Slashdot Mirror
Ebert: I'll Tell You Why Movie Revenue Is Dropping
schwit1 writes in with a link to Roger Ebert's webpage where he gives his opinion on the decline of movie industry revenues."According to Ebert movie piracy isn't the problem. He contends that the industry needs to lower prices on tickets and popcorn, keep people off their cell phones, show a wider variety of films, and understand that movie streaming is here to stay. From the article: 'The message I get is that Americans love the movies as much as ever. It's the theaters that are losing their charm.
Proof: theaters thrive that police their audiences, show a variety of titles and emphasize value-added features. The rest of the industry can't depend forever on blockbusters to bail it out.'"
It's all sequels, prequels, and superhero movies. I have a 60 inch HDTV and just watch what I want in my own home theatre now... and my popcorn has real butter on it too!
ok, I like kids.
But parents need to stop using movie theaters as a way to keep their kids entertained for an afternoon. You come to a movie to see a movie, not to fucking socialize.
and to that idiot with the laser pointer, be happy I'm an old fuck and have too much to lose to shove it down your pie-hole - sideways.
Agreed. I was surprised the first time I visited the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. *THAT* is how movies are supposed to be seen. I can see why Harry loves 'em so much.
Beat me to it. There must be a bazillion scripts out there that show some originality. While it's true that there are a limited number of plot lines known and catalogued (many from Shakespeare), that's no excuse for slapping CGI and some new actors on a 20 year old script.
Show us something we haven't seen, with actors we haven't seen. Actually put some effort into finding some new stories. You'll have some bombs, but you won't spend that much to make them with fresh faces and writers, and you'll have some pleasant surprises too.
Why? Because an invitation to go on a date to the movies is more likely to be accepted than one to go to your home cinema.
Some people like "going out". Especially if it's to a place with an enjoyable atmosphere.
And ditch 3D. Yes, 50% of the audience likes it. But they're going to come anyway, 3D or 2D. Nobody ever refused to go to the cinema because a movie was 2D. The people you need to be concerned about are the 50% who no longer go to the cinema because they hate it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In other words, to summarize both you and Ebert:
People go to the movie theater for the experience of watching a movie in the theater. If that experience isn't better than watching it at home, they won't go to the theater. Home theaters have improved, and movie theaters have degraded. Fix that. And no, you don't get to control the home theaters.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Just because you don't like 3D doesn't mean it should be "ditched".
I don't go to many movies, but when I do, I look for good movies that are in 3D.
If a movie has no plot, it doesn't matter if it's in 2D or 3D.
3D is an overpriced and overrated variation that is taking far to much valuable real estate that would be better used attracting a wider audience.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Don't ditch stereographic 3D outright. Instead, either do it properly or don't do it at all (I agree that at the moment, the two are functionally equivalent, though). This can be done by following two relatively simply rules:
1) No stereo upconverts. You don't shoot a film in B&W then colourise it (unless you want it to look like ass, especially when colour film is right there), so don't shoot a film in 2D then try and guesstimate some stereo separation. You retard.
2) Hire a stereographer who will hit you in the back of the head every time you suggest something fly out of the screen. Hard. And repeatedly. Until you learn how the human visual cortex recieves stereo cues and how to work with it to trick the viewer rather than grabbing the optic nerve and yanking it about. *
The only film I can think of where stereo 3D was done properly has been Avatar. Regardless of what you think about plot originality or hamfisted delivery, it was an excellent use of stereo 3D.
*I was going to give another analogy of shooting a film in colour and only using BRIGHT BLUE SKY and BRIGHT ORANGE DESERT broad-brush colour grading, but then I remembered the Orange and Teal effect. On second thought, let's just fire the entire movie industry into the sun and start again.
So don't go to 3D movies... problem solved.
You do realize you are posting in a thread about - why people are not going to the movies...
3D is just one trend I don't like and will not pay for (yes I've seen a few 3D movies).
When you say "problem solved", well not for the studios - that IS the problem!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except these days we can't even steal. The industry has creative monopoly forever! Copyright extension done fucked the system is what. It is the cause of the constant stream of shit from this media industry system.
Balderdash!
Your real estate comment doesn't make sense. The same digital projectors are used for 3D and 2D. Most multiplexes have many more houses than they can fill anyway so no "real estate" is waisted by showing 3D. How does not showing 3D attract a wider audience? Almost all multiplexes will show both 2D and 3D versions and YOU get to choose which one you want to pay for. 3D is an additional option that DOES attract wider audiences by providing an additional choice.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
I would just like to share that me (36) and my children (16 and 12) agree that about 75% of movies made after 2000 are absolute garbage compared to films from previous years. While there are standouts that are well scripted, well acted, and well filmed, they are few and far between.
My problem stems not from nostalgia for the good old days, mostly, but rather from the lack of characterization in modern films. Take, for example, the film Aliens. I can remember the characters, rattle off their names and personality quirks, and remember exactly how each one died.
Now take Battle: Los Angeles. I watched it. I can't remember a damned thing about it or any of the characters, except that the butt-chin guy who played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight was in it. His little squad of characters may as well have been named Disposable Latin Guy, Disposable Black Guy, Disposable White Guy. Completely unmemorable.
Many films come across this way to me now. It's all in the effects and the action, nothing to make the characters stand out at all. And if I don't care about the characters, then why care about the story?
And as I said, my kids agree with me on this - a rare occurance at best with my boys. Believe it or not, they came to their own conclusions on this, no brainwashing required.