8 ms·

Pirates? Hollywood Sets $10+ Billion Box Office Record

100 points by cyphersanctus 14y ago

synctext 14y ago
"for the first time in history domestic box office grosses surpassed $10.7 billion" As the article says, especially when taking inflation into account: The End Is Near for Hollywood. All due to piracy.
- 30thElement 14y ago
  All due to piracy? If you look at the 10 top grossing films of 2012, we have: 3 comic book movies (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Amazing Spiderman) where the characters have already had several movies, 3 movies that are either the 3rd or 4th in an original series (Madagascar, Ice Age, and MiB), and 4 based on books (Twilight, Skyfall, The Hobbit, and Hunger Games). Maybe people are tired of rehashes of the same IP over and over again, especially when they spread one story over several movies, just to get more money out of you? (I'm looking at you, The Hobbit)
  - Tycho 14y ago
    If your argument was valid, then the top 10 grossing films would surely not be the ones which are recycled IP.
    - 30thElement 14y ago
      Not necessarily. Only if you assume the people that go to movies are a good representation of people in general, which I doubt is true. Considering how important the teenage demographic is (why fewer movies are release with an R rating nowadays, with some movies getting re-edited to go from an R to PG-13 rating), I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago. And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've seen the most advertising for. Top 10 grossing was probably a bad pick, but I don't know a better way to measure the general output of movie studios without considering every movie released, even those shown in like 2 theaters worldwide.
      - rprasad 14y ago
        * I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago.* Teenagers are a smaller portion of the moviegoing market than they were 10 years ago. Smartphones, videogames, and various other distractions have cut down on their numbers. [See Variety, L.A. Times, and any other entertainment-focused news source.] And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've seen the most advertising for. That has always been true of movies. But as it turns out, many people's tastes align with IP they are already familiar with: they know the characters, the plots, etc., and so it is easier for them to judge whether the movie in question will satisfy their interests.
Tycho 14y ago
That's just box office though, the more interesting figure is total revenue including disc sales etc.
- Zikes 14y ago
  And legal revenue, I'd love to see that.
velodrome 14y ago
If Hollywood wants to make MORE money. Let me watch NEW movies at home. Why at home? 1) Bathroom breaks 2) People's heads aren't in the way 3) No blurry screens 4) No crappy audio 5) Snacks I want 6) Quieter. No kids crying or cell phones, etc. I am willing to spend the same price. I hate going to movie theater these days... I just wait for the DVD (or Bluray).
- CaveTech 14y ago
  The problem with this is they can't enforce the amount of people watching. It could be just you or maybe you and 10 friends.
  - Luc 14y ago
    There is a technical solution to that, for example one based on the patent mentioned here: http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-and-mobile-cameras-to-count-people-in-your-living-room-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-... EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
    - duiker101 14y ago
      I can see this backfiring pretty bad...
    - prezjordan 14y ago
      The future does not look promising.
    - CaveTech 14y ago
      Exactly what I want in my life. A way for companies to track me and my friends inside my own home.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      You could always have your friends hide behind a blanket to confuse the sensor.
    - 14y ago
mgkimsal 14y ago
But think of how much more they'd be making if we couldn't get the movie at home and had to go to a theater to watch it. I'm not even sure if I'm serious or sarcastic on this one.
cmircea 14y ago
The MPAA & RIAA are blind. They'd make a LOT more money if buying the real thing was easier than 1) spending time hunting for it online; 2) waiting for it to download; and 3) if it weren't overpriced. Same for games. $60 for a damn game? Valve's shown that $5 prices lead to massive increases in sales over $20+.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I think you're oversimplifying. Millions of people line up to buy the latest Call of Duty game at $60, but I don't think the market for those games suddenly doubles if you sell it at $30. Especially when many of those $30 buyers were presumably already going to buy it at $30 anyway in a few months.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    I think it depends on how good and popular your game is. If there's only a market for 10 million Diablo 3 players, then making the game $10 won't expand your market to 60 million. However, if you have a pretty unknown franchise/game with maybe a potential of 1 million users at $60, then lowering the price to $30 may very well double or triple your market.
    - cmircea 14y ago
      If you product is junk then nobody will buy it (within experimental error). Steam sales consistently pull in a heap-load of sales and there's been lots more this year than the previous. I think if say COD9 would be $10, not $60 it would sell many more copies; go below $10 and it's at the "whatever dude" pricepoint. Regional pricing could also be used, if the company is greedy. People living in low-income countries aren't really going to be able to afford $60 for a game, but it were $10 for them, they might.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    I don't think the market for those games suddenly doubles if you sell it at $30 Don't forget the support costs as well; they end up with double the number of people to support, but for the same amount of money.
mootothemax 14y ago
I'd love to know why movies are so incredibly expensive on iTunes, and whether anyone's experimented with pricing movies at €5 rather than the current price of €12+. At 5 Euro, for me the price is an instant purchase, no thinking necessary. Not so at €12 or more. I hope it's not the case, but I wonder whether there are so few people that pay for movies at any price that the studios have concluded it's just not worth it, and so keep the higher prices. Or, alternatively, there are enough people that do buy at the €12 point, again not making it worth the time to lower the price. In conclusion: trying to work out pricing points hurts my head.
- sjs382 14y ago
  I agree. I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop. Every time I do, I think "do I really want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me, SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for me. And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. (For reference, I use a Roku)
  - corin_ 14y ago
    > And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing else? Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      I would be happier. It would mean they're not trying to play tricks with anchoring and they can't easily push the price up even higher later. They wouldn't have people "compromising" with the $4 version or being tricked into thinking $5 is suddenly a 'deal' because it's only a dollar!! more.
    - sjs382 14y ago
betterunix 14y ago
