Movie Sales are Down

[yankeefan21]

According to this Yahoo! article, movie ticket sales are down. They use King Kong as the benchmark and say that it isn't the blockbuster they had been hoping for. One movie executive makes the excuse that since this is a 3 hour long movie "They can't show it as many times during the day, so that may have lessened its box office strength..."

 

OR maybe Hollywood is producing piles of crap that no one wants to see and has no feel for the pulse of consumers. Cheaper by the Dozen 2? Come on. This pile of crap is in 3,175 locations and is bringing in about $4800 per. Yet a good movie actually worth seeing, like Munich, is only in 530 locations raking in almost $11,800 per - almost 2 1/2 times more patrons per theater.

[JonDigital]

Im sorry but movies just flat out suck these days. They will make a movie out of anything...

 

 

Anyone going to go see The Ringer? :sarcasm :lol

[MarlinFan10]

Well they can either stop complaining about low movie ticket sales, or they can stop making crappy movies.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

I don't think movies are any worse than they used to be. A lot of people blame it on rising prices at the movies. It's no longer as cheap as it used to be. And then they assault you with 20 minutes of commercials before the previews even begin, so you're getting a worse experience overall for more money. But I think the biggest reason for the drop in ticket sales is the rapid expansion of home entertainment systems with the flat-screen high-def TVs, and the surround sound, and DVDs and what-not. You can get a near theater experience in the comfort of your own home.

 

Plus, movie companies are actually doing better than ever. Ticket sales account for about 20% of profits, with a much larger chunk coming from DVD sales.

[Mordy is God]

IT'S $10 FOR A FREAKING TICKET!!!!

 

i can understand people not being able to go to ballgames for money reasons, but there is NO reason a family of 5 should have to spend $75 for tickets and food just to go to the movies (i wonder why ticket sales are down :/)

[Flamarlins3]

Not really surprising...imo the biggest reason is the fact that movies come out on dvd about 5-6 months following the release. I know some movies I'm borderline on I just wait because I know it will be out real soon and I can buy the movie for less than it would cost to go see the movie most of the time.(14.99 release since most do that nowadays and if I go to a movie the girl likely goes as well so thats 15+ depending on the movie theatre)

[MarlinFan10]

Not really surprising...imo the biggest reason is the fact that movies come out on dvd about 5-6 months following the release.

 

Jah, with Netflix and a biggish TV, people can enjoy all the latest movies for free. The only reason to go to movies is if there's a movie you can't wait to see.

[FutureGM]

Hollywood has themselves to blame. This year had an awful movie selection, only maybe 10-15 were really worth watching, or were good.

[Buckeye]

Im sorry but movies just flat out suck these days. They will make a movie out of anything...

 

 

Anyone going to go see The Ringer? :sarcasm :lol

 

 

I am. Not expecting anything brilliant, but it looks okay.

 

I like mindless comedies, on occasion.

 

There's LOTS of great stuff out there. There are more great director's alive and filming today than at any other time.

[FishFan24]

Not really surprising. Illegal copies of the movies are always in circulation even when they are in theaters, plus they don't have to spend $10 to get in and almost another $10 for Popcorn and Soda when you can get it free from home.

 

 

Plus let us not forget that King Kong has already been filmed twice before and it takes alot to bring a big crowd back in, even if its a really good film.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

I don't think movies are any worse than they used to be. A lot of people blame it on rising prices at the movies. It's no longer as cheap as it used to be. And then they assault you with 20 minutes of commercials before the previews even begin, so you're getting a worse experience overall for more money. But I think the biggest reason for the drop in ticket sales is the rapid expansion of home entertainment systems with the flat-screen high-def TVs, and the surround sound, and DVDs and what-not. You can get a near theater experience in the comfort of your own home.

 

Plus, movie companies are actually doing better than ever. Ticket sales account for about 20% of profits, with a much larger chunk coming from DVD sales.

 

I think it's somewhat of a combination of things. First of all, the quality of the films IS degrading and that IS part of it. Ticket prices although high now have not increased a whole lot from the 90s (maybe 2 dollars maximum at my local theaters).

