Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood's Bad Summer Movies Are Driving a Decline in Movie Ticket Sales (fastcompany.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: While some people may point at The Emoji Movie as the root of all that is wrong with Hollywood, The Wall Street Journal reports that the problem goes much deeper than a single misfire featuring Patrick Stewart as a poop emoji. WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, compared with the same period in 2016, and revenues are down, too, dipping just 2.9%, thanks to higher ticket prices making up for the lack of ticket sales. On Aug. 2, AMC shares dropped 27% in one day, the WSJ reports. While films like Beauty and the Beast, Wonder Woman, and Get Out fared well at the box office, they were the anomalies in a year full of box office disappointments. Instead of giving moviegoers more badass female leads and genre-bending horror films, Hollywood keeps throwing gobs of money at an unwanted fifth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean, more Transformers movies, and putting $175 million into King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and then clutching their pearls in shock that no one wanted to see them.

129 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Speaking just for me by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I simply can't divorce Hollywood from it's politics. I can't just go and enjoy a movie anymore. They insist on injecting their dogmas on to me. Before the movie I see nothing but politics from the actors, telling me how awful a person I am. During the movie it's an endless barrage of extremism masked as social justice.

    Making things worse, they want me to "enjoy" this in a shitty movie theater surrounded by loud people that can't put their cellphones away. All for the low low price of 15 bucks a person not including the 25 bucks in terrible food.

    Pretty rare these days too that a movie isn't a sequel or prequel or sidequel in some "franchise" that sucked from the start but brought in a lot of teenagers so the stiffs in suits thought it would make sense to throw billions of dollars at it.

    I jokingly said to my wife the other night that there wasn't even anything I wanted to pirate anymore, it's just gotten that bad.

    1. Re:Speaking just for me by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I simply can't divorce Hollywood from it's politics. I can't just go and enjoy a movie anymore.

      Translation: "I can't believe Star Wars cast a woman in a leading role and didn't show off her tiddies."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Speaking just for me by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one said you had to watch all the Transformer movies.

    3. Re:Speaking just for me by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      100% correct. More "conservative" snowflakes complaining about "liberals". How novel.

    4. Re:Speaking just for me by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Weird. What horrible politics and dogma are you running into?

      I agree that seeing X-Men episode 27 or Star Wars prequel 12 doesn't do it for me.

    5. Re:Speaking just for me by geek · · Score: 1, Troll

      Weird. What horrible politics and dogma are you running into?

      I agree that seeing X-Men episode 27 or Star Wars prequel 12 doesn't do it for me.

      Its not even that the politics and dogmatic crap is there. Its that its there in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE and is so blatant that its laughable. Not really interested in the specifics, it's just a general hatred for overt agendas in movies. Shit I grew up in CA, 90% of my friends are Democrats/Liberals. I have no issue with that, it's the extremism and onesidedness that irks me. The echo chamber is breathtaking.4

    6. Re:Speaking just for me by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      You misspelled 'breasts'.

      There are lots of decent movies with female leads who didn't bare breasts or butts. You just need to get out more.

      I want to be entertained by a movie, not preached to. If I want preaching, I'll listen to a preacher or watch MSNBC.

    7. Re:Speaking just for me by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the unrealistically scrawny and weak female lead carrying a black dongstaff riding a speeder that looks like a dildo with the young black buck love interest adventure in their fight against the evil straight white man and being followed around by a small white cuck-bot the white male viewer is supposed to identify as while the hispanic fighter ace saves the day after being commanded to go in by the asian general and the only guy that dies is also a white male. convenient.

      You watched Star Wars and that's what you came away with?

      You might have bigger problems than the SJWs, my friend.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might have bigger problems than the SJWs, my friend.

      Yes, like a lack of titties in movies.

    9. Re:Speaking just for me by Boronx · · Score: 1, Informative

      Slashdot is about 75% conservative whining. Are you new?

    10. Re:Speaking just for me by x0ra · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's be honest, the only reason of Carry Fisher's success was the bikini scene RofJ, not the depth of the Princess Leia.

    11. Re:Speaking just for me by x0ra · · Score: 2

      which balance out the 95% SJW on HN.

    12. Re:Speaking just for me by sexconker · · Score: 2

      You do have to watch Transformers - The Movie, however.
      It's the only good one and it came out 30 years ago.

      It's got an incredible voice cast, from an era when no established actor would touch an animated film with a 10 foot clown pole.
      Not only do you get the iconic Peter Cullen and Frank Welker, you also get the likes of Casey Kasem, Eric Idle, Judd Nelson, Leonard Nimoy, and Robert Stack. You even get Scatman Crothers and one of the final performances from Orson Welles.

      Then you've got the sound track that was so amazing the entire movie was story boarded to it. You even get a song from Weird Al Yankovic.

    13. Re:Speaking just for me by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's means it is.

      It's been nice proving you wrong!

    14. Re:Speaking just for me by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I can't even tell if there's a mention of SWM Harrison Ford risking his life and dying in that comment.

      There's a lot of coded acronyms I don't know, and I probably should because I'm a SWM that didn't notice only SWM were dying. There was an entire planet that died and I'm sure not everyone in plastic was a SWM.

      This is confusing.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:Speaking just for me by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Which star wars movie, the crappy Jar Jar Abrams shit story fest or Rogue One which I regret not seeing at the Cinema because I was expecting another Jar Jar shitfest (the only thing wrong with rogue one was the ending, I like to see the good gals and guys live happily ever after). You know what is easy to pick what comes out of hollywood, the nepotistic shit fests and content produced by actually creative people, who earned their positions.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hadn't watched a hollywood movie in close to a decade, but saw a featured torrent for Logan on rarbg and figured what the hell. Turned out to be literally "Old-ass Wolverine saves the adorable little illegal alien girl who was smuggled into America by her mother from the big bad ICE stand-ins (the leader of whom was named 'Donald', natch)".

