Movie Industry Blames Texting for Bad Box Office 1197
cybercuzco writes "The movie industry is blaming poor sales of such movies as Gigli, The Hulk and Charlies Angels not on the fact that they were poor quality, but because people text message other people telling them that the movie stinks. Industry executives say that this undermines a carefully crafted marketing image. Expect texting to be banned by the MPAA in the near future."
let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mike
Communication a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Movie Stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is to create good movies.
Hmm
Thou shall not publish bad benchmarks. (Score:1, Insightful)
I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to, oh, checking the Tomatometer at or before the day of release? Or reading reviews you trust? Or just making a _phone call_ to your friends instead of texting them?
Text messaging is an incremental improvement in our communications ability, not a revolution.
nah, it's just speed communication. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose this has SOME bearing on the spread of word of mouth, but I can certainly guarantee that here in the US that text messaging is not as prevelant is the cell phone companies would like (this article is from a
The movies this summer sucked, bad. Gigli, the Hulk (which wasn't terrible), Terminator 3 (again, not terrible), American Wedding, etc, are all going to be dwarfed by such fine examples such as My Boss's Daughter, the Medallion, etc.
I suppose that they have to blame it on something. Mass marketing full of smoke and mirrors can't save bullshit. Let's cut out the teen-heart-throb actors/actresses (My Boss's Daughter) and get back to plot, script, and real entertainment.
Just my worthless
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this has nothing to do with texting, it's more about instant communication, which they can't do anything about. I suppose they could pressure theaters to disallow cell phones on some other grounds (people can't learn to turn them off during shows. That's a legitimate complaint - they really can't).
This reminds me of the music industry though. What they say in the article is that companies are used to being able to "buy their gross" and avoid negative word of mouth. That, in a way, is a business model. And just as the music industry will have to change their business model to succeed in the face of music sharing (REGARDLESS of whether or not they are able to contain it) so too will the movie industry have to make some changes.
And the TRUTH shall get you in trouble... (Score:3, Insightful)
With the guy who told the people that their privacy was in danger because of an unfixed bug in their email services, the "truth" did damage to the company and we can't have exposure for bugs, flaws and defects... oh no... that's just anti-american!
I wonder who will be the first person to be prosecuted for giving a movie a bad review? After all, they are responsible for the tremendous losses that the MPAA are suffering. It's not ONLY the digital piracy on the internet, but now people are spreading the truth (or opinions) around faster than can be controlled!!!
What ever happened to the idea of building a better mouse-trap?
Buy blind, or else. (Score:2, Insightful)
Quotable Quotes (Score:3, Insightful)
If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what will. Pretty much, Sands is saying that enough people will buy his product before the general public realizes his product is useless to break even.
What a *great* business plan.
Texting defeats marketing strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, Hollywood puts out pure garbage, and hypes the hell out of it, hoping everyone will be so hyped up about it they'll want to see it immediately after it's released. They count on the fact that people who go and see it won't be able to tell that many people it sucks until the opening weekend is already past, and they've raked in their millions, generated purely from marketing. After the multi-million dollar opening weekend
Here's an idea: maybe Hollywood could start making movies people actually want to see more than once, and make their movie that way.
what I'm not going to do (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to buy a cd when it costs $15+ for a cd of 8 tracks, 6 of which suck
I'm not going to listen to the radio since all of the radio stations I get are the same 30 songs in rotation, some at the same time
You know what I'm going to do? Pick up a book and go to the park. At least the view is nice (still warm enough for women in skimpy clothes) and there are still decent books to be read
The Death of the Captive Market (Score:5, Insightful)
The studios are relying on the fact that they'll get at least good sales on opening night even for a bad movie, as long as the marketing campaign makes it look good. Instead, the first viewers are warning their friends on Thursday and Friday nights "naw, go see something else, Gigli stinks." The Thursday/Friday night opening night crowds used to be a captive market.
It seems never to have occurred to them that some people might be texting to say "you have to see this movie!" for movies that didn't get the full court marketing press? And that the whole thing just cancels out (well, it would if there were as many surprise good movies as there are expensive bad movies).
Grassroots word of mouth is without a doubt the best marketing tool any product can have. If the word of mouth is against you, it's because you don't have good product.
