Movie theatres!
I remember those.
A trip down memory lane.
Are they still staffed by clueless droids?
An economist known for sticking pins in big content's dire warnings about file sharing has produced a new study suggesting that BitTorrent's impact on movie revenues is small and sometimes even positive. Koleman Strumpf, who has taken the adding machine to RIAA and MPAA claims of monetary loss since the heyday of Kazaa, has …
They're (almost) all american owned, and show the exact same films across every one, same old turgid American market films (clueless script, excessive CGI, teen nonsense, banal humour, you know the sort). I gather that most films cost close to £10 now, never mind that extortionate "food" they sell. Have to think back some time to remember much more than that
that crap movies dont make money ? One gets tired of rehashes, repeats, remakes and same old, same old.. And theater prices for snacks, dont get me started. I digress. Since when has evidenced based approaches to policy ever been done ? Cant have that, too many pressure groups might be told to shut up.
" If you think crap movies don't make money, I refer you to the Transformers franchise."
Depressing, isn't it?
I was found the first one disappointing, so I decided against going to see the second. I eventually watched it when it didn't cost me any extra, and found it disappointing. I didn't even consider the third when it came out.
There's a cinema I use most often - I go there because it's reasonably cheap (old-style fleapit) and it's on my route home from work most days, so if there's a film on that I want to see at near enough after the time I'd go past, I'll go then. That usually means a 4:30-5:00pm start - and often has the benefit of not many other people in the screening to spoil it.
This week, the most convenient film for my times? The new Transformers film.
I spotted at the weekend that Netflix had number three, so because I wouldn't be paying any extra to see it (other than giving up my time) I thought I'd give it a chance, and if I enjoyed it I'd consider going to see number four. Either I'd forgotten just how bad the first two were, or number three is even worse than they were, because that was a truly awful experience.
Needless to say, I won't be bothering with the cinema this week.
Actually, Netflix having only 1 and 3 is a bonus in the subscription fees IMO... Though only having the first would be better.
Like most Trilogies, they only ever made the first film, the other 2 are figments of our imagination and shall never be watched...
(Or in the case of trilogies of trilogies, only watch the first 3... though Disney could turn it around ;) )
As a reason fewer people go to the cinema. It really doesn't add anything to the experience, besides making the tickets more expensive (because they have to earn back their "investment").
Also irritating is, at least for those people not blessed with living in a native-english-speaking-country, are subtitles. They get in the way and distract you from the movie, even if you are perfectly capable of understanding the spoken english. Why they don't use the same technique as they do for 3d to give you the option of wearing those glasses to not see the subtitles I don't know.
What is left to me is downloading. It's the only viable option. Why not buy a blu-ray you ask? Well, those are encrypted and only allowed, closed-source applications can play them. I refuse to install closed-source crap on my system so the only way to watch a blu-ray is to bypass that encryption, which is a crime (and a much more serious offense than downloading).
So, given that the MAFIA (Music And Film Industry of America) does not give me any proper, paid options, they are not receiving a single dime of my money.
Also irritating is, at least for those people not blessed with living in a native-english-speaking-country, are subtitles. They get in the way and distract you from the movie, even if you are perfectly capable of understanding the spoken english.
It could be worse....it could be dubbed.. At least with subtitles you can still hear the original dialogue.
As someone with a fair number of anime watching friends, I've listened to the sub vs dub argument for ages. The simple truth is, they are both subject to very bad work as well as occasional exceptional performances.
There is one valid complaint against most commercial subs: the failure of studios to pay attention to small details. Fan subbers long ago discovered that the optimal subtitles are yellow characters with a thin black outline. Yet most commercial releases continue with solid white characters.
I think you're the first Dutch person I've come across who dislikes subtitles. All my friends claim that they don't notice them, at least for English language films. Here in good old Jormany we get horribly dubbed films: Clouseau does not have a silly French accent in German versions of the Pink Panther!
When i come across eastern european youngsters i find that their english is worlds ahead of what a german kid is mumbling. Quite sure, they did not learn it in school. So i went to ask them. They are watching the same rubbish TV series and movies from the states as the tschörman kids. Only, in their countries the "content" is neither subbed or dubbed.
That blu-ray excuse is a bit weak isnt it? No closed source crap on your system? is this just you computers or all hardware? Is your cars ECU open source? or do you not use powered transport for the same reason? If it is just the pc buy a blu ray box. And to swap sides for a min - does anyone know how I can play a blu ray (that i bought) on my pc using the 5.25 blu ray drive (that i bought) without paying a ridiculous amount for software? VLC claims to be able to do it "somteimes" but it wont for me.
