Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Not To Blame In Decline of Moviegoers
lucyfersam writes "In a somewhat surprisingly earnest assessment, the NYTimes has an article about the massive decline in movie-going that does not once try to blame piracy and file-sharing programs. It sounds like studios are beginning to understand that they have only themselves to blame." From the article: "Multiples theories for the decline abound: a failure of studio marketing, the rising price of gas, the lure of alternate entertainment, even the prevalence of commercials and pesky cellphones inside once-sacrosanct theaters. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough."
Let me see, which would I rather do: spend $30+ on a movie ticket, popcorn, and a drink just so I can watch the latest subpar selection of movies at a time set by the theater and have popcorn thrown at me by 13 year old cell phone wielding children, OR pick up whatever movie from the redbox for $0.99 (or DVD rentals through the mail) and a drink and popcorn from the local store all for less than $5 and watch it on my widescreen in the comfort of my own home. Tough call.
In a somewhat surprisingly earnest assessment, the NYTimes has an article about the massive decline in movie-going that does not once try to blame piracy and file-sharing programs. It sounds like studios are beginning to understand that they have only themselves to blame.
But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough.
Obviously this article was conceived, written, and posted by a BitTorrent using hacker who wants to see the continued demise of Hollywood be blamed on the wrong parties. There is no way that Hollywood is putting out bad movies. Look at how much they cost to produce, direct, edit, and market!
Even Robert Shaye, the studio leader behind "The Wedding Crashers," one of the summer's runaway hits, shares the worry about the industry's ability to connect with audiences. "I believe it's a cumulative thing, a seismic evolution of people's habits," said Mr. Shaye, chairman of New Line Cinema.
Yeah, people are annoyed with the fact that they have to pay $9.00+ to see something that cost 100+ million to make and it fucking blows. "Wait for DVD" is an all to common quote, especially with the MPAA pushing them out to the stores as fast as they can in order to attempt to curb piracy in the theatre.
It's really funny that they quoted Shaye. His movie, one of the few that did anything this summer (I haven't seen it yet), was done on a 40 million dollar budget and grossed nearly all of that back in its first weekend alone...
In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house. You had a little bit of backstop."
Yup, and honestly, it really seemed that it was more worth your while to spend quite a few dollars less, find a more enjoyable movie, and be able to relax for two hours. I can do that at home just as effectively for MUCH LESS money if I only wait for two months ($3.00 opposed to $18.50) and watch the DVD.
The box office numbers have led to intense, broad-ranging conversations across Hollywood about the implications. Many studios have commissioned market research to investigate the causes of moviegoing behavior - or the lack thereof.
Pay me, I guarantee you'll find out more and it will cost you less. I'll start you off here: pay the actors less money - they aren't worth 20+ million a movie. Don't use so many pointless special effects - they aren't working in most instances. Charge less for the movie so my ticket prices aren't $9+ -- you'll be able to better compete with DVD and people will be more likely to go to see the show. Ban cell phones, talking, and make adult only showings - it'll make adults more likely to see a movie w/o having to listen to a bunch of underaged kids, take calls, have their ringtones going, and spend the entire movie talking instead of watching the movie and/or making out. Finally, ask people what they think about it instead of whoever you have been paying to figure it out for you. In the article, Michael Lynton said:
Audiences have gotten smart to the marketing, and they can smell the good ones from the bad ones at a distance.
If we can why can't you? Seems like an open and shut case to me.
Now, I think that some of those theories are completely valid. Commercials in the theaters absolutely piss me off. If I'm going to spend 9 bucks to watch a movie, they better not force me to watch commercials before it. Next thing they'll do is start commercial breaks in the middle of the movies. The cell phones are annoying and I like doing other things more than I like watching movies, but in the end, it comes down to what they are finally realizing. The movies suck. If there weren't any cell phones or commercials and I didn't have anything to do, I still wouldn't go.
FTA: In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house. You had a little bit of backstop."
That's amazing, because that's what I always figured they were thinking. And that's the attitude that keeps me away.
Now, I love good special effects as much as the next geek, but, call me old fashioned here, I actually like my movies to have this thing called a plot.
I used to say that I'd just wait for it to come out on video but I won't even waste my time with that anymore. Inevitably, I find myself at the end saying, "Well, there's two hours of my life I'll never get back."
I'll actually deal with the commercials and other annoyances if it means that I can be completely entertained.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
Remember when we used to hate all the damn previews? Now we look forward to them, thankful the commercials are over!
I'd pay extra for reserved seating in a theatre with class and no commercials and previews.
-Z
I have noticed with the theaters in my area, that the previews are getting close to 30 min. long. With previews that long, I don't bother to show up to the theater till the time posted the movie should start. It is getting ridiculous.
1. Most movies suck ass, and even morons won't pay to see them.
2. All movies cost too much to see, even matinees at most theaters are costly these days.
Drop your quality and raise your prices, then blame someone else when your profits slip, god bless America.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
I know most of the yuppies here will say they don't go because they don't release anything worth seeing anymore. Yeah, whatever. I know I personally don't go much anymore because of the cost (and I'm not talking about gasoline). It's $7/person to get into the theater, and putting aside the guilt trip to buy concessions, I want to have a soda when I'm watching the movie. I have a soda drinking problem, and going the whole movie without a major drink sucks. I do not, however, wish to buy a large soda for $4-$5 (depending on the theater). But I usually do anyway, which contributes to the high cost.
