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.'"

Comments

Also

[CanHasDIY]

Try coming up with an original idea that doesn't SUCK .

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Also

[sk999]

Let us not forget that Shakespeare "stole" many of his plot lines as well.

Re:Also

[ClioCJS]

No, that's not the problem. Ideas aren't worth much. Jack London sold plots for $5. It's not the ideas, it's the implementations.

Re:Also

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Re:Also

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not the problem. Ideas aren't worth much. Jack London sold plots for $5. It's not the ideas, it's the implementations.

He bought plots for $5, from Sinclair Lewis. He didn't sell them...

Re:Also

[jd]

There's a limited number of plot lines known, but given the number of Hollywood scriptwriters out there looking for new plot lines, it's hard to say that the problem is with the number of (good) plot lines possible.

However, I absolutely agree that the key problems are with regurgitated scripts, half-dead actors, a passion for not thinking, and a chronic paranoia towards originality.

Cinemas are partly to blame - there are occasionally good independent movies. Hell, there are occasionally documentary box-office hits (March of the Penguins out-sold The Fantastic Four first on limited release and then nationally in the multiplexes). The cinemas are quite capable of mixing in all kinds of stuff that might not appeal "to the masses" but which could certainly stuff one seating area full for more than enough showings to make a very healthy profit.

Also, box-office hits don't remain hits forever. A local cinema, back in the 70s, got Star Wars and retained it in month blocks until the audience numbers fell off. The last month it was retained, the cinema nearly went out of business. It was an expensive film to hold with near-zero audiences at that point. Modern cinemas have obviously far more screens and book in more rational blocks of time, but even so they must be wasting vast sums on holding onto too many copies for too long. Diversifying would not only increase the number of people actually going to the cinema, it would also reduce wastage from excessive rights.

Re:Also

[masmullin]

Original Ideas are usually story driven and dont need a big screen (there are a few exceptions like Matrix & Star Wars)

Lately the really good original ideas not only don't require a big screen, but they DO require long character development arcs, and require multiple hours to really tell a good story (Breaking Bad, Dexter, Walking Dead).

So the only reason to really go to a cinema is for the big CGI movies like Transformers, or for "date" movies.

One last thing, just because a movie is a derivative, it doesn't make it bad. Saving Private Ryan is extremely derivative, but it was a great movie.

Re:Also

[erko]

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.

Re:Also

[Ouchie]

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.

I agree. If I wanted to be sea sick I'd go fishing.

Re:Also

[Sancho]

However, I absolutely agree that the key problems are with regurgitated scripts, half-dead actors, a passion for not thinking, and a chronic paranoia towards originality.

Considering I'll rewatch movies multiple times if I enjoy them, "regurgitated scripts" don't bother me. Of course, I quite enjoy originality--though there's precious little of it these days.

The main thing that keeps me from going to the theater more is the experience. Whether it's people talking loudly (on their phone or to others) or texters who flash their screen at everyone behind them, it's the inconsiderate other patrons who irritate me the most. The other day, I actually sat just behind and to the left of someone who started looking up nudes of one of the actresses in the movie they were in, and continued to look at them for about 10 minutes before I asked him to turn off his phone.

Re:Also

[ClioCJS]

my mom lied to me

Re:Also

[midtowng]

Hollywood is terrified to making movies with original ideas. Every movie is created by committee in order to appeal to the most demographics. Which translates into a plot that you've seen a million times before. The idea of making a movie that doesn't spend $50 million on special effects and another $50 milllion on big name actors, but instead invests in plot and acting is something only independents do.

Re:Also

[Smallpond]

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.

Also ditch the audio. Talkies are a fad.

Re:Also

[rsilvergun]

Talkies don't give me a pounding headache, even at THX volumes.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

50% of all audiences hate all films based on some trait. Maybe we should cut chick flicks since 50% of the movie going population hate them. Or how about war films, or mafia films, or non-fictional films? I personally won't go to see a movie that is more car chase than dialog but I understand that others do.

Re:Also

[Paco103]

Yeah, they're called sun glasses. . . . not all of them are tinted.

Re:Also

[CanHasDIY]

Original Ideas are usually story driven and dont need a big screen (there are a few exceptions like Matrix & Star Wars)

Lately the really good original ideas not only don't require a big screen, but they DO require long character development arcs, and require multiple hours to really tell a good story (Breaking Bad, Dexter, Walking Dead).

I'll give you Breaking Bad, but FYI, Dexter and The Walking Dead are derivative works.

They are awesome, regardless.

Re:Also

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Also

[Chris Mattern]

Forgotten, hell. Picasso said it--"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

Re:Also

[EdZ]

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.

Re:Also

[NewWorldDan]

So they have to pay an extra $3, wear glasses they shouldn't need to see a film where the picture is not as bright as it could be? Instead of special glasses, just cover one lens with a piece of paper. You can put me into the crowd that hates 3D (foreground images split apart on me. my eyes hurt after about 20 minutes).

Also, Ebert may be right here. Locally, we have a theater that has $6 prime time seating ($4 off peak), comparatively cheap popcorn (still pricey, but half the price of other theaters), no stadium seating, no 3D, and it's always packed. It's the only place I go, and I buy the popcorn there just on principle.

Re:Also

[BasilBrush]

Audio allows for telling a more interesting story. 3D doesn't.

Re:Also

[sleigher]

Does the fact that they teach you how to write a script in Hollywood have anything to do with it? I mean the studios expect scripts to be written a certain way to even be considered. So they teach people how to write them the right way. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy no? I mean, looking for originality would mean they have to think, or hire people to think. The quality of movies I see would lead me to believe there isn't much of that happening in Hollywood. But I am just a lowly consumer. What do I know...

Re:Also

[Jafafa Hots]

I have been known to spend many hours in libraries reading such things as the congressional record from the 19th century, old trademark and patent gazettes, other very old periodicals and publications, and there are untold thousands of true stories that would make incredible films.

In the senate testimony during the period after the civil war and reconstruction, during hearings about the KKK, you could create several movies just from the eyewitness testimonies of southern people affected.

One particularly vivid example was testimony I came across where a community was terrorized - blacks and also whites who were viewed as sympathetic either to blacks or to the union.

The KKK rode through these places terrorizing the people while wearing blood-red hoods (white hoods came later I guess.)

Coincidentally some babies were stillborn with deformities that in the eyes of these frightened people looked reminiscent of these red hoods, and the whole community was thrown further into hysteria, referring to them as "ku klux babies" if I remember correctly.

Now tell me that it's not possible that some decent writer could read through the testimony of these hearings (which were the big national furor of the time) and come up with a very dramatic film? "Based on a true story" etc.

Wouldn't even have to pay royalties to some comic book company or whatever.

History and the present is filled with these stories everywhere you look, if you just look. And that's just the non-fiction.

It's even possible someone could imagine up some mystical humanoids in a fairy-tale like land that aren't even hobbits.

Re:Also

[skribe]

Part of the problem is that there are now so many wardens in the way of new writers that it's almost impossible to get a genuinely original idea to the people with the money (eg. studios). Also it now takes more than having just a great script. You need a great package (insert obvious innuendo here): script, director, star.

Even then original ideas have to survive the rewrites by writers that are already part of the system. And nearly every writer believes that they can write any script better than the last guy. Everyone wants to rewrite the script: studio, producer, director, star, director's cousin's girlfriend.

What you tend to end up with is a generic, derivative mess that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the original idea.

Given the process it's amazing that we have any watchable films at all and that's not even considering the crap that goes on after the cameras start rolling.

Re:Also

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Audio allows for telling a more interesting story. 3D doesn't.

Withouth 3D, Avatar is just "Dances With Giant Smurfs."

Re:Also

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Every movie is created by committee in order to appeal to the most demographics.

Nowadays that includes foreign audiences because roughly half of the revenue from big-budget movies comes from overseas. So they deliberately limit the scripts to what translates easily to any culture, and that leaves pretty much nothing other than famous faces, pretty girls and big explosions.

Re:Also

[gfxguy]

I don't understand the 3D hate. Well, I understand it, but can't for the life of me imagine why people whine and complain about it when virtually every 3D movie is also shown in 2D anyway... some people like 3D, what's wrong with having a choice?

Re:Also

[gfxguy]

So don't go to 3D movies... problem solved. Honestly... all the 3D movies are also shown in 2D - and for less money. I don't get the complaints. People on slashdot are generally pro-choice unless it's something they can sit on their high horse and whine about all us bourgeois who might actually like something they don't.

Re:Also

[Jeremi]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

No new plot lines, but there are new people.

(Specifically, there's now an entire 'lost generation' of teenagers who hold the demented belief that the Star Wars prequels are in some way comparable to the original three)

Re:Also

[kenj0418]

And with 3D it was "Dances with Giant Smurfs: 3D" plus a headache.

Re:Also

[Ihmhi]

The problem isn't good stories. The problem is how executive meddling will change things.

By the time this story you've related hits theaters, it's about a mutant baby riding a ten meter tall KKK mecha named KKKollusus with a miniguns for arms.

Re:Also

[kaizokuace]

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.

Re:Also

[Technician]

Recycled scrips are OK if there is enough colorful environment and players to make the script interesting.

Take for example the original Star Wars. It is a western. It did very well at the box office.

Western you say?

Yes. Lady loses the ranch to some bad guys in black.
There is dynamite explosions, a gunfight, a knife fight, a bar fight with shady characters who can provide some needed support, and the hero in white. It is a formula western in a different big valley and more modern horses, knives, and pistols.

Re:Also

[ChatHuant]

I don't understand the 3D hate. Well, I understand it, but can't for the life of me imagine why people whine and complain about it when virtually every 3D movie is also shown in 2D anyway... some people like 3D, what's wrong with having a choice?