Tough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, if you properly market a good movie then it's not going to tank... and good riddence to the practice of pumping up mediocrity with a ton of marketing to get first weekend gross w/o legs.
Oh boo-f**king-hoo, cry me a river! (Score:4, Insightful)
Get better actors, they all suck too.
You try to cover up the fact that the plot sucks ass and the actors are retard droolers by overloading the senses with loud ass music, shit blowing up and other gee-whiz special effects.
You are hoping that no one will notice the fact that the entire movie sucks.
I DARE you to make a movie without loud music and ANY special effects of any kind, CGI or old school. You won't because you can't.
You can't produce a movie that will stand on the fact that the plot is good and the actors are good because those days are gone.
Hollywood is washed up. Fold up and go home, we don't want your crappy movies any more.
I think it's just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like, an example is http://www.rottentomatoes.com. (No, not affiliated,
When 40 out of 40 reviewers all say 'Gigli' is an abhorrent, unoriginal, poorly written, disastrous mess, I'm sure not shelling out moolah for a theatre ticket.
In "the old days" you'd maybe read a single review in a newspaper, which wasn't nearly as disuading as a whole battalion of naysayers all lined up.
Re:let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Next they'll steal a page from Microsoft, and flash a EULA on the screen saying that by viewing the film, you agree not to make negative comments about it to friends and family!
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only communication, but they are blaming the free market. In other words, consumers are voting with their dollars and when their friends and critics say the show stinks, they spend their $$'s elsewhere. Lesson? Make decent movies and people (who think for themselves) will go see them.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was evil, and wanted to sell crap that no one wanted to people, that's what I would do.
What they're really missing is, how this means they don't have to pay for advertising.
Look at successes like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Whale Rider (by far the best acting in a movie ever). They can just make something good, do minimal promotion, and let the people advertise for them.
So, what worked for Blair Witch is now taboo (Score:2, Insightful)
Although, the entire article itself seems to lend itself as a troll, would you not agree Slashdot?
Blair Witch project [imdb.com]
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact.
Slight amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slander/Libel law broadened to include "negative and harmful" speech towards economic activity.
I personally know a guy who was successfully sued for posting a negative opinion of one company's products in a forum devoted to discussion of products in a particular hobby area. (In his case, outdoor water gardens)
Another blame-something-random from Hollywood (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess they're still in the "denial"-phase and one day they might see the link and change jobs.
Re:The Movie Stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just getting more discerning in my old age, but there has been a noticeable decline in film quality. Most of the huge summer blockbusters that I have seen in the last several years can be described as "What the !@#$ was the director smoking?!?!?!?!?!?"
Personally, I blame it all on CGI. What is has made films too easy to produce. Star Wars: A New Hope was brilliant, because Lucas had to tell a story. He couldn't rely on computer-generated anthropomorphic creatures to move the story along, or more importantly, to move overpriced tie-in merchandise of the shelves. Once the barrier for entry was removed, and just about anyone who could get financing could afford spectacular effects, that became the standard and the whole idea of telling a story was lost.
Films are nothing more than glorified story telling. Once they become a showcase for someone's l33t programming skillz, they are irrelevant
You can't have it both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly for the movie industry word of mouth works both ways. The reason movies like The Hulk crash and burn in their second week is that people tell their friends its shit. So word of mouth works or doesn't work based on the whether a movie is any good or not.
The problem is that in the movie industry the question of the quality of a movie never arises (until Oscar time that is). I've heard all sorts of excuses out of Hollywood as to why movies don't do well. For example, for Pearl Harbor it was: "Too long", "Not big enough star power", and most humorously: "Bad reviews". The fact that a movie does poorly because it's crap doesn't even seem to enter the minds of these people (i.e. quoting not the movie was bad, but rather got "bad reviews", as if that somehow has nothing to do with the movie itself). "Texting" is just another excuse to give the big boss as to why your studio is losing money. Kudos to people like Ben Affleck who actually had the guts to say that Gigli failed because it sucked [bbc.co.uk]
Re:let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that is obvious is that you didn't read the story. Let's go through it slowly. Lately, the rate at which the attendence drops off for "bad" movies has gone way up. What used to take a week to happen, with just the bad reviews and new movies coming out each week, now happens in a day or two.
