Box Office 2014: Moviegoing Hits Two-Decade Low

mrspoonsi writes The number of people going to the movies in 2014 in North America slipped to its lowest level in two decades. According to preliminary estimates, roughly 1.26 billion consumers purchased cinema tickets between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31. That's the lowest number since 1.21 billion in 1995. Year-over-year, attendance looks to be off 6 percent from 2013, when admissions clocked in at 1.34 billion. Admissions have fluctuated dramatically over the years, and particularly since the advent of modern-day 3D, which can skew the average ticket price. Movie going in North America hit an all-time high in 2002, when 1.57 billion consumers lined up, thanks in part to Spider-Man, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Comments

News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Iconoc]

Lol

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Penguinisto]

Lol

It still fits, especially when you consider that, instead of putting the blame where it rightly belongs (mostly folks watching movies at home via PPV/Netflix/iTMS/etc), you just know the fsckers are going to shout the "P" word and demand that BitTorrent be made illegal or somesuch.

Personally, I think it has to do with a lot of factors, even outside of the Netflix effect; chief among them is that most movies sucked pretty hard this year, with very few good ones coming out. The same old formulaic bullshit just isn't going to pull in the ducats, you know?

To top that off, I noticed something else: There are some damned good (and compelling) shows coming out of television these days. It used to be that TV had crappy SFX and production values, while the movies had the best-of-breed in SFX, acting, production, etc. Nowadays, you can rarely tell the difference in many cases - when you have masterful series coming out of the networks which have nearly the same cinematic and production quality of the studios, then why bother with whatever the studios have to offer? There's still the adverts in most cases (outside of HBO/Cinemax/etc), but there are a zillion technologies which can neatly get around that, so...

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

> The same old formulaic bullshit just isn't going to pull in the ducats, you know?

It is going to get worse. Hollywood makes more money from overseas sales than they do domestic sales. The problem with that is sophisticated concepts are very hard to translate into another languages, especially the ones that depend on cultural literacy in the original cultural. So Hollywood has, by and large, taken the easy way out - they've dumbed it down. The result is that the money goes into stupid movies that are stories built around "boobs and bombs" -- e.g. practically everything that Michael Bay has ever made -- because that language is universal.

These box-office results won't be enough to make Hollywood realize the error of their ways. They are so fucking risk-averse that instead of changing, they will double down. They will see these numbers as proof that they need to make their movies even more translation-friendly so as to chase even more foreign sales and the result will be even stupider scripts. It is a feedback loop.

The best we can hope for is that eventually they start making entirely foreign productions - a movie made in Mandarin can be dubbed in Cantonese and have a potential audience of nearly a billion without having to be dumbed down.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

good point about TV production values, case in point: House of Cards, (Which hasn't even been on TV!), which stars Kevin Spacey and is at least partially directed by David Fincher.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[JudgeFurious]

This exactly. There simply wasn't a very deep field of movies this year that I wanted to see. Certainly not many that I wanted to see more than once. Looking at the top ten highest grossing films of the year I note that I paid to see 9 out of those 10 movies in the theater (I missed Interstellar, couldn't get the wife interested in seeing it and thus never got around to it) BUT I don't see a single one I paid to see more than once. Also I only genuinely liked 4 of them a great deal. The other 5 on the list I ranged from "It was OK" to "Fuck Peter Jackson. Fuck him in his stupid ass". Next year is going to be off the charts with blockbusters but this year the big tent-pole movies just didn't really pan out like they expected.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[meta-monkey]

Also, the quality of your home theater is pretty damn good these days. When I was a kid we had a 24-inch low-def tube with two front-facing speakers. There's a huge difference in the experience between watching that little thing and seeing Jurassic Park in the theater. But today? Everybody's got a 50-inch HD flat panel and 5.1 (or better) surround. Nobody can argue the 24-inch tube was a "better experience" than the theater. But today...eh. For an awful lot of things I'd prefer to watch it at home anyway. Plus my couch is more comfortable than the theater seats, I can pause it when I need to use the bathroom, rewind if I missed something, have a beer, and popcorn costs $0.25 instead of $8.

And it's not like you have to wait that long. Used to be you had to wait a year or more after it left theaters for something to show up at Blockbuster. But these days? Biggest movie of the year was Guardians of the Galaxy. Theater release: August 21. Digital download available November 18th. Blu-ray December 9th. There isn't that feeling that, "hmmm, I'd like to see this movie, and if I don't go to the theater it's going to be a year before I can..." Today, if you miss it in theaters you'll see it at home in 3 months.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[aaaaaaargh!]

Nice theory but I very much doubt it's true at all. Hollywood was never known for sophisticated concepts and certainly never made lots of money from them. You probably say that only because you're not acquainted with cinema in other countries very well. My personal theory is that US movie makers have simply become dumber and the only good movies left are made by a few bright author/directors.

Be that as it may, it seems that the art has also declined with the rise of CGI effects and increased greed of movie studios. Hollywood movies nowadays are cut too fast while being too long (!), have lousy scripts focusing on cheap jokes and thrill, one movie is split into three (e.g. the Hobbit), and virtually any blockbuster title ends in a 20-30 minutes orgy of pointless CGI violence. There are severe problems with the plot development, most plots of contemporary thriller/action/sci-fi/spy/detective movies are simply not on a par with similar movies from the 70s. Interesting plots twists are sacrificed for endless action sequences. They want to maximize bucks more often than making good movies, and this used to be different.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[mallyn]

This friend speaks my words. I found very little worthwhile to go to, with the exception of some very specialized documentaries such as 'We Were There', which is a documentary on AIDS in San Francisco in the 1980's.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm retired and pirated movies are not worth the time it takes to download them. If I had downloaded pirated movies, the last one would have been a few years ago when something came out before it was released in theatres but with only mocked up special effects so that would have been very interesting.

But shakey cam with poor sound vs $4.25 for a comfortable seat in a mostly empty theatre on a monday night is no comparison. And certainly no match for a packed excited audience of similarly minded people for particular films (can't duplicate the emotions of the crowd).

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[mallyn]

You forgot one thing.

The musicals of the 1950's through the 1970's.

I long for another 'Sound of Music', 'Evita', 'Jesus Christ Superstar', or 'West Side Story'.

Those were movies that I long for and I often watch from DVD's (For those of you here in Portland, Oregon; Movie Madness is a very wonderful resource).

Hollywood has seems to have lost that art as well.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[anagama]

All that plus, when you watch at home, you see it on your schedule without waiting in line, you don't have to listen to other people talking to each other, you don't have to be disturbed by someone else's cell phone, you don't have to listen to crying babies or whining kids, you don't have to have the quiet parts in your movie interrupted by thunderous booms from the theater next door, you aren't going to get stuck behind a tall person blocking your view, no parking problems, the floor isn't all sticky.

I haven't gone to a movie in several years because the experience is so awful in every respect while at home, it is about as comfortable as can be. About the only thing that would make me want to go to a theater, would be to travel back in time to my teenager-living-at-home self who didn't really have any good make-out options. Barring that sort of technology, theaters probably ought to think of ways to make the experience of going out to the movies better than staying home, because things that are expensive and worse than the alternatives, don't have great longevity.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[MightyMartian]

There certainly have evolved some rather sad trends. Average shot length in Hollywood films has plunged to the point that some films seem more like a jumble of barely coherent vignettes. I watch a Hitchcock film from the 1950s or a Sergio Leone film, and you see these incredibly long takes. I'm thinking specifically of the final standoff at the graveyard in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, or the even more drawn out opening railway station scene from Once Upon A Time In The West. Men like Hitchcock and Leone were bold directors who made highly commercial films that challenged the viewer, and they weren't the only ones. Can you imagine The Godfather, or even moreso The Godfather II being made today?

You're right. Filmmakers, from the writers to the directors to the cinematographers to the editors and other post-production teams have become incredibly lazy, despite having budgets in some cases that would made the great filmmakers of past generations spin. A movie like Psycho, for instance, was made with Hitchcock's TV crew, and not his usual movie team. The awful remake probably cost, in adjusted dollars, ten times as much, and, apart from any other flaws, the actual quality of the filmwork was dreadful.

Good movies are still being made, some on budgets so low that a shoestring would be an improvement, but mainstream Hollywood is just turning into one homogeneous steaming pile of dreck.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[MightyMartian]

I watched Seven Brides For Seven Brothers recently. What a wonderful film; the technicolor cinematography so warm, the dancing sequences, particularly the fight at the barnraising, just absolutely astonishing. No CGI needed there, just lots of rehearsal and some stunning choreography.

Is it just me or did some of those Technicolor musicals just some of the most beautiful films ever made? Even if you don't like the songs and dancing, just the look of the films is extraordinary.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Builder]

They're only shaky cam when they come out before / around the same time as cinemas. After that, they're normally high quality rips that offer a better user experience than the official products (http://craphound.com/images/ifurapirate.jpeg)

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[AK Marc]

There were more "blockbusters" this year than ever before. Hollywoodland is spending more money on fewer low-risk movies. The "old" formula was more cheaper movies. There's little made for $200M that couldn't be made for $50M. But rather than pushing for four cheaper movies, we get the more expensive movies, and fewer of them.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

big tent-pole movies

I'd rather watch those on PornHub than in a theater, anyway.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

> Hollywood was never known for sophisticated concepts and certainly never made lots of money from them.

As all things in life, it isn't black and white. This is about relative change, the situation has declined from where it was before. And, while I have enough exposure to speak relatively authoritatively since I married a woman who is a casting director in hollywood, it isn't just my own theory. Here's one of many such analyses.

> You probably say that only because you're not acquainted with cinema in other countries very well.

Chances are I've seen more than you have. Particularly Korean new wave and lots of HK and Japanese productions. Furthermore, I'm aware that Hollywood outsells domestic ticket sales in nearly every country - south korea (due to quotas) and India (due to bollywood having enormous volume but low quality) being notable exceptions. I'm also one of the people who thinks it is great when Hollywood remakes a foreign film because I know it means a domestic dvd/blu-ray release of the original as part of the promotional cycle.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

If you favor dancing, singing, costumes and pretty visuals over storyline, you should check out bollywood. They make like 10x more movies than hollywood does, they are all musicals, they are all over 2 hours (because theaters are the only places with air-conditioning that poor people can afford) and the plots are almost all terrible (they universally violate Sondheim's rule that a song must progress the plot)

But if you can stand dubbed vocals (the lead actors never do their own singing) then it is fantastic stuff. Here's a famous clip from the Dil Se - it was filmed like 15 years ago and there is no CGI (and very little in the way of safety equipment). Sometimes a constrained budget (and cheap labor) is the mother of invention, they simply can't afford the CGI so they don't get distracted by it.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh for 99.9999% of movies and tv shows I have no interest in storing/owning them. One viewing is enough for a lifetime.

And even at that, I can't keep up. More good content comes out every day than I can watch.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Maxo-Texas]

A friend and I watch movies from the 1940s. They often have more content in 70 minutes than modern movies do in 150 minutes.
The feel is different as a result.

Modern movies like to show you something cool looking and then give you 30 seconds to react to it and play stereotypical musical chords to falsely evoke emotions and tell you how to feel. There's a lot more reaction shots and shots of people acting emotionally but not saying anything. And, of course, long pointless action scenes that might have taken 30 seconds to portray in the older movies.

The problem is-- CGI scenes don't evoke the same emotions as real scenes. I'm not impressed by a CGI version of a guy leaping 50 feet over a 1000' deep canyon while I might be very impressed with a 25' jump by Jackie Chan over a 30' drop between two buildings.

So CGI should serve the story- not try to impress you because you know it's fake so you are not impressed.

It's the difference between being impressed that a real human did something really impressive and a computer model of a real person was rendered doing something that looks impressive.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Livius]

There is actually a lot of technology in the movie industry.

You will notice the quality of special effects as soon as they make a movie worth watching.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[LVSlushdat]

The wife and I haven't been inside a movie theater in nearly 10 years.. We splurged on a nice big screen tv a few years ago, and now, when a movie comes out that we want to see, we wait till it comes out on DVD at Redbox, I go rent it, slap it in the pc, rip it to my Plex media server, then that night, she makes a big bowl of popcorn, and thanks to the cute little Roku box under the tv and its Plex plugin we can watch the movie at OUR leasure.. pause for a nature-break or a drink refill... Since there has been soooo very few movies that we want to see, I've not had to upgrade the RAID array on the server above the 2 1TB drives it has now.. With the clunkers that Hollyweird puts out, I don't expect to need to upgrade anytime soon....

Re: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... That is by FAR one of my all time favourite movies. What wonderfully pleasant movie.... I watched it as a child and as soon as I came of age and was making enough disposable income it was one of the first DVD's I have ever bought. They sure don't make em like that anymore

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[rockout]

Breaking News: Old guys say that movies were better "back in my day."

Film at..... uh, VOD at 11.....

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[CronoCloud]

When I was a kid we had a 24-inch low-def tube with two front-facing speakers.

Dagnabbit spoiled whippersnappers. Criminy, I can remember when back in good ol days when 21" and ONE speaker was the standard, and we liked it by gum. Now get off my lawn.

It wasn't that long ago that 27" was the standard with 32-36 being the deluxe size. I've joked that the housing bubble was caused by people buying houses larger than they could afford just to have a living room large enough for their oversized TV.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[CronoCloud]

The musicals of

Stop right there. Musicals don't appeal to the 15-25 year old male demographic. While women will watch movies made for that demographic, the reverse isn't as true now.

It's part of the dudebro-ization of American culture, and musicals have been partitioned into "things for women and the gays"....by Madison Avenue no less. While that tendency has always existed to a certain extent, it's being encouraged more these days. The Tony's once had viewership of 20 million...back in 1974. Now it's around 6 - 8 million. I'm old enough to remember when TV in general made a big deal about Andrea McArdle being cast as Annie in the Broadway musical.

It's even affected PBS. No more Classical music, not even the "Flying dutchman", Shakespeare, or I Claudius, or Nutcracker production at Christmas...it's Red Green, and Dr. Who.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[markass530]

it's just you

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[rockout]

And millions like him, in his age group. The movies are different; the thing that stays the same is that old people have always, and will always, say that "it was better back in my day!" or even the days before they were kids.

You can call this point of view flamebait or trolling if you want, as some old mod did earlier today, but the fact is this: the stalest cliche on the planet is that old people don't like what young people are listening to or watching on a screen, whatever the size of that screen happens to be, and they can't remember that when they were young, the old people of that time didn't like what THEY were enjoying.

PS, there was plenty of crap in movies back when you were a kid too. You just don't remember it as well as you remember the good movies - because the crap was crap, and you didn't bother watching it more than once.

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[ConceptJunkie]

Yes, yes they are. Nowadays, the spectacle is created mostly with gigantic stories and the special effects to back them up. Gigantic stories, not necessarily good ones, but back in the day the musicals were the best way to create an inspiring and exciting spectacle. Of course, those wonderful films are as inspiring and exciting as always, but popular music has been dumbed down too much for it to be a vehicle for a movie ("From Justin to Kelly" notwithstanding).

Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that matters

[Areyoukiddingme]

Good movies are still being made, some on budgets so low that a shoestring would be an improvement, but mainstream Hollywood is just turning into one homogeneous steaming pile of dreck.

There's a reason for that.

Hollywood has too much money.

Seriously. If you want art, you practically have to have starving artists. Fat and happy artists get lazy. Worse, in the case of Hollywood, there's so much money the art is buried in parasites. It's gotten so the bloated bloodsuckers are bigger than the host, and because they control the money, they think they deserve to have a say in the art. When that's about the worst possible outcome.

Abolish copyright. For the good of art and the subsequent benefit of humanity.

Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if all their legal shenanigans have turned people off...

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Opportunist]

No, it can't be. It can't be that going to the movies has become some endeavor you have to financially plan before setting out on it (with parking, food and all you'd be lucky to get out below 20 bucks per person). Let alone that people have less money in a depression as well and movies is one of the FIRST things to cut back at (seriously, if your choice is to eat tomorrow or to see a movie tonight...). It can't be that we don't want to "enjoy" our movie in the presence of people who grew up in a barn. It can't be that we get headaches from the "invisible" flickering and whatnot introduced to keep us from using our cellphones to record the movie. It can't be that the script of the average movie fits on a legal page and the renarration of the content fits easily on a post-it.

It must be due to sharing platforms. Yeah, that's why.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Dunbal]

No I think it has to do more with the shitty overpriced movies.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Stargoat]

In the various documentaries I have seen regarding the First Great Depression, the movies were regarded as an inexpensive form of entertainment. Admission for a nickel ($.05). Granted, those were the days before television, so if you wanted to watch something, you had to go to the theaters. During the Second Great Depression, folks can stay at home to get a similar level of entertainment.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Don't forget the rude people in the crowd who can't pull themselves away from their smartphones or keep their mouth shut.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[GrumpySteen]

A loaf of bread cost 5-10 cents during the depression, so 5 cents for a movie ticket was inexpensive. If movie tickets still cost the same as a loaf of bread today, theater attendance rates would be much better.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[gordo3000]

I assume you didn't read the article? it doesn't mention sharing but does say this year's movies basically sucked (transformers, spiderman 2) or underperformed (mockingjay) and the only beacon of light was Guardians of the Galaxy.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the rude people in the crowd who can't pull themselves away from their smartphones or keep their mouth shut.

Nah....Movie attendance is down because the theatres won't let us wear our "Google Glass" glasses. /sarcasm

Seriously, I can't stand people that have to comment on every scene, respond to every text message they get, or feel they need to update their Facebook status during a movie. What is so important about updating Facebook or tweeting how great/bad the movie is while actually watching?

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[alexander_686]

To build off of that, from what I have read, the 2 main factors are:

1. Quality of the movies – or lack there off. If there are 10 quality movies in a year, people will go out and see 10 movies. If there are 2 quality movies, people will go out and see 2. Entertainment dollars are flexible.

2. Improved quality of home theaters, Video On Demand, and TV / cable shows. Why spend $10 to watch a romcom on the big screen when you can spend less to watch it at home. Some films demand to be seen on the big screen. Others not so much. Plus some long format TV shows are doing things that film can't do. Game of Thrones is a popular example.

For myself, I go to 2 or 3 full price films each year – and only because I think the film benefits from seeing it in IMAX, 3D, so something along those lines. I will see another 5 to 10 films at the local cheap seats theater, where my wife and I can see a movie and have pop and popcorn for under $10. And that is more of an excuse to get out of the house rather than anything else. Everything else is on the home theater.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if all their legal shenanigans have turned people off...

Nothing as exotic as what you say. I'd bet it has to do with quality. Have you seen the kind of shit that passes as cinema nowadays ? I mean middle of the road films northing fancy. Hollywood makes films for retarted. It has gotten so bad that most films are not even pirate worthy. 10 years ago it wasn't like this. I hope the studios crumble under the endless shit of remakes, remakes of remakes, remakes of reboots of superheroes.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Richard_at_work]

Depends on what movies you are after, surely?

I enjoyed the final Hobbit film, but aside from that both the Alan Turing and the Stephen Hawking films were ones I would recommend to friends.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Don't you eat Organic, Chemical-Free, Gluten-Free, Taste-free bread imported from [3rd world nation]?

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

This bread is not imported from [3rd world nation] unless you mean US of A. The taxable base may be exported to some odd country but that is another matter.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Penguinisto]

In the various documentaries I have seen regarding the First Great Depression, the movies were regarded as an inexpensive form of entertainment. Admission for a nickel ($.05). Granted, those were the days before television, so if you wanted to watch something, you had to go to the theaters. During the Second Great Depression, folks can stay at home to get a similar level of entertainment.

Agreed. Back then, only the middle-class or better had radios, and TV didn't exist. Also consider that with no competition and even in good times, going to the movies used to be a massive social event. Folks would dress up in their best for a Friday-night premiere showing, much like the upper crust did when they went to the opera, ballet, etc. Also consider that back then, going to the movies was very similar to what their grandparents did when they in turn went to a vaudeville show. You went to see and be seen, as much as you went to the movie itself. It was just as important to BS in the lobby with friends and neighbors while smoking during intermission (...don't know what those were? Rent an old cinematic-length movie sometime, e.g. Dr Zhivago) as it was to see the latest bit of entertainment.

Society has changed in more ways than that now: increased societal isolation, coupled with a massive network of entertainment in all conceivable varieties being funneled into individual homes (or with the smartphone, in your pocket). Yeah, why bother going to a big, dark room with a bunch of half-mannered strangers you don't know or care about?

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Opportunist]

That would mean movies would cost like a buck or two?

