7 ms·

Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on sta

Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage The direct impact of cam releases might very well be negligible. The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. That probability is much higher if there are CAMs available before the theatrical release. So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.

ktizo 14y ago
The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. Surely advance screenings and reviews have exactly the same effect in that case.
- tonyrice 14y ago
  People usually trust word from family and friends for things like that
- piquadrat 14y ago
  Word of mouth from your fellow franchise fans might have a bigger influence than Roger Ebert dissing the movie. Also, there's such a thing as a review embargo. It would be interesting to see how review embargos correlate with box office success and after-the-fact ratings.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    The embargoes only run until a week or so before release - ultimately they want them discussed remember, that's just about trying to focus the publicity into a short period before release. If the studios think they have a real turkey on their hands (and they'll know this before the critics see it - the focus groups will have told them if they didn't know just by watching themselves) they tend to drop all press screenings. But you're right that word of mouth will often be more significant than a review. Blockbuster type films tend to be completely critic proof - the reviewers can savage them as much as they like and there's little impact - but if a couple of friend's whose opinions you trust tell you a film sucks there's a good chance you'll steer clear.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  Similar. Not having advance screenings is an even bigger red flag.
tonyrice 14y ago
I agree. If the movie industry focused more on making great movies I would generally assume that CAMs wouldn't be an issue like they seem. In another sense I do believe bootlegs do give consumers a preview if the movie is worth seeing the theatrical release. I did watch The Avengers in the theaters and I can say I personally believe it was well worth my dollar.
walexander 14y ago
> So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck. Yes, but it doesn't work exactly like that. s/not suck/profitable. This just means that instead of taking chances on a film which is a big risk (think Inception), we will simply see more and more super hero movies and more and more sequels. There is much less of a margin of error when people are downloading things. I think there's little or no room for a "Requiem for a Dream" type of film in the coming years. Maybe kickstarter will have to be the avenue to make movies like that.
- Retric 14y ago
  Inception was hardly a 'risky' movie, plenty of explosions, cool visuals, and a simple but slightly ambiguous plot. Think of the way 'total recall' ends, is this just the vacation he had paid for? If you think about it they are fairly similar movies, and fairly well liked. If anything, I think suggests that a good movie can also have mass appeal. WALL-E lacks dialog for 1/2 the movie, but because Pixar could test it out ahead of time they knew it was worth making vary early in the process. Pixar's string of hits has a lot to do with constant refinement and feedback. Saying Hollywood needs to put out more Toy Story 3's is not a terrible thing when their done well. There is something to be said for the old script + 6 weeks of frantic shooting + cutting room floor style of movies, but it's a style that showed up when film was expensive and budgets where tight.
- ender7 14y ago
  This was, sadly, a problem long before piracy came along. Hollywood is a famously conservative industry.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Inception wasn't that big a risk. Nolan had proved he could do ideas (Memento), he'd proved he could do big budget (two Batman films) and he was willing to stick major stars in it (including arguably the biggest star on the planet). They then backed that up with a $100m advertising budget. In many ways it was an art house sci-fi film but in many others it did everything by the book for a big budget movie (proven track record, stars, special effects and action then hype it to the hilt). You're right that the pattern is towards the more conservative but I'm not sure that Inception was a massively out there move. Requiem for a Dream is a completely different beast and shows the other way you can do it even now. That was a cheap film - £5m or so. Adjust for inflation and you get maybe double that, which is still less than 5% of the budget of the Avengers. That sort of film can be funded by smaller production companies, by larger studios (often as vanity / credibility projects - Schindler's List was seen that way when it was signed off though I doubt the studio will admit that now) and in a host of other ways. I can certainly see large studios funding things like that almost as part of an incubator model - giving new directors who seem promising a stage to show what they can do before they let them loose on something larger.
truxs 14y ago
Exactly, when you look at the list of biggest sales you realize that the list is pretty much the same for pirated movies.
rmc 14y ago
Or alternativly, piracy will reduce spend on a crappy film, and people will spend the money elsewhere in the economy, and not waste it on something they won't like. Piracy of crappy films makes The Market better.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Indeed. If you make something excellent people will crawl over broken glass to give you money. Kickstarter is perhaps the best example of that principle.

ktizo 14y ago

The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. Surely advance screenings and reviews have exactly the same effect in that case.

tonyrice 14y ago
People usually trust word from family and friends for things like that
piquadrat 14y ago
Word of mouth from your fellow franchise fans might have a bigger influence than Roger Ebert dissing the movie. Also, there's such a thing as a review embargo. It would be interesting to see how review embargos correlate with box office success and after-the-fact ratings.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  The embargoes only run until a week or so before release - ultimately they want them discussed remember, that's just about trying to focus the publicity into a short period before release. If the studios think they have a real turkey on their hands (and they'll know this before the critics see it - the focus groups will have told them if they didn't know just by watching themselves) they tend to drop all press screenings. But you're right that word of mouth will often be more significant than a review. Blockbuster type films tend to be completely critic proof - the reviewers can savage them as much as they like and there's little impact - but if a couple of friend's whose opinions you trust tell you a film sucks there's a good chance you'll steer clear.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
Similar. Not having advance screenings is an even bigger red flag.

tonyrice 14y ago

I agree. If the movie industry focused more on making great movies I would generally assume that CAMs wouldn't be an issue like they seem. In another sense I do believe bootlegs do give consumers a preview if the movie is worth seeing the theatrical release. I did watch The Avengers in the theaters and I can say I personally believe it was well worth my dollar.

walexander 14y ago

> So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck. Yes, but it doesn't work exactly like that. s/not suck/profitable. This just means that instead of taking chances on a film which is a big risk (think Inception), we will simply see more and more super hero movies and more and more sequels. There is much less of a margin of error when people are downloading things. I think there's little or no room for a "Requiem for a Dream" type of film in the coming years. Maybe kickstarter will have to be the avenue to make movies like that.

Retric 14y ago
Inception was hardly a 'risky' movie, plenty of explosions, cool visuals, and a simple but slightly ambiguous plot. Think of the way 'total recall' ends, is this just the vacation he had paid for? If you think about it they are fairly similar movies, and fairly well liked. If anything, I think suggests that a good movie can also have mass appeal. WALL-E lacks dialog for 1/2 the movie, but because Pixar could test it out ahead of time they knew it was worth making vary early in the process. Pixar's string of hits has a lot to do with constant refinement and feedback. Saying Hollywood needs to put out more Toy Story 3's is not a terrible thing when their done well. There is something to be said for the old script + 6 weeks of frantic shooting + cutting room floor style of movies, but it's a style that showed up when film was expensive and budgets where tight.
ender7 14y ago
This was, sadly, a problem long before piracy came along. Hollywood is a famously conservative industry.
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Inception wasn't that big a risk. Nolan had proved he could do ideas (Memento), he'd proved he could do big budget (two Batman films) and he was willing to stick major stars in it (including arguably the biggest star on the planet). They then backed that up with a $100m advertising budget. In many ways it was an art house sci-fi film but in many others it did everything by the book for a big budget movie (proven track record, stars, special effects and action then hype it to the hilt). You're right that the pattern is towards the more conservative but I'm not sure that Inception was a massively out there move. Requiem for a Dream is a completely different beast and shows the other way you can do it even now. That was a cheap film - £5m or so. Adjust for inflation and you get maybe double that, which is still less than 5% of the budget of the Avengers. That sort of film can be funded by smaller production companies, by larger studios (often as vanity / credibility projects - Schindler's List was seen that way when it was signed off though I doubt the studio will admit that now) and in a host of other ways. I can certainly see large studios funding things like that almost as part of an incubator model - giving new directors who seem promising a stage to show what they can do before they let them loose on something larger.

truxs 14y ago

Exactly, when you look at the list of biggest sales you realize that the list is pretty much the same for pirated movies.

rmc 14y ago

Or alternativly, piracy will reduce spend on a crappy film, and people will spend the money elsewhere in the economy, and not waste it on something they won't like. Piracy of crappy films makes The Market better.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Indeed. If you make something excellent people will crawl over broken glass to give you money. Kickstarter is perhaps the best example of that principle.