Movies Losing Popularity at Box Office

andyring writes "Without the slightest mention of piracy, the MPAA said box-office revenues declined by 8 percent last year. About 40 percent of the decline came from the U.S. Now if only they'd realize that the decline is from movies sucking more than my shop vac." It's been a while since a film warranted spending the money to watch it in a room full of strangers.

Comments

Why Movies Suck

[ackthpt]

Really. There's jibes all over in the press about it. Most of the films in the past year I spent my money on were at a place like this.

Why?

Because I've seen it all before, now they're re-doing it all and nothing surprises me. Then I go to the Del Mar or The Nick and see something

• See a story which is either deeply thoughtful or genuinely entertaining.
• I have no idea where the story is going.
• See really good acting.
• See a production done so well I forget for a moment I'm actually watching it on a screen.
• Suprising. Innocent Voices, that was an eye opener. Amelie, that was a charmer. Run Lola Run, that was just cool.

Steve Martin in the recent remake of The Pink Panther is a prime example. I already have some idea where jokes are going, long before the punch. The acting isn't anywhere near as good as the first (Sellers may have been an ass, but he could act comedy.) Honestly. Steve Martin (The Spanish Prisoner) and Kevin Kline (A Fish Called Wanda) are really capable of great acting, but this was pretty weak.

I'm a real flim buff. You can tell. I take my own popcorn salt, rather than risk they'll have table salt shakers from SYSCO.

Hey, get that guys post! i want to create a movie based upon it! car chases! beautiful women! huge fireball explosions! sophomoric humor! It'll be great!

Re:Why Movies Suck

[WilliamSChips]

I'm a real flim buff

There's a joke hiding just beneath the surface of that misspelling, but I can't figure out what it is!

Re:Why Movies Suck

[scaryjohn]

He was trying to make a Muppet Movie reference: "Dee flim ist hokey-dookey!"

Or maybe not. But that's all I can think of.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[rlauzon]

Because I've seen it all before, now they're re-doing it all and nothing surprises me.

The reason for that is that they have choked off the supply of works going in to the public domain. Historically, Hollywood has dipped into the public domain for ideas. Nothing new into the public domain = nothing new in Hollywood.

Little wonder that Anime and Manga are getting more popular.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[stefanlasiewski]

The Nick is an exceptional theater for an exceptional town. There are many people in Santa Cruz who want to see the funky flicks.

But leave the Santa Cruz Bubble and art houses like the Nick become incredibly rare-- they usually only show 1 movie a week. The Nick is showing 6 films this week. We arguably have a couple nice arty theaters in Berkeley, but they are plagued by loud people, cell phones, drunks, etc. (Students? I don't know).

Even Santa Cruz is loosing their Art houses--- there used to be 5-6 funky arty movie houses in the area. I think they are all gone except for The Nick & the Del Mar, and the Del Mar nearly went bust a few years ago.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[ackthpt]

The reason for that is that they have choked off the supply of works going in to the public domain. Historically, Hollywood has dipped into the public domain for ideas. Nothing new into the public domain = nothing new in Hollywood.

There's still buckets of stuff in the public domain. That said, there were a lot of great movies made of stuff copyrighted, like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz. I just think they've got some twisted idea that they won't take a risk. I think Heinlein's Tunnel In The Sky would make a killer film, but not with the calibre of actors I've seen cropping up lately. Lord knows they did a real job on Starship Troopers.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[kzinti]

Because I've seen it all before, now they're re-doing it all and nothing surprises me.

Yeah, me too. Remember Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart in the 1952 version of "Brokeback Mountain". Now THAT was a classic. Nothing like that crappy remake that came out last year. WHAT was that studio thinking?

Re:Why Movies Suck

[rlauzon]

There's still buckets of stuff in the public domain.

Most of which has been already used in something "new" that is still under copyright, making it a risk to use.

Last estimate showed that 80% of the currently available works are still under copyright but have no known owners.

I think Heinlein's Tunnel In The Sky would make a killer film

Agreed. But who owns the copyright? Heinlein's been dead for nearly 20 years.

Also, Hollywood doesn't want to pay for writing. Disney, for example, timed their version of Peter Pan so that it wouldn't come out until the story passed into the public domain.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[Sancho]

I don't understand your argument. Hollywood already remakes films which are not in the public domain--if these films had fallen into PD, what difference would it make?

The only thing I can think of is that people could reuse ideas without permission from the (ex)copyright holder, meaning that you wouldn't have the same mindset, groupthinking people remaking the same things over and over. Instead, you could have some people not affiliated with Hollywood using their ideas in something new and innovative--and given the movie theater's relationship with Hollywood, you'd never see these films on screen. You'd see them on the Internet, and that wouldn't help increase box office revenue.

No, ultimately there are a large number of factors which are (probably) contributing to this decline. They've all been said over and over, but here they are again:

* Bad movie theater experience (screaming kids, cellphones, etc.)
* Increasing ticket prices
* Lower quality movies, in general
* Shorter DVD release times
and quite likely the biggest factor:
* The Internet.

Not only is there a lot of legal, free video entertainment available on the Internet, there is also music, gaming, etc. That's not counting piracy (which is certainly rampant and might cut into Box Office revenue, but it's impossible to prove).

