Piracy Means No Money To Make Movies

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures says pirates are stealing the money they need to make more movies. If you keep pirating movies, pretty soon they won’t have the money to make any movies.

Online theft siphons billions of dollars out of the marketplace. That means less money to make movies. Projects get scaled back and others dropped. Some potential blockbusters won’t get made. Some new writers, actors and film-makers won’t get discovered.
Click to expand...
 
lol. right. i'm sure that a majority of the people that download movies would of actually payed to watch them if they could not watch them for free.:rolleyes:
 
hahaha

if I don't wanna pay the money to see the movie, they're not getting any money from me. So how do they lose money they never would have received? :confused:

stupid stupid stupid.
 
Shit! Does this mean they won't make the GI Joe sequel?










Good.
 
I hope this is true. So that quality over quantity comes back to movie. It wouldn't be bad also to see Hollywood and the Celebrity CEMA lose their grip.
 
RIGHHHTTTTTTTT... I think Mr. Chairman meant to say "piracy means no money for me to buy my daughter another Maserati". These movie big wigs need to realize no one feels sorry for them and their greedy pocket books. I download lots of movies, yet I still go to the theater twice a week. I also buy DVD's and Blu-rays of movies that I enjoy.
 
phide said:
Not in any way true. Sorry, Sony.
Click to expand...

+1

For example,

Transformers 2 rough data
Budget $200 million
Gross revenue $832,747,337

So your telling me, $600 Million - distribution + DVD sales is NOT enought to make another movie?

F u sony
 
maybe the chairman of Sony here could just sell off his beach house in the Cayman Islands or a couple of his sports cars to cover some of the diffrence.
 
I have no problem paying to see movies. I do however have a problem with paying to see a shitty movie. Prove to me that your movie doesn't suck, and isn't the studio milking one more out of an IP.
 
Alrighty then.

1. What was the budget for "Paranormal Activity"?
2. How much money did it make on opening night?
3. Who got all the profit?
 
Stop spending 25 million on a piece of shit movie, and maybe things will change....

I've paid my fair share of money to watch dumb ass stupid shit movies, and I've pretty much given up. 9 times out of 10, I'll wait for the Blu-ray release. I've been burnt too many times paying through the nose for a 2 hour steaming pile. Thanks to George Lucas, I sat through three of them... Sorry, Sony. You did this to yourselves. It wasn't the pirates. It's gotten to the point where most movies are rip off's of something else, or just so dumb that I can't even force myself to go to the movies. I see kids movies, but that's about it...
 
basicly Sony is saying "We can afford to over pay shitty directors and actors, and still keep a huge part of the pie for themselves."
 
When the actors aren't making hundreds of millions of dollars for a few months work then I'll take their comments seriously
 
I the situation were much more dire, I can see how what the said would be true.

However, his story is a complete fabrication in today's economic climate. Movie studios are doing just fine and people are still going to the theater for the movies they love.

Rather or not you'd pay $10 for a ticket to GI Joe 2 is a different story...
 
Keiichi said:
Alrighty then.

1. What was the budget for "Paranormal Activity"?
2. How much money did it make on opening night?
3. Who got all the profit?
Click to expand...

Want a really screwed up example? Forest Gump. $55mil budget, grossed over $600mil, the author's screenplay deal included a share of the NET profits... Paramount still claims the movie was a loss.

I only bother to catch movies that really interest me... and when talking with a friend about what we could go see, we checked out the listings. We saw Zombieland... but had to remark that the last 2 years have been TERRIBLE for movie releases. I've been to the theater maybe a half dozen times in 3 years. I used to go at least once a month if there was enough of interest to see.
 
techrat said:
Shit! Does this mean they won't make the GI Joe sequel?

.
Click to expand...

Right, If I had paid to see that I would want my life back... I still do actually. They need to get back to content and screw relying on overdone special FX. It's reGoddamndiculous the movies they are putting out and charging for. Half of any movies I may or may not have downloaded I haven't even finished. I'll tell you what though, I'll be buying the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Series because I want to support them.
 
Anytime someone complains that they might have to leave an industry because factors X,Y, and Z are limiting profits I laugh. Good riddance IMO. If Sony doesn't want a slice of the billions spent on entertainment each year, im sure someone else will step up and start making movies to fill the void in supply left by Sony.

General rules of economics, someone will always provide supply if there is demand. If you can't make your business model work, close up shop and someone else with a better model will turn a profit.

Blockbuster and Netflix ring a bell? See ya Sony!
 
What a colossal load of horseshit. Who do they think they're talking to?

How about making a good movie for a change Sony. I'd start with that right there. How about some original ideas? No? I didn't think so.
 
