View Full Version : MONSTER INC Box Office Results
919Florida
11-04-2001, 06:16 PM
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- "Monsters, Inc." scared away the weekend competition.
The film about a monster factory that collects kids' screams recorded the best debut in film history for an animated film and the sixth-best opening of all time, bringing in $63.5 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.
"Monsters, Inc.," the latest film from the Disney/Pixar partnership that produced the "Toy Story" movies and "A Bug's Life," far outdistanced those earlier hits.
The previous top opening for an animated film was the $57.4 million recorded by 1999's "Toy Story 2," which also held the previous record for best November opening.
"There's something about the Pixar/Disney partnership whereby the creative forces behind these films really know what kids want to see," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the box office. "Everything that they do with these films seems to exactly capture what kids are looking for."
Opening in second place over the Friday-to-Sunday weekend was "The One," Jet Li's latest action film. The film brought in $20 million, the strongest opening to date for a film starring Li. Unlike his earlier "Romeo Must Die" and "Kiss of the Dragon," the film was rated PG-13, not R.
"Domestic Disturbance", a thriller starring John Travolta, debuted in third place, bringing in $14.5 million.
BOX OFFICE TOP 10
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures are to be released Monday.
1. "Monsters Inc.," $63.5 million.
2. "The One," $20 million.
3. "Domestic Disturbance," $14.5 million.
4. "K-Pax," $10.7 million.
5. "Thirteen Ghosts," $8 million.
6. "Riding in Cars with Boys," $4.5 million.
7. "From Hell," $3.7 million.
8. "Training Day," $3.2 million.
9. "Bandits," $3 million.
10. "Serendipity," $2.5 million.
The openings rang in the holiday movie season in decisive fashion. Receipts for the top 12 movies were up nearly 90 percent over last weekend, and 44 percent over the same weekend last year.
"In light of the tragedy of September 11, the box office has just been incredible. People want an escape," Dergarabedian said. "We're on record pace for the year."
"Monsters" is the sort of movie Disney typically would release right around Thanksgiving, but the studio moved it to early November hoping to cash in before the Warner Bros. "Harry Potter" juggernaut hits the weekend before Thanksgiving. (Warner Bros. is a sister AOL Time Warner company to CNN.com.)
"Monsters, Inc." features the voices of John Goodman as the gorilla-like Sully and Billy Crystal as his pal Mike Wazowski -- an eyeball with arms and legs. Havoc ensues when Goodman's character accidentally lets a little girl wander through her closet into the monster world, where human children are considered toxic.
Disney officials were ecstatic Sunday at the film's success.
"It's just fabulous," said Disney distribution chief Chuck Viane. "We knew it was good, but breaking records -- you very seldom expect that."
The take for "Monsters, Inc." easily outdistanced the $42.4 million DreamWorks' animated "Shrek" brought in on its opening weekend in May. But "Shrek" remained strong for weeks, and at $267 million is the year's highest-grossing movie so far.
Two films did very well opening in limited release.
The whimsical French-language romance "Amelie," a big hit at Cannes, stars Audrey Tautou as a quirky woman who sets out to put some meaning and love into the lives of those around her. It was on only three screens -- two in New York and one in Los Angeles -- and took in a total of $140,000, an outstanding $46,667 per screen average.
Opening on 38 screens, the Coen brothers' latest film, "The Man Who Wasn't There," brought in $673,300 over the weekend for a $17,718 per screen average.
Jack Foley, president of distribution for USA Films, said the studio is being cautious about bringing out the black-and-white film starring Billy Bob Thornton and Frances McDormand. It's in 17 markets now and will expand to about 30 next weekend, he said.
"We're letting those who believe spread the word, and there are a lot of believers," Foley said.
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures are to be released Monday.
Bob O
11-04-2001, 09:35 PM
I dont really look at this as a positive for disney. They have their name attached but it was pixar that created the move and was the creative genuis behind it. Disneys own animated movies have been flops when compared to pixar's achievements and doesnt bode well when the contract is up and they are on their own. Disney hasnt shown the ability to be as creative as pixar has been and it shows with the box office comparsions.
JimB.
11-04-2001, 09:44 PM
ON the other hand Bob, I think this is GREAT news for the company.
Maybe not in the financial sense totally, but it gets the company name back in the public eye in a positive light.
And I'm not sure, but I think some research will show that Pixar made this movie, along with the others, with an EXCEPTIONAL amount of creative input from Disney, including storylies, screenwriting and character developement. I doubt very seriously that Disney just "cut Pixar loose" to churn out whatever their own little digital minds could dream up, and then agree to market whatever comes out the end of the drain pipe.
Not to mention that they probably have to work real hard to keep Steve Jobs under control. He's crafty & smart, but sometimes can be loopier than a $3 bill.
P.S. The movie is outstanding. Great characters, story, animation, and without the continual bathroom humor that permeated "Shrek".
This is definatly a plus for Disney
(What the Heck? Shrek blasts to the top and its bad for Disney. Pixar does a great film FOR Disneyand its bad for Disney, Is Star Wars a bad deal for FOX?)
Trust me, Disney is going to get plenty more movies out of Pixar with the current contract, and with numbers like this, I doubt that Disney would simply let them walk. (I know they may not have a choice, that's not the point)
MickeyMoose15
11-04-2001, 10:42 PM
The teaser trailer for Star Wars Episode II wasn't that great as I expected.
Planogirl
11-05-2001, 12:48 AM
Well, I think that the jury is still out on whether this movie will affect Disney in the long run or not. Their name gets out there for sure but if they release another mediocre animated movie, I think that many people might start noticing the difference. More than a few friends who aren't Disney fanatics have mentioned the new PIXAR movie to me, not the new DISNEY movie. I hope that Disney's next movie is great however because then it's all gravy! :)
DramaTech
11-05-2001, 12:55 AM
Don't forget the "short" at the beginning. Pixar is now well known for those too, and the birds were hilarious. I hope they put bloopers and outtakes on Monsters, Inc at some point, as that was a great addition to A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2.
TheWho
11-05-2001, 08:48 AM
The movie ending is primed for a sequel. In some ways, it was a bit dissapointing because I wanted to see the next event. However, the movie was great and deserves to make mega bucks. I hope Disney keeps the relationship with Pixar because a sequel can not be far behind. The birds in the beginning were also very funny.
BRERALEX
11-05-2001, 09:49 AM
I read posts here alot and if monster inc did bad people would say this is bad for disney without a doubt. so the movie does good and its bad for disney?
DisneyFanGuy
11-05-2001, 10:03 AM
There is no down side to anyone here. I swear, some folks could spot the only cloud on a beautiful, sunny day. Pixar is building their brand, and it gets bigger with every film. Disney has its best opening of the year, and McDonalds sells a bunch of happy meals. We have some new characters to add to the parks, and I enjoy the "biggest surprise" movie in ages! (I didn't really expect it to be so enjoyable)
Disney even has another week to enjoy big box office results before everyone goes to Hogwarts for Thanksgiving. (Moving the opening date was a very good move!)
Yeah!
MickeyMoose15, did you take a trip to East Troy and Smoke the Funky Grass in the Alpine Valley Parking lot? :):):)
As self proclaimed Star Wars Fanboy, I hereby Declare the EpII Teaser Trailer to RULE!!!
The Sound being the best park.
P.S. My Bears Will Crush your Packers. BWAHAHAHAHA Vengence is Mine!!
(I'll stop now, I think people would be mad if we took this thread over to argue Bears Packers. :))
Another Voice
11-05-2001, 01:32 PM
Power belongs to those that can create.
The credit for ‘Monsters’ is going to Pixar, whether that is deserved or not is another question. But with that credit goes the power. Short-term financial gains are nice, but power – the power to attract talent, stories and hype -- is more important over the long run. The new cliché around town is that you’re only as good as your next picture.