When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one should be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for decades at this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades without going bankrupt? There are industries that were bankrupted by the Internet, like the film camera and development industry. The MPAA is just greedy, they always have been; they are the ones stealing from artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  "When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one should be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for decades at this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades without going bankrupt?" Both are not one company. They are multiple companies working together. They didn't go out of business because they mostly changed with the new trends (Songs can now be purchased for 99 cents and streamed, etc). "The MPAA is just greedy" Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The MPAA may be greedy, but the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement). "they are the ones stealing from artists:" Sigh. I'm tired of hearing this. Artists have many ways to promote their stuff online. They don't have to sign a contract, but they choose to. It's never been easy to make money as an artist...and piracy makes it even more difficult (especially when you don't have the backing of a major label). I guess they don't deserve to make a living...and instead entertain you to your exact specifications.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    >the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement) I don't know. If you want to separate 'greed' and 'entitlement' I would say that someone pirating a dozen movies is certainly full of entitlement but I wouldn't say they're any greedier than the person that buys the same dozen movies.
  - betterunix 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Apocryphon 14y ago
The problem with film piracy isn't box office records- blockbusters will always generate great revenue, and this year was one full of blockbusters. The problem is that independent filmmakers are hit harder by piracy than the blockbusters. And piracy causes Hollywood studios to be less likely to back indie films, causing them to instead favor low hanging fruit, projects with mass appeal that will generate the most revenue regardless of piracy, instead of independent projects that may be more bold and creative, but would have more to lose from piracy. See here: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-film-pirate-20100928 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-fi...
- bencoder 14y ago
  That's not always the case. For example, the independent movie "The Man From Earth", gained a lot of attention that it otherwise wouldn't have, due to piracy, leading to the producer thanking the pirates: http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing-his-film-071113/ http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing...
  - option_greek 14y ago
    That's one movie really worth watching :)
- cmircea 14y ago
  People do seem to like Humble Bundle too. That's a great way to advertise and get some cash as an indie.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  90% of movie theaters already avoid independent films. If you're independent, why not distribute online? I bet a majority of "pirates" will pay instead of downloading a dubious torrent. You're not going to make money off hollywood distributors anyway. Regarding the article, out of those 60.000, how many would have gone to the movies to watch it? I watch a lot of indie films just because it's easy, while I wouldn't go out to a small crumpled theater downtown to see it, even if it was free. That's the MPAA math and it doesn't add up. See http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/ http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/
eli 14y ago
Big box office numbers don't really prove or disprove much.
rkalla 14y ago
This same pattern plays out in so many different places. 1. Massive concentration of power (in this case, the entertainment industry. I think 5 corporations control 96% of commercial media [2] - TV/Movie/etc.) 2. Artificially powerful threat (in this case "pirates") always JUST about to destroy/harm/impact/irreparably damage #1. 3. #1 is justified in fighting a war on #2 -- physically, legally, financially, whatever. 4. For all intents and purposes, the stronger #2 (the "threat") seems, the easier job #1 has justifying ANY recourse. If #2 (the threat) isn't that strong on its own, I would imagine it be in the best interest of #1 to make it appear so and even help bolster it if necessary. 5. There is so much rhetoric, confusion, mix-facts, misreporting and fuzzy data being seeded and organically produced on the topic of "#1 vs #2" that it is impossible to cleanly and clearly make heads or tales of any of it -- well #1 has a point, but so does #2, but #2 is doing something illegal, but #1 is also doing illegal things... ad infinitum. 6. #1 continues to pump energy and complexity into #5 which engages, exhausts and overwhelms us until it becomes noise and we learn to tune it out. Think of a person standing in the middle of New York as opposed to the middle of a corn field -- our brains are wired to tune out repetitive audio and visual queues -- we are tuned to spot differentiation. #1 doesn't have to _hide_ anything per se, it just needs to amplify it and muddy the noise enough that it becomes repetitive. There are examples of this same strategy played out over and over and over again all over the world in all nooks and crannies of our lives - oil, pharmaceuticals, electronics, governments, publishers, music, farming/food, etc. I would expect this strategy is as old as mud, probably starting with its roots in false-flag[1] campaigns in the annals of history, but it works and it has been refined and continues to work -- just like the format for romantic comedy movies continues to work even though we've seen it 100,000 times and the format for super-hero movies works. We are incredibly manipulatable. Our convictions are disturbingly fragile and the worst part of it is that most of us are lead to believe exactly the opposite and completely reject the possibility that they are. I think _that_ is what makes us so susceptible to this type engineering and why it is so successful. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag [2] http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-inline/IllusionofChoice-1.jpeg http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-i...
- GHFigs 14y ago
  You're buying into and regurgitating the myth that the world reduces into "good vs. evil" and that the difficulty involved in making sense of what's going on is not because the world is inherently complex but because somebody is pulling the wool over your eyes. "Wake up, sheeple!" I mean, really: if you're going to come so close to having a clue, why not just take that one extra step? Why does it always have to come back to declaring indifference a sin foist upon people by the Great Satan of the week?
codex 14y ago
When adjusted for inflation, it's not a box office record; that honor belongs to 2002: http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-revenue-for-film-industry-by-year-adjusted-for-inflation http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-revenu...
alan_cx 14y ago
So, what this is really about is not the destruction of the movie business and western culture, its all about the movie business thinking its not making enough money. It should be making more. Making great profit is not enough. Thay must have more. Well, me too. Can the government get behind that please?

