their legacy with wooden acting and "goo-goo ga-ga" infantilism.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427358)

In all fairness, the average actor in the new SW was probably better than in the old. That being said, the fact that Hayden Christiansen was out-acted by Mark Hamil was pretty sad(Hamil makes a pretty good voice actor, but damn he couldn't act).

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (5, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426864)

We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

No wonder you're an Anonymous Coward. Dating 13 year old girls...tsk tsk...

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked (3, Funny)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427184)

I don't know about that... [verydemotivational.com]

Buying slavery, one movie ticket at a time. (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426710)

Or does anybody really believe that NONE of that money gets given as "campaign contributions", salaries for "lobbyists", ACTA negotiators, dinner with politicians, or other persuasive measures?

Adjusted for Gold-based inflation... (0)

Dausha (546002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426712)

A different link:

"The expansion in world film revenues since 1970 has grown from $1.2 billion to over $15 billion annually according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)."[link]

So, we have 10 billion mentioned, but another reference to 15 billion.

In 1970, an ounce of gold went for 35. Today it's 1,100. That's 31 times higher. So, in 1970 dollars (gold), the movie industry made about 320 million (@10 billion) or 483 million (@15 billion). That is forty percent (@15 billion) or 27 percent (@10 billion). I'm not saying they lost money, but that inflation is a killer.

[link]: http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/dystopia/mcauley/filmcost.html [uwaterloo.ca]

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation... (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426966)

Yes, because gold's value will always remain constant, right?

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427044)

Gold value skyrocket while there are recession. In 2009, the gold price went up around 25% (in USD) while there`s been a general deflation of the US market. You should use the inflation, which takes into account much more different values to compare year to year.

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation... (1)

Katchu (1036242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427076)

And look at the run-down hovels those starving folks live in--must we force them to bike to the studio? Oh. The horror.

Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (5, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426778)

From the article:
"The 2009 total was aided by a 28 cent increase in ticket prices from the year before to an average $7.46.

The total number of tickets sold, or admissions, is expected to reach 1.4 billion, up from 1.34 billion in 2008. Still, that figure is not expected to break the record 1.6 billion tickets sold in 2002, said Hollywood.com Box Office."

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ [boxofficemojo.com]

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:
2002->2009 = 9.2% Growth in 7 years, 1.3% per year (using the $10 billion number, not the $9,782.4 for 2009)
To put that in perspective, 1.3% is less than the growth of inflation.

In other news, the number of AIDS patients is higher than ever, and yet, the average lifespan continues to grow. I'm sure we all can see the correlation here: AIDS = longer lifespans. Torrent Freak spins reality even more than FOX news. I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (5, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426866)

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ [boxofficemojo.com]

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:

Nine... *The audience leans forward, waiting for Myoral Candidate Lois Griffin's next word*
Eleven. *Raucous Cheering* It was near the end of 2001, and people were sheepishly afraid of gathering in large groups (except at church). Once they stared renting DVDs more at home, they realized that they liked it better.

Or, maybe it was the advent of the HDTVs

Or: The reason ticket sales are down 12% since 2002? Higher ticket prices.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (3, Insightful)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426914)

Sooooo....

What you are saying is that the Movie Industry made more movies, and more money than ever before, despite their claims of piracy hooligans destroying their business, but that it's all an illusion based on your rigorous statistical analysis, and out of line reference to the horrible disease, AIDS.

???

Profit?

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (2, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427102)

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices.

Higher compared to what? Are your statistics corrected for inflation?

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427294)

I have a pretty sweet home theater setup that cost less than $2000. Its more convenient and a much higher quality experience to watch blue-ray and dvd movies at home. I think the 12% drop is lack of interest.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427298)

So...

What you are saying is that instead after the most movies made ever, and the most profit ever, the evil movie pirates are destroying their busniess STILL, based on your rigorous statistical analysis and totally out of line reference to the horrible disease, AIDS.

???

Profit!

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again (2, Funny)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427376)

Have you seen the shit they put out in the last 7 years? Small wonder...

Why would anyone go to a theater? (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426782)

I think its been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to a movie and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to movies. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get video content, well, that's been lame since TV was invented and it gets lamer every year.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (3, Insightful)

spektricide (749293) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426836)

Because to some of us movies are fun. Sorry if my idea of fun is lame. I could theorize that any attempt to replicate a theater experience at home is also "lame" but that would be rather presumptuous.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426920)

"I could theorize that any attempt to replicate a theater experience at home is also "lame" but that would be rather presumptuous."

It could be quite interesting and not "lame" at all.,,

Invite as many derelicts as you can find over for whiskey and popcorn, then hand out prepaid cellphones so they can enjoy them while watching the movie.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426862)

Where Can I buy an IMAX setup, since you seem to have one, judging from your comment.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427030)

I think its been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to a movie ... The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get video content, well, that's been lame since...