Disney has almost no creative input into Pixar’s production and Pixar is under no obligation to use any of Disney’s “suggestions”. The Pixar creative team dislikes Disney’s management and the experience of ‘Toy Story 2’ proved to Pixar, in their minds at least, that they are much better at process than Disney. The limit of Disney’s control is in the contract – The Mouse can simply refuse to release the movie they receive from Pixar. And even I don’t think that Eisner is that dumb.
On another topic – there are rumors that some markets were supposed to receive the first ‘Lilo and Stitch’ trailer instead of re-edited ‘Peter Pan 2’ trailer. Has anyone out there seen it?
All Aboard
11-05-2001, 01:44 PM
AV, we got Return to Neverland in Miami. What's the projected release of Lilo & Stitch? I would gess that it would be mid-June given the trend that began with Lion King. I was glad to see that Neverland was a Feb release. I feared (out of lack of knowledge) that it would be the only 2002 animated feature. That would have been a real disappointment.
AV help remind me of what is in the animated feature pipline and the guesstimated release dates. I know that Treasure Planet is in there. Is Country Bears animated? Thanks.
YoHo, I am by no means a Star Wars guy (I haven't even seen Episode I). I thought the trailer was very intriguing. I thought the changing of each scene with Vader's breathing was a creative effect. Clearly, I now have to see Ep I before May.
Just mentally block the scene's with Jar Jar and it will be all good.
Bob O
11-05-2001, 02:00 PM
I would agree with anotherVoice. Its a great opening and i will see it soon as I thought the trailers looked very good. But disney may profit short term but this is the work of pixar, their creative talent and not disney. And if rumors are true the relationship bewtween pixar and disney isnt great and with the success pixar has had when the contract is up they will set the price and not disney. if pixar goes to dreamworks/universal/fox when the deal is done they will then profit and disney still hasnt produced a animated movie in several years that was a great commerical success that then can be used to create rides/shows/toy sales, the so-called synergy everybody looks for. Disney needs to get away from their standard movie with cutsie singing animals and do somerthing a little more risque that will attract more then just small kids/ toddlers, bigger kids who see movies like things to be a little more gross etc than disney produces. Just mu opinion for what ever its worth.
Uh, Tarzan did pretty well. Wasn't THAT long ago. They even have an attraction for it.
All Aboard
11-05-2001, 02:19 PM
Disney needs to get away from their standard movie with cutsie singing animals and do somerthing a little more risque that will attract more then just small kids/ toddlers, bigger kids who see movies like things to be a little more gross etc than Disney produces. Don't know if I could possibly disagree more.
Let's see... major Disney box office successes in the past 12 years. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan. I see alot of "cutsie singing animals there and not any grossness.
Disney departed from that success formula with Atlantis and see how far it got them. Quite the contrary, Disney need to RETURN to the formula of their success. Great Story, Great Music, Lovable Characters, Hateable Villain = success.
JustBob
11-05-2001, 02:27 PM
hear hear, gcurling! Especially the great music!;)
Another Voice
11-05-2001, 05:19 PM
Partners for Pixar – So they can’t learn marketing very quickly? Hmmmm, seems like they have a pretty good brand name already and isn’t that most of the battle? Besides, all they have to do is partner with one of a dozen studios: Columbia, MGM, Warner Brothers, and others that might be somewhat interested. Dreamworks has had some pretty good successes with this model. And Fox is releasing their computer animated ‘Ice Age’ next spring. No studio will be out of the animation business until there’s no money in it.
2006 – isn’t that far away for these kinds of films. ‘Monsters, Inc.’ began production back in 1998. The last film for Disney has already started. That means Pixar can start working on non-Disney films immediately. Free from Burbank’s control, it seems that this creative team might be shopping projects around already. Excuse me for a moment: Mr. Lucas – there’s a call for you on line two.
Small print – actually Disney and Pixar have joint control over the ‘Toy Story’ and ‘Bug’s Life’ characters. Just look at all those ® symbols. Pixar took Disney to court over this one before the reached a settlement; another cause of the hard feelings. There isn’t a Pixar animator who doesn’t point out the “Copyright Disney and Pixar” label on the “bottom” of Buzz in ‘Toy Story 2’. Yes, Disney can make sequels if it wants to, but ‘Buzz Lightyear of StarCommand’ hasn’t exactly been a ratings smash. It takes more than a brand name to make a popular movie.
Success is relative – Because of the importance animated films have in driving the entire company, Hollywood considers ‘The Lion King’ to be the last “successful” animated film. None of the others have lived up to either their box office or merchandising potential. Even ‘Tarzan’ didn’t crack $100 million and its merchandise was non-existent. None of the post-Katzenburg films have had the financial (‘The Little Mermaid’), critical (‘Beauty and The Beast’), creative (‘Aladdin’), or franchise (‘The Lion King’) success that qualifies them as a “hit”. And ‘Fantasia 2000’ was made just to keep Roy quiet at the board meetings. As a box office hit, Disney lost less money with ‘Corky Romano’.
A new tune – Disney very publicly declared the “singing animal musical animated feature” dead and released ‘Atlantis’ as “the wave of the future”. Meanwhile ‘Shrek’ stayed very truthful to the old Disney formula and covered over the some the staleness with some cleaver humor. A formula only seems like a formula when it’s not used well. Menken & Ashman could use the “formula” to produce genius, Elton John and Sting can’t.
Lastly – YoHo, you have to find a pirated copy of ‘Stars War 1: The Phantom Edit”. You would be amazed at how some good editing and the removal of all gratuitous Jar Jar can improve ‘Phantom Menace’.
DVC-Landbaron
11-05-2001, 05:38 PM
No studio will be out of the animation business until there’s no money in it. Except for Disney. Didn't they chose to roll over and play dead earlier this year? :(
All Aboard
11-05-2001, 05:38 PM
AV, I thought Tarzan was a $170m gross. I just checked a few sites (the-numbers, IMDB) and they have that number. Are they wrong?
btw, clue in a clueless guy. What's wrong with Jar Jar??
DVC-Landbaron
11-05-2001, 05:43 PM
btw, clue in a clueless guy. What's wrong with Jar Jar??Greg!! As a friend and drinking partner I gotta ask... Did you see the latest Star Wars installment?
All Aboard
11-05-2001, 06:00 PM
Nope, count me amongst the minority I guess. Movie watching for us: 90% of the movies we go to are the three of us (Monsters, Inc , Shrek) 10% are my wife and I (and she ain't going to use those precious few outings on Star Wars).
Honestly, I'm not really the (forgive me if I use a bad word) science fiction kinda guy. Seems I am in a big minority here. WDW-mania and Star Wars-mania seem to go hand in hand for some reason.
I actually Don't mind Jar Jar. I just waiting for the Re-edit of return with the Ewoks replaced with Wookees. :)
Jar Jar is Ep1's Ewoks. Meant to appeal to kiddies. Many many Star Wars fans hate both. I'm pretty forgiving. Most fans think Star Wars is theirs, not George's.
The biggest internet rumour about Ep2 is that Jar Jar Dies at the Hands of the future Vader.
Peter Pirate
11-05-2001, 06:05 PM
AV, while I agree that Ashman & Menken were primary in the success of the huge Disney flicks (in fact, I believe they don't get enough credit), I believe Phil Collins did a great job with Tarzan...
As for the Pixar picadillo, I am ambilvelent as to who gets the credit. I actually see Bob O's point, which is rare coming from me, Disney animators didn't do the creating...But still, Disney accountanteers did the negotiating and the deal is still Disney's - And as Scoop points out Disney made a whale of a deal.
Further, while Pixar seems on top of the world and while everything they touch turns to gold the fact is that no one is perfect. Wall St. today commented favorably upon Disney's parnership in this deal while speaking of downgrading Pixar (not good news for them)...Also, the Disney-Pixar relationship is what gave Pixar their showcase. Now, I know business is business & ego is ego, but Mr. Jobs should be smart enough to realize that the Pixar name with a Disney attachement has more wiggle room with a not so successful picture attached to it. What would happen (and imagine the pressure) if Pixar dumps Disney and goes it alone or picks up a minor player as a distributor-partner and has a much hyped, much anticipated Atlantis type flop? Their ability to maintain respect, dominance & a second chance is far less likely without the simple name "Disney" attached to it...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:
Planogirl
11-05-2001, 09:01 PM
Why did Disney decide that the music didn't matter any more? I've been puzzling over this for a while. I certainly used to look forward to it.
I disagree that Elton John can't use the formula to create musical masterworks. I think that the music in The Lion King is some of the best of the lot. That said, I was disappointed in the work by Sting, one my favorites.
Another Voice
11-05-2001, 11:00 PM
Thread One
I just want to note that what I’ve been writing about is not what I think should happen, or even what I think is in the best interest of Pixar; I think the separation is the most likely outcome given all the circumstances.
Pixar by itself would be a very risky proposition. It would essentially be a one product company and likely forced back into doing commercials and special effects work (which I think they dislike doing). And because of the nature of animation, they’d live from film to film – again another risky situation to be in. Of course, that’s exactly how Walt Disney Productions lived until Walt was forced to make live action features after WWII, so there is a precedent that they could follow if they’re serious about it.
Even partnering with Lucasfilm – er – I mean someone else would be tricky. None of the other studios are entrenched enough in animation at this point to weather a flop or two without taking on water (by the way Captain, I hope to winds were kind to you and yours). Disney had the luxury of being able to take an ‘Oliver and Company’ and ‘Pocahontas’, but even they stumbled greatly in the 70s-80s and recently. If Pixar cranks out a couple of flops in a row they could be wiped out entirely.
And most of Pixar’s strengths really come from John Lassiter and his team. While I really enjoyed ‘Monsters, Inc.’ (Pixar’s first non-Lassiter film), there are enough story and script problems in it to give me real concern. Fortunately, all movies are about their last thirty minutes and they were able to pull it out. In lesser hands, ‘Monsters’ could have really been a major disappointment.
Thread Two
As for ‘Tarzan’, that was really Disney’s most non-formula movie in terms of story structure and approach. It’s also my favorite of the post-‘Lion’ era because I think the writers tried to go back to honest storytelling (they just needed more time to work it all out). The songs in that film were a part of the score rather than trying to be part of the story – basically you had Phil Collins replacing instrumental music and it worked very well. In contrast, watch the opening musical number in ‘Beauty and The Beast’. In the course of just that one song, you are introduced to all of the human characters, learn what they want, and learn all about their relationship to each other. That’s a lot of plot to get through in so short of a time. About the only way you could do that is with music. It’s also EXTREMELY difficult to do well and Disney hasn’t found anyone how can really pull it off since Menken and Ashman.
In ‘The Lion King’, the score really isn’t integrated into the story. Essentially, the movie comes to a stop and the characters put on an entertaining show. Once they’re finished, the movie starts up again. It works because the script is so strong that it can support the occasional diversion. This kind of score is easier to write (you only need to express an emotion rather than work in a plot) and it’s also much more likely to generate a Top 40 hit (again, there’s none of that plot stuff to get in the way – people who don’t know what’s going on in the movie can still follow the song). With the recent films, Disney’s been much more interested in soundtrack sales and Top 40 tunes. So people who can “crank out the hits” are hired over people who can write Broadway musicals.
Bob O
11-06-2001, 12:46 AM
With the success pixar has had i dont believe Jobs is going to be happy playing second fiddle to disney and will go where he gets the best deal, and disney isnt known for its ability to get along with other companies. If you look at animated movies for the last several years and cost in the production costs/marketing costs i think you will find that pixar's movies have made alot more money then disneys animated films and what the last disney animated film that beat Shreks numbers?? I think you will have to go back to at least a couple years and disneys productions cost more to make. The success of Monsters i believe will benefit pixar more than disney in the long run. With my own kids they like the humor of shrek/cartoon channel/nick the cuteness of disney. They will all like a film the caliber of lion King but when you put out movies like emperors new groove/Atlantis they will suffer with a lack of repeat business.
Planogirl
11-06-2001, 01:32 AM
I guess that I see your point Another Voice even though I did think that Can You Feel the Love Tonight flowed nicely and the opening of the Lion King had me teary eyed. It was just so powerful and moving with the scenery and animals and THAT song. I also loved Scar's number but it did stop everything didn't it? I guess that to me the music was so good throughout this film that I never really noticed that the action stopped. :)
Anyway, I hope that Disney brings back music in any manner!
DisneyFanGuy
11-06-2001, 06:59 AM
AV, I completely agree. As an unabashed fan of musical theater, the ability to integrate songs and music into the plot is a special and rare gift. You see it in opera, but rarely in a popular format. Disney hit the "mother load" with them and finding another team like Ashman/Menken would be very difficult. (Look at their work with Little Shop of Horrors! Incredible!)
The only other recent movie of Disney's that seemed to do that was "Nightmare Before Christmas". Maybe Disney could hire Danny Elfman?
The real problem, though, is that they need to have a "sponsor" for that kind of creative in-house. Someone who feels strongly about the work. That person, unfortunately, was Jeffery Katzenburg, and he is looooooooooooog gone.
The musical format of the 89-95 Disney era was a "magical" combination of many factors. JK's vision, the money and culture to take risks, the Ashman/Menken creative, etc. To expect the planets to align easily again would be foolish. To "write off" animated musical theater as an art form would also be foolish. If it's done well, it will again succeed.
Every time I read about the death of Broadway Musicals, I know it's just a matter of time until another "Producers". If Disney doesn't want to do it (Classic Feature Animation) anymore, someone else will. And I bet I know who that will be.
CapHook
11-06-2001, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Bob O
With the success pixar has had i dont believe Jobs is going to be happy playing second fiddle to disney and will go where he gets the best deal ...
With the current Disney philosophy of stick your head in the sand - the world is ending that is running the theme parks I doubt Disney will be making the best offer.
Hmmmm, who do I dislike more Steve Jobs or Eisner?
johare
11-06-2001, 02:15 PM
Looks like Shrek is also doing VERY well with it's home video release.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/bpihw/20011105/en/_shrek_how_me_the_green_1.html
deerh
11-10-2001, 10:08 PM
Shrek is all hype! Yeah, it was a good movie, but it was all Disney, if not for making fun of the disney characters, and spoofs of disney, it would not have been HALF the movie it was! Admit it, all it was was a Disney take off, (remember Pinocho's nose), etc.? YES, it made $200 million, but I for one think it was a fluke, let's see what else Dreamworks puts out any one remembers in the future! Let's sit back and see what THEY do the next few years, IMHO, I don't think they will do that good, but I could be wrong, we shall see won't we?..........
deerh
HorizonsFan
11-11-2001, 05:34 AM
As a veteran (victim) of many musical theatre productions and two theatre history classes devoted to musical theatre, I would like to say emphatically that Ashman & Menken were among the best there have ever been. Their scores are not music that goes along with the book their scores are an integral part of the storytelling process. To use theatrespeak, they drive the dramatic action. You don't stop thinking about the story to hear a song. The song IS the story. This is what separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. This is what gives me goosebumps when I hear "Under the Sea" and makes me cry when I hear "Somewhere That's Green".
I guess my point is that this kind of extraordinary talent doesn't come along every day. When it does, Disney needs to be in a position to attract them. It seems to me that the focus has turned from writing songs that tell a story and become popular in the process to writing pop songs and from theatrical songwriters to pop songwriters. If your business is musical theatre (or musical animated features) this is counter productive.