      I think I'll give it another 10 years before I try again.

    17. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      X-Men episode 27

      You seriously saw no political agenda in Logan? The movie where the entire plot is about a mexican illegal alien family being hunted down by a group of cruel agents led by a guy named Donald?

    18. Re:Speaking just for me by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's the only good one and it came out 30 years ago.

      When everyone else was watching Transformers in the 1980's, I was watching Captain Harlock, Robotech and Starblazers,

    19. Re:Speaking just for me by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I simply can't divorce Hollywood from it's politics. I can't just go and enjoy a movie anymore. They insist on injecting their dogmas on to me

      That's your problem, I suggest seeing a therapist about these kinds of paranoid delusions. Your white privilege is as safe as it ever was. Hollywood only has one dogma, that is to make money. The problem Hollywood has is that movies are no longer the only game in town. I'm not just talking about TV and Netflix, video games are now a significant form of entertainment amongst most people. Hollywood for so many decades never had any competition, they were able to keep a stranglehold on the production and distribution of the majority of entertainment, the internet has largely ruined this for them with games and streaming services taking over the production and piracy dealing with the distribution. Hollywood has simply not changed with new technologies. They're still stuck in the 80's when we had no other choice but to buy their crap (and I remember the 80's... they made some shit movies).

      I jokingly said to my wife the other night that there wasn't even anything I wanted to pirate anymore, it's just gotten that bad.

      Could she hear you from the kitchen, or was this when you put her shoes back in the drawer.

      Your problem isn't the imaginary "dogmas", your problem is they aren't pandering to you, ironically its because you're even further behind the times than Hollywood.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    20. Re:Speaking just for me by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Carrie Fisher's success was due to the original Star Wars. The bikini scenes were unfunny jokes, and C.F. was not all that pleasant to look at. There were a number of actresses who could have done much better in the Leia role, such as Sybil Danning and Sandahl Bergman.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Speaking just for me by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's be honest, the only reason of Carry Fisher's success was the bikini scene RofJ, not the depth of the Princess Leia.

      So was Mark Hamill's success a result of his brilliant acting or did he have a shirtless scene I forgot about?

      Let's be honest, Carry Fisher and Mark Hamill were both decent performers who achieved fame beyond their talent because they were well cast in a massively successful movie.

      To insist that Carry Fisher's success was only because of her bikini scene is the definition of sexism.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    22. Re: Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why ? because he doesn't support your regressive conservative women-in-the-kitchen-and-the-bedroom agenda ?

      That sure beats having your women chained up in the basement, which is the only way millennials can get a woman...

    23. Re:Speaking just for me by antdude · · Score: 1

      Don't eat in theaters and go during morning hours. That is how I save money and avoid the crowds. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    24. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump is a fucking loser, and so are you.

      So... that's your point on how this person is "wrong?"

      You throw a bunch of insults and drag a politician into this?

      Is that all the left has for arguments? "Trump is bad because Trump?"

      You would do well to examine things on a level far more deep than CNN, and from a variety of sources on the political spectrum. At least then, if you still agree with your current viewpoints, you'll provide something more insightful than someone being wrong because you can insult them and because Trump simply exists.

    25. Re:Speaking just for me by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The "leftists" in Hollywood are just the loud ones.

      That's pretty much what he said.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    26. Re:Speaking just for me by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      There was a lot more wrong with Rogue One than the ending.

      1. The intro was way too goddamned long and would have been screentime spent much better elsewhere.

      2. The whole mindbreaking alien bit should have been scrapped altogether and the pilot just made either a coward or someone with massive amounts of PTSD, or it should have been properly fleshed out and the pilot been truly crazy.

      3. The one Vader joke was way too goddamned forced and OOC.

      4. The romance subplot was pathetic.

      5. The ending scene on the planet was way too long and drawn out, primarily because they wanted to extend the idiotic romance subplot.

      6. Leia's ship being at the battle made no sense since there would have been sensor readings of her ship there which would have removed entirely any pretense of her ship being a diplomatic one. Canon would dictate by necessity that her ship not be there and instead gets handed the intel by another ship fleeing the battle in a rendezvous system.

      All that said, it was still a pretty good movie. Arguably better than TFA.

    27. Re:Speaking just for me by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Don't get me started on The Dark Tower. First of all, PG-13? Sorry, but Steven King movies don't work at PG-13. Secondly, Christopher Heyerdhal would have been VASTLY superior to Matthew McConaughey at his best as The Man in Black. The performance that the neophyte director got out of him was decidedly not his best and whoever did character design needs to be shot. There's a reason Hollywood has makeup artists and he should have been much more disturbing to look at. It would have needed to be over two, two and a half hours to even begin to properly flesh out. Jackie Earle Haley was criminally underutilized. The kid's friend literally had no reason to be in the film. All in all The Dark Tower ended up being a disappointing shitshow.

    28. Re:Speaking just for me by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Technically, Logan would be considered a parent of Laura so she would have American citizenship (or Canadian if Logan never got American citizenship).

    29. Re:Speaking just for me by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Here's a thought - find a cinema that *doesn't* show all-hollywood stuff. There's plenty of thoughtful films coming from europe and asia - plenty of trash, too, but you can always try reading some online reviews to determine whether you're going to see something clever and funny from france or italy or S.korea, or another ear-piercing bollywood musical rom-com.

      Apropos of the discussion - what's *your* idea of an entertaining film? Do you like drama, comedy, thrillers, "true stories", romance, noir, sci-fi, what? Do you just want to go to a cinema and be entertained with eye-and-ear-candy (quite a valid reason to go, cinema is a way of forgetting your worldly woes for a while), or do you want something more challenging, a film that gives you something to think about after you've left the cinema?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    30. Re:Speaking just for me by oic0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you politicize your content, you alienate half the population no matter which direction you lean. Nothing new there. Hollywood seems to have forgotten this because they think California is the world.

    31. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm...What?

      It sucked because it was just a rewrite of the original film. Tacking on some lame elements didn't help either.

    32. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea, any criticism of the constant political bullshit shoved down our throats is immediately sexism, racism and whatever other -ism is popular that day.

    33. Re:Speaking just for me by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Watch any one of them. It *FEELS* like watching all of them.

    34. Re:Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could she hear you from the kitchen, or was this when you put her shoes back in the drawer.

      And that sort of attitude is why hardly anyone takes your kind seriously.

    35. Re: Speaking just for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Hollywood pushed that agenda I'd complain about that as well. They don't so I don't, but escapist entertainment is not where I want to go to have ANY political agenda shoved on me. Just tell me a good story.

    36. Re:Speaking just for me by ayesnymous · · Score: 1
      > not including the 25 bucks in terrible food.

      That's why this country is so overweight, people can't stop eating for just 2 hours.

    37. Re:Speaking just for me by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      When you politicize your content, you alienate half the population no matter which direction you lean. Nothing new there. Hollywood seems to have forgotten this because they think California is the world.

      The only people politicizing content are the insufferable dummy spitters who flip out everytime they put a woman or a black guy in a film

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    38. Re:Speaking just for me by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Leia Organa, and Padme. Both strong female characters. No nudes. Next time, do your own research.

      Both Leia and Padme show copious cleavage, which is tiddy enough for incel MRAs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re: Speaking just for me by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Star Wars was a shit movie. Devoid of any artistic merit, marketed very well.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    40. Re: Speaking just for me by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      More importantly, there's good movies where the lead female does show her breasts.

    41. Re: Speaking just for me by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I feel bad for you if you think that's copious amounts of cleavage.

    42. Re: Speaking just for me by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Fuck you.

  2. Sequels and remakes by hambone142 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I couldn't believe they did another "Flatliners".

    When we watched the previews a few weeks ago we saw this as well as 4 (yes, FOUR) remakes of previous movies.

    Hollywood deserves to go broke if this is all they can come up with.

    If I see another comic book movie, I'm gonna puke.

    1. Re:Sequels and remakes by grumling · · Score: 2

      It's a side effect of all the studios being publicly held companies. They become completely risk adverse to anything that doesn't look like what worked the last time. Restaurants, retail shops, banks, airlines are all selling the same product in the same way because "the shareholders" (mostly institutional investors, the only ones who get an audience with the CEO) don't know anything about the business, other than what company X's earnings statement looked like last quarter, and so if you want the fund manager to buy your stock you'd better do what he wants. And once they own enough stock to move the chart negatively they get to define the product too. Usually the product is "do what that other, more successful company does, but for a buck cheaper. Or we'll run you out of the executive suite faster than you can say Transformers IX."

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:Sequels and remakes by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If you want to get the whole picture, you need to pay attention to how it does in international sales. Pirates of the Caribbean made $$173 million in the US, but it made $781 million worldwide. Which market do you think they are going to pay the most attention to? The US is just one small market now.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Nothing new under the sun by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    We're just getting way past the saturation point with entertainment and stories of every kind. We need a break, and then afterward we can go back to telling and hearing the same old tales again, just as our ancestors have done for millennia. Maybe we could even do something useful for a while. I have even been thinking about cutting the cord on my Netflix subscription... ...and I'm not any kind of anti-TV nutter.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    1. Re:Nothing new under the sun by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're just getting way past the saturation point with entertainment and stories of every kind. We need a break, and then afterward we can go back to telling and hearing the same old tales again, just as our ancestors have done for millennia. Maybe we could even do something useful for a while. I have even been thinking about cutting the cord on my Netflix subscription... ...and I'm not any kind of anti-TV nutter.

      When did our ancestors take a "break" from telling stories?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Nothing new under the sun by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Absolutely disagree. There are lots of great scripts out there, but Hollywood is run by accountants now. The reason they keep recycling old hits is because they think there's a baked in market. There's a baked in comic movie fanbase who'll go watch any shitstorm Marvel churns out regardless of the ratings, they'll tell us how great it was until the slow realization that it sucked sinks in right aroudn the time the next promo starts airing.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Nothing new under the sun by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I did not intend to say they did. We need the break, because of our modern luxuries and capabilities which allow us to overload ourselves with media. Our ancestors were naturally limited by lack of time and technology for such things. Though at times (e.g. Roman), they may have come close.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    4. Re:Nothing new under the sun by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are tons of great scripts, and if you look at the television and streaming landscapes, plenty of them are already there. I'm not making the "lack of quality" argument, I'm saying that with the fragmentation and proliferation that's been happening, we basically want for nothing. And if you think your particular fringe taste is not being met, you only need to look closer, or wait a few months. I have heard some commentators call it another "Golden Age". But nothing out there expands my mind like it used to, and I'm tired, for now, of what seems like the same old stuff even in my fringe tastes. And I'm not interested in "novelty at any price" -- as seen in dystopian stories of snuff films becoming mainstream, for example.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    5. Re:Nothing new under the sun by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I did not intend to say they did. We need the break, because of our modern luxuries and capabilities which allow us to overload ourselves with media. Our ancestors were naturally limited by lack of time and technology for such things.

      I don't know. Maybe you're right.

      I'm thinking about how for tens of thousands of years our ancestors would spend their evenings with nothing to do but look up at the stars. They told thousands upon thousands of stories just based on those little lights in the sky. They watched the sun come up every morning, and it was a story. They watched the sun's trajectory across the sky change over the months and it was...more stories. Stories upon stories. And when they started writing down stuff, it was even more stories. Stories about ancestors, about hunting, about having sex, about gods. Stories based on earlier stories, with the names changed.

      Maybe the number of stories hasn't changed. Maybe what's changed is our willingness to tell stories to each other instead of having some centralized industry stuff them down the funnel into our throats.