I don't have a car, I have a recumbent bike which I use for greater distances (like the 50 KM work-related travelling I do daily). Haven't actually thought about a car having a proprietary ECU since I never even considered buying a car.
A blu-ray box will still have the same proprietary crap, it's just even more closed because now the platform is closed too. A blu-ray box most likely does not support the pulseaudio protocol I use to get the audio everywhere I want it to go. So all in all it's way too limited.
The high cost for blu-ray software is most likely due to the fact that they create artificial scarceness by not giving everybody a key. Another good reason to avoid that stuff like the plague.
Also irritating is, at least for those people not blessed with living in a native-english-speaking-country, are subtitles. They get in the way and distract you from the movie, even if you are perfectly capable of understanding the spoken english. Why they don't use the same technique as they do for 3d to give you the option of wearing those glasses to not see the subtitles I don't know.
Duuuuuhhhh....
Actually I've seen a fair amount of criticism about this, especially as I'm a veteran of any number of sub vs. dub threads on Usenet from back in the days when tape was all we had. It seems that not only are many English speakers scared of speaking other languages, but they insist on finding excuses for not watching video contents with subtitles. A pity, because they lose out on so much good stuff.
Agreed.
Just go to IMDB, and have a look at some of the movies either under, or about to go into production.
The Spiderman franchise wasnt even 10 years old when they decided to reboot it.
Fantastic Four is getting a reboot.
Since Twishite, ane tween book franchise is getting a movie deal, when before it wouldn't have even gotten a direct-to-video offer.
LOTR and 300 inspired a lot of crap directors and producers to dig through ancient history and do their own rendition of classic myths.
And let us not forget the never ending sequels to a reboot, of a remake of of a reimagining of a movie that was good in its day, but gets shat upon from a great height by someone who thinks they can do it better (by adding more explosions and fucktons of CGI).
I went to the cinema a couple of months ago for the first time in a few years to see Godzilla, and it was nearly empty. It was so devoid of staff I had to buy tickets from the refreshment area as the main ticket area was closed. We are talking about a weekend in the evening, not a Tuesday afternoon.
The age of the cinema is coming to an end. Its not piracy or lack of interest in the latest remake, its not even the cost, its the whole experience. Its both dated, overpriced and overrated. Cinema is to entertainment what public transport is to getting around. I just prefer to be by myself / my family without the forced social interaction.
What we need is a free "cinema box" at home. Something we hook up to the TV for special occasions. You pay a fee and you watch your film and you can even rate it. No interruptions from noisy neighbors in the next aisle, no mobile phone distractions and no fuss or overpriced snacks.
Piracy will fall, the movie studios will make more money and everyone / everywhere can see the latest film at their convenience, at a time that suits them, in their own home.
What we need is a free "cinema box" at home. Something we hook up to the TV for special occasions. You pay a fee and you watch your film and you can even rate it. No interruptions from noisy neighbors in the next aisle, no mobile phone distractions and no fuss or overpriced snacks.
Ok its not free, but lot of us have Tivo or Sky box which does PPV.
So the technology is pretty much in place. All that would be needed is for the films to be available at theatrical release time.
"Ok its not free, but lot of us have Tivo or Sky box which does PPV.
So the technology is pretty much in place. All that would be needed is for the films to be available at theatrical release time."
You have to pay Sky for a lot of other crud to get PPV so for it to work for me, the box needs to be free (or cost price) and then have the ability to PPV per movie, not per month or whatever subscription costs.
I can go weeks without watching the TV and a heavy week will be 3 hours of TV so I really pick what I want to watch. However, I'll happily pay the average price of a cinema ticket to see a movie at home on the day it's released. It would have to be without ads or other bullcrap though. The main reason I'm off TV is because I can't bear the interruptions.
its not even the cost, its the whole experience. Its both dated, overpriced and overrated.
This reminds me of the annoying adverts at the beginning of DVDs. (which I still don't get the point of) hey you bought this DVD legally, now we're going to talk at you about how stealing is wrong. That'll teach those thieves who pirated the DVD and therefore didn't see this annoying advert.
But the most annoying is the one advert that goes on about how "By downloading this film you're missing out on the true movie experience"
If I wanted the true movie experience, I'd spill a sugary drink over the floor to get that extra sticky sensation, have somebody standing up in front of me and blocking my view every few minutes, talking, playing on mobile phones, and eating loud snacks (who ever decided nachos should be a cinema snack food should be shot in the foot)
I often find that a lot of these anti piracy things are aimed at the wrong people (the people who paid)
And the trailers. Don't forget the twenty minutes of trailers.
