Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
You may have already heard about a certain workprint for Fox’s “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” leaking onto the Internet two weeks ago since the resulting firestorm and fallout has been covered and re-covered by bloggers, journalists and former journalists alike. So there’s not much left to say on the issue. I do, however, want to go on record, as In Contention’s resident box office guy, as saying that this leak will have absolutely ZERO effect on the amount of money the film will pull in. Well, almost zero.
First, let’s take a look at Fox’s logic. Potential customers see the movie on their computer before it comes out. Customers then do not go see the movie in the theater. It does seem to make sense and this logic most likely comes from the devastating effect that illegal downloading has had on the record business.
Now, here’s my logic. While the record business is definitely going down the tubes, the music business is doing fine. Concert business is relatively stagnant and vinyl sales are up significantly. Look at Flo Rida. His album only sold 80,000 units its first week, which is disappointing, but his single “Right Round” has been downloaded over a million times on iTunes alone. In other words, CDs may be dying, and possibly even the album format, but the music industry will be fine.
Look also at the top 30 Billboard debuts for artists like Animal Collective and Andrew Bird so far in 2009. Not only did both acts post career-high sales totals, but they both cater almost exclusively to the audience that is supposedly getting all their music illegally. Really, though, it’s silly to even compare the two industries, since buying a record was never a group activity or a night on the town to begin with.
Which brings me to movies. What do you think the number one downloaded film of 2008 was? “The Dark Knight.” Does that mean if downloading didn’t exist the film would have grossed $600 million instead of $533 million? What about a film like “Taken?” It was released internationally a full year before its debut in the States and was widely available for download for the same period. Given a dreaded January release by Fox, which marketed the film admirably if not aggressively, it appeared with little buzz from inside the industry, yet got enough positive word of mouth from somewhere to pull off a $25 million opening and become the second January release ever to cross $100 million.
“Fast & Furious,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” “Gran Torino” and every other blockbuster has been available to see for those who are willing, yet the box office is booming. Attendance and revenue are both up over 2008 so where is the proof that this type of downloading hurts a film?
If “Wolverine” opens with a disappointing figure, Fox will almost certainly be quick to point the finger at piracy for the performance, but the real blame will be with themselves. Because the only thing that really matters is the quality of the film. The unexpected leak has merely given word of mouth a head-start and God help them if the word of mouth is not what they’re hoping for. On the other hand, if the film pleases, like “The Dark Knight” and “Taken” did, then they should have nothing to worry about.
14 responses so far
1 4-16-2009 at 12:13 pm
Robert Hamer said...
Sounds logical to me.
2 4-16-2009 at 2:08 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
Ya, Itll make money, just not tons
3 4-16-2009 at 2:15 pm
Jeremy said...
Completely agree. James Berardinelli over at ReelViews has a nice piece (link below) where he makes similar claims and even suggests that the leak may help the Wolverine’s box-office. Basically, someone who downloaded the movie either A) Is a devoted fan who is going to see it in theatres anyway and simply couldn’t resist when the print became available online, or B) Was only mildly curious and wouldn’t have seen the movie in theatres anyway. Fox can’t make these points publicly because it will appear that the studio condones piracy, but any negative impact the leak has on the movie’s box-office is entirely fabricated.
http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=572
4 4-16-2009 at 3:42 pm
Jonathan Spuij said...
At least the reviews will be about something. There’s nothing to write about in terms of content of the film itself so half the articles will be about the leak. Good for them.
5 4-16-2009 at 5:10 pm
Mike said...
It will have an embarrasing second weekend drop.
6 4-17-2009 at 5:36 am
Nigel said...
It didn’t hurt Taken’s box office, that’s for sure. So I guess time will tell.
7 4-17-2009 at 8:20 am
The World said...
Chad, you are completely wrong. The leak will absolutely have an effect on the film’s gross, the effect will just be unmeasurable. If leaks have no consquence, why would every studio purposely leak copies out?? Because it’s only logical to assume the movie will lose some audience. I for one have somehow come across the leak film and must say I will not go an pay money to see the final product. And I am a huge fanboy of all sci-fi/comic things. The reason? The movie sucked in general and there was nothing to motivate me to see the finished version. If the movie was somehow good, I would pay to see the amped up effects.
8 4-17-2009 at 10:14 am
Chad said...
re: The World- That’s more or less what I’m saying. The fact that a film leaks doesn’t hurt box office. Only if a bad film leaks. Perhaps we are encountering the first moments of a new quality-control system that will give audiences the power to force studios into trying a little bit harder with their product.
Probably not though since Wolverine will still make tons of money.
9 4-18-2009 at 3:54 pm
Scott Ward said...
The music industry is fine financially. And that’s it. And I hope that that is the only aspect in which you think it is fine.
10 4-19-2009 at 9:16 am
chad said...
There’s plenty of good music out there if you know where to find it.
11 4-19-2009 at 1:29 pm
Scott Ward said...
I would say that there is some music out there to satisfy, meaning that not quite everything I have to listen to is from the last century.
I love The White Stripes, Black Keys, and Kings of Leon has some great stuff too, but you have to cringe when you compare it to the good stuff from the 60′s, 70′s, and 90′s. There may be some good music today, but nothing even near a fraction of the quality as artists like Beatles, Floyd, Dylan, Zeppelin, Velvet Underground, Doors, and you get the idea that there are countless others.
To me, the main problem with nearly every talented artist today is that they either sell out for the conformist popular sound (Mayer and J. Johnson come to mind first) or they try to be so revolutionary that they compromise a lot of lyrical and just overall aesthetic quality.
But we could go on and on with this….
12 4-20-2009 at 7:27 am
The World said...
Music tastes is soley subjective. For example, I’m fairly young and would say that every artist you mentioned except for the Beatles are alwful to me. In fact, I’ve only heard of 1/4 of those bands before. I think older music is overrated and it’s just people hanging onto the past tend to overplay the quality of it. It’s like me trying to say some 80′s or 90′s music is so much better than stuff today.
13 4-20-2009 at 9:08 am
Speaking English said...
***For example, I’m fairly young and would say that every artist you mentioned except for the Beatles are alwful to me. In fact, I’ve only heard of 1/4 of those bands before.***
Uh…
14 4-20-2009 at 8:05 pm
Scott Ward said...
The World, all I can hope is that you grow out of this feeling. I didn’t start really appreciating great music until I was well into my teenage years. And appreciate is the key word there; everyone likes and enjoys some kind of music, but in my experiences of talking with other people and reading on the topic, I have found that the people who truly appreciate music as an art form and are passionate about the content of the music (not to be mistaken with passion for the movement, i.e. emo) like the same kind of music and recognize the same few artists as the greatest. One area I can tell you that you are flat out wrong is when you say that people listen to older music just to hold onto the past. Do you honestly think that Dylan’s, Floyd’s, or the Beatles music has no relevance today? But if you honestly think that music today is anywhere near that of the 90′s you either haven’t heard much or you are just really dumb.
And please don’t use the “music is purely subjective” defense. Whether that statement has any truth or not is irrelevant because that’s just an easy escape that any retard or five year old could use. If that’s your best or only defense then you couldn’t prove that the music I listen to is any better than that of a five year old who listens to Hannah Montana.