I think that the company would be better served if they spent less on trying to get what they want from expensive, established musicians and more on finding those truly extraordinary people who can tell a story with timeless music.
Sorry for the ramble; I knew I shouldn't have posted this early...
KCritter
11-11-2001, 02:58 PM
Well said, HorizonsFan! I still feel the last good Disney musical was Hunchback. All the ones since then feels like the music was added as an afterthought.
johare
11-11-2001, 08:08 PM
Shrek is all hype! Yeah, it was a good movie, but it was all Disney, if not for making fun of the disney characters, and spoofs of disney, it would not have been HALF the movie it was! You have no clue what you are talking about here.
Admit it, all it was was a Disney take off, (remember Pinocho's nose)No, it wasn't. It took a couple jabs at Disney here and there but to say that "all it was was a Disney take off" is a very ignorant statement. And btw: the Pinochio character does not belong to Disney.
YES, it made $200 million, but I for one think it was a fluke, ...and what was Pearl Harbor? or Dinosaur? or Atlantis? Were they all flukes or has Disney forgotten how to make a decent movie without Pixar's help?
MickeyMoose15
11-11-2001, 09:42 PM
Monsters Inc grossed $45 million this weekend (about $20 million ahead of Shallow Hal)
and has thus far grossed $123 million.
WATCH OUT SHREK!!!
SPAGo 98
11-11-2001, 10:00 PM
Actually, Pearl Harbor made *more* money then Shrek. PH pulled in $250 million overseas for a total of $448.3 million. Shrek made, um, "only" $447.5 million. I know they're very close, but by no means can you paint PH as a total failure. It made more money overseas than any other film, and also was the biggest money-making movie for the 2001 summer season.
johare
11-11-2001, 10:06 PM
Monsters Inc grossed $45 million this weekend Great...I have nothing against Monsters, in fact I think it's a really great movie...I took my kids to see it on opening day and we have a 'personal' copy of the movie that they've watched on the DVD player about half a dozen times already. For Disney's sake I hope this movie makes a ton of money for them. That said however I still feel that Shrek is a better movie with slightly better animation and I hope it gets the Oscar next year.
Planogirl
11-12-2001, 12:05 AM
I like both movies. And I'm so glad to see two companies making extremely good animated movies, that is if Dreamworks continues to do so. Maybe this will motivate Disney enough so that we end up with 3! :D
Seriously, this might make Disney get better and better so that they make the best movies again. Or at least that's what I'm hoping.
MickeyMoose15
11-12-2001, 10:49 PM
A "Personal" copy? :confused:
johare
11-12-2001, 11:39 PM
A "Personal" copy? Yes, as in...go out on the internet, find a copy of the movie, download it, burn it to video cd's (VCD's) and then watch on a DVD player which has the capability to play VCD's (most players do) and read CDR's (most players don't). Quality on these varies...here's an example of a [Link Deleted] copy of Monsters and a [Link Deleted] copy.
Anyway, with me it really doesn't hurt the studios if the movie is good...I saw Shrek at the theaters, had DVD quality VCD's since August and still bought it on DVD the day it came out. Same with Monsters...we saw it at the theater on opening day and will buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.
Bob O
11-13-2001, 12:55 AM
Pearl harbor cost alot more to make and produce then Shrek and wont do anywhere near as good in dvd/vhs sales IMHO. Pearl harbor was a overhyped movie and pales in comparsion to movies such as Saving Private Ryan or band of Brothers!
johare, I would not be so free with explaining that on this site. We know that Disney employees read this site and what you are doing regardless of your personal opinions is in fact Illegal.
Just be careful.
johare
11-13-2001, 03:18 PM
johare, I would not be so free with explaining that on this site. We know that Disney employees read this site and what you are doing regardless of your personal opinions is in fact Illegal. I think Disney would do better to worry about the source of these movies and all the people who won't pay to see a movie because they obtain a 'bootleg' copy. Like I said...I still paid to see Monsters on opening day and will be one of the first to buy the DVD when it comes out. Since I never go see a movie more than once at the theater it really doesn't cost Disney anything if I have a copy to watch while I wait for the official copy. Though I would hope that Disney isn't as stupid as the RIAA, I can see how some 'suits' might see things differently. Thanks for the advice.
MickeyMoose15
11-13-2001, 05:52 PM
It is against the law to do that plus Eisner is very hard on people who do that!
johare
11-13-2001, 10:34 PM
It is against the law to do that plus Eisner is very hard on people who do that! If you found a video tape of Monsters Inc on your doorstep you'd watch it right? If so, what's the difference if you find a file containing the movie on the internet?
johare
11-13-2001, 11:53 PM
Yeah, whatever. If someone creates a movie, its their screenplay and they have the absolute and final right to choose to be or not to be compensated by those who like watch it. The creators of Monsters, Inc. have been compensated by my entire family and will be compensated again when they release the DVD.
what, because I like your grandmother's chicken casserole should I be able just to barge in to her frig for leftovers without knocking on the front door or calling aheadNot really sure your analogy makes sense here. If you come in and remove stuff from the frig you have physically taken something which didn't belong to you which I (or my grandmother) no longer has because you took it. Now if you came in and copied the casserole or the recipe I doubt anyone would really care as long as it was for your personal use. Same with a movie. If I break into a studios warehouse and steal some actual films that's one thing, but if I pay to see a movie and then obtain a copy to watch at home the studio has lost absolutely nothing.
SPAGo 98
11-14-2001, 02:27 AM
The creators of Monsters, Inc. have been compensated by my entire family and will be compensated again when they release the DVD.
Actually, they haven't, because until it is in VHS/DVD release, it is still their material, *exclusive* to the theaters. By watching it on a burned cd without paying is akin to sneaking into the movie theaters to see it again without paying, and trying to justify that by saying "we already paid to see it once."
That just don't work, in my opinion.
johare
11-14-2001, 08:21 AM
Actually, they haven't, because until it is in VHS/DVD release, it is still their material, *exclusive* to the theaters. By watching it on a burned cd without paying is akin to sneaking into the movie theaters to see it again without paying, and trying to justify that by saying "we already paid to see it once." Good point, but I still see it differently. If I sneak into a theater I am occupying a seat that should be taken by a paying customer and I'm using the resources of the theater. That isn't the same as watching a copy at home. Is videotaping an entire day at the Magic Kingdom and then watching it at home the same as sneaking back into the MK for free? How about if my favorite band is playing in town and I bring my camcorder, tape the whole show and then watch it at home? Is that the same as sneaking into their next concert?
I think this is one of those issues where people take a side and the two sides rarely (or never) come together. I guess if you have a problem with things like this then don't do it. Myself, I think as long as you pay to see the movie and don't give it to people who haven't paid then no wrong is done...but that is just IMHO.
HorizonsFan
11-14-2001, 11:35 AM
I think this is one of those issues where people take a side and the two sides rarely (or never) come together.
I think this is one of those issues where people steal intellectual property and then try to justify it...
Intellectual property is a tough one. I work with a lot of people who simply don't believe in it. (if they were writers or directors, or musicians, they MAY change there tunes(although not neccsarily). johare, I'm sorry I started this, I didn't want to discuss it to this extent, just warn you.
The fact of the matter is that. Companies prosecute for this kind of stuff on the Internet all the time. Look at what Paramount did with Star Trek Sites (and lost I believe) and what George Lucas Did with Star Wars sites (won sort of). Or what happened to Napster. Some of these studios can be very petty about this stuff. I don't know where Pixar stands. as I said, just be careful.
That's true, but if they wanted to they could probably get serch warrents or whatever they need. Or question him.
Again, just a warning.