I went to the cinema for the first time in a decade to see The Hobbit with some friends (they're major geeks, but I thought I'd tag along). After about ten minutes of pish, I nearly walked out.
I eventually stuck around and the whole experience (once I got past my existing issues with anxiety etc...) was a bit lacklustre. Don't think I'll bother again, frankly. If I want to spend money to be made uncomfortable, there are far better ways of doing it.
Steven R
The trailers I don't mind nearly as much as the 20 minutes of commercials they show before they start the trailers. I already bought my Coke/Water/Dots/Popcorn/burger/dog before I came INTO the theater. So all you are doing is irritating the frack out of me. Also, one reminder to turn off your phone is sufficient. It should come right before the trailers start and after that if anybody's phone goes off they should be escorted out of the theater with no refund.
Spot on.
I used to buy a lot of DVDs. I was always irritated by the anti-piracy adverts. I bought the damn thing, why lecture me about what other people do?
In the end, I decided I may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and started pirating movies. The quality was usually fine, I could play movies on any device (DVDs can be picky about where they work) and there were no unskippable adverts and anti-piracy lectures. I am not a pirate on principle but if they won't give me what I want, I'll take it for nothing without a shred of remorse.
Buck your ideas up dinosaurs and I'll happily pay. Treat me like a fool and I'll pirate your movies with pleasure.
I don't go to the cinema that often because of the cost, the interruptions from people on the phone, or talking to each other the whole way through the film, or playing with laser pointers, or dirty seats, etc, etc
But that is the whole reason why I don't do. I would rather go to the cinema to see a film on a huge screen, with amazing sound and all of the experience. That is still up to date for me. It's just a shame it doesn't exist anymore...
My local cinema is owned and operated by the local council.
It is frequently full. Yes, full, with hardly any seats left.
And why?
Because it is not a rip-off: just £5 or £6 per adult,
Because it shows films that people want to see (not necessarily just the current crop of recent releases)
Because it is not filled with noisy louts.
Becasuse there is plenty of legroom.
Because it is clean and pleasant.
Because it is part of the local community.
Because it is in the town centre.
And of course, it is successful because it is sociable. Seeing a film with lots of other people is not the same as seeing it at home.
Similar to my fave local cinema here in Edinburgh. It has three screens, a great bar and family membership that brings the ticket prices down to ~£6.50. The membership accumulates points too, resulting in totally free film watching - think I've got about £80 of credit now. They show a mix of international films, but they also have the big block buster films if you don't mind waiting a few months after general release. In the evenings it's usually packed. It's a lovely experience.
Contrary to most in this thread I enjoy going to the cinema and probably average a couple a month over the year.
Yes it's expensive (about fifty bucks for the two of us her in Oz, plus snacks) but it's a fun trip out.
3D is annoying and should go away, especially as an additional cost, as if you don't want to watch it in 3D you get stuffed into a small screen - if I wanted to watch on a small screen I would be at home. Films like Dredd were actually worse for the 3D too (highlighted the noise in the dark scenes).
There's more people selling overpriced snacks than tickets at Event's in the CBD - Hoyts make sense by having the people sell both.
I also have a large collection of bluray/dvd's as if I love a film I will buy it (unless the distributor try and screw you over like the case of the Lego Movie - half the extra's and no minifig on the Aus release vs the US, which you can't import, naturally, due to region encoding).
However I constantly feel shafted by doing things "the right way", if I were to download these it'd be easier than visiting a shop, I wouldn't have to put up with forced, unskippable, irrelevant trailers and piracy warnings.
They denigrate the customer experience where piracy only offers a better experience.
Same with services that retail online, and as I'm in Oz I'm in no position to use streaming services, I can barely watch a low encode youtube vid.
However I constantly feel shafted by doing things "the right way", if I were to download these it'd be easier than visiting a shop, I wouldn't have to put up with forced, unskippable, irrelevant trailers and piracy warnings.
Like you, I have over the years amassed quite a collection DVDs and BluRay disks (and in my case quite a lot of LaserDiscs). My pet peeve is also the forced anti-piracy "Do not steal" "It's illegal to.." warnings and lately trailers as well that you're forced to watch.
Treat your customers like criminals and eventually they will become such.