      Me? I like stories. Like to tell 'em, like to listen to 'em.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Nothing new under the sun by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Except that the vast majority of recent comic book properties, especially those by Marvel, have fared very well with both critics and viewers when taking into account ratings. It turns out that on average, "tentpole" movies that have good ratings do very well. Movies like Transformers do initially well, and then plummet, for one simple reason...they suck.

  4. Not all movies by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 3, Informative

    Emoji Movie may be all that's wrong with Hollywood, but Baby Driver and Dunkirk are what is right with it.

    1. Re:Not all movies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem I had with Dunkirk, especially with buildup in the earlier trailers, I was expecting an English monster movie. I lost interest when it became clear that it was just another war movie.

    2. Re:Not all movies by Boronx · · Score: 1

      For years literal Nazis didn't round up people and slaughter them en mass. What they did first was destroy the young system of democracy and any kind of factual public discourse. And of course, they did demonize the Jews, prepping society for what was to come.

    3. Re:Not all movies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      ...are you fucking stupid?

      I guess you're not a fan of Japanese kaiju movies, where suspense is built up by not revealing the monster until the very last possible moment. The most famous example, of course, was Gojira (Godzilla). For the American Godzilla (2014), the bad monsters were shown early but Godzilla wasn't fully revealed until last one-third of the movie. Cloverfield was an epic disappointment when they revealed the monster. The early Dunkirk trailers had the promise of being an epic monster movie.

    4. Re:Not all movies by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      <sarcasm> Thanks for preserving the lie. <\sarcasm>

      Big, intrusive government is left wing. There is no fundamental difference between fascism and communism, they are both based on denying individual rights.

      Small government, government which respects individual rights, is right wing.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re: Not all movies by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Yeah, our history books in school totally left out the Japanese monster of a famous WW2 story. What has our education system come to?

  5. Remember Creativity? by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Neither does Hollywood. But there will be a Pirates 6!

  6. Small wonder by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    " WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, "

    If I want to see teenies checking their smartphone I just take a look on the sidewalk, no need to go to a movie theater.

  7. Public Service Announcement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Baby Driver is good.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Public Service Announcement by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      One guy called Baby Driver "a soundtrack with a movie attached". A bit harsh, but it's another one of those things wrong with movies. Several movies (most notably Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2) did well by adding a nice feelgood soundtrack to it; it works in that kind of movie. However in Baby Driver this felt rather contrived, using a lame plot device to shoehorn that soundtrack in there.

      But the year so far has seen a rather poor harvest of movies. Dunkirk was pretty decent. But they even managed to screw up the Alien franchise.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Public Service Announcement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You think they just now screwed up the Alien franchise?

      There was one good alien movie, one OK, the rest just suck big wet acid dripping alien balls.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Public Service Announcement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      One guy called Baby Driver "a soundtrack with a movie attached".

      I don't have a problem with that, actually. But I can see how some people might.

      It's like the guy who complained about the entire Mad Max franchise just being made of movies that were "one long car chase". For me, that's exactly what made them compelling. It was cinema boiled down to its essence: moving light projected on a screen with sound. Pure action. Very existential.

      Dunkirk wasn't bad, but I found it a little manipulative, like a Spielberg movie, where the audience is given cues regarding what to feel and when, and they're hammered over your head. It was skillfully made, though.

      I saw Baby Driver a few weeks ago when I was in Chicago at the famous Logan Theater, which is a half-price, second run restored Beaux Arts movie palace on Chicago's Northwest side (that serves drinks!) It was a fun experience. Not a life-changing Oscar-worthy experience, but a good summer flick.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Public Service Announcement by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Two.

    5. Re:Public Service Announcement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      One _really_ good one. One that was OK. I might like 'Aliens', it it wasn't for 'Alien' setting such a high bar. Should have left it alone. But Hollywood...

      The ones I feel for are the kids that see 'Alien' last, or any other order than first. 'Alien' after 'Alien vs Predator XXXIV'? They don't even show you the alien until 2/3 of the movie is gone, just ruint.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Public Service Announcement by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Two really good ones if you include the director's cut of Aliens.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    7. Re:Public Service Announcement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A good cut of Alien 3? How long is it? 30 seconds?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone is staying away from the Emoji movie because of an evil leftist agenda. They're staying away because it sucks, and because streaming services like Netflix and Amazon can provide better entertainment at a lot better price.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. but bad movies won't get the blame by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hollywood will blame Piracy as reason for weak ticket sales and why we need more tougher law's.

  10. Too Many White Males by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are still too many white males in prominent roles in movies. Movie revenue will increase once all white males are cast in unimportant or comedy relief roles then phased out entirely. Hollywood must boycott white males if they want to succeed.

    1. Re:Too Many White Males by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They tried that with the Ghostbusters reboot and it failed. As expected.

    2. Re:Too Many White Males by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They tried that with the Ghostbusters reboot and it failed. As expected.

      Being a reboot where all they did was flip the genders around is the main reason why I not didn't see it but why I also wanted that travesty to fail. Had it been a sequel featuring the daughters of the original Ghostbusters I could have gotten behind it but a remake where they're all just women and where they casted a bunch of unfunny ones at that was just a disaster waiting to happen.

    3. Re:Too Many White Males by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      They didn't just flip the genders around. They also made their motivations entirely different, made the secondary characters utterly irrelevant, and turned it into an action/slapstick comedy instead of horror/comedy.

    4. Re:Too Many White Males by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      They tried that with the Ghostbusters reboot and it failed. As expected.

      Being a reboot where all they did was flip the genders around is the main reason why I not didn't see it but why I also wanted that travesty to fail. Had it been a sequel featuring the daughters of the original Ghostbusters I could have gotten behind it but a remake where they're all just women and where they casted a bunch of unfunny ones at that was just a disaster waiting to happen.