Even I'd go for that price.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[UnknowingFool]

Not only the price has gone up; the experience has gone down. I do see movies now and then but I am selective where I see and which movie. I am fortunate to live within driving distance to a movie and dinner theater like Alamo Drafthouse or Studio Movie Grill. They are what I consider "adult" theaters (not porn) in that they bring back the experience of a movie for adults.

• No one under 18 (unless it is a kid's event)
• no talking
• no texting
• no arriving late
• real food and alcohol served to you at your seat

In fact Alamo a few years back threw out a seemingly drunk individual for texting and turned it into a pre-movie PSA.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[JMJimmy]

Actually, $0.05 in 1930 would be $0.70 today.

Even calculating from 1985 when prices were around $4/ticket inflation should have only brought them to $8.78 - the last movie ticket I bought was $19.99 to watch the Hobbit on New Years (horribly disappointing). Funny thing about it though - the audience was smaller than the $6 tickets to see It's a Wonderful Life which was nearly sold out.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%! There have basically been only a handfull of good movies made in the last 15-20 years. Pretty much the same situation for music, and gaming. The quality is just not there most of the time anymore.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLzzz! at least you weren't modded up.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong, but i'd guess "movie stars" didn't earn the same as they do now after factoring in inflation.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[plover]

That would mean movies would cost like a buck or two? Even I'd go for that price.

I wouldn't. Remember "dollar theaters" from the 1990s? They were built on that exact premise. It turned out the audience was primarily a bunch of noisy kids who could afford to go at that rate, so they went to the theater to socialize instead of watching the movie. They had all the manners and polish of a herd of goats.

Even though the dollar theaters had much higher attendance numbers than the first-run theaters, the local ones went out of business. I think it's due to the amount of cleaning staff they had to run through the auditorium after each show, mopping up spilled drinks, clearing pathways paved with popcorn and litter, and chiseling used chewing gum off of every surface. We tried the dollar theater a few times, but it was so disgusting we chose to continue to pay full price for the few movies we did attend. The higher prices set a bar where the people in the theater actually want to see the show.

Something else that the dollar theaters can't compete with is cable. When we are in a theater watching the previews, my wife and I will critique each: "that looks good, we'll have to go see it"; "that looks like your kind of movie"; "let's wait for it to come out on cable"; or it looks so ridiculously awful or inappropriate that all we can do is laugh or cringe. But "wait for cable" is pretty much the stock answer for everything of interest. When we were at the theater yesterday, I don't recall seeing a single preview for any movie we really wanted to catch in the theater.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[c]

I think another major factor is that people no longer consume content according to the strict and narrow release windows that content producers prefer.

DVD, DVR, on-demand streaming, binge watching, etc have immunized us against the hype industry that got people to line up for the midnight showings of new blockbuster releases.

As soon as we got comfortable with "we'll see it... whenever", well, game over.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Alamo has brought us back into seeing movies on the big screen. They've also spoiled us for all other theaters because now we don't go to a movie unless it's playing at Alamo. The experience is just THAT much better! Serving a whole meal during the show is just such a brilliant idea it's befuddling why the other theater owners never thought of it. I also love the hard-ass rules about talking/texting/etc.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[alexander_686]

It is a though – but I am not sure if that is true. I am still turning this over in my head.

For a contra viewpoint read move review James Berardinelli's thoughts on "Once and Done". It is a 3 part essay, and I am linking only to the first part. Pop culture shelf life – movies in particular - seems to have gotten shorter. Everybody wants to see the latest thing now, know all of the spoilers before going in, have a huge box office weekend, and fad fast.

http://www.reelviews.net/reelt...

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, where is it $19.99 for a movie ticket? Was this some super limited thing or some IMAX 3D thing? We went to see the Hobbit too - in California, and it was $11.75 per ticket. Of course I get headaches from 3D so we don't even look at the movie times for those. We selected the standard, but they started showing the 3D - it was funny to see each group of people in attendance slowly send one person to either complain or find the stupid glasses. It took some time too as they switched to 3D during the house ads (buy our soda and candy) after the trailers but before the movie. We made it about 5 minutes into the 3D version before the theater people fixed it and started the normal version.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[robstout]

Where I live there are 3 choices for movies: 1: Market Square. This is a 2nd run movie theater, with tickets that cost $2.50 - $3.00 per person. I typically see films here if I missed them in the first run theaters, or if I don't think the movie isn't worth full ticket price. My standards are a lot lower when I'm only spending $3. 2: Main theaters. First run. Tickets are ~ $10 per person. Your typical modern movie hell. Lots of ads, crowds, etc. It's rare that I make it to one of these theaters. I think the last time was for a special Rifftrax showing of Godzilla. 3: Sundance. First run arthouse, with a few mainstream releases. Tickets are ~ $12, but seats are reserved, and there are no ads. Also the concession stand sells good beer. Movies actually start when advertised. If I'm going to spend the money to see a movie, this is where I go. The gist of this is if you want me to go to a movie, either make the tickets much cheaper, or make the experience much better.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[UnknowingFool]

Agreed. I was talking to two couples a while back (an older couple and a younger couple who happened to be one of the children of the older). The older couple remarked that when their children were growing up they didn't go to the movie theater for almost 10 years on a date. So they didn't see many movies. It was a big deal to get a babysitter for a movie night, etc. The younger couple who have a child too said time commitments meant they didn't go to the movie theater much. The difference was the younger couple still watched movies while raising a child while the older did not. Streaming, Red Box rentals, Digital and physical purchases meant that they didn't miss out on any movies the younger couple wanted to watch; they could do it on their own time schedule.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[gordo3000]

when talking about broad market performance, any one individual doesn't matter. What matters is how the movies line up with comparable movies in previous, better years.

Usually movie attendance is not driven by biopics. It is driven by large scale blockbusters like Avengers, Iron Man, etc, etc. So when I say this year's movies sucked, I am talking specifically about the movies that were expected to drive attendance but instead fell flat. Add to that several that didn't fall flat but underperformed, and you get a bad year.

what I found amazing is they said the average ticket price was about 8 dollars. I haven't been able to find a theater that cheap since I was in rural Florida growing up.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[mallyn]

Hold on! Are you sure? I just got back from seeing that last night here in Portland at the Bagdad on Hawthorne. Nine dollars.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[mallyn]

Sorry, I beg to differ. Here in Portland, Oregon I have had different luck with the lower priced theaters. The Kennedy School, Edgefield, Laurelhurst, Academy, Mission, and some others were not as you described at all. I never had problems with misbehaving kids, gum stuck on the seats, or excessive litter.

In fact, one of the so called dollar houses, the Avalon on Belmont, had a better sound system and better sound isolation between the auditoriums than the first run Lloyd on Multnomah.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[mallyn]

Even I fondly remember this from childhood. And I am only 61 years old.

The kids went to the Saturday Matene, which was another big event.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw the new Hobbit movie last night over at Edgefield. Beer, Burger, polite audience, and a great sound system made that the best movie experience I've had for years. Certainly going to go back for future movies!

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE do not give the bread makers ideas.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[mallyn]

Will they open one in Portland, Oregon?

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[c]

Everybody wants to see the latest thing now, know all of the spoilers before going in, have a huge box office weekend, and fad fast.

That's pretty much the premise of the article.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but something seems to be missing from that argument.

I think if you replace "Everybody" with "The people who still care to see movies in theatres", it clarifies the problem. Yes, there does appear to be an interesting trend in that demographic which concentrates opening earnings to a much narrower time window.

But... I dunno. It's like the article (and the industry as a whole) can't look much outside that narrow time window of box office revenues.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[alexander_686]

While what you are saying is true, and I think it answers the question of why movie revenues are falling, but I don't think that is the full answer. I still think culture is become more homogeneous which a shorter lifespan.

In retail, there is the 20/80 rule – that 20% of your items will result in 80% of your sales. This rule is recursive. This has been true for a very long time.

Then in 2004 Chris Anderson came out with the "Long Tail" theory that he later wrote up in a book. His argument was that the 20/80 rule existed because shops had physical limits on their inventory. The internet would remove that limit and niche products would grow.

The actually experience is different. Amazon reports that as they have grown bigger with more diverse offerings, the top drivers of revenue are shrinking. This is true if one is looking at a category (i.e. books) or as a whole. It looks like everybody has to buy the Harry Potter books, everybody will be buying a ticket to the next Star Wars film, etc.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

A loaf of organic fair-trade gluten-free etc bread from whole foods (which we usually mock as "whole paycheck" around here for its crazy high prices) is a fraction of the cost of a ticket at the theater I occasionally go to.

Add in the cost of parking, some popcorn and a coke with the movie, and spending the same money at whole paycheck will get me a nice grass-fed no-antibiotic free range steak and some veggies to go with the bread.

Re: Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Wrexs0ul]

Cirque starts with something like this in Vegas at the beginning of Ka. Some "guy" is talking on the phone and the cast deals with him hilariously. Coincidentally it's also a great show if you haven't seen it.

It's still something I think about when someone can't find the off button on their tech during a movie.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

$19.99 for a ticket? Where are you going to the movies, that is rather high! Even the over priced IMAX 3D and similar rip-off auditoriums don't charge that, they're more in the $16.00 range. Normal auditoriums tend to be closer to $11.00.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Doghouse13]

Saw the final Hobbit film here in the UK a couple of days ago (in 2D) for the equivalent of $13. Some films I'd always choose to go see in the cinema first off, because I still feel the "big screen" experience is likely to serve them best. The rest I'll wait for and watch at home.

I have to say that, seen from the standpoint here in the UK of a non-US national, I've viewed the vast bulk of what comes out of the US studios as almost entirely formulaic dross for, literally, decades. And it's getting worse. If two releases a year actually tempt me to the theatre now, it's been a good year. The problem seems to me to be that US studio execs would mostly clearly rather die than take a risk that might cost the studio money (and them their jobs). Sadly, that's precisely where all the good stuff would have come from. So almost all we get now are (1) the same old hackneyed stories and genres, with (literally) formulaic structure and pacing (see http://entertainment-beta.slas... if you don't know what I'm talking about), and (2) "grab the money" sequels to (or rip-off copies of) anything that did even remotely well at the box office (here's a hint, guys - if, say, 1 movie in 10 was an unexpected hit, experience suggests to me that the likelihood that any sequel will even be half as good, is not much better than 1 in 10 as well - probably worse, actually, as clueless studio execs try desperately to get the production team to repeat whatever "magic" made it sufficiently different as to be successful, and destroy it completely in the process).

Re: Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Fellow Madisonian!

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[CycleMan]

The actually experience is different. Amazon reports that as they have grown bigger with more diverse offerings, the top drivers of revenue are shrinking. This is true if one is looking at a category (i.e. books) or as a whole. It looks like everybody has to buy the Harry Potter books, everybody will be buying a ticket to the next Star Wars film, etc.

From my observation, part of the reason for fewer items driving a greater percentage of the revenue is this: given three options for shampoo, I can try each of them and then reliably purchase my favorite. In a large population, we probably differ on what our favorite is. Given a hundred shampoos, once I find one that works decently, I'll stick with it; it's not worth it to me to try 90+ other shampoos. Replace shampoo with movie genre or book author, add in reviewer ratings so that we buy products that are reviewed more than untested and unreviewed products, and that's your Amazon experience.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Opportunist]

Yeah, I could see that getting me back to seeing a movie. Watching am movie over a good dinner seems quite like something I would enjoy.

It needn't even be some kind of current blockbuster, fine dining with some movie entertainment as a side event would certainly be something I could see me doing.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Opportunist]

There's a very easy solution to this: Kick the fuckers out if they can't behave like human beings. If cleaning up after them costs more than the dollar they bring in, while at the same time chasing away customers that would bring that dollar without costing 5 to clean up behind them, they cost you money instead of making you any.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Opportunist]

No, the article didn't talk about it. But rest assured that this is what we'll get to hear pretty soon now, along with a demand for stricter laws and more leeway for the studios to screw us over and invade our privacy in the quest for the all-holy protection of their content crap.

I'm honestly waiting for them to install TSA-like goons in theaters who do a wholesale cavity search just in case you hide your camera THERE. Followed of course by a completely bewildered reaction to an analysis that shows how people react by not even wanting to go see a movie if they got paid. Which, again, will OF COURSE not be due to not wanting to be anal probed just to watch a stupid little flick but of course it has to be filesharing.

Right now I just wonder whether the studios wake up before or after they're bankrupt. Part of me hopes for after.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[afidel]

Wow, I'd probably never go at $20 per ticket, we see the most films at the local drive-in where the carload gets in for $22 with a bring your own food and drink pass, there's nothing better than watching a double feature with a few cold adult beverages on a warm summer evening. Other than that we tend to go to matinee showings on the weekend for around $6.50.

Re: Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, how much did you pay for all the beer?

Re: Are people sick of the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Highlight I remember is when singing in a revue choir concert. Phone ringing close to front row, lady finally starts rummaging through her handbag. After what seems like an eternity, she finds it and bloody takes the call. Does sort of smalltalk for about a minute or two, then says that she has to call back later since she's in a concert.

That's sort of the situation where you think the conductor is called the "conductor" since he should be able to strike people down with lightning. Or at the very least, be carrying a taser.

Re:Are people sick of the MPAA?

[JMJimmy]

Hold on! Are you sure? I just got back from seeing that last night here in Portland at the Bagdad on Hawthorne. Nine dollars.

Actually, I double checked... $23.99+tax

Format General(14-64) Child(3-13) Senior(65+)
General $12.99 $8.99 $9.50
3D $15.99 $11.99 $12.50
UltraAVX 3D $17.99 $13.99 $14.50
IMAX $19.99 $12.99 $13.50
D-BOX UltraAVX 3D $23.99 $19.99 $20.50

Normally I don't go to theatres at all due to the price and poor service. We got some gift cards for xmas so we figured why not do the final Hobbit movie right. Regular fare is still almost 50% higher than it ought to be at that location. Other locations in the area it's as high as $13.75 for regular fare.

blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[alen]

less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet
vs
$30 to see a movie once in a crowded theater and with crappy 3D unless i'm lucky enough to get a middle seat and then it's a big PITA to go to the bathroom after drinking a gallon of coke in the first hour

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what the soda cup is for? (kidding)

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MitchDev]

Dude, grow a bladder

Geuss I'm lucky, I can go three hours in a movie on huge beverage (assuming I go before we enter the theater for the previews and the movie itself...

Of course, we went to a theater maybe once or twice in 2014, for Hobbit 3 and... maybe only one unless Hobbit 2 came out early in 2014....

The "movie-going experience" kinda sucks.

Yeah, the huge screen is great, but a lot of the time the sound effects or back-ground music tends to make it hard to hear the actual dialog (and there are no subtitles/closed captions unless you go to one of a very few theaters), you're locked into the theater's time schedule, no pause/rewind when needed/wanted, other people being noisy/disruptive/stupid, WAY overpriced food/drinks...
and let's not forget how little originality to the movies anymore, they are all remakes of old movies TV shows, or yet another tired sequel (Liam Neeson in Taken 245, see his third cousin's uncle's brother's adopted neice's pitbull get kidnapped and need rescuing)

The theater isn't that great of an experience anymore...

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[jellomizer]

Going to a movie.
You really should go with someone. Sure you can see a movie alone, it feels really weird.
Movie Tickets cost about $9 - $15 bucks Being that you bring someone you will need to double that.
Even if you are able to cheap out and not get raped by the concession stand. The person you are going with may want something. So that adds $5 - $10 to it.

So you have spend $40 for 2 hours of entertainment, if you don't like the movie then that is a lot of money wasted.

For that money you can get 3-4 months of streaming movies. Where you can watch as much as you want.

If theaters want to improve movie going. They will need to treat their customers as guests.
Cheaper prices concession food. Don't nitpick about people who bring in their own food.
Put restrooms in quick distance from the theater.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

For $7 I can see the movie you paid $30 to see.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[drinkypoo]

and then it's a big PITA to go to the bathroom after drinking a gallon of coke in the first hour

Diabeetus, is that you?

I used to take snacks to the movies. Problem solved. Now I don't go to the movies. Problem more solved. Like you, I'd rather buy the Disc. It's cheaper and I can pause, like you say.

But seriously, lay off the coke. It's about the worst thing you can eat, you might as well just shoot up the sugar.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet
vs
$30 to see a movie once in a crowded theater and with crappy 3D unless i'm lucky enough to get a middle seat and then it's a big PITA to go to the bathroom after drinking a gallon of coke in the first hour

When I was a little boy during the early eighties I saw Superman, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Flash Gordon, Close Encounters of the third kind, Gone with the wind, and many many more at the theater. A real theater with hundreds of seats and a fucking huge monster screen. No home theater I've ever seen nor a multiplex cinema room can match the majesty of those old time theaters. No dvd, no blu-ray will ever match the greatness of watching Superman on a screen as big as that of an Imax. Going to the theater was pleasure. Films were interesting/good and the screens were real movie screens. Nowadays between 3d films that you can barely see because of the light level, DRM on projectors, small screens and stupid audiences (talking on phones, messaging etc...) that don't give a shit about the person watching the film next to him yeah I understand why less and less people go to the movie theater.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[KingOfBLASH]

It's not just cost, it's also how far home theaters have come.

20 - 30 years ago, a really nice sounds system and really nice TV couldn't match the quality of a movie. I'm talking about big ass projection TVs that cost thousands of dollars for crappy picture quality, when movie theaters showed movies on actual FILM.

Now, with flat screen HD Tvs under a grand, and amazing surround system also for relatively cheap, we've changed the formula.

Before, I was paying for an experience I couldn't duplicate. Amazing sound, amazing picture quality, on a really big screen.

Now, I can duplicate the experience at home for cheaper. And there are a ton of incentives.

Besides cost:

1. I can drink whatever I want (including beer, wine, and scotch) with unlimited refills.
2. There's never an obnoxious pair of people who won't shut up next to me.
3. If the movie is really thought provoking, and as a group we discuss it, we won't be annoying anyone else.
4. Movies show whenever I want -- I can decide to sit down for a Matrix Marathon at 3am if I want.
5. Every movie I buy, I keep forever. I won't rewatch every movie I buy, but some I find myself going back to time and again. And in the off chance someone ends up stuck at my place (I've had friends need a place to crash because there was construction in their place, or maybe their block lost power in a storm), I can just give them my Apple TV remote and tell them to entertain themselves.

Theaters need to sell a unique experience if they want to get people. (Just look at how many people go for IMAX releases of things like Avatar). But recently there's been no innovation, just a constant increasing of costs for consumers: ticket prices, cost of food, etc.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

and let's not forget how little originality to the movies anymore, they are all remakes of old movies TV shows, or yet another tired sequel (Liam Neeson in Taken 245, see his third cousin's uncle's brother's adopted neice's pitbull get kidnapped and need rescuing)

I totally don't get Liam Neeson as an action star. I was dumbfounded that Taken managed to generate a sequel. And now there is another one. What is it that makes dudes want to see Liam Neeson being a badass?

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[beelsebob]

Yep, it's really simple - they've pushed the price too high.

If the price were $5 a showing, I'd be there every single week, probably twice a week. Since the price is $12 or so now, which means $24 for my wife and I, it's not worth taking a punt on movies that could be mediocre.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

They will need to treat their customers as guests.
Cheaper prices concession food. Don't nitpick about people who bring in their own food.

And healthy food. There is nothing there but soda, candy, and butter popcorn. My family does not eat any of that!

Last time, they stopped my wife and I at the door because we were bringing in coffee. THEY DON'T EVEN SELL COFFEE!

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MitchDev]

He doesn't look like an action hero, feeding the average Joe's need to think they themselves could be an action hero?

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but bluray sucks. Sony sucks. Most people are happy with DVD quality and see no reason to buy bluray disks. Also the fact that 99% of bluray disks have previews that cannot be skipped or fast forwarded through makes them NOT the media of choice! The only way that bluray disks sell at all is that these days you have to buy the bluray disk packaged with the DVD disk to get the DVD disk much of the time.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[urbanriot]

Sure you can see a movie alone, it feels really weird.

Strangely enough, it doesn't feel weird when I'm in a foreign country or out of town. When you think of the movie going experience, with the exception of comedies and perhaps romcoms, you're fully focused on the screen in an independent way so it seems the greatest aspect of what 'feels weird' is the consideration for what perception others may have for 'you' going to the movies by yourself.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Kierthos]

The problem about making the movie concessions cheaper is that is where the theaters make the majority of their money. Upwards of 80% of every dollar spent at the concessions stand is profit for the theater.

Whereas, in the first week of a blockbuster, theaters keep about 10% of the ticket price.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[AmiMoJo]

DVRs and YouTube have reduced people's tolerance for unskippable ads.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[houghi]

This is the same excuse many people use about eating out in a restaurant or having a drink in a pub.
Yes, at home it will be cheaper, but this is often not about just the money. It should be about social contact.