SPAGo 98
11-14-2001, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by johare
Is videotaping an entire day at the Magic Kingdom and then watching it at home the same as sneaking back into the MK for free? How about if my favorite band is playing in town and I bring my camcorder, tape the whole show and then watch it at home? Is that the same as sneaking into their next concert?
The videotaping the MK is a totally different matter because you are allowed to videotape (most areas) of MK. If you are allowed to videotape, then I wouldn't consider that stealing. But if there are signs in the MK saying No Videotaping Allowed (or whatever they say) then you shouldn't videotape that. If you are allowed to videotape the concert then more power to you.
But in any case, if there is explicit directions saying "NO RECORDING DEVICE OF ANY KIND IS ALLOWED IN (the theater/the building, etc)" then you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VIDEOTAPE THAT. Those directions are all over every movie theater, they are not all over the MK. Therefore, it is 100% illegal to videotape a movie in the theater (ever hear of bootlegging? that's it), but it is 100% legal to videotape in the MK.
The point of questioning him would be to get the person that originally made the copy.
JeffJewell
11-14-2001, 01:48 PM
...the problem with intellectual property laws at this point is that the companies that own content are attempting to get the rules changed (or established, depending on how closely you believe high-tech digitally distributable intellectual property laws can/should mirror old-school hard copy intellectual property laws) such that you buy per use, not per piece of intellectual property. Entertainment companies are trying to influence the laws so that, in the future, you will not be able to buy a DVD once then watch it as many times as you want. They would much prefer that you have to pay each and every time you watch or listen.
The best example of this was the hubbub about DeCSS. I can legally obtain DVDs containing intellectual property (for instance, the Far East DVD release of Sleeping Beauty), but about the only way I can watch that legally obtained DVD is to "break" the "copy protection." If I legally bought the DVD, how can someone say I'm "stealing" if I manage to actually watch it (with lots of lawyers, that's how)?
The movie industry went ape-**** over this, saying that DeCSS's _only_ use was for stealing, which is patently untrue. This is the same gambit that was successful at crippling Napster: the record companies said "the only thing this can be used for is theft" long enough and loudly enough that the courts believed it, even though it's a flat-out lie.
I'm opening myself to accusations of "Chicken Little-itis" here, but there's no reason to believe that the entertainment companies can't or won't use the same type of argument to try to criminalize writable CDs or DVDs, TiVo boxes, even VCRs (why do you think DAT tapes never caught on in the US mass market? Because entertainment companies didn't want them to catch on, and lobbied to make them more difficult and expensive to buy and operate).
Jeff
PS: tossing around all these legal system statements should ensure Chad has enough targets for a big ol' post ;)
Jeff, Don't forget Diyvx. That Failed and Failed big time. It was an attempt at pay per use.
I don't think most people have a problem with intellectual property per se', they have a problem with trying to get more money out of them then they think is fair. AND for the Record, DAT tape did not Simply fail, because of IP fears. Sony released the minidisc which was similar AND released music for it, it failed too. Cost was a big factor. That and the fact that it turns out personal recordings are not as big a market as one would have thought. digital VCRs failed for the same reason, people simply don't care about recording things. Aside from TiVo which is designed to be impermanent (you can crack that baby open and put in a bigger, or second hard drive), very little sales have occured along this path.
there was a big fear when DVD first hit shelves that it wouldn't catch on, because you couldn't record to it. that has been proven wrong.
At the same time, the music industry struggles with the MP3 market, for a different reason, If you could go to the local Best Buy and make your own CD with only the songs you liked on it, nobody would use MP3. There is a downside for the artist in that the songs with less Airplay never get listened to, but that is minor. Its about freedom of Choice, people don't mind paying ofr intellectual property, but they want to have the choices.
johare
11-14-2001, 02:34 PM
The fact of the matter is that. Companies prosecute for this kind of stuff on the Internet all the time. Look at what Paramount did with Star Trek Sites (and lost I believe) and what George Lucas Did with Star Wars sites (won sort of). Or what happened to Napster. Some of these studios can be very petty about this stuff. I don't know where Pixar stands. as I said, just be careful.Well, if I was running a site or re-distributing this stuff I might be worried. I've downloaded a few movies and mp3's here and there, but have never uploaded any and have no 'public' drives on my PC. Given the quality of most of these 'downloaded' movies, I've burnt most of them to CD-RW's, watched them once or twice and then erased them (ie, Pearl Harbor wasn't even worth keeping for .75 cents in blank CDr's). If anyone wanted to look around at what I had they would be very disappointed.
The point of questioning him would be to get the person that originally made the copy.And what point would there be in that? If I download a file from a usenet group or from gnuetella, I have absolutely no idea where that file came from nor do I really care.
johare
11-14-2001, 02:35 PM
I think this is one of those issues where people steal intellectual property and then try to justify it...That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I just don't share that viewpoint. I suppose you've never listened to an .mp3 file of a song which you didn't own on CD, never copied a piece of computer software, never copied an audio or video tape, never photocopied a page or two from a book or magazine, right?
JeffJewell
11-14-2001, 02:48 PM
Don't forget Diyvx. That Failed and Failed big time. It was an attempt at pay per use. True, but that attempt required the willing cooperation of the user. I think that's why the big companies are going about it through litigious means, at this point.Sony released the minidisc which was similar AND released music for it, it failed too. Speaking as a recording musician, I can tell you that the MiniDisc format is inherently flawed (it is a digital format, but uses a "lossy" recording technique: in short, the copy is _not_, in fact, an exact digital copy of the original). The MiniDisc did not offer a significant advantage in quality, and therefore it never caught on in the numbers necessary to start bringing hardware prices down through economies of scale.
Actually, when you consider the timing of it all (and the entertainment companies specific complaint about DAT: that users could make unlimited copies that were digitally identical to the original) the MiniDisc was likely Sony's attempt to appease the entertainment companies. Unfortunately, the consumers did not want the product the entertainment companies wanted them to have.
Jeff
Another Voice
11-14-2001, 04:32 PM
This sounds much like lunch hour arguments all over Hollywood these days. Personally, I come down somewhat in the center. Yes, making unauthorized copies is theft of the “intellectual” property (I have a real hard time calling what this town creates “intellectual”, but that’s another post) and is not a good thing. A lot of people work hard to produce these products and under the existing rules they should be compensated. Even I enjoy cashing that 13-cent residual check from time to time.
However, the reason feel the need to make copies is basically because Hollywood is clinging to an outmoded business model and remains in denial that technology has changed since 1928. Why don’t publishers feel that photocopiers are a threat; because it’s much easier for people to buy the book or magazine rather than make a copy. If music and films were delivered in a more convenient manner and at a reasonable price point, illegal copying would not be an issue.
Napster was a threat not because there would be millions of copies of one hit track; it was a threat because people wouldn’t be forced to pay $20 to get nine other rotten tracks that come with the album. The music industry has gotten rich by shoveling out bad product and they don’t want that to change. Why do people make copies of just released movies; because not everyone wants to go see them in a theater. But Hollywood is hooked on a food chain – theatrical to pay-per-view to home video to premium cable to network to syndication – that requires the audience to watch the film at the studios whims (and not when the audience wants to see it) and that forces the audience to pay for the same movie multiple times. And if the movie is worth $8.75 to see it in a theater, how come it’s now worth $20 to see it at home?
Hollywood right now is a town that thinks telephones will never catch on because there are too many message boys around, that Americans will never by foreign made automobiles, and that no one wants a computer in their home. Market forces and technology have a way of crushing companies that don’t understand them.
Av, I agree with you. Especially about Napster.
As to DAT, Jeff, Having owned a DAT Machine, I know that with a CD Player with Digital connections, I could go from CD to DAT and have a perfect copy. If this were a technology people wanted, the early adopters would have done this. I agree that Digital copies is a problem for recording companies, but it is not the big one. MP3s after all are lossy copies as well. Yet, people rarely think twice about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the biggest reason CDs and now DVDs have caught on is due to the sound quality partly, but more importantly the lifespan of the media. tapes, Digital or not have a finite lifespan.
