Firefly Sets Yet Another Record!

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Friday, February 23, 2007 02:07
VIEWED: 52370
PAGE 8 of 16

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

DARKFLY

Friday, January 19, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MightyRoar:
Quote:
Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Well, considering Serenity already made the money Universal said was required to consider a sequel,

Did it? How much has it made, and how much were Universal after?

Serenity made $39,000,000,000(39 million) at the world box office the budget was $40,000,000,000(40 million) & about 5 months ago I heard Serenity on DVD had sold around 700,000 DVDs so by now its probably sold closer to 800,000 DVD's so if you roughly cacualute the cost of a DVD then on DVD Serenity has made about 10-12 million dollars so the movie has made roughly 50-51 million dollars plus then you got merchandise which will probably add another million.

Serenity came out on the first week of being able to buy HD-DVDs & came the no.1 selling HD-DVD that week

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Things are about to get interesting...Define interesting...Oh GOD oh GOD we're all going to die.

Go to

to see my cool trailer.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:40 AM

DISCLAIMER: It's 2:40am, I'm tired.

@Seafort32:

You seem to be strangely obsessed with totally free downloading as a business model. No-one here is advocating this. What people are saying is that having the downloading going on that is going on today is (arguably) not actually harming anything. Once you accept that, the discussion will take on a very different colour.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

If Napster and such actually increase sales then why is the record industry trying to prosecute the biggest offenders? Why am I now getting anti-pirate advertisements on some of my DVD's? If peer-to-peer is good for business, why aren't they promoting it? My uncle is a musician and is is PRO downloading. He wants the record companies to go out of business. Anecdotal, I admit.

It wasn't the recording industry that started the ball rolling on the Napster deal. It was Lars Ulrich of Metallica. And he has said some things regarding this issue that... well... he doesn't know what he's talking about. This then raised a "red flag" for the recording industry and they took over from there. Needless to say it went wildly out of control.

You see, these execs have no clue how tech works. They stopped listening at the point in which people said that people could get the music for free. They didn't study the effects of what was going on, nor how prolific it was to see if it was worth going after. They even ignored every study that showed that it may have been a good thing for sales (which it was). They just started suing. After Napster, they went after similar companies and then started suing individuals.

And now after having done all of these things the recording industry would look pretty stupid if they admitted that they were wrong. That and the fact that if they admitted defeat/wrongness/etc, they probably think that it would give the impression that they were giving the ok for downloading.

Basically, they've made such a big deal about it, they can't stop now.

The problem is that every single tactic that they've used has had zero effect of slowing downloading down. In fact, it's arguable that it has increased. Or in other words, the recording industry has widely published a method of "rebelling against the man" to every pissed of teenager that there is.

Oh, and one piece of fud that they recording industry has used to support there conjecture that downloading is hurting sales is that in the past years they've had to lay off employees and there profits have gone down. This certainly is true, but the causes are far from what they say they are. Basically, all you have to do is normalize the economic depression and compare the recording industry to other industries. The results are that the recording industry has actually done the best out of all of them.

Regarding to anti-piracy messages on your DVD's... they've always been there in one form or another. Nothing has changed except for the presentation. And that tends to change over time regardless so this development is rather insignificant.

Your uncle probably wants the recording industry to go out of business because they screw artists. The contracts are always wildly in favour of the label. A good example of this is when TLC filed for bankruptcy shortly after a very successful album release.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

A big difference between the music industry and the movie industry is the cost. If the record industry goes down the tubes, we will all still have music. It takes almost next to nothing to make music and post it. Movies take $100's of millions (depends on if it is a romantic comedy or Star Wars, true). So if you can show me how the movie execs think that pirating movies is a way to get a return on their investment, then I'll see how that'll get us another Firefly flic. Until then I'm not to keen on it.

You're posing the question in a way that tells me that you aren't really willing to listen. But, I'll assume that I'm wrong and g

SEAFORT32

Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:59 PM

Ok, I think we are at the agree to disagree part of the conversation.

I don't agree or disagree with anything you are saying regarding actual or potential damage to any industry.

I'm not trying to argue that downloads "actually" hurt or help. I'm just trying to point out that the suits "perceive" that they hurt, and make decisions based on that perception. It is that perception I worry about as a Browncoat.

You are arguing reality, and I'm arguing perception. Though some say that perception is reality...whatever.

For fear of opening up another can of worms, I have heard CDs made by a guy in a 10x10 shack with a few thousand dollars of equipment. Indistinguishable from pros. Age of the digital and all that.

But any hoo. I concede that you just may be right about downloads having no actual or material hurt. Do you see my point that the suits think it hurts and make decisions based on that?

KJ

Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:39 PM

What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

PINBALLWIZARD

Sunday, January 21, 2007 4:34 PM

I'm not a fan of piracy, especially in the case of the BDM. But I think the fact that someone has already broken the newest anti-piracy code is hilarious.

No, I am not insane, I am crazy. Thank you for asking.