3D is annoying and should go away, especially as an additional cost, as if you don't want to watch it in 3D you get stuffed into a small screen - if I wanted to watch on a small screen I would be at home. Films like Dredd were actually worse for the 3D too (highlighted the noise in the dark scenes).
I completely agree with you. I don't understand why movie theaters don't offer special spectacles with two identically polarized glasses for people that don't like 3D. That would be trivial to implement with negligible additional cost.
"Contrary to most in this thread I enjoy going to the cinema ....
... 3D is annoying and should go away"
Apparently, contrary to (most in this thread)+(most of the rest in this thread) I enjoy both going to the cinema AND the 3D :-)
In general, I perfer to see a 3D version over 2D if the movie has anything to do with sci-fi/fantasy and CGI.
> file sharing arrivals shortly before the theatrical opening have a modest positive effect on box office revenue
So the implication is that studios should be paying the filesharers for the benefit they confer?
I think this is one example of why people take the piss out of economists and their prognostications.
If you only look at the dates and numbers, without applying a small dose of common sense, you could arrive at this conclusion.
Just because the studio's value blips upwards when successful films start to get downloaded is really just an indication that whatever is driving the price, also drives the download activity. Presumably both effects are driven by the pre-release "buzz" generated for the film: both from reviewers and the trailers. All this tells us is that the filesharers have access to pretty much all the new releases, whenever they please - and choose to put them on torrents when the film looks like being a success.
So the implication is that studios should be paying the filesharers for the benefit they confer?
Not necessarily. The research does seem to back up the idea that file sharing can act as publicity: whether it's because people dislike screeners (I can't stand them myself) or subsequently decide to watch a film on the big screen or both.
However, one thing file sharing definitely does is displace activity: if you're watching something you've torrented you're not doing something else (such as watching the same item on DVD or TV or out down the pub with your mates). In fact, in many countries torrents of Hollywood films have displaced local films.
Hollywood has for years been griping about sales lost to piracy, and got some nice laws drafted for its efforts, but it has also been far more positive about digital downloads than the music industry. Both have suffered more from expected incomes from format shifts (remember all the CDs we bought for vinyl or DVDs of VHS we already had?) failing to materialise. In music this was coupled with some stupid contracts and artists rediscovering concerts (previously a means to publicise records, now highly lucrative events not least because the record companies were cut out). Hollywood has profited from the proliferation of TV channels as additional means of distribution in the digital age but failed to see those channels as potential threats: HBO, et al. have for years been producing better quality fare of their own and have become more interesting for artists.
Considering the cost of making a movie that is 'Episode seven' or 'Big Tough Bloke 5' then I guess that many people realise that the constant re-hashing of simple themes and then releasing what amounts to a poor follow up (ups) come a very poor second to the huge budget non- movie series.
The popularity of made for telly/net progs like Games of Thrones (no, I haven't - I read all Martin;s Space Opera stuff years ago and can't see anything really any different this time) ties audiences in to a regular spend and the ability to watch whenever and wherever they like.
Given the choice of a local sweatbox (or freezer) with leaky sound and dickheads with phones as opposed to getting some beers in and skinning up a couple in readiness, folks will prefer to stay at home (or visit a mate) and watch on a big screen with a good sound system instead.
There are many movies that are 'BIG' visual productions but they easily lose thier attraction after the fourth huge orange explosion accompanied with CGI debris that comes right at you.
Me, I'm about to spend out on the South Park game which will last a lot longer than 1:45 for not much more of an outlay.
If I've read it right he was looking at the effects on share price of knowing a new release is out in the wild.
Not at the time that the investors were seeing real effects on revenues.
So it's about whether one set of investors, working in short term transactions, feel that other investors, mostly also working in short term transactions, want to buy or sell shares. ( Even "futures" are traded in real time).
None of which is based on anything more than gut feeling. Certainly not on what will actually happen to those revenues over the next few weeks.
So the share price reflects whether investors think other investors think the torrent will affect the films' sucess.
Assuming the investors are all holywood insiders, does this study give us an insight that the film industry doesn't really believe that torrents affect their revenue? Or am I stretching too far?
Everybody knows movie revenue and profit numbers are far less reliable than the stock prices he examined. Just ask Meatloaf even if it was a different industry. Besides which the investors are the ones buying the shares. So the expectation is that if you see a torrent release and figure that's going to tank profits, you'll dump your shares as fast as you can even if you lose some money just so you won't lose more. Likewise, if you see the torrent release as a benefit, you'll buy more shares. The important bit here is that regardless of which way the trend moves, the percentages as they relate to torrent releases are negligible.