Well, 3D tickets are more expensive, so theaters favor the 3D showings over 2D. At my favorite movie theater, the recent Tintin movie was showing in 3D in two of the best projection rooms, at all hours, while the 2D version was only showing at midday, on a smaller screen, with less performant audio. I went to the 3D showing, and had it definitely confirmed I'm one of the people that get sick at 3D - had to leave about midway through the movie, and I probably won't try another 3D show soon.

And the sad part is, I really don't think it 3D adds much to most movies. It does give Lucas a chance to reissue "Phantom menace" in 3D, but I wouldn't count that in its favor :)

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you forget the context: to steal is to make your own. The full context from T.S. Eliot:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

Re:Also

[Rakarra]

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.

Also ditch the audio. Talkies are a fad.

See The Artist if you can. A beautiful silent film recently released. Sound effects and voices are used sparingly in service of the plot. It seems like it would be a boring film given the summary, but it's one of the best movies I've seen this year.

Unfortunately, it's playing in only 17 theaters nationwide. :(

Re:Also

[initialE]

Have you seen the box office numbers for this holiday season?
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/25/let-there-be-sequels.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/25/idUS261492126020111225

Mission Impossible 4, Sherlock Holmes 2 and Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 did well at the Christmas box office in the U.S., while Girl with a Dragon Tattoo and Tintin both bombed.

We are negatively reinforcing this behavior

Re:Also

[GoChickenFat]

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.

Re:Also

[Tailhook]

Sam Walker. Had a revolver built to his specifications so his cavalry could better blow apart Indians. Ended up shooting Mexicans with them. Spent his whole short life in brutal combat, right up until his dramatic, made for Hollywood death. Several really great opportunities for America bashing in there.

Can't understand why no one has done a big budget film on this guy.

Re:Also

[SETIGuy]

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
-Tom Lehrer

Re:Also

[BasilBrush]

It's not my opinion, it's self evidently true. Take any 3D film and lose the 3D effect - you've lost none of the story. Indeed that's exactly what they do at cinemas - show the 3D films also in 2D.

Now take any film with a complex story and watch it for the first time with the sound off. You're going to lose lots of the story.

Re:Also

[IICV]

What do you mean? At least Mission Impossible, Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks told original-ish stories, even if they were sequels. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an American remake of a Swedish film that came out in 2009 which was based on a book that came out in 2004 - and incidentally, the books were pretty popular when the Swedish film came out, so a lot of people have read them and seen the first film.

As for Tintin, I don't know; it probably has to do with the fact that Americans think that animated, cartoony movies are just for kids, combined with the fact that the modern generation of children has probably never heard of Tintin. If the kids aren't begging to go see it, why would their parents take them?

People aren't going to watch new things just because they're new and different; the new things have to actually be good, and unfortunately the studios aren't putting much effort into good movies.

Re:Also

[Machtyn]

I agree with you. 3D shouldn't necessarily be ditched. But, then again, you'll never find me spending the extra $3-$5 for the premium.

Re:Also

[rockout]

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.

Re:Also

[westlake]

I mean the studios expect scripts to be written a certain way to even be considered.

If you mean that studios expect a screenplay to be written and submitted in a standard format, than, yeah.

The format is structured in a way that one page usually equates to one minute of screen time. In a "shooting script", each scene is numbered, and technical direction may be given. In a "spec" or a "draft" in various stages of development, the scenes are not numbered, and technical direction is at a minimum. The standard font for a screenplay is 12 point, 10 pitch Courier.

The standard format instantly eposes the length of your film or video --- and most of its production costs, casting and technical problems.

Re:Also

[smellotron]

Honestly... all the 3D movies are also shown in 2D - and for less money.

In my neck of the woods, 3D movies have replaced digital projection of 2D movies (probably because the projector is the same, but the ticket prices are higher). That leaves me choosing either 3D digital or 2D film.

People on slashdot are generally pro-choice unless it's something they can sit on their high horse and whine about all us bourgeois

We're upset because the industry's push for 3D is very clearly eliminating the choice of 2D digital projection. I absolutely loved watching the new Star Trek in digital projection: the space-expanse scenes were so much more serene without the jitter of a film projector. Now I have to suffer shitty, scratched polarized glasses and jarringly unreal stereoscopy if I want to enjoy digital projection.

Re:Also

[msobkow]

Funny. I rather enjoyed the movie when I viewed it on my 19" CRT. I saw nothing in the movie that made me believe it would have been a better story or presentation if the 3D effect were available from my monitor.

In fact, I'm quite certain the story and the film didn't change at all when making the transition from the much-vaunted 3D presentation to my 2D monitor.

I don't go to theatres because there are inevitably one or more of the following present to ruin the experience:

• Someone emitting a cloud of migraine-inducing perfume
• Some kid who won't stop bleeping, blooping, and flashing their texts while everyone else is trying to watch the move
• Some half-drunk buffoon guffawing at the top of their lungs every time the laugh track kicks in
• A group of young people commenting their opinion about every line in the movie

Why would I pay a PREMIUM to see a movie at a theatre, knowing full well it's pretty much guaranteed someone is going to ruin the movie experience with their self-indulgently rude and obnoxious behaviour?

Re:Also

[kbg]

The problem with movies today is that they use too much CGI and the problem is that current CGI just sucks for realism. Movement for most CGI characters is just bad, it was much better in the old days when you actually got a guy in a costume or a puppet to play some monster, because then you get realistic movements and light/shadows.

A great example are the CGI badger and monkeys in Indiana Jones 4. They are so badly done that they it is ridiculous, imagine if they where done with a real animal or a puppet it would look totally much better. (Of course these scenes should not be in the script in the first place, but that is another story).

And most music today also sucks, for a similar reason, they use dynamic range compression on almost every new CD today, this totally destroys the music experience, in the old days music was not compressed and had more feeling.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Also

[howlingfrog]

I'm a projectionist at a 24-screen theater that's about half 35mm, half digital. What I'm about to say, I know first-hand to be factual:

The industry's push for 3D is the ONLY reason you have the choice of 2D digital projection at all. Digital projectors are orders of magnitude more expensive, less reliable, and more labor-intensive to operate and maintain than 35mm projectors--even in areas where a single theater chain's monopoly means they don't have to be replaced with newer models every few years. But the studios love them because it is cheaper to ship 5-pound USB hard drives than 50-pound 35mm prints to theaters.

So, the MPAA announced about seven or eight years ago that they were going to start making a lot of 3D films, meaning theaters had to install digital projectors capable of playing them. For the first few years, until approximately 2007, most theaters only had one or two digital projectors, so 3D films were only released at a rate of one every four to six months. The rest of the time, those few digital projectors showed 2D movies. Once it was clear that audiences would actually pay for 3D, the MPAA started ramping up production and speeding up the release cycle to force theaters to convert more and more auditoriums to digital. Today, there are always at least two or three different 3D movies in wide release at a time. So if the theaters near you don't have very many digital screens, most of them will be taken up by 3D films most of the time. I'm sure this is the source of your misconception--a higher percentage of digital showtimes were 2D in the early days of digital, so it's perfectly reasonable to guess that 2D digital is being displaced by the 3D fad. But the phenomenon is really nothing more than an accidental side-effect of theaters trying to stay a step ahead of audience and studio demand for 3D.

In ten years or so, digital will be dominant enough that studios will be able to stop 35mm distribution entirely. No longer needing 3D to be a Trojan horse for cheap digital distribution, the fad will simply die down with no fanfare or public explanation, and you'll have your ubiquitous digital 2D. But make no mistake--if not for the 3D push, digital projectors would be a novelty item, only in huge, popular multiplexes in NYC and LA, and even there only on one or two screens.

Re:Also

[kungfugleek]

Which would be awesome!!!

Re:Also

[ibwolf]

Almost all multiplexes will show both 2D and 3D versions and YOU get to choose which one you want to pay for.

If only that were true everywhere. Where I live, if the movie is available (from the studio) in 3D it is ONLY shown in 3D. This is barely tolerable for movies shot in 3D, for movies post converted into 3D this is painful and I refuse to waste money going to see them.

Re:Also

[X3J11]

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.

Re:Also

[Waccoon]

Experience tends to do that.

Suck is like pornography. Hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Re:Also

[CapnStank]

He wasn't saying there was anything wrong. He was describing the theatre and explaining despite its shortcomings of no 3D, no stadium seating it still sells out shows.

Re:Also

[jgrissinger]

I think the real problem is we forget the bad movies from when we were young. It is easy to remember the great movies but there were a lot of very bad movies made in the seventies. In fact I would say that the worst era for movies was the 60's and 70's. I am 50 now and as a whole I think movies are much better now

Re:Also

[dnahelicase]

Sometimes I feel like we are in the same situation as the movie "The invention of lying" where all the movies are just histories because they can't create plot lines that didn't actually happen. It seems like sometimes we can't seem to create new characters or stories

But seriously, Ebert isn't talking about people not liking movies, it's about not going to the theater. It seems obvious to me that a lot of people don't go to the theater anymore because they have a better more comfortable setup at home. These people are lost to the theater and aren't coming back.

People that can't wait for a blockbuster are still going to go, but like Ebert is saying, that can only go on for so long. The main people I think that are interested in movies are people that are going on dates and/or are young.

You are more likely to ask someone to a very-neutral ground theater if it's a date than "do you want to come see my home theater?" You are also going to go to the theater if you don't want to be at your parent's house.

It seems like they need to make their experience better than a home experience, or aggressively target this audience.

Re:Also

[Digital Vomit]

I don't go to many movies, but when I do, I look for good movies that are in 3D.

Thanks Dos Equis guy!

Re:Also

[rockout]

Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.

It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.

Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.

Re:Also

[X3J11]

Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.

Possibly you are correct. My kids are rather unusual, very independent. I believe it comes from being raised by a single parent, and grandparents. However, there are lots of things they disagree with me on. No matter how hard I try, I cannot convince them to sit through Wrath of Khan in its entirety. And believe you me, I've tried.

It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.

Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.