Movie distributors need to charge less, theaters need to lower the price of their concessions, and the industry needs to introduce variable-priced tickets depending on the production costs and perceived popularity of the movie. I'm not willing to pay the same price to see "Bewitched" that I am willing to pay to see Star Wars Ep III. I might be willing to see the earlier if it were a few bucks cheaper just for something to do. But that still leaves the problem with the price of a damn soda.
Whine all you want about recouping costs, but that doesn't change the fact that I choose not to go. Too expensive.
On one hand, I agree that a whole lot of movies today are horrible. On the other hand, people today know nothing of movies or what a good movie is. Take for instance Charlie Chaplin. The man was a romantic genius, pouring his emotions on the screen with "Modern Times" and "Limelight" and tens of other wonderful productions. He wrote, directed, acted in, and even composed the music for most of his work. But people today don't get him at all, and they don't even rent copies of Modern Times at Blockbusters any more.
Or Kurosawa. Seven Samurai is a brilliant film and yet most people can't sit through it. Or Jean Luc Goddard, there's not one movie of his at Blockbuster's. So why make good movies? So that the experts can say they're good? Movies are out to make money and the bigger problem at hand is, how do you make people go to a movie, not how do you make a good movie. I think there is no way, theatres are doomed. People will more and more sit on their lazy asses and pay the 3.99 on demand price whenever the movie is available. So what? Museums used to be hopping places too and now they're just tourist attractions.
But I think there might be hope for capitalism in the US afterall! Hollywood is old school and very traditional; they like things done how they've always been done and in the past have been completely unwilling to acknowledge the need for change. Luckily, the dollar is a very powerful persuader. That being said, I still really enjoy the move going experience but let's save it for movies that are actually entertaining. Let them keep making the crap but send most of it straight to DVD. Might piss the theatre chains off but business is a changing.
i went from watching atleast a movie a week to about 1 every month or so. its just that movies suck. i got tired of wasting my money on something that they just dumped all their money into special effects and forgot about scripts. im hoping that soon the 'eye candy' era will fade out and will go back to just writing good movies instead of relying on good effects. movies like Stealth and what not are definitely not relying on a good script. its scary because at some point, someone said 'HOLY SHIT! I GOT A GREAT IDEA! A PLANE... THAT THINKS ON ITS OWN AND BLOWS THINGS UP! and its fighting only a funny/witty black man, some duffus white guy and a hot chick'
1) Ticket prices have become ridiculous. I like going to the theater in general, but the prices are only warranted on very rare occasions that a film deserves to be seen on the big screen. There was a good discussion in the Tipping Point (I think) about how ticket pricing doesn't reflect supply and demand. The same price for Spider-Man and XXX: State of the Union? A lower price for films not that much in demand would increase the amount of overall tickets sold in gross revenue.
2) Two Towers had about 45 minutes worth of commercials that preceded it. By the time they were over and the film started, I wanted Frodo to get captured and tortured by some orcs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A lot of the movie theatres are just in a disgusting state. They're just not appealing environments for me.
You go there and half the ticket booths are not staffed and the automated ticket machines are all malfunctioning, so you can't pick up tickets bought in advance without having to wait in line.
You get inside the theatre and half the concession stands are unstaffed.
The ones that are staffed have lines longer than the bathrooms, have sticky goo all over the counter and are staffed by people who have no concept of customer service whatsoever.
Once you get your $3 coke, that costs $1 outside the theatre, and start walking to take a seat, you have to struggle to not get your feet stuck to whatever sticky shit is covering the floor.
Whenever you arrive at your seat, you're hoping that you don't sit down on one of the many seats that have been broken for more than 2 months. Once you're reasonably happy with the seat, that still creaks and is uncomfortable, you have to clear your immediate surroundings from droppings left by people attending the previous screening. Anything from gum on the seats and/or armrests, empty soda cups in the cupholders, nachos boxes with old, smelly cheese under the seat, etc.
Then when the movie starts, it actually doesn't start until 20 minutes of commercials.
Why would I go enjoy all that voluntarily?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
It's the same problem the record industry have. One particular film/song is successful so they just clone it and flog the same formula to death because they have no imagination whatsoever.
Hollywooods' latest non-idea seems to be re-making 70s TV series and films...badly.
Playing it safe and complete lack of imagination are killing these industries. And to add to it over-pricing and blaming your own customers for having the good taste not to watch/listen to the guff your producing is hardly going to help.
Do not forget about the rising price of movie prices themselves. Look for yourself at how much prices have gone up here. I can tell you inflation was not that high.
Look at other emerging markets. Tivo: It used to be that you would go and watch a movie when there was nothing on television. Now you can watch the shows you want to see on TV (and there are a lot more channels to choose from), when you have time. Going to the movie theater is now far more inconvenient than it used to be.
Another emerging market: Video games... With a limited amount of entertainment, dollars available and those funds are currently shrinking... Something had to give way to pay for the emerging video game market. Simplest answer: Movies are no longer having their competitive edge that they once did.
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
In just about any creative enterprise, there is tension between the creators, who are often motivated by love of what they do; and the bean-counters whose only goal is to cut cost. The bean-counters have been winning. They've squeezed so much life out of their products for short-term gain that they've ignored the long term consequences, which we are now experiencing, at least in the USA:
- Crappy movies nobody wants to see, (hello Hollywood)
- Crappy music noboby wants to buy, (hello top 40)
- Crappy cars nobody wants to drive, (hello GM)
- Crappy software that is barely tolerated, (hello Microsoft)
There are people who will pay time and money for quality, but it isn't clear they can support businesses large enough to displace the mediocre behemoths.