100 points by cyphersanctus 14y ago

"for the first time in history domestic box office grosses surpassed $10.7 billion" As the article says, especially when taking inflation into account: The End Is Near for Hollywood. All due to piracy.

30thElement 14y ago
All due to piracy? If you look at the 10 top grossing films of 2012, we have: 3 comic book movies (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Amazing Spiderman) where the characters have already had several movies, 3 movies that are either the 3rd or 4th in an original series (Madagascar, Ice Age, and MiB), and 4 based on books (Twilight, Skyfall, The Hobbit, and Hunger Games). Maybe people are tired of rehashes of the same IP over and over again, especially when they spread one story over several movies, just to get more money out of you? (I'm looking at you, The Hobbit)
- Tycho 14y ago
  If your argument was valid, then the top 10 grossing films would surely not be the ones which are recycled IP.
  - 30thElement 14y ago
    Not necessarily. Only if you assume the people that go to movies are a good representation of people in general, which I doubt is true. Considering how important the teenage demographic is (why fewer movies are release with an R rating nowadays, with some movies getting re-edited to go from an R to PG-13 rating), I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago. And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've seen the most advertising for. Top 10 grossing was probably a bad pick, but I don't know a better way to measure the general output of movie studios without considering every movie released, even those shown in like 2 theaters worldwide.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      * I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago.* Teenagers are a smaller portion of the moviegoing market than they were 10 years ago. Smartphones, videogames, and various other distractions have cut down on their numbers. [See Variety, L.A. Times, and any other entertainment-focused news source.] And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've seen the most advertising for. That has always been true of movies. But as it turns out, many people's tastes align with IP they are already familiar with: they know the characters, the plots, etc., and so it is easier for them to judge whether the movie in question will satisfy their interests.

Tycho 14y ago

That's just box office though, the more interesting figure is total revenue including disc sales etc.

Zikes 14y ago
And legal revenue, I'd love to see that.

velodrome 14y ago

If Hollywood wants to make MORE money. Let me watch NEW movies at home. Why at home? 1) Bathroom breaks 2) People's heads aren't in the way 3) No blurry screens 4) No crappy audio 5) Snacks I want 6) Quieter. No kids crying or cell phones, etc. I am willing to spend the same price. I hate going to movie theater these days... I just wait for the DVD (or Bluray).