You know, the more I consider it, and consider all the post '00 films I've watched, the more I'm agreeing with you. It's easy to forget the old crappy movies when there's so many new crappy movies to bitch about, especially when todays crappy movies are generally just a rehash of stuff I saw years ago.

I still stand by my point that there is less character development in current films, though. There are numerous films from years gone by that, no matter how terrible I perceived them to be, still managed some semblance of character development. Today's films seem devoid of it, save a few rare films. Then again, my awareness may be limited. I'm a typical nerd with very few interests in genres outside the typical nerd domain, so this apparent lack may just be a condition of the films I tend to enjoy.

I would also like to express my pleasure at how you treated my post as a respectful discussion, rather than just calling me names and whatnot. It's a rarity these days and I appreciate such adult discussion. That and being told I'm probably a good parent is nice. I get so little praise these days, I'll take it anywhere - even from strangers on the 'net. :)

Re:Also

[virg_mattes]

It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was.

I've seen a number of good arguments that the backlash was a genre flip rather than "get off my lawn" type stuff. Many of the people who really liked Alien were fans of horror films, and Alien was a good horror film. The problem is that Aliens was not a horror film, it was an action film, so it didn't appeal to the exact same audience. I've found even today that the only people who really, really like both movies tend to be fans of sci-fi films in general.

Virg

Re:Also

[abhi_beckert]

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.

And how many movies from "the good old days" were just as unmemorable?

Perhaps you can only remember the absolute best of the old movies, and the only ones you'd bother to show your kids are those ones.

Or maybe you just didn't watch any of the shit movies? When I was a kid, I only watched a handful of movies each year. Now I watch a few movies a week, and only a handful each year are actually any good.

Colour me sceptical, but I honestly think tv shows and movies are better today than they were in the past. Sure, most of it stinks, but every now and then I still walk out of the cinema thinking "damn that was a good movie!"

Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[arcite]

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!

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[Kenja]

How can they not be good? They're the same movies they made ten years ago but now with better digital effects!

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[Stormwatch]

Precisely! Now they use digital fx that looks more fake than the practical fx from back then. And nowadays there's the damn color correction that makes everything yellowish, like we're looking at the world through a jar full of piss.

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[jd]

Part of the problem is that cinema butter is also mostly digital effects.

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[Ouchie]

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!

The theaters need to realize that they are competing with home theaters, where the price point is around $2 - $3. I have more choices at home, it is more comfortable, and I don't have to deal with a crowd.

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[Urza9814]

Way to make everyone feel old by insinuating that 2001 is no longer recent enough to be considered "nowadays". :)

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[ravenshrike]

Because it's in swedish and makes me think of dead moose. Seriously though, that set of movies is completely different after playing Magicka.

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[Wolfling1]

+1

I have a data projector that dishes up HDTV on a 10ft screen. I run it from my PS3 for fastest BluRay load speeds.

Apart from the comfort, no crowds, no mobile phones, I can pause... I can drink a beer while I'm watching. I can fall asleep if it's late at night. My partner and I can canoodle without offending anyone else.

The theatres want to charge me AU$15+ per person for a worse experience, on a lower quality screen, with poorer sound gear.

Admittedly, I don't get to watch the latest releases as I don't stream or download - but who cares if I'm 3 months behind the theatres? They are pushing too hard to make squillions of dollars in week 1 anyway. I enjoyed movies like Potter and Avatar wayyy better a few months after the rest of the crowd, and as many here have said in this thread, its not like the plot will be a big surprise.

/rant

Re:Maybe the movies just aren't very good

[captjc]

Don't forget all the remakes. Doing research for my 2012 predictions, I found remakes of Red Dawn, Judge Dredd ("Dredd"), Total Recall, and another Spider-Man reboot ("The Amazing Spider-Man") confirmed for 2012. On top of that, a shitty Three Stooges movie and a movie based on the game Battleship.

Maybe that is why movie attendance is down, shitty movies.

forget popcorn

[Trepidity]

How about some couches and beer? It doesn't even have to be that classy; movie theaters have gotten bad enough that the classiness level of a brewpub would be a big improvement.

Re:forget popcorn

[MetricT]

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.

Re:forget popcorn

[Daniel_Staal]

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.

Re:forget popcorn

[Trepidity]

That's more or less what I think the 3d-movies fad was trying to do: produce an in-theater experience that was hard to replicate in home theaters using current technology. A bit misguided though, imo.

Re:forget popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have one slice of beer and maybe a pint of pepperoni.

Kids

[ckaminski]

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.

Re:Kids

[jbeaupre]

I've wondered if theaters shouldn't go back to the old serials formula. With digital projectors, it can finally work again. It'd be a lot like TV, but more social.

Every afternoon would have a new episode, from a different series for each day of the week. Make it cheap. Parents could drop their kids off. Kids could socialize. Laser pointer jerk could get it out of his system. An entire system designed to attract the folks you hate. And away from you.

Evenings and weekends would revert to regular movie showings.

Re:Kids

[pseudofrog]

Huh?

Is a quiet atmosphere and no laser pointers really too much to ask?

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I *don't* like kids. I don't have any. I don't hang out with any. I don't even hang out with people who have kids when their kids are around. You think my girl and I are going to spend $25+ to hang out with your kids?

What really grinds my gears is "parents" who not only use movies to keep their kids entertained for an afternoon, but don't even bother to stick around with them. As if overpriced tickets, questionable movies, and terrible food wasn't enough to rip movie theaters out of my life the nail in the coffin was the throngs of teenagers who get dumped into movie theaters while their parents enjoy the adjacent strip mall. Kids being obnoxious, rude, loud, and ceaselessly texting for two hours is unbearable. I can't imagine my parents spending $25 on me ($10? when I was a kid) and me not making every effort to appreciate it. Not the case anymore. I'm just not willing to risk a penny more on me walking out of a movie furious that it was a waste of time and money.

Turns out the entertainment industry in general at some point believed they were indispensable, and dug their own grave. Once music became more trouble than it was worth, I stopped buying and then stopped listening. Movies are going down the same road. There are lots of other things I can do with my time - I don't need to gamble an hour or two's pay on audio or visual masturbation. I will enjoy that bike ride, playing with the dog, walking downtown, or working on my car. I do that instead, now, and I'm not positive any re-engineering of the music or movie experience will change that. This horse may be dead..

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I'm pretty sure being an old cranky man disqualifies you from calling your partner "girl". Unless that's what you're into, of course.

Re:Kids

[masmullin]

I would love to see something like "Game of Thrones" in a movie theatre setting. But I wouldn't want the kids there.

Re:Kids

[Ouchie]

I get a bad chill up my spine when I see parent dropping off their teenage daughters at the thearter near my house. It is only 1000 m from a Sex Offender probation office on the other side of the strip mall. Great location!

Re:Kids

[Dan East]

Our local cinema (and it's a newer less than 10 years old, 8 screens, all digital, new release flicks) shows movies around 11 AM on Tuesday and Thursday during the summer time TOTALLY FREE. They are all kids movies that were released within the last year or two. The place is packed out, and they often have to add showings on other screens to handle the overflow. Daycares bring all their kids, and I see school buses from districts 45 minutes away. Of course parents bring kids (and their friends, etc) too. The kids are usually well behaved, especially considering how many kids are in one theater. So the only money the theater makes is off of concessions. They've been doing this for several years in a row now, so it must pay off.

Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[JavaJones]

The Alamo Drafthouse theaters, mostly in Texas but slowly spreading out (1 in Colorado and one in Virginia now) are superb models of successful customer-friendly theater experiences. Good equipment and seating, first-run movies, a clear and well-enforced no talking/texting policy, and oh yeah, good (yes, actually pretty good) food and *beer*. Not to mention great local events, a variety of special showings and unusual feature runs, and no crappy ads for cars and stuff before the show (instead a series of usually topical shorts or Youtube vids, usually hilarious). They are awesome and I hope they continue to spread.

- Oshyan

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[TooMuchToDo]

Not to piss in the Cheerios, but:

60" LED Samsung TV from Amazon: $2K
Nice couch(es): $1K-3K
Media Player: $100-300
My food, my beer, comfort of my home: Priceless

Why go to the movies when the home experience is now superior?

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Pulzar]

Absolutely. The best movie experience, ever! Everything was exactly the way it should be for a totally fun movie watching experience.. and, add all the special theme nights, and it's the only way to see a movie, once you've been there.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Jeffrey Baker]

It's not just the beer, it's the reserved seating. That's my favorite feature of the Sundance Kabuki in San Francisco (which also has beer, wine, a full bar, snacks, etc). I think there's one in Houston now, too.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[RichPowers]

The Alamo Drafthouse had Patton Oswalt perform a "dramatic" reading of a message left at the theater by someone who was angry about having been thrown out for texting during a movie. It's pretty hilarious, and I first learned of the Drafthouse through their campaign of playing the original message as a sort of anti-texting PSA before screenings.

Oswalt's rendition: http://youtu.be/xnrlVjM715Y

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[bazorg]

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.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[pseudofrog]

Some people like "going out". Especially if it's to a place with an enjoyable atmosphere.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[NeoMorphy]

You also need a nice stereo receiver and speakers and a serious sub-woofer(not one of those tiny ones), otherwise it will be blah. Add at least another 2-3K.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[TooMuchToDo]

Not sure what girls *you* date, but I've never had a girl turn down "Hey, I have a huge collection of indie, comedy, and Kevin Smith flicks. Want to come hang out?"

I'm only 29 though, so perhaps different generational feelings towards that sort of situation.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[garcia]

Not to piss in YOUR Cheerios but I'm just as fine watching a decent story without any special effects which are enhanced with technology seen in theaters (home or otherwise).

I am quite happy to watch my $1 Redbox DVDs (not even Blu-Ray!) on my 10 year old 27" CRT non-HDTV with built in DVD player.