      My problem was that I wouldn't have been particularly interested no matter which women they'd cast. They lost me pretty much immediately when they thought that the line to sell that clunker was 'Same movie, but with the team being chicks!"--if I want to see the Ghostbusters, for less than the price of a movie ticket I can get the original on DVD. Plus, I'd not be left with the nasty feeling that I'd rewarded Hollywood for treating women as cheap, lazy gimmicks.

      The movie I wanted and would have paid to see? Something along the lines of 'daughters of the original Ghostbusters' would definitely be it.

    5. Re:Too Many White Males by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

      The movie I wanted and would have paid to see? Something along the lines of 'daughters of the original Ghostbusters' would definitely be it.

      In that case, I will put forward for consideration this pair of ideas I've had fermenting for some time now...

      First, do a proper sequel... a decade or two after the second movie, wherein the OGBs (less Egon, seeing as Raimis is no longer with us) realize that it's high time they train up their successors, as it were... one of which could be a daughter of theirs. This would have the additional benefit of world-building - we'd be able to explore how the state of the art of paranormal investigation and elimination has advanced, considering that they won't be the only interested folks...

      Or... back in the original movie, Peter noted the franchise rights would be worth a pretty penny (and if I recall right, the pen-and-paper RPG and some of the older computer game treatments had as conceit that the players were a franchise!). You could go with this - not only presenting an all-new team, but freedom of setting. Consider the paranormal potential of someplace like Los Angeles, or Miami, or New Orleans...

      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    6. Re:Too Many White Males by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      There's nothing that'd keep you from having both going on at once--especially since once you've established that there are Ghostbusters teams elsewhere, you would lose a lot of the problems with getting the cast back together for a sequel with no need to actually write out a character. They're just busy elsewhere, doing other things.

  11. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It only looks leftist because of how far gone you are. Hollywood actually has a corporate agenda.

  12. No originality .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The heavy left-wing political slant most Hollywood stars and writers want to impart on films isn't helping sales either. But IMO, the lack of movies worth the price of admission to see is the biggest issue.

    I actually enjoy going to the theater to see a movie sometimes. I'm not much of a sports person so I don't go to see games. A good movie is an excuse to get out of the house with the family and to buy bragging rights that we saw a newly released film long before it comes out on video. All the complaints about unruly crowds and teens using their phones through entire movies? I've encountered a bit of that, but it's more the exception than the rule - at least at the theaters I go to.

    But the movie has to be worth seeing! With so many sequels and remakes, there's not a whole lot left! Anything in one of those categories is best rented and watched at home, IMO. Some of the remakes are mildly amusing or entertaining, but practically never rise to the level of justifying buying a group of adult movie tickets at over $11 each, plus popcorn or sodas or what-not at hugely inflated theater prices.

    I think the superhero movies from Marvel and DC have done so well because there were so many good stories to tell there. We have many decades of comic books being printed that were all but ignored on the big screen until now. Even so? You've still got Hollywood trying to milk some of the best known ones (Spiderman, Batman and Superman) with regular re-releases of films about them, sometimes rehashing the same basic story different ways. It feels like the producers and directors are making these more for themselves than for the audience?

    But sometimes you've just had enough of seeing yet another superhero movie, too. Then what? The Fast and the Furious movies started out as ideal summer action/fantasy films - but by this last one? It just went over the top on stretching your belief. "I'll just push this torpedo that's flying here and change its direction." Come on! A good car movie needs to have scenes that at least make some attempt at being plausible.

    And some will disagree, but I feel like the "horror movie" genre was all played out by some time in the 1990's, if not earlier. 90% of them are pretty much formula material, aimed at an audience young enough to not have watched a lot of the older stuff first. Nobody else would find much of it worthwhile at all. And again, any of the true classics they came up with got rehashed with SO many sequels it became a farce. (Anyone up for another Chucky movie? Or hey, maybe we could redo the Exorcist one more time?)

    Personally, I'm into sci-fi more than most genres, and Hollywood manages to do a decent job with that occasionally. But not often. And worse yet? When they promise a lot but get it all wrong, they alienate people who you managed to drag along who weren't really into sci-fi but resigned to give it a chance. How many times will they try again when future sci-fi movies come out?

    I was just telling a friend of mine earlier today ..... as much as we all loved "Office Space", I think I'm glad they didn't try to do a sequel. I mean, it's another obvious cash grab for Hollywood if they did. But it would probably be awful. I think you could do it right, at least for one more movie. But you'd need to tell a whole new story about a different company, with a whole new cast of interesting characters. And for comic relief, re-insert a couple of the originals. Maybe Lumbergh finds a new job as a middle manager at the new company, since crappy middle managers always seem to manage to keep getting re-hired at places in real life. I think instead, they'd screw it all up trying to tell some stupid story about how all the characters find themselves doing the same kind of work at a new place.

    1. Re:No originality .... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The heavy left-wing political slant most Hollywood stars and writers want to impart on films isn't helping sales either

      Annoying yes (especially in "Ghost in the Shell" and "Suicide Squad" where it was stuck on very awkwardly in a way that didn't fit the plots) but it's how the slant is applied. For example, every single "Godzilla" movie has the slant, it's part of the genre, but it doesn't have to be so annoying.

    2. Re:No originality .... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How about the remake of The Andromeda Strain?

      They made it twice?
      The message in the wet dream about doctors with nukes novel (thankfully watered down in the first film) was overbearing enough without adding to it.

      The thing with the two I mentioned is the laid on thick message of "don't trust your boss" ran entirely counter to the plots. All those resources used by the bad guys for no other purpose than to foil their own plans - yeah, right. They are probably twenty minutes of cut and fill away from being very good movies but the "message" had to be plastered in.
      See also "Apocalypso" - a two minute cut away from being a good film once the laid on thick "message" and the jarring only bit of supernatural stuff in the movie is removed.