It sounds like this time somebody told me he saved 1EUR because he ran after a bus. I told him he should run after a taxi and save more money.

To me going to the movies with friends does not even begin or end with the movie. First we see each other somewhere, see the movie and have a drink afterwards. Perhaps even dinner. If I look at the amount of money, I get closer to 50 to 70 EUR.

It is the social part that makes me want to do it. I can just as easy download the movie for free if money is the problem.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[plover]

There is always some demand for lone-wolf revenge movies. Remember all the Charles Bronson "Death Wish" movies from the 1970s? He also looked like an ordinary guy, living an ordinary life; not at all dissimilar from Liam Neeson.

Many people enjoy seeing vigilante justice, and for some reason they especially enjoy seeing a guy who has been wronged taking out an entire gang of deserving villains (with just a little help from his friends.) They also get to overlook the fact that in normal circumstances we'd label such a person a "mass murderer".

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[ruir]

Going to movies for social contact seems like a terrible ideia. Better skip it and going directly to the drinks.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

And healthy food. There is nothing there but soda, candy, and butter popcorn. My family does not eat any of that!

Well, nobody eats healthy food. If you do, that's fine - just realize you are not the norm and move on. The masses want popcorn, pretzels, candy, nachos and stuff. So that's what they sell. How many celery sticks do you think they could sell for $5.00?

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[torkus]

Food there costs so much because it's how they make their money. Something like 90% of the ticket price goes to the movie studios afaik.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a fruit cup? Or a sandwich. Or air popped popcorn. Or nuts. Or pretzels. Or coffee. Or tea.

People would buy it. *I* would buy it. My wife and I walked through the concession area at a 21 screen megatheater and there was nothing but soda, candy, and butter popcorn. Not even water! We walked into the theater empty handed.

Even McDonalds sells fruit!

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[guacamole]

I understand why the prices at the theater bars is such a problem. The movie theater is not a restaurant, coffee, or an ice cream shop. I don't understand how the society has gotten to the point where people can't enjoy watching a movie without gulping a supersize bucket of a carbonated sugary drink with a bag of popcorn. Instead of spending your money on this junk, just have a nicer dinner before or after movie.

And I don't know why you think that everyone should go watch a movie with someone. I for one a fan of independent and international cinema, something my friends or family do not always enjoy or have time for. So the cost of paying 10 bucks per movie to see it on a big screen does not seem so high.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MitchDev]

Time crunch even moreso.

When you have a job, work a good chunk of the day, have the commute to and from work, plus family obligations, your free time is more precious than ever.
Not to mention people are SICK AND TIRED of being advertised at.

I'm at the point where commercials are a "Do not buy this product!" list rather than a "promotional" tool that they are meant to be.

For the "unskippable" garbage on DVD/BluRays, turn on the player and pop in the disc a few minutes before you even switch the TV to DVD input....

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[SuricouRaven]

70s? Older than that. How many Westerns use that cliche? There are always some evil bandits, and always a hero (Or in the spagetti westerns, usually an anti-hero) to kill them.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[jandrese]

This is a huge factor. Theaters have been pushing ticked prices up much faster than the rate of inflation for at least a decade now. It's even worse if the movie is 3D, since they'll add $2 to each ticket to rent a pair of glasses for 90 minutes. It's really no wonder that ticket sales are down. The prices are not sustainable, yet I doubt I'll see any theater chains backing off of them anytime soon. Instead they're just going to cry about how home video is ruining their business, just like DVD and VCR before it.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

In Atlanta, tickets go up to $20 per ticket and the experience has not improved as prices increased from $8 over the last 10 years. More than double inflation rate increase

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[braindrainbahrain]

If they won't treat us as guests, at least treat us as paying customers, not just more eye balls they can sell to advertisers. Maybe all that advertising (not the movie previews) really has degraded the movie-going experience?

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Moof123]

The problem about making the movie concessions cheaper is that is where the theaters make the majority of their money. Upwards of 80% of every dollar spent at the concessions stand is profit for the theater.

Whereas, in the first week of a blockbuster, theaters keep about 10% of the ticket price.

So why isn't popcorn even pricier then? Heck, they could more than could their profit per tub by doubling the price! Your argument should be based on total profit maximization, not on profit margins. I'd argue that prices have gotten so high that they are past the optimum profit maximization point. Plenty of folks regularly wear big coats or bring in large purses to get around the price gouging. I'd love to see a good study on this.

Movie theaters had a captive audience 40 years ago when VCR's were not common. Up to ~15 years ago they had a real edge over VCR tapes, then DVD's came out. Now you can get a fairly equivalent or better experience at home depending on your home system and personal tastes with a BlueRay disc or HD streaming.

Movie theaters have not kept pace. With less advantage to offer, they should have dropped their price to stay relevant, but they haven't It feels like they have raised the prices on the remaining chumps to make up for the ones who no longer find the experience worth paying for, which has created a long term problem for themselves. High prices have permanently soured a large segment of the population on the experience and gotten them out of the habit. Going to the movies now feels like an occasional extravagance for a movie that can actually justify the costs and hassles, rather than a roughly weekly treat that it was when I was growing up. I spend less overall than I used to, and it is likely true for others as well.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

The " Social Contact " is why I avoid movie theaters in the first place. I'm there to see the movie, not listen to the idiots around me chat it up, talk on their phones, text, or play games. I try not to say anything about little Timmy ( who is 5 ) running up and down the isles of the theater while the movie is playing, but occasionally my patience can take no more and the fight starts with the parents.

Theater management won't do anything about it for the same reasons everyone else doesn't either. If you dare say anything, it practically guarantees a fight with the parents. ( How DARE you criticize how I raise my children :|, btdt ) Same results if you tell someone to put the f*cking phone away. Just be ready for the physical fight if you say something.

Watching them at home:

It's quiet. I can focus on the movie vs all the above bullshit.
I can either skip though all the previews or go get my snacks ready while they play.
My vehicle isn't at risk of getting broke into while at the theater.
I don't pay $5 for a hot dog, or $5 for a drink.
I can pause it if need be for bathroom runs.
My sound system works perfectly. The speakers haven't been destroyed due to distortion from cranking it up beyond the threshold of pain.

Unless you're a teenager, there is really no reason to bother with going to the movie theater anymore. Yet, even with the obvious staring them in the face, the MPAA will likely spin this into " OMGTEHPIRATESAREKILLINGMOVIES " or something similar.

Re: blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[ceoyoyo]

You can fix one of those by skipping the coke. Your pancreas will thank you too.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MightyMartian]

I've heard movie theaters described as junk food dispensaries with a big screen.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MitchDev]

You can do that watching a movie on your home theater system too...

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MitchDev]

Seriously, the other movie goers don't want to listen to the OP chat with his/her/its friends during the movie....

If your only social outlet is in a dark theater where you're focused on the screen in front of you and not supposed to chat, you are doing it wrong...

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[RatPh!nk]

This is the same excuse many people use about eating out in a restaurant or having a drink in a pub. Yes, at home it will be cheaper, but this is often not about just the money. It should be about social contact.

I like the sentiment of OP's post, and for sure bars, restaurants there is a social element. But for movies? The most social they get is a glance to your buddy/SO in a "did you just see that" kind of way.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[l0ungeb0y]

feeding the average Joe's need to think they themselves could be an action hero?

So the "Average Joe" is literate, well spoken, well coiffed, can travel the world while getting dirty work done? What world is this that you live in? I think Taken just appeals to the audience that enjoys Bond, Bourne and Mission Impossible movies. Sure, he's not a "covert agent", but he does all the same sort of stuff.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same excuse many people use about eating out in a restaurant or having a drink in a pub.
Yes, at home it will be cheaper, but this is often not about just the money. It should be about social contact.

It sounds like this time somebody told me he saved 1EUR because he ran after a bus. I told him he should run after a taxi and save more money.

To me going to the movies with friends does not even begin or end with the movie. First we see each other somewhere, see the movie and have a drink afterwards. Perhaps even dinner. If I look at the amount of money, I get closer to 50 to 70 EUR.

It is the social part that makes me want to do it. I can just as easy download the movie for free if money is the problem.

Yes, but you could also do all the social things from home as well. The cinema experience is losing its edge over what is available at home, for less money. It's not a money, social or tech thing alone. It's the combination of all those things that is making the cinema experience lose its appeal. I could and have invited groups of friends over to my place to watch Star Wars or LoTR marathons, done pot luck and BYOB and yes, sometimes gone out to the bar(s) afterwards as there are several within walking distance to my place. I should add that I have a 720p DLP projector that projects a 120" diagonal image on the 114" high wall of my living room with good sound. My friends would rather do this than waste ridiculous amounts of money in a theater where we can't interact as socially and then risk drinking and driving should we all go out somewhere after, as we don't need to. Of course the drinking and driving thing is also mitigated where I live as most of the town is within walking distance or a $5.00 cab ride if the buses aren't running.

If I'm going out for a social night on the town going to see a movie is usually not on the list, anymore. My social life is not that devoid of things to talk about that I need to be up on all the current cinema playing as most of it is crap anyway!

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[danlip]

They don't make any money if you don't show up. Gouging your customers pisses them off and they will go away if there is any alternative, and in this case there is. If they were smart (they're not) they'd make concessions cheaper, and it would increase attendance and therefore profit.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Around me it seems the trend is to keep the ticket about $13, but offer decent food you can eat at your seat. The food, of course, is way overpriced, but it seems like the movie is pretty much a loss leader. If you don't eat, the big comfy seats, big screen & killer sound make it a decent deal.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Livius]

in normal circumstances we'd label such a person a "mass murderer".

Assuming we didn't label him a murder victim first.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[vivek7006]

Sorry but bluray sucks. Sony sucks. Most people are happy with DVD quality and see no reason to buy bluray disks. Also the fact that 99% of bluray disks have previews that cannot be skipped or fast forwarded through makes them NOT the media of choice! The only way that bluray disks sell at all is that these days you have to buy the bluray disk packaged with the DVD disk to get the DVD disk much of the time.

Sorry but DVD sucks. Most people are happy with VHS quality and see no reason to buy DVD disks.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Four people can go see a new film for $60. Well, parking. So maybe $65. Well, maybe cokes for everyone... so $77. And don't forget that since it'll take up your evening, you'll want to grab a bite before or after. So all around, figure maybe $100 as a cheap movie night for four.

Or for the cost of the Amazon Prime I already pay for and the $8/mo for Netflix, I can get a ridiculous amount of content including films that have come out within the last year and sometimes as late as the last few months and we can all watch it from comfortable couches in the quiet of our own home on a massive 65" or larger screen and a massive sound system and no traffic, lines, ticketbooths, theater bathrooms, sticky floors, obnoxious people on their cells, or their stupid fucking kids.

I haven't gone to the theater since 1998. I don't see any reason I would *ever* go to the theater again.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[MightyMartian]

Why, he might release the kraken, of course...

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[mallyn]

Hold on! I beg to differ with you! What is wrong with going to the movies alone? I have been doing it for 61 years and there is nothing wrong with it!

If I go alone to a dollar house; bring my own trail mix and buy only whatever semi healthy food they have; I can return home from an evening out still holding change from a $10.00 bill.

I have never been challenged bringing my own food into a theater. I have only been challenged once and that was at PGE Park or whatever they call it now where the soccar team plays.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

>social contact

This is slashdot, nobody understands what you just said.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Jawnn]

It is the social part that makes me want to do it. I can just as easy download the movie for free if money is the problem.

You and your friends are probably the assholes who talk and text through the movies in the theaters. Enjoy your "social" experience.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

> Diabeetus, is that you?

Not necessarily.

I can't speak for the GP poster, but in my case it's depression; for which I take Wellbutrin. One of its side-effects is dry mouth, which my brain registers as "I'm thirsty". Sometimes, chewing gum is enough. But more often, it's rare for me to go for more than a half hour without drinking at least a pint of water or other (usually unsweetened tea, but diet if I'm going with soda) beverage... with the predictable result.

It's usually not a problem though, unless Peter Jackson is making a 3.5-hour production out of one-third of a book that I'm pretty sure I could READ, in its entirety, in less time.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Darinbob]

If you're paying $30 for a movie at a theater, you're paying too much and probably buying food at the theater.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[jedidiah]

...that's nice and all but those old Vaudville houses don't exist anymore. You can be nostalgiac all you want but today you have to deal with the houses that exist. Most of them are crap. Even the bigger ones aren't that impressive compared to a good home theater setup. You will be lucky if your film is even showing on one of the "good" ones.

      That's not even getting into all of the other tangential nonsense like rude patrons and advertisements.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[jedidiah]

Any spinny disk media is going to subject you to nonsense unless you rip it or play it with some kind of unauthorized player. BD is not any more or less annoying in this regard.

if your home setup is any good then you can notice the difference between a DVD and BD. It can be quite stark.

That's kind of the whole point of having your own home theater.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[CronoCloud]

Sorry but bluray sucks. Sony sucks.

Blu-ray is a consortium format, Sony alone didn't create it.

Also the fact that 99% of bluray disks have previews that cannot be skipped or fast forwarded

Most blu-rays make it EASIER to skip previews than DVD

Most people are happy with DVD quality and see no reason to buy bluray disks.

The difference is quite noticeable. Perhaps if "most people" didn't buy crap blu-ray players and hook them up via RF.

The only way that bluray disks sell at all is that these days you have to buy the bluray disk packaged with the DVD disk to get the DVD disk much of the time.

I wish they'd stop packing in the DVD's. I just want the blu-ray, not a DVD. The only reason I would get a DVD is if I can't get a Blu-Ray. That's been the case for me since 2008.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

$30?
You're either going alone or not be buying the $6.00 drinks and $10.00 popcorn.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

This:

If theaters want to improve movie going, they will need to treat their customers as guests.
Cheaper prices concession food. Don't nitpick about people who bring in their own food.
Put restrooms in quick distance from the theater.

Someone is trying.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[CycleMan]

Exactly. And the reason for that is that they want to capture the largest possible audience. Some folks are cheap -- no snacks, thanks -- but the theatres still get their 10% from those folks filling seats. And others want "the experience" whatever it costs, or are taking someone on a date and know that acting cheap will cut off chances of future dates, so they suck it up and pay for whatever. A final group of folks are either aspirational or foolhardy or unable to refuse their children's demands, walking in meaning to be decently frugal but are then lured into buying "just a little something" at the concessions stand.

If they cut concession prices without adjusting ticket prices, they just lose money. Mr. "Experience" is spending less, Mr. Just-a-Little might buy a tad more, and Mr. Cheap probably isn't moved. And if they raise ticket prices to counteract the drop in concession prices, Mr. Just-a-Little might not show and Mr. Cheap definitely skips it, which leaves Mr. "Experience" wondering why he's spending all this to be in an empty or tiny theatre.

Tip for Silicon Valley Mr. Cheaps: the Stanford Theatre shows old-time movies, and you can take a date there, get concessions, and still have change from a $20 bill.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[CycleMan]

...that's nice and all but those old Vaudville houses don't exist anymore. You can be nostalgiac all you want but today you have to deal with the houses that exist. Most of them are crap. Even the bigger ones aren't that impressive compared to a good home theater setup.

I would like to see the home theater setup that can compete with the mighty Wurlitzer organ at the Stanford Theatre. (http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/)

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[tsotha]

I don't know if it's still true, but years ago when a friend of mine ran a theater he said the ticket basically pays the cost of the movie itself. All the overhead and profit came from concessions.

It's not like he made a ton of money, either.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same excuse many people use about eating out in a restaurant or having a drink in a pub.
Yes, at home it will be cheaper, but this is often not about just the money. It should be about social contact.

wtf are you talking about, nobody wants social contact, most people would be happy if no other cunt was in the cinema making noise and being annoying cunts. Likewise, you dont go to a restaurant for social contact, you go for better quality food brought to your table, and they even come and do the dishes. Who the fuck goes to a restaurant for social contact. The fact that you say it like this makes me think you're locked in the basement and dont get out much. Drinking in a pub is kind of social contact but usually means just sat with the cunts you came in with and checking out the eye candy. Home bar option and internet porn is cheaper and better.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[afidel]

I think large 4k tv's might be one of the final nails in the theater coffin if we get a decent distribution media going, there were already 60" 4k tv's for $999 this season, prices will only go down from there.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Evtim]

For Europe, turn the dollars into euros....I posted the bill some time ago but again:

- Hobbit 3 HFR/IMAX/3D you pay 16 euros for the ticket and 4-8 euros for drinks/popcorn per person. And that's assuming you use a bike to go there otherwise add a few more for parking. Thus last year that was the only movie I saw in a theater. I think the next will be SW VII [can't miss it even though I know it'd be disappointing]

These guys in the movie industry have gone too far....

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Shirley Marquez]

Hobbit 2 came out in December 2013. But you might have waited until January to see it. One of the good things about digital is that there is no penalty to waiting until later in the run to see a movie, unlike film where you will get to watch a badly worn print.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use periods instead of commas.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[houghi]

The social part takes place after the movie when we talk about the movie. We have experienced something together and then talk about it.

Re:blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[RockDoctor]

Upwards of 80% of every dollar spent at the concessions stand is profit for the theater.

Tough on them. I literally cannot remember when I last brought any sort of beverage or eats at a movie theatre ... OK - now I remember : it was about 1998 and I was taking a girlfriend from a decade earlier out and we had a pint after the movie. Didn't get laid, but then, I wasn't really hoping to.

As expected...

[CodePwned]

When you keep releasing a slew of poorly written movies, yet continue to demand unreasonable fees, this is the result. People aren't willing to shell out the bucks to see a B grade movie. It's just not worth it anymore.

I'm not some movie-snob either. Most of the movies released have no replay-ability or just left a bad taste in ones mouth (Ender's Game).

Re:As expected...

[Opportunist]

Most of the movies I've seen lately made me want my time back, let alone the money spent on them.

Re:As expected...

[FatdogHaiku]

But they now have all the information needed to make the ultimate blockbuster:
Star Wars: Episode XXII — Spider-Man & Harry Potter versus The Lord of Clones at A Big Fat Greek Wedding !

Re:As expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the movies released have no replay-ability or just left a bad taste in ones mouth (Ender's Game).

Nah. That was just whatever unidentified substance they put into your popcorn that they are calling "butter"...

Re:As expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the movies I've seen lately made me want my time back, let alone the money spent on them.

I've only experienced one movie in my life that was so awful that I felt that the time spent watching it was completely and irrevocably wasted: Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. A Tale told by an Idiot, full of Sound and Fury (in insulting excess), signifying Nothing.

And I'm happy to say I didn't waste that time in the theatre (Redbox).

I'm not easily coaxed to movie theatres these days. It would have to be something truly original, like GOTG, not the 37th reboot of Batman or Spider-Man.

Re:As expected...

[OzPeter]

Most of the movies I've seen lately made me want my time back, let alone the money spent on them.

That's what I like about streaming movies form Netflix. Once I get to the point in a bad movie where I have had enough, I can just dump it and go onto the next in my queue. I am not compelled to sit all the way through a crap movie.

Re:As expected...

[unixisc]

When you keep releasing a slew of poorly written movies, yet continue to demand unreasonable fees, this is the result. People aren't willing to shell out the bucks to see a B grade movie. It's just not worth it anymore.

I'm not some movie-snob either. Most of the movies released have no replay-ability or just left a bad taste in ones mouth (Ender's Game).

Absolutely this!!! I've stopped watching movies, regardless of whether I have the time or the money. Week after week, I see despondent reviews of each week's releases, and shake my head. Also, ticket prices have also gone up, w/o movies getting any better, so that's even more of a reason. For a similar reason, I conscientiously chose not to have a TV at home, although I might change my mind and get one, but only for the sake of connecting it to YouTube, Hulu and DailyMotion

Re:As expected...

[Mr_Silver]

When you keep releasing a slew of poorly written movies, yet continue to demand unreasonable fees, this is the result. People aren't willing to shell out the bucks to see a B grade movie. It's just not worth it anymore.

This gets mentioned a lot on Slashdot but, in reality, the number of "good" movies has remained reasonably unchanged each year.

Here are the movies in the IMDB Top 250 grouped and counted by year:

Year Total
2014 6
2013 4
2012 5
2011 5
2010 6
2009 6
2008 4
2007 5
2006 5
2005 3
2004 7
2003 7
2002 4
2001 8
2000 6

In fact, 2014 (Interstellar, Boyhood, Gone Girl, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Grand Budapest Hotel and X-Men: Days of Future Past) was actually a better year than 2013 (The Wolf of Wall Street, Rush, 12 Years a Slave and Prisoners).

