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.'"

Comments

Is this Lucas's fault?

[Nf1nk]

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).

Re:it's their mess, hope they clean it up

[Alien Being]

"they may not even release DVD's if they had to release them in a format that allowed for easy pirating"

The Circuit City DIVX fiasco proved that you're wrong. There was no chance that the studios would leave billions of dollars on the table just to spite the pirates.

Partly.

[jd]

On the other hand, studios have invested an enormous amount in advertising (according to most of the reports - I didn't know cheap plastic from sweat-shops in third-world countries cost that much, myself) and are largely complaining that they've seen next to zero return on investment. But, since studios ALWAYS say that (so as to avoid paying taxes, employees on profit-sharing scams, etc) it is often hard to tell fact (or what passes for it) from fiction.

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?

Perspective from a SIGGRAPH talk in LA

[UWSarge]

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...

If anyone is really interested in the modern

[antifoidulus]

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!

Re:DUPE

[ZachPruckowski]

Or, instead of dropping movie prices, they could make better movies. Economically, this is an increase in the marginal value of a movie, making it again worth the $8 to get into the theatre. I think the shift has been in viewing preferences, away from Special Effects as the reason to go to the movies. People now seem to want movies that have a decent story, and are well-made, as opposed to being well-decorated empty boxes.

Personally, I welcome this change, as it implies that Americans are becoming more cultured (yes, I'm an optimist), or at least that we'll get better movies. And it is the industries admitting that piracy isn't the only thing hurting their bottom lines.

Although I do think price needs to be addressed, as I can have the movie forever on DVD for cheaper than seeing it in the theater on a date (2x$8 + popcorn + sodas + parking), but I think that the theater has a bit of a cultural value to it, and I think that the "see it while it's cool" aspect works in the theaters' favors.

So called "IP" is overpriced

[tkrotchko]

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.

Re:Lets see

[Tim C]

While I agree with you, for a lot of people the concessions are all part of the movie-going experience. For me, that means that there have been a number of times when I've had a meal, gone to the cinema and *still* bought drinks and popcorn. Sure, I could've gone without with ease - but then it wouldn't have been quite the same.

Of course, I didn't moan about the price while I was doing it; sure, it's expensive, but I don't go very often (hard to when you're the parent of a young child), so I like to make the most of it.