Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies The Almighty Buck

Hollywood Sets $10 Billion Box Office Record 276

Posted by kdawson
from the crying-to-the-bank dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood Sets $10 Billion Box Office Record

Comments Filter:
  • by gooman (709147) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:38PM (#30426540) Journal

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:47PM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by selven (1556643)

        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.

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:01PM (#30426708) Journal

      "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.

    • by grimJester (890090) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:11PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "We couldn't have made 10 Billion if it weren't for all of those music pirates!"

      Fixed that for you.

      And I mean it. Movies have the benefit of being social occasions, where groups of kids go to see a movie and share their thoughts after etc. It's a fraction the cost of a concert by the pop musicians they download, and recorded music doesn't stand a chance for their entertainment dollar. "Hrm, should I actually buy one of the 500 CD's I've downloaded, or should I try to make out with that new girl during Twilight, having already downloaded it too to see that it sucks..."

    • by bloodhawk (813939) on Monday December 14, 2009 @01:04AM (#30428134)
      I don't like the movie studios much but the article is highly misleading, it only mentions total revenue and if you dig into the articles the article itself references it clearly shows a declining profit per movie and less movies being made which kinda supports the studios positions. Personally though I think the declining profit is because most movies made nowadays are utter shit.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MartinSchou (1360093)

        Biggest ever gross revenue.
        Less profit per movie.
        Fewer movies made.

        That doesn't mean "movies are shit", because with fewer movies and the biggest gross revenue ever, they have either had the higher ticket prices or more tickets sold. Since 2008 was about 10 billion and 2009 is ~10.6 billon we're looking at an 6% increase in ticket prices or ticket numbers. Probably a mix of the two.

        But if fewer movies were released in 2009 vs 2008, then the 6% increase in ticket prices/ticket numbers won't cover it.

        What is

  • by 602 (652745) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:42PM (#30426568)
    Why is it that news stories about movie revenues never take inflation into account?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:49PM (#30426608)

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

    • by wizardforce (1005805) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:49PM (#30426614) Journal

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

      • by pgn674 (995941) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:21PM (#30426840) Homepage

        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]

      • by dikdik (1696426) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:40PM (#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.
      • The question is what were average ticket prices last year vs average ticket prices this year?
    • 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.

    • Or simply ticket stubs sold?

  • typical spin job (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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 yea

    • by PitaBred (632671)
      Who says that isn't still the case, even if they are making lots of money?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 d

      • Re:typical spin job (Score:4, Interesting)

        by daveime (1253762) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:26AM (#30428924)

        While trying to avoid putting too much spin on it, I'd rather just look at it in context.

        $10 billion dollars means they took $1.50 from every man, woman and child on the plant.

        While piracy may be hurting them, don't you think that a $10 billion profit means perhaps, just perhaps, the cost of their product is STILL TOO HIGH ?

        And if they did a little bit of supply / demand analysis, by maybe only skinning a buck instead of a buck fifty, piracy might actually go down as the product would be *more* accessible (read cheaper) for the masses ?

  • by The0retical (307064) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:46PM (#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.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:47PM (#30426598) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      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.

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

      And you believed it. Sucker.

    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dwywit (1109409)
        There's a spreadsheet you can download from the Screen Australia website - it's called the "standard short film budget" (there's one for feature-length, too).

        People like writer, producer and director are "above the line" items, and everyone else is "below the line".

        All the "below the line" items start at union award rates, and "above the line" items start at 10% of the budget (i.e. add up everything else, then add 10% for each person in that category). It's only a starting point - obviously anyone with a na

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shark72 (702619)

        "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."

        This confused a LOT of file sharing enthusiasts back when those ads were running. You're right, of course, that the trade and craft folks are paid on a salary, but the straw man here is assuming that the ads we

        • by jedidiah (1196) on Monday December 14, 2009 @09:26AM (#30430102) Homepage

          > That theory in itself invites enough debate without having to throw in the "the salaried employees have already been paid" straw man.

          It's not a straw man.

          Past a certain point, YOU PERSONALLY are not going to benefit from any more sales of the product even if YOU PERSONALLY contributed to it's production.

          Either way, it's probably not going to matter. A bad film is going to bomb and a good film is going to make profits for the studio that they studio will never admit to. Piracy won't change that. All Piracy does is inflate the sense of entitlement felt by the high level management at the studio. They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value.

          Piracy primarily skews the percieved value of the work.