The story is what matters to me, not a bunch of flashy CGI or other bullshit which is better seen with fancy tech. For decades we had movies which didn't require anything special because the dialogue and story was good enough to keep you entertained. Unfortunately, and I may just be ignorant, but it seems that the signal to noise ration has increased here.

Now, I realize the general public likes special effects and expects them in movies. However, to go back to the original point of variety being required, can we include these "old style" movies again? I guarantee I won't be going to the theater because I can't afford a $50 evening to view a movie nor a $5500 home theater setup (my TV was $150 and my couch is a hand-me-down from a friend) but I'd certainly rent more $1 movies from Redbox and watch more movies on Instant if the recent selections were worthy of watching.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Nimey]

It depends on the girl. Some of them are cautious enough (with reason) that you can't bring them to your place for the first date or two.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Manos_Of_Fate]

The Arclight Theater in Hollywood (also there are 3 others in/around LA) is also very good, for similar reasons. And they do reserved seating, which is awesome.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Nethemas the Great]

I bought a nice 55" LED backlit TV, fancy Bluray player, a comfy couch for ~$3500 and give Netflix $25/month for discs and streaming delivered right to me. My wife and I can watch what ever we want to watch nearly whenever we want to watch it. We can pause a movie to answer a call (of nature or phone), replay something missed, drink beer, wine, water, etc., enjoy eating popcorn, chips, supper, or even each other if the mood strikes.

In return we give up sore necks from looking straight up at a screen too close and too big to even see properly, noisy, rude and generally obnoxious neighbors, spending $5 for a drink to share, $10 for popcorn, $20 for two tickets, ticket lines, food lines, immediate access to the latest released movies, slightly (debatable) better sound. Even from a money angle it only took about a year and a half to recover what would have been spent at the theater. But what's more, we get to see far more movies, and have a far more enjoyable experience each time. The money being saved allow us to go out on dates and do things that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Even if theaters made things far more reasonably priced we'd still need something else to convince us to partake. We can't stand the greed nor the atmosphere that theaters have evolved into. There are far better things to spend our time and money on. The sh*tty tactics of movie houses delaying releases for Netflix and co. only sour our perspective further. I'm not going to open my wallet just because they want me to.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[alcourt]

And speakers so loud that I can't even sit there through the previews without a massive headache? Sometimes the staff will turn it down, half the time they say they will and actually don't. Theaters seem to prefer volumes set for people who need hearing aids and don't want to use them.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Nethemas the Great]

And depending upon where you are seated this means that you can see exactly the same thing as you would 8-10ft from a 55 - 60" LCD plus a little picture noise from projecting onto a wall. Or, you see less since you are too far away for a proper placement in your FOV. Or you see a partial view because the FOV of your eyeballs doesn't go that wide and you have a sore, stiff neck in the morning from craning it up to look at the screen 20-30 feet in front of you.

60 feet or 60 inches, it really doesn't make much difference if you are sitting the proper distance away such that your field of view is comfortably filled with the movie on display.

Re:Alamo Drafthouses are the model of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I take them out on the boat. Because of the implication.

Arrogance of the execs.

[MickyTheIdiot]

I agree with every part of this, but the problem is the same as in every area of commerce today: the execs make the decisions and the execs are some of the most arrogant and boneheaded people out there. There is no meritocracy there and the Peter principle is the guiding force.

They will continue to act on their beliefs and not listen to the real people that matter, the people paying the money, until it is too late.

Re:Arrogance of the execs.

[Black Parrot]

I agree with every part of this, but the problem is the same as in every area of commerce today: the execs make the decisions and the execs are some of the most arrogant and boneheaded people out there. There is no meritocracy there and the Peter principle is the guiding force.

They will continue to act on their beliefs and not listen to the real people that matter, the people paying the money, until it is too late.

I suspect instead that it's marketing, accounting, and legal that make all the decisions that define a movie.

Back in my day...

[twotacocombo]

You saw a movie in the theater, or you didn't see it at all. Further on, you saw it in the theater, or you waited a few years for it to come out on VHS for rental. These days, you see it in the theater, or wait for it to hit Netflix in a matter of months. I'd rather wait a few months and view it in the comfort of my own home, than to go sit with a bunch of ill-mannered heathens, watch 20 minutes of previews, and then shield my eyes from the glow of a hundred cell phones...

Re:Back in my day...

[Black Parrot]

You saw a movie in the theater, or you didn't see it at all. Further on, you saw it in the theater, or you waited a few years for it to come out on VHS for rental. These days, you see it in the theater, or wait for it to hit Netflix in a matter of months. I'd rather wait a few months and view it in the comfort of my own home, than to go sit with a bunch of ill-mannered heathens, watch 20 minutes of previews, and then shield my eyes from the glow of a hundred cell phones...

I was very surprised that theaters stayed in business after home video became commonplace. I think their business actually grew; I suppose people like to go out.

As for the ill-mannered heathens, I wait until a movie has been out for 2+ weeks, then go on an off night. I occasionally get surprised (~100 people at Sherlock last night), but usually there are only 5-10 people present, no cut-ups or screaming babies.

Re:Back in my day...

[twotacocombo]

There was still quite a delay between theater release and rental availability. Also, the family TV couldn't match the theater A/V experience. Now that large LCD TVs and quality sound systems can be had relatively cheap, and the wait to watch movies at home no longer extended into years, I think we've passed that crossover point where theater technology no longer trumps home viewing quality.

Re:Back in my day...

[R3d M3rcury]

"...we had to wait for the novelization! And then walk 10 miles barefoot to the bookstore! In the snow! Up hill! BOTH WAYS!"

Probably too late

[MikeRT]

Unless they halve the prices, why bother? Blu-Ray on a 46" modern TV is most of the experience for cheaper per movie and you can't put a price on the freedom it provides in terms of food, not putting up with jerks and being able to not miss anything if you have to go to the bathroom. Best Buy and Walmart charge prices for new releases that are less than the cost of two tickets to see them in the theaters around here (metro DC).

Re:Probably too late

[artor3]

The thing is, they can halve the prices! The Regal cinemas near me charge $13 a head, plus outrageous amounts for any refreshments. The nearby indie theatre just charges $7, and has refreshments that cost no more than they would at a corner store. And then there's the local drive-in (yes, I'm lucky enough to live in a place where there is one), which charges $7 for adults and $3 for kids under twelve and that's for a double feature! At those prices, it's a great way to spend an evening, and given the economies of scale, the major theatres should be able to charge even less.

But why would they? As long as people come and pack the house to see the latest Alvin & the Chipmunks abortion, they have no reason to reduce their profit margins.

Re:Probably too late

[garyebickford]

And (IIRC) Steven Spielberg complained a couple of years ago that the sound and video systems in most theaters are not as good as a reasonably good home theater system.

Re:Probably too late

[sconeu]

In addition, Drive-ins are the best thing ever, if you're a parent with small kids.

Put them in their jammies, hit KFC or McD's on the way, and you're set.

Re:Probably too late

[MitchDev]

And don't forget anotrher major problem that home theaters kick Movie Theaters' asses on: Close Captioning The sound balance in movies and/or theaters is so bad that while you can hear every little shard of glass tinkle on the ground as it falls, the goddamn dialog is drowned out by sound f/x and background music...

Cooking books

[Wowsers]

Maybe if forensic accountants went through Hollywood's REAL accounting books (not the fake accounts they present the public), then they would find all this missing revenue, like how gazzillion $$$ earning films somehow don't break even - yeah right!?!

Re:Cooking books

[luke923]

When you factor in all the tax breaks, promotional deals, and what other money they earn on a film before it goes into production, the studio loses very little, breaks even, or even makes a profit before it even gets to theaters. They're set up to not lose money on anything.

Re:Cooking books

[pseudofrog]

Wikipedia has a pretty good primer on "Hollywood accounting."

Re:Cooking books

[garyebickford]

Actually on paper most films never make a profit. The costs are structured so that various parental entities (production houses, etc.) charge huge fees so the actual film loses money but everybody who matters walks away with lots of cash. That's why smart and lucky actors always try to get a percentage of the gross, not the net. Many blockbuster films and TV shows have never made a profit, even after 30 years of syndication.

Lose the Popcorn

[LBArrettAnderson]

The *only* reason that I hate movie theatres is that there are always dozens of people around me who do not know how to eat quietly. Close your mouth before you start chewing (that includes the first chomp). Learn how to grab popcorn without ruffling your hand around for 2 minutes (better yet, lose the popcorn all together! Let's find a quieter food to associate with movies!)

Wait, what?

[Dunbal]

Who says movie revenue is dropping?

Weird, just red a news item that is booming..

[deniea]

On: http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/binnenland/2011/12/bioscopen_draaiden_goed_jaar.html (dutch!!)

The main message translates to something like this:
"in 2011 the ten most visited movies have net resulted in EUR 73 milion. This is higher than the previous year when the top ten only grossed EUR 64,47 milion"

So what is the problem? About 10% increase doesn't look too bad to me?

Revenue dropping? I think not.

[Fuzzums]

I just read, you know, like five minutes ago and such, that this was the best year for movie theaters in the Netherlands EVER, so the bs about downloading is killing the movie industry is just that: a big s-load of bs.

He's right

[markdavis]

He is exactly right. I stopped going to the movies because

1) Prices are too high.
2) Sound quality is poor: often too loud, not spaced correctly, distorted, poor surround effect, etc.
3) People are just so annoying with their damn phones. If it isn't ringing or chirping, it is just very distracting with the super-bright screens every few minutes. Can't you turn the damn thing off and watch the damn movie???
4) Kids screaming/crying/being annoying, seemingly no matter what time you choose to go.
5) Poor selection of quality films.

I can eliminate 1-4 by simply watching at home, with my huge HDTV and properly tuned surround sound system. Number 5 is another whole topic.