It is this that they are attributing to text messaging. Before, it took a certain amount of time for word of mouth to spread. Now it is happening much faster.
buzz, buzz (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a lot of controversy or conspiracy theory in this article. The industry expert quoted all but says that the slowness of word-of-mouth was factored into past releases so that even bombs could recover their costs in the first weekend if they were hyped enough.
All this article says to me is that the movie industry was slightly blindsided by how text messaging changed the speed of the "word of mouth" effect. Doesn't seem like there's much conspiracy about this.
I find this fascinating, however, in that it shows that social systems tend toward democracy. Just as physical systems tend toward chaos and energy must be supplied to impose order, so it goes with social systems. The movie industry has imposed order by inserting money, thus maintaining control. With the democratization of the marketing message, however, they will have to change and learn how to harness the chaos... or insert MORE money per film (perhaps by giving away movie-related merchandise to all viewers or by further engaging viewers during the filming) to impose order on this more democratic system.
Or they could just make good movies.
Nah. Stupid idea.
Re:The Movie Stinks -- you miss the point. (Score:2, Insightful)
The old trick of shoveling out crap but still making money isn't working anymore. And instead of trying to fix the problems (make better movies and stop lying about the product), they're blaming the faster communication methods.
Eventually, of course, it's going to result in better movies; the companies will have to adapt to the new reality or die. Unlike with our friends at the RIAA, they won't be able to buy legislation to prop up their failing business model.
Re: This "texting" sounds dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true where you are, such as the technological backwater that is the US [fx: ducks]; here in Europe mobile phones have all supported texting pretty much since they started becoming popular something like 4 years ago. And lots of folk use it; even my mum knows how. It's certainly become popular enough not to need quotes every time you mention it!
Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are, and they're probably right.
They should get rid of free speech.
I know that the **AA is just below SCO and M$ on the list of most hated groups around here, but they never advocated anything of the time - it was simply a guy making an observation that their marketing schemes aren't as effective as they used to be. Nothing more. So perhaps we can wait to let loose with our anti-**AA tirades until they do something ro really deserve it. At their rate, that should require approximately three /. stories from now.
another reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
not a lot but you know it's been in my mind. The MPAA is a large group of
movie studios - Walt Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Universal, you get the
idea - basically, if there's been a movie released recently, and it's
gotten good press coverage, they're behind it.
This is why I don't like going to movies. Movie studios are only
interested in producing movies which will score gigantic First-Weekend
sales: this has been evident with nearly every movie produced since
Titanic, the last movie to make a dent in the number-of-weeks-on-top
category. Look at the movies we've had this summer that have been
moderately successful: X-Men 2, Matrix 2, Bruce Almighty, Finding Nemo,
The Hulk, Terminator 3, and Charlie's Angels 2. All of which offer
little-to-know value beyond flash; Matrix, according to a vast majority of
reviews not influenced by the neato-CGI effects, has lost much of its
philosophy in favor of lots more flashiness. X-Men 2 delivers nothing of
substance, along with the rest of the list. I haven't seen Finding Nemo
because I am currently not interested in seeing much Disney (due to their
involvement in the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act to protect
their works from going into public domain), however from what I hear it is
a good family movie, but it doesn't offer the emotion that Disney made so
well with the likes of Bambi, Lion King, and Snow White to name a few (a
side note here - if the Grimm Brothers had actively pursued an extension
of copyright to the point where it is now - 100 years - then Disney would
have been in copyright violation in their making of Snow White, and much
to all of the proceeds would go back to the Grimm Brothers, and Disney
would not have achieved their large following).
They're only interested in the first weekend ratings. All of the movies
this summer made a vast majority of their money during the first weekend.
This is due in two parts: 1. the tremendous hype machines surrounding the
movies did their job and created such a need to view (so they can talk to
the people who saw the movie, they don't want to be the only one at the
water cooler who didn't see it), and 2. After the group of people who saw
it came back to tell the story realized that the movie was nothing but
hype, word got back to regular people, and they no longer wanted to see
it.
It pisses me off. 20 years ago, MPAA were making movies that are still
being enjoyed. Star Wars, Indiana Jones. Jaws. The Exorcist. The
Godfather I & II. Das Boot. Raging Bull. Do you think that any of the
crap that Hollywood is pushing down our throats now stands a chance of
being cared about in 10 years? There may be a couple diamonds in the
rough: Lord of the Rings trilogy, the first Matrix, maybe Fight Club. But
they are few and far between, especially since the number of movies
created are increasing.