    3. Re:No originality .... by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      I know some very religious artists that are open-minded and enjoy exploring new things. Meanwhile, I also know atheists and leftists who are very close minded, categorize everythingg they do not like as facism or sexism or racism, and are not easy to hang around with. Open-mindedness is not part of any ideology, and to some extent, contradicts the idea of having an ideology at all.

    4. Re:No originality .... by dddux · · Score: 1

      "It feels like the producers and directors are making these more for themselves than for the audience?" Actually the problem is they're making these movies for the *general* audience, catering to the lowest denominator. That's how you get so many dumb films.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    5. Re:No originality .... by dddux · · Score: 1

      Very good thinking. Have you read some Jiddu Krishnamurti lately? I love this guy's philosophy.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  13. Movie theaters are just nuisances anymore. by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    I've had so many bad experiences at local theaters, the IMAX's are always full so you have to stand in line too long to get a good seat, parking garages are full on the weekends, the food and drink is too expensive and poor quality, people on phones and noisy eaters, the quality of the movies are mediocre. Then top it off, Hollywood is insulting people by making remakes and putting social justice in them.

    I'd rather just buy or redbox the blue ray and order a pizza, cheaper, I can pause the movie, and no annoying people.

    I even avoided the Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and waited for it on blue ray.

    And do I really want to see another Star Trek where they destroy the Enterprise again?

    No.

  14. Well... by Yunzil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hollywood keeps throwing gobs of money at an unwanted fifth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean, more Transformers movies, and putting $175 million into King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and then clutching their pearls in shock that no one wanted to see them.

    Pirates of the Caribbean 5
    Production budget: $230,000000
    Worldwide gross: $781,537,470

    Transformers 5
    Production budget: $217,000,000
    Worldwide gross: $586,549,576

    Somebody, somewhere wanted to see them, which is why Hollywood keeps making them.

    1. Re:Well... by locater16 · · Score: 1

      It's an exaggeration, probably one that shouldn't have been made, demonstrating the return on investment for continuing tired franchises and crap adaptations is shrinking compared to the heights hit in recent years. The party involved with neverending sequels of decade plus year old franchises and superheroes movies is finally winding down it seems. And considering it can take years to get big budgets movies from concept to box office it means Hollywood will need to start taking notice ASAP.

    2. Re:Well... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Somebody, somewhere wanted to see them, which is why Hollywood keeps making them.

      Well that's rare. Someone on Slashdot actually used thought and evidence in a discussion on the quality of movies. You sir are right on point. Everyone that is saying "movies suck, cinemas suck, Hollywood is dying, no one goes to the movies" is ignoring the fact that each of these are fundamentally businesses and exist primarily to make money, and usually they actually do make money hand over fist.

      Then when someone does have an original thought, or someone does adapt something that isn't mainstream it fails in the box office. What this really points to is a massive dichotomy between Slashdot readership and the real world.

      This site has a self awareness problem.

    3. Re:Well... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      They probably haven't made a profit though, thanks to Hollywood Accounting.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:Well... by mckwant · · Score: 1

      Anybody got a rule of thumb for that? I swear I read once that things START getting profitable when domestic box office gets to 4x production costs.

      Worldwide box office, I got nothing.

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig.
    5. Re:Well... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb is that if a film has a lot of people who have been contracted to get a share of the profits, the movie never makes a profit.

      Domestic box office takings for Return of the Jedi was 10x production costs. It is yet to make a profit on paper.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  15. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who invented emojis? Millennials. Who invented millennials? Leftists. Checkmate, Martian.

    I bet you aren't even from Mars.

  16. Re:Xena Warrior Princess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  17. I saw Dunkirk last week by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    Got there when the show was about to start. Spent a good 10 minutes watching nothing but ads. Then the previews. I hate previews, they tend to give away the major plot points, or show funny stuff that doesn't show up in the movie. Some 30 minutes after the movie was supposed to start it started.

    I snuck in a bottle of water and some trail mix

    Great move, bad experience.

    / snuck in - they were in my pockets, pretty obvious to anyone who cared
    // $4 for $0.33 worth of popcorn? Ok, I don't have a microwave in your theater. But still..
    /// $5 for sweetened ice tea, when I prefer mine unsweetened? Remind me again why I never see movies in theaters.

    1. Re:I saw Dunkirk last week by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      So go in 20 minutes later?

  18. Hmmm. by Bartles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, compared with the same period in 2016, and revenues are down, too, dipping just 2.9%, thanks to higher ticket prices making up for the lack of ticket sales.

    If you raise prices and revenue decreases, it means that prices are too high. There's a simple fix to their problem.

    1. Re:Hmmm. by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      I like the phrase the summary threw in about "badass female leads and genre bending horror"....as if lack of those was the problem. Now don't get me wrong, bad-ass female leads kicking ass makes me hard, and horror story that is well done is fun too....but a good story can have any and all kinds of characters, even an old WASP millionaire

    2. Re:Hmmm. by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Yep, simple fix - no more http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/HollywoodAccounting

      "Darling! This is the Industry! The really creative people are the accountants. A big studio got over half the profit, after setting breakeven at about three times the cost, taking twenty-five percent of income as an overhead charge, and taking thirty percent of income as a distribution charge, plus rental fees, and prime interest on what they advanced."
      â" John D. MacDonald, Free Fall in Crimson

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  19. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by Boronx · · Score: 1

    You can't blame someone for feeling more virtuous than a Trump voter.

  20. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The rights and the lefts both think they have the moral high ground and pompously profess to be good guys.

    The centrists meanwhile, entirely disconnected from the frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric that the rights and lefts are so maddeningly in love with, live far happier and more productive and rewarding lives.