Re:He's right

[Arrogant-Bastard]

Add to that list:

6) Films don't start at announced time. What starts at the announced time are commercials, pro-MPAA propaganda, previews, and charitable solicitations.

7) Refreshments are marked up about 1000%, served by surly, inefficient, inattentive teenagers who hate their jobs. Also: no beer.

8) Staff refuse to eject patrons. (Went to see "The Ides of March". Woman in row in front of mine was on cell phone four times during movie. Got out of my seat, fetched manager during the fifth time. She was off it when he finally got there, so he refused to take action. Great. Nothing like having an intense political drama disrupted AND missing part of it.)

9) Poor projection. Use the right lens, for crying out loud.

10) Previews that give away the entire movie. (Or, perhaps, moves that suck so tremendously that the preview CAN give away the entire movie, and may in some cases be a superior entertainment experience.)

11) Movie industry that wants to destroy the Internet. See: SOPA, PIPA, whatever's next.

One of my local theaters

[keith_nt4]

started bringing a little cart full of snacks and drinks into the theater so everybody could just buy stuff right there instead of going back and forth to the lobby. And it was amazingly popular. Why don't all theaters do stuff like that??

No original thought...

[PortHaven]

And that goes for many of the /. comments on this topic.

Things to consider....

1. Many people want to see films, but the cost of two tickets, soft drink and a baby sitter starts to approach $100.

Why not consider day cares in these giant megaplexes. Just saying it'd be an interesting approach.

2. For the price of a pair of tickets you could own the Blu-Ray.

Wait...how much does it cost to make a DVD? Not much...

I'd love to see a movie company experiment with a theater to provide the movie on DVD with purchase of tickets. Or simpler, mail your receipt and ticket stubs and get $10 off your DVD.

Be creative. Realize Americans have less leisure time. Less money. And less happiness.

Work with us.

Re:No original thought...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Why not consider day cares in these giant megaplexes.

Whatever happened to crying rooms? When I was a kid, small local theaters inevitably had a room in the back, level with and immediately behind the last row, with a large picture window looking out into the theater. The sound was piped into that room. If your kid started crying, you went to the crying room and closed the door. You got to see the movie at the theater, from your regular seat if your kid didn't act up or from a special seat if your kid did. Either way, you got your night out and didn't have to hire a sitter.

Of course, back then only crying babies were a problem. Toddlers-through-teens sat in their seats and were controlled by their parents (if present) or by the fact that if they acted up their parents would hear about it later from other adults in the theater or from the management. Occasionally, in the very worst of cases and only very rarely, the theater owner would pull a kid out of the theater and sit with him out front until his parents came to pick him up. Said parents then got a full report and the kid was banned from the theater for some space of time.

Of course, also, back then we believed not only in personal responsibility but in being responsible for your kids, too.

Now get off my lawn.

Two Words

[eriks]

Crappy Audio.

I've been to the movie theater maybe 7 times in the last 10 years. That's how many movies there have been of the requisite quality and type to make me want to actually go to the theater. I've watched nearly 1000 films in the same time period on my home theater system. I don't mind (and can enjoy) loud entertainment, but the louder you make your audio the more important it is that it NOT BE CRAPPY!

Every movie theater (except one) I've been in the last 10 years has had the audio too loud for the installed system to handle. It's crackly, tinny and rattly. Probably would have sounded BETTER turned down lower, with a compressor to pull up the low parts. If you want high dynamic range, you need good gear.

I did go to an iMax once. That was awesome, though I didn't see a title filmed with iMax. Havta do that someday. It was good though. Nice loud sound and huge screen.

So yeah, bad sound, and screens that are TOO SMALL. If I want to watch a movie on a small screen, I'll stay home. I want a HUGE screen. At least 10 meters. Most of the theaters around here have 3-4 meter screens or worse. And the selection is terrible. There are thousands of great films out there, it's just that most of them aren't shown in mainstream theaters.

How hard is it to set audio levels properly, or invest in clean amplification? That stuff shouldn't be that expensive nowadays.

Re:Two Words

[justthinkit]

There is another audio factor. At home you can jump on the remote whenever the movie audio is way too frickin loud but in the theater you can not. The modern trend is for dialogue to be almost silent, manic scenes to be quite loud, and explosions etc. to be intolerable. For that reason alone I will not go to movie theaters.

Re:Movie Quality

[eldepeche]

Movies have always been mostly dumb, mindless crap. Pick a movie from 30 years ago at random, and I'll bet you $100 it's terrible to mediocre.

It's not about the beer

[lsolano]

People would think that is better to watch a movie at home because you can drink a beer or two. Or three, it does not matter.

What is really a 'plus' regarding watching movies at home is that you can actually PAUSE the move to take a pee!

New ideas, not rehashing old stuff

[Hamsterdan]

I can watch movies at home on a big screen with good sound for under 3k$, my setup is *way* below that...

-Windows Media Center 2k5 HTPC with 600w 5.1 system, plays about everything I can throw at it.
-95" screen (1080p projector)
-Nice '70s comfy couch
-Popcorn maker in the kitchen, fridge in the living room.

Why should I go to the theater unless I want to buy a 15$ candy bar?

Re:New ideas, not rehashing old stuff

[masmullin]

Because you can't watch the brand new movie at home (unless you download a "screener" which is terrible quality).

Seriously. Are you going to watch the next batman 7 months after release, or are you going to the nearest Imax?

Movies...

[JWSmythe]

I think he pretty much hit it...

I've picked an arbitrary theater in my area, which is the easiest to get to. It has 10 screens.

If we go to the theater, we usually end up with crappy parking. So a 1/4 mile hike, unless we get lucky.

Say it's $10 per ticket, plus $10 per person for popcorn and soda (depending on your local market), the per-person price can be $20. That makes $40 for a couple, or close to $80 if you're bringing two kids.. Lets not forget, cost on the popcorn and soda are under $1 per person.

I don't even care about crying babies, noisy teenagers, people who forgot to shower sitting beside us, sticky floors, or people sending text messages.

Back when there were an abundance of video rental places, you could cut that $80 down to something more like $5. Now you can rent at Redbox for something like $1.25.

$80 vs $1.25.. That's a difficult one. So I don't get to see the movie today, I'll be able to see it in a few months. I don't have to be the first to see it. If I want popcorn, pizza, or anything to eat while I'm watching at home, I can. If I find the need to go to the bathroom, I can pause it. If someone calls that I want to talk to, the same.

In my last house, I had a home theater setup. $1,500 projector, about $4,000 in sound gear. That's roughly 70 movies at home before it breaks even. It also gave me the luxury of watching TV, or playing video games on it.. It's hooked to a cheap PC with DVI output, so we can even watch via Netflix, Hulu, or whatever.

In my own theater, we always have premium seating. The surround sound is set up for optimal sound on the couch. The couch is at the right distance, so we have the proper field of view. We won't end up with sore necks, like you'd have in the front rows. We aren't offset one way or another, so we only really hear half of the sound, or a sideways view a the movie.

All that is not necessary for a good viewing experience, but it's nice. :) I'd rather spend the $1.25 over $80 to watch on your average TV.

I can't find a good reason to go to a theater to watch a movie. The only exception is, to get a movie on release day. We can save the discussion of pirated screeners for another time. We don't watch those. Your piracy habits are your own concern.

UX values ! Wow factors

[ElitistWhiner]

Cattle-call ticket window sales chutes
Bullet-proof talkback Teller-window system
TSA-style ticket-takers who just watched you buy the fucking ticket at the window
CandyCounter Nazis who charge $14 dollar popcorn + drink !specials
Dipsters corralled at Theater doors
Dark dank and who knows what it looks like in daylight inside the theater
Fixed backrests
House lights that actually illuminate the aisles to exit

Theaters are painful

[SoftwareArtist]

I feel like theaters are doing everything they can to make going to a movie an unpleasant experience. It used to be I could take a book to the theater and read until they turned down the lights. Or if I went with friends, we could chat while waiting for the movie to start. Sure, there were ads showing on the screen while you waited, but they were easy to ignore.

Then they switched to showing video ads for TV shows, toys, food, upcoming movies, etc., all narrated by an aggressively cheerful person with the volume turned way up. That makes it impossible to carry on a conversation, or to pay attention to a book or much of anything other than the ads. Which I assume is what they want, but it sure makes the whole experience a lot less pleasant and a lot more obnoxious. You'd almost think they didn't want my business.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

[KingAlanI]

that sounds like a translation of Ecclesiastes 1:9 - I suppose it's fitting that the source for that phrase is a book written over 2000 years ago.

Re:Ecclesiastes 1:9

[DeathFromSomewhere]

5 minutes of research. I thought this was common knowledge?

How can you compete with a home experience?

[dafing]

Either of these options beats the hell out of a movie theatre:

1) I visit my friends house, with his 46 inch tv, large living room and we watch a rented Blu Ray on his Playstation 3 with a small group of good friends, followed by gaming.

2) I watch a movie with friends on my 27 inch iMac, often a torrent as movies are delayed/no longer available in my cities only theatre. I own over 100 DVD's, I buy all my music, but will often torrent older movies, new releases as I simply *cannot* buy them. The same goes with TV episodes, if I want to see The Big Bang Theory etc, its a cinch to download by the season, compared with, what, spending 80 USD on some damn box set collection of DVD's, which I'm just going to rip in Handbrake to my harddrive?

Theres a few times now where I've gone to a movie theater, each time telling myself it would be the last time ever, and keeping the ticket. I saw Iron Man 2, Avatar and as a fan, Michael Jacksons "This Is It". I plan on seeing The Hobbit ASAP, as I love supporting local New Zealand movies (ha!), and my local cinema finally has 3D.

But overall? Why in the hell would I pay ~20 bucks to sit in an uncomfortable chair (and these are "new"), with 10 other people in a theatre designed for a couple hundred, as they laugh and snort and cough and bang their seats up and down, as we have to sit through minutes of ads at the start, including made for tv ads which look awful on the large screen, and then the movie itself is dim and blurry!