There was a time when I could look at a 16-screen theater listing and pretty much tick off every one of them as a movie I'd seen /in/the/theater/. These days, between the crap they put in the theaters and the other legal entertainment options, it's not uncommon for me to look at a theater listing and have seen maybe one movie that's there.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[kzinti]

"flim buff"

There's a joke hiding just beneath the surface of that misspelling, but I can't figure out what it is!

Me neither, but I can tell it involves muppets and nudity!

Re:Why Movies Suck

[BewireNomali]

I work in film and the logic isn't flawed on paper. you take television from a previous generation and redo it with current generation talent.

you get the original audience and fans of the current talent. two birds with one stone. by and large that formula isn't broken. it works to the point that people go and see them, and they do rather well.

there is a dearth of original ideas. this is because more expensive films require compromise to mitigate risk. understand, most films, small or large, are financed by thrid parties. hollywood is notorious for not financing their own films. so these films are beholden to finance guys who want easily reducible commodities. remake plus star talent is a recognized formula.

the real problem here is this. hollywood primarily relies on the first-timers to make some cash. first timer are the rising young adult - adult generation. this is the problem - the first timeers aren't going to the movies. they're like the second generation to grow up with cable - so technically - they aren't first timers. So when a 30 something guy reflects that films are recycling themselves... hollywood is in the problem place that 18 year olds are saying the same thing. they've seen it all before.

this is why the movie paradigm is problematic. hollywood has always been cyclical before. They'd wade out the lull and wait for a rising generation and introduce them to old shit that's new to them. It's not new to them - they've probably seen the original on cable or online or via blockbuster. they have prior memory of originals and probably prefer them. so without the first timer cushion - hollywood is quite possibly rready for a paradigm shift.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[ackthpt]

Yeah, me too. Remember Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart in the 1952 version of "Brokeback Mountain". Now THAT was a classic. Nothing like that crappy remake that came out last year. WHAT was that studio thinking?

Get ready for in a few years time:

SLASHBACK MOUNTAIN

They were nerds. They were there for new and stuff that mattered in their lives. One eventful evening they both confessed in anonymous postings a secret admiration for Jar Jar Binks. If the word got out, they'd be shamed and shunned, lives would be ruined, hearts would be broken...

Re:Why Movies Suck

[ackthpt]

Not only is there a lot of legal, free video entertainment available on the Internet, there is also music, gaming, etc.

One other thing on the internet is instantaneous Communication with large audiences. Go to imdb and see a few comments and the film already rated and you just may change your mind about seeing it. Before the internet bad reviews got around on two legs.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[thogard]

The real issue is that if you have to get permission for every song and every idea and every character name, someone is going to object to the way your putting it all together. When Disney Studios was new, they used an extensive collection of ideas from public domain stories with music that they didn't have to pay for. Even into the 1980's movies and TV shows didn't pay for music except for custom into music and that didn't pay very well.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[cpt kangarooski]

One factor you didn't mention, but which is part of the Internet: reviews. Reviews (and leaked information prior to a release) spread further, faster, and can be more personal (I trust my friends to tell me what I might like more than reviewers on TV or in the paper). If a movie is bad it's more likely to be found out sooner than later now. For example, word of mouth is considered to have caused the Hulk movie to drop ticket sales by 70% in one week, which is one of the most dramatic drops ever.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[ErroneousBee]

Its just a forbidden love story: Princess and the Pauper, Romeo and Juliet, Lolita, Lady Chatterley's Lover, etc etc.

You just start with "Who isnt allowed to shag who in some parts of society" and take it from there. There have even been a couple of inter species ones, like Enemy Mine.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[dgatwood]

Yeah, but here's what I don't get... did anybody actually expect that movie to be good? I mean, usually it's obvious from a trailer whether a movie is going to suck or not. I can only think of a small handful of movies that really reeked where it wasn't immediately obvious just from the trailer and general background info that it was going to be a steaming pile of excrement.

Of course, I only go to see about one movie out of every few hundred these days because it is almost always obvious that most movies are going to be steaming piles of excrement.

No, the biggest problem with Hollywood is greed. Between then and the theater chains, the cost of a movie is absurd. $7.50 per person + $10 worth of refreshments comes out to a $25 date. Alternately, dinner at a fairly decent restaurant and BUYING a DVD of a two year old movie comes out to a $25 date. Which one is the better experience? Duh. I watched movies constantly when I could go to the early showing for $3.50. Now, it's over $5 and I've been to two movies in the last year, one of which was paid for by my employer. They priced themselves out of business.

And greed is the problem with their plot lines, too. The cost of making movies is insanely high---in part because of outrageous costs for actors and actresses, outrageous equipment costs, outrageous film/processing/splicing costs, etc., but in part because they just over-produce the movies---which leads to production of far fewer movies, and thus, it is almost impossible to get into Hollywood screen writing, and even if you do, it probably won't pay the bills.

The result, from what I can discern from the outside, is a relatively small talent pool that generally discourages new blood, which results in the same stale content being repeated over and over. Most (not all) of the wannabes who try to get into this pool tend not to be the best and brightest writers out there, as the best and brightest see that there's not a lot of hope of making money in the field, so they steer way clear and do something that will actually keep a roof over their heads.

The only real solution for Hollywood is this: use no-name actors and actresses more, pay your writers better, spend less time and money on special effects, produce more movies on a lower budget each, and search far and wide for new talent to increase the diversity of your writer culture. If you don't, you will eventually fade into obsolescence.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[networkBoy]

"Agreed. But who owns the copyright? Heinlein's been dead for nearly 20 years."