DONCOAT

Sunday, January 21, 2007 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJ:
What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

Ironically, Sony/BMG did the exact opposite. They placed a rootkit (virus) on their legitimate CDs that infected legitimate users. What's more, when they got caught they released an "uninstaller" for it that was, itself, a virus. Google "Sony rootkit" for the full story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

CEDRIC

Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

To get the level of sound quality it required 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, with maintenance and monthly rent costs. But, at that level, I'm probably very much low balling it.

If you don't want to spend money on building a recording studio yourself (really who does this?), you're probably looking at about $100/hr as a low figure for studio time. Though with expertise comes a much higher price.

With regards to cost of making a film, it isn't as much as you might think. You see, a lot of movies are made in California which has ridiculous fees when it comes to shooting locations. Also, companies that work out of California charge ridiculous fees because they have to pay ridiculous rent and pay ridiculous salaries because homes/appartments cost a ridiculous amount of money. You might note that movies save millions by shooting not in California.

Basically, a lot of the cost is artificial.

You also don't seem to realize that a bunch of friends can make a cheap movie that is actually pretty good. To Know A Jedi is a fan film which I believe was made for about a grand.

Sigmanunki,

I agree with you that downloading actually increases sales, even though this seems counterintuitive.

However, your comparison of the movie and music industries is way off. For one thing, you compare big studio recording with fan films--the two are not equivalent. A more accurate comparison would be to compare independent music with independent film. I know by experience that making a sellable indy album is far less expensive than making a sellable indy film--Done The Impossible cost far more to make than On the Drift. And I believe both are typical in terms of production cost for indy products.

As for who builds their own studio--a lot of musicians do. The Brobdingnagian Bards sell thousands of CDs a year, all produced at their home studio. My own band rents a studio that is in a friend's house. It's not that uncommon.

*rant warning--not directed at Sigmanunki*
By the way, while we're all talking about how piracy is noble because it strikes back at big industry--let's remember that data pirates do not discriminate: My own indy music is on Limewire, without my permission. It's not there because someone thought, "Man, those Bedlam Bards are getting rich off of overcharging for their music; I'm gonna take them down." If they thought that, they need to be locked up for insanity. It's not there because someone thought, "People should be able to sample this music before they buy." After all, I've made it possible to download nearly half the album for free anyway, and you can hear samples of every song online. Hell, I want people to hear my music for free; it increases sales. What bothers me is that the folks at Limewire didn't even ask permission. It's not noble; it's rude.
*rant over*

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

SAMEERTIA

Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:42 PM

At 19.6 gig?
Okeee... doing the math...
I can...
a) rent from Blockbuster for $3.00
b) buy from Amazon for $14.99
c) buy on special order from my local video store- $19.95

OR I can take forty-five minutes to download a 19.6 gig pirated movie...

My regular salary as a manager comes to about 18.50 an hour... at forty-five minutes download at average connection speeds with my laptop...that means that I'm 'spending' roughly 15$ salary to get a pirated copy of a film that I could order off of Amazon for the same price, or could rent from Blockbuster five times over.

I'm not seeing the monetary benefit here. But then, I'm wierd that way. Plus, I have issues with stealing. *shrug*

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

I'm not trying to argue that downloads "actually" hurt or help. I'm just trying to point out that the suits "perceive" that they hurt, and make decisions based on that perception. It is that perception I worry about as a Browncoat.

But, suits only care about the bottom line. So, in suit language:

Suit 1: Ug, movie make money.
Suit 2: Ug, you right, make money
Suit 1: Make more money. Make more movie.
Suit 2: Ug.

Basically, when it comes down to the decision to make a movie, they only care about the bottom line. If it's in the black, more movie. If not, no more movie. As Michael Moore has said, they only allow him to continue making movies because he makes them money. What else would fund him to make movies that are actually fight /against/ the industry.

The downloading issue is a side issue that they deal with separately. And arguably, they don't have the mental capacity to keep all these things in mind when considering whether to green light any particular movie.

So, as long as enough people buy it for it to be profitable, all is well and good with the world.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

You are arguing reality, and I'm arguing perception.

But, in this case they aren't even an approximation; they are pretty much opposites. Sure suits make decisions based on there perceptions, but in the case of downloading those decisions are not really linked to green lights. Though they are linked to the lawyers that will sue the downloaders if they are caught. But, that's pretty much the extent.

Basically, if they make money they are happy. If they perceive something is taking away money, they will go after the people that they think are "costing" them money regardless of the reality of the situation.

They are pretty much separate issues in the industry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

For fear of opening up another can of worms, I have heard CDs made by a guy in a 10x10 shack with a few thousand dollars of equipment. Indistinguishable from pros. Age of the digital and all that.

Shiny, what album?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

Do you see my point that the suits think it hurts and make decisions based on that?

As basically stated above, yup

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJ:
What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

Are you aware of how many laws this would break? A wrong + a wrong does not equal a right.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE