Slashdot Mirror
Bad Movies to Blame for Box Office Slump
macklin01 writes "The LA Times is reporting that box office executives are finally fessing up and taking the blame. Poor box office receipts over the summer weren't caused by surging fuel costs, changes in audience preferences, or anything else. As Slashdot readers might have put it (and as it comes out in the article), 'It's the movies, stupid.'"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/25/143921 4&tid=97
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
no it wasn't! It was those damn hurricanes, how much clearer can it get?? silly...
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
It's almost amazing the movie industry gets away with this. They scream and throw tantrums over any overtures, any market that dares step foot in their domain. How? By threatening to sue almost anyone! How? By demanding the electronics industry put "safeguards" in dvd players (more on that in a second). How? By spending millions in D.C. demanding laws be passed to protect their eroding stranglehold on an evolving market place. How? By doing everything in their power to prevent evolution (read: progress).
In the meantime, they approve pap for movie plots and ideas, pander to the idiotic mainstream thinking that's their meal ticket (it mostly is). But their offerings have become so predictable, so terrible, and so terribly produced and directed people are starting to feel ripped off for the small fortune they must spend for a night out of movies and popcorn. They've sown these seeds, they're reaping their own rewards.
What I think funny in the article is their collective sigh of relief some recent movies are getting viewers. I suspect when movies like "Transporter 2 are raking in blockbuster revenues it's more about their concerted ramped-up advertising and less about the quality of their movies.
It does appear there may be some good movies this fall ("History of Violence" is high on my list), I'm guessing we'll see more of the same crap. I don't know how many times they can go to the well with their overproduced special effects stories with no plot or believable ideas and keep the public coming back (but don't underestimate the masses to continue to believe, ever heard of Charlie Brown and Lucy?), but they're creating their own misery.
As for their heavy handed fingers-in-the-distribution-and-technology pie, give me a break. I set up a dvd recorder for my dad. I LOVED how simple it was to operate, and it did an excellent job of recording shows for him. He was a happy camper too. He loves to watch PBS, and was excited to record a recent Civil War special on his new dvd recorder and wanted to send the dvd to me to watch. He was concerned because his dvd would not play on other dvd players, something about a region code violation (we know what that is).
Anyway, the disk arrived today, and it's NOT playable on my player. Fuck the movie and entertainment industry. They've made my dad unhappy, they've prevented me from watching a show which, had I watched, could only have helped their cause (exposure, exposure, exposure).
This isn't the first time I've had this technology dance with my dad, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But, I hate it, and the sooner the entertainment industry cleans up their act, the better. Sigh.
...Fire is hot!
It's not the movies. Well, maybe it is, but it's not JUST the movies. It's the fact that there's more competition right now for the entertainment dollar then ever before, and it's going to get worse for them. Put on top of that the negative cultural ideal of the movie theatre right now (talking+cell phones..not my experience but I'm sure this thread will be full of the stories.) So what's the solution? I suspect cut the theatres loose. 0-day DVD/PVP-Online AND theatre releases. Allow the theatres to show more movies more often. So if you rally like The Empire Strikes Back, for example, then maybe next Tuesday evening there's going to be a screening. Digital distribution makes this possible
NO SHIT?!
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
It's not because of Steve Job's $.99 price model?
Tim
At least they're no longer in denial, and they're now willing to produce movies their customers will want to see.
Hopefully that means "Naked and Petrified" starring Natalie Portman will finally hit the big screen in 2006.
One can only dream...
At least Serenity came out yesterday. The wife and I are seeing it on Sunday! Stupid goram MPAA.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I have wondered if this seasons lack of good action movies is partialy Lucas's fault. With the long awaited and less disapointing SW epIII this summer, I wonder how many studios decided that they didn't want to be the movies that came in a distant second to what many felt was going to be an out of control blockbuster (right or wrong).
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I think it is changes in audience preferences. Audiences don't want bad movies anymore. The Hollywood formula is starting to wear off on people.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
see: Doom, Wallae & Gromit, Saw II, Domino, Aeon Flux, New World, and so on... Feel free to add more.
"Overabundance of Commercials and Tons of Bad Reality Shows - Not TiVo - To Blame For Decline in Television Audience."
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff you Already Knew.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
the RIAA would finally fess up to the fact that people aren't buying CDs because the music just plain sucks...
There is a lot more competition out there for our entertainment dollars that there used to be. Think of all the computer/console based activities which have sprung up in the last 2 decades, to name just one example. Like any industry forced from a near monoply position into one with competition, the movie industry complains and blames dubious straw men for their difficulties. Good movies can still compete.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
If only the record companies could come to such an enlightened conclusion...
How about more inspiration and less specualtion? More perspiration and less litigation... what else rhymes with this...?
Waiting for you by the bridge
When The Fountain comes out on December 31st. Broken Flowers was good, but even Jarmusch can't compete with Aronofsky.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Yeah when Revenge of the Sith took over 1st place for Single Biggest Day at 50,013,859. Everyone who went to the movie was dissapointed by the last two movies, but still went because they wanted to "finish" (yet to be determined) the series off, believing it would be a crap movie. Well, when customer behaviour like this, is it really a wonder why the movie industry doesn't need to make good movies. They know people will line up to see the second movie, cause the first was decent, it turns out to be crap, then they will see third, fourth, fifth movie, even though the previous one was crap. They only need to make the one film to catch your eye then your stuck for the long haul as they reel you through several shitty sequels/re-makes/rip-offs just because you were a fan of the first. Customers should look at their own behaviour before they blame the movie studios.
And it has nothing to do with the $8-$10 ticket prices that have sprung up across the country. It's not like I can get 3 used DVDs for $20. Oh wait a minute . . . yes I can.
It's all George Lucas' fault, Seriously! That guy redefined movie-making in the 70s and 80s, and then single-handedly destroyed it in the 90s and 00s!
Episode I) Fool us once, shame on you.
Episode II) Fool us twice, shame on us...
Episode III) Fool us three times, screw this shit.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Why don't you suggest a way to fix the problem, whether than just complaining. Movies are being illegally copied online. But nowhere in your rant do you place any blame on the real criminals. You just blame the victims for protecting themselves. Cleam up the problem of copyright infringement, and the movie industry won't waste their effort trying to protect content.
Worst...summer movies...ever.
movies and tv are dead. mmorgs are on the rise. why watch a movie when you can be in it?
Good points.
Movie makers are trying for blockbuster movies to support the high prices of tickets. How about more lower budget movies at better ticket prices. I love going to the video rental store and finding gems that I can rent for cheap and watch at my convenience.
And there's more trouble for the movie industry; high definition television will make the movie theater experience moot. We'll be able to see video in wide screen format, with excellent picture quality, from the comfort of our recliners.
I think this portends changes in how video is made, watched, distributed, etc. I'm loving being able to watch Firefly on DVD. I'll go to see Serenity at the theater just because I want to demonstrate support for Joss and the whole Brownshirt thing, but I'll be buying the DVD so that I can watch it at home, too.
Joss will be able to make and sell his work and completely bypass the PHB's at Fox. Go, Joss!! Less theater visits by me, more control and profit for Joss and company.
Best regards.
So Hollywood needs to be bolder and make more movies like Transporter 2? :-)
Cinema Fault:
Poor movies
Expensive Popcorn / Sweets / Drinks
Expensive Tickets
Can't use Gift Vouchers (Fully Paid) with new movies
Bad seating - I've seen some *shockers* in some cinemas
20 minutes of ads before the show
Those silly piracy ads on stealing music - yep thats right, we all have to put up with that
Customer Fault:
Noisy movie goers / pranksters
Mobile phone calls and constant rings
Children screaming in tense moments
Seat fighting
Its all just not worth it - wait a month or so, buy for it less than the cinema price, grab some take away and watch it on your nice big digital entertainment unit @ home - and keep the damn movie!
No wonder we don't bother going !
Duh.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
It's all George Bush's fault.
He doesn't care about movies.
I know he's too busy with his bicycling career and all to go to movies. I just want to know that he cares.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Well at least they're beginning to see the light. Scripts are sucking. I don't understand what the point of a going to theatres is anymore. You can go to Fry's buy a bigscreen, reciever, dvd player, and 5.1+ polk audio speakers, and/or Windows Media Center stay at home and enjoy the movies in your own confortable space. No obnoxious kids talking on cell phones with the theater attendants calling them out in the middle of the movie. Hollywood should just start releasing movies on DVD, HD-DVD, Blueray (You know they're gonna haft to support both formats as nobodys backing down) and the Internet. I would rather pay $10 for 1 or 2 viewings of a movie, then $8.50 plus $10.00 worth of concessions. Movielink is owned by the major studios and CinemaNow is owned by Lions Gate, Blockbuster and Microsoft. Technologies and systems are already in place. All thats left is the dotted lines. I don't mind DRM, and I know companies are not going to abuse it as it is a guarantee they would lose business in 2 seconds flat. I have faith they will be fair, be it nieve of me or not to state. HELIX, MS-DRM, Open MagicGate and FairPlay are fine by me, as long as rights are fair.