UC Santa Cruz IIRC. He bequethed his literary work to the library. Which means a film would be excellent as (assuming is has a good director and cast and budget) it's a great story and the money would not go to waste.
-nB

Re:Why Movies Suck

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually they striped out a nationalistic PoV from the book, and replaced it with an anti-nationalistic PoV. Book:Power-Armorded supermen, highly-trained and expected to come back alive. Movie:Cannon fodder. It was very campy. But it's one of the best camp movies ever made.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[darnok]

I appreciate your background and the points you make, but is it really that simple?

Over the past ~5 years, there's been a massive surge to release new versions of old movies - "The Pink Panther", "When a Stranger calls" - or movie versions of old TV shows - "Dukes of Hazzard", "Lost in Space", ... There's a zillion more in each category. Genuinely new ideas, or even interesting variants on old ideas, now only appear in very tiny numbers.

In general, the originals being remade fall into two categories:
- really good movies, where there's no real chance that a remake will improve it (e.g. Pink Panther) and it's far more likely that a remake will be total crap
- really bad and/or cult movies/shows, where there's some chunk of a (predominantly) baby boomer audience that's virtually guaranteed to go along (e.g. Dukes of Hazzard, Mission Impossible). They rely almost solely on two comedy devices: (a) repeating the exact comedy lines that were most remembered in the original, (b) putting the "old" character/s in the present day (e.g. Brady Bunch), so the audience can laugh at their clothes, speech, etc.

What happened for things to get to this point? To some extent, I can understand remakes like "Dukes of Hazzard", because you've got a guaranteed audience, but why "Pink Panther"? It would have been obvious on day 1 that you can't hope to top the original scripts, and Steve Martin wasn't going to top Peter Sellers as Clouseau.

Are there any writers (as distinct from "re-interpreters") actually left, and if so, what are they doing? They can't all be doing stand-up; they don't all have their own TV shows; there's just not that many jobs as waiters in LA. Where are they?

Bring them back, put together plots that might actually push a 5yo mentality, line up and shoot the likes of Jessica Simpson and Hilary Duff for crimes against humanity, and you'll get your audience back again. It's really that simple. Baby boomers have all the cash, increasingly have time on their hands to spend it, but the movie industry (actually, make that the entire entertainment industry) seems to target only 13-30 year olds; wise up, there's not that many of them around, the average age of the population in the US is now 44 (and increasing by 1 year for every 2 years that pass at present), and 13-30 year olds don't have anything like the disposable loot that their parents have.

It's not like every movie has to cost $200m and have some hopeless bimbo in it to get an audience; Blair Witch and Michael Moore proved that convincingly. Sure it's probably not easy to make another Blair Witch, but the trail has been blazed for others to follow. Where are the movies being made for (say) $100k-$1m, which are amounts that could be raised without Hollywood-type "creative input" being imposed? I can see a few of them in arthouse cinemas, but why aren't they getting promoted more widely?

Hell, I'll make it even simpler. Here's how to get baby boomers back to the movies:
- stop thinking in terms of using stars and making huge profit, and make a movie with unknowns that will evoke some sort of emotion in the audience. Sorry, Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise et al; you had a good run...
- employ script writers who write scripts from scratch, rather than rehash old ones
- have more than 1 thread of plot going on; movies don't all have to be linear as some of us have attention spans greater than 30 seconds
- look at the age of the people around you, then forget targetting 15-30year olds as your prime demographic
- don't bother using bimbos to sell movies; boomers would rather watch a real actor than a clothes horse. If we want porn, we rent it. Bring back women who can act, and who aren't trying to look 30 years younger than they are
- stop making bad guys be really really bad, and good guys be really really good. Treat them as shades of grey rather than ridiculous stereotypes
- try making a film without CGI. It can be done, really
- as per the previous point, not every mov

Re:Why Movies Suck

[a_nonamiss]

This is a common sentiment, and there is a good reason why people say it. It's because time usually filters out the crap. Sure, there were really bad movies in the 60's, but are they remembered? No. We remember The Graduate and 2001: A Space Odyssey but those were (arguably) some of the best movies of their time. But do people still talk about The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies anymore? No, because it sucked. It will be remembered even less when the people who were alive back then are dead. The same is true of music. We can wax nostalgic and say that classical music is the only good music, but I'm sure there was plenty of crap written back in Mozart's time. But it was bad, so people didn't write about it, perform it, or remember it. So now, it's mostly forgotten, even in the history books.

Look at it like this: Will you ever buy the movie Battlefield: Earth and show it to your kids? (Assuming you're not a Scientologist.) How about Howard the Duck or Batman and Robin? Unless you want to mess them up, I doubt it. In 50 years, they will only remember the good movies and people will say "Man, movies have really gone down the toilet these days." forgetting entirely about The Toxic Avenger.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[martinX]

I really liked the Starship Troopers movie.

I'm sorry. I'll go away now.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[Skreems]

Yes, there are certainly original writers left. I'd like to point you towards Charlie Kaufman, for one... Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind were all massively creative, and well-acted to boot; hell, even Human Nature was better than the average comedy.

Another: Aaron Sorkin, wrote A Few Good Men, and The American President before diverting to TV to do Sports Night and the first 4 seasons of West Wing (and he's working on a new series now).

Even some adaptations are so drastically re-worked as to bear only a passing resemblance to the original. The new Battlestar series is quite well written, and shares only a couple of proper nouns with the original series.

And don't forget, people are still writing new books. Because movies cost a lot, studios aren't as eager to take risks on them; there's more red tape to wade through, and people who just want to tell stories without having to fight quite so damn hard to make their vision come out the way they want it, frequently turn to publishing. Stories that are light years beyond any movie in terms of creativity are routinely completed as novels. Dan Simmons, Gene Wolfe, Salman Rushdie, Neal Stephenson, Vernor Vinge and hundreds more, are publishing new books that put all but the best movies to shame. None of them are recycled, and in fact, many of them make me wonder just exactly what the author was smoking to be able to come up with something so original.

Yeah, there's a lot of rehashed crap as well, but that's because people will pay to see it. I guess a lot of folks don't want to have to think too hard when they look for entertainment, and the safety of something they already understand is appealing. But that doesn't mean something better isn't out there if you look for it. You just won't find it in the big-budget action or comedy films.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[Scarletdown]

There's still buckets of stuff in the public domain.

And some of the studios do still draw on PD material.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0401729/

I sincerely hope the title in the above link does actually become a reality on the big screen. And I hope that whatever studio is doing it doesn't completely fuck it up.

This is something I've been waiting to see made into a movie (or series of movies) since I read the books back around 1980 or 1981.

(And I hope whoever they cast as Dejah Thoris is just as hot as Burroughs described her in the first book.)

Re:Why Movies Suck

[barefootgenius]

I would prefer "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Friday" (is that the name) and "Time Enough For Love".

However, I don't go to the movies. Why should I? People are noisy, its either to loud or quiet, I can't smoke, I can't stop it, I can't go to the toilet, and, finally, my arse goes to sleep.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[shaitand]

Not really, those reviews came from people who hollywood could court or who have such oddball taste in movies that nobody actually relies on their reviews. In fact I could only name two film critics (one of them is no longer around) and I haven't agreed with a single review of theirs that I ever heard.

On the other hand, reviews from real people rate about 80% of the time. Hollywood also needs to get over their obsession with making their money in the theater. If they were smart they would cut out the middleman and do unlimited dvd by mail (ala netflix and blockbuster) with PERMISSION to copy the rented films.

It doesn't impact hollywood one bit if I have 1 movie or 10,000 movies. It does impact hollywood if I am spending $30/month on movies and that is all going to blockbuster online (tip, they don't throttle and give free weekly instore rentals on top of it).

Re:Why Movies Suck

[evildogeye]

I completely disagree. I *always* want to go see movies, and I would be happy to pay $20 per ticket. I don't really care about money. I just want to see good movies. Lately, well for several years, actually, I haven't been interested in most of the movies that are out. It may be my fault for not looking close enough, of for getting too old, but either way, the reason I haven't gone to see movies is not because of price but because of lack of interest.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[howlingfrog]

But the fact is that no decent music has been written since the Baroque era.

Beg to differ. I'm happy to pledge my undying devotion to Renaissance and Baroque music above all other, and I agree with you completely about Mozart and the rest of the Classic era music--99% of it combines the worst elements of Baroque music with the worst elements of Romantic music. But even beyond that other 1%, there was PLENTY of great music after the Classic era ended (for reference, I consider Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to be the border between the Classic and Romantic eras). I refer you to Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Grieg, Holst, Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky, to name a few. And that's just taken from traditional Western art music, and just those who were consistently great. There are plenty of mid-level composers who turned out a masterpiece once in a while, too.

There have been some great musicians in popular music of the past century or so as well. Most modern popular music is crap, yes, but the same is true of any era--crap from the past has just had time to be forgotten. The jazz tradition has Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington. As far as rock goes, the more I learn about music theory, the more I appreciate the Beatles. Procol Harum and Queen also put out top-notch music by any standards. And over the past 15 years, there's been some really good stuff coming out of the progressive/melodic metal genre. I'm not saying most of it is truly all-time great, but some of it is, and a lot of it is more than adequate even by the highest standards. Stratovarius, Nightwish, Kamelot (only after Roy Khan became the lead singer), Him, and to a lesser extent, Hammerfall (talking about the music, not the lyrics, in this case) and Sonata Arctica, are metal bands that have songwriters who can legitimately be called composers and performers who could be professional musicians even if their chosen genre was not rock.

If it's not just any Baroque music, but actually J.S. Bach you're using as your standard for "decent music," then no, I'm not claiming any of that music is as good as his. But none of his contemporaries or predecessors were as good either. The fact that the greatest genius in human history happened to be a musician and happened to live during the Baroque era does not mean that that the Baroque era produced the world's only good music.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[killjoe]

It was a love story. Well actually it was a really well made love story. It had great cinemetography, great acting, and very good dialog.

The only reason more people didn't go see it was because it was GAY love story. People go to see crappy love stories like the endless stream of vomitous romantic comedies starring jennifer lopez or kate hudson. They won't go see a really well made love story like brokeback mountain though just because it's about gay people in love.

Having said that if it was about two hot lesbians in love the movie would have been a best seller. Mainstream america is disgusted by male homosexuality but LOOOOOOOVES female homosexuality.

Re:Why Movies Suck

[AnalogDiehard]

I saw a total of three movies in the theater the last ten years. I went to see King Kong only because I was going with a group of friends.

Besides the poor material, the commercials are too long and the dynamics are too much. I hate sitting through ads before the movie, now that they run twenty minutes that was the breaking point. I will never go back. Movies are way too dynamic - street noises and crashes blast at you from the speakers, then the dialogue is so frigging soft you have to strain to hear it. The ears get fatigued fast.

And I won't repeat the host of other reasons why the theater experience sucks today.

DVDs solved many problems. I can zap the damn ads, and the audio output of my DVD player gets tamed by a compressor so that dynamics are flattened to a much more enjoyable level before they reach my stereo system. I don't want my speakers to get blown or my neighbors to be disturbed.

Simple formula

[UnknowingFool]

[sarcasm] Ticket prices rising, movie quality decreasing = fewer ticket sales. Go figure [/sarcasm]

Re:Simple formula

[shitdrummer]

Not to mention shit like this happening.

Shitdrummer.

Re:Simple formula

[frankthechicken]

I have an alternative formula,

Vast Profits = Mass ticket sales = Aim for lowest common denominator

Recent failure at box office = Aimed too low = Aim higher next time

Alternatively,

Massive success at box office = Could we improve by aiming even lower?

Hence the cyclical nature of Hollywood.

Though of course the main reason box office sales have fallen is Home Cinema, why expend the excess energy travelling to the theatre, only to put up with monkeys and their cell phones / repellent smelling popcorn/snacks, general obnoxiousness of humanity.

did you see the oscars?

[adpowers]

I think two of the people speaking were trying to convince the audience to go see movies in theatres, "There is nothing like being part of the a community and watching a great film on the giant silver screen" or whatever. This made me a little sick. I rarely see movies in theatres these days because the other viewers are often inconsiderate (mainly by being loud and obnoxious), the tickets are expensive, and the theatres are often of poor quality (dirty, bad sound, poor projection, etc.). For the price of sending two people to the theatre, you can buy the freakin' DVD in a few months (I'm very thankfully for the quicker DVD release turn around these days).

Re:did you see the oscars?

[pizza_milkshake]

don't forget all the extra ads they show in the trailers! nothing like paying $26 for yourself and a date to eat some popcorn and watch ads! oh wait, this is /., forget the date...

Bwahaha

[LordSnooty]

FTFA: "We are exploring new ways to reach more people using innovative methods of communication and distribution."

I'm sure they are, but their big problem is that we already explored all that five years ago. Time to catch up, Hollywood, and fast!

What, they didn't blame piracy?

[crimethinker]

I'm shocked that the MPAA spokesweasel didn't blame piracy. Shocked, I tell you.

And yes, I'll agree with the submitter's remarks - most movies nowadays are pure shite, little more than CGI thrown everywhere to try to cover a pathetic script. Oh, and don't forget the half-hour of commercials before the movie, too. And they always seem to start the commercials at the published start time. So you arrive half an hour late, trying to skip the commercials, and *this* movie was the one with only 15 minutes of crap in front of it.

I wait for the DVD nowadays. Cheaper, too.

-paul

Re:What, they didn't blame piracy?

[scaryjohn]

I'm shocked that the MPAA spokesweasel didn't blame piracy. Shocked, I tell you.

They figured out the real problem isn't pirates... It's ninjas!

Re:What, they didn't blame piracy?

[JPriest]

2 Tickets + porcorn + soda = > $30
All that money and you get 15 minutes of some of the same commercials shown on daytime TV for free anwyway. I usuaully show up 15 minutes late, but sometimes it leaves me with crappy seats.

I used to go to the movies all the time (every week), but after sitting though the RIAA painter and stuntmans anti piracy rants about 50 times I all but quit going. I still go see great movies, but for most stuff I just add it to the Netflix queue and they ship me the DVD when it becomes available.

Home Theaters

[expressovi]

With the sale of home theaters on the rise I think that can also attribute to some of the loss. Many people I know who buy a home theater say they now have no reason to go the theater. I just got mine and I always ask why go out?

Correction...

[Joe5678]

About 40 percent of the decline came from the U.S.

Come on, it's in the first sentence of the article. 40 percent of the 23 billion dollars in total sales was in the US, not 40 percent of the decline.

A misleading summary, here on slashdot, I'm as shocked as the rest of you...

Re:Damn it's tough being a pimp . . .

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I've gone maybe three or four times in the past year and a half

"Hollywood, I wish I knew how to quit you..."

CowboyNeal

[anim8]

"It's been a while since a film warranted spending the money to watch it in a room full of strangers."

If dropping a ten-spot and spending 3hrs in a theater to see King Kong on the big screen doesn't appeal to you then you are beyond hope.

But I can understand your fear of seeing 'Brokeback Mountain' with others around. I mean with a name like CowboyKneel ...

It never fails...

[brian0918]

In a movie theater, no matter where I sit, the loudest person in the theater always ends up sitting next to me. You'd think with my "I've killed already tonight, and you're next" countenance, people would stay away, but I seem to attract the crazies.

Prime examples:

In that crappy Sky Captain movie, when the flying ships dive straight into the water, this guy next to me starts shouting "THAT DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!"

In that crappy Manchurian Candidate remake, some dumb bitch sits down right next to me, babbling through the whole movie. When Meryl Streep goes into a long speech, this woman starts shouting "MERYL STREEP AT HER BEST!!"

During Batman Begins, some fat ass was munching down bag after bag of chips right next to me. He'd finish a bad, then extend his hand out and drop the bag on the floor, and go for another. Then he'd start belching, or fall asleep and snore really loud.

