Hollywood sees longest running box office slump

[jay gw]

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "Batman Begins" took in $26.8 million to remain the top movie for the second straight weekend, but it could not keep Hollywood from sinking to its longest modern box-office slump.

Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.

"We're working with a pretty huge deficit that would take a lot of business to overcome," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "Just breaking the slump is not enough. We would have to reverse the trend and see attendance on a big uptick."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

I'm tempted to say "it's the movies they're making"....but it's not. They're the same kinds of movies they've always made. What happened to the music industry is now happening to the film and television industries - file sharing is taking away audiences.

What else can explain the decline in revenues?

[crimresearch]

Thank God!!!

Now we just have to wait out the 10 years it will take for them to realize that the retread/karaoke approach to Hollywood's flood of remakes is fizzling out, and let filmakers take a chance on creative projects again.

[TragicMonkey]

1. The movies are too expensive.
2. They really do suck more than they used to, in that they have plumbed the depths of the well of creativity are are making the same movies over and over again. They are also making movies of previous movies, sixty-year-old comic books, books that already have movies made of them, and television shows. And how many movies do they put out that don't have a sequel anymore? Coming soon, to a theater near you: Concept Milked To Death III.
3. The same movie will be out on DVD a month or two later. Why not wait and watch it for cheaper at home?
4. Especially since you can then skip the thirty minutes of commercials at the beginning. Not previews; commercials. Usually the same damn ones they show on television, only at three times the volume and you can't get up and wander around your house, or pick up your book while putting it on "mute".
5. The selection. Theaters in one part of town seem to show the exact same movies as all the rest, apart from one or two "artsy" theaters if you live in a big enough city. Do you like foreign films? Don't hold your breath to see any of those in the mall theater; they need that screen to show Spiderman VIII on six screens at once.

[ReFLeX]

I would say DVDs over file sharing.
Else, shifts in age demographics perhaps?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Else, shifts in age demographics perhaps?

Well, I'm older than I used to be. Don't know about everyone else.

[alfaniner]

I'd say DVDs and cell phones are two of the biggest culprits. Last Christmas naturally saw the most sales of DVD players ever.

I used to go out to at least two movies a week. Now I rarely go but twice a year. I think the last straw was watching "Titanic" in a full theater and one gal down on the main floor had this horrible hacking cough that continued for the three full hours of the movie. I almost shouted from the stadium seating "HEY!! Get some cough drops of go the **** home!".

Since getting a DVD player I can now enjoy in comfort and good visuals, interrupt when I want, and eat popcorn for 40 cents instead of 4 dollars.

Oh, and I can turn off my phone if I want and don't have to hear anyone else's.

[IllegalArgument]

Quote:

Originally posted by alfaniner
I'd say DVDs and cell phones are two of the biggest culprits. Last Christmas naturally saw the most sales of DVD players ever.

I used to go out to at least two movies a week. Now I rarely go but twice a year. I think the last straw was watching "Titanic" in a full theater and one gal down on the main floor had this horrible hacking cough that continued for the three full hours of the movie. I almost shouted from the stadium seating "HEY!! Get some cough drops of go the **** home!".

Since getting a DVD player I can now enjoy in comfort and good visuals, interrupt when I want, and eat popcorn for 40 cents instead of 4 dollars.

Oh, and I can turn off my phone if I want and don't have to hear anyone else's.

I have to agree, especially if you have a HDTV. One day I'll build a home theater.

[Psi Baba]

How about the simple fact that there are just a lot more things to do these days that then were 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, etc? This type of complaint seems to be common from all areas of the entertainment and leisure industries. They never seem to realize that while most people's disposable spending remains the same (proportionally), the number of things to spend disposable income increases, especially things that involve regular monthly bills: music clubs, movies on home video, standard cable television, dial-up internet access, cell phones, digital cable, DSL internet access, satellite radio, OnStar, NetFlix, etc. There is only so much one can spend one's money on. People are spreading it farther and thinner, or becoming more choosy about which things they spend it on, totally eliminating some things. The entertainment industries just don't seem to get this.

[Kaydens]

I think it's a combination of higher ticket prices and movies that lack any form of originality. These days you go to the cinema and pay £6 (that'd be around $9US) to see half an hour of adverts, 20 minutes of trailers that mostly look exactly like the film you're about to see and then the film itself, which is probably the same as the last movie you watched in the cinema, but longer.

On the other hand you could wait for it to come out on DVD, spend less money and watch it at your convenience without having to wait for a show time.