I'll take the perfect Blu Ray quality (not often, bugger physical media) or more commonly a good experience with a ripped movie/torrented movie on my 27 inch iMac, for essentially free.

Movies aren't what they used to be...

[stevenfuzz]

The movie-going model has become broken. Even 10 - 20 years ago going to the movies was amazing. You get to watch something on a huge screen, with amazing sound, without waiting a year for it to come out. If you wanted to do a movie night, but didn't want to go to the movies, you were left with few options in a sub-par 25in tube environment. Basically, you would either rent a movie at a video rental store (remember those?) or get lucky and find something on television. Now, things have completely changed. When me and my wife do movie nights, we can watch it from Netflix Instant, Netflix Mail, Amazon, Vudu, DVR, On Demand (usually not long after the theater release date)--no need to go anywhere. Instead of a little tube tv with crappy speakers, we watch them on a crystal clear large screen hd through a high powered surround sound system. Pause, grab a beer, answer the phone, check my email, get the popcorn out of the microwave, play. Why would anyone ever want to go the movies, especially when they can wait a month for a much easier and more comfortable experience? Piracy isn't the problem, it's that the movie experience has become less rewarding compared with the other options.

How to Expand the Usefulness of Theaters

[RyoShin]

(But not necessarily "fix" them; fixing implies the original model was a good one.)

1) Stick small-group theaters on the end. Slightly smaller screen, only seats 30-40. Attach a lounge room (with a view of the screen) and rent the whole shebang out, medium size companies will eat it up for single-day retreats/training. Great for birthdays on the weekend, or club/group events. Hell, why not fundraising efforts to go with it? Rent to them, they can sell the tickets. When not being rented, show fifth-run/classics for cheap ($2/$3). And when a movie is run like that, run it for a whole week or two, none of this "we'll run it one night and maybe do it again in five months" BS. Put up nice schedules for what will be shown (reservations have to be at least two weeks in advance so there's no rapid changing of the schedule).

2) Attach a small video rental store to the theater. Those xth-run/classics? When playing them, put a display out front so if someone really likes the movie they can stroll in, buy a copy, stroll out. Offer free movie viewings for frequent rentals (or free rentals for frequent viewings). Maybe make a thing that if they keep their ticket for seeing a first-run in the theater and bring it back when the movie releases to DVD, they get a buck off the movie or something. (Yeah, not many will save the ticket, but it's just one more perk to throw out there.)

3) Thursday to Sunday, after 8 or 9, put a strict age limit on who can get into higher-rated movies. PG13 can only have 13 YOs and up; Rs 17 and up. Make it 21+ after 11 to get rid of the high school crowd. Seriously tighten down on crying infants, talking, and phone use. Hire a bouncer in more popular theaters to kick out unruly groups (and make sure there are signs that say no refunds if you are).

4) Actually have the movie start when it says it will start. I'm so sick of going to theaters, sitting down at the stated time, only to sit through 10 minutes of commercials + 15 minutes of previews. I have no problem with commercials on the big screen, just play them before said time. Intermingle these with previews so people actually want to show up a bit early, causing more eyeballs on the commercials.

5) Reusable 3D glasses. The glasses I got were fine at the end of the movie last time, they'll work for this one, too. Why should I have to pay $2 when I can bring my own? Sell moderate-quality pairs for $15/pop and save the extra fee on the movie. Helps with the whole recycling thing, too.

There's more I'm forgetting, but these are things I've thought of for a while now.

Coming soon to a theatre near you ...

[zbaron]

The #1 movie in America was called "Ass." And that's all it was for 90 minutes. It won eight Oscars that year, including best screenplay.

DOES movie revenue drop?

[joh]

Funny enough I'm the IT guy for a small chain of arthouse theatres and there is no dropping of revenue going on there. Rather the other way round, this year was again better than the last.

And yes, tickets are rather cheap, concession (drinks, popcorn, etc.) too, there are about 30 different movies on monthly and hardly any of these are Hollywood movies. Still, people love that. They could buy the DVD instead, but they prefer to come into a friendly place, have a talk before and after the movie, drink a nice (and not too expensive) beer from a healthy selection, munch some very cheap and tasty popcorn and generally have a jolly good time. Many come at least once a week. Once you start to realize that there are literally thousands of great movies you've never heard of in the news there's a whole new world to explore. And once you realize that this is not just an "industry" you may even find some nice theatre you really like to go to.

I would totally agree that you can't rely only on blockbusters. Or on selling expensive beverages.

3D

[GreatDrok]

3D drove me away. I can't tolerate it and it is actually getting difficult to find a 2D showing at a convenient time. I have a 100" DLP HD projector at home so I wait for the BD release, rent that and enjoy the movie in glorious 2D for far less money. The cinemas can't compete with the comfort of my sofa, the sound and picture quality are comparable if not better at home (most 2D showings I've seen lately have been from 35mm film and isn't as clear as BD on my projector) and I don't have to take out a mortgage for snacks.

While VHS didn't kill cinema, BD and home theatre certainly can.

Re:It's the movies

[eharvill]

What kind of movies do you like? I find it shocking that you haven't seen a good one in 5 years. While I don't agree with every film on this list (and plenty I haven't seen or heard of), there are a few dozen good to great films I saw with a quick perusal - http://www.films101.com/yl5r.htm

Re:Movie Quality

[artor3]

That's not at random, you're purposefully picking good ones. The GP has an excellent point. From any particular year, most movies are crap. But we only remember the good ones, and then look back on that year and say to ourselves, "Boy, the movies sure were better back then!"

Theaters suck....

[Lumpy]

$50.00 for two tickets.
$25.00 for a bucket of popcorn and 2 pops.

I get to enjoy 20 minutes of ad's at the beginning, Sticky floors because they NEVER mop. The asshole with his cellphone talking to his buddy. The lady that yells back at the movie screen. And the movie looks like crap because they are too farking lazy to remove the 3D lense assembly for a 2D movie. IS NOT in focus, and Oh the speakers sound like crap because they were bought new in 1989 and the foam surround has fallen apart. Theater owners REFUSE to do maintenance.

Screw them. it's why I built my own theater in the basement for LESS than $1500.00 including sound control, 1080p projector, BluRay player AND XBMC box. I had a nice Kenwood Soverign surround so that was free.

I now have better theater experience than the Movie theater, and I show better movies. figuring the price of 1 movie date a month and It will pay for it's self in 2 years easily.

No I don't have "theater seating" that stuff is stupid. I bought 3 cheap couches and built a 3 tier riser. Carpet tile rocks.

Re:It's the movies

[geekoid]

Well maybe you should select good movies? I challenge you to fine 1(one) year without any good movies.

Both,. good as in a well made well written well acted movie or Good as in Fun eye candy.

Re:Full service

[Qzukk]

They exist.

If you're in Texas, drop by an Alamo Drafthouse. Check the schedule to see if there's a special event like a sing-along. Or just watch the movie with a nice cold beer. But whatever you do, leave the cellphone off. And don't talk during the film (unless participating) or else (former) governor Ann Richards will take your ass out.

There are other chains here in Texas that serve dinner and a movie, and almost certainly even more in other states, but I don't think their PSAs are nearly as awesome.

Too expensive...

[DigiTechGuy]

He's right. I haven't been in a movie theater for years, because it's so damn expensive. I don't miss it, but it would be nice to go see a movie now and again. Last time I was in a movie theater I paid under $5 for a ticket, prime weekend evening, not matinee. This was at a nice theater 18+ only unless accompanied by adult. No kids, no teens, and I have to say it but no minorities yakking on the cell phones. This theater also showed a lot of indie films and such that you couldn't see anywhere else local. They raised prices a lot, business slowed down, and were bought out and are now just another expensive place with kids being loud and people talking on cell phones and texting through the film, and no indie films. It's unfortunate.

I do go maybe once or twice a year to the drive in movies though. $6 to see two movies, sometimes three. For a fee you can bring your own food. I always buy something from the snack bar to support them. To top it off no worries about people being rude. You enjoy the movie in the comfort and privacy of your own car and can talk to whoever you're with without disturbing others.

Re:Movie Quality

[jedidiah]

Things that are remembered have already stood the test of time. Your memory is faulty because you really don't have enough neurons to waste on the crap. So you forget about all of the dreck and have this strangely biased view of the past.

People were complaining about Hollywood bean counters in the 70s.

They may be worse now but people were still whining about them 40 years ago.

Don't forget crowding out

[Moof123]

Entertainment options have greatly expanded, salaries not so much. So with disposable income being shared with the likes of Angry Birds, movie theaters and other forms of entertainment will suffer (you don't hear the local orchestra whining about piracy despite their stagnant growth, now do you?).

However, the points made are all valid. It is hard to get a movies experience these days without feeling like your walled has been raped. We smuggle in all our snacks, even though I miss the slushy and popcorn part of the experience. I just don't miss it $5 worth (each). More and more the $8 matinee price irks me too much.

Long term I am guessing the industry is slitting its own throat. If you price it out of the reach of the younger set, they will grow up without movie going being a habit and part of their cultural view. Long term that will make it very hard to keep a loyal audience as time goes on.

I'd suggest:

1) Fairer concession pricing, about 1/3-1/2 off the current prices (still ridiculous, just not full on wallet rape). At least change out the jerky you call a "hot dog" now and then.

2) Variable movie pricing. Charge more for the blockbusters, but cut me some slack on the crap we all fully know is schlock that my wife or kids just have to see. Maybe we'd get less Micheal Bay crap if we got cut a discount on the flicks that spent less time CGI'ing things blowing up.

3) Beer and burgers. Seriously. I really like going to the local pub owned theaters that serve real food and real beer (no, your fermented rice water euro owned Bud Light is not beer). They charge just $3 a show for out of date movies in crap venues, but the experience is so much better (sadly the closest one is frustrating far away that I only partake occasionally).