What the hell is it with these people?? Can't they see that I want to watch my crappy movies in peace??

Re:It never fails...

[Anonymous Coward]

During Batman Begins, some fat ass was munching down bag after bag of chips right next to me. He'd finish a bad, then extend his hand out and drop the bag on the floor, and go for another. Then he'd start belching, or fall asleep and snore really loud.

That reminds me of the time I went to see Batman Begins .. I sat next to this guy who looked like he'd killed already and like I was to be next. I got so nervous I kept eating bags and bags of chips. As it turns out this happened to cause gas and I couldn't help but belch ..plus i thought maybe it'll make him go away .. well .. when that didnt work .. I just decided to fall asleep.

Re:It never fails...

[brjndr]

In a movie theater, no matter where I sit, the loudest person in the theater always ends up sitting next to me.

Well, next time teach her a lesson and leave the bitch at home.

Box Office Down... DVDs ???

[TubeSteak]

Box Office sales dropped.

What happened to DVD sales?

Why I don't go as much

[johnlcallaway]

I only go to movies that have a very large visual or audio appeal, or something I really want to see. Or I am really bored. Why??

• Kids go to matinees. Being in the same theaters as a bunch of rug rats suck.
• Evening shows cost $9 (or more). Have to get a keg o'Icee, another $4.
• Have to go with daughter or girlfriend, and pay for their move and stuff. Another $13-$18. Total so far, around $30.
• Netflix costs less than $20/month and the food is a lot cheaper, and I can drink beer or tequila instead of an Icee.

Just because I can afford $30/week to go to a movie, doesn't mean I want to pay it.

The Decline For Me Is Because

[futuresheep]

It costs me close to $70.00 by the time I'm done with paying for:

*Babysitting
*Parking
*Ticket
*Crap to eat

It costs me approx. $15.00 for a DVD.

To add to that my home theater looks and sounds great, the seats are more comfortable, we can pee when we want, and the drinks are a hell of a lot cheaper. We haven't been to a theater in over three years now when before the munchkin we used to go at least once a month. Sure, there was the initial investment in the home theater, but we're past breaking even on that now.

The Passion of the Slump

[Anonymous Coward]

As Roger Ebert pointed out, the "Box Office Slump" is an myth. 2005 Box Office sales only appear down when compared to 2004, because 2004 saw the release of "The Passion of the Christ", which brought thousands of customers who otherwise do not visit the movie theaters.

The fact is, 2005 was the second or third best year for film revenue in history.

--
N

According to Ebert and Roeper...

[Hamster Lover]

According to the film critics Ebert and Roeper, it's their opinion that there was a bump in attendance over the last few years for movies like The Lord of Rings and Spider-Man/2 where fans would see the films mutiple times. Let's face it, there were some real block busters that came out in recent years like the LOTR trilogy, Spider-Man 2, Shrek 2, The Passion of the Christ, Finding Nemo, Stealth, The Dukes of Hazzard, etc. The Passion of the Christ alone made something $360 million dollars. The only real block busters this year seem to be Superman Returns and X3, so expect more tearful news from the movies studios around the same time next year.

There are just going to be some years were attendance exceeds normal growth due to the popularity of certain movies.

Re:Damn it's tough being a pimp . . .

[DA-MAN]

Here's a thought Hollywood, stop making movies about gay cowboys and pimps. Get real writers and try making a quality movie or at the very least a movie about topics that people give a shit about.

Please. This sentence is hypocritical and trollish. Brokeback Mountain is a good movie with a good script.

Actually it isn't hypocritical or trollish. It's just worded horribly.

Gay Cowboys and Pimps == Movies about topics that most people don't really give a shit about. Don't believe me, look at the ticket sales. BBM may have had great writing, and even been a great movie (i don't know, haven't seen it) but very few people cared about the topic.

As far as the bad writing, do I really need to throw down examples? There are way too many to name.

My point is clear, if Hollywood wants to make more money they can do one of two things:

1) Make movies about things people care about. Even if it's not the greatest writing/acting/directing, people will see movies about things they are interested in.

or

2) Make movies with good writing. good acting and so on. There is more to movies than special effects

But if they want to maximize their profits, they can combine 1 & 2.

Re:whats wrong with old movies

[Potato Battery]

"Wish I could get Turner Classic Movies without having to pay for 90 other channels I have NO interest in."

McCain is actually working on legislation to require cable to go a la carte. From what I've seen, the cable companies are down with it, but the bundle-monsters like Disney and Fox hate it.

I really hope it materializes. We haven't had TV for a couple years now, but if I could just pick a couple of channels I can't get now without a multimegabuck megabundle, it would be great to be able to casually flip on the tube again.

Re:I just spent

[rk]

"Under 2 got in free."

If you took someone under the age of two to a feature length movie, then I hate you.

How dare you?

[Maniacal]

The Slashdot editors are nice enough to post a non-story about movie theaters/revenues/profits/etc. so that we can rant about prices of tickes/snacks/parking/etc. and brag about the components in our home theaters and you have to come along and screw it all up by presenting facts. Where to you get off buddy? Now what the hell am I gonna rant about? Did you see the front page? There aren't any articles about how Linux isn't ready for the desktop. There are any columns about Windows out performing Linux in a recent benchmark.

From now on just keep your facts to yourself.