CaveTech 14y ago
The problem with this is they can't enforce the amount of people watching. It could be just you or maybe you and 10 friends.
- Luc 14y ago
  There is a technical solution to that, for example one based on the patent mentioned here: http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-and-mobile-cameras-to-count-people-in-your-living-room-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-... EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
  - duiker101 14y ago
    I can see this backfiring pretty bad...
  - prezjordan 14y ago
    The future does not look promising.
  - CaveTech 14y ago
    Exactly what I want in my life. A way for companies to track me and my friends inside my own home.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    You could always have your friends hide behind a blanket to confuse the sensor.
  - 14y ago

mgkimsal 14y ago

But think of how much more they'd be making if we couldn't get the movie at home and had to go to a theater to watch it. I'm not even sure if I'm serious or sarcastic on this one.

cmircea 14y ago

The MPAA & RIAA are blind. They'd make a LOT more money if buying the real thing was easier than 1) spending time hunting for it online; 2) waiting for it to download; and 3) if it weren't overpriced. Same for games. $60 for a damn game? Valve's shown that $5 prices lead to massive increases in sales over $20+.

twoodfin 14y ago
I think you're oversimplifying. Millions of people line up to buy the latest Call of Duty game at $60, but I don't think the market for those games suddenly doubles if you sell it at $30. Especially when many of those $30 buyers were presumably already going to buy it at $30 anyway in a few months.
- mtgx 14y ago
  I think it depends on how good and popular your game is. If there's only a market for 10 million Diablo 3 players, then making the game $10 won't expand your market to 60 million. However, if you have a pretty unknown franchise/game with maybe a potential of 1 million users at $60, then lowering the price to $30 may very well double or triple your market.
  - cmircea 14y ago
    If you product is junk then nobody will buy it (within experimental error). Steam sales consistently pull in a heap-load of sales and there's been lots more this year than the previous. I think if say COD9 would be $10, not $60 it would sell many more copies; go below $10 and it's at the "whatever dude" pricepoint. Regional pricing could also be used, if the company is greedy. People living in low-income countries aren't really going to be able to afford $60 for a game, but it were $10 for them, they might.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  I don't think the market for those games suddenly doubles if you sell it at $30 Don't forget the support costs as well; they end up with double the number of people to support, but for the same amount of money.

mootothemax 14y ago

I'd love to know why movies are so incredibly expensive on iTunes, and whether anyone's experimented with pricing movies at €5 rather than the current price of €12+. At 5 Euro, for me the price is an instant purchase, no thinking necessary. Not so at €12 or more. I hope it's not the case, but I wonder whether there are so few people that pay for movies at any price that the studios have concluded it's just not worth it, and so keep the higher prices. Or, alternatively, there are enough people that do buy at the €12 point, again not making it worth the time to lower the price. In conclusion: trying to work out pricing points hurts my head.

sjs382 14y ago
I agree. I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop. Every time I do, I think "do I really want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me, SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for me. And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. (For reference, I use a Roku)
- corin_ 14y ago
  > And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing else? Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    I would be happier. It would mean they're not trying to play tricks with anchoring and they can't easily push the price up even higher later. They wouldn't have people "compromising" with the $4 version or being tricked into thinking $5 is suddenly a 'deal' because it's only a dollar!! more.
  - sjs382 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago

When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one should be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for decades at this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades without going bankrupt? There are industries that were bankrupted by the Internet, like the film camera and development industry. The MPAA is just greedy, they always have been; they are the ones stealing from artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

paulhauggis 14y ago
"When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one should be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for decades at this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades without going bankrupt?" Both are not one company. They are multiple companies working together. They didn't go out of business because they mostly changed with the new trends (Songs can now be purchased for 99 cents and streamed, etc). "The MPAA is just greedy" Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The MPAA may be greedy, but the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement). "they are the ones stealing from artists:" Sigh. I'm tired of hearing this. Artists have many ways to promote their stuff online. They don't have to sign a contract, but they choose to. It's never been easy to make money as an artist...and piracy makes it even more difficult (especially when you don't have the backing of a major label). I guess they don't deserve to make a living...and instead entertain you to your exact specifications.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  >the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement) I don't know. If you want to separate 'greed' and 'entitlement' I would say that someone pirating a dozen movies is certainly full of entitlement but I wouldn't say they're any greedier than the person that buys the same dozen movies.
- betterunix 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Apocryphon 14y ago