 

I do believe home theater is a large part of it. The market is clearly favoring DVDs right now. As mentioned above, DVDs can be purchased for under $20 which is much cheaper than VHS or laserdisc ever were. If DVD's are so cheap, ticket prices are high, and the movies are awful, why would anyone visit a theater?

 

I think another problem is that studios are making TOO MANY movies.

 

 

Also, what makes you say that studios are doing better now? Due to the enormous costs of production, ditribution, and marketing, it leads me to think that theatrical releases really aren't profitable. These days a film must be a hit overseas to make the money back.

 

DVDs, however, probably are where the money is flowing from.

 

I only know what I read in EW. They've been putting out articles on this phenomenon all year long. Costs may have risen a little, but not as fast as profits from overseas ticket sales and, especially, the DVD market. I remember reading that ticket sales account for only about 17% of profits today. So, even if ticket sales have dropped about 3-5% (the figure is somewhere in there), imagine how much profits have risen overall. Ticket sales used to be the primary source of profits, and that's not even close now.

 

And you can insists that movies are worse until your face turns blue, but I'm going to disagree with you every time. This is obviously a matter of opinion. But I feel people say this about everything--movies, TV, music, baseball, life--how things used to be better back in the day, and I don't ever find myself agreeing. To me, there are more talented filmmakers than there have ever been. Now, maybe there are more crappy films, because I do suspect that the volume of films released has increased, but I think there are also more good films than ever as well. Maybe you're just seeing the wrong movies.

[Guest Juanky]

Another thing. Look at what the studios are relying on to be their big pictures: X-Men, King Kong, the Star Wars trilogy until its completion, Spiderman, Batman, James Bond, Miami Vice, Superman, even Curious George. I'm sure if the TNG cast hadn't collectively said we're done they'd be working on #11. What's the trend? These are all established franchises that have made a lot of money before. Problem with this is that established originals are very hard to top for many reasons, including loss of luster (originals will get more credit than they deserve at times in a trilogy just because it was the one that first broke the idea) and time usually making something appear better as it passes. Besides, even some of these remakes (which most of the big pictures are) are way off base. From what I saw of the Miami Vice trailor, it's not going to be similar to the show at all. You watch some of the comic book movies and a lot of moments leave you saying "huh?" because it's something you're not used to. The Star Trek movies having gone decreasingly away from what the TV show brought and just gone for the phasers firing and people dying. And let's not get started on the critiques of the Star Wars Prequels. If there were some original blockbusters, than sure. But there's really nothing majorly creative sweeping the theaters anymore.

 

When I went to see King Kong yesterday, I saw I believe six trailors. One I deemed to be an original concept and worth watching (though the bank robbery story has been used, this looked completely original and the cast looks very good with Denzel and Clive Owen starring) - I believe the title was "Inside Man." Something along those lines. I saw another trailor for "Over The Hedge," which looks promising and I'll probably check out. I was forced to watch a bad trailor for another garbage "people from the dead trying to contact us" movie, the trailor for X-Men 3, a movie with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn that doesn't look too bad, and a trailor for Miami Vice that told me nothing except that not only was Colin Farrell a horrible cast as Sonny Crockett but he looks like he has a mullet straight out of a trailor home.

 

Five trailors (there was another which left such an impression on me that I don't remember it). Two "blockbusters" in the bunch, X-Men 3 and Miami Vice. Both established franchises. Two potentially good comedies, one animated and one not (comedies seem to be coming out original and fresh like "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Wedding Crashers," and animated films though the story lines are similar (when aren't they) they have been coming up with original concepts and have been nabbing big names). And one potentially great movie with an all star cast, a very nice trailor, and a very intriguing story line.

 

If Hollywood would just throw out some blockbusters that weren't rehashed franchises, maybe they could get back in the right direction. I mean, throw us something nice between X-Men 8 and Star Wars Episode 7.

[Guest Juanky]

Well, for every Titanic there's a Water World.

 

Even though Water World was funny in a Big Trouble In Little China kind of way.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Well, I will say it's highly flawed, but 18 of the Top 100 movies on IMDB are from 2000 on.