BTW, mod parent up. Sounds like he hit the nail on the head

Re:duh

[vertinox]

The only movie i've looked forward to seeing lately is V for Vendetta and thats becuase its by the W brothers

You mean brother and sister?

Agreed

[mikeswi]

True Story:

I go to the Carmike in Statesboro (35 mile drive) to watch I,Robot. Some assholes bring their 2? 3? year old kid with them and sit directly in front of me. By the time I realized this kid was going to make noise the whole time, there were no empty seats left. The kid starts making a racket as soon as the movie starts and never shuts up. She even started singing! People all over were staring at the kid instead of the screen, waiting for the parents to start acting like parents.

You ignorant fucktards who bring small, noisy, untamed children to adult movies and don't keep them quiet are fucking assholes. What the hell is wrong with you people?

"Oh Jesus Christ!", I yell, as I get up to find the manager. I let the manager know what's going on and he goes in and stands against a wall for about five minutes, watching them. Miraculously, they keep the kid's yap shut the whole time, so the manager sees no reason to ask them to leave. "Fine. You want to run a daycare center instead of a movie theater, that's fine. Give me my money back."

Next day, I go to a smaller theater in Vidalia (25 mile drive) to watch it. So many people are lined up outside that it takes 20 minutes to get everyone in the door (they don't let you in without a ticket + they don't start selling tickets until 5 minutes before show time + only one ticket seller). Graciously, they hold off starting the movie until everyone is in (they did that for Star Wars III too).

Fifteen minutes into the movie, THE PROJECTOR EATS THE FUCKING FILM! They handed out refunds and sent everyone home. GRRRRRRR.........

The next day, I drove all the damn way to Savannah (80+ miles), crammed into an overstuffed theater and FINALLY watched the movie.

This is why I don't watch movies on the big screen anymore. Unless it is something that I HAVE TO SEE RIGHT FRIGGIN NOW, I wait for the DVD. And I RENT that DVD, I don't buy it. Or I buy it used from the video store. So Hollywood loses every opportunity at having my money.

Re:Agreed

[StikyPad]

And then for the punchline, you had to sit through "I, Robot."

Mashed Potato Cinema

[Mundocani]

I was floored when the MPAA president tried promoting moving theater attendance during Sunday's awards by espousing the virtues of viewing a movie with a group of strangers brought together by a common cause (is watching a movie really a cause?). Does he really believe his own crap? When was the last time he even saw a movie with the general public instead of in a plush private theater ahead of its general release date? I, for one, am not a big fan of paying a fortune to fight with strangers for a decent seat only to have to put up with chatter and cell phones throughout the film. I'm certainly not building mashed potato cinemas at the dinner table along with thousands of others who will find themselves also drawn to this mysterious force bringing us all together to watch some hollywood shovelware.

Movie theaters suck, that's the problem.

[fahrvergnugen]

It's not about the quality of the films available. The films are about as good as they've always been, to be honest. That is to say, they're shit, but they're entertaining, so I'll keep going.

It's the theater-going experience itself that has become intolerable. I'd go back to the movies in a heartbeat if I knew of a theater that had the following policies:

1) Theater owners need to hire large, hardass, bouncer-type stone cold ushers. If you talk, you're out. Cell phone? Out. Laser pointer? Out. Kick the seat in front of you? Out. Smartass who yells comments, thinking he's the next Joel Robinson or Mike Nelson? Out. If you're bothering the people around you in any way, instead of watching the film quietly or respectfully (or making out quietly, that's always cool by me), then you're out on your ass, no refund, and cry me a fucking river.

2) Theater owners must enforce the MPAA ratings. Don't let kids buy tickets for The Shaggy Dog and then sneak into Saw II. They ruin it. Check IDs at the box office, and check tickets at the door of the auditorium, and bingo, no more problem. I tried to see the Exorcist re-release 5 years ago, and it was ruined by a theater full of teenagers who were all holding tickets to see the latest g-rated insult to IQs over 50. I haven't seen a horror film in the theater since.

3) Theater owners must stop showing advertisements before a film starts for products that are not other films. People resent paying $12 to be a captive audience for 30 minutes of television commercials.

Bonus un-necessary but IT WOULD BE AWESOME policies:

4) Theater audiences must SHUT THE FUCK UP. In the last ten years or so, I've noticed a disturbing trend. Audiences seem no longer content to just laugh at the funny parts or cry at the sad parts. They now must treat a film as if someone is filming a sitcom, and they are part of the live studio audience. Here's a news flash, people: IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE. IT CAN'T HEAR YOU. Stop clapping and cheering when the Warner Brothers logo shows up at the beginning of the next Batman film. Stop applauding when Neo beats down Agent Smith. Definitely STOP GIVING THE CREDITS A STANDING OVATION. What, are you fucking retarded or something? What the hell is wrong with you people?

3) A liquor license, even just wine-beer, for R-rated evening showings after 8pm. I'd love to be able to drink a cold one while I'm watching a movie in a room full of grownups. I already have a local theater that does this with second-run films, but I'd love it if I could get this kind of service in a first-run show with a kick-ass sound system.

It's not that the movies suck...