Another Voice makes a good point when he comments on cost of the product. People won't pay $17 for 2 good tracks and seven bad ones. they'd much rather get 2 good tracks and that's it.
I think people would pay for that instead of using the likes of Napster. The easiest way to kill something like that is offer it for free.
to go back to my George Lucas Vs. the Internet comment. the way george won was by creating star Wars.com and then giving out tidbits. By doing that, far fewer sites with Illegal media are around.
Just to get back to DAT. Dat was never going to last long anyway. For a few years it was the only choice for Digital Recording, now its just as easy to plop the fully digital track down on an 80 gig hard drive do some digital manipulation and burn it to CD. Technology just passed it by.
Quentin Disney
11-14-2001, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
Napster was a threat not because there would be millions of copies of one hit track; it was a threat because people wouldn’t be forced to pay $20 to get nine other rotten tracks that come with the album. The music industry has gotten rich by shoveling out bad product and they don’t want that to change.
I agree as well. I feel that the recording industry is a joke these days. Too much marketing, imitation and packaging. All of this commericalism has affected most genres. If the music industry focused on the quality of their songs and not about image and what not, then maybe I would still be buying CD's today. I wish the RIAA rode the wave. Now, no matter how hard they try, even if they try to put in place new methods of piracy, the consumers want to download their music. I am not paying $15-20 for an album that cost like what, $2 or $3 to make, then get only two or three tracks?
JeffJewell
11-15-2001, 11:05 AM
We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them. ...I hope I didn't imply that. Didn't intend to. Yes, disregarding laws we disagree with is fraught with peril, even in well planned civil disobedience displays.
Chad, I mentioned you because I was tossing around some case histories without bothering to check any sources other than my own memory. I figured I'd manage to garble things to some extent or another, but it sounds like you concur that I got the factual stuff generally correct.
YoHo, one thing I notice that I thought I said or implied before, but looking back, realized that I wasn't very clear about it, was that one of the reasons for DAT's failure was the high price of blank media, and I'm pretty sure that those prices were inflated with a tax (or tariff or whatever the appropriate term would be in this case) that was instituted because of pressure from the entertainment lobby (this is another point where our resident lawyer's sphere of knowledge might come in handy, seeing as how, once again, I ain't goin' back to look it up).
Jeff
johare
11-15-2001, 11:31 AM
We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them. To do so, would be the slipperiest of slopes. YES, people can choose to ignore or disregard laws. There are literally 1000's of arcane and obsolete laws on the books in many states which are still 100% the LAW, however they are ignored and disregarded every day. There are many states which still have explicit laws which dictate what is legal for a married couple to do in the privacy of their own bedroom. According to you, these laws must be obeyed 100%, correct?
Whether arcane or not, copyright laws exist...and must be followed until they are changedReally, how about this list of 'arcane' laws: http://www.floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html You say that just because arcane laws exist, they must be followed until they are changed. Well, most of the laws on this list still exist and haven't been changed. I'm sure that years from now when we are well into the digital age, some of our current copyright laws will seem just as ridiculous as some of the laws on this list. While copyright laws shouldn't be totally disregarded, common sense must be used when interpreting them and following them. People shouldn't feel guilty for ocassionally listening to an mp3 file they got for a friend...or for photocopying 2 pages of a good magazine article for a friend.
There was no tax or Tarrif on Betamax (considering the format is still used professionally, I should say there still isn't).
While I honestly have no idea if there was one with regards to DAT, I suspect that it failed due to wrong place wrong time more then anything else. If there is one thing I've learned, its that content providers have never been very good at keeping down the court of public opinion. I just don't think DAT offered enough during the short time it was viable. (IE before CD-R and in dash CD players became standard. Now MP3 players come in cars)
Its an excellent format, don't get me wrong, but it didn't catch on during its window of oppertunity.
It might have caught on better if you could cheaply get a unit that played DAT and Analog Cassettes. Even better an in dash model. That would have sparked interest.
hopemax
11-15-2001, 03:09 PM
We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them. To do so, would be the slipperiest of slopes.
Actually we can, and in some cases SHOULD. The crux though, is if you knowingly break a law, even one you think is "unjust" you have to be prepared to take responsibility and accept what ever punishment is handed out.
It's Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" or MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." And in no way am I trying to elevate this issue to civil rights, but the idea that we should NEVER disregard a law, sits really wrong with me.
How about we abandon the term Disregard?
No, we should never disregard a Law, but If we are going to be a Coniencious objector, we must accept any punishment delt with regards to it.
If in the instance we are talking about (I bet johare is long gone from this thread:))
One were to be brought up on charges, the concencious objector would admit to what they did and accept the conciquences and use the opertunity in front of the judge to fight the injustice. Simply breaking the law and then avoiding authorities or lying, I have a big problem with. Of course despite what a lot of computer geeks would have you believe, the Intellectual property laws are not on the same level as say descriminatory practices.
johare
11-15-2001, 07:01 PM
How about we abandon the term Disregard? How about no. It is entirely appropriate to disregard or ignore arcane and obsolete laws.
If in the instance we are talking about (I bet
johare is long gone from this thread) Long gone? How do you figure?
Since we got so off topic and I figured it was your buisness and so forth.
Plus, I want to stop using Disregard, because disregarding the law is bad. Acknowledging the law and breaking it, because you disagree with it is far more reasonable. Of course I don't know of too many hacker types that think about Ghandi when they download Return of the Mummy or Hannible (two that I've found on the Hard drives of former coworkers.
johare
11-15-2001, 07:40 PM
Since we got so off topic and I figured it was your buisness and so forth. Ok, guess I misunderstood.
Plus, I want to stop using Disregard, because disregarding the law is bad. Still think it depends on the law. Some laws are so ridiculous that they deserve to be disregarded.
johare
11-16-2001, 10:36 AM
When the theater ticket and signs in the theater clearly say you are not allowed to ignore that simply because it does not strike your fancy as appropriate. First of all, I don't remember seeing any signs and I don't think I spent much time reading my ticket before it was ripped in half. Besides, I didn't film, tape or record anything anyway so what's your point?
I'll bet that some people don't like that they drive a Corolla when their neighbor drives a Lexus...so, because they dislike this fact, they can just go take the Lexus??? You equate watching a VCD copy of a movie with stealing a Lexus? That certainly puts things in perspective and lets me know just how seriously to take your stance on this subject.
You paid to view the film in a theatre once. That's what the ticket you accepted said. Once. You did not pay your $7 bucks to get a copy and view all you want. To make that claim is nothing less than a rationalization for taking what someone else owns without their permission and against the rules they set... And I watched the movie in the theater ONCE for that $7 (actually more like $25 for them family). What happens a week later independently of that theater is irrevelent. My point was that they didn't lose money on me. I didn't use a vcd copy of a movie to avoid or replace seeing it in the theater. Your 'black and white' view of everything does not reflect the real world.
I just wish all these people who take what others create without permission would try creating a song or a screenplay or a book themself. Maybe then they would realize the great effort it takes to create a good one which people want to see or listen or readBack in the early to mid-80's I wrote a few small computer games which were available commercially and which for which I received a percentage for each copy sold. Did some people copy them? Of course, but I was smart enough to realize that that is just part of the cost of doing business.
johare
11-16-2001, 11:11 AM
...guess we just disagree on whether laws involving copyrights should be followed. Well, that should be fairly obvious.