 

El Penguino, I'm surely not the student of film that you are (I've never seen a Renoir film, and I haven't even heard of some of the names you mentioned), but I have seen most of the AFI's Top 100 American films and 3-4 of my personal Top 5 movies have been released since 2000. So, there's obviously no way we're going to look at this the same way.

 

But anyway here's a list of some films from 2003 on from the All-Time Box Office and the IMDB Top 100:

 

Spider-Man 2, Shrek 2, Lord of the Rings 3, Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Carribean, The Incredibles, War of the Worlds, X-Men 2, Wedding Crashers, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Elf, Batman Begins, The Bourne Supremacy, King Kong, Million Dollar Baby, Collateral, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Crash, Sin City, Kill Bill.

 

I included only films from those two lists. And only those that I've personally seen. There are a ton more on both lists that I didn't include. Yeah, there's a lot of numbered blockbusters on there, but my impression is that people really liked those movies, so who's complaining...

 

There's also, I think, 9 Best Picture contenders from 2003 and 2004 that I didn't list, and a sh*tload of good movies from all 3 years that I didn't put down just because they didn't make either list (Lost in Translation, Munich, Syriana, Sideways, Mystic River, etc.)

 

Anyway, I'm not sure I have a point here. Just trying to put together a long list of good movies from the last 3 years.

 

And also, I just want to add that as long as we're talking about what's dragging down ticket sales, I don't think Renoir really has a place in this discussion. I doubt a Renoir film would make a lot of money these days. I may be totally off base, having never seen a Renoir film. But my impression of him has always been as an artist more so than a maker of blockbusters. I don't think filling the cineplexes with Renoir would fix the decline in box office sales.

[yankeefan21]

Well, I will say it's highly flawed, but 18 of the Top 100 movies on IMDB are from 2000 on.

By "Top Movies" do you mean top GROSSING? If that's the case, you can't compare movies based on how much money they made. The market for a movie like "Shrek 2" is about 100 times the size of the market for something like "The Empire Strikes Back" based solely on the number of movie theaters and personal home theater that have sprouted up over the last 25 years. Now you tell me - which is the better movie?

 

Take a look at The Top 250 Movies as VOTED on by IMDB registered users. "Lord of the Rings" is the only movie since 2000 to crack the top 10. 4 of the 10 are from 1990 to present - though much of that, I suspect, is based on the age of the users voting. [ie. How would an 18 year old know how good "Clockwork Orange" was in its day?]

 

I'll do some research and post more in a bit.

[Guest Juanky]

Well, if we're talking about top grossing movies, we should naturally adjust for inflation. And that gives us this Top 10:

• Gone With The Wind (1939) - $1,293,085,600
  
• Star Wars (1977) - $1,139,965,400
  
• The Sound Of Music (1965) - $911,458,400
  
• ET (1982) - $907,867,700
  
• The Ten Commandments (1956) - $838,400,000
  
• Titanic (1997) - $821,413,700
  
• Jaws (1975) - $819,704,400
  
• Doctor Zhigavo (1965) - $794,466,900
  
• The Exorcist (1973) - $707,639,500
  
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) - $697,600,000
  

Rest of the list available here.

 

It would seem, based on this Top Ten, that the "Golden Age" of going to the movies was the 60's and 70's. Also, an interesting note (one that you'd have to look at the entire list to see) - the first sequel/remake doesn't appear until The Empire Strikes Back checking in at #12. Not including the Star Wars universe, the highest grossing sequel/remakes are Raiders of the Lost Ark (#16), Shrek 2 (#29), Spider-Man (#33), Goldfinger (#39), and Batman (#46). The public likes its follow-ups and continuations, but it seems to pay the biggest bucks for original stories.

[yankeefan21]

Okay, so there are 6 movies from last year in IMDB's top 20 [Kill Bill: Vol 2 is #21] rated titles. "Sin City," at number 16, is the only movie on the list from this year. The only other movie from this year to even break the top 35 is "Batman Begins" at number 23.

 

Of interesting note is this: there are TWO titles from 2005 in the WORST of the decade ["The Honeymooners" and "In the Mix"].