The "prime" year was 1995 but that only resulted in 10 films (Se7en, The Usual Suspects, Braveheart, Toy Story, Heat, Casino, Twelve Monkeys, Before Sunrise, La Haine and Underground).

(Nitpickers will point out that I really should run this over the entire DB and not the Top 250 and all take into account all film ratings - they'd be right, but that's a lot more work which I don't have the time to do).

Re:As expected...

[SuricouRaven]

Britain did have a parody show - a three-part mockery of the many reality-TV talent-contest shows that were popular at the time. The title was formed by just smashing all the shows it was mocking together: "Britain's got the pop factor and possibly a new celebrity jesus christ soapstar superstar strictly on ice."

Re:As expected...

[nabsltd]

This gets mentioned a lot on Slashdot but, in reality, the number of "good" movies has remained reasonably unchanged each year.

Here are the movies in the IMDB Top 250 grouped and counted by year:

IMDB ratings have a serious problem as far as new movies are concerned, as the latest movie of any reasonable quality tends to get many people rating it a "10" (which should mean it's perfect). It takes a while before a movie settles down to what its real rating should be. This is caused by the "aging" algorithm and number of required votes per year that IMDB uses. It means that a movie that has a lot of buzz will be listed until everybody stops caring about it and it drops out of the list, even if it has a rating that is technically better than movies in the list.

Likewise, there is no reason for movies in the top 250 to be evenly distributed by year. It's far more likely that good movies should be much older, as being evenly distributed by year implies that this year movies have been good enough to push some other movies out of the top 250, which means that the best movies are getting better, which most people agree isn't true. Even, then, there are a lot a problems with ratings being inflated as time goes by. As little as 5 years ago, a movie could crack the top 250 with less than an 8.0 rating, but now some movies are left off even though they have that same rating.

If you use IMDB info, the "Top 1000 Voters" and "Metascore" are far better indicators of the overall quality of the movie, especially if you take into account the number of "Top 1000" that entered a rating for the movie. Basically, these are people who see and rate a lot more movies than anybody else, so even if their score is high for the movie, if a lot of them never rated it, that says something by itself. For example, Star Wars and The Dark Knight are two movies that have both been around for long enough for everyone to get a chance to see them and vote on them, and have ratings of 8.6 and 8.2 from the top voters, with 930 and 898 votes. Both ratings are close to the overall ratings. On the other hand, The Hunt from 2012 (also old enough for such die hard movie viewers to have seen it) gets a 7.3 (considerably lower than the 8.3 from all voters), but only 421 bothered to see it. Django Unchained from the same year, OTOH, gets 710 votes for a rating of 7.8 (still lower than the 8.5 from all voters, but not as much of a drop). The confidence that the rating on Django Unchained is more accurate is much higher. Even using overall votes, Interstellar has less than half the votes compared to the average of the two movies immediately surrounding it on the list, and as such will eventually fall to where it really belongs.

Re:As expected...

[Dinghy]

Here are the movies in the IMDB Top 250 grouped and counted by year:

Year Total 2002 4

Isn't it amazing how the year with the highest box office revenues was tied for 2nd lowest number of movies that showed up in the top 250? (also, from the ones listed in the summary, which all were great revenue producers, only LotR Two Towers made it to the top 250 list) It's almost as if a movie being critically acclaimed (or IMDB user acclaimed) doesn't have a direct relation to how likely people are to go out and pay to see it.

Re:As expected...

[nctritech]

I've noticed that a very high number of movies made since Save the Cat! came out follow the three-part formula outlined therein. It was especially apparent having seen Pitch Black (2000) and The Chronicles of Riddick (2004), then watching the (annoyingly titled) Riddick (2013).

On top of most films following the same general plot format, the buildup of any kind of suspense is practically nonexistent. Everything has to move so damned fast that you don't even have time to come up with something to anticipate based on what has already happened before the next action-packed mostly-CGI-and-obviously-so thing smacks you in the face. A classic film like Halloween where the first 90% of the film is nothing but suspense build-up could never be made today, even if it was set in the same time period so that modern technology couldn't get in the way of the plot. Suspense is largely a thing of the past.

While I'm here on my soapbox, does anyone remember when "special effects" were actually special? (Get off my lawn!)

Re:As expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of a psych research project i did in grad school. within a survey, i had participants fill in an open response to a prompt asking them to name their favorite movie. i was really shocked to see the # of respondents who listed the rather awful Simpson's movie (which came out about a month or so before the survey project).

Re:As expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't go to see "good" movies. Whiplash made a whopping 3 million bucks. Birdman made 6 million. Both of those movies were awesome and are best picture considerations.

Meanwhile you can put out a comic book movie and make 400 million. Why would people bother making good original movies? You aren't going to go see it anyway.

Re:As expected...

[JeffAtl]

IMDB ratings have a serious problem as far as new movies are concerned, as the latest movie of any reasonable quality tends to get many people rating it a "10" (which should mean it's perfect). It takes a while before a movie settles down to what its real rating should be.

IMDB has algorithms to lessen or even disregard votes of 10's and 1's. IMDB also looks at the voter's history to apply the appropriate weight.

You also left out that many newer films also get many people rating it a "1", just because they don't like the franchise or an actor.

Re:As expected...

[CronoCloud]

just left a bad taste in ones mouth (Ender's Game).

You could say that about the LDS propaganda that is the book. Yeah "Kid born to LDS parents who flouted the overpopulation based rules to have him, saves the world, by comitting genocide." How subtle.

Re:As expected...

[Mandrel]

The number of really good movies may be limited each year, but the number of "good enough" movies has exploded. Ten times more feature films were made in 2014 compared to 1914, and five times more than 1956 (see below). Viewers today are so spoiled for choice from new and old films that they are becoming devalued, mostly not worth an outing (much like what has happened to the music industry).

Second, kids now grow up with interactive entertainment, and the old "passives" just don't cut it.

Script to show feature films made by year:

#!/bin/bash
for year in $(seq 1914 2014); do
wget -qO - "http://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&year=$year" | grep -m1 '^1-50 of ' | cut -c9-
done

1,079 1,563 1,988 2,054 2,016 2,124 2,347 2,175 1,825 1,521 1,549 1,587 1,553 1,611 1,614 1,486 1,504 1,642 1,588 1,508 1,625 1,697 1,781 1,776 1,769 1,677 1,602 1,450 1,360 1,242 1,126 1,038 1,208 1,331 1,472 1,633 1,679 1,697 1,789 1,869 1,906 1,928 2,068 2,153 2,231 2,202 2,284 2,333 2,318 2,258 2,447 2,536 2,576 2,884 3,216 3,019 3,257 3,097 2,995 2,854 2,823 2,786 2,783 2,757 2,846 2,974 2,964 2,889 3,018 3,042 3,053 3,061 3,101 3,224 3,266 3,207 3,522 3,369 3,359 3,223 3,169 3,225 3,273 3,452 3,560 3,737 3,749 3,850 3,852 3,812 3,904 4,375 4,751 4,976 5,766 6,819 7,104 7,770 8,182 8,703 10,951

Re:As expected...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Yeah, but "good enough" isn't good enough now to make going to the theater worth it in the majority of cases. I swear... it just seems sometimes like the theater chains are actively trying to discourage people from coming.

Overpriced tickets that are sometimes twice the cost of the Blu-Ray (Seriously... I bought Prometheus at Best Buy for $7 a few weeks ago.), screaming brats that parents refuse to rein in, sticky floors, uncomfortable chairs, no good place to put my coat, obscenely overpriced food and drinks (And the popcorn is often stale.), and sometimes outright being treated like a criminal (The Metreon in San Francisco actually had hired thugs searching and threatening people last time I was there, when some co-workers and I scored passes to the preview of Jobs.) by the management; all combine to make me just say: "Screw those guys. A pox upon their house."

For Jedi Knights and the Millennium Falcon, the Starship Enterprise, armies of orcs vs elves plus a dragon, or jaegers punching kaiju in the face, it's worth dealing with the theaters' BS to to see it on an Imax screen. But for anything less visual-effects intensive, not so much. The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything, for example, will be perfectly cromulent at home on my 50" TV once they hit the iTunes store.

Re:As expected...

[Mandrel]

Yes, the "good enough" films will mostly be viewed at home, with premium cinemas like IMAX still getting business for the eye-candy blockbusters.

I am sure it has nothing to do with quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap, big televisions at home I am sure contribute somewhat. Still I have to think the quality and originality of recent movies has something to do with it.
I wonder if there is a chart out in the interwebs of the improvement in movie making technically and the decline in the stories.

As above plus

[Chronosphear]

I can't really speak for the US but I imagine we get most of their movies in the UK too and I haven't seen much worth going to see in the last 12 months. Cinema tickets are expensive and with modern big-ass TVs and pretty decent home surround-sound systems I see little point in going out to watch a movie.

Re:As above plus

[sandytaru]

That's the case for a lot of us, I think. We just don't want to deal with opening night crowds, and we know that if we wait two months we'll be able to rent it at Red Box for a dollar.

It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOYIN.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Halve the prices of seats, shitheads. You are making enough money. I used to love going to the cinema, but I simply cannot afford the increase in price that has occurred over the past decade;

2) Have some dicking manners, staff and customers. That means the theatres (yeah, I'm a Brit, so suck my balls) need to pay staff a good wage and train them well. Employ people who love movies, who are prepared to help you out with shit, who will HAPPILY kick anyone the fuck out if they a) talk; b) use their 'phone; c) put their feet up on seats. ONE warning, cockfaces.

There is ONE local cinema I enjoy going to. It was built nearly a century ago and is decorated accordingly. It is BEAUTIFUL. Going there is an experience. It is also CHEAPER than the big chains which offer a worse experience (but, because they have more screens, can show more films). Stop being such greedy, money-grubbing cunts and I'll go to the cinema more.

And yeah I know there is such a thing as "home cinema" - my uncle was a film buff and built a fucking cinema in our attic in the '70s using old projection equipment and seats ripped from a condemned cinema. That was better than any modern "home cinema" but STILL doesn't beat the whole experience of a GOOD theatre. So get your thumbs out of your butts and learn what it means to provide an experience to your customers, and I'll pay my fucking money.

3) Also, that popcorn and coke? You don't need to profit from it. Sell it at cost, carpet-braiders. Make it an optional part of the experience. And no bringing in external noisy greasy food (but always let people bring in their own water/sweets, because that's just good bloody manners considering the plethora of health conditions out there).

tl;dr Give people NO reason not to go to the cinema and they will go.

That is all. Cocks.

Movies are stupid

[Sam36]

I really hate just about any modern movie. Really worthless, I have not idea why anyone even goes to the movies at all other than they are trying to just take a girl out on a date or something...

Economics

[bill_mcgonigle]

So movie attendance was at its peak at the height of easy money and is in a local 20-year valley at the bottom of a 60-year workforce participation chart.

Therefore, it must be the Pirate Bay's fault. Q.E.D.

Re:Economics

[blahbooboo]

I think the rise of cheap home theater is why people aren't bothering as much with going to the theater (I stopped going to theaters years ago, my home theater is far more pleasant)

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably has more to do with the fact that Hollywood has forgotten how to create movies that are entertaining. Add that to the fact that theaters are charging high prices for the tickets, popcorn, etc. movies have to be VERY entertaining for most people to spend the time/money to go to the theater to see a movie and you have a nice recipe for low turnout at the theater.

Re:Economics

[gstoddart]

Pretty much exactly this. In 1998 or so, home theater was exotic and for the well heeled.

Nowadays you can have a decent system for not that much, and larger screen TVs are pretty common.

Unless you like uncomfortable seats, random crowds, and overpriced tickets and food ... why would you?

When X-Men first came out on DVD, it sold more money in retail sales for the DVD than the leading ticket sales in the box office.

This did two things: it made the studios realize how big the demand was for superhero movies when they were well done, and it made them see just how big the home market had become.

Since then the shift has probably been pretty steady. I know it has for me.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are correct. That plus the lag time from theater to home has been considerably reduced.

Re:Economics

[drinkypoo]

I've got a big TV from way back (sadly, not LED-backlit) and I got a Sony DTS receiver at the flea market and fixed some solder failures around some relays and now I have halfway decent audio, too. It's amazing how little you can pay for quality speakers used, these days. I've got MTX fronts and some sweet metal-cased cambridge rears and I'm maybe $100 into the whole non-TV part of the system including a blu-ray player.

There's just so much good stuff that other people are treating as crap out there. And I live in the sticks, it's not like I have the level of choice that you see in cities. The amp came from a big flea market, though, and not here in BFE

Re:Economics

[tepples]

Unless you like uncomfortable seats, random crowds, and overpriced tickets and food ... why would you?

So as not to be spoiled in the year between theatrical release and Redbox.

Re:Economics

[CastrTroy]

For the most part you are right. There's still a couple movies a year that come out that are worth seeing on the big screen, but for the most part, I enjoy watching movies a lot more at home.

Another thought that comes up though, is that maybe that's just a sign of growing up and me owning the TV. When I was in highschool and university, I used to go to the theatre all the time because it was the only place to watch a movie on good equipment. When I was in highschool, the good TV belonged to my parents and they had it monopolized a lot of the time. I very rarely remember my parents going out to the movies as they could just watch whatever they want to at home. In university, I didn't have a good TV of my own.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

I still go to the movies from time to time but.

Back in the old days when I was going to the movies 10 and more times a year, I had more: free time and money and I have seen less of the shit yet. I also did not have the possibility to study the plot in advance but then again plots seemed to be written by humans with some skill back then and not by bots and on order by bean counters. I also did not have some other options of entertainment.

I also learned about myself and I hate certain subjects even if this is not politically correct - I do not go for gay movies unless there are some nice lesbians involved but then these would be lesbian movies I suppose and there are not many of those with scripts to talk about.... I do not want to see another drama about political corruption in US or in industry elsewhere unless this is a nice real B class movie with some proper shooting and explosions and guarantee that at least this is properly shown as money wins or bad guys gets decapitated in some nasty way. I also hate movies made only because there was enough budget for effects unless, again, there is a story behind. The evil narcotics stories are also no go - I can watch this shit in free tv, it is not worth a buck and time otherwise. I suppose negative patterns list can be extended as much as one wants. Besides that my distaste for US antics grew so much that I do not want to watch some good movies like this - the methods sucks, there is no reason why criminals are to be called so besides that they do not pay taxes (because they cannot) etc. I dislike Indian films, I can imagine some good HK KungFu movie but then again that is better watched in seclusion of my apartment.

Re:Economics

[Deadstick]

Of course it is. Reasons to go to the theater:

-The screen is big.
-You get to see the film a few months earlier.

Reasons to watch at home:

-The incremental cost of "admission" is small.
-Food comes at grocery store prices, in limitless variety.
-You can have a drink.
-You can toke up.
-The chair is comfortable.
-If there are any loudmouths present, you can tell them to STFU.
-Your feet don't stick to the floor.
-You have a pause button.
-If your companion likes the movie and you don't, you don't hurt their enjoyment by turning around and playing with the computer.

Did I mention the theater has a big screen?

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you get yourself a nice 3d projector with a 90-100+ screen at home that eliminates the big screen issue, leaving only the people who care about seeing a movie immediately as the ones who want to go

Thats the reason we go to maybe 1-2 movies a year, just when we are dragged out by other people that feel some need to go to a theater

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFLMFAO...That was epic! Too bad Hollywood is not anywhere near as insightful about business metrics and macro economics.

Re:Economics

[CronoCloud]

and I got a Sony DTS receiver at the flea market

Lucky find and good you had the skills to fix it. I think it depends on where you live, and how affluent the area is. Haven't seen any good deals like that locally...yet. (small town illinois)

There's just so much good stuff that other people are treating as crap out there.

Indeed.
That is true.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

So movie attendance was at its peak at the height of easy money and is in a local 20-year valley at the bottom of a 60-year workforce participation chart.

Therefore, it must be the Pirate Bay's fault. Q.E.D.

Well if you're going to boil it down to cold hard numbers, then yes. And the part about blaming pirate bay etc. That too.

Re:Economics

[drinkypoo]

Lucky find and good you had the skills to fix it. I think it depends on where you live, and how affluent the area is. Haven't seen any good deals like that locally...yet. (small town illinois)

All true. I got the receiver from the flea in Santa Cruz, which is pretty much mecca for that kind of thing. I think they finally actually really are shutting it down/have shut it down, after threatening to do so umpteen times. But it was purchased by a medical group next door, which needed more parking and maybe is doing some more building. The problem was hilariously easy to find, though, I don't have amazingly advanced electronics skills and my circuit analysis skills are quite rusty. In this case, if you left the unit alone for a little while, the center channel would drop out with an audible click. I thought maybe it was protecting itself from some kind of failure, or no longer detecting the speaker. Either way, I tapped on it while it was running, and a relay went mad. So I popped the case off, and tapped on different relays with a screwdriver until one of them went crazy. Profit! Best part is, even if the relay had been bad, I could have just pulled the one used to cut in the "B" speakers and popped it into that spot while I was waiting for a replacement.

I think in most places, when stuff fails, people just bin it if it's not worth a whole lot of money. But I get a lot of good goodies at yard sales even up here in the sticks. My bedroom amplifier is a vintage Kenwood 40W with Sennheiser HD420s and some Yamaha monitors, all in under $100 including refoaming the headphones. I bought some other foams with the right inner diameter and cut the outer :) And of course, I had to reconnectorize it. eBay Kirlin 1/4" for five bucks.

Anyway, these repairs are goofy simple, anyone could do them, but few other people are trying. So there's loads of opportunity out there, most of which is just thrown away for lack of interest.

Simple Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Went to the movies the other night. Five dollar Tuesday night special ticket price. The place was packed. There are a couple of different ways to interpret that, but I'd say that ticket price is definitely a factor.

Re:Simple Economics

[Zak3056]

The only time my wife and I go to the movies anymore is to the drive-in. Seven bucks a head, and we get to see two or even three movies (usually one new release, and one that is between one and three weeks old). Bring your own snacks, and the movie theater snack bar is cheap as well (I think the highest priced item on the menu is a patty melt (hamburger with cheese and onions) which is like $4.50.

The downside is they're only open in the summer.

Re:Simple Economics

[CronoCloud]

The only time my wife and I go to the movies anymore is to the drive-in.

What is this "drive-in" you speak of?

All kidding aside, I live in a town that once had one...decades back. Horrible horrible sound though, even compared to crappy small town theatres.

Re:Simple Economics

[mallyn]

Could it be this one? http://www.99w.com/

Re:Simple Economics

[CronoCloud]

Not that one. This one is the closest to me now:

http://www.harvestmoondrivein....

Re:Simple Economics

[Zak3056]

Sound quality is great these days... They've replaced the telephone wire systems with low power FM transmitters with a range of about a mile or so., so the sound is as good as your car or boom box can produce, and there's a fringe benefit if you live locally of being able to listen to the movie.

Noise

[FictionPimp]

I don't go out to movies because of noise.

I'm sick of hearing people yelling at the TV, parents who won't take the screaming kid out, etc. No thanks, I'll watch it at home on my 60 inch TV with 7.1 sound.

Re:Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't go out to movies because of noise.

I'm sick of hearing people yelling at the TV, parents who won't take the screaming kid out, etc. No thanks, I'll watch it at home on my 60 inch TV with 7.1 sound.

I like to watch movies at the theater, I just can't afford it.

Re:Noise

[punkr0x]

That's a good point, I wonder how much increasing screen sizes at home have cut into the appeal of seeing it on the "big screen."

Re:Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't go for the same reason - noise -- but not the same noise complaint as yours. I don't go because the movie theatres nowadays have the audio set too damn loud. It may be ok for young people with hearing damaged from listening to 100db Bieber on their iPod but I have no desire to watch a movie with my fingers in my ears yet again.

But even if not for this stupid problem I largely wouldn't go because the movies are now seldom any good.

Re:Noise

[guacamole]

Just don't go to the movie during the first few weeks of its release. Wait a month and then watch it in a half empty movie theater on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. That's what I do, and noise hasn't been an issue.

Re:Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of hearing people yelling at the TV,

Where do you live that anyone thinks this is okay and how can I avoid it?

parents who won't take the screaming kid out, etc

Don't go to kids movies...?

Re:Noise

[pitchpipe]

I don't go out to movies because of noise.

I'm sick of hearing people yelling at the TV ...

You go to the movies, and then hear people yelling at a TV?! Are you sure they aren't in your head?

Not a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make better movies. That's all you have to do.

Not Paying For Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Not going to pay to be advertised at!