This guy is so full of shit, besides most of the movies today are garbage anyway - no great loss.:D
 
techrat said:
Want a really screwed up example? Forest Gump. $55mil budget, grossed over $600mil, the author's screenplay deal included a share of the NET profits... Paramount still claims the movie was a loss.

I only bother to catch movies that really interest me... and when talking with a friend about what we could go see, we checked out the listings. We saw Zombieland... but had to remark that the last 2 years have been TERRIBLE for movie releases. I've been to the theater maybe a half dozen times in 3 years. I used to go at least once a month if there was enough of interest to see.
Click to expand...

Well look at the breakdown

Paramount deducted $50 million in "Forrest Gump" production costs, a distribution and marketing fee of about $74 million, $62 million in distribution expenses, payments to Hanks and Zemeckis of close to $62 million and $6 million in interest.

Source http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19950525/ai_n10082506/

Thats just stupid insanidy, $74 million on marketing? i call bs
 
Steve said:
The Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures says pirates are stealing the money they need to make more movies. If you keep pirating movies, pretty soon they won’t have the money to make any movies.
Click to expand...

Utter, utter bullshit. Two words: Hollywood Accounting.

Apparently Forrest Gump made no money, New Line trying to shaft Peter Jackson out of his due renumeration, these are two recent examples of the fetid cesspit that is Hollywood, it is high time a light was shone on this cartel.
 
tmclaugh said:
Right, If I had paid to see that I would want my life back... I still do actually. They need to get back to content and screw relying on overdone special FX. It's reGoddamndiculous the movies they are putting out and charging for. Half of any movies I may or may not have downloaded I haven't even finished. I'll tell you what though, I'll be buying the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Series because I want to support them.
Click to expand...

You know a movie is a winner when you can't even be bothered to watch the DL'd one lol. I can't remember how many times I've said 'Boy I'm glad I didn't pay to see that POS'.

Don't get me wrong, I see around 15-20 movies a year in the theater but many times I question the amount of money it costs 2 people to see a film with just rudimentary snacks.
 
Maybe they should make good movies instead of whining about pirates (who probably wouldn't have bought the movie anyway). The last few years have been some of the worst years for movies EVER in my opinion. There have been a few quality movies yes, but not very many, and nothing I would consider a 5 star film.

There are just way too many generic action, romantic comedies, superhero movies, and tons of sequels (Saw 6? one was too many..). Give me a movie worth seeing and I'll gladly go see it in a theater. GI Joe or generic horror movie #5 doesn't interest me.

I may be in the minority here though, as the types of movies I just named seem to be the most popular. Perhaps others are realizing how bad they are though, and simply not returning for another disappointment.
 
IRSmurf said:
I the situation were much more dire, I can see how what the said would be true.

However, his story is a complete fabrication in today's economic climate. Movie studios are doing just fine and people are still going to the theater for the movies they love.

Rather or not you'd pay $10 for a ticket to GI Joe 2 is a different story...
Click to expand...

6 or 7, sure. I avoid $10 tickets whenever possible. Only time I pay that price is when I go to the theater with family in a different town. So, yes, I'm saying I'd pay to see a G. I. Joe sequel assuming Sommers is involved. I haven't seen many mindless summer flicks of his that I didn't enjoy.
 
Here's an idea:

Make fewer shitty movies with poor acting and overdone special effects (with insane budgets)!
 
Adisharr said:
You know a movie is a winner when you can't even be bothered to watch the DL'd one lol. I can't remember how many times I've said 'Boy I'm glad I didn't pay to see that POS'.
...................
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sometimes I don't even waste my bandwidth downloading crappy movies. I was VERY, VERY hesitant to DL GI JOE, but my boy really wanted to see it. I've yet to DL any of the SAWs. WTF, 6 SAW movies? What evar.
There were some movies I went and paid for even though a 720p version was available for DL on *cough* the bay.
Quality = me shelling out $$$
Subpar quality = me DLing it
Crappy quality = me not even worth my time DLing it. Thats 90% of the movies right there!
 
k1pp3r said:
So your telling me, $600 Million - distribution + DVD sales is NOT enought to make another movie?
Click to expand...
Enough for approximately 20 District 9s. Budget on that was $30 million -- chump change in Hollywood -- yet brought in $37 million gross in its first weekend. And, hell, it wasn't even a particularly great film.

Blown 89 said:
When the actors aren't making hundreds of millions of dollars for a few months work then I'll take their comments seriously
Click to expand...
Heh. I don't know of any actor who's making a hundred million per film, let alone hundreds of millions. There are some who may get close to $100M in the span of a year and multiple productions, but not for one film.

Enviousness is really not an appealing quality. Consider focusing your feelings of envy into something that's actually productive :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top