One thing I blame is a reliance on CGI - computer graphics in movies.
When Titanic came out 5 years ago or something, it was hailed as being
spectacular. It now looks ancient. Computer graphics age movies faster
that non-cgi graphics. I wish movie studios would pick up on this. I was
watching Das Boot a few nights ago, and it was amazing how much more
modern it looks than a computer aided one, say, Hunt for Red October
(granted, it had primitive computer systems, but still they had the
opportunity to not utilize current technology). Much better movie as
well, if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it for a not-so-glorious
look at war.
I was one of the few people who was not awestruck by the Amazing
Spider-Man's not-so-amazing computer graphics. I thought some scenes,
especially near the beginning of the movie, were almost to the point where
they looked like cartoons. I just watched it again, and it's even more
archaic than I remember it from a y
NOW HEAR THIS (Score:4, Insightful)
They realize that they're earning less because their product is not worth 15 bucks a head to see, and the public is on to them.
Noone had to tell me Gigli was a terrible movie. I'm already sick to death of "Bennifer", neither have any talent, and it was obvious to me that a vehicle for two pretty airheads was not something I'd be interested in.
Now speaking of movies, who else saw "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"? Geezus christ.
If you ever imagined that Captain Nemo, Jeckle/Hyde, the invisble man, one of the chicks from dracula, the guy from King Solomon's Mines and Dorian Gray got together in some sort of 19th century version of the X-Men to fight Dr Moriarty for some reason? If so, have you ever imagined that this story would be written by someone who'd NEVER READ ANY OF THE ORIGINAL BOOKS AND HAS A SATURDAY MORNING CARTOON IDEA OF THE CHARACTERS? Shit, Jeckle/Hyde was portrayed as an incredible hulk kind of guy. And yeah - that Dorian Gray - the one from the Wilde book "I will destroy you with the power of Sodomy!"
Sad thing is everyone else liked it. When Dorian Gray came onscreen I said "Uh oh Connery, you better watch your butt!", there was a sole fit of laughter from someone way in the back who'd no doubt read the book - or seen a decent movie adaptation of it.
Anyways.
The MPAA is realizing the era of "throw some big names and a pile of FX into any old shlocky script" blockbuster era is over. We've seen all the explosions and stunts we're gonna see. They know they have to either do better - or perhaps do it cheaper. I would have seen the hulk for 5 bucks - IF that included a soda (which is only worth like a dime to them for fuck sakes). Ok, I know the theatres and the movie producers are two seperate entities, but they could work it out.
People want value for their entertainment dollar, and they know they aren't going to get it from Gigli. My 8 and 6 year old kids know that. For the cost to take them to a movie, we can stop by Babbages and pick out a console title and be more entertained.
Ok, end of story. Now relax. And turn your fucking phones off in the theater, text mode or not, it's still annoying. If you dont like the movie, leave, and text/talk/bleep/bloop in the damn parking lot.
Kinda like the RIAA and music! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Movie Stinks (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is to create good movies.
Amen.
<rant>
Personally, I feel insulted by the statement "a carefully crafted marketing image." Say it like it is: a carefully crafted lie to sucker people to give them money for an inferior product. Perhaps we the consumer should start demanding refunds on movies that failed to live up to the advertising like in other industries.
It amazes me that they are even bothering to complain. It is not that much different than spoiled, fabulously wealthy baseball players going on strike when the average salary is $1.8 million dollars. Who are these people trying to kid? There is a reason why I am feeling more and more inclined to see fewer movies each year (and this coming from a former movie addict). I want quality for my money, and whether it is text messages, Internet critic sites, or talking to my friends on the phone, I will not allow their slick, deceptive marketing machine dictate what I will or will not watch (also the reason why I no longer watch TV). I will make an informed decision and spend my money and time pursuing something that may actually have value. If that means that the movie executives aren't able to buy that fifth mansion up in Paradise Valley, Montana, so be it. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.
</rant>There. I feel so much better now...
Re:Cow! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's exactly what they're saying. Why is everyone getting all beligerent over this? There is nothing controversial about this statement.