Re:Not Paying For Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said, at my home town there are two movie theaters. The other has 30 minute ads at the beginning of movie and the another does not have any. Guess which I select?

Garbage these days

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two TowersHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Really good movies with great stories.

The Spider-man was back when super hero movies weren't beaten to death. And the Star Wars movie, even though it sucked, was still Star Wars.

Now, everything out looks like shit. I'll wait for the Hobbit DVD and the other shit to be streamed on Netflix and maybe watch it.

I have better things to do with $12 than watch a movie that relies on mindless action and violence and CGI in absence of a decent story.

On New Years, one of my digital sub channels had a Cary Grant day. No action or violence, no CGI, no gratuitous nudity, just a story - and they were wonderful and funny.

Re:Garbage these days

[CronoCloud]

On New Years, one of my digital sub channels had a Cary Grant day. No action or violence, no CGI, no gratuitous nudity, just a story - and they were wonderful and funny.

I think he himself said he was a comedic actor trapped in a leading man's body. Pair him with some competent co-stars, like Kate Hepburn in her rapid-fire delivery prime and watch magic happen.

Movies are crap

[p51d007]

1. Stop producing part 4,5,6 movies. How about something ORIGINAL 2. CGI & special effects won't negate a POOR SCRIPT. 3. Why would I want to pay that much in a theater (or theatre) for something I can watch on Netflix, Hulu, Redbox a month or two later for almost nothing. 4. With the advent of home theaters (or theatres), I can download/buy/torrent/rent the movie, pop my own popcorn, drink whatever I want, not have to drive to see it. Maybe if the movie "industry" would try to fix 1 & 2, more people would go to see what they produce.

Re:Movies are crap

[tepples]

3. Why would I want to pay that much in a theater (or theatre) for something I can watch on Netflix, Hulu, Redbox a month or two later for almost nothing.

I can think of a few reasons. For one thing, you might live outside the service footprint of Netflix and Hulu. These include places that can't get cable or DSL, such as rural areas, and countries where Netflix and Hulu have chosen not to operate. For another, it's not "a month or two"; it can be a year for some films. Finally, Klipsch ain't cheap. So it might take a lot of movies for a home surround sound system to pay for itself.

Re:Movies are crap

[satch89450]

... you might live outside the service footprint of Netflix and Hulu. These include places that can't get cable or DSL, such as rural areas, and countries where Netflix and Hulu have chosen not to operate.

You forgot satellite. But, aside from that, you are talking about people who don't live down the street from a movie house. For these sorts of people, a trip to the movies is only a part of an extended excursion, a day and evening, on the town. Usually, such outings are planned well in advance and anticipated by all in the family (or families). It's not "just a movie" but a broader social experience. One enjoyed at long intervals because of the effort needed to have the outing, and the total cost.

Do you remember your college days? Remember when one of the frats would have regular showings of classic movies within walking distance of the dorms? And the admission fee was enough to cover the cost of the film, the projector, and maybe some money for the frat's pot, but not so rich that you would have to skip eating for a few days? Some of the movies they selected were really bad...but some of them were very, very good. That how I saw Night of the Living Dead for the first time.

In one place I lived, the church high school students would have a "movie afternoon" for the grade-school-age children, showing 16mm prints of G-rated films. Those movies were open to anyone, young or old, who wanted to come. For the older kids, there were PG-13 films, that were acceptable to the church board, shown in the evening (keeping in mind the 9-pm curfew). The crew was all-volunteer, and the church owned the projector and screen, so the admission price only had to cover the rental of the film. On rare occasion, the adult service groups would provide punch and snacks after the film. (not before or during.)

Today, I usually wait until I can get the DVD or Blu-Ray from Amazon for those movies I really want to see, based on the trailers. The rest? I will pick up DVDs from the used-book store, or even pawn shops. So far, for 2015, the only movie I'm considering seeing in the theatre is Pitch Perfect 2, and only if I can see it in a deluxe theatre with a track record of throwing louts out.

Re:Movies are crap

[nabsltd]

Finally, Klipsch ain't cheap.

Nor is it required to give you better sound at home than the average movie theater.

Re:Movies are crap

[MitchDev]

People confuse Volume Level with "sound quality"...

The main issue is

[kilodelta]

That Hollywood is afraid to take a risk. And remakes just don't fly.

Re:The main issue is

[ArcadeMan]

And remakes just don't fly.

Unless it's Superman or Ironman. These guys can fly.

Re:The main issue is

[SuricouRaven]

No surprise, though. Look how much it costs to make a blockbuster now. Audiences expect high production values - painted backdrops and cardboard sets just don't cut it any more, you need on-location shooting with a superstar lead earning a ten-figure paycheck. Far too much money to risk on something untested. So hollywood, being heavily dependant on high-budget movies, needs to stick to the things that are well-tested. Established cliches, feel-good stories with messages familiar to the audience. Predictable genre pieces, franchises and sequals.

Re:The main issue is

[afgam28]

Hollywood does take risks, the problem is that the movie-going public doesn't! There were plenty of good movies last year but 11 of the 15 top movies in 2014 were remakes or sequels or superhero movies. Sadly the previous list has no correlation to the movies that audiences and critics actually enjoyed.

The problem is that people choose movies to go and see by optimizing for the size of its marketing campaign, or opening weekend gross. So they go and participate in a feedback loop that encourages Hollywood to make more and more low-risk superhero sequels. A much better way to avoid disappointment is to choose a movie that other people who have seen the movie (i.e. reviewers) actually liked, and avoid the ones that reviewers have told you are going to be shit. It sounds obvious but people don't do this.

Even here on Slashdot where we were warned that The Hobbit would be shit. But I see other posts where Slashdotters still went and watched it and are posting here that it was shit. As if that was a surprise, and it's all Hollywood's fault!

A few people here have already mentioned Rotten Tomatoes. If you're not already using it or something similar, you should. Otherwise you're probably part of the problem.

Why I stopped going

[Rik Sweeney]

I stopped going to the cinema because of people talking to their mates (usually in any language but English) either because they were bored or couldn't understand what was going on. The second reason was people checking Facebook or something on their phone and causing a distraction.

That said, some movies simply don't work as well on the small screen. I watched Guardians Of The Galaxy a couple of days ago and wished I'd watched it in the cinema instead. The climatic battle at the end didn't feel as epic as it should have.

Provided it gets good reviews, I'll watch the new Star Wars film in the cinema, but as for everything else, I'll rent it off whatever streaming service hosts it.

Re:Why I stopped going

[Shados]

Yup, thats my problem with movie theaters lately. They stopped enforcing common decency a long time ago, but overall people would be somewhat decent. There was always the ONE dick who wouldn't shut up, but now its the norm more than the exception. And all those people who just can't stop texting continually (if they're not downright talking on the phone). And if you complain, you're the one who "needs to deal with it".

So as everything else in our society, you just have to isolate yourself (because even if you try to just group up with like minded individuals, someone will slip in just to troll you). And then we wonder why there's such big gaps between various groups in the US...

Re:Why I stopped going

[AmiMoJo]

The ending to Guardians of the Galaxy just wasn't that epic on any screen. 10 years ago, maybe, but these days it's always just another CG action scene with little realism or interest.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, but not because of the final battle.

Re:Why I stopped going

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the solution you are looking for: Alamo Drafthouse Theaters. Started in Austin , TX but now expanding rapidly around the country. They serve beer and have a zero tolerance policyfor talking, cell phone use, etc. In fact, they revel in kicking out assholes by posting incidents on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

Re:Why I stopped going

[Anonymous Coward]

Do theatres in the US not ask people to turn off their phones?

Re:Why I stopped going

[MitchDev]

Ask in PSA on the screen, but no actual enforcement...

blu rays are cheaper than the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. We only go to the theatre now as an excuse to get out on a date, or to see a movie that actually is going to be enhanced by a theater experience. (Gravity, for example is better on the big screen IMHO) and even doing that we always pick off-hours (like early saturday morning, or late Wednesday night... something like that.) when most people are not interested in going to a movie.

  But really most movies come out soon enough that we just wait for the Blu-Ray and buy that.

Good

[0123456]

Hopefully this might convince them to make more movies that are actually worth watching, rather than 'CGI! Then EXPLOSION! LENS FLARE!'

Re:Good

[karnal]

Hmmm.. exploding lens flares... it might just work!

It has to be a damned good movie...

[PoochieReds]

...for me to want to pay to sit in the theatre. With the advent of larger TVs, the "movie theater experience" no longer has a lot going for it -- certainly not enough to justify the price.

I'm old

[puddingebola]

I must be the only person here who still enjoys going to the theater. There's still something enjoyable about watching a movie with a larger audience in a dark room. I was thinking about this the other night when I went and saw the Theory of Everything. I'd say the theater improved my experience of the movie. However, given technological advancements and your home theater system with 7.1 sound, I guess theaters will go the way of the dodo as well. Maybe the downturn is just due to economic forces?

Re:I'm old

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw Return of the Jedi in a large theater in downtown Chicago. 2 aisles, balconies, all packed with screaming kids. It was a rush.

No way it could compare to an 18-screen complex where the screen's hardly larger that this month's LG TV at Wal-Mart.

Re: I'm old

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason kids should scream at the movies is if the theater is on fire and they're burning to death. Any other excuse, they should be escorted out of the premises, shot and dumped into a mass grave.

Re: I'm old

[Anonymous Coward]

Your not the only one... I still enjoy the cinema experience, but I'll only see the big "epic" types of movies on the big screen. I'll never buy theater food... I also only go on a Monday's or Wednesday's when the crowds are small...

Guardians

[Anonymous Coward]

Guardians was yet another superhero film based on comic books.

Boring.

Comic book movies have been beaten to death and the only way I'll watch Guardians is if it comes on Netflix and I'm awake at 2AM and can't get to sleep. The last few Avengers, Superman, and other superhero comic book shit movies put me to sleep in less than on hour.

No one makes movies based on good stories anymore or if they try, Hollywood fucks it up.

Re: Guardians

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously never watched guardians, very different formula for a super hero movie

But it really sounds like you just aren't a comic book fan, maybe try a different genre

i'm going to the movies 2x a month at least

[bazorg]

These last few of years I was signed up for Lovefilm (DVD Delivery) and then Netflix. After a while the convenience was beat by the limited offering and the annoyance of Netflix UK trying quite hard to hide away what's available and what films will be on in the future. Last month, for the first time in years I watched 3 movies at the cinema and this year I'll sign up for a Cineworld £16/month subscription. There's a couple of months in 2015 that won't have very appealing releases but from the list I saw so far, there will be 2 worthwhile films every month, plus those that I will watch now and wouldn't if I had to pay extra. Yes, there will be road traffic to get there and noise from others eating popcorn but I'll be watching current films.

movies

[Anonymous Coward]

While prices are high I think the big issue is the low quality movies. remakes or remakes, milking ok movies out ever last dime. Nothing original, nothing new,
People are talking with their dollars and theaters better listen...

Maybe its that most movies suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell most months I can't even find a $1 movie at RedBox that is worth the time to watch.

price tripled, quality dipped

[mnt]

only prequels, sequels and so on left. no quality material anymore. too expensive. hollywood is to blame.

Re:price tripled, quality dipped

[NotDrWho]

What, you mean you don't want to see "Iron Man vs. Ant Man vs. The Fantastic Four While Spiderman Wacks Off In a Corner 2: Rise of the Who-Gives-A-Fuck"?

Re:price tripled, quality dipped

[LessThanObvious]

No, that I would not like to see. Going to the movies is something I still really value despite the factors eroding the experience. I'd really miss it if it didn't exist as an option. The issues have that are potentially resolvable are in some cases the show times and the food options. How many intelligent people with money to spend these days actually want either candy, popcorn or the worst hot dogs and nachos on the face of the planet? We need some in theater options that aren't garbage. On the week nights the show times don't work that well for me. Since there is only garbage to eat at the theater I have to get dinner first and it's hard to get off work, get dinner and make the 7:30 show. Give me more 8PM or 8:30PM shows so I can get dinner, see the show and be home about 11PM and I'll go to a lot more weeknight movies. It's always 7:30/7:45 or 9:30/10PM, but those options suck on a weeknight especially since the only food at the theater is diabetes inducing floor scrapings.

Re:price tripled, quality dipped

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain America was terrible. The action was excessive and too comic-booky. (I've seen cartoons with a better sense of action, suspense, and drama.) The premise of Chaos vs. Order was too simplistic and that drone weapon had a ridiculous amount of guns on it.

Why would I?

[gstoddart]

Why would I go to the theater?

Gee, let's see ... I can go to a place where my feet stick to the floor, where I have limited leg room, and the annoying teenager in front of me is texting the whole time.

Or I can buy the Blu Ray, watch it in the comfort of my own basement, which has a reasonable size screen, surround sound, recliners, and the availability of beer.

The home theater experience is now much better in a lot of ways. I used to only go to watch the really big block buster films ... now I just wait 3-4 months until I can buy it and watch it at home. By the time you buy the tickets and the over-priced concession food ... it's not even cost effective any more.

Watching a movie in the cinema these days is no longer an enjoyable experience. Precisely because it isn't as comfortable and under my control as in my own home.

Nobody should be surprised at this ... because in the last 10 years almost everybody has a big screen TV and surround sound. Precisely because the cinema experience is expensive and can be annoying.

I haven't watched a movie in the cinema in several years now, and that's unlikely to change soon.

Re:Why would I?

[TwoUtes]

"Or I can buy the Blu Ray, watch it in the comfort of my own basement"

Oh come on, don't try to kid us. It's really your mom's basement. Am I right, or am I right?

Re:Why would I?

[gstoddart]

LOL ... no, my basement (ok, me and the wife) ... the man cave as I call it.

Pretty much set up for being an office and a media room with a fireplace.

My mother never had such a cool basement. :-P

Re:Why would I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I go to the theater?

Gee, let's see ... I can go to a place where my feet stick to the floor, where I have limited leg room, and the annoying teenager in front of me is texting the whole time.

Have you considered watching something other than porn?

Yet Adam Sandler still gets work

[NotDrWho]

How is that POSSIBLE????

Re:Yet Adam Sandler still gets work

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that POSSIBLE????

I'm not a fan of Adam Sandler, but it says something about the state of movie quality when I think his movies at least try something different. "Eight Crazy Nights," "50 First Dates," and a decent remake of "Mr. Deeds" all beat out another version of Spider-Man, Batman or Superman (all of whom I am a big fan).

Quality of expirience is down

[sinij]

I am frequent movie-goer, and I am not happy with a quality of service your typical movie theater offers. First, there are endless commercials - easily 15 minutes of my time wasted by pure advertising and pointless splash screens. If you add previews, this can easily end up with 40 minutes wasted. Second, food is hugely expensive and massively unhealthy. On top of that, alcohol is generally not available. Third, seats seems to be suffering from the airlines syndrome - uncomfortable and cramped.

About the only exception to this is Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Sadly, they are not available outside of Texas.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[guacamole]

Why do you want alcohol in a movie theater? So that your bladder interrupts your movie experience every 50 minutes or so? I have been to one of those. I don't know how we have arrived to a point where people can't enjoy a movie, car race, or other social event without chugging alcohol.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo_Drafthouse_Cinema#Locations

Except all the places outside of texas.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you're a recovering alcoholic trying to stay dry doesn't mean everyone else rabidly hates alcohol....

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care so much if another person wants to sip a cocktail in the movie theater? I don't know how we have arrived to a point where people are so busy minding everyone else's business.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man. I went to see Interstellar last week and, while it was a good movie, the stated start time was 9.20. After watching ads starting at 9.15, the ads became feature length at 9.20, with movie previews starting at 9.30 and the three hour movie finally starting at quarter to. All this was on top of a $12 ticket and $10 popcorn.

I really don't understand why people are not going to movies anymore!

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Alamo Drafthouse has many theaters outside of Texas.

http://www.drafthouse.com/

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[dwpro]

Alcohol is no worse than sodas in the theater, and aids with the digestion of the drivel on the screen.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

First, there are endless commercials - easily 15 minutes of my time wasted by pure advertising and pointless splash screens

15 min?!? Holy hell mate that's f*** all compared to Melbourne and Adelaide. Expect 30-35 min of lovely commercials... only after the 15 min extra wait of what should be the start of the session.

Village Cinemas and Hoyts can go f*** themselves everyday and twice on Sunday.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit going primarily because of the ads. The screen before the show used to be a slide show, which mostly had trivia, and you could even ignore that if you wanted to. Now they are video ads with sound -- they cannot be ignored, plus they're repeated on a 10 minute loop. If you get there early to get a good seat, you will be inundated with the equivalent of

Marge: It must be wonderful to ring in the new year over and over and over.
Waiter: Please, kill me.

Re:Quality of expirience is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Alamo Drafthouse is in Kansas City as well, but I'm not certain where they have expanded otherwise. I just moved to Florida, and wish there was one at a convenient distance.

The same old fucking tiring storylines

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood has been telling the re-telling, and re-re-re-re- re telling the same old stories to the world since its inception circa 1930's

No matter if it's horror flicks or family dramas or action movies or love-at-first-sight fairy tales ... Hollywood doesn't seem to be able to come up with new stuffs

How many times we need to be told of the story of Spiderman?

How many Batman or X-men or Superman or whatever fucking super-hero movies can the consumers stomach?

Re:The same old fucking tiring storylines

[CohibaVancouver]

Hollywood doesn't seem to be able to come up with new stuffs

I keep hearing it over and over again, but it's just not true - It's that people don't want to go watch 'new stuffs.'

Go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ and look at new movies movies & new DVDs that were 'certified fresh' for 2014. Tons and tons of new stuff, all rated as good.

Re:The same old fucking tiring storylines

[JeffAtl]

Not all movies shown in American theaters are made by "hollywood".

Re: The same old fucking tiring storylines

[Dzimas]

We often can't see the "good stuff" because its not showing at the massive multiplexes. They dedicate six screens to the hobbit in every theatre complex, but films like Wild that have generated a bit of buzz are only playing on two screens in the entire city. Sure, there are a handful of awkward-to-reach art cinemas in the city centre, but films tend to run there for a very short time, or they squeeze out the North American films in favor of foreign film weeks.

The studios have perfected their blockbuster sales approach -- show a handful of heavily promoted films *everywhere* to ensure that they rake in hundreds of millions over the course of a handful of weeks. Bonus points if you can sell dolls or action figures on the side. It's the McFilm approach to cinema.

Re:The same old fucking tiring storylines

[Penguinisto]

Depends on the theater. If it's part of a big corporate chain, odds are good that you're gonna get Hollywood-style and nothing else. If it's an independent theater, then you'd be right, but how many of those are there? Even here in PDX there simply are not a whole lot of them about.

Re: The same old fucking tiring storylines

[SuricouRaven]

The production cost for a blockbuster has grown to the extent that there is no other model that would work. It's the same reason for the lack of innovative storytelling - when the budget for a film is in the hundreds of millions, you can't risk gambling it all on something new that consumers might reject. You have to stick to the tried-and-tested cliches.

Re: The same old fucking tiring storylines

[CohibaVancouver]

They dedicate six screens to the hobbit in every theatre complex, but films like Wild that have generated a bit of buzz are only playing on two screens in the entire city

It's a Catch-22. When they do dedicate a screen in the multiplex to "Wild" the theater sits empty. People would rather watch The Hobbit. At that's what happens in my town...

Re: The same old fucking tiring storylines

[ceoyoyo]

There would be if people wanted to see the movies they played. The local independent theatre is always struggling because the vast majority of people want to go to a blockbuster film that's not too intellectually challenging.

I can't really blame them. Several of us at work take turns hosting movie nights. Old, independent, art and foreign films seem to work better at home with a dinner party and drinks. The last advantages of theatres are a big audience, big sound (us apartment dwellers can't crank it up to building shaking) and a big screen. Blockbusters with lots of effects play to those strengths.

Re: The same old fucking tiring storylines

[MightyMartian]

And that is a promotional issue. If a film like Wild got even a quarter the advertising budget The Hobbit did, you would see a lot more asses in those seats.

Outdated distribution mode

[jareth-0205]

I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades...
People still want to see films, but forcing all films through the cinema is just backwards. The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately! Big films that benefit from it will still play in cinema, but we simply don't need to push every single film through a centralised viewing venue anymore. Cinemas will still exist but they will be fewer, and for special occasions rather than the only route.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[tepples]

I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades

Fighting games in the 1990s had this exact release model.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[CastrTroy]

My biggest gripe with movie theatres is that every movie is priced exactly the same. So I want to got see a romantic comedy which cost almost nothing to make, it costs the same price as going to see the must see blockbuster of the year that took tens of millions of dollar and years of effort to put together. In my mind they should make the movies that require less effort and investment cheaper to see at the theatre. I also think they should reduce the price after it's been out for a while. Charge $20 on opening night for big blockbusters because they know they are going to fill the seats either way, and then as the weeks go on and crowds dwindle, bring the price gradually down to $5 or so to keep the seats full. For $5 there's probably a decent amount of people that would go see it a second time, but not if they had to pay full price.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[Dracos]

The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately!