The problem was all those altruistic producers, with their Lord of the GNU/Rings, KAlien and OpenMatrix trilogies!
Moviegoers should support our plotless, $2.00-worth--I mean, Oscar® worthy movies! All the people that we entice and underpay^W^W^W^Wwork on our movies deserve nothing less.
--Dr. Random RIAA Spokes-Person
P.S. Encourage your local movie studio to use CSS (and I don't mean standard Web technology--besides, what's better than protecting official-movie-site IP with Flash?)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
The critics rated all researched 2005 movies (those that were still in theaters by the end of August - slightly over 100) with 69%. For 2004 movies, it was 64.25%. The audience also posted better ratings for 2005 movies: 68.4% versus 67.9% (source: IMDB). In the case of blockbusters (defined as movies opening on more than 1000 screens), 2005 movies come up on top as well: 62% versus 59.5% by the critics and 63.1% versus 61.7% by the audience. Independent movies were an exception: while critics rated them higher in 2005 (76.25% vs. 71.5%), the audience rated them lower: 70.9% vs. 71.5%.
Despite these numbers, the opening weekend has seen a drop of 12.87%. For blockbusters this drop has been even more significant, despite the fact that they were rated higher and that they opened on 5.14% more screens. The drop in box office was 15.79%, compared to last year. Yet, the top 8 movies had an above-average per-screen revenue on the opening weekend, and the top 6 movies retained this statistic into the fourth week. In addition, the reviews have a positive correlation to the movie revenues (42.9%).
As a result, I don't believe that bad movies are to blame for the box office to slump. I can speculate (haven't run any statistical analysis for those), that the declining revenues are to blame on a set of other factors, such as rising ticket prices, rising gas prices, shorter time to DVD, commercials before movies, and others.
For example, a few weekends ago, I rented "Lost in Translation" and "Garden State", two highly acclaimed, very intelligent, and original movies. I felt dumb for watching them. They felt like they too forever to watch, and I wasn't immediately entertained by them. A few laughs, but that's it. Both were movies were I had to walk away to reflect on them, to truly appreciate them.
And I don't think that's what the public wants. We need immediate satisfaction these days. Our society wants things now.
If I've totally missed the point of this whole discussion, fine. I just have to throw that out there. I'll stick with a stupid movie like "Dude, Where's My Car?" At least then I can get the instant gratification I'm looking for.
China is the next world power
Google is the next Microsoft
Patents and DRM chokes innovation
Movies suck
...
*sigh*
The MPAA has set in motion litigation against makers of big screen televisions. According to one industry insider, these home entertainment people have to be stopped, their evil must be undone. If G*d wanted us to watch movies in our homes, he would have made television... oh wait
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
You think it might be because i just paid 8.50 to see 'the corpse bride'?
There's a science to movie ticket prices, they gotta have it close to minimum wage or they won't profit on food products.
I keep hearing that movies suck now, but personally I don't see it. Obviously some will disagree with my taste, but I've enjoyed a lot of movies recently like 40 Year Old Virgin, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, March of the Penguins, Constant Gardener.
And I'm just listing mainstream-ish stuff. I'm also a big fan of indie/experimental stuff.
This is just more people spouting theories. Let's see some research about people's movie satisfaction. Sales don't mean anything.
Personally, I think it's more likely that cheaper home theatre, the economy, and videogames especially contribute to lower box office turnout. The videogame industry has become huge, and IIRC it's outgrown the movie industry. People have a limited amount of time and money for entertainment...
...at one time it WAS because the movies were lame.
But now, despite their unending denial it's:
- ridiculous prices for tickets
- ridiculous prices for snacks
- picture quality that hasn't improved much since about the mid 70's (sound quality *has* improved)
- filthy theaters
If the movie makers want to claim they made bad movies this year, I'm not going to disagree - they did. But that's only part of it. Do the analyis:
One trip to the non-matinee movies for my family, plus a large pop, large popcorn and some candy for each, plus parking: ($8.50 ticket + $3 pop + $2.50 popcorn + $2 candy + $1 share of parking) x 6 = $102.
36" widescreen Toshiba hi def tube = $1600
Toshiba progressive scan DVD player = $200
(hooking it to the stereo I own)
= $1800.
So for the price of 18 trips to the movies, PLUS Deducting the intangibles:
- the convenience of watching in my own home
- the ability to pause/rewind/stop and chat about whatever I want whenever I want
- the ability to have whatever snack I want, in any quantity
- the ability to have as many friends over as I can stuff into the room
- to watch in my underwear and bathrobe if I want
- to watch at whatever TIME I want, and interrupt to go do something if I want
- to sit in my comfy chair, and exercise whatever odious personal habits I choose
- the ability to (via Netflix) see pretty much whatever movie I want, not juse what the studio suits think I should be watching.
I don't think there's any doubt - film industry pricing DROVE the development of home theater, now they have to live in the world they created. Nice job guys, you eat your young, too?
-Styopa
For me, it's been about a year and a half. There have been a small handful of decent movies, but nothing else. I even got rid of my blockbuster movie pass, because we'd go months without finding anything worth renting.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I have to say it, I agree with that.
This summer had the worst movies that I've ever seen. Other summers had interesting Pixar movies. This summer had, chickflicks, lame action movies and uninteresting comedy.
Better luck next summer...
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
One thing that I forgot to say is that nearly every good movie I've seen in the past 10 years has been one of the following:
- made from a book
- made from a comic book
- a remake of an old movie (which doesn't preclude #1 or #2)
The movies where the script actually comes out of Hollywood are rarely worth a thing.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Who the heck listens to critics???
In truth I quit bothering simply because in documented cases they were just paid shills. I personally don't find the movies pumped out of Hollywood with a few exceptions worth the effort to go to the movie theatre. Critic's giving the "Longest Yard" remakes high marks? Please! Or the ones who raved about Dukes of Hazzard. They should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!
Near me not only is it the experience of the Cell Phone idiots and the kids (which can be avoided some if you don't go right away and do early matinee's like I do, being self employeed has a few perks after all). The fact I have to sit through 10-20 minutes worth of ads be it direct commercials or movie trailers stinks.
In the last year I have gone to about 15 movies where as I used to go once a week. I just don't find much worth my time. Very few films have a real story and even the action films seem trying to hard!
I mean seriously when I saw them use Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke and Burt Reynolds as Boss Hog for that bad Dukes of Hazzard remake my first thoughts were "No way in hell" and "I had no idea Burt was THAT broke".
At the moment I will see Serenity in a few days and then likely Harry Potter in November followed with Narnia and perhaps King Kong but so far those are the ONLY things looking even mildly interesting.
The studios are making most of their money from rentals, DVD sales, and fees from cable TV. All money that you're paying with your home theater system. You aren't hurting them any.
Breakfast served all day!
Is this the April Fools Day version alreadY????
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Besides, the lack of good movies is hardly a new thing. Maybe the Internet has made people more aware of the problem, but do we really think that after a century people have just caught on, most movies suck? And if that was the case, wouldn't we expect Britney Spears and friends to take a hit as well?
No, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Making better movies would probably help, but more likely they are facing an inevitable decline as newer technologies provide better entertainment. Now movie theatres have to compete with DVD, game consoles, online games, downloaded movies, web browsing, and probably other things that either weren't around or occupied far smaller niches ten (or even two) years ago.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Trailers give away the whole plot, especially when you watch more than one trailer for some movie.
They show all the good scenes, so no good surprises. Why bother going to the movie when you know what the heck will happen?
...the other patrons are my biggest problem.
There are many movies that I would be very willing to watch in the theatre if I only had the ability to do so with some guarantee of peace and quiet from those around me.
Since that is not going to happen, I prefer to hold off and wait for the DVD. Simple as that.
People who would not of liked the movie (e.g. given it a bad rating), don't even watch the movie these days, and can't give it a lower rating. So only the easy to please (who give things high ratings) actually rate things?