Not really : Many of the worst blockbuster films of the last year ("Stealth", "The Island", "Fantastic Four" and IMHO "Revenge Of The Sith") are clearly marketed at boys of various ages.
But they're bad films: badly written, badly plotted and largely badly acted. Sure, they're nice to look at, but they're stultifyingly dull. The problem isn't the "13 year old girl" market, it's the fact that most of Hollywood has almost no desire to make films that appeal to adults, and even less of an idea how to make them.
Wedding Crashers may not have been clever, but at least it treated us like adults -- not necessarily the most sophisticated adults -- and aimed its jokes appropriately. It was also one of the summers few hits.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
No, not the price of labor, although the payscale for some high talent actors is amazing. But let's face it; most of those actors aren't just selling their talent, they're selling their name and history of past successes in roles.
But here's an ugly truth: The next time you go to a movie theatre to see the next big summer blockbuster sci-fi blam-kapow film, you'll probably pay, say, $10.00 for the film ticket.
It costs the theatre $14.00 for the rights to show you that movie, per person. So right off the bat, they've lost $4.00. Hence the insane prices at the concession: They *have* to make that money back at the concession, or else they have to raise the ticket prices by %40 or so.
The cost for special effects and high budgets is passed on in this way. The rights for a theatre to screen a movie made on a budget of 20 million dollars is much cheaper. The rights for a theatre to screen a movie that cost 200 million dollars is much more expensive.
Theatres frequently lose money per ticket sold, on the more expensive films.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
People used to go see new opera. They didn't redo old operas.
... there are new ballets and new rock music and new jazz ... but it's all derivative. There's not a whole lot new coming out.)
Same with "classical" music: they didn't go to hear old songs performed, they went for new songs.
Same thing happened with Rock and Roll. People used to go the hear new songs, now they go to hear old songs. Same thing with ballet and jazz.
(Yes, yes, I know
So. The same thing has happened with movies. Hollywood just keeps remaking old movies; there is very little new stuff.
TVs got big enough and DVDs got good enough that there's not that great an incentive to go to a movie theatre and pay 10 bucks for a ticket. You can rent a movie for $2.99.
"Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough."
They got really close here, but the honest truth is that many people who would have gone to movies simply aren't quite as bored as they once were. While not all information is free, the internet makes it much easier to access information and people... There's plenty of people learning, socializing, or just getting a load of visual kicks off the net that movies just can't compete with.
To be quite honest, why _should_ people have cared about Cotton coming to Harlem in the first place, what the Matrix is, or if the funky looking chick from that unfunny Bill Murray movie can escape an island? Arguably, they didn't. Most people just want to avoid boredom or spend time with their mates without actually having to converse. There will always be a market for movies, but probably not quite as big a share of the market ever again.
That, and the modern theater experience sucks. $3.50 for popcorn is a huge markup, 10 minutes of previews is about 10 minutes too many.
Is it really that tough to figure out why they aren't making as much? It's too expensive!
They have to realize, it's not like everyone can afford 20 bucks just for admission for a couple to go to the movies. Add food and a drink onto that, and you're talking about at least a 30 dollar night.
Instead of raising the price, why not try lowering the price a few bucks? I'm sure the difference in price would be offset by the amount of people going back to theaters.
I DO like going to the theater to see a movie. It gets me out of the house, and it makes me feel like I'm doing something as opposed to sitting around watching tv. But it's not possible to spend 20 bucks every weekend just for 2 hours of entertainment. A few months down the line and that 20 bucks could BUY me the movie on DVD.
Whispering every so often is one thing, but my girlfriend and I have had some bad experiences with going out to see a movie. We had a couple sit down next to us and the woman was some frumpy, dumpy middle age woman and she kept glaring at my girlfriend (who was just resting her head on my shoulder) and even coughed up and sprayed a bunch of spit on my girlfriend's leg. Then there are the cell phones, the kids that aren't forced to sit down and watch the movie or leave and things like that.
We really need the theatres to say to people, "look if it's an emergency, take the call, but otherwise if you take the call we'll throw you out." I leave my cell phone off anyway. The real problem is that so many Americans are just selfish bastards and don't bother to think about others. They don't care about others' rights because it's all about them, them and only them.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I like going to the cinema. I'm predisposed to enjoy a night out watching a film and going for a drink afterwards and discussing it. However, even I'm sick of it these days.
Why?
1. Too expensive.
2. Cinemas are run by idiots. I regularly have to get up and complain to get the picture shown correctly (and on one occasion, with sound).
3. Idiots who eat/talk or generally make nuisances of themselves, and the cinema staff do nothing.
4. Formulaic drivel. The large Hollywood studios have driven out of mainstream cinemas anything remotely interesting in favour of their relentlessly formulaic shite. Well, ok, not entirely, but unless you have a big studio behind it, it just doesn't ger exposure.
5. Adverts/patronising lies/lectures about copyright instead of starting the film. I don't mind trailers (in fact, I quite enjoy a good "coming soon" section)... but I'm sick of being patronised and treated like a mark rather than a paying customer.
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
I disagree with most of the FP lot.