Yes and no. Hollywood wants same day DVD release, the only thing preventing that is Walmart. As efficient as their distribution system is, it still takes 45 days to get a product onto store shelves. Hollywood doesn't want to risk that leak window.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[Deadstick]

The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately!

Kim Jong-Un may be helping that along...

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[SuricouRaven]

Why would hollywood want that? They use a staggered release system so that every potential customer pays as much as possible. Those with money to burn go to the cinema, those on slightly lower budgets have to wait for the DVD, and those who don't spend money on films at all eventually provide their pittance by watching the advertisments when it's shown on TV.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think they should reduce the price after it's been out for a while. Charge $20 on opening night for big blockbusters because they know they are going to fill the seats either way, and then as the weeks go on and crowds dwindle, bring the price gradually down to $5 or so to keep the seats full. For $5 there's probably a decent amount of people that would go see it a second time, but not if they had to pay full price.

Actually, that's the better idea of the two. Don't just price movies based on how much they cost to make, price them based on how popular they are. Base the initial price on prescreening reviews, studio confidence, and, maybe, what they cost. Then adjust based on how popular they are. Maybe a sleeper hit goes up in price, maybe the special effects shitfest has to plummet way down quickly just to make any money at all. There are certainly movies that I would have been much more charitable towards at $3 rather than $10. Or if you do catch a stinker, that's what you get for cheaping out, it's not the studio's fault.

Re:Outdated distribution mode

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree the distribution model isn't ideal for the consumer, but it does bring way more money to the studio. Sure, they could just zap it all to Netflix in one shot, but what does it give the studio in turn? Nothing. So we have the Theater -> DVD/Bluray -> Rental/PPV/Airplane Flights -> TV -> Netflix lifecycle.

People go on about recreating the theater experience, but personally, I find watching a movie on my tablet via netflix with headphones to be good enough. I don't care about theater experience, and only went to the theater because some movie was exclusive there too long. That doesn't happen anymore, it's not the 80s anymore, movies are faster out on DVD/BR than I even take notice of them.

I would argue the problem that arises is media saturation. Who were the big movie goers of decades past? Probably young men. And now we have video games/netflix/anime/pirate bay whatever and all that competing for their eyeballs. Much of that didn't exist or to the same extent 20 years ago. On a bored Thursday night, you went to theater to see/experience something new. Not so anymore. Computers got cheap. Internet connection is okay in many places. Wifi abounds.

This struck me when I go to the convenience stores. 20 years ago, I would be hanging with my friends. We'd be bored with friends, any games we had played out, and just drinking sodas and what not. Who does that anymore? No one, from my trips. I imagine libraries now with kindles around may have a similiar deal.

And also computers finally got friendly enough 10 years back (read: rise of social media) that young women finally use them too and probably have a similar experience with media saturation.

That, and all recent movies with Super Heroes feels like the same script, aka Save the Cat. But that may just be me.

Time for a change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, you have released:
sequel
Prequel
Interquel
Midquel
Sidequel
Parallel story
Spiritual successor
Companion piece
Reboot
Stand-alone sequels
Remake

Here are a few "pointers".

1) Come up with something new, stop just rehashing and reviving 1980's TV shows to do another "remake".

2) Charge a more reasonable price.
Unlike before, you now face even greater competition. I can go to the movies, or i can have people over and we can watch netflix, redbox, etc.

3) Stop gouging at the concession stands. If your business model only works with $12 popcorn don't be shocked when people dont want to pay it anymore. Times are tight...

4) Stop blaming everyone else for your own failures.

On one hand you were able to pay millions to the "stars" of the movie, yet you claim "piracy hurts" those involved in the film production? If you used "normal" accounting methods instead of "Hollywood accounting" maybe your movies would be profitable (cant have that, then you might have to pay points.

Live theater is better.

[Red Jesus]

Once you've bought into the idea of watching recordings, it doesn't matter so much whether you watch them on an enormous screen in a theater or on a computer screen at home. Price and convenience then favor the computer screen.

If you want to put the "human" back in humanities, try live theater. I never used to like live theater because the only options I thought I had were productions in high schools (which are sometimes pretty good but often not as good as films) and fancy travelling productions with hundred-dollar tickets in intimidatingly fancy theaters (which are good, but hardly as casual as a movie). Then I discovered the Shakespeare Tavern in Midtown Atlanta, which is a professional group that has cheap ($20!) tickets on Thursdays. Atlanta isn't an especially cultured city overall; if we have something like this, I suspect most other cities will, too.

I've seen six distinct plays at the local theater (and rewatched all of them at least once) and films in movie theaters are no longer the same. Sure, I enjoyed Interstellar---that movie's attitude towards science would go over well on Slashdot---but it tends to use dramatic [manipulative!] music to make you care about the characters. But when you're watching a live production, you care about the characters because they're people---live people. not a hundred feet away! The exchange works both ways; the actors are more animated because they're presenting to a live audience instead of a camera. I tried watching three film versions of Twelfth Night after repeatedly watching it live; none of the film versions even came close to the live one. (Of minor note is that the theater in *my* town doesn't alter or remove anything from the original Shakespeare scripts; your town's troupe may do things differently.)

This post isn't meant as an endorsement of Shakespeare in particular so much as live theater in general. Don't assume that live theater is either too expensive or poorly-done; in Atlanta, at least, you can watch professional actors for the price of two movie tickets. I would encourage everyone to take a look at what their cities have to offer.

Re:Live theater is better.

[g0bshiTe]

I can see that, I purchased all the live recordings of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmonsons 2 man show performances. It's not just stand up comedy they toured 4 or 5 times with a different theme based on a tv sitcom they once did called Bottom. What I would have given to see a live performance vs a recording of it. The tv show was funny enough but those times they either forgot a line or ad-lib'd something or played off the audience were just priceless.

Re:Live theater is better.

[RabidReindeer]

That's the one thing that pirated works can never offer.

Once a performance is recorded, it's "dead". It will be (barring damage) the same performance the 10,000th time as it was the first.

Granted, there are certain things that just cannot be done live and without studio support. And I wouldn't give them up, but the spontaneity - and even the flubs - of a live performance have magic all their own.

Re:Live theater is better.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have anything to contribute, but I just had to pop in to say 'Bottom' is still one of my favourite shows. "The Young Ones" and "Bottom" used to come on late at night when I was a teenager, those guys were brilliant. R.I.P. Rik Mayall :(

Re:Live theater is better.

[antdude]

But they're boring. No explosions, action scenes, etc. [grin]

Re:Live theater is better.

[backbyter]

"Atlanta isn't an especially cultured city overall; if we have something like this, I suspect most other cities will, too."

Even my little town in SW Virginia has live theater (http://www.bartertheatre.com/), Cost is fairly cheap although more that a movie ticket. Variety of shows is pretty good.

A few times a year the theater celebrates it name and allows admission via bartering for your show ticket.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[NotDrWho]

The last time I went to see a movie, I spent considerably more for my regular movie ticket, a popcorn, and a coke than I did for a 5th-row seat on Metallica's "And Justice For All" tour 25 years ago. There is something very wrong with that (aside from the fact that Metallica has since went to shit).

I'm not surprised . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I went to the theater, it cost me $11 to get in . . . back in 2009. So, to take my family, it would've cost $44 just to get in the door. Forget the concessions. That doubles the cost (if not more). And 3D, they wanted $17 for that flick. Fuget that noise.

Reasons to watch at home:
  - A DVD or Blu-Ray always costs much less ( typically 30% to 88% savings)
  - My floor is NOT sticky
  - I can turn down the volume
  - No matter how nice those reclining stadium seats may be, my couch is always better
  - I can make the same popcorn as the theater for pennies
  - Pause / FF / Skip / Rewind / Slo-mo
  - There's no kid(s) kicking the back of my seat
  - I can ALWAYS sit in the best seat
  - If the movie sucks, I'm done. I return the movie to the big red vending machine. If it's good, I'll usually go pick it up when the price is reasonable.

Watching a movie is like riding the subway for fun. Actually, I think I'd rather ride the subway for fun. Seriously, it's cheaper, too.

Re:I'm not surprised . . .

[khr]

- My floor is NOT sticky

You must not be watching the right movies...

Blame the 200-inch flatscreen TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame the relative cheapness of 200-inch flatscreen TVs - and probably also the blu-ray like someone said above. Too many people and in particular the movie enthusiasts now have the at-home cinema experience without the inconvenience of having to put up with other people.
There's a whole bunch of other factors to take into account which make the end result a lot less unexpected.

Who goes to theaters?

[koan]

With a 50inch screen at home, anything I want to eat or drink plus sitting there in my boxers why the fuck would I go to a movie theater?
To listen to noisy children? To listen to other peoples cell phone calls? To over pay for nasty popcorn or candy? Or maybe the sticky seats and floors.

Re:Who goes to theaters?

[serviscope_minor]

why the fuck would I go to a movie theater?

I went to the cinema to watch Flash Gordon recently. It's a good experience watching a cult classic with dedicated fans. Then afterwards, the actual real living director came up on the stage in front of the screen for a live ,in-person interview with audience questions.

The 50" screen doesn't really compare. Neither are the seats sticky.

1.26 billion tickets sold, not 1.26B consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

roughly 1.26 billion consumers purchased cinema tickets between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31

The population of North America is estimated to be 530 million people. So did every man, women and child buy one ticket living on North America buy one ticket and then 730 million tourists from other continents came to visit North America and every single one of them bought a movie ticket?

The quality of journalism these days....

Re:1.26 billion tickets sold, not 1.26B consumers

[MitchDev]

Never said "unique consumers"

Man and wife go to 10 movies together, that's 20 tickets sold for just 2 people...

Of Course

[g0bshiTe]

MPAA will say it's piracy truth is perhaps Hollywood churning out mediocre remakes and CGI filled crap.

Women

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie industry should be on their knees thanking women for almost all their remaining business. If it were up to us blokes we'd rather spend thousands on the latest TV and sound system and watch everything at home. Because once we found a satisfactory mate we don't like to go out anymore, right?

Women like to go on dates, even with their current partner, and the movies is one easily available destination

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[HBI]

That was right about the time the name Cliff Burton passed out of their collective minds. After that, being a really wretched form of pop was just fine.

That's not entirely fair, they were chasing the Nirvana money - Nevermind had just come out and I am sure everyone saw dollar signs.

With stinkers like Peter Jackson's Hobbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you blame us for skipping theaters? Also, buying the DVD is cheaper than a movie ticket at a second-run theater.

Re:With stinkers like Peter Jackson's Hobbit

[LVSlushdat]

Who *buys* DVDs?? That goofy looking little "redbox" you see EVERYwhere has said DVDs for a buck twenty a night... When a movie that meets our standards comes out, I wait for it to arrive at Redbox, then I rent it, and rip it to my Plex media server and then the wife and I can watch it on our 50 inch tv via the attached Roku box.. I've just put "Interstellar" into my "wish list" so I'll get a email from Redbox when its available..... Thats pretty much the only current movie worth it to us to see...

Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[TomTraynor]

1. A lot of the movies that are showing are crap (and that is being kind).
2. The cost of my going to a movie and wife along with some munchies, well, I can buy the DVD in a few months for less money.
3. We can pause the movie at any time and take a break or grab some munchies (and not the over-priced crap in the theatre).
4. Did I mention most of the movies are crap?
5. We can skip the various 'ads' at the start of the movie. I want to see the movie, not pay to see advertising.
6. I don't have to put up with people talking about the 'good stuff' coming up and spoiling it for me.
7. I don't have to put up with the cell phones going off.
8. Did I mention most of the movies are crap?

We have very comfortable chairs at home and there is no line up to get food, drinks or when we go to the bathroom.

I wait a few months until the DVDs or Blue Ray versions come out. I then wait until friends and family give their feedback and then I may buy a copy, but, I usually wait a few more months and the video store discounts the movie. I have hundreds of videos, but, over 95% I have not paid more than $10 for. There are exceptions, but, they are for movies in a series that I (or my wife) love and want to see the next one quickly.

Again, did I mention most of the movies are crap?

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

And crazy ass white boys shooting up the theater.

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[MitchDev]

2- and 3.5, pause the movie and make some actual FOOD, rather than over-priced popcorn, soda, and snacks. Your home, your choice what to make and eat and drink.

6 is a non-starter, since if you are waiting for a movie to come out on DVD, you've had plenty of time to overhear spoilers...

Otherwise hits all the important reasons why theater-attendance is in decline.

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Deadstick]

Dang, I just posted pretty much the same message a few lines up.

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those crap movies make more money than really good ones, generally.

Birdman made 6 million. Whiplash made 3 million. Both movies were awesome but nobody saw them. Why make good original movies if you can just put out another sequel or comic book movie and make hundreds of millions guaranteed?

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

And crazy ass white boys shooting up the theater.

...which was chosen specifically because it disarmed all the crazy ass white boys that would have carried a gun in but who didn't want to break the law.

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[sjames]

6 works for me. Most of my friends feel about the same about movies so there's no spoilers in casual conversation.

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

but, I usually wait a few more months and the video store discounts the movie.

You have a video store nearby?? We lost those here in SF a few years ago..

Re:Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[kesuki]

1. A lot of the movies that are showing are crap (and that is being kind).

this has always been true.

2. The cost of my going to a movie and wife along with some munchies, well, I can buy the DVD in a few months for less money.

or rent for considerably less. i heard a rumor that one can use software to make a rental disc into a mpeg-4 stream or a dvd stream or a bluray stream.

3. We can pause the movie at any time and take a break or grab some munchies (and not the over-priced crap in the theatre).

movie theaters are still more fun than the investment in jiffy pop or whatever you're getting from wal-mart for home viewing

4. Did I mention most of the movies are crap?

yes, i have a book rating some 4,000+ older movies most of the movies get 2 stars.

5. We can skip the various 'ads' at the start of the movie. I want to see the movie, not pay to see advertising.

ahah! not without the rumored software for removing prohibited user operations. sure some discs are clean and some blurays only play ads when 'online' (ps3 can disable the internet access to blurays) but many especially new releases may have as many as 12 trailers each PUOped to be unable to be skipped, some players have a cheat code to skip straight to menu but the normal controls don't skip past adverts on discs out side 'cheat codes' which vary from player to player.

6. I don't have to put up with people talking about the 'good stuff' coming up and spoiling it for me.

you been on the internet long?

7. I don't have to put up with the cell phones going off.

apparently you just switch to vibrate?

8. Did I mention most of the movies are crap?

again this is nothing new. i hear the internet is overrated and good books are hard to find.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Halve the prices of seats, shitheads. You are making enough money. I used to love going to the cinema, but I simply cannot afford the increase in price that has occurred over the past decade;

Those extremely overpaid actors/actresses should also take a pay cut. And let's not forget those extremely overpaid Union-represented "free loaders" that stand around movie sets all day looking like they are doing nothing to earn their pay.

2) Have some dicking manners, staff and customers. That means the theatres (yeah, I'm a Brit, so suck my balls) need to pay staff a good wage and train them well. Employ people who love movies, who are prepared to help you out with shit, who will HAPPILY kick anyone the fuck out if they a) talk; b) use their 'phone; c) put their feet up on seats. ONE warning, cockfaces.

Colorful prose, but the point is quite appropriate.

There is ONE local cinema I enjoy going to. It was built nearly a century ago and is decorated accordingly. It is BEAUTIFUL. Going there is an experience. It is also CHEAPER than the big chains which offer a worse experience (but, because they have more screens, can show more films). Stop being such greedy, money-grubbing cunts and I'll go to the cinema more.

Most of the theatres near me are not well maintained nor well cleaned between performances. Keep the friggin places "in good order" and keep them clean, then I'll consider going back to those places.

And yeah I know there is such a thing as "home cinema" - my uncle was a film buff and built a fucking cinema in our attic in the '70s using old projection equipment and seats ripped from a condemned cinema. That was better than any modern "home cinema" but STILL doesn't beat the whole experience of a GOOD theatre. So get your thumbs out of your butts and learn what it means to provide an experience to your customers, and I'll pay my fucking money.

I agree. Sound systems need to work properly. So do the projectors and reel changes, assuming they still use reels. Refund some or all of my money when you bollocks up a performance, especially when you bring up the house lights in hope that it will stop the moaning & whining in the audience.

3) Also, that popcorn and coke? You don't need to profit from it. Sell it at cost, carpet-braiders. Make it an optional part of the experience. And no bringing in external noisy greasy food (but always let people bring in their own water/sweets, because that's just good bloody manners considering the plethora of health conditions out there).

Not quite IMHO. Make a reasonable profit (20-30%, not the 75-100% they probably get now) on food that tastes like food. Offer more than sugary drinks and sweets. yeah I know that's what most people expect, but some people can't handle that stuff...or want that stuff. If someone wants to bring in their own water, then fine, but not their own pop or other beverages. If someone is making too much noise eating their food during the movie, then warn them once and toss'em if they repeat. That means having ushers in the theatre during the performance and not just hanging at the lobby doors "checking out the ladies".

tl;dr Give people NO reason not to go to the cinema and they will go.

That is all. Cocks.

Price has a lot to do with it. Quality of the movie is a lot of it. I don't go anymore cuz most of the crap on the screen is either "humans against a green screen" with CGI added later, or just flat off CGI and not a real human to be seen. When every movie nowadays could be created in whatever CGI tools you like, why go at all? And then there is the lack of plots in most movies nowadays. Who wants to see the umteenth remake of "crap-ola" or some barely disguised rewrite of an old classic redone in a totally sux style? There is rarely anything original in theatres nowadays...so why go at all?

Re: Metallica had a movie, too

[fropenn]

But how did the price for the recent Metallica movie compare? I'm sure it was much cheaper than a ticket to once of their recent concerts (not to mention they sounded much better in the movie recording than in most of their recent live concerts).

Smelly feet

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to see Interstellar, the man behind me had smelly feet, the screen wasn't that big, and the sound of annoying people eating is not as good as my surround sound at home. Then there was the subtitles problem, it hung, he had to replay 10 minutes back because the digital subtitle machine had stuck. FFS!

I'm sorry but its no longer a night out, its no longer better than being at home, with all my home comforts, and the ability to pause the movie if we want a break.

Piracy certainly contributes, but that's not the full story. A night in usually revolves around a video game these days, and a night out usually involves food and live shows or special events. I think I only went to 2 movies this year, and next year it may be none.

TV is better now

[Tvingo]

People seem to forget the other angle. In fighting for our entertainment time, TV has gotten much much better in the last 10 years. Instead of just dumb sitcoms there are now amazing shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and many many others that are as good or better than anything hollywood has been doing with movies. So now we have a choice of watching amazing TV shows for free/marginal cost or the huge cost of going to a theater with all the detractors that have been listed time and time again on here. How many get a Netflix subscription for watching movies? I almost exclusively use it for TV shows (House of Cards is another amazing example).

Re:TV is better now

[Anonymous Coward]

The shows that you mention are some of the crappiest out there! Over the air and cable TV have gone to hell in the last 15-20 years. There is almost nothing on thats worth watching but older shows now, and far far far far to many commercials. If you think the new TV shows are better now, you are an idiot! Netflix is the only way to go, and yes many people use it to watch movies. And even Netflix has far to many of the crappy new shows like those you mentioned!

Re:TV is better now

[guacamole]

Indeed. Going to movies could be a highlight of a week (or day) for some in the 80s and 90s. But nowadays there are so many more ways to kill your time..

Re:TV is better now

[MightyMartian]

Breaking Bad crappy? It may very well be one of the best stories told in the visual medium since Shakespeare's heyday. There was only one iffy episode as I recollect, and that was the one where they spent the episode hunting for a fly in the lab. The episode Ozymandias may be the best hour of TV in history.

Game of Thrones I'm less thrilled about, mainly because I read the first books a few years ago, and have a hard time adjusting my own vision of the characters should act to how they do on the screen. But as far as production values and writing goes, Game of Thrones is a top notch production. It's certainly the best medieval fantasy production ever made.

Episode II

[aitikin]

I find it funny that Episode II is the only thing that's not italicized in the summery (although the article had it italicized).