As far as the critics are concerned, that's harder to explain, maybe they're being paid for more than normal? (Bit of a stretch, but if the slump gets bad you could imagine the industry would get a bit more dersperate in their bribery). Or are you percentages being pushed out by outlies? e.g. last year their were 5 real bombs but the non bombs were generally better?
Also, maybe movies are slightly better this year, but it's just taken people a few years to decide their still not good enough and stop going?
It's turtles all the way down.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
Scientists discover that fire is hot.
!= profit
To prove that today's movies are so bad, bootleggers on the street are bootlegging old classics such as "Gone with the Wind" and "North by Northwest".
When P2P networks don't even bother distributing new movie titles, you know it's true...
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Sure, the movies this year might not be any worse than the ones last year, but that is not saying much at all -- both years sucked! The public has just been a little slow to catch on and stop wasting their money.
Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
Part of the reason they're 'fessing up is because movies like March of the Penguins were actually doing better than "blockbuster" titles like Fantastic Four. (Per screen, on release, March of the Penguins actually did make more money than Fantastic Four. It has now made more money than Fifth Element, in total, according to some articles.) It is hard to keep claiming that it's someone else's fault when even a French wildlife documentary can outsell multi-million dollar projects from Hollywood.
I think the other part of the reason is that the RIAA is starting to take a turn for the worse in the courts, and the MPAA wants a backup plan in case this spreads to their own lawsuits. In other words, if a movie does crap and fileswappers cases get kicked out, then they can now say "well, we TOLD you the script for that specific movie was no good!" It also didn't help the MPAA when eDonkey started talking about quitting. If there are no fileswapper companies to blame, it's going to get harder for them to push responsibility onto others.
(After all, they've known for HOW LONG that other people's movies were selling just fine? They were having a downturn for how many YEARS before fuel costs shot up? But it was only very recently that fileswapper cases stopped doing well, and only in the last week that eDonkey talked out quitting.)
Will this get Hollywood to make something worth watching? Uh, no. What it'll mean is that they'll spend even MORE on public relations to persuade people that the next movie is worth seeing. That's the usual corporate reaction - why change things, when you only have to convince people they're changed?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why I (and everyone I know) doesn't see movies in the theater:
The cost of a movie is $18(for two) + food at outrageous prices. The theater is small, and so is the screen. The front HALF of the theater seating is too close to the screen to actually see the movie.
The movie is projected from 35mm film that looks like it's already been through a world-war, the sound quality is iffy at best. Not to mention the peopel behind you are guarenteed to be talking for the WHOLE movie (and if it's a scary one, then their obligated to laugh) - but wait - not to be out done is the fat lady with the pretzle bag sitting next to you...
Sound like fun?
Cost of a DVD? $20 - it lasts a LIFE TIME. My hometheater screen is ALMOST as big as the theaters, except it has digital quality sound and video, and the speakers are actually namebrand and not underpowered. Oh wait, and the projector has this really odd quality about it called IN-FOCUS! yes - thats the (preferable) OPPOSITE of "blurry".
The food is edible, and doesn't cost me my first-born-child. My feet don't stick to the floor, and if I turn the lights off I can rest assured they will stay that way. Same with the door being closed and not slamming throughout the movie.
Lastly if I do have to take a piss, or someone sneezes the DVD has neat options called "pause" and "rewind" (maybe thats why you paid $2 more).
THATS WHY PEOPEL DON'T GO TO THE FRIGGEN THEATER ANYMORE!
~RavenSlay3r
The theaters are dirty, and smelly.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Earlier this week in L.A., there was an event by the LA SIGGRAPH chapter talking about digital cinema and 3d cinema and what it can do for the movie business.
One of the speakers (can't remember his name) was discussing some of the current issues with the current box office, and number one on his list was bad movies. That was followed up by high ticket prices, high concession prices, poor theater experience (bad theaters ?), short time between theater release and DVD release, and people changing their spending habits. (Oddly enough, no mention of piracy from them)
They seemed to be really big on getting digital and 3d technology into theaters as they felt it would get people back into theaters. The equipment can be expensive and ticket prices might have to be increased to help offset the costs, but these people seem to really think that it'd bring back people to the theater. I thought maybe in the short term...but maybe it's just another fade ?
The demos they showed can be pretty impressive (especially ones originally intended for 3D instead of being converted from standard 35mm to 3D) but I don't know if it'll help in the long term to bring people back. It is pretty compeling to see this stuff, but I don't know if I'd wear 3D glasses for 2 hours...
There is NOTHING that I can't wait for. I will pay cheap, drink beer, sit in my recliner in underwear and when I want some chow, I will stop the movie and go make a pizza and get another beer.
Movie theatres suck and I think more and more people are thinking like me.
It's amazing that so many people have posted about how bad this or that movie is, or is so keen to point out prices for snack food, yet complain that they don't like going to the movies.
If you don't like going to the movies, then WHY ARE YOU GOING?
I ususally go to the movies about once or twice a year, to get away from the house and go with friends, but realize it'll be an expensive and probably boring movie. (For that matter, I dropped all cable and satellite b/c I hate knowing that I'm paying for commercials to be delievered to me, but that's another story).
Anyway, why are so many people still going to the movies if it's so much better to watch DVD's at home?
Yep. You know someone in the movie industry got a huge promotion for coming up with the idea of fuggin' Pepsi ads before the previews. "Hey, they're a captive audience! Let's treat our customers like lab rats, because we can make more money if we bombard them with ads."
It's only a matter of time before someone goes postal after seeing one too many Fandango ads at the theater.
If I wanted ads, I'd have stayed at home, turned off my Tivo, and watched television.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...people can't get enough of pirating this "crappy" music.
I've never understood this Slashdot paradox: "RIAA, your music is crappy! Where can I download it?"
...and a potential "new paradigm" business model if the theaters handed you a DVD of the movie as you exited the theater. Or at least offered it *cheap*, as in two bux cheap, something like that, not 20$. A lot of bands do that now at live concerts, sell the disks and other swag, so why not? Would it bump up interest, and help justify a "profit" level ticket price without having to make it on the popcorn and cokes? I don't know, but I would probably go to more movies (I very rarely go now anyway, for various reasons) if that was offered as a sweetener, and in bulk pressings, the actual cost of the disk would be pretty low for the producers.
They really only have two effective ways to "reduce piracy", the way they are doing it now-still steep prices and ridiculous laws and DRM schemes, or something different like "let's get real" prices and making the experience more pleasant all around. Get rid of the adversial mindset they have with their potential customers would be a good start methinks. Well, that and content as in the article, but that's really a huge variable anyway,along with being a market red herring, there's no easy way to classify taste or what people want, when you get down to it, every movie is a certain genre or niche market product, so it will have that x-number of potential customers only and that's it.
I think you identified the reason for the bad movies. The MPAA is trying to put the bootleggers out of business, by making movies that are so bad, nobody wants to watch them.
Oh well, what the hell...
However, in this case the keyword is consistency. I didn't pass any judgments on the quality of the critics; I simply took their ratings from last year and this year. I may often disagree with them, but as long as they are consistent in ratings, we could see some trends, and I believe there was a positive trend between last year ant this. In addition, I'd like to point out that the audience rating is consistently higher than the critics' rating, so if anything, the reviewers are more critical of the movies than the audience.
Serenity, though? Ass kickery. So many flavors of goodness: "T'weren't been nothin between my nethers but was run on batteries..."
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
This may also explain part of why people aren't buying your *$^%%$ CD's! (but are buying the Indy ones!) Nah... it's Apples fault if Jobs wasn't selling so may songs at a price the market likes, people would be buying more songs at a higher gouge rate. ( Hey it's their logic paradigm not mine.)
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
I worked in a Carmike during high school. You know that bag of small popcorn for $2.95? You know how much it cost to make it? 1/7 of a cent. It takes less than a penny to make a bag of popcorn. Because of the high profit ratio, they make more money off popcorn than they do candy and soda...
"That's awful," you say, but what about this: theaters typically make about 5 cents per movie ticket. On an independent film they might make 10 cents. Oh and by the way, they're exempt from overtime laws so their workers never get paid over $5.15 (much of the entertainment industry is exempt from overtime)
I think what it boils down to is people are turning from the theater experience. At home I have a 1024x768 Viewsonic projector, Onkyo 5.1 surround system and a Linux box where I keep tons of downloaded Xvid files. The fact is my home theater experience, even with a decent quality cam, is still better than the actual theater with the screaming kids and people throwing popcorn and $7 rape you in the ass entry fee; that is for an average film.