  21. It's China by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ticket sales are down in the US because the movies are geared to the Chinese market. They're less desirable (weaker dialog so it's easier to dub, watered down plots to make it through Chinese censors) but folks still go see them, they just don't keep going again and again. Profits in the States are down but that's dwarfed by the profits in the US.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's China by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      ticket sales are down in the US because the movies are geared to the Chinese market. They're less desirable (weaker dialog so it's easier to dub, watered down plots to make it through Chinese censors) but folks still go see them, they just don't keep going again and again. Profits in the States are down but that's dwarfed by the profits in the US.

      Exactly. Even a movie like Transformers doesn't hide it - Chinese production companies are right there front and center.

      Heck, Huahua Media, according to IMDB are involved with the following 2017 films: Transformers 5, xXx Return of Xander Cage, Ghost In the Shell, Jack Reacher and Star Trek Beyond.

      The Chinese are very interested in Hollywood movies, and Hollywood is more than willing to put up their usual crap to an audience that demands it and is willing to pay for it. Hell, if it isn't done in 3D, they will complain, so the Chinese are demanding more expensive 3D tickets, too (none of the complaints about 3D really affect anyone other than North America).

  22. Maybe the good movies are shifting to Winter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My understanding that winter has been growing as a time to release blockbuster movies. The Last Jedi was delayed from May 2017 to December 2017. The LOTR and Hobbit series were released then as well.

  23. "TFA" is basically a fan-made trailer for real TFA by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Real TFA doesn't even mention emojis OR "more badass female leads and genre-bending horror films".
    All that was injected into discourse by the "writer" of that blogpost masquerading as TFA.

    Cause... clickbait.

    Basically, it boils down to more expensive tickets...
    A summer without a real mega-blockbuster cause all the slots were taken by expensive non-starters or franchises which have overextended their welcome and overpaid for the production...
    And talk about earlier streaming options making distributors nervous. Very nervous.
    Also... Chinese investors. But mostly it's about streaming.

    No agendas.
    Nor is it about genre-bending horrors and chicks who punch people.
    It's about distributors riding their favorite geldings along the road - when a strange mechanical contraption suddenly roared passed them, leaving them and their animals shaken and scared in a cloud of dust and exhaust fumes.
    And then a different machine FLEW over them! GASP!
    Is this the end of the horse industry as we know it?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  24. Re:Sneaking in snacks is for kids or manchildren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't like the prices? Don't go. Don't like the experience? Don't go.

    And here we are discussing why less and less people are attending the cinema (or buying BluRay/DVD anymore).

    Because you end up sitting through 30 minutes of ads and "you wouldn't steal or car, please don't steal our movie" crap before the movie starts. You can't even skip it in a lot of BluRay discs now.

    I know what would get me to the cinema more:

    1. Banning mobile phones in the room.
    2. $10 tickets all day every day.
    3. No ads, only one or two previews.
    4. No "stealing this movie is a crime" lies.
    5. (The real clincher) Something worth actually seeing.

  25. TV Screen Size and Quality by DumbSwede · · Score: 3, Informative

    This seems no surprise to me. Movie experience is essentially a constant. TVs keep getting better and bigger. I find little difference these days watching movies at home. In fact until we've had a 10 foot projection screen in our media room since 2008. I had a tri-beam data-grade projector back in 2000 that I powered with a myHD card. I haven't cared that much about seeing things in the theater since the introduction of Blu-Ray. With shows like Game of Thrones you essentially get a movie fix once a week minimum anyway. Here is the main thing. Learn to delay gratification. Once your watching everything 6 months delayed, your watching the same amount of content and basically the same amount of enjoyment for a lot lower cost point (which helps pay for your kick-ass media room).

    1. Re:TV Screen Size and Quality by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      AMEN!!

      In fact, what's happening now is that all the best creative work is being done for _television_, of all things. Besides the obvious success of "Game of Thrones," don't forget once AMC showed you can create great TV shows like "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad," it showed that the best creative stuff in Hollywood were high production value TV shows of 9-12 episodes per season. And once Netflix and Amazon jumped in with their shows that (mostly) drop with a whole season all at the same time (and can be streamed in HD), interest in movie theaters have dropped quite a bit.

      By the way, you're correct about HDTV being a major killer of movie theaters. Especially now when 60-plus inch (diagonal) HDTV sets are dirt cheap and you can get very good surround-sound systems along with it at reasonable prices. And with a home theater, you can easily pause and even rewind to a favorite scene, even in streaming. Not to mention making your own snacks for really cheap, too.

  26. Re:"TFA" is basically a fan-made trailer for real by ark1 · · Score: 1

    Hollywood does not produce poor entertainment. Any dip in revenues is because of those pesky pirates!.
    On a more serious note, how does this year compare to other years than 2016? Seems like one year comparison is a small sample.

  27. Welcome to the demand curve by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, compared with the same period in 2016, and revenues are down, too, dipping just 2.9%, thanks to higher ticket prices making up for the lack of ticket sales.

    Or, the movie theaters jacked the prices (again) and attendance dropped (again).

    This need have nothing to do with a sudden change in the quality of the content. It sucked last year; it sucks this year. But every time they raise prices, they increase the likelihood that the population that doesn't otherwise care how much the content sucks is still going to go find something else cheaper to do.

  28. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny, I didn't realize a 45-year old Japanese engineer working for NTT DoCoMo is considered a millennial...

  29. Bullshit by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    Box office ticket sales have hovered around 1.3 million per year for over two decades. Some years have sold a couple million more, some have sold a couple million less, but the trend is relatively flat. There has been no huge drop in people going to see movies.

  30. Movies are too expensive by nikhilhs · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's because the price of movies keeps going up and a significant percentage of the population has seen their wages stagnate.

  31. Bad language by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Does anybody go to a movie so that they can hear characters saying "fuck" and "shit"?