Most movie theaters are located in very high rent areas. Of course tickets will also be pricy. I don't think there's a quality drop, it seems pretty status quo.
I truly believe that our beloved Internet is to blame. You're seeing the same death knell in brick and mortar retail, restaurants, and even car buying. In a capitalist view, time preference is making new markets. The idea behind time preference is that markets flow towards the faster and cheaper sources. Price is rarely the reason.
Car dealers are selling cars at cost -- with no change in the market slow down. Cars are bought with future earnings often (financing). A lot of people fear their future earnings. Movie theaters prosper when people have money and time right now. Job security has declined, debt has gone way up, savings are nil.
My retail stores are down 50% since 2004. I have less cash to pay my employees. They have less cash to go to the movies. The movie theater employees have less cash to buy my goods, so they buy online -- money that is 'outsourced' to another state, unlikely to return to my local economy. Rinse, repeat.
Our dollar loses more value every day as the Fed inflates our currency. That is a fact. My local economy suffers, and in my experience the money that is made online by big warehouses tends to end up in Mexico and Asia. Not enough is recycled back to theaters, car dealers and local retailers.
Eventually time preference always wins. As our standard
of living declines, the standard of living in Mexico and Asia increases. The Internet is allowing the free market to balance itself out. Wage
internationally want to equalize no matter what government or big business wants to do. Its the law of a supply/demand reality.
Who here went to movies & restaurants often in the 90s? How many new cars at 8% interest did you buy then? How many new cars at 0% and employee price will you buy this decade? How much has your debt gone up in that time?
I don't know why people feel the need to eat during movies anyway. I think they do it mainly out of tradition.
I avoid having drinks because the last thing I want is to have to run to the bathroom in the middle of the movie. I hate having to do the old "Is this scene going to be important to the plot?" check before I can run off.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Last year's number are an abberration, mainly due to one film. The Passion of the Christ brought in people that typically do not go into movie theatres, it also brought in more repeat sales as some people felt compelled to watch it over and over again. This same phenomenon happened with the movie Titanic, with many people boasting they had seen it 5 times or more. If sales stay constant until years end the film industry is looking at one of it's highest grossing years of all time. The dirty little secret is that all those terrible movies we complain about (Stealth, Duece Bigalow) will make a substantial profit. Yes it is lower than last year but in the movie industry all it takes is one monster hit to change that. Not making that grand slam every year does not make it an decline.
1. Stop releasing sequels.
2. Stop remaking classics.
3. Stop turning books/comics into films.
4. Stop relying on special effects.
5. Write a good story, dammit.
If copying movies over the net was technically impossible, movie piracy wouldn't be as bad as today. But it is. On the other hand, they offer NO alternative (aside from suing) to the people who are willing to download movies instead of going to an overcrowded theatre where popcorn price are insane, babies are crying and teens are making more noise than the THX sound system.
:), just 10 years ago, i'd never seen that many people getting up and going to get a refill or taking a leak during a movie. This is really disturbing when you are trying to concentrate, and if I go to a theatre, last thing I am looking for is the "living room" feel where everyone talks or comments while the tv is on.
:) but if there would be a download service that would cost me 10$ a movie, I'd pay it, I'd split it with people watching me, and we'd have a superb experience, they'd get new money from people that wouldn't have gone to the theatres in the first place, but I admit; I don't know how this could affect their current audience. Still, there's a HUGE market for internet downloads, and iTunes didn't make artists go starving.
It's been what... about over 5 years now that most people can get fast net connection. How come there's only a handfull of online video "renting" services? This is because some dinosaurs didn't want to change, they even had the chance to see their audio cousins getting smacked by piracy and had YEARS to prepare to counterattack by offering a better experience. They didn't. Today, they are way behind.
One of the reasons I went from going every week to the theatre, down to about 3 times a year (aside from the obvious "i'm not going to pay 20$ to see this much crap" is also that the overall experience seems to get worse or I am getting older
This brings me to the living room feel. Actually I think more and more people like having projection screens or large displays, it's more affordable than it used to, and best of all, movies are out to DVD just a few months after showing in theatre, cheaper, so you can basically have almost the same experience, "free" popcorn, talk without disturbing, or watch without being disturbed, and best of all, you can rewatch or rewind if you missed something, at your convinience, and when you feel like it. You don'e need to drive to a specific time, you don't need to wonder if it's going to be filled at a premiere before you show up, etc..
I own a projector and sound system, and I must admit that it's not a THX experience, but it sure as he** better than the last 5 times I went to a theatre.
Of course, if there would be more SWIII or shrecks being put to the screen, I wouldn't want to wait and they would probably get me back in the theatres
People are willing to pay overquota bandwidth, or HS internet ONLY for that purpose, I don't think the argument that they get it for free thus they wouldn't pay holds for everyone. If you get them on a faster pipe at let's say 5$ (or less) a download, at a high quality, many would pay.... I would.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Its the damn food prices! That are absolutely insane! I remember when they first put in fast food chains at the local movie theatre... I was looking at the Burger King menu and thought, jeez, these prices are almost the same as their regular chain stores... After I bought it, I asked where my drink was, he said it wasn't included and it woulds cost me another 4 bucks!!! I don't mind paying 9$ for a ticket but another 10 bucks for a softdrink and popcorn is insane. Personally, I bought a widescreen TV and it costs me 50$ a month. Thats less than 2 theatre movies for me and my wife.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
What you reall want is to see a film WORTHY of watching in such an environment, whether on your deluxe Home Entertainment Center or the local Bijou -- That's what's really at issue this year, a bunch of duds. Probably one of the most popular films, not necessarily in cattle herding terms, but enjoyment, is March of the Penguins. That speaks volumes. You also expect the theater management to do something to block cell phones. Have to asked to see the manager and complained, or do you just grumble a lot then make postings on /. and hope the theater managers of the world happen by it and repent?