But my question is, if you knew that it was illegal to watch a VCD of Monsters, Inc. what led you to decide that you could ignore that law...what led you to decide that "Hey, I don't care what the rules are...I can make my own rules"...what led you to decide that your watching a movie in a theater relieved you of complying with rules regarding watching bootleg copies... As far as I'm concerned, if there is no victim there is no crime. The amount of money which Disney/Pixar did and will receive from me is absolutely no different than what they would have received had I never watched a VCD copy in between paying to see it at the theater and buying it on DVD. You might not agree with my viewpoint, but I live my life by my rules, not yours.
Because you wanted to. Sorry, but that is not a defense to knowingly and willingly breaking the law for which you had notice...The law provided you only a right to view Monsters, Inc. in a theater once. What notice? Do you actually think people read the back of their ticket stub? Do you still think there is some connection between going to the theater and downloading a VCD? They are independent events. Do you think it would have been better had I never gone to see it at the theater? That way I would have had no notice and wouldn't have broken this rule which let me see the movie once? That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does to you.
Johare, it really surprises me that you acknowledge that what you did was against the rules, but that the rules don't apply to you. That is a road which, based upon the many opinions and judgement calls in our society, no person could really what to follow. Well, consider the laws to be 'guidelines' then. Most everyone has occassionally driven a few miles over the speed limit or photocopied a magazine article or stretched the truth a little on a tax return or jaywalked in the middle of a city block or loaned a CD to a friend who copied a few songs or now in some areas, driven while talking on a cellphone...all these things are 'breaking the rules' or violating some law, but does that make everyone a criminal? Your 'black and white' view of the law is out of touch with reality and the real world.In other words. Just wait till it comes out on DVD and buy it or go see it at the theater again. Two perfectly legal and available options. No thanks. I'm happy doing things my way.
Value is not relevant towards whether you actually broke the law only towards the level of penalty for breaking it...otherwise, you are correct, your theft would only be worth 29.99 or so...Sorry, there is no valid comparison here.
JeffJewell
11-16-2001, 11:17 AM
...perhaps it might be useful to make a little peace, here.
It seems that thedscoop is arguing his points from a "letter of the law" standpoint. What with him being all jurisprudent and all, this isn't surprising.
It seems that johare is arguing his points from a "world we actually live in" standpoint. Because the companies still own and control what he "stole," he sees watching a VCD as such a minor violation of law that that chance of prosecution is non-existant; and because he did pay for the theatre experience when it was available, and intends to pay for the DVD when it is available, he does not see it as a moral violation to watch the VCD copy during the period that neither of those options is available.
I'm certain neither party will be shy about correcting me if I've misinterpreted their respective stance.
The truth is, you're both right: it's illegal, but there is little to no chance of being prosecuted for watching a VCD movie.
The root question that will cause the friction in this exchange is whether the status of "being the law" means enough to you as an individual to make you want to adhere to the law, even if you feel it's silly or useless. I guess the standard example of this is the Speed Limit: are you a person who carefully watches their speed to ensure they never break the limit, or do you drive faster than that because it's convenient and (as long as you keep things within reason) you are not likely to get busted for it?
Jeff
Considering I've been busted for going 3 MPH over the limit, I tend to avoid it. :)
First of all, johare Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this country. The writing is on the back of the ticket and you didn't read the back of the ticket is not an excuse.
The money you are costing pixar (and Disney) is the $25 it would cost to take your family back to the Theater. That is the only legal way to view the movie again. True, its a small amount of money, and Disney/Pixar probably won't prosecute, but that doesn't matter. its still illegal.
I personally have a problem with ignoring a law that you think is silly or outdated (I don't think intellectual property law is silly, possibly outdated) for the purposes of your own convience. IF you want to fight intelectual property laws, then I would be right on your side, but I would expect more activism. Apathy of the law, not caring is unacceptable (personally, for me).
And again, I think this is a more difficult, because we're talking about theft as opposed to say civil rights.
Oh, and last I checked, Lawyers were in the Real world
Unfortunatly. :)
johare
11-16-2001, 12:20 PM
Ok...few 'quotes to reply to here':
Jeff:It seems that johare is arguing his points from a "world we actually live in" standpoint. Because the companies still own and control what he "stole," he sees watching a VCD as such a minor violation of law that that chance of prosecution is non-existant; and because he did pay for the theatre experience when it was available, and intends to pay for the DVD when it is available, he does not see it as a moral violation to watch the VCD copy during the period that neither of those options is available. Jeff, that actually sums up my view point about as accurately as anything can.
dscoop:It just eternally frustrates me that people fail to recognize that it takes alot of skill, time, and effort to create something which others want. Like GM with cars, this is how writers, artists, etc. make their livelihood. I do recognize that it takes a lot of effort to create a movie like Monsters. I would not have considered downloading a VCD to avoid paying to see the movie in a theater. That said, I still don't see how watching a VCD can be possibly equated with stealing a car. My watching the VCD costs nobody anything. If I physically take an item like a car that is entirely different...unless you are now refering to stealing GM's design for a car and building my own, which really wouldn't be worth the effort! :)
But, anyways, if we've reached the point where Jeff has become the "peacemaker" then its obvious that this subject has run its courseI agree, so let's just declare Jeff's effort to be a success and agree to disagree here.
Yoho:The money you are costing pixar (and Disney) is the $25 it would cost to take your family back to the Theater. Incorrect. I have never gone to see a movie twice at the theater and this would have not been the first time. Therefore, my watching it a couple times on VCD while waiting for the DVD release costs Pixar and Disney absolutely nothing. If you don't agree with me then you'll also have to agree to disagree here because this debate is over and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this now...especially when you are so clearly wrong!:D
I'll agree to disagree. Really nothing more to say.
MelissathePooh
11-16-2001, 09:07 PM
I wonder how Monsters Inc. will do this weekend with Harry Potter opening - I think it could get a good deal of business from people who can't get into Harry Potter (as I type, my next door neighbors are getting ready to go to the midnight showing of Harry Potter that they bought tickets for over a week ago). Any knowledgable opinions?
DR
Buzz2001
11-17-2001, 07:48 AM
Our family saw Harry Potter last evening. It was good but just a bit long IMO. 2hrs and 37 mins. My DD made it through no problem. I didn't think she would. Both her and my DW loved the movie more than I did. We arrived at our show for a 4:50pm start on Friday and I was surprised to see they had Harry Pooter set for viewing in a smaller theater. Lowe's in CT has different size theaters and I expected it to be in the large one. Monsters still had 3 or 4 theaters going. I wouldn't expect Harry Potter to draw from the smaller kids over Monsters Inc. I guess it would depend on the parents but it could be scary for some small children.
MickeyMoose15
11-17-2001, 01:30 PM
No results yet for Monsters Inc. this weekend so far but Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone grossed between $25-30 million dollars in its opening day alone.
MikeS
11-18-2001, 09:35 AM
gg Monsters got clobbered on Friday bringing in jut 5.4 million to potters29.65 M Today is the final tally.
MickeyMoose15
11-18-2001, 04:24 PM
Monsters Inc. grossed about $23.05 million dollars. Not bad but still not the same as Harry Potter's $93.52 million over the weekend.
NEXT UP: THANKSGIVING WEEKEND BATTLE
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 04:57 PM
MikeS, I would hardly call that clobbering. $23 million for Monsters is VERY respectable for a movie's third week in release.
MickeyMoose15
11-18-2001, 06:43 PM
Monsters Inc. has made about $160 million dollars which is very good for an animated film. It is well ahead of where Shrek was at its three week point.
Disney & PIXAR still have the Thanksgiving weekend. It might do well since the huge hype for Harry Potter will have died down a bit.
HorizonsFan
11-18-2001, 06:50 PM
Sorry, I've been out of town but...
That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I just don't share that viewpoint. I suppose you've never listened to an .mp3 file of a song which you didn't own on CD, never copied a piece of computer software, never copied an audio or video tape, never photocopied a page or two from a book or magazine, right?