With electronics getting cheaper, it seems like my friends only make it a point to go see movies in the theater for films that really stand out. We make it a point and an ocasion to watch the midnight premier. But I agree with the arcile, there really haven't been a lot of good movies worth that effort lately, and with better home theater systems emerging, I think the movie industry will need to work harder to produce films worth the entertainment value of the theater.
-- in soviet russia, movies suck you.
;P
Oooooh yeahhhhh!!!
Interactive XXX movies
Oh wait, thats my G/F?!?!?! HOLY SHEEET!!
Perhaps expectations have gotten too high? Marketing is mostly to blame but not entirely. I pretty firmly beleive that anybody can be entertained by pretty much anything, however a current trend is to dislike theaters for whatever reason and to instead go with home theaters.
/. : Box Office Executives Admit Movies Suck... and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" I dont mind movies right now, but hey, if they feel they need to improve, by all means, do so.
Like most trends it will probably come to an end without many people realizing it till long after. One day you'll see a movie that catches your eye and you decide to see it and you enjoy yourself. Next week you decide to go back to see another movie you've been "thinking about seeing" and pretty soon you go almost every week. There will be no noticeable increase in the quality of anything (as that would likely cost $$$) and you will make no conscious decision that you had gotten over your hatred of the Cinema.
Attendances rise and fall... it happens...
as a side note... an article i WOULD like to see on
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
"Who the heck listens to critics???"
hey, I listened to a critic, no wait that was "The Critic" and he said "it stinks"
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Certainly being down 8% to 10% from the year before in most markets is more than just noise. But does that make sense in the movie market when 10% of sales between January and September can be made up of just two or three movies. Let's consider the plus $300 million films for the last few years (since sales are down by about half a billion from last year). By my count 2001 had 2, 2002 had 3, 2003 had 3, 2004 had 3 and 2005 had 1. Well if we say for argument that for each year there were 6 movies that had the potential to become a plus 300-mil we might average out that such a movie has a 0.20 chance of making it. Then we would expect about 1 every 5 years a set of 6 such movies would only produce 1 actual 300-mil.
Now this is just a two minute analysis with several bad assumptions. But all I'm trying to say is that not all numbers have meaning when it comes to statistics.
Hollywood has done little of note lately aside from sequels and remakes. What's the point of seeing a movie you already know the ending of?
Copyright infringement is only a "problem" because a few industry dinosaurs have become dependent on charging for copies. The skill of making music, movies, and TV shows isn't in being able to press the button on a CD duplicator, folks - a trained monkey can do that. They need to get off their asses and move to a business model where they get rewarded for creating content, not duplicating it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
"These fucking movies aren't even worth pirating."
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
RIAA AND MPAA HAVE REUNITED WITH AA. The reconciliation process was tough but the sibilings are well on their way to recovery. RIAA "It was tough you know, I was addicted and I couldn't stop, stop the pop, it was ALL about the POP. But my brother was there to give the 12 steps to get my life back in order." MPAA "T&A man T&A that's all I was thinking about 24/7. ADIDAS!" When AA was asked how he felt he responded, "It begins with admitting you've got a problem. That's step one." Their cousin NA was also at the meeting.
sig here
Who said anything about a "movie". We're talking 100% interactive mate!
moviegoing experience, read Kevin Murphy's hilarious and insightful book, "A Year at the Movies"
He is a self-professed cinephile, but he seems to really hate the whole corporate moviegoing experience, but loves some of the interesting independent places he has found. Ones that actually offer a REASON(a good environment) for going to the cinema
Plus he smuggles a whole Thanksgiving dinner into a theatre!
Monstar L
Wow, you're one lucky bastard then! I, for one, keep welcoming the look-but-don't-touch-princess-lea overloards in this case.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
I know that the movies these days suck, but every generation had them.
According to September's FastCompany, all reviewed theateres (4 within a metro) sucked. Who wants to go see a mediocre film in a shitty theater?
Bad movies are one big factor keeping me out of theaters. A bigger problem for me however is a bad movie coupled with paying absurd prices to listen to some asshole talk on his cell phone. I can understand every movie I go see won't be mind blowingly awesome, I might get a good story with bad acting or a bad story with awesome explosions. I don't mind sub par movies. I just don't want to have to take out a loan to go see one.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Yeah the movies definitely had an impact, but can it also be that they are constantly raising prices? I saw a movie in manhattan today and it cost me $10.75. Higher prices, worse movies... of course nobody's going.
Just came home from it, and loved it, as did the wife.
But: its only going to be loved by people who knew and loved the TV show, which begs the question: where are the good ideas right now?
Batman Begins was good too, but its also a dervivative of an older idea. A good spin on it, sure, but not exactly original.
That said, I am kind of geekily excited for DOOM. Not that I plan to pay anything to see it.
-mj
Your post is so far out in space I can't even craft a coherent reply. I'm actually physically shaking my head in disbelief. Your opinion, sir, astounds me. Please tell me you've not reproduced.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
So I want to go to the movie. Setting aside the cost of popcorn and sodas for two, which will cost more than the tickets, we enter the auditorium and find a seat. Can we sit and talk? No. There's a damn video playing on the screen pimping for a wretched TV series and commercials. This goes on until a few minutes before the curtain when the ads for the concessions come on, a terrible soft drink ad, and the an endless series of trailers for films that should have gone straight to DVD. Often I find myself thinking: "If these trailers are matched in any way to the expected audience for this film, then we've come to the wrong film." Finally the lights dim. The movie begins and it's okay but probably the trailers were right - the film is crappy.
The entire experience of going to the movies is just awful, one brutal and unsophisticated marketing blugeon after another.
Screw it - it'll take a hell of a movie to get me back into the theater again and it won't have penguins: it'll have decent writing, a plot, an understanding of cinematography and editing and it won't substitute CGI for any of these things. Most of all it will understand Fowler's Law: "When anything is possible, nothing is interesting."
why mmm yes....oh my!
The movie industry has historically shown that it doesn't known what the hell is for its own good. Remeber way back in the 70's when they sued Sony over BetaMax, claiming that people recording shows would kill movies? Now they get a goodly chunk of thier money from video rentals. And how about way back in the 50's when they change the aspect ratio of theater screens because they thought TV/b> would hurt ticket sales.
Now they sort of admit that maybe, just maybe, it's the crap they put out.
I say BAH!
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I don't know why, but the most compelling stories are those that surprise me by playing on my preconceptions and stereotypes.
Watched Serenity today. Liked it. After coming home, watched the first episode of Firefly again. How do you justify a "hero" who shoots a desperate civilian? Or pull off a line like "miss you something fierce" without being cliched. Or imagine a priest giving solace to a prostitute by placing his hand on her head, but in the Firefly universe it happens the other way around (end scene of first Firefly episode).
That kind of imagery seems pretty down to earth to me. Not highbrow or trying to be clever. So for critics of Serenity and Firefly who dish it as cliched and unimaginative, what is it that they find entertaining and imaginative?
I know I'm not alone with these sensibilities, yet I keep wondering how the general fare of movies being made don't really cater to me or my peeps.
it should be:
Episode III) NOOOOOOOoooooooooo
I'm sitting here and there's a lot of technology being discussed for new media, but many folks, though wanting progress, can't just jump on the bandwagon, a lot is at stake from a business and standards standpoint. Yes, there are pros and cons we can talk about all day long, but what I've found working in Hollywood and in Politics are that they are very similar industries. A lot of flaky folks, but at least the movie execs will admit fault. Try getting that out of a politician (or intelligence heads ;))
Oh, and you'll always find someone that will disagree with a movie or a law, that's what's great about this country, you have an opinion.
My comments on both of those would have been identical.
What the hell was that with the crane, the device, and the barrel roll? Wouldn't a manhole cover have been suitable and a *hell* of a lot more believable?
Yes, this movie thought it should be bigger, louder, more outrageous and stunty than the last one. The last one was okay because it wasn't so bogus as to smash to flinders all believability. Yes, it was fake, but sort of 'yeah, I can get with that' kinda fake. This one just hit the 'faker than fake, so fake I can't choke it down' fakeness level. AAAARGH!
The concept wasn't bad, film one wasn't bad. Do yourself a favour and send the producers and director (wankers!) a message by NOT seeing this. It won't be in theaters long and isn't worth viewing on video.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Hell, I get a month's worth of netflix for that much! That's like 15 movies... it's all about stretching the dollar :)
I haven't seen a movie that didn't suck come out of hollywood in 5 or 6 years. When you buy popcorn at the movies, you have to start by filling out a loan application. Then, you have to watch ads before the movie, and generally they have a retarded ape as a projectionist. Geez, its a real wonder why hollywood is losing money.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh The movies they "produce" today are either politically biased, politically correct, or rehashed 70's TV show. The idiots in hollywierd wouldn't know a good script if it hit them in the face. To a lesser degree, the same could be said for the crap on TV. And the hollywierd executives keep scratching their heads about the success of Nick @ Night TV Land... go figure!