Prices may have risen roughly in line with inflation but people don't automatically adjust like that. It takes ages for you to get used to the fact that your favourite restaurant costs more or that book is more expensive than the one you bought 5 years ago. The difference is that with the cinema, there is an alternative, DVDs on rental! You aren't going to be able to replicate your favourite restaurant without doing work (which is one reason why you're eating out), but for less work than going to the cinema you can rent a DVD, and it's cheaper and you only have to wait about 3 months. Ok so you lose the big screen thing and "theare quality sound" but that isn't such a high price to pay for mostly mediocre films.

Myself I'm a big fan of Hong Kong cinema. I love all the stuff from the Martial Arts Wuxia films to the potent Melodramas. Hardly any of them make it to cinemas so I lose precisely nothing. I usually buy the DVDs on spec anyway since I can't rent them. Sure I've got some stinkers (Avenging Fist) but mostly they're great, much better than Holywood. That said though HK is going through a similar decline to Holywood in many respects, recycled plot ideas because they worked and bigger FX budgets to trump the last film. Some gems still come out but there are a lot of flops out there too.

Korea and JApan seem to be the up and coming places now.

Kaydens.

[bigred]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
1. The movies are too expensive.
2. They really do suck more than they used to, in that they have plumbed the depths of the well of creativity are are making the same movies over and over again. They are also making movies of previous movies, sixty-year-old comic books, books that already have movies made of them, and television shows. And how many movies do they put out that don't have a sequel anymore? Coming soon, to a theater near you: Concept Milked To Death III.
3. The same movie will be out on DVD a month or two later. Why not wait and watch it for cheaper at home?
4. Especially since you can then skip the thirty minutes of commercials at the beginning. Not previews; commercials. Usually the same damn ones they show on television, only at three times the volume and you can't get up and wander around your house, or pick up your book while putting it on "mute".
5. The selection. Theaters in one part of town seem to show the exact same movies as all the rest, apart from one or two "artsy" theaters if you live in a big enough city. Do you like foreign films? Don't hold your breath to see any of those in the mall theater; they need that screen to show Spiderman VIII on six screens at once.

Outstanding reply. Thx for saving me keystrokes.

Personally I would add that I'm tired of the growing number of obnoxious morons in theaters that don't get you're supposed to be QUIET during a movie. I doubt I'll ever watch one in a theater ever again.

[aargh57]

TragicMonkey,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. One more thing I would add is movies made from the plots of video games. Video Games!!! Are they kidding!? And they wonder why people aren't going to the movies anymore. I think that since many people have big screen T.V.s and the rentals are so cheap there's no reason to pay a lot of money to see a bad movie with a bunch of rude people. Also, with Netflix and others coming along I think that the movie industry will continue to lose customers as people will stay at home and get to watch a huge variety of classics, documentaries, favorites, etc...

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "Batman Begins" took in $26.8 million to remain the top movie for the second straight weekend, but it could not keep Hollywood from sinking to its longest modern box-office slump.

Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.

The MPAA offers different figures

Quote:

_The US admissions have grown steadily over the past 10 years - increasing an average of_2% each year. _

· _Over the last 10 years, admissions have increased nearly 20%. That is an increase of 244__million tickets sold.

· __The US box office continues to show impressive grosses - clearing the $9 billion mark for the__third consecutive year - reaching $9.54 billion in 2004. _

But I think a main factor for any problems is based on these figures.

Quote:

While the number of films increased last year, the cost to make and market those films_dipped slightly from the previous year. _The average negative cost for MPAA member_companies remained almost the same at $63.6 million in 2004.

· _Marketing costs decreased by 12% - down to $34.4 million last year. _So in 2004, the average__cost for an MPA member company to make and market a film was $98 Million - down almost_5% from 2003.

They spend $100 million to make and market a film and complain when it generates $150 of revenue. Other industries would cheer a 50% return on investment, but the movie industry is focused solely on "home runs" and films that don't produce revenues double or triple their costs are considered failures. When they stop being so greedy and become willing to make less expensive movies that are worth watching (hint: pay writers more and actors less), they I'll be sympathetic to tiny drops in their revenue.

[Kiless]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
....

Wot he said!!

[CFLarsen]

Not filesharing.

DVDs with new movies and big TVs.

In Denmark, the biggest thing for Xmas last year was the huge flatscreens. Mind you, this was when they cost from $4,000 and up. Way up. Which means you can get the big deep-screens for a mere pittance these days, so they are sold as well.

Why go to a movie theatre, when you can get almost the same experience in the comfort of your home? E.g. you can stop the movie, if you need to go to the loo. BIG RELIEF! And the sofa is way more comfortable...

OTOH, movies like the new Star Wars and LOTR must be seen on a big screen. Not just because of the screen, but also the sound. And they were. Question is, can the many theatres survive on these big blockbusters? Nope.

