The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent A Box Office Record

Post by waterlesscloud » Tue, May 08, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

EvilTerran wrote: post #55

m0nastic wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually logistical reasons why that's potentially difficult, (having actors show up at premiers for example). I think considering that "overseas piracy" is the big stated concern for Hollywood (less people downloading cam-rips, more people selling DVD's on corners), their strategy of actually launching the movie outside the U.S. first made sense. I suspect we'll see more of that for tent-pole type films.

I doubt there's a single soul outside the film industry who gives the slightest damn about whether the actors are at the first showing of a film in their country/continent/whatever.

Post by waterlesscloud » Tue, May 08, 2012, 5:15 PM UTC

vibrunazo wrote: post #22

iamben wrote: post #17

For me it usually comes down to the 'is it worth it?' Avengers was worth it - you knew it was going to be great in 3D, explosions, cinema sound, Iron Man, etc. Whilst I begrudged paying £16 (~$26 US) for me and the girlfriend (before even thinking about drinks / popcorn) we were always going to see it in the cinema. Compare that to a film that doesn't excite me (or most of the general population), and all of a sudden…

> you knew it was going to be great in 3D Quick off-topic question. Is the 3d version worth it here? Usually most 3d films is 3d just because, but make no real good use of it. But being 3d just adds an extra unnecessary eye strain. This is why I watched the Avengers on 2d. But is this one of those rare movies (like avatar) where the 3d version is actually better? If so, I might go back and watch it again.

Post by jeffool » Tue, May 08, 2012, 5:20 PM UTC

mikeryan wrote: post #47

nextparadigms wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how much money they could make if they released a 1080p HD version online, globally, 4 weeks at most after the launch in cinemas, and for a price of $5. That may or may not kill the cinemas in the long term, depending on how hard they fight to become more competitive and unique compared to watching the movie at home, but it would definitely not hurt the studios and movie makers. If anything, they stand to mak…

Interesting hypothetical. Lets take a recent blockbuster. The first Twilight movie made $392,616,625 in the box office, $194,881,773 in DVD sales for a total of $587,498,398 (almost 600M - pretty good rake) In your $5 they'd have to sell 117,499,679 of those $5 streams in order to make that equivalent revenue (so roughly one in every 60 people in the world need to buy a stream). For more fun take the last Twilight Mo…

Post by ChiperSoft » Tue, May 08, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #57

cdr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local indie theater recently ran a substantial (for them) fundraising campaign to upgrade to digital. They claimed that within a year or two, the major studios were going digital only and any theater without digital would be completely shut out. I didn't verify this, but I have no reason to doubt them.

Fox just announced officially that they will cease all 35mm print distribution within 2 years.

Post by InclinedPlane » Tue, May 08, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

piquadrat wrote: post #2

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 availab…