The problem with film piracy isn't box office records- blockbusters will always generate great revenue, and this year was one full of blockbusters. The problem is that independent filmmakers are hit harder by piracy than the blockbusters. And piracy causes Hollywood studios to be less likely to back indie films, causing them to instead favor low hanging fruit, projects with mass appeal that will generate the most revenue regardless of piracy, instead of independent projects that may be more bold and creative, but would have more to lose from piracy. See here: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-film-pirate-20100928 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-fi...

bencoder 14y ago
That's not always the case. For example, the independent movie "The Man From Earth", gained a lot of attention that it otherwise wouldn't have, due to piracy, leading to the producer thanking the pirates: http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing-his-film-071113/ http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing...
- option_greek 14y ago
  That's one movie really worth watching :)
cmircea 14y ago
People do seem to like Humble Bundle too. That's a great way to advertise and get some cash as an indie.
ricardobeat 14y ago
90% of movie theaters already avoid independent films. If you're independent, why not distribute online? I bet a majority of "pirates" will pay instead of downloading a dubious torrent. You're not going to make money off hollywood distributors anyway. Regarding the article, out of those 60.000, how many would have gone to the movies to watch it? I watch a lot of indie films just because it's easy, while I wouldn't go out to a small crumpled theater downtown to see it, even if it was free. That's the MPAA math and it doesn't add up. See http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/ http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/

eli 14y ago

Big box office numbers don't really prove or disprove much.

rkalla 14y ago

This same pattern plays out in so many different places. 1. Massive concentration of power (in this case, the entertainment industry. I think 5 corporations control 96% of commercial media [2] - TV/Movie/etc.) 2. Artificially powerful threat (in this case "pirates") always JUST about to destroy/harm/impact/irreparably damage #1. 3. #1 is justified in fighting a war on #2 -- physically, legally, financially, whatever. 4. For all intents and purposes, the stronger #2 (the "threat") seems, the easier job #1 has justifying ANY recourse. If #2 (the threat) isn't that strong on its own, I would imagine it be in the best interest of #1 to make it appear so and even help bolster it if necessary. 5. There is so much rhetoric, confusion, mix-facts, misreporting and fuzzy data being seeded and organically produced on the topic of "#1 vs #2" that it is impossible to cleanly and clearly make heads or tales of any of it -- well #1 has a point, but so does #2, but #2 is doing something illegal, but #1 is also doing illegal things... ad infinitum. 6. #1 continues to pump energy and complexity into #5 which engages, exhausts and overwhelms us until it becomes noise and we learn to tune it out. Think of a person standing in the middle of New York as opposed to the middle of a corn field -- our brains are wired to tune out repetitive audio and visual queues -- we are tuned to spot differentiation. #1 doesn't have to _hide_ anything per se, it just needs to amplify it and muddy the noise enough that it becomes repetitive. There are examples of this same strategy played out over and over and over again all over the world in all nooks and crannies of our lives - oil, pharmaceuticals, electronics, governments, publishers, music, farming/food, etc. I would expect this strategy is as old as mud, probably starting with its roots in false-flag[1] campaigns in the annals of history, but it works and it has been refined and continues to work -- just like the format for romantic comedy movies continues to work even though we've seen it 100,000 times and the format for super-hero movies works. We are incredibly manipulatable. Our convictions are disturbingly fragile and the worst part of it is that most of us are lead to believe exactly the opposite and completely reject the possibility that they are. I think _that_ is what makes us so susceptible to this type engineering and why it is so successful. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag [2] http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-inline/IllusionofChoice-1.jpeg http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-i...

GHFigs 14y ago
You're buying into and regurgitating the myth that the world reduces into "good vs. evil" and that the difficulty involved in making sense of what's going on is not because the world is inherently complex but because somebody is pulling the wool over your eyes. "Wake up, sheeple!" I mean, really: if you're going to come so close to having a clue, why not just take that one extra step? Why does it always have to come back to declaring indifference a sin foist upon people by the Great Satan of the week?

codex 14y ago

When adjusted for inflation, it's not a box office record; that honor belongs to 2002: http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-revenue-for-film-industry-by-year-adjusted-for-inflation http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-revenu...

alan_cx 14y ago

So, what this is really about is not the destruction of the movie business and western culture, its all about the movie business thinking its not making enough money. It should be making more. Making great profit is not enough. Thay must have more. Well, me too. Can the government get behind that please?