I have done all of the above. I just never tried to justify my actions as something other than theft of intellectual property.
johare
11-18-2001, 09:07 PM
Monsters Inc. has made about $160 million dollars which is very good for an animated film. It is well ahead of where Shrek was at its three week point. Monsters is at approx $156.7M after it's 3rd weekend. Shrek was at $148.4M after it's 3rd weekend. Not that far ahead at all, especially when you consider that Monsters opened WAY higher than Shrek.
airlarry!
11-18-2001, 09:45 PM
Listen, johare, don't take this the wrong way, but this was my fave quote:
Anyway, with me it really doesn't hurt the studios if the movie is good...I saw Shrek at the theaters, had DVD quality VCD's since August and still bought it on DVD the day it came out. Same with Monsters...we saw it at the theater on opening day and will buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.
For how long? Once perfection exists in the world of copying, there will be no reason to purchase the DVD. Right?
I mean who would go out and buy the Monsters Inc dvd when it comes out if they could just download a perfect copy of it right now? I will anticipate your answer to be "for all the goodies," but is that an intellectually honest answer?
You may never have gone twice, but I know (especially in the case of Disney/family films) my family and I have gone to see good movies more than once, and when we lived by a discount movie theatre, sometimes many times. I saw Herc three times with different friends and family, Lion King twice (cause our youngster prevented us from watching the whole thing ;) ), etc.
MickeyMoose15
11-18-2001, 09:55 PM
The point is that Monsters Inc. is still ahead of where Shrek is, big weekend or no big weekend. Shrek was a highly anticipated film because of the news going around that it was making fun of Disney. It grossed about $50 million in its opening weekend which was better then Disney's Atlantis the Lost Empire's $28 million opening weekend.
I still say what you is doind is theft. There must be a law against what you are doing.
johare
11-18-2001, 10:08 PM
For how long? Once perfection exists in the world of copying, there will be no reason to purchase the DVD. Right? Wrong. Depends on your reasons for obtaining the copy. Near perfect DVD rips in SVCD/mpeg2 format are usually available on the internet right after (or sometimes weeks before) an official DVD release. Doesn't stop me from buying the DVD's I want.
I mean who would go out and buy the Monsters Inc dvd when it comes out if they could just download a perfect copy of it right now? I will anticipate your answer to be "for all the goodies," but is that an intellectually honest answer? I would still buy it. I had a perfect...and I mean perfect SVCD copy of Shrek about a month before the DVD release. The copy was so good that I doubt anyone would have been able to tell that it wasn't a DVD...and I still bought the Shrek DVD the day it went on sale. The 'goodies' were nice, but were not the reason I bought it...heck, even the goodies were available for download 2 days after the DVD came out.You may never have gone twice, but I know (especially in the case of Disney/family films) my family and I have gone to see good movies more than onceThat may be true for you, but I've never gone to see the same movie twice in a theater.
johare
11-18-2001, 10:11 PM
The point is that Monsters Inc. is still ahead of where Shrek is, big weekend or no big weekend. Shrek was a highly anticipated film because of the news going around that it was making fun of Disney. Grow up already. Shrek was not anticipated just because it made fun of Disney a few times. It was anticipated because it was a great movie.
I still say what you is doind is theft. There must be a law against what you are doing.I don't remember asking for your opinion on this. I thought you were discussing 3rd weekend box office results for Shrek vs. Monsters?
Planogirl
11-18-2001, 10:18 PM
I saw Shrek in the theater twice and the original Star Wars at least a dozen times. But then those were different days... :)
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by johare
I don't remember asking for your opinion on this.
May I speak master? Apparently you think we should obtain your consent before we voice our opinions? Well guess what, I think what you're doing is really quite wrong, you didn't ask me, and you can't shut me up. :rolleyes: :mad:
MickeyMoose is free to comment on whatever he WANTS to voice his opinion on, whether you like it or not.
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 10:54 PM
And I've seen movies multiple times in the theater, too. :)
A partial list: Titanic, the Sixth Sense, Pearl Harbor. :D
johare
11-18-2001, 11:08 PM
May I speak master? Apparently you think we should obtain your consent before we voice our opinions? Well guess what, I think what you're doing is really quite wrong, you didn't ask me, and you can't shut me upIn case you didn't notice, I wasn't speaking to you either. I'm not really concerned with what you might consider 'quite wrong'.
MickeyMoose is free to comment on whatever he WANTS to voice his opinion on, whether you like it or not.Do you always feel the need to rush to the aid of a fellow teenager.
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 11:12 PM
I will speak about whatever I please. You have no right to tell me when I should not post about something. I'm really not concerned with you think about what I post, either, OK? I post about what is on my mind, and that was on my mind.
Oh of course, focus on the AGE thing. I rushed to the aid of a poster who was getting beat up on, and I would have done so had he been as old as you are. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
johare
11-18-2001, 11:17 PM
I will speak about whatever I please. You have no right to tell me when I should not post about something. I'm really not concerned with you think about what I post, either, OK? I post about what is on my mind, and that was on my mind. Well, I specifically remember you asking "May I speak Master?", so my answer is NO you may not.
Oh of course, focus on the AGE thing. I rushed to the aid of a poster who was getting beat up on, and I would have done so had he been as old as you are.Who made you the 'defender of posters'? btw: How come I only got 7 frowny faces from you? I would have liked 8...may I please have another.:D
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 11:20 PM
I think you need help.
johare
11-18-2001, 11:20 PM
I think you need help. Why? I'm not a charter member of a gerbil...err, I mean hamster club.
SPAGo 98
11-18-2001, 11:22 PM
Yeah, that's a really good one. :rolleyes:
Now, I bid you farewell and a good night.
Well, Wasn't that fun.:rolleyes:
Harry Potter was very good.
It was also very long. I have a suspicion that will hurt in the repeat viewing market. (yes going to see a movie more then once in the theater is very typical :))
Monsters Inc. had a very good 3rd week. I expect it to ride the wave all the way through the holidays. I just don't see Harry Potter stealing buisness anymoreand I doubt that LotR will have any effect on it (although it COULD hurt HP.)
Planogirl
11-19-2001, 04:40 PM
Yes, that was a riot. ;)
I hope that Monsters beats Shrek. Then I hope that the next movie from Dreamworks beats Monsters. And so on and so on. Theoretically, the movies should get better and better if this happens. Hey, maybe Disney will even jump into the fray eventually. ;)
As far as longer movies not attracting as much repeat business, that didn't seem to affect Titanic. I recall that Titanic had a loyal following that went several times. I can't imagine doing that, well unless it's Star Wars. :D
johare
11-19-2001, 04:50 PM
Harry Potter was very good.
It was also very long. I have a suspicion that will hurt in the repeat viewing market. (yes going to see a movie more then once in the theater is very typical We saw Harry Potter on Saturday and though I agree that it was very good, I don't think I'd want to sit thru the whole thing again. Heck, I'm not even going to bother downloading a VCD copy (which btw, is already available!). :)
Monsters Inc. had a very good 3rd week. I expect it to ride the wave all the way through the holidays. I just don't see Harry Potter stealing buisness anymoreand I doubt that LotR will have any effect on it (although it COULD hurt HP.)Not everyone has seen Harry Potter yet, so I still see it taking business away from Monsters for the next few weeks. Dont underestimate Nickelodeon either...Jimmy Neutron should hit the theaters on Dec 21st and that will likely grab a big part of what's left of Monster's audience at that point.
Sarangel
11-20-2001, 08:59 PM
This has gone on far too long & wandered away from the original post... Kindly begin a new post when you deviate from the orignal topic, since this makes it easier on your poor moderators, who read everything.
Also, I'd like to state that this site does not condone any illegal activity. Kindly do not post links here that allow it.
Thanks
Sarangel
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.