What is Digg?84 Comments
- badenglishihave, on 01/06/2009, -0/+28If you actually read the article you'll see that it's mainly due to ticket price increases, though blockbuster hits like Batman probably didn't hurt.
The MAFIAA will still find something to complain about. - XxbladesfirexX, on 01/06/2009, -1/+29This is just a guess... but I bet torrents were at an all time high this year as well. So suck it MPAA!
- TonyTheTerrible, on 01/06/2009, -1/+23This article..
IT PREDICTS THE FUTURE! - Drahkar, on 01/06/2009, -1/+22The fact is that people will go to the theatre to watch the movies when the movies don't suck. If the MPAA want to see good sales then just need to put better effort into having movies release that aren't crap.
*COUGHMARLEYANDMECOUGHCOUGH* - fmaxwell, on 01/06/2009, -0/+18Isn't it strange how piracy only seems to hurt the movie industry when they release a summer full of crappy movies?
- travisty17, on 01/06/2009, -1/+14You've got no chance at a handjob with a grainy, streaming chick flick!
- Aerynvala, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11I 'pre-screened' Iron Man via torrents and realized I had to see that on the big screen. Prior to the pre-screening I had no intention of seeing what I thought was going to be an utterly stupid movie. *shrug*
- ZippyV, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11They changed the title:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090105-what ... - ElBeh, on 01/06/2009, -3/+13I must say, this year had a lot of good films. I'm proud of the MPAA for that.
I don't care much about their business, though... I'll torrent no matter what. =P - HeatVision, on 01/06/2009, -0/+10To be fair that number is revenue, not profits. Big difference. Once you subtract all the costs from the revenue you'll realize that the MPAA can still go ***** themselves.
- astrotrain, on 01/06/2009, -0/+9Yes, these re and re-remakes are just lousy. I can not justify paying $12 a ticket to go see a movie that has already been out several years ago.
And then you have the movies that just thrown together to see if anyone would even bother going to see them. Icing it by opening up on a major holiday and hope it rakes in big bucks.
And then you have the films that have not yet opened for weeks, and are already "The Best movie this year", "Winner of xxxx awards....", etc. Some drama movie was on the tele like this on the 01/02/2009, and it claimed it was the best movie of the year and already won awards... and it opens on 01/23/2008.
There are some movies that are best to see in the Theaters... such as The Dark Knight, Star Wars, etc, that have eye opening effects and try to put the user in the movie. The rest, just wait for them to come to your local RedBox or DVDExpress for a $1. - MCA2142, on 01/06/2009, -2/+10And that's *with* the ***** films they put out in 2008
- chrillen, on 01/06/2009, -0/+8Yeah, everyone has bad quality on their home equipment.
- JamesBondJr, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9Sometimes a little piracy is good....watch a good movie off a torrent, then you realize the quality on your computer sucks, so you go to the theater and watch it in good quality with good sound. makes sense to me. It's the best promotion.
- GreatSunJester, on 01/06/2009, -0/+6The MAFIAA will just claim that if there was no piracy, they would have made 30% more money -- therefore, piracy cost them 30% (or whatever number they pick) of their potential profits.
- overridemymind, on 01/06/2009, -0/+6Well then, factsahoy, I've just gotta say:
Downloading -- You're doing it wrong.
As a person with a 2.2TB Database (mostly tv shows -- I'm stationed in Korea and thus can't watch my favorite shows any other way -- and those older "I can't find this movie frigging ANYWHERE") I'll say this - yes, the movie files are generally compressed (averaging around 800MB / 2hr movie) - I don't see a noticeable difference between most of these movies and DVD / Broadcast HD movies. The few newer films I've downloaded are usually DVD quality, unless you get a cam - with the exception of the three Bluray rips I have -- which are ***** fantastic.
Bottom line is -- finding a good quality copy can sometimes be a chore, but 9 times out of 10, it's just knowing what to look for. - fmaxwell, on 01/06/2009, -4/+10I realize that, statistically speaking, there's a significant chance that you have never been on a date. But let me explain how it works: You take the girl to dinner and then to a movie where you sit in the darkened theater and, if you're lucky, make out with her. She's not going to make out with you in front of your 17" monitor in you parent's living room. She's not going to be impressed that you didn't even think she rated a purchase of movie tickets. She won't be put in the mood by your mom bringing you a couple of Ho Hos to share (instead of you buying her popcorn, candy, etc. at the theater). The picture of your family from the Sears Portrait Studio staring down at her is not going to add a lot to the mood either.
- DeviantDragon, on 01/06/2009, -0/+6Any article about these things would be more useful adjusted for ticket prices and inflation.
- twignificant, on 01/06/2009, -0/+6It used to be that you either saw the big movies to roll through, or you didn't. Your theater may have had two or (gasp!) even three screens. Now, Hollywood has split demographics so far apart that few movies can bridge the targets enough to make the amount of (adjusted) coin movies used to make. When I was in high school, you either snuck in to the rated R films (a lot easier back then), or you saw whatever animated movie Disney put out. Horror movies came out once a year. Comedies were aimed at *everyone*, not just teenagers and women.
Now, more movies are being made at a lesser cost, and the movie industry is experiencing the same thing as television - severe fracture. Reality TV is cheap and easy to make, so the networks flood themselves with it. The result? Tons of serious viewers go packing for cable networks. The same thing is happening in movies. You want to make bad horror movies with nobody we've seen before twelve times a year, in addition to slap-together comedies starring a bunch of Comedy Central run-offs? Fine. We'll all stay home until and wait for the movies we care about... and some of us will be downloading everything else. :) - syndustry, on 01/06/2009, -0/+5The MPAA just wants as much money as possible...no matter how well they're doing, they'll still do everything they can to make more.
Even if we were all charged a fee every time we thought of a line from a movie, I still think they'd find something else to bitch about...at this point it's so central to their existence that it will never stop. - MSP1, on 01/06/2009, -0/+5Pity so few are made.
- Kyrgizion, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5It will stop when they are destroyed, and destroyed they will be because of their own actions.
Artists will find other channels to get their works to the public without having to lose half of their earnings to some maffiose company. - reaper527, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5that isn't necessarily piracy related.
bad economy + higher ticket prices + not as many good movies this year as there were last year = fewer sales - overridemymind, on 01/07/2009, -0/+4HA! Alright, alright. THAT ***** is hilarious! A digg for you, sir. Well played.
- fmaxwell, on 01/06/2009, -1/+5@overridemymind "Turns out I don't live with my mom, either. Neither do about 85% of people that download, I'd wager."
But the other 15% do live with your mom? Not to be rude, but your mom sounds kinda slutty. - buddamus, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3People will pay to see good movies
- Iconwolf, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3The movie industry just loves to talk about how piracy damages their business so bad, but the truth is that the biggest competition to the movie industry is..... the movie industry itself. I have never pirated a movie myself, and I've never used torrents before. However, I rarely go to a theater to see a movie anymore.
Seriously, even if Hollywood could totally eliminate piracy, and even if we were all rich and didn't have to work (or even sleep for that matter) there are still only so many movies one can watch in a day, and the movie industry has like 100 years of movies to compete with itself against. Even if you could watch movies 24 hours a day, every single day, it would take years before you got through all the good movies of the past (and that's assuming you only watched a movie once). If they want us to watch their new movies, those movies need to be at least as good, if not better, than their old movies.
For example: So they came out with a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. Should I go see that? Well, Sci-Fi is showing Independence Day which I haven't seen, and I got that DVD of War of the Worlds the other day I haven't watched yet (I've actually seen both, but for arguments sake..), all three being "aliens come to destroy the earth" movies. What to see, what to see. Given all the "glowing" reviews I've seen on Day (particularly the "13 WTF moments" article I read yesterday) I think I'll pass on seeing Day in the theater.
As a side note - the only real WTF moment I had with Independence Day was that despite the massive technology gap, we were just able to waltz in and, poof, infect their mother ship with a virus that was just thrown together on the fly with no real understanding of their computer systems. It dawned on me a week or so ago how/why we were able to do that....they were using a galactic version of Windows....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Heidenreich12, on 01/06/2009, -0/+31. Make a good movie
2. People want to see it
3. After seeing it in theaters, i'd like to see it again.
4. Download the Screener or R5 - t4m5t3r, on 01/06/2009, -1/+4you see their scum, piracy is just a good way to drive up profits, iv always said eventualy we'll tire of their samey garbage movies, remake after remake, every character has to be "aproved" and "safe", all crap and you canbet your ass that if we stop giving them our money, they'll probably sue us for not buying their ***** movies!!
(just like the music industry now, their not far off suing people for nothing, ***** they'v already done it countless times, all because their too lazy to actually do some work and release something people actually want to buy!! (or in reality they dont want to spend any of the profits they'v made, pure greed, if it was herion and not money we would have these people in rehab!! just as bad IMO, if not worse!) - elmuerte17, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3who the ***** is Raf Katigbak, and why would anyone care about what a Montrealer thinks?
- starchie, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3wow, can no one recall the chicken little response of the RIAA when the compact cassette was redesigned for recording at higher fidelity in the 70s?