4) 3D, and its surcharges. Yeah, just stop. Offer no-3D glasses for those of us who don't want to pay the price or get the headaches, but want to spend time with family members who not only tolerate it well, but actually still put value in the novelty. 3D creates more family rifts than you realize.

5) Cut down on the previews. If I want to spend 20% of my movie time watching ads, I could stay home. Heck, at home I can use my DVR and bloop through them all. So either I watch all your crap ads, or I show up late and get bad seats. What part of that makes me want to be a repeat customer again?

7) at home you can have BEER

[roc97007]

Point (5), Competition from other choices, is a very real threat to theaters. Home systems approach the apparent screen size (adjusted for distance) and the audio quality of theaters. Home systems exceed theaters in many, many cases, where theaters are ill-maintained as a profit-enhancing measure. And as the subject says, at home I can have the beverage of my choice and the snack of my choice, whereas every Regal has the same five or six snack choices and exactly one brand of soft drink. Great if you like Coke and Malted Milk Balls, otherwise not so much. (At least Century has Starbucks and real ice cream.)

And going along with (6), lack of choice, another advantage of seeing movies at home is that I can have the four or five martinis necessary to get through another Transformers movie.

...But besides that, Ebert is right on target -- there are a whole bunch of movies out there released every single year that are well written, well crafted and enjoyable, but don't have the minimum number of explosions necessary to make it onto the Regal roster. Instead we get identical "blockbusters" playing in two to four theaters apiece, and nuthin' else. All this and sticky floors too. Oh, *and* high prices. Um, and limited snack selection... have I left anything out?

As Ebert points out, there are exceptions. A couple of theaters in my area allow consumption of alcohol, although in "adults only" rooms so I still can't have a beer when my kid sees Twilight, (and God did I need one) [1]. My living room is still superior in this respect.

Used to be, our family would see one film a weekend and maybe two or even three over the holidays. I think the last film we saw in theater... you know, I can't remember. Maybe Sherlock Holmes (the first one)?

And finally, I'd like to add my voice to the plethora of responders who said: (8), if the movies didn't SUCK!.

[1] That was said in jest [2]. As a matter of fact, my teenage daughter HaaaaaAAAAAtes Twilight, in fact the entire teenie genre, preferring foreign films like "Son of Rambow" and "Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging". I prefer... oh for instance, anything by Duncan Jones.

[2] We *did* sit through the second Twilight film, solely because I have a lot of respect for Dakota Fanning as an actress. Although, less now...

Subs and dubs are both distracting

[tepples]

Why would they remake something when they can just go see the original?

Because some people find subtitles distracting, and others find dubbing distracting. I watched the 2002 remake of Pinocchio with Roberto Benigni, and the dubbing of the Italian dialogue into English was distracting (even if not as distracting as the miscast Benigni, who should have played Geppetto and let the kid from Life Is Beautiful play Pinocchio). Dubbing isn't so distracting on an animated film, where there's less of an uncanny-valley-fueled expectation that mouth flaps will match the voice frame by frame, but then North America has what's called an animation age ghetto, where an animated film has to either appeal to kids or be a dead baby comedy like South Park, nothing in between.

Theatres in Korea

[crossmr]

The theatres in Korea are always packed. Some of the great things they do:
1 - Reserved seating, all seats. You can buy your tickets two or three days ahead if you want and make sure you've got your seat for Friday night.
2 - All major chains have Apps. You can buy your tickets on the app, just show the barcode on your way in (I think you can do this in North America now too)
3 - Ticket Price - Friday night movie is about $7.78 USD, yes there is a surcharge for 3D or "vibration" seating
4 - Concession price - A 2 drink and popcorn combo is around $6 USD
5 - Lobbies full of seating. Waiting for your movie to start? Friends to show up? whatever, there are tables and chairs everywhere. Both inside the main area and down the hallways leading to the theatres themselves if you get in too early and the doors haven't opened up yet.
6 - They don't confiscate snacks. I've never seen them search bags or anything here. You want to bring something in with you, go right ahead
7 - Shows nearly around the clock. The first show of the day is at 8-10am, and they will often have showings until 3 or 4 am. At my local theatre, if I wanted to watch Mission Impossible Tomorrow (Saturday) I could choose: 8:30, 8:50, 9:00, 9:00 (special 32 seat theatre), 10:55, 11:40, 11:45, 13:15, 14:20, 14:30, 16:00, 17:00, 17:15, 18:45, 19:20, 19:45, 20:00 (special 32 seat theatre), 21:30, 22:00, 22:20, 22:45 (special 32 seat theatre), 23:00, 00:15, 00:45, 1:00, 1:30 (special 32 seat theatre), 1:45, 3:00. That's a staggering amount of shows available for one day. None of this, afternoon matinee, early evening, late evening, done garbage. The week days are not much different with shows still starting around 10.
8 - Special theatres. They have a few special theatres around town. Several theatres have some special couple booths for dating. You can buy a ticket for a booth which is a special 2 seat booth with a high back on it. They also have a very nice movie theatre in town which includes a full sit down dinner.
9 - The theatres don't have much to do with it, but in all the movies I've watched here in the last few years, I've never really heard people talking. You get the odd cell phone screen, but it's mostly just someone checking the time, not someone sitting there texting for a long time causing a distraction.

Now, not everything is perfect they do make a few mistakes:
1 - Excessive ads. Really excessive. They even repeat the same ad two times in a row.
2 - A low amount of actual movie previews. For the 10-20 minutes of pre-movie stuff we sit through we only end up seeing 3-4 actual movie previews. I like trailers.
3 - Not enough English subtitles. Not their main concern, but about 2 years ago the government made it one of their tourism aims to see Korean movies subtitled in English in theatres. That year one chain ran a pilot project which saw tons of movies made available to the relatively large foreign population living in the country. Near the end of the year they dropped the ball and since then, it's been rather hit or miss trying to see a movie with subtitles. They often go unadvertised, and run for a very short period of time. You basically have to check weekly and if you see English subtitles, drop everything and go see the movie if it is one you wanted to see because you don't even know if they'd be there next week. Sure they all get released on DVD with English subtitles later, but at the least I like to see the big action movies in theatre.

In the end, I've never been disappointed with a movie going experience in Korea. However, back home in Canada the success rate was not so high. Perhaps around 50/50.

Problem not solved

[SuperKendall]

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!

Cheaper to buy movies than see them in theatres

[Dixie_Flatline]

For two people, it's trivially cheaper to buy a movie on blu-ray if you have a big-ish TV and a blu-ray player. I understand that these are fairly big 'ifs', but I happened to already have these things because I own a PS3 and a Plasma TV.

But if those two things are assumed, you can buy a BD movie for $25-$40. Less if it's on sale.

If you hate the movie, you can almost always find someone that's willing to pay at least $10 for it. So now you've got a price range of $15-30 for the movie. (If I decide that I like the movie enough to keep it, the nominal price is divided by the number of times that I watch it. Honestly, I've yet to sell a movie since I don't buy movies that I don't think I'll like.)

Movie tickets around here are up to $14 after tax, I believe. So I'm practically even already, for just one ticket. If there's more than one of you, obviously the amortization gets better very quickly.

I can buy the snacks I want, pause, sit in a comfortable chair, pet my cats or go to the bathroom if I like. I can do almost all of those things at the same time, actually.

To get to a decent movie theatre is a half-hour trip for me, at least, by metro. (That's a $3 cost; that's far cheaper than driving the car and paying for parking, almost certainly.) If I buy the movie from Amazon.ca, it's delivered to my door.

The ONLY thing I miss out on is seeing the movie as a brand new release. But it turns out that sometime in my late 20s, I stopped caring about that. Now that I'm in my mid-30s, the whole movie-going ordeal seems like a tremendous waste of time given all the other things that I'd like to do.

So, to review: I save time and money, and sacrifice a bit of timeliness for incredible convenience. What in the world do they expect to happen with ticket prices?

Agreed

[LostMyBeaver]

One room of my house has been converted into a mini-theater/game room. We have two projectors (the little one I though would be good enough... but wasn't and a much better one which cost me less than $1000 and is REALLY great). It allows us to play multi-player games together, but more importantly, we have a 120" movie screen with surround sound, two couches, bean bag chairs, a popcorn machine, a drink dispenser and a mini-fridge. And no... we're not fat :)

I built this room up when 3D movies came out. It's too damn hard to find a movie theater anymore where I don't have to wear a shitty pair of plastic glasses that give me head aches from the 3D or the unfamiliar pressure on my temples (sadly I lied about being fat... I have a really fat head... hopefully it means I have room for a bigger brain but more likely is a deformity). Last time I took the family to the theater, it cost me $18 a ticket (I'm in Norway), that's $72 just for tickets. Then two medium buckets of popcorn, 4 drinks and a pack of candy for each of us ran about another $50. That's $122 to go to the movies. Oh... and I had to pay for parking as well. That was another $20. So $142 for a movie. Sometimes we even had to pay for the cheap ass glasses... that adds up to another $20. So, now we're up to $162.

I can go online and purchase a film from iTunes, it costs $10-$20. If I rent, it's $2-$5. Popcorn costs us about $0.50 a bucket. Drinks cost $1 each. Candy costs $3 a pack (as we tend to purchase over priced, imported reeses peanut butter cups). Worst cast, $39, but more often closer to $29.

The movie room altogether cost probably about $2000 and since the kids and I spend probably 1/4 of our recreation time in there, it is paid off QUICKLY. Even if we did a movie night every other week, it still would have paid for itself in less than a year.

We stopped going to the theater for many reasons, but 3D (stupid glasses to see crappy picture quality) is the biggest one. Ticket prices was #2. Parking #3. Overpriced junk food #4.