Digital theaters are on the way and the bar for getting a "film" on the local screen will be less an issue, except where those are in collusion with Hollywood and MPAA to keep the bar up there against independent film.
Theaters offer an environment I could only manage if I won the lottery, which I've so far failed to do. So for my $ it's still a good deal, as long as there is something WORTHY of my time and money. Hollywood is part of your problem, not just the tired remakes, but the fact you have very little variation in performers. We've gotten away from ugly, but talented people who made the great movies of the golden age, to a bunch of look alikes who don't vary from one film to the next, Tom Cruise as an example. Hollywood likes "safe bets" and has therefore cut out a lot of the real character that made films so interesting in the past, because the found the public was just fine with vanilla. Problem is, too much vanilla acting has made it all dull.
Support independent cinema. Most of the best films I've seen in the past 5 years were at the Nickelodeon or Del Mar theaters in my city. Find and give your custom to those where you live.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The reason for decline in theater attendance is that it is just too damn expensive. I have a family of 6. The cost for us to go to the theater is about $70 even at matinee pricing. That's about $35 for admission and another $35 for popcorn and drinks. It's just too much money for 90 minutes of entertainment. It's really the snack prices that put me over the edge. $35 for popcorn and soda is absurd. We *like* going to movies but at these prices I choose to invest in my own home theater and wait a few months for the DVD release.
Another factor might be this: Over the last 5 years or so, Hollywood's marketing machine has become increasingly effective at hyping every single movie, making the opening of a movie seem like an event you have to participate in or be forever mitigated to a lowly social rung. This has made movie openings much larger than they were 10 years ago, even for utterly crappy movies. It might take them a while, but eventually people become numb to the hype and these new marketing techniques, and movie attendance drops accordingly.
I'd suggest a different solution: Make Films Not Suck.
The reason why you'll probably not want to see "40 Year Old Virgin" in 4 months time (and dear God is that a short wait compared to back when films actually made money) is because it's mindless average twaddle.
If it actually _isn't_ twaddle (I wouldn't know; it holds no appeal) then the positive buzz from the cinema release might mean you do want to see it when you can.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Starting with the one I haven't seen posted yet...
Action movies today are too fast for 24fps film. With all the fast motion and cuts, it becomes a blur. Those few extra fps on DVD with a clear TV completely blow away a projector. It is a whole different movie at home.
TV's got bigger while movie screens got smaller.
Home audio is better and you have a freaking volume control.
People get imposed upon while the MPAA looks for cameras.
The quality of movies has declined. What happened to many great movies per year? As it is, even Stealth will win awards this year just because it was released.
If you muct run commercials, run them BEFORE the movie is scheduled to start, while people are comming in. We paid for a MOVIE, not a commercial.
People are RUDE in theaters. STFU! Theaters should enforce this and remove people who ruin it for others instead of looking for cameras.
The pricing for food and drinks is crazy. It is a long time well known joke.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Movies are a prime example of my theory.
How much money is spent on advertising a movie? What percentage is that of the total cost? How much do the theatres themselves advertise? How much of that is the total cost? In short, how much money is used (I'd love to say wasted) telling me to go see a movie that I already know that I want to see because of the natural free advertising that takes place every day? (Look up movie listings through the movie theatre's website, see articles on CNN / imdb, hear from friends, hear countless plugs on TV [not ads]). All of those communications costs the film crew zero dollars. Those affect me. Then you buy an ad on TV or in a magazine. Trust me, I'll almost never see it. Even if I did, why would I go to a movie that I didn't learn about from a more trusted and objective source? Why would I even by aware of your commercial?
That's just movies. It gets far, far worse than that. Company A buys products from Company B which buys from Company C which buys from Company A. 'A' gets investor pressure (or anything, really) and starts a marketing campaign to get more customers, thus increasing the price to 'B'. Now 'B' needs to market and/or raise prices to break even with the change, costing more to 'C', and now 'C' must do the same, causing 'A' to choke. These 3 companies are now in a little inflation loop which will hurt not only these companies, but every other customer to 'A' 'B' and 'C'. My little theory says that our complete and stupid over-exposure to advertising is now responsible for a significant portion of the change in cost of every product, thus wages, thus inflation. Now of course currently oil is slated to bring the price of every product up by a decent amount too, but I mean aside from that.
In short, not only do I find advertising annoying and insulting, I find it threatening.
- An interesting plot...simple enough, one would think. "Rob Schnieder goes to Amsterdam and poses as a gigolo to foil a murder mystery" doesn't count.
- Dialog that sounds more like it was written by Quintin Tarantino than George Lucas.
- Character development. This does not include a guy who thinks fat chicks are worthless until Tony Robbins hypnotizes him and when it wears off he finally realizes he's in love with one and it's what's on the inside that really matters.
- Quality acting, as opposed to anything ever done by Keanu Reeves.