Alot of people went to the theater for the experience, to watch a movie ona giant screen with great sound. The problem is that technology allows us to enjoy the same things at home. With innovations in HDTV, LCDTV, projectors, and sound, most of us hove theaters already. Then to top it off it is not fair to pay for something and still have to pay. With the 20 mins of ads, the overcrowding and noise, if hollywood does not come up with a better model TV will wipe the floor with them, actually they already are. Its like the arcade, who realy goes to one now when cosoles and computers can create the same graphics. Then to top it off arcades were usually pricey to begin with, guess theaters will join them, wonder if i can get a used screen someday soon?
Look, the problem here besides all the crappy movies with lots of explosions and little plot/storyline is the fact that it takes a lot to get people to do things these days! I for one don't care about the extra ten minutes of commercials in the beginning, but think about all the other factors that are in play here. The movie industry has to produce something good enough to compete with the allure of our own comfortable lives, and overcome the increased laziness in America, and I think it's coming down the value of the movies we're paying for.
Let's say it's 15 bucks for one ticket, a bag of popcorn, and a drink (and that's a lowball). For the same price, I can get a six pack of beer, have a pizza delivered to my house, not have to fight traffic and put up with stupid teens at the theater, watch whatever movie I feel like on cable, sit in a recliner with a great view of the movie, and if I have to piss, I can stroll to my own bathroom rather than having to do a 100 meter dash down three different corridors to a blinding bathroom with Barry Manilow playing in the background, just so I don't miss the next Brad Pitt wanabe say something as witty as my retarded cousin.
I for one value not having to put up with the crap way more than the 15 bucks I'd throw at the next garbage "action/thriller."
...they'll make a movie based on the 20 million old spider blood.
Some guy on the intarwebs totally assured me that the utter flop of Cutthroat Island in 1995 was entirely due to potential customers waiting for someone to invent Peer 2 Peer so that they could watch it for nothing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year."
Bold claim, lets see if you can back it up.
There are so many things wrong with your analyses of data here. Lets go statement by statement.
You state that you ran a "statistical analysis," when the only statistic that you've given us are measurements of central tendency (means, in this case).
You reference a group known as "the critics," however you do not specify who you consider to be members of this group. Did you count only critics that are published in major newspapers, or did you include internet only critics? If you chose to include internet critics, how did you choose which to count? Anyone who can write a review and post it to the internet can be considered a critic (if sources such as rottentomatoes.com are to be relied upon). In addition, some critics approach and rate movies from a certain orientation (for example, some internet critics write their reviews solely from the perspective of a parent). Your statements would be a lot more believable if there was some sort of qualifications required to be counted as part of this group.
Which brings me to question how you managed to assign a quantitative number to such a subjective activity as analyzing a movie. On his tv show, famous critic Roger Ebert rates movies with a thumbs up or thumbs down, then occasionally augments that. What number would you assign a movie that got a "thumbs up" when compared to a movie that got a "thumbs way up"? What number would you assign a movie that received a C+ rating (some critics like to grade movies on the classic academic scale)? Or do you forgo that and follow rottentomatoes' style, by deciding that a movie got a positive review or a negative review, and assign it 1 point or 0 points, respectively. If you used that style, how did you deal with critics that gave a movie a mixed review (e.g. a review that says "If you liked X, then you'll like this movie. If not, then don't see it.")
Almost all of the differences between 2004 and 2005 mvoies are small, and while you did not include size of your rater pools, I suspect that most of them are not statistically significant. ("The audience also posted better ratings for 2005 movies: 68.4% versus 67.9%" I can assure you that this is NOT a statisticallly significant difference, thus your statement is not supported by the data.) If you actually did run a "statistical analysis," you'd have given stats rating the reliability of your results.
Certainly, while the precentages are maybe a bit higher for 2005 vs. 2004 (which a very astute poster suggested might have to do with the phenomenon of grade inflation), you don't account for the fact that this year is not over. What you might have done was only included 2004 movies released in January to September.
All in all, while your numbers are interesting, they don't support your broad generalization that "The only conclusive thing I found was that bad movies are not to blame for lower box office tickets. Why? Because the movies were better than last year." Instead, they show that there is actually no powerful difference one way or the other between the quality of movies from last year compared to this year.
Jon
Psychology is really Biology, Biology is really Chemistry, Chemistry is really Physics, and Physics is really Math.
In fact, you are The mental degenerate of the day.
... in the 90s we nearly esxlusively watched "hollywood blockbusters", except for some old easterns.
:) :) :) ;)
;))
But now most of my friends love the fresh wind in the "all-repeating typical american heroism" (quote of one of my friends), brought to us from asia and europe.
Some examples [unordered]:
Everything by Stephen Chow (hongkong, got bellyache from laughing!!
City of God (brasil*, real and great story)
snatch & "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" (UK, by guy richie, also damn funny and totally crazy plots.
In China They Eat Dogs 1 & 2 (denmark, also damn funny and strange style
Ju-On 1 & 2 (japan, the true one, horror the way i love it)
bang boom bang (germany, for insiders)
Onk-Bak (thailand, top notch thai-boxing action
some mad movie about some fiend's girl that got raped, where you see the story in reverse (not memento) (french)
There are some more, but i don't rememer them right now.
I just hope someone in hollywood stops doing remakes of books, foreign movies, and old stuff for the third time and gets some new ideas... (i don't say that thre are none, but certanly there are not enough).
I also guess, the thing here is just that some years ago the hollywood industry forgot that movies actually are some form of *art*, wich imples that it's something creative.
* ask any brasilian. they *hate* it that their country gets called "brazil" all the time. so if you want to stay alive in the "city of god" don't write "brazil"
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
..it's still not an excuse to pirate them, P2P fans, because if they're so bad then that would make you a hypocrite, right :)
Does Fox-Jerry-Springer-Wanna-Be-News get you hard?
Was your fragile little mind warped? Oh no! Is Colonel Sanders right and Mamma wrong!? Were your beliefs challenged!? Did you cry when you didn't get your way!?
What is it like to have your head up your own ass? Do you like the taste of your own shit?
Not to contradict your largely correct argument too much, but VHS tapes did have a form of copyprotection. VHS intentionally had unsynchronized play and record. If you recorded a 1st generation copy from an original tape, it came out looking just about the same. The 2nd generation had some bigger artifacting. The 3rd generation came out looking really bad. By the time you got to a 6th generation, all you would get is snow.
This was intentional. It was actually a feature of the platform that was touted to the studios, and one of the reasons why studios chose to put our more movies on VHS than on BETA. You'll notice, if you do the same experiment in BETA you get basically the same image generation after generation. This is one of the reasons why TV was (and largely still is) on a BETA-derived standard. But the rest of us were pushed away from that standard, largely because VHS included this inherent copyprotection.
If the DVD standard hadn't included encryption, I wouldn't be surprised if we were on a WMP standard for video, just because that's what all of the movies would be released on.
The ______ Agenda
I just _hate_ the fact that the studios believe that year after year, the revenue MUST be higher than the year before. There is no other option. Even if the revenue is less than 1% less than the year before, THE WORLD IS OVER!@#
I don't get it, what other industry is there nothing but a steady upwards growth? Besides the fact that the movie industry is based on MOVIES. Things that are nowhere near constant... There's what, 150-200 movies released per year? Each of them may be good or bad depending upon 50 or more variables. How is this mathmatically possible to put into a formula that can equal nothing but a vertical sloping line on a chart?
Greed execs just need to come down off their high horse and now that they're doing that, I'm still not satisfied. It's ridiculous that they can say "You know what, it wasn't the piracy that we were accusing OUR CUSTOMERS of. It was just that we were stupid shits." and everyone just shrugs it off by saying "Those crazy movie execs!".
Ugh, it makes me fucking sick.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
It's the stupid movies!
You said it, bro. Now excuse me, I have to go stand by the state line and yell at the cars driving in from out of state. Who do those assholes think they are, using the roads that MY taxes paid for? Reading books in MY libraries, reporting crimes to MY police officers, strolling in MY parks, and eating in restaurants that are kept clean by MY health inspectors? Go back to Cuba if you want a free ride, pinkos!