We do live in interesting times...

[clarsct]

Whattya know?

I just posted the top ten list on the humor thread, then killed it and posted another...

But anyway, my reasons are so:

Quote:

Top Ten reasons not to go to the theatre

10) Kids

9) Prices

8) Concessions

7) Other people

6) Cell phones

5) Traffic

4) Price of gas

3) Hollywood sucks

2) You can pause a DVD

1) The new movies they're putting out are worthless lumps of diseased rat droppings.

Not too far off from TM. Great minds think alike...either that, or I'm turning into a monkey...

[Beady]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OTOH, movies like the new Star Wars and LOTR must be seen on a big screen. Not just because of the screen, but also the sound.

I disagree. To celebrate a massive raise at my job in November, we bought both a 42" widescreen LCD TV and a home theater system (progressive-scan DVD and surround-sound with 5 speakers and subwoofer). Sound is no longer in issue.

Just one example: In the early part of "The Magnificent Seven," Horst Bucholtz' character stumbles into the cantina, drunk and po'd because Yul Brynner had made a fool of him. He draws his gun and fires, and the bullet hits the wall just behind my head. Scares the crap out of me, every time.

Oh, and you'd better be sitting down during "Return of the King," when Mount Doom erupts.

[Beady]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
(hint: pay writers more and actors less)

FWIW, I predicted(!) somewhere on these boards that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be disappointing, because the initial previews I'd seen all emphasized the special effects. This was because I generally make two assumptions about movies: The previews, especially the very early ones, show the things that the studios most want you to see; and, if the previews don't emphasize the acting or the story, then the acting and the story took a back seat to something else (probably the special effects).

Special effects are like a movie's musical score, they are supposed to enhance the experience; they are not supposed to be the experience, themselves. I once heard Andre Previn(?) say that a good musical score is one that you don't notice; seems to me that special effects should be the same.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
I disagree. To celebrate a massive raise at my job in November, we bought both a 42" widescreen LCD TV and a home theater system (progressive-scan DVD and surround-sound with 5 speakers and subwoofer). Sound is no longer in issue.

Just one example: In the early part of "The Magnificent Seven," Horst Bucholtz' character stumbles into the cantina, drunk and po'd because Yul Brynner had made a fool of him. He draws his gun and fires, and the bullet hits the wall just behind my head. Scares the crap out of me, every time.

Oh, and you'd better be sitting down during "Return of the King," when Mount Doom erupts.

Feel free to move it into my living room. I'll compare that to the 1102-seat Imperial theatre in Copenhagen...

[TragicMonkey]

One thing that might help the theaters is showing old movies. Why do they only show new ones? When they re-aired the old Star Wars movies (yeah, they screwed with the effects, but they were basically the same movies) the theaters were packed. Why don't they screen a few old movies at the same time that they do the new ones? I'd pay to see some classics on the big screen, movies I missed in the theaters the first time what with not being born and all. Good black-and-white movies, about people instead of monsters and aliens and talking animals. (I'm not against monsters and aliens, and talking animals in strict moderation, but movies about realistic human beings in realistic situations can be pretty good.)

[Beady]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
(I'm not against monsters and aliens, and talking animals in strict moderation, but movies about realistic human beings in realistic situations can be pretty good.)

There's a reason that Atticus Finch was ruled the greatest movie hero by the AFI.

[epepke]

It's finally happened.

For some years now, I've been predicting that there was going to be a Dukes of Hazzard movie.

Now there is one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377818/

[Jas]

My theories are:

1. Movies are really really sucking now.

2. Theatres are being built in huge megaplexes/malls, which are usually closed after the movie is over. It's hard to make a night of it. The theatres I try to go to the most (the 3 downtown movie theatres), are walking distance to pubs, restaurants, and coffee shops. It's much easier to turn a movie into a 'night out'.

3. Everything TM said

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
FWIW, I predicted(!) somewhere on these boards that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be disappointing, because the initial previews I'd seen all emphasized the special effects. This was because I generally make two assumptions about movies: The previews, especially the very early ones, show the things that the studios most want you to see; and, if the previews don't emphasize the acting or the story, then the acting and the story took a back seat to something else (probably the special effects).

Special effects are like a movie's musical score, they are supposed to enhance the experience; they are not supposed to be the experience, themselves. I once heard Andre Previn(?) say that a good musical score is one that you don't notice; seems to me that special effects should be the same.

I'm reminded of what George Lucus said in the 80's (maybe late 70's):

"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing".


How times have changed...