- Jennifer Connelly
Actually, that last one is enough on its own.Oh, come on.
If you strip away enough you can get to the fact that every movie has one of two plots:
Introduce hero, Kill hero (or hero's dreams)
or
Introduce hero, hero succeeds.
It's a matter of how deep you want to go. Every movie made now can certianly be compared to a movie made in the 70s. Or 60s. Or 80s. Etc.
Complete lack of imagination? Describe an artist, writer, composer, or book that would not only fullfill all your criteria for imaginative (ie, completely new idea, concept, etc) AND would have enough mainstream appeal to pay for its own production and distribution.
All the interesting stories are exactly the same as the old interesting stories. People's basic needs haven't changed (food, security, love, recognition, etc), and therefore the basic movie fair isn't (arguably can't) going to change.
The reason the movie industry is declining is not so much due to the fact that there really are no new stories. It's due to the fact that there are so many other equivilant forms of entertainment available, and many are cheaper and more convenient.
-Adam
I wouldn't say the products aren't good, just not good enough.
I'll pay $5 + 2 hours of my time to watch a not great movie, I'm just not willing to put up with $40+ the rappy theater environment to watch it.
Music CD's aren't worth $20, so I don't buy them. I'll just turn on the radio. Sometimes I'll see a decent CD on clearance for $5, I might grab it.
I live in Tucson, we aren't podunk rural, but sure as hell not NY, call it maybe a million people including surrounding areas. Housing is very cheap, wages tend to be on the low side. Ticket price? $8.50.
Screw that. I'd rather spend the money on making my home theatre better. These days, it's quite accessable. You can get a good sound system for like $1000-$1500, and a widescreen HDTV for $1000-$2000. Ya, buys a lot of nights at the movies, but there's something to be said for watching in your own living room. You watch them on your own schedule, you can pause and go to the bathroom, you can have a beer, there are no screaming kids, etc.
Basically the only thing theatres really have going for them is timeleness of release, you get to see it there first. Other than that, I'd much rather just have some friends over to my place, or go over to theirs, and watch movies on a good home theatre.
But they're bad films: badly written, badly plotted and largely badly acted.
Exactly. Anyone want to guess how long it took to work out the plot for Stealth? I'll bet that it was less than a day myself.
I think I could make a generalization that would go far in predicting a good movie in advance: If the movie is based on the work of a highly regarded author, then it has a good change of being worth the money. Why? Because you don't usually become a highly regarded author with out having some talent for telling a story. And if the screenwriters don't botch the plot and stay reasonably true to the storyline, you might end up with a good movie.
All of these movies that Hollywood keeps throwing together based on some off-the-wall catch phrase or popular buzz word start off with a serious disadvantage. One of the key characteristics that seem to appear in those quick-fix movies are ultra extremes. You know, where jokes aren't just meant to be funny, they has to be of such an extreme nature that they top the last three remakes that featured the same jokes (as an example, the jokes in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo come to mind -- Please note: This does not imply that Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo was a good movie).
Another Hollywood characteristic of the typical bad movie -- remakes remakes remakes. The percentage of original ideas coming out of Hollywood these days is pretty low. One reason for this (IMHO) is the perpetual extension of copyright. No need to come up with an original idea if you can simply regurgitate that same old movie modernized with new special effects.
OK, 'nough of my ranting...I now return you to the show currently in progress...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
No, after extended periods of cranio-anal impaction, feelings of loneliness, apathy, and generalized anxiety can accompany eventual, successful cranial ejection.
Other symptoms often reported are light sensitivity, hyperacusis, olfactory hallucinations, feelings of 'emptiness' or loss, and hypersensitivity to the opinions of others.
For some patients, a brace is indicated in order to prevent re-occurrance. Rarely, in extereme cases, spinal fixation is required, most commonly achieved through the use of spinal rod-plate and transpedicular screw.
While I completely agree with points 1, 2, 4, and 5, I disagree completely with #3.
The primary concern is not if a book or comic is transferred to a theatrical release but rather whether or not it's done well and faithfully based on the original material.
I am thrilled that Peter Jackson did Lord of the Rings. Even with all of the (often unnecessary) literary licenses that he took in The Two Towers, the trilogy as a whole was very, very well done and did not rely on special effects but instead focused on the characters. I would have done certain scenes differently (like eliminating the warg rider attack, which never occurred in the books), but his movies were IMO the best adaptation of the books that Hollywood has made.
I've heard that Sin City is exceptionally close to the comics. It's a bit too violent for me, so I doubt that I'll see it, but everyone that I've spoken to who is a fan of the comics says that it was very well made.
The Spider-Man movies were also very well done.
Sadly, for every good adaptation of a book there are a number of bad adaptations of that book or others, such as The Hulk. We just have to pan those as the badly done movies that they are, but no more or less than any other movie.
I agree that there is a point of saturation. If too many movies of a certain type come out in a short span, movie-goers are going to be turned off, just like when a song gets far too much radio air play, but the saturation is more often because what's gettng repeated either sucks or just isn't good for multiple viewings/hearings.
If a book adaptation can be written well, presented well, and yet remain faithful to the original matieral, then there is no reason why it should not be made just because another book adaptation was recently released.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
They defend themselves buy saying theyare just giving the consumer what they want, yet it's clear consumers like new stuff. Look at Sin City. Hollywood hated that movie because it broke all kinds of rules, some offical, some just defacto.