Cost and Experience

[Drathos]

IMHO, ticket sales are tanking due to the cost of tickets and the movie going experience. I'd pretty much stopped going to see movies in the theater because I was sick of paying a lot of money for a terrible experience at my local Regal. Starting with the supposed show time, you'd get about 15-20 minutes of commercials, the MPAA PSA that accuses you of being a thief, a couple of trailers, and finally, a half hour after it was supposed to start, the movie. Then, during the movie, half the audience would be jabbering away, cell phones going off all the time, and even people shining laser pointers at the screen. And the theater wouldn't do anything to try to stop it.

Now that I have an Alamo, I'm starting to go to movies again because it's completely different. Tickets for regular showings are cheaper than the matinee showings were at Regal and the experience is FAR better. Add to that good food and drink, and it's wins all around.

I wonder why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see... Could it be the bad economy is limiting discretionary income? Nah.

Possibly that a trip to the movies is a much more expensive proposition than it used to be? Couldn't be.

Maybe its because we had an awful crop of films focusing on overhyped storylines, weak characters, and reboots? No, people watch what we tell them.

Could it be that we have equipment that is more than adequate to see movies in our own homes for the cost of less than 10 trips to the moves? No, people like being with others who whisper and fart.

Hackers... Yeah, that's the ticket. Dunno how they did it, but let's turn this over to legal so we don't have to think about the real issues.

And wait a year

[tepples]

less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet

But you have to wait several months and avoid spoilers in the meantime. For example, the film Hop took nearly a year after North American theatrical release to be published on DVD and BD in North America. And most people's audio systems are likely not up to par with that of a theater.

Re:And wait a year

[goose-incarnated]

less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet

But you have to wait several months and avoid spoilers in the meantime. For example, the film Hop took nearly a year after North American theatrical release to be published on DVD and BD in North America. And most people's audio systems are likely not up to par with that of a theater.

Most people turn on subtitles when playing a disk. That beats any "par" set by the theatre.

Re:And wait a year

[CronoCloud]

But you have to wait several months and avoid spoilers in the meantime.

Not a big deal for most films. It's not like most are "The Usual Suspects" or "The Crying Game". And that really doesn't matter for a film like...

the film Hop

Hop? Hop? Are you 8?

And most people's audio systems are likely not up to par with that of a theater.

A lot of theatres have crappy sound...even compared to the built in speakers on a TV.

Re:And wait a year

[tepples]

Hop? Are you 8?

My cousin was 8 around its release.

Re:And wait a year

[toddestan]

Many theatres have terrible sound systems. Sure, there's some that have it done right, but many really only seem to have one attribute: LOUD. A good home set up isn't that expensive, will often sound better, and I can control the volume.

Easy to explain

[Anonymous Coward]

We have 4 older kids between us (2 are hers, 2 are mine) and if we all went to the movies, it would be $12 per ticket and figure around $10 each for the concession. That's $22 for each of us making the total cost for a 2-hour movie, minus fuel to get to and from the theater, $132. Do that once every month for a year we're talking $1500. For that $1500 I was able to buy a fairly decent HD projector (Optoma gt1080, $750), a fixed frame movie screen (Silver Ticket 120" diagonal movie screen, $300) and a moderate level 5.1 receiver (Denon AVR300, $400). I had all the speakers up in the attic and stole the sub that we had been using on the main TV. We're using a BlueRay player picked up at a Black Friday sale for the rented content along with a Roku 3 for streaming content. So for nearly the same price of 1 year of going to the movies, I installed a fairly decent theater in the basement. Yes, we've spent a bunch more as we're having fun with it including large 32oz popcorn machine, hot dog roller, theater decorations and so on, but it is SO much nicer and fun to be able to just invite a few friends over and fire up the basement theater. We control the environment and don't have to worry about the idiot behind us who may or may not have showered, don't get raped on concession and can pause the movie for a pottie break. Best of all, if the movie sucks, we can choose a different one :) Best investment we've ever made!

I can't stand theaters

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been quite a few releases this year that i've seen, but I wouldn't go to a theater to see them. I'll either obtain them in other fashions, or wait until its available to stream/buy/netflix.

I always feel cheated when I leave a theater. I have to deal with the disturbing behaviors of other movie goers (texting, talking, kicking seats) and the insane prices for food. The only time I can be talked into a theater is an iPic theater. You'll pay over $100 for a couple to see a flick without drinks or food. But I scope out the movie long in advance and have a pretty good idea if I am going to dig it or not. The last time I was there, it was to see the Avengers. I walked away happy. And full, and a bit tipsy. I felt like I got my money's worth, but always leave disappointed from a regular theater.

So long story short, and guess the point I am trying to make is for the movie industry to distribute via the home. I think the whole "Interview fiasco", was probably one of the first times that a major theater release was available in the home concurrently with the theater. Guess what, I got the movie and watched it at home. And was very pleased I only spent something like $6 for it and did not have to embark on the whole theater experience. Wasn't impressed with the movie, and it would have been funnier had you pulled Rogen and Franco out and popped in Austin Powers.

If you're fine with waiting over a year

[tepples]

we know that if we wait two months we'll be able to rent it at Red Box for a dollar.

Not all movies reach Redbox that quickly. Hop took 51 weeks to get to DVD, and then 4 more weeks to get to Redbox.

Re:If you're fine with waiting over a year

[meta-monkey]

Guardians of the Galaxy, though, was released August 1st in theaters and was available online November 18th and on Blu-ray December 9th. That whole pressure of "if I don't see this movie everybody's talking about in the theater I'll have to wait 14 months for it to come to blockbuster" is gone.

Cost...

[nam37]

I can buy a Blu-Ray PLAYER and the disc for less than it costs my family of 4 to see a 3D movie with pop-corn and drinks.

Re:Cost...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother. It usually costs me $80 for three people to see a movie with tickets and food.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[Anonymous Coward]

Half my family is in the film industry, you tedious dullard. Two things you obviously missed in vomiting your post:

1) Hollywood accounting is called that for a reason. There is huge margin for renegotiation on amount paid to the studios in opening weeks, but the bigger theatre companies have become lazy, risk-averse cunts who would rather vacuum up the cash from the Disposable Income Teen segment;

2) And yet the smaller theatres still manage to be more affordable on both ticket prices and food. You know why? Firstly, they don't just push the blockbusters in the opening weeks, which are the most expensive for theatres. Secondly - and this is the shocker - they're not profiteering bastards. Smaller theatres tend to employ more knowledgeable people and worry less about profit margin. As long as everyone gets paid enough, the business is sustainable - something modern capitalism has failed to grasp.

So, to counter-clue you: theatres often lose money in the opening week on ticket sales for Hollywood blockbusters. Otherwise, you're wrong.

In 2014 there were few movies I wanted to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

And of the few that I wanted to see, only a few of those were in theaters long enough for me to get around to seeing them.

Do people really right down the date a movie is coming out and plan to see it within a week of its release?

Maybe they priced themselves out

[Virus Hunter]

It costs me about $60 to take my family to the movies. That's a bit steep. It's certainly enough to beg the question: is it worth it? I'm finding that the answer is usually a big no.

Today's movie theaters are crap

[TheDarkMaster]

My experience on actual movie theaters, ignoring the question of the film itself be good or not:

- The picture quality is ridiculously bad , I have seen only one movie theater years ago where the image was reasonably good;
- Popcorn is ridiculously expensive and bad;
- The sound is always too high and always exaggerates in the bass (ohhh explosions!);


These days I can buy a big quality TV at an affordable price, a home theater and so I can watch the movie I want whenever I want and with hot, quality popcorn. Why in hell I would go to the theather?

Cinema

[ledow]

I don't do the cinema. I can count on my fingers how many times I've been in my life.

I'm not going to pay to sit next to a bunch of talking, chomping idiots who have no idea what the films about and ask stupid questions, then get up to use the loo at the critical point of the film, in a dirty, sticky seat with half-hour of trailers before I can watch a (usually substandard but not always) movie, having paid what could have bought me the DVD over and over and over and over again just to get in and buy a drink.

I don't actually get why people do, to be honest.

That said, the last time I went to see The Imitation Game, I really enjoyed it. A movie I wanted to see, that wasn't the usual Hollywood fare, in a cinema that was near-empty, at a half-decent time, without many of the above (but certainly quite a lot of things), and we smuggled our own food in.

When you take into account the tripe that's normally showing, I do not understand how they make money. But then, I wouldn't let myself be PAID to watch most of the junk that's out.

Of Course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course movie tickets are at an all time low.

Just some technical changes:
- Netflix/Roku - Watch the movies you liked on your own TV.
- DVD/Blu-Ray - Watch the movies you liked on your own TV.

And it does not help that most of the movies that have come out of out Hollywood in the last few years - excluding Maleficient and a few others - all seem to be bad remakes (Red Dawn anyone?), bad rehashes (Olympus Has Fallen), or Ishtar grade crap (Anything by Adam Sandler since 2006, Dumb and Dumberer)

3D

[Parker Lewis]

I'm not in all that hate for the movies. But my problem is with 3D. Every movie I can enjoy with the family is 3D. My wife has headache with 3D. And I have 2 small kids under 6 (not recommended 3D for kids below 6). Not to mention the popcorn prices in theaters. We even have (here in Brazil) some humor sketches when the couple is talking about get kids out of the school to pay for a popcorn in a movie.

Re:3D

[SuricouRaven]

You can get 2D glasses. Just like 3D glasses, except the lenses are identical so you only get one image. You still get screwed on the price premium though.

Re:3D

[Parker Lewis]

Interesting, I was not aware of this. Next time I go to the mall (where most theaters are located now), I'll ask by it. Thank you for pointing me this! :)

Re:3D

[SuricouRaven]

I said you can get, not that they will provide. It's not likely to be something the cinema will provide. Just buy them online and take them with you.

Re:3D

[Parker Lewis]

Oh, right, sorry.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[trybywrench]

"That's not entirely fair, they were chasing the Nirvana money - Nevermind had just come out and I am sure everyone saw dollar signs."

I can see that and besides Master of Puppets and And Justice for All were the very peak of the genre. How can you out heavy metal either of those 2 albums? There was no where else to go except a different direction and the tides were turning with grunge anyway.

You know what would get me going again? No 3D!

[urbanriot]

My wife and I stopped going to the cinemas a year or so ago because every movie we wanted to see, there was no option within a 45 minute drive to see these movies in anything but 3D.

I'm not sure what it is and maybe it's not the same everywhere else, but on both our Cineplex Odeon and Landmark Cinemas screens at three theatres, the action on a 3D movie is blurry and not at all as enjoyably clear as the normal version. It took weeks for Guardians of the Galaxy to have a non-3D release at our closest (15 away) location and by that point all the excitement was minimized to the point where we figured we'd just wait to watch it at home since it was downgraded to a smaller cinema room with no 3D and lesser quality audio. If we have 60" TV at home and 5.1 audio, why watch the movie at the higher price for a lesser experience when I could buy the blu ray for the cost of 2 tickets?

We also have AVX options from time to time and I actually prefer this and prefer the option to pick a preferential seat but this higher cost option may not be on par with what people want to experience.

So in summary, if you want more people heading to the movies, drop all the gimmicky BS and just give people the movies or at the very least, get rid of 2 x 3D screenings and have 1 x 3D and 1 x normal big screen with good audio.

Re:You know what would get me going again? No 3D!

[oogoliegoogolie]

It took weeks for Guardians of the Galaxy to have a non-3D release at our closest (15 away) location

This is exactly why I only go to a couple movies a year instead of going to a couple of moves every month like I did years ago. The cinemas don't give you a choice to view movies in non-3D at peak times. Every bloody movie that starts from 6:30PM to 8:30PM is in 3D so they can charge an extra $4-$7 per ticket. If you want to see non-3D then you have to catch the 4:20PM or 9:50PM showing, and when you work 9-5, both of those times are too inconvenient for me to bother.

Re:You know what would get me going again? No 3D!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to say the same thing. Thank you!

Re:You know what would get me going again? No 3D!

[Teckla]

My wife and I stopped going to the cinemas a year or so ago because every movie we wanted to see, there was no option within a 45 minute drive to see these movies in anything but 3D.

I also dislike 3D movies. The goofy, uncomfortable glasses. The higher ticket prices. The fuzziness. Blech.

The good news is, Hollywood is slowly but surely discovering (for the second or third time) that people don't like 3D movies. You probably won't have to put up with them for much longer.

find the economic logjam. then break it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a consumer-driven economy if your consumers don't have any money, now can you? Can you?

Re: find the economic logjam. then break it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! With inequality in the USA as bad as the gilded age there is simply not enough but demand/buying power/disposable income to pay for an expensive movie.

How long till the plutocrats and the 0.1% and 0.01% work it out?! Or do they want to go back to serfdom days?

A bunch of old timers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The series of comments here could probably be used as part of a psychological study about people's perceptions of "the good ol' days". Do we truly feel that we look so much more intelligent by marking all cinema as "crap"? The periods of time we see as so much more enlightened and filled with quality film are likewise filled with people who claimed it was all crap and that what was around back in "their day" was so much better.

Lets be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of crappy movies, but there are plenty of good ones. Just because a good movie doesn't get billions in advertising doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I would say the people claiming the increased quality of home media systems are closest to the target here, versus the people needing to inflate their egos with claims of how "horrible" movies are these days.

Re:A bunch of old timers ...

[Minwee]

There are plenty of crappy movies, but there are plenty of good ones.

[Citation needed]

No, really. If you know about plenty of good movies which were released in the last year, why not share them with the rest of us? Perhaps we're all complaining about the lack of good movies because we actually didn't see any.

Re:A bunch of old timers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not defending the person you replied to, but I was curious to see how much was released in U.S. theaters this year. Here's the list:

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/2014_movies/Movies_In_Theaters_2014.html

Looks like a lot of crap to me, as I saw most of the highly rated ones in the list and it only amounted to about 30 movies that I would say were good enough for me to want to ever watch them again. To me a "good" movie is one that I *want* to watch more than once, because, well, it was good! If I counted correctly there were 710 films released in the U.S. alone last year and 30 of them weren't shit. That's 4.225% !!!

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Hell were you doing buying a *seat* at a Metallica concert?!

No Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

2014 has been one of the worst years I can ever remeber for movies. Endless reboots, remakes, sequels, 3D gimmick bullshit, and outright drivel. Movies these days are terrible. There's no originality left in Hollywood, and it is unbelieveably tiresome having to watch the third reboot of or the tenth remake of . Not to mention how absurdly expensive it is to go to the theatre now. You're looking at *at least* $20 per person.

On top of all that, the MPAA is openly and active hostile to movie goers. Why should I spend large amounts of my money and time supporting an organization that treats me like a criminal, and clings to outdated business models as though any sort of rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic is going to make any kind of difference?

Hollywood has dug its own grave. And now they're starting to see the consequences.

Make better movies

[Bruinwar]

Make better movies. Yep, that's it. Imagine. Better movies. I was standing in the cold in front of a Redbox just yesterday. I've not seen a movie in months & there was still nothing that I wanted to see. Just crap movies. They even had sequels of crap movies!

Good thing there are still writers writing new good books to read. Kina makes me wonder why we still have good writers & good actors, but they can't seem to make good movies.

Here's an idea: Make better movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's not a popular thing to do. But as a new parent, I have to pay someone to watch my kid. If I'm going to do that and pay $20 a head for a ticket, I want to be damned sure it is going to be a film worth going to.

There's a simple explanation for this

[Minwee]

Clearly, it's all North Korea's fault. The FBI even said so.

Beyond Movies

[handy_vandal]

Theater owners should look beyond movies, to some other technology.

The technology should be sufficiently expensive that it's not practical for home use. And, of course, it should be fun for people to do in crowds.

Costs and Quality are Killing Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I went to one or two movies in 2013 and 2014. I might go see one more this weekend, and that may be the only movie i see this year. When I was a kid, I probably went to the cinema 2 to 3 times a month.

We can get tickets for $8.50 through a corporate discount site. But even when we share popcorn and drinks we spend nearly $80 on a movie.

Then, so many movies and actors are antithetical to my world view and so many are just plain terrible movies I refuse to see them.

We watch NetFlix (mostly foreign films) and buy DVDs and almost never go to the cinema. I don't think that is going to change unless Hollywood starts producing something besides terrible movies that are often only platforms for special effects.

well...

[buddyglass]

Can't say I didn't do my part. I looked over the Box Office top 100 for 2014 and I saw 23 of them in the theater. Number is partly inflated by my having to take my kids to lots of kids films.

There were no 80" screens for the home in 2002

[kimgkimg]

I suspect we'll continue to see the decline as home systems get better and better and more affordable than ever.

Re:There were no 80" screens for the home in 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%. For under $1500 we installed a nice HD projector, 120" screen and bought a decent 5.1 receiver for an area in the basement. We now control the environment, sound, video and snacks. If the movie sucks, who cares, we stop it and find something else. Best entertainment money I ever spent in my life.

Re:Hilarious posts

[MitchDev]

If no one pays for movies, they won't get made

That's one way to end piracy

Not worth the hassle...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Subject to opinion, but a lot of people feel like the quality (in terms of story) of content has gone down so they lose interest.

Ticket prices have skyrocketed and who really likes paying "movie prices" for things like soda and popcorn after getting reamed on the admission cost?

It's much more convenient to purchase VOD titles and watch on your own schedule.

Home theater displays and audio gear has become significantly cheaper so it's possible to get a very good viewing experience at home.

I think piracy has little to do with it. The people who are going to steal, are going to do it anyway. I doubt the population of those people is growing significantly. It's the number of non-pirates that's not bothering to consume movies in the cinema that's the "problem."

In short: The industry is actively chasing away consumers and technology is making it "worse" by creating an environment where people can get similar experiences on their own schedule at home using VOD. Do I want to deal with the hassle of going to the cinema or do I want to wait a little while and then watch on a large high def display in the comfort of my own home.

Re:Not worth the hassle...

[ruir]

it is not only the hassle of moving my ass to the cinema. Is them having the nerve to ram me with more than 1h of publicity when supposedly I am the customer. Is the cleanliness of the environment, or rather the lack of it. Having idiots around eating, drinking and talking. And really, as you said, having the technology at home in a much more friendly environment and on my own schedule.

Wrongo

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the movies. Crowded,messy, Over priced.

I bought my 60 in TV and Sound system to watch movies at home.
Even in true theater 3D. I don't need, nor want, to go to the movies.

I won't even mention that most movies are terrible.

Re:In 2014 there were few movies I wanted to see..

[MitchDev]

Only the fanatics who would give up their first born to be the first inline to see the new Star Wars/Star Trek/Fast and Furious/etc movie....

Re:Hilarious posts

[Deadstick]

...Aaand, we've found the culprit.

Why pay to see crap in uncomfortable seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, did I mention most of the movies are crap?

Funny... I like what you wrote, especially the advertisements part.

(scarcasm)
Cant be, the fact they spent $100 MM making the movie "entitles" them to get at least $600 in return for their investment.
Just because they are rehashing the same thing over and over again should not impact this return.
(/scarcasm)

No progress

[StripedCow]

The problem is that movie theaters don't show any technological progress.
For instance, where is my holodeck?

Surprise?

[zentigger]

Hollywood has spewed forth a bunch of pre-digested vomitus, and re-re-recycled stories at a time when the cost of a trip to the cinema has reached epic proportions. Meanwhile Netflix, HBO and others are producing high quality ORIGINAL works with intriguing stories that we can consume at our own convenience, without waiting in lineups, and putting up with a bunch of drunk teenagers running back and forth chatting and texting. Top this off with the proliferation of Apple TVs and set-top boxes that have shifted on-line viewing to the living-room screen. Sprinkle with a dash of unemployment and a growing social trend towards cocooning, and this really should come as no surprise.

I had to yell at someone's grandmother

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped going to movie theatres when I had to yell at someone's grandmother to stop texting on her cell phone during the movie. And it wasn't the first time I've seen a senior citizen fiddling with their phone during the movie, she just happened to be right across the aisle from me and I could do something about it.

I'll wait for the bluray or itunes release and watch it at home. It's not worth the $30 (ticket plus a snack) to be surrounded by idiots that have absolutely zero respect for others around them.

Satellite is capped

[tepples]

... you might live outside the service footprint of Netflix and Hulu. These include places that can't get cable or DSL, such as rural areas

You forgot satellite.

I left out satellite because its typical 10 GB per month quota is not conducive to routine use of Netflix, Hulu, or any other streaming service.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[NotDrWho]

No mosh pit at the particular venue they played. Much preferred the pit too, if available.

Tickets the cost of a loaf of bread

[Pollux]

I loved going to theaters back when tickets were the cost of a loaf of bread. I had one growing up.