 

Something else worth thinking about: what are the three best movies of 2005? How do they compare to the 3 best movies of 1999; "American Beauty," "Fight Club," and "The Matrix?"

 

You can even compare these movies to LAST year's best movies, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" [which *I* didn't really care for], "Million Dollar Baby," and "The Incredibles."

 

Maybe I'm just jaded because we went through a stretch of very good movie years. I miss that.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Well, I will say it's highly flawed, but 18 of the Top 100 movies on IMDB are from 2000 on.

By "Top Movies" do you mean top GROSSING? If that's the case, you can't compare movies based on how much money they made. The market for a movie like "Shrek 2" is about 100 times the size of the market for something like "The Empire Strikes Back" based solely on the number of movie theaters and personal home theater that have sprouted up over the last 25 years. Now you tell me - which is the better movie?

 

Take a look at The Top 250 Movies as VOTED on by IMDB registered users. "Lord of the Rings" is the only movie since 2000 to crack the top 10. 4 of the 10 are from 1990 to present - though much of that, I suspect, is based on the age of the users voting. [ie. How would an 18 year old know how good "Clockwork Orange" was in its day?]

 

I'll do some research and post more in a bit.

 

I mean the very Top 250 you're talking about. 18 of them are from 2000 on. I don't think saying ONLY one of the Top 10 is from that era makes much of a point. If you had one Top 10 movie every 6 years you'd be doing pretty good. Likewise, if in a given 6 year period, you can make 18% of the top 100 movies ever, you're kicking some serious ass.

 

I agree this is pretty flawed. IMDB makes adjustments for the age of a movie, but there's no way Sin City will hold it's spot at 16. Clearly, the list is also slightly biased toward geeky movies, like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and comic book stuff. Consider it an internet population bias. And more of those types of movies have been released in recent years.

 

Okay, so there are 6 movies from last year in IMDB's top 20 [Kill Bill: Vol 2 is #21] rated titles. "Sin City," at number 16, is the only movie on the list from this year. The only other movie from this year to even break the top 35 is "Batman Begins" at number 23.

 

Of interesting note is this: there are TWO titles from 2005 in the WORST of the decade ["The Honeymooners" and "In the Mix"].

 

Something else worth thinking about: what are the three best movies of 2005? How do they compare to the 3 best movies of 1999; "American Beauty," "Fight Club," and "The Matrix?"

 

You can even compare these movies to LAST year's best movies, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" [which *I* didn't really care for], "Million Dollar Baby," and "The Incredibles."

 

Maybe I'm just jaded because we went through a stretch of very good movie years. I miss that.

 

 

Wait, what list are you looing at. On the Top 250, Sin City is #75, not #16.

 

Also, this is an example of how subjective this stuff is, because I'd take every one of those 2004 movies over the 1999 movies you listed in a heartbeat. The Matrix is great, but I don't really have any special affinity for Fight Club, and certainly not for American Beauty.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

You and I clearly approach movies from completely different angles, and I would say we're looking for very different things when we go to the movies. I disagree with you on just about everything, apart from the IMDB...the rating system is not highly credible.

 

And you may be right about all that mise en scene and whatever stuff, but if I have to choose between good acting and CGI vs. good mise en scene and editing, I'm taking the first one. I'm not even sure I know what mise en scene is.

 

I'm not sure what to say about cinematography. I love a good looking movie. I haven't noticed any fall-off in quality. Obviously, the look of the film is going to differ depending on what kind of movie it is. No one's shooting for cinematography points when they make the 40 Year-Old Virgin or something like that. I mean, Animal House didn't look like much. But I just saw Munich last night and the cinematography certainly stood out.

 

I just think if you fast forward in time 50 years, no one will remember all the crappy films made in 2005, but the bombs of 2065 will be fresh in ther minds, and they'll be saying the same things we're saying today. I'm sure not too many people here can name any terrible terrible films from 1955 (I can't), but I don't think anyone would claim that no terrible films were made.

[Everlong204]

I'm sure not too many people here can name any terrible terrible films from 1955 (I can't), but I don't think anyone would claim that no terrible films were made.