Like the DGA says you can't have more than one director. A director can have ADs, but only one director. Rodriguez quit the DGA over that so he and Frank Miller could co direct. Studios say you can't do black and white films, barring something epic like Schindler's List. Also, you can't cast big name-good guy actors in bad guy roles, espically non-sepaking roles, because they claim the actors won't take it. Elija Wood said it was a blast playing Kevin in the movie. And so on.
Well, for all that, the movie was a massive success, and made Rodriguez a shitload of money. Audiences clearly responsed, even though it wasn't done "correctly" according to Hollywood knowledge.
We also use our old student ID's go get a student discount. When you include food, that comes out for a cheap $15 date!
Oh, and we go to the theaters late at night at around 11, avoid the insipid movies if we can, and often go on the weekdays. Makes it a whole lot better that way.
Have to tried going to an art theater? They're usually closer downtown than megaplexes, have cheaper tickets, better food, much better movies, and nicer audiences.
"Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The Queen is their slave."
Is pay people a percentage of profits. So you get a saliry for your work, something that even if the film bombs you aren't out on the street, but the real money for you is in the success at the box office. Film nets huge dollars, you make huge dollars, film never makes back it's production cost, you get nothing.
Problem is, anyone who's ever worked in Hollywood before will enver accept that. Why? Because the studios are lying fuckers. They have a tricky, BS accounting setup so that none of their films ever make money on paper. Matrix? Lost money according to the studios. Interesting they thend made two more, isn't it? It is, of course, to get out of paying taxes, but also to sucker people.
Often they'll offer you net points to work on a movie, meaning percentage of net profits. Sounds like a good idea right? If you make 1% of a big movie's profits, you make a lot. Well no, you'll never get a check for anything because the studio will tell you the movie lost money.
So of course all vetrans won't accept the situation, it's cash up front, or gross points (a percentage of the gross sales) which studios won't give out usually.
All that "crappy stuff nobody wants" you list is making humongous amounts of money which comes out of an amazing number of pockets ... and the "quality" audience doesn't pay nearly as much (as in: not even close to the same order of magnitude).
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
You don't walk into a restaurant, sit down at a dirty table and think "My God, the previous people to eat here were complete slobs!"
No, but a lot of people sure do give me dirty looks when I don't do McDonalds employees' jobs for them. And by people I mean fellow patrons, not the employees.
It's one thing to not throw human feces around in a restaurant, but if I wanted to clean up after myself I would have eaten at home, for a lot cheaper. Unfortunately, McDonalds et al have convinced the populace that it is OUR responsibility to clean up our tables, because they have oh-so convenient garbage cans on the way out. This attitude spills over into many other venues, I find.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I can't help noticing that no one has brought up the possibility that people might be finding better things to do with their time. Are we so indoctrinated as to think that people will always consume passive media? For me, in most instances, I have better things to do with my time than to sit there and absorb what Hollywood tells me. I'm not saying everyone has to be the same way, but I find it more fulfilling most of the time to work on a personal project or hang out with friends than to watch a movie or TV show. I do still watch movies sometimes, but it's an out-of-the-ordinary thing for me.
So I put forth this suggestion: perhaps people are finding better things to do with their time?
(Kind of ironic, since I'm an animator, helping provide passive media for other people to consume)
In the 1970s movies took risks. Girls were possessed (I mean the Exorcist, get your minds out of the gutter), taxi drivers shot pimps through the head, the Godfather made an offer you couldn't refuse.
Nowadays the best the studios can offer is either to try and show how much money they spent on computer effects, or to retread EXACTLY the same tread as before (I want a GUARANTEED hit - so do Basic Instinct, but call it something else and change up the faces and names) or to mine the culture for something that they feel will guarantee a hit (e.g. Dukes of Hazzard).
There are people out there with novel ideas and creative voices, but the theatres would rather NOT take some risks and have a mega hit and two modest flops - they want three movies that make OK money that they can try and HYPE into hits.
Same as music - "what category can we put this in?" - can we have another Kanye West please. For Christ's sake, nothing that doesn't sound like everything else we've ever done.
The first thing the studios need to do is diversify rather than amalgamate. They then need to go back to finding interesting new stories, and hiring new and inventive people to tell them. However, the chances of that happening are about the same as the chances of Rush Limbaugh admitting he's wrong.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I think the problem with DVD rentals is that you miss out on the experience of being able to talk to other people about the movie. People may claim that waiting for something to come out on DVD means that you'll watch more good films and avoid being swayed by marketing hype. Which it totally true, but at the same time its much tougher to talk to other people about films you watch on DVD. unless you watched the movie with them.
Maybe its just me, but I enjoy talking about a movie after I see it. However I only really want to do it for a couple days after I see the movie. If my friend comes up to me tomorrow telling me how he saw The Matrix the other day, I'd say great but I wouldn't engage in any kind of real conversation with him about the film. Not like I would have had he seen it when I did in the theaters a couple years ago.
Look I watch almost all of my movies on Netflix and they are rarely of the summer blockbuster variety, but I do miss the aspect of feeling like a part of a larger community. A recent preview for "40 year old virgin" confirms I'm not the only person who feels the same way. The crux of the ad was, see the movie or you won't know all the funny lines people are going to be quoting for the next six months. Now, I hate it when people quote films. Quoting something that is funny DOES NOT make you funny, but hell if I don't hate not catching a movie reference.