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the increasing technology in the home. More and more non-technophile homes now have large TVs and powerful surround-sound systems. 10 years ago only a small number of homes had such hardware because the cost was much, much higher. 25 years ago it didn't exist for home-consumption at all. Thus the actual cinematic experience is no longer reserved for just the cinema. Pretty much the only thing theaters have going for them now is their exclusive access to new movies for a short while.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
I bought a toshiba video player and the disks work everywhere.
I suspect you didn't finalize the disk or you created the disk as a Video VR instead of a standard video disk.
The players themselves are significantly more difficult to operate properly than a VCR, I'm pretty saavy about electronics, and I still had to call Toshiba to figure some things out.
I think it is more of an Issue of the Movie Quality vs. The price. Up here in Albany, NY area most theaters are $9 per show, and the cost of extra's like popcorn and drinks are beyond crazy, so crazy that Ill just sit threw the movie and dehydrate, for a couple of hours. This has been said before. But how many times you see a movie and go Ill wait for the VHS or the DVD, for me it is for most of the movies out there, There are some I like to see on the big screen for the full effect but most it is not worth the price to see it in the theaters. If they were like $4 a ticket and snacks were close to market price, then I might go out more to the movies, first It wouldn't be as a big deal, secondly I don't feel like I am really wasting as much money on a bad movie.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I mentioned Willy Nelson selling his soul for his involvement in the cover of "These Boots Were Made For Walking" to my girlfriend, and her response was, "Didn't the IRS come after him a couple of years ago? I think he'll sign any contract put under his nose right about now."
Speak for yourself, Dink. Batman Begins was all about a kinder, gentler Batman. The Batman I like is about hurting the wicked, not helping the innocent.
The preference order for Batman movies 'we liked' is:
1, 2, 4, 3 (1 and 2, the Tim Burton versions, were almost a tie)
In general, I've stopped going to the movies because I have been disappointed too often. The disappointment comes from the general quality, the high cost, the small screens, the inconvenience, and too many distractions at the theater.
I no longer look at reviews or pay attention to the ads. There are certain directors I will go to the theater for, when I even know they have new movies, like Raimi, Burton, and Verhoeven.
I think this is the beginning of market saturation and a fall in the value of so-called Intellectual Property.
We have so many outlets for entertainment right now that the sheer volume means I can never get to a significantly fraction of movies, books, records, video games or web sites.
And when there is too much of something, prices will fall. Not quickly, as copyright laws work to keep prices high. But fall they will.
Yes, there is a lot of sucky bands, movies, books, but the amount of material out there means there are a lot of genuinely good entertainers out there, yes, even with RIAA affiliated labels. But because there is so much material, I think the amount of material means the market is segmented and its harder to differentiate from the pack.
But again, in that kind of environment where there is a lot of decent entertainment readily available, prices will fall. Its inevitable, even in the face of lawsuits, new laws, technical hurdles. It's as inevitable as gravity.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
We saw Serenity at 9 on Saturday night...the theater was only about a third full. Maybe the movie wasn't hyped as much as some of the summer blockbusters, or people didn't want to go to a film where they didn't know exactly what was going to happen (Anikin turns evil, Samuel Jackson kicks ass, animated critters crack wise). Either way, sometimes it seems like you can put good movies on the screen, and people just won't go!
Goes back to watching downloaded cam-capture of Corpse Bride.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think the problem is more the fault of the movie theaters. Their expensive prices, long lines and not really adding much to the experience other than "the big screen" doesn't make it worth while. Sometimes the sound is turned up too loud as well - wonder if it would contribute to hearing loss particularly with children.
.. which you need to watch other TV shows) the cost of going to a movie in Canada: $12 /person. Cost of buying DVD: $20-25. If you go as a couple, the cost of the DVD is much cheaper and you can watch it again.
All told, the newer trend that might explain this is the home theater. People don't want to put up with other people's children, crowds of people, cell phones/chatter in the movies so they setup the theater. If you price it out (once the TV and stereo are paid for - even if you only buy a 27" TV
IMO, given the home theater, theaters will continue to lose out.
Actually, it was Akira Kurosawa who did all the redefining. George Lucas simply rode in on his coat-tails.
( The Hidden Fortress )
doing a split as a stripper: Closer
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
If you read the article (pardon me, I meant TFA), you'll realize that that is precisely the notion which has been debunked. The reason is that, while it is true that there are other forms of entertainment out there, "going to the movies" is a sort of cultural tradition, which can't (and hasn't) been replaced so easily. The proof is that once in a while, along comes a movie which calls the attention of the public, and people *flock* to see it en masse. Case in point, the March Of The Penguins, and other recent best sellers at the box office, which have little to do with the Hollywood Move Machine (tm). Furthermore, this does not only occur with Good Movies, as you suggest; Hollywood has shown -- and this is part of the problem -- that with sufficient marketing *ANY* movie (be it good or bad or aweful!) will attract audiences in drones.
Thus, its not that movies are any worse than before, its that (most) people are finally getting tired of watching crappy movies, and yes, are looking at other forms of entertainment. But notice that most of those other forms of entertainment have always been there -- at least there has *always* been alternatives. The fact is that people have always preferred watching movies in the theater over many other forms of entertainment; and they still do (because its about more than just the movie; its a social activity, a family outing, etc.). So they are always looking out for the chance to come back. A constant stream of Bad Movies, and high ticket prices, makes this increasingly harder every year.
Sadly, once again, the outcome of this "confession" and new-found insight will be Bigger and Better Marketing, not better movies. As someone posted in another thread, its actually cheaper to convince people that things have changed, than to actually change them. And people *will* go to the theaters again, thus vindicating the Hollywood Studios (tm).
"Come this summer and watch 'New Movie'! Its not the same tired old trite as 'Old Movie'... Its Better Now (tm). We Promise."
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Personally I can't stand the "stars" who get political... some of them say such stupid things that I can't really enjoy sitting in a theatre watching. Not to mention a bunch of obnoxious kids giggling and their cell phones ringing for two hours.
.I just feel like I'm getting screwed... and maybe its cheaper elsewhere, but not here in Boston.
Also $10-$15 a ticket is just too much.
Finally, unless it's an iMax the quality of the picture is just blah.
So for me the gas prices or bad movies really don't have much to do with it.
My solution is a top of the line home theatre room, and I can watch dvds or DirecTV anytime I want. It's much more comfortable, quite, relaxing, and cheaper, well maybe not cheaper, but more fun.
From TFA - 'following last year's record ...'
Last year set a new high, and they are calling this year a 'slump' ???!!!
Gee, I guess suing your customers prevents your business from growing, huh?
I'm impatiently waiting for the weekend attendance figures. I saw it at the Paladium in High Point, NC Friday night. People in the audience were freakin cheering and shit. I've never seen anything like that. It was like a Grateful Dead concert, all the fans became friends. It was pretty awesome...wish I could email Joss about it, he'd be proud. Anybody else experience anything similar?
SERENITY AGAIN!!!
...and our theatre was about half full. Everyone there was a hardcore Firefly fan though, they were all pumped about the movie and as we filed out after seeing it everyone seemed impressed.
My local paper interviewed the theater owners and managers about this very topic. The theme that ran through all of their responses was that this year is only very slightly below average. The numbers are only "down" in comparison to last year, which, thanks to "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Passion of the Christ," was a record-setting year.
All those 'compeditive' entertainment you listed aren't as good as movies, because people want to leave their house. They want to go out and seeing a movie is a pretty cheap way to accomplish that task(w/o popcorn, of course!). There's just no movie that peaks their interests. Batman Begins was alright, it didn't have the hype,the dramatic story, nor the like-able characters of Batman(1991). And Revenge of the Sith was even quality with Clone Wars, even fans who liked it said it was good for a Star Wars movie. Both franchises have burnt enough fans over the years with poor releases. People are heading in droves to see March of the Penguins, which I found more enjoyable than Batman or SWIII.
There hasn't been a theatre release in a while that matches the quality of The Ring, Lord of the Rings or the Six Sense. Heck, I'd even go as far is to say this year hasn't even produced a movie on par with Dawn of the Dead(2004). I think this year has produced movies on par with King Arthur(2004). They're solid works of cinematography and have a decent story, but they have all failed to capture the imagination of the audiance.