Re:Hrrmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
a) In Southern California, a movie costs $9.50 per person.
b) A DVD, which has the same + additional materials costs me around $20
c) Cannot bring in own food/bev, forced to spend $3.50 if you want to quench your thirst during a 2 hour movie
Also, there are quite a few disadvantages to being in the theatre such as:
a) Retarded people that think talking / cell phones / deep breaths of shock when the most obvious thing that has been foreshadowed all movie finally happens.
b) No pause button
c) Groping your girlfriend (for both you female-type slashdot readers, boyfriend) during the performance is frowned upon
d) Advertisements disguised as previews before the real previews
e) Most of the audience laughs about 2.5 seconds after I do at comedies and that makes me sad.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that the viewing experience is BETTER at my house, and if I take a date to a movie, I am paying just about the same if I buy the DVD which I can watch repeatedly. Long gone for me is the anticipation of watching something on the big screen with a couple hundred people.. I'll just wait 6-9 months for the DVD release.
It sure as hell isn't because a friend "saved" me from seeing something 'cause they caught an earlier showtime.
Ok, this post doesn't really reply well to your post, so here is an on topic response:
No it doesn't.They aren't saying it's bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It could well be a good thing overall, such that they can release good movies with staying power rather than going for glitzy special effects that make good ads. The movie business, unlike the music business, actually likes to produce good stuff, but they haven't been able to do so successfully very often, because it was so much more effective to focus on advertizing than on good movies.
The old way was a case of a degenerate strategy which sucks for everyone but is successful; using a more pleasent strategy just isn't cost effective. If people ignore ads and hear whether movies are any good from their friends, there is a much better chance of good movies not flopping in the box office like they have before.
Re:Texting WHILE watching The Hulk pissed me off.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or then the assholes with the cutesy polyphonic alert tones, there was this one idiot in a restaurant who had Spongebob Squarepants laugh on the text feature. Wlalalalhahalalhal. (poke with single finger for 5 minutes). Wlahalhallahalala
BOOT TO THE HEAD
this movie stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe, just maybe, it's because the movie stinks.
Re:uh yeah that's it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Instant Feedback (Score:3, Insightful)
Get real if movies do well because Joe average can't see past the hype, movie studios will just come up with improved hype.
Cost of Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The price of movies and condiments are just ludicrous. Prices have triped and quadrupled in the last 15 years.
2) Second run movie houses have become more popular. Why spend $15.00 to see a movie when you can wait 6 weeks and see the same flick for $6.00?
3) Home theatre systems have improved to the point where picture quality and sound are really, really good.
Movie Industry Acknowledges... (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot People Don't Get It! (Score:3, Insightful)
They admit the idea of "buying your gross", and aren't talking about banning anything. They're going to have to rethink the entire idea of "buying success" with a crap movie.
I think we're going to see a lot more direct-to-video and movies that only stay a couple of weeks before hitting the DVD market.
About time, too.
Re:this movie stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe, just maybe, it's because the movie stinks.
Damn straight. When a new movie appears, I pay no attention to the trailers or "Quotes" on the posters. I check IMDB [imdb.com], and ask friends who have seen it (of course, it helps if you have lemmings for friends who'll go and see anything
What these greedy manipulative cretins in Hollywood fail to realise is that their audiences aren't all braindead morons who'll slap down their cash with a dribbling moon-faced, slack-jawed grin after seeing their favourite overpaid, rude obnoxious actor/actress slapped up 12 feed high on a billboard. Well, excepting the Britney Spears fans I guess...
That's Illogical, Spock. (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a hypothetical situation here. What if hollywood made a good movie, then word of how good it was would spread faster and by the same logic sales would go up.
So maybe, just maybe faster communication isn't causing sales to decrease. Poor movie quality is.
More communication...independent thought (Score:3, Insightful)
The big houses might be more afraid of this, actually. It seems to me that the better, sleeper movies lately have been either foreign films or from art houses, neither of which are spending a lot on marketing campaigns.
It's a fact of life that as communication continues to advance, we need corporate media less and less to tell us what to think. And this pisses them off to no end.
Its not just movies (Score:5, Insightful)
My god! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"These people sound as greedy and stupid as three-year-olds!"
Three year olds don't have the lobbying power to get Federal laws enacted.