Oh and "40 Year Old Virgin" is hilarious.
Hollywood's current business plan:
1. Make crap movies
2. Charge excessively high prices for tickets
3. Charge excessively high prices for concessions
4. Fail to remove customers who ruin the experience for others
5. Call your prospective patrons criminals by blaming online piracy for the decline in sales
6. ????
7. Profit?
Hollywood needs to remember one thing about customers - if you piss them off, they will stop being your customers.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
It's wierd how clubs never seemed to forget the "class" thing even as cinemas went completely grunge-egalitarian. Especially, they never forgot that policing the customers gets you a better kind of customer, and you can charge a premium for that. Nobody would be surprised to see a nightclub that charged big money and required formal evening dress. Your jaw would likely drop if the cinema did that - but why?
Supposedly, the primary value proposition of modern cinema above home DVD is the "atmosphere".
Surely one of these idiots must have thought, if we're selling atmosphere, better go out of our way to be sure we have some? Industrial boxy buildings and bright-casual uniforms on gum-chewing slouched staff make for a poor attempt at sophisticated glamour.
I remember when I was a kid, folks used to dress up for the cinema, and the staff used to be smart, and the theater itself was as glitzy as could be done with gilt paint, coloured foil and cheap velvet.
When did they forget?
Who needs a 'partner'?
Women do, that's who. They are programmed to trap someone who will stay with them and help raise their kids. Men, on the other hand, are programmed to disseminate their genes in the widest possible manner. Both strategies support human survival in their own way.
But now we live longer and healthier than we were meant to. Women are bearing children, on average, much later in life. And men can keep siring into their 70's and beyond. The counteracting agendas of the genders used to balance out, but this recent development of longer lifespans results in couples whose needs diverge as they get older.
Thus, as a 41-year-old husband and father, I am currently separated and dating a much younger girl. And I'm pretty happy about that.
Besides the obvious that have aready been mentioned multiple times, there is no end to the list of "what's wrong" with movie theaters...
Number one on my list, is they have not kept up with the increase in the DIVERSITY of TASTE of the viewing public. They target a couple of relatively narrow categories, those which they appear to believe cover significant market segments (and probably do, but there's a lot more of them now than there used to be), to the exclusion of all others. I look up what's playing in my neighborhood, and find at lest 150 screens to go sit in front of within a reasonable distance, but find that all 150 screens are showing the same 12 movies, virtually none of which I'm interested in seeing. So while in fact I do have 150 screens to choose from, I only have 12 movies to choose from. It wouldn't matter to me if I see "Skeleton Key" in theater A or theater B or theater C or theater D, all within close distance, if I wanted to see "Skeleton Key" at all! But they're trying to amortize their ad budgets, preferring "blockbusters" to diversity. Get a clue guys, the "blockbuster" concept is a complete anachronism in an extremely diverse marketplace. The music industry could stand to figure that out as well and get over the "good old days" of the supergroup.
Frankly, I prefer OLD movies, and actually WOULD like to see them on a big screen. There's one theater near me that will do that, a neat REALLY OLD classic theater but that has one of the worst sound systems I've ever heard-- the reverberations in the theater make the experience awful. Plus, whoever picks their selection of old movies needs their head examined-- they really suck. It needs someone who knows the old films well enough to actually seek out those known to be particularly enhanced by the large screen projection and be able to get them! Unfortunately, it's probably getting harder and harder if not impossible to get good prints of old films on demand, they have to find some restoration society or something because they aren't likely to get much help with that from the studios...
Last time I saw an ad on TV for a movie I actually wanted to see, I looked for it in my neighborhood. Come to find out it was only playing one place anywhere in a radius of about 150 miles, and that was 50 miles away-- yet they spent big bucks advertising the movie to get me there. I'm sorry, those big ad bucks weren't enough to get me to drive 50 miles to see it, despite the fact that I was willing to go somewhat out of my way for that particular movie-- they just made it TOO HARD (the movie was Howl's Moving Castle, BTW). Consequently, it's obvious that the movie index sites are only useful for people who want to go to the theater to see ANY movie, not to see a particular movie. They have to face it, there's just fewer and fewer people willing to do that. And if they can't find a way to fix it, film theaters may just go the way of the drive-ins. At least in drive-ins you had SOME privacy, and wouldn't have to listen to cell phones and the like if drive-ins still exited. The big problem with drive-ins was they couldn't keep you from bringing in your own snacks (oh, that's not a problem for ME, it's only a problem for THEM. That's customer-centric for you).
So let me get this straight:
You're frustrated that DVDs come out so much later after the hype because the hype is your only reason for wanting to see the movie in the first place... and your ideal solution to this is for them to release the DVD immediately, in the middle of the "marketing fog", so that you will be compelled to go out and spend money on something that you would admitedly NOT have bought of your own free (unmarketed) will.
Wow. Just wow.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but the PRIMARY reason why buy or go to see a movie is because I think that it may be good, not because the man in the magic glowing box tells me to go watch them. The fact that you actually desire the man in the glowy box to tell you what to do because you can't do it without him is nothing short of terrifying.
If a little cell phone light sets you off, man, lay off the caffeine, eh?
BZZT. Wrong. How about you take your phone into the lobby and check it there. If the call you are waiting for is that important, you can walk 30 goddam feet into the lobby to check it. Its called common courtesy. Theaters are dark for a reason, and light can be just as distracting as noise.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!