I'll make an exception with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a solid and fun movie, but it was a children's movie and many critics objected to a "rewritting" the prevous movie, which probably hurt sales.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
Hollywood movies have been bad for a long, long time. So ask yourself this. Why do you keep watching them? Or, more importantly, do you watch anything other than Hollywood movies? The reason Hollywood studios continue to make such bad movies is that they know people are hooked on formula. Why don't you try foreign or independent movies (i.e. non-Hollywood) for a change? You don't because: They're too weird. They don't seem to have a story. Nothing happens in them. There's no action, special effects, etc. Subtitles suck. etc. These are all valid reasons, if that's how you feel. Like all things, there is plenty of crap out there. But if you never try, ask yourself why. You really are missing out on some good movies. Like it or not, what you are really saying is that you want *some* formula. Hollywood is willing to bet on it. Hollywood is supremely confident that most people will continue to exclusively watch their movies. Are you one of them?
Its not just that Hollywood is churning out generally bad movies, its how it costs per ticket--for my SO and I to go the movies and buy concessions, we can easily spend $50. That's a big chunk of change given the quality of the product. Maybe if theaters lowered prices (which means distributors need to lower their prices and so on..) more people would go see the average quality movies. Otherwise, they shouldn't be suprised that most people are content to wait for the DVD and just rent from Netflix or Blockbuster
...or lack of. Seriously, every "horror" movie coming out (or even action movies and sci-fi) are coming out PG-13. Look at Alien Vs Predator. Yeah, the script was horribly flawed, and none of the characters left an impression like previous characters in their respective movies (people can list off quotes from characters in Predator and Aliens, for instance), but I am willing to bet that if they had at least shown some gore, it'd help. Hell, watch carefully, and you'll notice they never really show even one chest bursting scene. Hollywood needs to realize that some movies just have to be rated R, rather than PG-13 so some kids can come see it. Cuz the kids certainly aren't the ones with the money to see movies on a frequent enough basis, especially during summer.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
Why not sell DVDs of older movies by the same director or actors at the exit of the movie theatre ?
You really liked "Broken Flowers"?
Then why not buy "Night on Earth", or "Lost in Translation", at an impulse, when you just had a great night at the movies.
Plus, the studios could make sure only the better older movies would be sold, so after watching them at home, you swear "I`ll be the first in line at the box office when the next Jim Jarmusch or Bill Murray movie is out".
This way, the theatre operators would also benefit, not just from a comission on the DVDs, but also from the interest in the next movie.
After all, since DVD arrived, there are less and less reruns of older movies, so this would not hurt them from losing business from people watching the DVDs at home.
It is true that the movies this summer were indeed not the best of the lot. I am sure that the movie industry has seen similar figures in prior years. Perhaps with all the technology available to be able to watch Video or Programmes or Movies on Demand, film makers can try out "Creating Movies on Demand" which could improve consumer participation in proposing the content, subject or theme of what is created. There are creative film makers who come up with themes that everyone likes and these sometimes take to the blockbuster category or move on to the Oscars.
Keeping them aside you can still have the average movie showing something that people wanted to see by letting them propose subjects/books/themes to work on. This is definitely set to happen sometime; now seems to be a good time. The Motion Picture Industry seems to disregard direct consumer reach both in distribution and feedback which will work against them in the long run. Most Futuristic scenarios predict the demise of pre-programmed television as a norm, with the consumer driving what they see and what they want to see. Although this might improve consumption of new movies, this will potentially a strong factor (among others) that decides the success of a movie (in possible alternate consumer retail channels or the traditional box office.)
No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
I absolutely HATE advertising. We are living in a world much like Lucas' THX-1138 - "Buy! Consume! Buy more! Consume more!" And with the cost of movies increasing to over $10 where I live, I just wait for the DVDs to come out. They usually have extended/deleted scenes, Director's Cut, making-of, etc. Couple that with a home theater system or even a home theater PC and the reason to go to the movies is almost nil. The last movie I saw - twice - was Star Wars III. I skipped work and saw it on opening day with a lot of adults (i.e. well-behaved audience). It rocked! I then saw it again on Friday night with a bunch of high school kids. They kept talking through the entire movie and it sucked - got my money back though. But now, DVDs are coming out 3 months after the movie stops playing in the theaters so I can wait. High on my list is Batman Begins, Sin City, Hitchhiker's Guide, and Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut.
As for TV shows, there's way too much advertising, especially on the Sci-Fi channel. So I just stopped watching TV. A 1-hour episode is only about 41 minutes of the actual episode and 19 minutes of advertising. Amazon.com sells boxed sets of the popular TV shows and I get those at the end of the season. High on my list for this fall/winter is Smallville Season 4, 24 Season 4, Battlestar Galactica Season 1, and Tru Calling Seasons 1 & 2.
not to brag, but read this link. It's a +4 funny, but +100 true ;)
;-D she's even sorta otaku
And yes indeed, I am veeerry lucky
You mean that turning old TV shows into movies is not really that popular or profitable? Here all the time the MPAA had blamed low ticket sales on people downloading movies off P2P file sharing networks and not going to the theatres to watch them.
How about a movie on movie producers and movie managers? Wait, didn't Mel Brooks do that with "The Producers" somewhat? How about you remake that movie, and instead of play producers they are movie producers?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
This may be true for others, but I pay more than $10 living in New York City, and I go once a week. The experience in a theater is better than in any home. If it's a quiet showing where I am one of 10 people in the theater its like a private screening on a screen that's 20' x 40'. If it's the premier of a cult-blockbuster with a packed house, there is as much energy in the room as at a world series game. Regardless of price, I will always go to the movies. The real way to bring people back to the theaters is to get rid of the comercials, lower concession prices, increase the number of previews, delay the dvd release time, but most importantly improve the content of the films being made. Of course nobody wants to pay $10 to see the crap film that they can rent 3 months from now. But if one could see something of real value, with good writing, and real content, they would be more interested in spending that much.
I was bothering to reply meaningfully, but this typical /. "I'll take what I want" attitude isn't worth discussing. Congratulations on your brilliant plan. I can't wait to see it happen.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Sorry, not trying to flame, but DUH! you're in a god-dammed war, you better be spending less money on things like seeing movies. Maybe it's because there's a small part of the movie going public on the other side of the globe. For all we know they are all major movie buffs and would see 5 movies a week if they were still at home and not getting shot at in Iraq.
:)
I'm not trying to say that the movies that are getting put out are any good - the majority are just crap - that has always been the case - but I think a large part of the demographic that those movies are aimed at are not in the country right now. I don't mean to say that people in the military have bad taste, but they are usually in the 18-30 demographic that most things are aimed at.
flame on
Im.
in a movie. Is this concern legit? Granted I only see maybe 5-6 movies a year anymore, but I use to go almost every week a few years ago. I'm going to Serenity tonight probably, I've been to Batman Begins, Sin City, Episode III, Million Dollar Baby... I can't even remember the rest. Last year Kill Bill v.2, Spider-Man 2, and the theatres I saw them all in were full - This seems like an apocryphal complaint to me. I suppose it could be the movies I goto. I don't go to romantic comedies or to see the canned thriller of the week which draw in lots of drones who probably aren't all that interested in being there.
In the brief period that cell phones/pagers have been commonly carried devices, I've never had one go off or had someone carry on a conversation in a theatre nor has anyone I know complained that it happened to them. *shrug*
No sig for you!!
I LOVED the Island. Problem is, I didn't even know it had come and gone until AFTER I found a DivX of it...
I mean, with the advent of MythTV (and Tivo) I don't see ads for these things anymore, because I just don't watch much TV, and what I do watch, I skip the commercials.
They need to find a better way to market that doesn't rely on TV ads.
The fundamental problem is that movies have become too expensive to make. When you spend 100 million bucks to make a movie, you have to be confident to get at least that back in box office receipts. Which means that the studios can't afford to take a risk. Which means they rely on marketing drones to analyse what "consumers want." The result is the boring predictable movies that we have.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of talented and creative script writers in Hollywood. But their most creative ideas would be considered too risky to make into a movie.
Of every /. post I've made concerning file sharing. Not just movies, but music too. If the industry insists on being formulaic and not creating real art. People will value it that way. I don't feel a TWINGE of guilt for downloading most of the crap the mpaa and riaa puts out. Anybody who does is just retarded. Seriously, how much is a Pee pee diddy song really worth? Well, guess what, that's what I'm paying.
rhY
PS No I don't download p diddy songs. Please shut up
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
dear hardcore sci fi fans: do not read this comment, just mod it into obvlivion
it may make you cry
-----------
non-hard sci fi core fans, you may read:
this guy Joss Whedon is hardly impressive
he creates mildly distracting serial story fodder good for tv
my personal theory is that the star wars and star trek hardcore fan base has nothing new to latch onto, and like rats fleeing a sinking ship, they're all clinging onto the nearest piece of driftwood around, and this guy is the closest thing they got, so they hype him like there's no tomorrow
but he's just a television hack
with a cult following
nothing to see in terms quality, move along
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I actually like that they're now showing commercials in theatres because they only show them before the movie is scheduled to start. BEFORE: Boring and extremely repetitive still slides advertising local businesses or simple movie trivia are shown with some light music in the background. This continues until the movie's scheduled start time, at which point previews are shown, followed by the movie itself. NOW: High-budget commercials, or even non-commercial skits like that Save the Earth one with Jack Black (exec: "we've invested alot of money in the earth, so we feel it's ours"), are shown. This continues until the movie's scheduled start time, at which point previews are shown, followed by the movie itself. I fail to see what's so horrible about all this. It would be one thing if they showed the commercials at the scheduled start time, but they don't. If your movie ticket is for 8:00, show up at 8 and you'll skip all the commercials and get there just in time for the previews.