    I avoid such movies if I can. I suspect others do also. The laziness and incompetence of writers that result in the inclusion of such words causes other aspects of the movie to degrade. Fewer people want to see inferior movies.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  32. Valerian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here was a non-Hollywood movie that got killed in the reviews. The first half had no faults, was kick-ass, and to me was worth the price of the ticket. And you know why many people didn't like it? Because it did not fit the superhero mold that people still seem to love. Face it, Hollywood gives you what sells tickets.

  33. Re: Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    Yes you can, if they're not.

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  34. Re:"TFA" is basically a fan-made trailer for real by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Tell that to people who believe that "Since I made X money last year I should make at least as much this year".

    Except it's not even years but quarters.
    From TFA:
    "If Walt Disney Co. had released its live-action "Beauty and the Beast" one month later than its March 17 debut, "we'd be looking at this [quarter] a whole lot differently," said Mark Zoradi, CEO at Cinemark Holdings Inc., the nation's third-largest exhibitor."

    They are literally hanging the hopes of the entire industry on a single movie.
    Which it's another remake. Of a cartoon fairy tale about joys and wonders of Stockholm syndrome and human sacrifice.
    But had it been released only a month later...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  35. Re: Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by Evtim · · Score: 2

    And at the very root the issue is that the beancounters run the whole industry these days. The process began in the 70ties but then it was the cheesemakers who just bought the studios and by mistake did a good thing - gave opportunities to young directors to experiment a bit a make movies for young people. Thus we got all those directors considered icons of the second half of 20th century.
    But some of those innovative movies flopped on release while becoming all time classic (e.g. Blade runner).
    Today the marketeers won't take any risks with such lavish budgets. No experiments, no original vision. Research says there are still enough people to buy Fsat and Furious 675 so that's what we will do.
    But maybe audience is getting wiser and seeing that TV shows have way bigger balls than big movies the interest is shifting.
    See also all the complaints about the theater going experience....

  36. misfire by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    > The Wall Street Journal reports that the problem goes much deeper than a single misfire

    Please allow me to interrupt here -- Ya think??

    It couldn't possibly be that Hollywood is substituting eye candy and big set pieces for an actual story that works? That they've completely underestimated how much the public, yea, even that unwashed billy-bob public that is supposed to only be interested in naked breasts and explosions, might want a compelling story that makes sense? (And maybe, since you brought it up, that nobody really thought a poop emoji voiced by Patrick Stewart was funny?)

    Nah. It must be them damned downloaders.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:misfire by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Cursing and excrement jokes aren't "story".

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  37. Re: Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    It is kinda difficult not to be.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  38. Re:Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Emoji's are just an evolution of emoticons - Text based pictograms that were used as early as 1986. :-/

  39. Same people that threatened to strike? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Remakes abound. Yet writers want more money, for stuff written mostly before almost all of the people on slashdot were even born, myself included and I'm over 50. Just think about that a moment, 50 years.

    Had to laugh recently about how the stupid leftists thought Wonder Woman was great. Feminist stuff in it, etc. Then they found out that the Koch brothers funded it and now they don't even want to watch it. What dimwits.

  40. Hot take: King Arthur was pretty damn awesome by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    I really enjoyed that movie and was quite surprised to find out it was considered a flop.

  41. when hollaring "Freedom!" rings hollow by epine · · Score: 1

    Big, intrusive government is left wing. There is no fundamental difference between fascism and communism, they are both based on denying individual rights.

    As it happens, I've read an intelligent comment on this matter before, right here on Slashdot. It was not yours.

    guises — December 2016

    Getting a little pedantic here: it doesn't really make much sense to assign the terms "right wing" or "left wing" to a government.

    Those terms are meant to express how a person or action or ideal relate to an existing government.

    Left is anti-establishment, Right is pro-establishment. Communism is put on the left because it was designed as a revolutionary concept — part and parcel of communism is the overthrow of existing structures of property and the power structures which go along with them.

    Likewise Fascism is on the right because it is all about supporting the state.

    This is why you call the "right" wing is so often referred to as neoliberals.

    The original liberals opposed small government (the monarchy) in favour of individual rights. Then individual rights took a wrong turn and became the oversized tumour of the social democratic state (blame Napoleon and Bismarck and FDR, who all had a hand in this).

    The jury is still out on whether small-government Libertarianism mainly delivers conceptual rights that the majority of the population can't actually eat, and whether bearing the most precious of precious Amex cards really does make you an elite silverback, once all moderating government is well and truly brushed to the sidelines.

    In all of political history, we had a comfortable, politically independent middle class for all of about 30 years (1950-1980), in a small number of confederacies, of mainly Anglo and European heritage.

    Now we've returned to the other extreme, where the wealthy can purpose just about any political privilege desired, burdened with the least possible modicum of pretense of supporting the public interest.

    I preferred the original form of freedom, the freedom one could take to the bank, without already being wealthy.

  42. i am so glad they mentioned King Arthur by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    That piece of shit "actor" Charlie Hannam must go. I want to never hear a peep about this shitface piece of shit evere again

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  43. Re: Leftist Agenda or $$$ - Choose One by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    For the same reason Mohammed is such a popular name - conservative people have no imagination.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  44. The length of movies is becoming problematic by sarbonn · · Score: 1

    One of the problems I've been running into is that movies these days are extremely long. Now, this could be seen as a great thing (the value versus the price), but because it's in a movie theater, you can't exactly pause the movie if you need to use the restroom, and when you're seeing a movie that goes beyond 3 hours, it's sometimes a necessity, especially if foolish enough to order a soda before the movie starts. So, almost always, I miss about ten minutes of the movie that can sometimes be a really important moment of the show (which you don't know because you've never seen the movie before). It's part of why I see fewer movies in the theater and just wait until I can watch it at home. There were a couple of movies I wanted to watch this year, but I knew the length of them was going to be problematic, and couple that with people who feel the need to check their cell phones during the movie, and you start to see why people see fewer movies in the theater.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
    1. Re:The length of movies is becoming problematic by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Longer movies used to have an intermission. Back when they used to be longer on occasion.