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I don't actually know anything about the make-up of "the movie industry". But I'd like to point out that vociferous protest by the "talent" (actors and directors) says nothing about the leanings of the people who actually decide what gets made. It's entirely conceivable that the talent is all liberal and the corporate higher-ups are all conservative.
Whatever the heck those terms mean, anymore.
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, how about just not bashing people?
Attacking ideas instead of people is a subtle concept, I know, but what's the point? It serves to build animosity, not promote your own point of view.
Re:this movie stinks (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no accounting for taste- I really only have one or two friends whose taste in movies I actually trust.
Re:The Movie Stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
What made movies great, were the limitations, and the cleverness that had to be employed to tell the story inspite of those. In the case of movies made today, with the capabilities of computer graphics, the limit is really, cycles, money and imagination. If you've got the coin, then if you can think it, you can see it. With all that choice, it's easy to lose sight of the real aim, telling the story. The crappy animatronic shark in jaws, and its notorious unreliablity being one example. A swift look at the Star Wars prequel making of features makes this painfully appearent. (Not that Lucas has any ability at all to tell a decent story anymore) But look at all the time, money and effort manipulating crap in the computer that not only added nothing in any way to the story, not only would have certainly gone unnoticed even by people who were in the movie, but could have just been done right the first time anyway.
It probably takes a person with a very special talent for clarity to helm a big budget movie now days. To see their story, and find there way to it undistracted by the innumerable possibilities.
Re:That's Illogical, Spock. (Score:5, Insightful)
Movies that have benefited greatly from word of mouth in the last year or so?
Spider-Man
the LotR movies (past the geeks, the movies got a lot of play among mainstream movie goers because of word of mouth)
Pirates of the Caribeean (sp?) This more than likely is the best example. This was expected to be filler, instead good word of mouth turned it into one of the biggest hits of the summer
That Greek Wedding movie
At least as many movies are helped by word of mouth as are hurt by it.
The Movie Industry blames texting for bad sales (Score:3, Insightful)
I get it, but the point's still the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, which I granted in my original post. But what we need to understand is 1) they could give two shits if the /. community is kind to them, and 2) the general geek lobby doesn't gain any credibility by turning any story about movies or music into a personal rights debate.
And that's what it comes down to. You have 20,000 flaming idiots on this site who don't read the actual article, reading instead the inflammatory titles posted by (invariably) michael. From this they garner that the industry is certainly attempting to steal their rights to text message someone, when this is preposterous and false.
The actual situation is that some poor exec is wishing for the good old days when they could make money of a shitty movie by promo'ing it. That's all. His job is to make money - his job is now harder. Allowing the poor bastard to be wistful for a moment without calling him a Nazi wouldn't kill us, would it?
Bottom line is I stand by my original point - save the flaming and foaming at the mouth for when something actually happens, stop crying "wolf"/"chicken little," and wait until something actually happens to bitch about the **AA. Or at least until the next SCO story.
And no, I don't need more **AA links. I read them when they come out. I'm no **AA fan (particularly Jack Valenti), but a little objectivity wouldn't kill us as a whole.
Well duh (Score:2, Insightful)
I say that we blame TV/Radio/Internet for having to listed to the MPAA bitch. (Slashdot excluded of course)
Re:addendum: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kinda like the RIAA and music! (Score:3, Insightful)
If McDonald's food is so bad (compared to, let's say, an expensive steak house), why do so many people eat it?
Popularity != Quality.
Maybe if they'd stop putting out shitty movies (Score:2, Insightful)
Now only if we could get the MPAA and RIAA to realize what the rest of the planet understands.
Shitty product = no one buying it.
How hard is that to understand?
Oh poo poo RIAA/MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose now the push for cell phone blockers in the theatres will be pushed to quiet the storm of "this movie sucks" to others in the hopes that those people are in line to see the next showing. Instead of quieting the barrage of ringers that have come about in recent months.
They're just trying to make a buck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Precident for banning criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
Empowerment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So this means (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
You were doing great up until here.
"Advertising" is just the word we use for letting people who might have a desire or need for something that you provide it. A fish on the back of a car. Free coupons for pizza. A prostitute's dress and makeup. A link to your webpage on Slashdot. Your favorite band's bumper sticker or T-shirt.