 

 

 

maybe if you watched mystery science theater 3000 :mischief

[yankeefan21]

Spielberg made two outstanding films in the 1990s, however Saving Private Ryan and Munich are not even close to Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, ET, and Close Encounters.

 

Wow. I am almost flabbergasted.

 

You are comparing cinematic candy [ET, Jaws, Close Encounters, Indy] to cinematic substance [Ryan and Munich]. Your argument would have had FAR more credence if you had used AI, Evolution, or Terminal, but you didn?t. ?Saving Private Ryan? is my all time favorite movie. This is a piece of film that will stand the test of time and [as much as I love Indy] will remain long after Indiana Jones is forgotten. The film won FIVE Academy Awards along with a host of others and was also one of the top grossing films of its era. I could go on for pages singing the praises of this movie but I will respectfully agree to differ on this point.

 

With that said, at least you pointed out that we have a movie like ?Munich? to save this year?s collection of retreads and mindless drivel.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

This whole art vs. entertainment discussion has pretty much nothing to do with the original topic, just so everyone's aware.

 

Yeah, cinema is art, not just entertainment. But entertainment = box office. I don't think there's any correlation between art and box office.

 

But I have no beef with meandering conversations. While I agree that Private Ryan and Munich aren't the best comparisons for the "candy" films (Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can might be better), I agree with el penguino that the "candy" films should be taken seriously, even if they are not themselves that serious. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite Spielberg and it probably always will be.

 

Also, Munich is a far better movie than Saving Private Ryan.

[yankeefan21]

"simple minds are easy to please."

And this, in a nutshell, is exactly my point. As long as Hollywood feels this way, we will continue to be fed junk like "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" and "Date Movie" and "Scary Movie 4" and "Rocky 69" and...

 

As an educated adult who HAS studied film, I’m going to go into a movie looking for different things than my 6 year old nephew. It is for this reason that “Art� and “Entertainment� are inexorably intertwined in cinema. Is there need for mindless entertainment? Absolutely. Is there a need for thought provoking entertainment? Definitely. Is there a need for beautifully crafted film? You betcha. Hollywood simply needs to understand the balance.

[yankeefan21]

BTWSaving Private Ryan is so poorly written one can consider THAT to be candy on some levels. Robert Rodat should not have a job.

He was nominated for an Oscar for best screenplay in 1998 for his work on "Saving Private Ryan." He lost to "Shakespeare in Love" which is, arguably, THE best screenplay written in the last 10 years.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yours just happens to be wrong. :mischief

[Guest Juanky]

This whole art vs. entertainment discussion has pretty much nothing to do with the original topic, just so everyone's aware.

 

Yeah, cinema is art, not just entertainment. But entertainment = box office. I don't think there's any correlation between art and box office.

 

But I have no beef with meandering conversations. While I agree that Private Ryan and Munich aren't the best comparisons for the "candy" films (Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can might be better), I agree with el penguino that the "candy" films should be taken seriously, even if they are not themselves that serious. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite Spielberg and it probably always will be.

 

Also, Munich is a far better movie than Saving Private Ryan.

I liked Catch Me If You Can, and Minority Report is one of my favorite movies ever. I gues I'm a sucker for sci-fi movies wrapped in philosophical undertones.

 

-----

 

Looking over the James Bond movies now, I can see a bit of a pattern. Not counting Goldeneye, the last "great" James Bond movie in my opinion was For Your Eyes Only, released back in 1981. There have been eight Bond movies since then with a ninth one being released this upcoming year, and only one has been great (the aforementioned Goldeney). What has been the constant complaint? That special effects are taking away from what made James Bond appealing, the storyline. People watched Connery and Moore for what they were able to turn the Bond character into, not to see how many explosions the bad guys could throw at Bond while he boned the hottest Hollywood C-List actresses. Not to say that Bond was never about the chase or the girl, but the fun of the movie was in the story and the conflict. The recent Bond movies seem like they have taken the myth of the Bond toys, mixed it with the myth of the Bond girl, thrown in a sexy car with a million things going BOOM and called it a production. I think we can see this trend in a lot of movies, and it's starting to turn people off in my opinion. It's never a good sign when a chunk of the moviegoing public goes to the theater hoping instead of anticipating.