[Macdude]

Most movies made during any one year have always sucked. It's not the suckyness of the movies, it that for the price of:
  - parking
  - the tickets
  - the $4 small bags of popcorn
  - the $3 box of raisinettes
  - the $5 cokes
I can buy a DVD, get a couple of pizza's delivered, open a bottle of wine (or a couple of beers), nuke a bag of popcorn and enjoy the movie on my schedule in a room with comfortable chairs that have lots of leg room, floors that aren't sticky and covered with garbage, a room without noisy assholes talking on their cell phones, stupid people constantly asking their friends "what did he say?" and "who's that?", a speaker system where the bass isn't being over driven and the center channel speakers aren't blown, a place where I don't have to sit through 15 to 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts and if I have to get up in the middle I can pause the damn thing.

I don't go to the theater because the theater experience sucks.

In the past people went to the movies because it was an event, they looked forward to it for days or weeks ahead of time. Everyone was there to enjoy and drink-in the experience. Now we go to the movies because we don't have anything better to do.

The entire experience is bad

[snStarter]

I like movies. But my wife and I go to fewer and fewer each year.

Why?

Well the huge drop in our attendence this year was because every movie house around us now shows 20 minutes of video commercials before the lights dim and the trailers (usually 6) begin.

I like to sit in the theatre and talk to my wife or the people we're with. You can't do that over the damn TV being projected onto the screen. It's awful and I hate it.

Blend in people who think they can talk as if they were in their own living room, text message, talk on their cell phones, get up three or four times for more soda/popcorn/etc, and you have a truly wretched experience. I won't even MENTION kids crying and throwing things. I don't go when the high schoolers go - that's even worse.

So mostly it's Netflix and a very good widescreen TV instead of the movies.

I'm SICK and FUCKING TIRED of being endlessly marketed to. I don't need surround-sound tunes blared at me, crap on the screen. I have a mind, I like the people I go to movies with, I want to enjoy them until the lights fade and a new world unrolls on the screen.

Re:Damn it's tough being a pimp . . .

[Erik Fish]

And by "agree with him totally" you really mean "get the gays and the blacks out of movies!"

Because you know, there were no movies made this year without gay cowboys or pimps.

Of course. No Pixar movie.

[Animats]

Pixar didn't release anything to theaters in 2005. Of course revenue is down.

Its TV show on DVD... They kill movies

[acomj]

You can now buy TV shows on DVD. If you get one season of a TV show thats probably 10+ hours of viewing. It takes time to watch those shows, times you aren't spending at the movies.

That and the movie going experience is terrible.

Why remake good movies?

[LihTox]

In general, the originals being remade fall into two categories:
- really good movies, where there's no real chance that a remake will improve it (e.g. Pink Panther) and it's far more likely that a remake will be total crap
...but why "Pink Panther"? It would have been obvious on day 1 that you can't hope to top the original scripts, and Steve Martin wasn't going to top Peter Sellers as Clouseau.

I was thinking about this: remakes are common in all fields of performance, but nowhere is it as reviled as in movies. For example, we have recordings of Leonard Bernstein conducting the Chichester Psalms; why should anyone else bother performing it? Because it's interesting to see how a different conductor and a different orchestra interpret the piece; because they can contribute something new to it. (And after all, the programs of most orchestras are almost entirely "remakes"; premieres are a small percentage of the output of most musical ensembles.) Same goes for theatre: why do we keep seeing new performances of Hamlet? Partly for the live performance aspect, but partly because 1) a number of actors want the chance to play the role themselves, and 2) audiences appreciate a different spin on an old favorite.

So why not do it in movies? Peter Jackson made "King Kong" because he thought, "I like that movie, I'd like to put my own spin on it." If someone really liked the Pink Panther and wanted to do the same thing, I have no problem with that. It could be interesting, if done well. Even if Steve Martin couldn't possibly "top" Peter Sellers, he could still be good, and do something interesting and unique.

The real problem is not that movies are remade, but that they aren't remade well. But a lot of movies aren't being made well, whether remake or not.

Just a thought.

Quit bitching about movie theatres! Demand better!

[ajv]

In Australia, we have Gold Class Theatres, run by Village Cinemas. They've really thought about what it is to go see a film as an adult, and it really works. Most of the time, the Gold Class sessions are full, so it is working.

You book your seat online before arriving, so you know where you're going to sit, and no queues. You can pick up your ticket from an ATM style thing out the front if you want to get it quickly, or you can go in and pick it up whilst you're ordering your goodies for the film.

You can order hot food, pizzas, cakes (including creme brulee and lemon tarts... even choc top ice creams - but adult flavors like rum n raison and dark chocolate), champagne, wine, beer, decent cafe quality coffee, coke (if you must) to be delivered to you seat during the film, which is placed on a little table between every two seats... which has an inbuilt ice bucket. As there's so few seats, the waiters do not have to lean over someone else or squeeze past hundreds of others to give you your stuff.

They have 30 or so reclining armchairs in a small theater with a smallish screen, but top notch acoustics and audio gear, usually not too loud (although Return to the King was painfully loud).

There's heaps of space between you and the next person in any direction. Even if you're laying down flat and Sideshow Bob is in front of you, you can still see the screen.

As the tickets cost $25, and the food aint cheap, it keeps the plebs and kids away for the most part. Sure I spend like $60 or $70 going out to see a film, but it's been an enjoyable experience, no brats, great food and beverages and I've felt like I got my money's worth.

So quit whining about crap theaters, and ask for your own Gold Class theaters!

Now if only they make more films like Amerlie and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and less shit like Date Movie, I'd be inclined to go to Gold Class more often.