Advertising is as much a valid form of information and communicaton as any other. And just like all other forms of communication, lies are told, and some groups don't want to hear it.
All that's happened here is that technological advances in communication have made it harder to misrepresent certain facts -- which is a good thing. At the same time, the same technology will soon make it easier for people to get their speech to you that you might find unwelcome -- e.g., spammers. But that's no different from the guy who accosts you on the street, follows you, and keeps yappin' at ya.
Re:Kinda like the RIAA and music! (Score:4, Insightful)
There was an experament some people conducted in a New York resturaunt. They were selling "Luxury Bottled Water for Europe" for $7 per bottle, and people were buying, and saying how GREAT it was, and no wonder it is #1 in all of Italy, and how can I get it reguarly. It was just chilled NYC municipal tap water in a fancy bottle.
Re:Kinda like the RIAA and music! (Score:4, Insightful)
I go back and forth on this one. I like to think that most people actually go and buy the stuff they like, then I hear about people queuing and downloading and burning whole albums sight unseen.
What I tend to think, though, is that the people who don't buy now are the same people who didn't buy before. I think we've all always known people who only bought one cd every two years, and people who buy one every two days. I don't think things have changed that much, except the ones who don't buy them get the music anyway. And maybe go to the concert.
Re:let's blame everything but the obvious.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What used to take a week to happen, with just the bad reviews and new movies coming out each week, now happens in a day or two.
I think the decline is accelerated by my favorite one-word-critique: "Rental"
The local drug store rents DVDs for 99 cents. I have to hear someone tell me "You have to see XYZ on the big screen" to get me to go. People are far less tolerant of a mediocre, let alone bad movie experience if they have to option to rent the DVD a while later. JMHO
Re:addendum: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I'd say that Ed Wood movies suck even worse. That's why they're so cool. Plan Nine from Outer Space is one of my favorite movies ever, just because it is so profoundly awful. It hits rock bottom so hard that it bounces right back into awesomeness, y'know what I'm saying?
I think that one of Hollywood's major failings lately is that they don't even put forth the effort needed to make something shitty enough to be amusing. Ed Wood's movies were exceptionally crappy, but at least he believed that he was making works of art. He didn't think he was just going through the motions so he could milk the public for another eight bucks each. It was a labor of love for good ol' Ed, and it shows in his films, in the dizzying heights of crappiness that they achieved.
Oh, wait, I just read the article. I guess I was wrong. Charging exorbitant fees for two hours of bland mediocrity isn't what's hurting the MPAA's profits. It's those damned kids with their text messages! They ought to ban them. That'll bring back all those lost profits a lot quicker than actually producing a movie that isn't a complete waste of film, I'm sure.
Re:Precident for banning criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
Hollywood has money. Newspapers, magazines, television stations, and the like want some of that money. They generally get this by running ads for movies.
Banning criticism is a tool used by totalitarian states. In a free society, the easiest way to get the same effect is to simply make it impossible to hear critism.
If a movie's popularity is going to drop off quickly, and there's no way to stop that, the solution isn't to try and stop it, it's to try and modify the initial condition - the number of movie-goers hitting the theater the first weekend. They want teenagers to stop thinking "I'll wait until next week if I hear it's good," and to start thinking, "I have to see this movie right away."
How do you do that? One way might be to put some heat on those institutions that want your money - the newspapers. Wine and dine movie critics from the big papers and treat them to advanced screenings. Then, for the week before a movie's released, all anybody ever sees are nice, shiny, full-paged ads next to sneak-peak reviews that say they're fantastic. If the reviews turn up bad, put more heat on the paper, hopefully get the critic fired, or at least stop treating him or her to dinner in the Rainbow Room.
Money has more power than the law, particularly in a capitalist society. Always has, always will.
Re:How about corporate propaganda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Propaganda is only bad when you disagree with it.
But seriously -- propaganda is any kind of advertising intended to convince you of the merits of a certain point of view. It is not necessarily misleading. "Zest gets you cleaner than soap because it doesn't leave a filmy residue" is a true fact, and not misleading at all; the question is, do you want to be so clean that even the natural oils on your skin have been removed?
Both Zest's ad and my response to it are propaganda. My question is a very leading question, and I've posted it here in a public place.