People have 'dates' with others every now and then, and the cinema is a nice place to go during the process. In fact the cinema can turn dating from a potentially-stressful process into a more relaxed, passive and entertaining process. It can even provide something worth discussing afterwards.

During these 'dates' ambiance is a valuable quality, so perhaps dinner in a restaurant and a film at the cinema trumps what the basement-media-room affords. At least as an alternative for some folks.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427212)

Wait....a "date" is where you go and sit in the dark, so you can't see the other person, and don't talk to them for an hour or two? Really?
 
Mine tend to be more along the lines of inviting someone over for dinner, talking, rubbing elbows during prep work, laughter over wining and dining, and enjoying the ability to see and talk to each other the whole time.
 
I'd make a joke about typical slashdot ideas of dating revolving around not seeing or talking to the other person, but that'd just be rude.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater? (1, Insightful)

kklein (900361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427250)

Soo... Sitting in a room full of people eating anonymous food, followed by sitting in another room full of people--this time with clear physical boundaries between you--trumps sitting in a room with just you two eating perhaps home-cooked food, followed by sitting in another room alone snuggling on a sofa, with an even more intimate room within 10 seconds' walking distance?

Sorry. You fail at dating.

They will still blame the "pirates" (0, Redundant)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426816)

Because they didn't make 20 billion.

This analysis is totally ridiculous. (4, Interesting)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426858)

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs of making more movies than ever before. Never mind that making more movies means spending more money and that movie budgets are also increasing.

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427114)

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs

      Cry me a fucking river. Next you're going to tell me that Lord of the Rings actually DID lose money, in fact it almost bankrupted New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson shouldn't have been paid a penny.

      Hollywood is all about make believe. It's unfortunate that they manage to convince so many people about the vast hardships involved in making movies, when just about any former actor or singer can become a successful director or producer (wait, what? I thought it involved a lifetime of study!?). I mean, I know it's a real drag to have to work for a few months to earn a few million dollars and all... perhaps if Hollywood stopped inflating the costs of movie production by giving away free cash, then movie production wouldn't be so expensive.

      I really have no sympathy for them. The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors. This doesn't give Hollywood any sacred virtue, just because the uneducated are willing to worship large faces on a screen as gods. It certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate laws. Yet the current situation serves to underline how many morons are elected to office or hold positions in the judiciary.

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous. (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427320)

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs

      Cry me a fucking river.

Do you understand the basics of economy? Spend more, you usually bigger sum back too. It doesn't mean the income percentage is a lot larger. This is even more true when everything has to be larger, better and more impressive all the time.

The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors.

Who are YOU to judge what is worth some bucks for OTHER people and what they might find fun? I also hope you understand that not everyone who works in movies/tv business are filthy rich. Sure, if you're an idiot, you might think that everyone makes millions per movie for a few months work, but it really isn't so.

Even if you don't enjoy it, let other people make their own decisions on what they want to spend their money on and if they want to spend the night out with their girlfriends.

I get off your lawn now.

Litigation *is* the business model. (1)

d18c7db (1031260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426950)

The continued litigation by the various **AA agencies has nothing to do with protecting their revenue stream from piracy or whatever other valid sounding official excuse they use. It is simply another revenue stream. As long as they generate some income through bullying and intimidation, by abusing the law, or other dubious extorsion practices, they will continue to do so as just another way of "doing business".

"Piracy" (3, Interesting)

dikdik (1696426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30426978)

I think that a lot of this "piracy" business that the MPAA and RIAA is a load of crap. For example, one of the loudest voices against Napster (before the became "legit") was Metallica. In one of the tape inserts for one of their albums (I forget which one), they claim outright that they used to trade tapes back and forth and copy them all the time before they made it big. So, it is OK when they commited piracy, but it isn't now when they are a target of it? I'm glad their last album sucked....

Re:"Piracy" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427026)

Its also okay for the CRIA to make and sell compilation and live track CDs from artists and just place them on a "Pending to be notified and paid" list. Of course they are now facing a 6 billion dollar lawsuit for this but are claiming that they shouldn't have to pay this.

Dollars.. (1)

ko9 (946154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427038)

There's a lot of talk about inflation in the comments, but most people seem to forget about the US Dollar not being what it used to be, on the world stage. And Hollywood is definitely a worldwide business. For example, if Europeans spent two billion Euros on movies 5 years ago, Hollywood would've made two billion Dollars. If Europeans spent the same money on movies now, Hollywood would make three billion instead.

And in other news... (2, Insightful)

meekg (30651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427174)

Growth in retail sales proves that shoplifting is beneficial for shop owners.
Also,growth in highway fatalities proves that seat belts are dangerous,
and growth in violent crime clearly fingers video games.

Seriously, slashdot, this is the weakest argument ever.

Does that ... (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427176)

... $10 billion include the overpriced popcorn?

Its what profits _could_ have been made. (1)

mjensen (118105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427332)

All the talk will be "It would have been better without piracy", which would unfortunately be correct....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...