    • by Aceticon (140883) on Monday December 14, 2009 @06:59AM (#30429470)

      Here's a suggestion:

      Scenario:
      Movie studio office, 1930's style. Large expensive looking desk, semi-naked woman lying in it. Big fat movie executive wearing a 1930's style suit, holding a large lit cigar in his hand sitting on a chair behind the desk. Behind him, a window shows a sunny Californian day, with some palm-trees and an expensive sports car visible.
      Around the office, other similar looking man are sitting in sofas surrounded by beautiful semi-claded women. Expensive looking sculptures and paintings are spread all over the office (possibly including one or two well known paintings).

      Action:
      Camera pans around the office, centers on the executive sitting in the chair with the desk (and woman) in front and the window behind.
      Executive snorts a line of coke from the woman's belly, turns to the camera and says:
      "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

  • by LockeOnLogic (723968) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:51PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by Ceiynt (993620)
      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.
    • 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 threa

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff Carr (684298)

      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'

      • by martyros (588782) on Monday December 14, 2009 @06:10AM (#30429290)

        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.

        Imainge if when you bought a DVD, it had no copy restrictions, it contained on it versions formatted for copying to a hard drive and for various smaller players (such as the iPhone), and instead of the "FBI WARNING: IF U STEEL THIS WE'LL COME AND GET YOU" (which only people who have already paid see), you saw one of the main actors saying, "Hi, this is Denzel Washington. I realize that you could have downloaded this illegally, so I just want to express my personal thanks to you for supporting the movie industry by opting to pay for this DVD instead. Please enjoy the show."

        Piracy would probably only go down a few percent, but you could probably sell the DVDs, but overall DVD sales would grow, because people would be happy buying a DVD, instead of feeling screwed (as I always do).

    • by Nimey (114278) on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:03AM (#30427834) Homepage Journal

      By superior do you mean "volume's too loud" and "a quarter of the audience are self-centered assholes"?

      That's an innovative definition you've got there.

  • Unbelievable growth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by easyEmu (977903) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:53PM (#30426640) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13, 2009 @08:55PM (#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.

  • by brit74 (831798) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:14PM (#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.
    • by Culture20 (968837) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:24PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wtbname (926051)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DerekLyons (302214)

      The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices.

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Have you seen the shit they put out in the last 7 years? Small wonder...
    • by RobVB (1566105)

      I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

      I've seen what happens when websites become fans of the pro-ninja spin. It's not pretty either.

    • I find piracy an unlikely culprit largely because the quality is just so damn low usually, people use tv piracy mostly for time shifting and "nation shifting", but everyone uses TiVo whenever available, and movies start out higher quality, so your losing much much more.

      I'd bet the single biggest reason is that television and home theaters have cut into their sales.

      There are now more shows that more people *perceive* as high quality, more shows are designed to addict people (X Files, Lost, etc.), comedy show

  • by mmkkbb (816035) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:23PM (#30426858) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Dunbal (464142)

      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 singe

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sopssa (1498795) *

        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

  • "Piracy" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dikdik (1696426) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @09:37PM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • by meekg (30651)

    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.

    • by Spad (470073) <slashdot@spad . c o . uk> on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:10AM (#30427866) Homepage

      Who said anything about it being beneficial? That's a rather piss-poor strawman.

      The argument is that despite Hollywood decrying piracy as being be downfall of the movie industry, that they were losing money hand over fist, that ordinary people in the industry were losing their jobs left, right and centre because of it, that the entire economy of America was in danger because of these dangerous pirates, who were probably also funding international terrorism and all paedophiles as well, they've somehow managed to make record profits during a substantial recession.

  • by PPH (736903) on Sunday December 13, 2009 @10:04PM (#30427176)

    ... $10 billion include the overpriced popcorn?

  • Microsoft routinely grosses more than Hollywood does at the domestic box office.

    Hmm, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison because that's Microsoft's international gross income compared to Hollywood's domestic income. But still ... I thought it somewhat eye-popping.

  • This is great news for the small percentage of movies that get theatrical release. But DVD numbers are in the toilet, and that's a critical revenue stream for all your low budget and indie stuff. I'm loathe to imply that piracy does or doesn't have anything to do with the problem but this article does not paint an accurate picture of where the movie business is at.
  • by incognito84 (903401) on Monday December 14, 2009 @02:48AM (#30428542)
    I love how Hollywood just sends Michael Bay out with the single mission to fill cinemas.

    If Hollywood really just wanted to make a quick buck, they'd just throw together a trailer full of tidal waves, nuclear bomb test footage, explosions, robots, Michael Bay's name, then release the obligatory blockbuster movie trailer with such delightful quips as: "in a world... explosion... awesome... teenage cleavage... het-er-o-sex-u-al... stuff you liked when you were twelve..."

    It doesn't even matter if there is an actual movie. It will make BILLIONS.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...