~CGameProgrammer( );
It can't be bad movies...alone.
American movies have been bad for a long time. They have been aimed at adolescents/adolescent mentalities for a long time. Every year, there is a new crop adolescents to replace the ones that grow up and stop going to the movies.
It is probably a combination of things that people have mentioned. Bad movies, the escalating costs, the availability of home theaters etc.
Make movies so bad nobody WANTS to pirate it. Once the pirates grow old and die, or otherwise move on to other industries, then return to releasing good movies.
Movie Distributors Book of Tactics, pg 43
(sound quality *has* improved)
That's another thing. Last 5 times I want to see a movie, I went home with a huge headache from the noise. The sound was incredibly loud. Once it was so loud several people went to complain, so they turned it down a little. Other time, in a different theater, they refused to turn it down, and about half of the visitors left during the movie.
Maybe I am just getting old, but it seems to me that the sound in movies is louder every year. No matter how old I am, when the movie starts and most people in the theater duck and start covering their ears, something is wrong.
AccountKiller
"Penis breath". Heh, I haven't heard that one since I read the novelisation of "E.T.".
"Those innocent fun games of the hallucination generation"
The first part of the this year was pretty dismal with few theatrical movies I wanted to see. Way too many sequels and comic book movies aimed at 12-year olds. Finally there are a few interesting movies coming out. I wonder if it is all positioning for Oscars. Hollywood must presume the Academy cant remember a movie more than a month after it is released, even though most of the Academy views them on complementary DVDs.
I think in order to understand what moviegoers experience, some of these executives need to go to a typical cinema. THEN maybe they'll understand why people are preferring to watch movies at home.
1) Get dressed and drive to the theater. Not only do I have to put on clothes, but I have to risk my life in traffic with idiots, find a place to park (possibly pay for parking) and then risk my car being damaged or stolen in the parking lot.
2) Purchase a ticket. Will the prices ever stop? I'm dreading the day when a gallon of gas costs as much as a movie ticket. To my understanding from those who have worked at cinemas before, the ticket price is only to cover the cost of the cinema "renting" the movie from the studio. The cinema makes no money on the ticket sales. I think both moviegoer and cinema are getting robbed here. Hollywood would have us believe these price increases are due to priacy. As we've seen in numerous articles, piracy has no impact on movie profit.
3) Purchase food. OMG!!! I could have a steak dinner for the price of a bucket of popcorn and a drink. No thank you. I only buy food at the theater when I'm feeling rich, which is hardly ever. Sadly, THIS is where the cinema makes its profit. Boy, they should be rolling in it.
4) Advertising. If you arrive early to get a parking spot, buy food and find a good seat, you're tortured with slides of local advertising. THEN when the lights dim and the camera starts, you get MORE advertising. Once that's over you get previews of upcoming movies. Okay, this is desirable advertising but it's still advertising. By the time the movie starts, I've often forgotten what movie I just paid to see.
5) Interruptions. Cell phones, pagers, laser pointers. Need I say more? I wish they could create EMPs in cinemas that would cripple all such devices or at least enforce a "good movie experience for everyone" policy. THIS is the main reason I don't go to a movie.
6) Bio breaks. It happens. You or someone near you has to go to the bathroom. The movie doesn't stop. If it's you, you're interrupting someone else as you move out, you miss a couple minutes of the movie, and you have trouble finding your seat coming back since your eyes can't adjust that fast. Then you cause more interruption by asking those with you "What happened?" If it's not you, it's even more annoying when all this happens in front of or near you.
7) Trash. It disgusts me when the lights come on that nearly EVERYONE leaves their cups, popcorn buckets and other trash all over the theater. I pick up my own trash and pity the cleaning crew I see coming in. Then it dawned on me. THIS is what we're paying for at the concession stand. It costs more money for this crew to be in here cleaning when another movie should be starting almost immediately. Plus, I hate that sticky floor.
Now I much prefer my current method.
I simply wait a few months for a movie I heard about to hit DVD or cable. Whenever I like, I stroll into my living room wearing (or not) whatever I wish, pop in the DVD, crank up my 6.1 sound system and turn on my 52" DLP screen. I pop a bag of $0.40 popcorn, grab a $0.25 soda, kick back and enjoy my front row. I'm comfortable, I'm safe, I'm saving money and all interruptions can be handled.
Basically it comes down to patience. Are you the type of moviegoer that MUST see the movie when it first comes out? Is it worth the inconvenieces to see it? Or can you wait until it hits DVD so you can experience it in the best environment possible?
With the exception of my extreme favorites (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars & Star Trek), I'm always of the latter group.
Let the studio heads go to a movie like everyone else and see if the movies they're making are worth the trouble of actually going to the movie. 95% of the time, I think not.
Most of the movie theaters around California and Nevada seem to be AMC Theaters, and those don't show commercials after the scheduled start time.
~CGameProgrammer( );
Price and Adverts.
Here in Munich, Germany, I pay 8,50 Euros (about $10) to see a film. That's quite a bit of money, especially as I can buy a new DVD for this price.
Worse, however, are the adverts. Before the film starts, I sit there for 40 (fourty!) minutes, watching ads. I hate ads. Aimed at the lowest common demominator (i.e. morons), they deeply insult me.
And, of course, many movies simply aren't worth watching.
So I show up there, waste three hours, pay a heck of a lot of money and have my mood ruined by endless advertising. Not to mention the idiotic "If you dare to even photograph this, we'll put you in prison for many years" garbage.
Bah.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
i'd have to say that myself and most of the other lifetime members agree.
And we love movies.
It's gotten so bad I turn down probably 3/4 of all the free movie screenings I'm offered, due to the excessive nature of Hollywood tripe.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
wow im surprised at the number of these stories in the past four months. musta been twenty or so. and i bet theyll never ever get. it. ive been so disappointed in teh number of half decent movies lately. i am very easy to please movie wise i like most movies simply for there entertainment value. but cant stand the artsy garbage that noone ever goes to doesnt make much money and yet wins a zillion awards.. anyways, its true nothing great to see yet there still pl anning trash for the next year. look at jobo or another sites on whats being produced and its filled with a lot of garbage.. disappointing.
People that become rich create a need that did not exist and fulfill it.
If you try to give to people what they want, that means you are working form known blueprints, meanning competition will be ferocious and your margins small.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But that does not mean it is not there. The movie industry put it there as a mechanism to restrain trade (and there are a few countries like Australia that I believe hasve seen through this).
So the technical, artifical, unnecessary complexities *are* of their making.
That such powerful companies are so stupid as to make those complexities trivial to brake is a different matter.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Return of investment is what matters.
:-), it costs you 5 million, it is a hit (albeit a minor one in the great scheme of things) and you make 10 million, you make a ROI of 100%.
If you make Batman VIII, it costs you 100 million, it sucks, you make 100 million, you break even. Your ROI is zero.
If you make "Et les fleurs sont blue"
Yeah, "Batman It Sucks" sold 10 times more tickets, but the investors in the small scale movie made a profit. That is way good movies have not dissapeared yet, because Hollywood is more a merketing bussiness desperately trying to recoup huge costs.
The problem with Hollywood is that they are putting all their eggs in the blockbuster basket, and slowly but surely it is becoming the wrong basket where to have those eggs.
A blockbuster should be a rare ocurrence given its risky nature, and also you don't want to desentivize your audince (after 20 blockbutsers the 21st one begins to look awfully the same).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Get to your seat after the ads are over. At least in the UK the cinema is obliged you to tell you when the movie actually starts.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A couple of points that need to be cleared up:
Lest you think I'm defending the high prices of concessions, I'm not. The reason the prices are so high is due to the simple supply/demand curves. If prices were lowered, more people might buy concessions (who currently smuggle in or not), but not enough to make up for the lost profit from lowering prices.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?