OH!!!!! One more thing. Last time I went to the movies, they actually played 40 minutes of advertisements before starting the film. NO SHIT!!! 40 Minutes!!!! I clocked it. After gouging me for a fortune in tickets and junk food... they then forced me to watch 40 minutes of advertisements before seeing the 92 minute film!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!!?!? The kids were already out of drinks before the f-ing advertisements were over.

For a good laugh... I can buy round trip tickets to London for $100 a person (after taxes and transportation to and from the airport as well as parking), for a total of $400 between us. Then pay about $120 for a motel room for us. Even eating out every meal, we'd save about $10 per meal, or $60 in total. So, $460 for a weekend trip to London for the whole family. $162 times 3 is $486. So it actually costs me less to go to London with the whole family for a weekend than to go to three movies.

WHY I LIKE THE MOVIES

[bratwiz]

WHY I LIKE THE MOVIES

My sweetie and I really like watching movies at the theatre. When you fully consider the adventure that awaits, the measly $20-25 bucks you shell out (more if you pay online) to take you and your sweetie out to the movies these days is a real bargain.

The adventure begins with that long rope line at the door. Its fun to get pressed in with complete strangers and weave your way in and out like cattle to the slaughter working your way up to the pimply-faced kid with the glazed look and speech impediment. Usually I just smile a lot, sign the little ticket and laugh at all their little hand gestures. You know they're so helpful and friendly.

When you make it past the counter you get another treat as you stand in the line to buy your munchies. For me its always difficult to decide between the little $10 bag of popcorn or the $5 dollar bag of peanut M&M's. Either way I usually wash it down with a $5 dollar cup of sicky-syrupy Coca-Cola. My sweetie likes getting the bottled water for $4 dollars. She says "its decadent and thrilling to pay so much." Frankly, I don't know how they're able to do it without going out of business-- if you went anywhere else you'd have to pay at least $6.50 for it all, maybe less.

When we finally get our tickets and munchies though, that's when the real fun begins-- negotiating the lobby. Its quite a trick to make it to the other side without getting jostled or run-over by all of the other folks. On Fridays and Saturday nights they have all the really experienced players out on the floor who know all the moves. It can be quite a challenge, but the real rush is when you get to that "Ticket-Taker" boss. Boy that guy is tough. He's got his mumbling down to an art. That's where so many players get tripped-up, trying to figure out if he said five doors down on the left or nine doors down on the right.

Either way you can get plenty of good exercise walking down that enormous hallway that just goes on forever and ever and ever. One time this old couple came up to us and asked if we knew the way out. They said they'd gotten lost in there and had been wandering around for a long time. Ha ha ha. We knew that was a trick so we sent them down to the mid-level mezzanine! My sweetie and I got a good laugh out of that one.

Your first break comes when you finally find your theatre and make your way up the steps, past those cans they put out for target practice, over the couple inevitably making-out in the third row, to your seats. And the experience is always heightened, for me at least, by the forty-five minutes of real-estate slides and mind-numbing commercials. They do such a good job of getting you into the mood to watch the show. I especially like the ones that advertise all those fantastic programs you could have watched if you'd stayed home.

I don't know who thought it up, but kudos to whomever it is that always manages to put the flatulent fat guy in front of us and the ceaselessly talking couple behind us. They're always an excellent choice to distract us from the row of wiggly, whining kids with the constant coughs two rows up. How exciting it is to sit there and experience the delightfully aromatic and aurally invigorating atmosphere while we wait and wonder what mysterious illness we'll surely develop this week. My sweetie and I love the mystery-- last time it was Malaria. This time my sweetie is hoping for Denge Fever while I'm holding out for Whooping Cough.

Then comes the best part, my favorite part of the whole experience, when they turn down the lights and switch from the really sharp projector showing the slides and commercials to the other projector they have for the movie-- the one with the soft, fuzzy look that makes you have to squint to get it into focus. And they lower down the sound too, which is always a relief. You know right before, while they're still running the commercials its always just blaring. Its good that they can turn it down for the show. We wouldn't want to miss any of those witty comments from the au

Mis-Interpretation of sales

[ista]

At least for myself, the situation actually became worse over the past few years, and the symptom is actually quite clear.

Half a century ago, movie theaters were the only place to see a movie. A few decades ago, video set people free to view a movie when they'd like to see it. At first, it took about a year for any recent movie to arrive on video, but during the 1980s and 1990s, this timeframe did drop to just a few weeks.

A little more than a decade ago, DVD started its rise and the movie industry at first did offer mostly old movie titles on DVD. Movies were still being screened for usually 2-4 months in theaters, and released on DVD after at least half a year (for poor movies) and up to 2 years for certain blockbuster movies.

A few years ago, BluRay (BD) started. However, upscaling on recent TVs or BD players does make DVDs look quite good. Not exactly that crisp like a "real" BD, but e.g. for CGI animation, there's no way for casual viewers to tell the difference between DVD and BD without a magnifying glass. Some "softer" upscaling edges are sometimes more pleasant to the eye. So the video- or dvd-like "let's resell the same stuff on different media" business didn't work out that well.

Today, almost no movie does run for more than a month, and DVD/BD sales do start from as low as 6 weeks after the initial theater screening, DVD/BD rental even do start 4 weeks after the initial theater screening. Only major movies do experience the grace of having their DVD/BD released 4 months after initial theater screening. However, just during the initial theater screening, you can find the DVD/BD date by searching for the DVD at Amazon. Am I the only one to see a plot here?

Of course, "recent" DVDs are being sold for about two movie tickets (and after 2-3 years, you'll find some of them being a giveaway in some magazine). Some movies even do debut on DVD/BD first and aren't being offered to movie theaters at all.

Of course, there are three ideas about this symptom:
First idea: the movie industry is likely to say earnings from theater screenings are so poor they're forced to enter the post-screening market that early. And there's also a lot of movie piracy on the internet, where people start downloading screeners very soon, just in order to hold a copy of this movie - so they're offering DVD/BD very soon at low prices to discourage people from doing so. However, this doesn't explain why retail stores do publish DVD release dates that early.

Second idea: the casual viewer does have multiple options for entertainment: movie theaters are just one of them, there are also DVD/BD, video streaming services - and computer games. During the past two decades, computer games went from "written by half a dozen guys" to "multi-million dollar project with more than 60 developers, 100 screen artists and a dozen of sound developers". Games like Batman Arkham City do give such a movie-like impression that people can't decide at first wether they're viewing some split scene or some in-game action - so these games also do offer quite an astonishing level of entertainment as well.
However, everybody's daily time is still limited to 24h and in the end, the "entertainment market" is being sliced into much more pieces than half a century ago.
Those who probably kept a 90% market share "back then" just aren't able to accept they're now only receiving a fraction of what they were used to.

The third idea is simple as well, but needs some explanation: there are multiple branches within the movie industry. One does the theater screening sales, the other cares about the post-screening sales (DVD/BD). Of course, the second one has to follow the first one - otherwise, the second team would kill any potential success of the first team.The theater team is limited by a certain timeframe, while the DVD/BD team literally has a nearly endless amount of time and still benefits from the initial hype and marketing done by the first team.
By some top management view, the post-screen sales are much more inte

Games and Gamers

[EEPROMS]

The problem with movies/films/videos is that they are neither truly social or interactive and to be honest they are lately just regurgitation old story lines. On the other hand games are both social and interactive and allow one to escape the reality of life for a few hours a week. If you look at the sales figures for BF3 and COD the type of money being talked about makes Hollywood look like yesterdays cough, game. Also your average consumer has a finite amount of entertainment time and funds so if more and more people are playing games then someone is going to lose out, so I am not surprised movie ticket sales are down or stagnant.

A new local trend

[Sedated2000]

I see a new trend locally in the theaters here. For many years the shiny new theaters we had popping up were just extensions of the old idea of what a good theater was... more screens, bigger screens. In the last five years I've noticed a very pleasant change. Every new theater we have now is a "dinner and a movie" style place.

We have three brand new theaters, all in this format. You can order real food at all of them, and a wait staff brings it to you. I recently saw the latest Twighlight movie at a Cinebistro here and it was by far the best movie experience I have ever had. The theater was upscale and modern. It had a section with a full bar, a billiard room, and even a small bowling alley. Everything was high tech and modern. The movie "posters" were actually digital displays that moved. When you purchase your tickets, you select and reserve your seats. A waitress takes you to your seat ahead of time and takes your order. The seats were really comfortable and had convenient tables that swing out. The food was very good. It made going to the theater a full experience rather than just watching a movie (which I do alot of at home... I watch far more movies than I do television). If you live in an area with a Cinebistro http://cobbcinebistro.com/ I can't recommend it highly enough.

I agree

[hesaigo999ca]

He is absolutely right, why go to the theater when I have a 60 inch at home, while i can stream off the internet directly?
I pay for 1 night for 2 people at the movies, 45$+ to watch a movie that lasts 2 hours, then stuck in traffic coming back home.
If I invest some money at home on internet, seats, popcorn maker, and 60 inch....I take all that away and still save money in the end.

The cinema is dying, and not from the fact people dont want to watch movies, but they now have access to all that tech the cinemas do....
the cinema needs to be realistic, they can no longer charge a second mortgage to go watch cars 2!!!
Popcorn costs nothing, so add popcorn vending machines that self serve the people, same thing with the drinks, less space needed for
people to be served , they buy there, and to avoid them buying from outside and bringing them in, which we all have done, make the pricing competitive to the stores.... people will want less to carry all that crap if they can buy it there at the same price.

And last, we know the movies are coming out more and more now , and not worth the price of the ticket, so why charge that much anyways, lessen the overhead with less employees, and bring down a bit the ticket price, then you will see more people coming back to the cinema....

3D movie surcharge...urgh

[theangryswede]

I get discounted tickets if I buy them at the company store; however, when the movie is shown in 3D, I have to pay the surcharge, and often enough these movies are only shown in 3D now, so there is no normal option. $4 surcharge for 3D... sorry not worth it