There is advertising which is propaganda, and propaganda which is misleading, which comes from a political entity, that may or may not have control over the media, deliberately done to spread manipulative misinformation for the benefit of the political entity. I've seen it myself. But it's not the only kind of speech out there. And it very much is speech.
I'm a big First Amendment type here. I believe the best way to defeat a lie is by telling the truth, and keeping on telling the truth. I believe -- no offense -- that what you and the former poster said is misinformation, so I'm responding to it for that very reason. At the same time, what we're talking about here is far less important than the real lies out there -- such as that hackers are all basically criminals, that file-sharing will kill off the RIAA/MPAA, that we have to re-interpret liberties in the post-9/11/2001 world, and that God wants us to kill infidels wherever they may be.
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very interesting observation, because it suggests a mechanism by which advertising influences product quality. I interpret that since a testable objective claim is legally less safe than a highly subjective or untestable one, advertisers will concentrate more on what I previously termed "nebulous glop". But this will naturally put pressure on the design of products, so they'll be made with marketability in mind rather than suitability for real applications. Though there has to be a balancing point somewhere, it's easy to see how the presence of and reliance upon advertising itself will reduce the quality of products across the spectrum of available choice.
Another way of putting that is that advertising changes the entire nature of the market; instead of producing goods for end use, they have to be produced for sale, which may or may not actually coincide with the needs of customers. Again, I think this puts serious constraints on the power of customers to choose - it's virtually impossible not to support advertising while buying the goods and services one needs to merely survive, let alone participate meaningfully in society. Once the system of commerce gets into that tail-eating state, it's hard to get out.
All this is probably obvious, but for some reason I never envisioned that specific feedback loop before. I'd be fascinated if I wasn't mortified. ;)
Movie Reviews (Score:3, Insightful)
Why blame texting? (Score:2, Insightful)
How can this be linked to texting? If it were huge dropoff between the first and second screening, sure, but with a whole week in between perhaps some other technologies are implicated. Some of the likely culprits include: newspapers
telephones, television, email, web reviews, and snail mail. Hell, with a whole week to do it, you can pretty much warn the entire country off of a crap movie by face-to-face word of mouth.
If a movie is so bad that people are going to be sending SMS messages during it, it's probably bad enough for them to leave the movie. This sounds like a really weak attempt by studio asshats to blame poor performance on an aspect of youth culture they don't understand.
Re:Communication a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
What they're complaining about here isn't so much the word of mouth, which they expect for good or ill...it's the speed of that word of mouth compared to how things used to be. They can no longer count on making what they can on the first weekend before word gets around that the movie sucks.
Far from complaining about rectocranially-inverted media people's "bashing free speech," I actually think it's really interesting to consider these little unintended effects that arise out of the use of new technologies. Just a little reminder that everything has consequences, both intentional and not, and those consequences can't always be predicted.
Did they stop to ask... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we're back to "Because the movies suck."
Re:this movie stinks (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"In the old days, there used to be a term, 'buying your gross,' " Rick Sands, chief operating officer at Miramax, told the Los Angeles Times. "You could buy your gross for the weekend and overcome bad word of mouth, because it took time to filter out into the general audience."
But those days are over, because the technology of hand-held text-message devices has drastically cut down the time it takes for movie-goers to tell their friends that a heavily promoted summer action movie is a waste of time and money.
The fact that the movie industry depends on hype and an uninformed public to recoup their investment in a bomb doesn't surprise me, but their blatant admission does. Perhaps the realization that this won't work anymore will result in better quality pictures. Well, one can only hope.
Re:This just in!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Better yet either confiscate everyone's phones before going into the movie or installing phone jammers in the cinema !!
I knew most of these movies sucked by their .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Doesn't take a freaking genius to tell that a movie is gonna suck just by their trailers!
And with movie tickets prices rising every 5 months, the less we are likely to go and spend $30 to go and see it. Especially if we only need to wait 3-4 months to get / rent it on DVD.
DVDs (Score:2, Insightful)
But perhaps hulk might have sold better if they had used the green_skin texture instead of the green_plastic texture that was in the adverts. Look at the specular highlights on the magazine covers. What's the point of seeing a CGI movie with crap CGI?
Re:addendum: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So this means (Score:2, Insightful)