I agree with the posts, if the MPAA wants to make as much money as possible, they should concentrate on creating unique movie experiences in the theater; torrenting movies generates buzz (movie industry gold) and further interest; it sparks a search for more novelty; one would have to spend $20k in a home system to approach what good movie theaters offer; but there's no way I'm going to shell out 12 bucks for a crappy film - Paradoxt, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3This proves that bad ticket sales in previous year are directly due to the quality of the movies released, and not due to piracy.
Studio execs. need to wake the ***** up. - MrFurious2k, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2I tend to frown on piracy but I COMPLETELY understand why people do it. In many cases, the ridiculous effort one must go through to meet the DRM requirements for legitimate copies is what is driving people towards an open and unprotected platform (besides the obvious "free" aspect of it). The problem that exists is that there has to be some sort of compensation for the makers of movies/music and right now, there really isn't any balance. You either pay through the nose for legit copies that don't always function very well (due to various restrictions) or you get pirated copies that don't properly compensate the authors. There has to be a mid-ground long term solution.
There is obviously a huge market for this stuff, I just believe Hollywood is too rooted in the past to figure out how to sell their products without treating their customers like criminals. On the other side, people have to realize that the wholesale download of movies and music is unsustainable if no compensation is given to the makers of the product. - uberduger, on 01/06/2009, -2/+4It's a double-edged sword I think. Some people, like myself, often use torrents as previews. If the movie stinks, then don't see it in the cinema. If it's good, buy it on DVD. If it's amazing or visually stunning, go see it on the big screen.
Unfortunately, as is the way with the music industry, there will always be those who pirate *everything* they watch/listen to. These people are what we call scum, and give the rest of us 'pirates' a bad name.
Long story short - if something deserves your money, make sure you pay for it. If you don't, you're a douche. I reckon that 40 million tickets that you refer to are largely due to these sort of people. - inactive, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2Not to sound like an old man, but the ticket prices have really cut into my movie going. I used to go to a movie a week on average. Sometimes even more than one a week. These days I go to one maybe every other month or so. This year I have been to 5 movies. Two of them were taking my son to a cartoon. So really only three movies. The rest I just rent.
- Maxjan, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2I put this at the top so everyone could see/read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/media/2 ...
it has some more comparisons in how this is a meager year at best. - elmuerte17, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2you're doing it wrong
- Delta009, on 01/06/2009, -2/+4I disagree. There weren't many good films in 2008.
"btw, The Dark Knight? Totally overrated"
- Raf Katigbak, columnist for the Montreal Mirror - mrogi, on 01/06/2009, -1/+3"Our industry made a measly $9.78 Billion in 2008. This is atrocious. We must do something to stop movie piracy or our business is doomed." _ Hollywood Moguls
- SgtQuackers, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2See when movie companies make good movies like we had in 2008 people pay to see them. Stop spending money going after the small percentage of people that pirate movies and spend that money on making the movies better and people will spend money on them.
- KirbyMorph, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2When you get bit by a pirate, you turn into a ninja.
- Sethbacca, on 01/06/2009, -2/+4Heh, i'd digg you up twice if I could. Hillarious :)
- DeadSkinMask, on 01/06/2009, -3/+5Glad to hear it.
Now I feel even less guilt... - bb112266, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2I believe that the big issue with downloading things online is not if it is allowed or not, but Hollywood, music industry, software companies, etc., needs to be on the same level as technology itself. It is not easy to do so, but let's face it. If we all do not, we are left in the dust, because life does not stand still for anyone.
- solid12345, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2That is a lie, the average dumb teenager would rather see My Sweet 16 the movie than go watch Gran Turino.
- monkeyman121, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2umm..am I the only one who sees a blank page?
- Schmich, on 01/07/2009, -0/+1eg. you before buying 10 tickets at 15 dollars and now buying 5 tickets at 30 dollars.
I ofc made up the numbers :P - elmuerte17, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1the article did give a number of tickets sold... i think it's pretty safe to assume there was an average of one butt per seat per ticket sold.
- fmaxwell, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1Thanks for the Digg and for being a good sport. That deserves a digg right back. Catch you later.
- chaoswings, on 01/11/2009, -0/+1I can think of several reasons for this not the least of which being the impending depression that was on its way. Second, the novelty of going to the movies has worn off. People nowadays have surround sound and big screen TVs. Few think of actually going to the movies with overpriced tickets and popcorn.
From my own experience I only went to see 1 or 2 movies this year (one of those being The Dark Knight ). People are also getting tired of Action Movie XX (now with more explosions). -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is