Back in Fargo, ND in the mid-to-late 1990's, there was a business owner who built the Fargo Cinema Grill. Tickets were $1.50. You went in, sat down, ordered food before movie started (or after if you arrived late), got it about 15-30 minutes into the show, and enjoyed a great meal with your movie. They served all your standard bar & grill food...pizza, burgers, fries, wings, popcorn...plus tall sodas and beer. There was plenty of space to eat, sit and relax. The community loved it, and, for a while, it was a viable business. Unfortunately, the local commercial theaters in town that were owned by CEC Theaters had some kind of monopoly rights on movie showings with the big studios and wouldn't let the CG show a film until after CEC dropped it in their theaters. CG couldn't get enough customers to watch movies in their theater when the movies were already out on DVD. They closed up shop in '99.

While they were open, we always had a reason to want to go to the theater. It was a restaurant and theater in one. In fact, when you think of it as a restaurant instead of a theater, people go out to eat all the time, so why not enjoy a movie while you eat? I wish the idea caught would have caught on with CEC, but they said once in a newspaper article, "That's just not our business model."

The volume has driven me away from some chains.

[Maxo-Texas]

Volume in theatre's is way up. I go to rock concerts and dont' need earplugs but have needed earplugs several times at theatres because it was so unpleasant.

Noise from the theatres sharing a wall is distracting.

A friend of mine who I used to see movies with became unable to go (even with earplugs) several years ago. Only gun headsets work for her but then she gets a headache before the movie is over.

Where to begin

[Anonymous Coward]

In spite of what the movie copyright barking dogs will yelp about, there are a lot of reasons why people aren't seeing as many movies: 1) Content: How many action-sequence "gee, ignore the stupid 'written-on-a-napkin' plot and gawk at the special effects" movies can you stare at before being able to identify the features of a given piece of software and saying 'that's what that program can do...'. And superhero action scene after scene after scene is stale fairly quick. 2) skyhigh ticket prices compared to *any* other medium. Where are my $2.50 Tuesdays? Theater admittance: mortgage the house. Popcorn: Mortgage the car. People caught bringing anything in (including prescription pills) will be barred for life worldwide!

Give me something that isn't a waste of my time, that hasn't already been done elsewhere, better, doesn't break the bank and make it easy for me to access. Theaters and film studios are both to blame. My home theater is a better, more premium experience. My popcorn machine doesn't charge $12 for a small amount of corn. My film stops if someone has to go to the bathroom. I don't have to tell friends to shut off their phones. My floors aren't so sticky that my shoes want to come off as I walk. Make it fun and I will go.

If movies didn't totally suck...

[jjn1056]

.. and the experience not horrific (bad theater plus rowdy chumps in the audience) I might go more.

As it stand with my big screen plasma and home setup I enjoy that a lot more and don't mind having to wait for the movie I want to see to come out of disk.

Re: Metallica had a movie, too

[jd2112]

Easy: Since Metalica started suing their fans back in the Napster days I haven't been able to stand them. Back then I might have brought a ticket. Today I wouldn't even download them for free.

Hollywood will blame pirates...

[BestNicksRTaken]

...the rest of us know that its because of the endless remakes, reboots, prequels and general lack of any new ideas coming out of LA. I mean how many times can you reboot Superman/Spiderman?

Don't get me started on movies made entirely to sell toys and themepark rides like Transformers and fucking Frozen.

Re:Hollywood will blame pirates...

[mallyn]

Now youi have gotten me started . . . .

Once upon a time at Christmas, 1999.

I spent two weeks in my woodworking shop making a heirloom quality solid maple and cherry chest style toy box. It was sturdy enough that it could also function as a bench style seat.

Here is an archive.org cache of the toy box from my old web site: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

I made this gift for my sister who had two young boys.

When I previewed this gift to my mother, she told me that I was not finished and the at need to rush out to the store and get some theme toys to put into the toy box.

At 5 PM on Chrstmas Eve.

Yeah, right. After spending 2 weeks lovingly working on this project, only to be expected to rush out on Christmas eve to buy movie theme toys to stuff in it.

Sorry, I told mom that I would rather make nice sugary brownies for Christmas Eve dinner.

numbers look great to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

So more people went to the movies in 2014 than in 1995, in 1995 dvd was not even out, or barely out, i.e. other options limited to vhs/tv besides viewing in theater. So even with the competition of main stream home theater, blu-ray, dvd, online streaming, piracy, high theater prices. more people still went to the theater to watch movies. And the varying rates by year just tell us that if Hollywood makes a good movie we are more likely to go see it in the theater, if they put out crap we aren't. IMO this year, with a few exceptions, was pretty mediocre with quality, family, or blockbuster(appeal to masses) movies,

Offer free day care.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of us grew up, had kids and can't get a sitter.

So lets add another $20 to that ticket price for the sitter. After you add your $20 - $30 for two tickets, depending if the theater is ONLY showing 3D or not.
Add another $25 for nachos n cheese and two pops (The Keg is starting to look like a deal) and now My movie night is at $75 plus.

Stop jacking your customers and maaaaybe they'd come more often. If they'd offer day care/babysitting of some kind, I'd be there every single week.

Lastly after paying $75, why the hell must i sit through 20+ minutes of advertisements!? Some eight commercial adds and another 3 - 4 movie previews.

Re:Hilarious posts

[Anonymous Coward]

What about watching them until they get made, and when they won't anymore who fucking cares?

And corporate greed has nothing to do with it...

[whitroth]

We went to see Interstallar in IMAX a month+ ago. $60 for the three of us, and that was *just* the tickets. All of that goes for the theatre and the producers - they still pay the staff on receipts from the popcorn. Tell me why it cost as much as some live concerts.... and then, think about the 50% of the population's weekly income.

Can't *imagine* why they wouldn't want to go tot he movies.... rather, than, say, paying their rent or putting food on the table.

                  mark

Super Action Heroes -- WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The film, Idiocracy (2006) has finally become the state of America’s entertainment with all these no-brainer comic book movies. Frankly, I gave up believing in this crap at the age of 5-years old.

It's about the experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always been an avid movie-goer. Every Tuesday we used to go to the movies and watch what ever is available.

Unfortunately the quality of the movies have changed so much that these days I have to look at what is showing before even considering going. Where in the past I used to go once a week I now go once every couple of months. (Yes I've seen al the movies that is considered good. But I have not seen any others).

Also I think the internet had a big impact not just the fact that it now easier to find something to watch at home but the fact the previous you would simply go to the movies and take a chance. These days I would first evaluate a movie at home look at trailer and comments before committing to watch it.

Add to that the fact that movies are not advertised on the internet.

The long and the short of it. It is the promoters and movie makers own fault not the public. Open your eyes change with the times or close your doors.

As simple as that.

Theaters arent worth it 98% of the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

who drinks a gallon of coke? Upgrade to a large for .50 more?? That whole cup of soda costs about 50 cents, maybe less.

I'd go to a movie theater more often if they had less than 10$ tickets in my area, a matinee/happy hour pricing, decent sized/priced concessions, and the theater would throw out people who disrupt..I'm not talking about the oohs and ahs, but the oh **** did you see that? Did you see THAT? That's my girl, that's my girl!;... also cell phone talkers actually having converstations in the middle of the movie...yo where you at? ...Im a pick you up later, ...yo dog,...aw *** you gotta see this movie.....; giggly kids who kick the seat backs, teens who whisper constantly but can still be heard by those near them.....then theres the less frequent but not less annoying insanely loud movies like Interstellar. It was playing in an adjacent theater and it would drown out the movie I was watching, which was not a SFX extravaganza.

I've been to one theater where they kept an attendant in the theater, actually spoke to everybody before the show(haven't been back enough to see if they actually enforced anything), and there was an attendant in the theater most of the time. They were the host/snack gopher. Of course, a ticket cost 14$ for a regular movie, concessions were smaller portions but same price. I was at an theater overseas and they had a day care IN THE THEATER, how awesome is that! And it was free. Over here you go see a horror movie and there is a teen mom dragging her toddler in to see the Friday the 13th reboot(after Jason X)

Home Theater

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a 70" HDTV and a massive surround sound system like I do why would you ever go to the theater again?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Commercials

[jenningsthecat]

I often want to see a new movie at the cinema. But then I think of the car and bank commercials, trivia games, and other assorted pre-movie corporate crap that has become part of the standard cinema experience, and I decide to wait for the DVD release. I gotta wonder how many other people are staying away for the same reasons.

Theaters are Expensive

[tbq]

With 1.26 billion movie sold, that translates to an average of 4 movies per American, which is more than I see at a theater. I’d really like to know where I can see a movie for an average of $8.15 like the article states; I don’t believe there aren’t any theaters in the Seattle area that are that cheap even for a matinée. If my wife and I are going to go to a movie we usually like to go to the Cinerama in downtown Seattle, which costs $16.50 per ticket. Parking is usually around $25 and we usually get a large popcorn. That’s over $65 for the two of us to see a movie in the theater. In those rare occasions when we do go to the theater we opt for 3D and HFR whenever available since that experience isn’t easily replicated at home. Otherwise we could wait to buy the Blu-ray for $20 and enjoy the movie in the comfort of our own home. Our local libraries even have huge selections of movies and TV shows and get new releases weekly, so I can often check out the latest Blu-rays and DVDs for free long before they’re available on Netflix or RedBox.

Re:Theaters are Expensive

[tbq]

I don’t believe there aren’t any theaters in the Seattle area that are that cheap even for a matinée.

Sorry, second sentence should read, "I don’t believe there are any theaters..." rather than aren't.

something worthy of watching, a potential classic

[volvox_voxel]

I don't care for comic book recaps.. Give us characters that are believable, that tell something compelling abou the human condition; something that makes us think..Like "A Face in the Crowd" , "Night Of The Hunter" , "High Noon", "Bridge On The River Kwai", "A Dog Day Afternoon", "Who's Afraid of Virgina Wolf", "Bad Day at Blackrock", "Kramer vs Kramer", "Silkwood" .. There was a time when the public seemed to have a larger variety of movies to choose from.

Too much material seems to be regurgitated, and not enough screenwriters seem to read literature and science fiction . There are plenty of compelling stories that have never been told..

We are witnessing an extreme aversion to anything that is not tried and true, and it has cost them. The 70ies marked a time when movies were not so formulaic and deviated away from the old studio system. They took a risk, and it paid off with the Godfather, etc.

2014 movies sucked, prices too high

[PopeRatzo]

First of all, the article just mentions "preliminary estimates". Well, good, but estimates by whom? If it was preliminary estimates from some guy who drives by movie theaters and notices whether or not there are long lines, it doesn't mean anything. Is it estimates from the big theater chains? From the projectionists' union? From the guy who has to scrape the gum off of seats after the last show?

And, this has little to do with piracy. It has to do with the fact that theaters have priced themselves out of a market and 2014 was a very bad year for movies. There were only a handful of new movies that I found worth seeing in a theater. However, I actually spent more going to indie revival house theaters than first-run megamultiplexes. I saw more movies projected onto the big screen in 2014 than I did in 2013. They just weren't mostly in big theater chains where my attendance would show up in these statistics.

So it's not that I didn't want to go out to see movies, it's that I didn't want to go out and see the sequelized garbage that the movie industry has been peddling.

Screen Size and more

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many reasons for this, but I think a largely overlooked factor is that TV screen sizes have become larger and more affordable over the last decade. In addition, good quality sound systems can be bought for a pittance.

This is furthered by those who have become comfortable/used to the idea of settling in at home for a movie during the recession time, rather than spending more for nights out and cinema trips. Then there's the reduced physical social interaction, increased distraction (hands up all you who're facebooking, twitting etc during a movie). There are also a lot more people on-line these days and more of us read movie reviews before even considering a trip out (soooo so many terrible movies lately).

Oh, have you seen the price of Cinema tickets these days? €16-20 here (US$20-25) per ticket and you have to pay extra for those flimsy 3D glasses.For €20 I can pick up a Blu-ray (often 2 for 1) from Amazon and watch in comfort at home.

Prices are rediculous

[muphin]

just went to see "The Hobbit" yesterday, $20 for a ticket, $18 for a coke (bottle), choc top and m&m's ... assigned seating which i hate .. small screen, geeze from the distance it looks like a 60inch tv

The cost of a ticket is a big negative for me and everyone i know... imagine taking a family, gonna cost you like $100.

They dont realise increasing ticket prices doesnt increase sales.. in fact reducing it to say $5-$9 would increase their sales 10 fold

and i know the licensing fees tak up a majority of the profits (thats why i refuse to go to opening screenings and wait a month, so the cinemas get more $$$)
refer to http://gizmodo.com/the-u-s-cou...

movies are too fucking expensive

[jsepeta]

every trip to the theatre with my daughter or my girlfriend is a $50-$60 expense, even if we go to a matinee. fuck it, i'll just stream on the home flat screen.

Totally agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting next to somebody for 2 hours, silently, can hardly be called a "social experience".

Justice without murder - Grand Torino

[Anonymous Coward]

See "Gran Torino" with Clint Eastwood as a "get off of my lawn" type curmudgeon who cleans out a neighborhood gang to protect potential victims.

#1 Reason: rude patrons keep me out of theaters

[walterbyrd]

Movie, and concessions, cost is no big deal to me - unless the entire experience is ruined by some jackass who sits behind me and won't shut his mouth for ten seconds.

Other - less important - reasons:

- watching at home is cheaper
- watching at home is more comfortable
- watching at home is less hassle - no worries about start time, do not have to drive anyway, or park. Can stop the movie.
- home theaters are really good
- it does not take long for feature movies to be available to download on Amazon, or whatever
- TV shows, like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Walking Dead; are better than most feature movies.
- more variety: I can watch a movie that has not been in theaters in years.

Reasons I don't goto the theater any more

[Gwarsbane]

Not ranked in any importance but heres the list...

$11.50 to see a 2D matinee on a Saturday/Sunday afternoon. Other days its at least 2 dollars above matinee price. 3D movies are at least 2 dollars above those costs. At these costs, I can just wait 6 months to a year and buy the Blu-ray and enjoy it at home as many times as I want.

I do not want to see a 3D movie because I'm not interested in sitting there with the 3D glasses on, and the extra costs are just not worth it to me. I'm also not sure how I will react to 3D, I have heard some people have had bad reactions.

Can't watch the movie when I want to. I have to go when they have the times set. This is a minor argument cause it doesn't bother me too much unless I have to wait late in the afternoon to actually go see the movie, some of them have not had the first showing till 2:00 or 2:30pm.

Can't cause if I need to use the washroom. This is one reason why I never drink anything for at least a few hours before the movie and go to the can before hand.

Not really related to why I don't go to the theater but a big grip none the less, food prices are crazy high. I always hit the dollar store before hand. Why pay 2.50 cents for a 600ml bottle of pop, when I can pick up one for a buck. Other food is just too expensive I don't even bother looking at the prices, thought I know the small nachos with cheese were more then 6 bucks. For 2 bucks, I could get a full bag of party mix.

What could they change to get me back into the theaters and buying their food? Drop the price by at least 50%. That would get me back into theaters and buying at least the nachos with cheese I love.

I also do not have a choice when it comes to theaters, as far as I can tell, there is only 1 owner of all the theaters in my area so there is no competition which would help keep prices lower.

No doubt

[tsotha]

I know a guy who sold a script to a studio. Basically they took a clean script and in a series of six rewrites jammed in everything a movie "needs" to make money. Certain types of characters, a certain type of pacing, and merchandising. They stripped out any cultural references non-American moviegoers might not understand. In the end if it were soup it would be lukewarm and tasteless. He didn't care because he knows the business and he new better than to get attached (and they pay well), but they might have made a good movie out of the original. Nobody would bother with the rewrite (not that they actually made the movie).

So falling domestic numbers really aren't much of a surprise. The studios have a formula for making money on a world audience, so it's no surprise so many movies come out to be mostly the same.

Why leave home?

[Simulant]

There are only 1 or 2 movies a year which I feel are worth a trip to the cinema. Anything else can wait to be watched on my home system which, like most these days, delivers a very nice viewing experience. I still feel like most of what I watch is crap though and wouldn't cry if there were less of it.

Sometimes I feel we are all "fiddling" while "Rome" burns. And while I know I'm getting old, watching people do horrible things to each other is not as fun as it used to be... it's just more explicit. Extreme violence seems to be the lowest common denominator in TV & cinema.

Not quite live theatre ...

[oneiros27]

Some movie theatres have been experimenting with streaming.

I went to see the Monty Python reunion live broadcast ... and in a packed theatre, it's a much different experience than watching it from home, even if you have a group of friends over. The company doing it was also advertising that they had operas.

The tickets were more expensive than regular movie tickets, but they were nothing compared to when I saw The Book of Mormon (as it sold out so fast we had to get more expensive tickets). They were more on-par with when I saw Avenue Q at The Red Branch Theatre. (and they're going to be doing it again this summer)

I admit, it's not as cheap as the improv group when I was in college (which many of us went to see every Friday at midnight), but you get some really funny stuff that'd never get made by a big movie studio. I remember seeing signs in DC for a place doing a Harry Potter spoof/synopsis a couple years back. I saw a play in the mid 1990s about lesbian vegetarian cattle rustlers. (I want to say it was named "Steak")

High ticket prices for crap movies

[MoarSauce123]

The majority of movies published is of no interest to me and the few I might find interesting are not interesting enough to defend the insanely high ticket prices. Movies used to be cheap entertainment for a family of four, now it clocks in at 100 bucks with all the fixins like popcorn and soda included. At least around here.

Not surprised, especially vs TV

[Kubla Kahhhn!]

Right now TV is arguably in its greatest era, and there has been a glut of really mediocre films, so I'm not at all surprised. You can go to the theaters and pay a fortune for movies that can't crack 7.5 on IMDB, or you can sit at home with your gigantic TV screen and watch Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Hannibal, True Detective, Game of Thrones, and that's a fraction of what's available at home in the US, and I haven't even hinted at British and European television. Plus, if you get started on any TV show and it's not grabbing you, you can just switch to something else. The movie industry really has to step up its game.

Re:It's FUCKING EXPENSIVE and the theatre is ANNOY

[toddestan]

Maybe it's time that Metallica got rebooted? We could have Michael Bay do the directing.

Corporate Greed Kills another Institution

[karlrkaiser]

WTF do they expect? Once upon a time movies were 6 bucks. Popcorn and a drink maybe another 6 bucks. And you could sit and chat with your friends before the show, and then watch about 10 minutes of previews, tops. Then tickets went $10, and $15 for a drink and popcorn. then they started cramming commercials down your throat before the movie, and previews that run over 20 minutes?? The cinema has died from the same old idiotic rapaciousness that sent people to steal music off Napster when CDs went to $18 and 3/4 of their songs sucked.

Quality through the floor

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I am concerned most of the movies spewing out of Wallywood these days are crap, often shitty reboots of previously good movies.

This is because Wallywood doesn't care about artistry, just profit at all costs.

Quality of Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is a mute point, but from what I have seen of movies recently is nothing but absolute crap.

I for one have stopped going to cinemas, firstly as the seats and noise leave me with a sore back and head for at least a week, but mainly due to the production which even on high budget films is so predictable, whenever my partner and I watch a dvd (and tv shows) we play our game to guess what happens next, and pretty much in every case we can write the plot (or improve on it).

Theres not the quality for us to enjoy at the same time the companies (if Ive read this correctly) are making record profits, how about spending a little more and doing a good screenplay, my favorite film of the last number of years is Dune (The Alan Smithee aka (in this case) David Lynch version) where you have the sheer volume of brilliant book, to screenplay and direction with their thoughts giving you the insight and encouraging you to think indepth, oh how to be wishful of a movie with this outstanding quality to be released.

So how about it Hollywood, how about making something that people will enjoy watching rather than just putting up with.

Until then may you suffer from declining profits which can happen so sharply given the right conditions.

D

TV Renaissance

[painandgreed]

While blue-ray and home theaters might be hurting movies, one friend posited last weekend that the reason they are having such issues is because another great golden age of TV is upon us. It seems that everybody has half a dozen series that they like and want to watch and by time they finish them, there are either new seasons or new series to add. Home theater and streaming works even better for them because we're not even tied to the original air times unless we just really, really want to see them as soon as possible. Why worry about a few two or three hour long shows when there are series that offer better stories, more development, and equal technical production values?

pssst

[Ol Olsoc]

If you make remakes of remakes, and remakes of movies that were not good in the first place, and we have to sit in theaters where we may end up glued to the floor, and people are yelling into their smartphones and everyone is getting important texts and the theater is lit up by their phones....

Maybe if you made good movies these days, that would be a big help. Maybe even people would decide that watching the movie was more interestng and shut their phones off. Otherwise - Do Not Want!