[toddjh]

I agree that DVDs are cutting into movie profits. I don't, however, agree that the slump is because movies suck more. They've always sucked -- Sturgeon's Law. Today we have crappy remakes of television shows. A decade ago, it was crappy rip-offs of other movies, especially romantic comedies and derivative science fiction. Before that we had crappy disaster flicks and monster movies.

What we're looking at is a fundamental shift in media in general. Static, centralized entertainment like movie houses and traditional TV networks is on its way out. Interactivity is taking over, whether it's simple interactivity in the form of DVD and TiVo letting you watch movies and television on your own terms, or entirely new (to most people) forms of entertainment such as computer and video games. A lot of people scoff at statements like that, but the median age of game players has been rising steadily, and -- something not many people know -- the video game industry already brings in more revenue than Hollywood. As more and more children grow up accepting interactive entertainment as mainstream, look for it to take over as the alpha male of recreation. I knew something big was happening when my 60-year-old dad called me and told me how much he loved his new Playstation 2.

And I say it's mostly for the best. Computer games will become the new showcase for the latest advances in special effects and realism. They're the ideal medium for that; much better than film, where you're limited to two dimensions and forced to try to integrate computer effects with photographic stock. There's much more variety in the types of things you can do, too, from single-person adventure games to ongoing multiplayer worlds that can attact a person's attention (and his credit card) for months or years.

Movies and television will always be around, of course, because everybody likes passive entertainment too. But movies will become smaller affairs, no longer costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make (or, as others have said, having the expectation of a 50% return), and television will shift from ad-supported to fee-based (it's been going in that direction for the last ten years anyway, with more and more quality shows on pay cable channels). That might not sound good, but as demand drops, so will prices. I'd go see movies more often if they cost two dollars and you could get popcorn at a reasonable price. It will become (or return to) more of a social experience; part of an evening out, and not the goal in itself.

Interesting times we live in. I think it's great. Most of the people who have a problem with it are those who have a lot invested, either financially or emotionally, in the status quo.

Jeremy

[Thurkon]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh

What we're looking at is a fundamental shift in media in general. Static, centralized entertainment like movie houses and traditional TV networks is on its way out. Interactivity is taking over, whether it's simple interactivity in the form of DVD and TiVo letting you watch movies and television on your own terms, or entirely new (to most people) forms of entertainment such as computer and video games. A lot of people scoff at statements like that, but the median age of game players has been rising steadily, and -- something not many people know -- the video game industry already brings in more revenue than Hollywood. As more and more children grow up accepting interactive entertainment as mainstream, look for it to take over as the alpha male of recreation. I knew something big was happening when my 60-year-old dad called me and told me how much he loved his new Playstation 2.

And I say it's mostly for the best. Computer games will become the new showcase for the latest advances in special effects and realism. They're the ideal medium for that; much better than film, where you're limited to two dimensions and forced to try to integrate computer effects with photographic stock. There's much more variety in the types of things you can do, too, from single-person adventure games to ongoing multiplayer worlds that can attact a person's attention (and his credit card) for months or years.

Jeremy

What Jeremy said.

Movies aren’t worse now than before…there were always a minimum of quality movies mixed with a slew of mediocre and bad films. Regarding the poster who bemoaned the days of good, old black and white classics…ugh, I’ll take Memento, Midnight Cowboy, Lost In Translation, I Heart Huckabees, and the like over any black and white movie ever made prior to 1965. Melodramatic acting and static wide shots ad nauseum was the norm in those early film days.

In my opinion, movies are improving…acting is better, special effects are better, and production qualities are better year-to-year. Sure, there are always remakes and stinkers. But don’t belittle a movie simply because it’s based on a comic book. Batman Begins, Spiderman, X-Men et al are fine films, and those caped heroes are the modern manifestations of ancient hero myth.

Also agree with Jeremy on the video game front. Video games have come a long way since Space Invaders, guys…they are reaching towards a new art form. The stories are often deep and immersive, and the art design behind some games is sometimes staggering.

DVDs, Netflix, and ordering cable movies at home have hurt film, but you can’t tell me that after Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars that Hollywood is hurting for cash.

Now, if you want to talk about the decline of quality in modern music compared to 20, 30 years ago and what that industry has done wrong…yeah, I’m with you there.

[HarryKeogh]

this movie analyst I read about said the box office slump is the biggest non-story of the year. There is no slump. Last year, Passion of the Christ and F9/11 made a boat-load of money and got millions of people to the theater that don't ordinarily go. So when looking at this year compared to last it's skewed.

There is no slump and everyone is making money. At least that was one person's informed opinion.

[hgc]

In an astoudingly stupid (even for him) op-ed in USA Today today, Michael Medved has the answer -- it's Hollywood's liberal values.

The column deserves a thread all its own. I will post later in Politics.

[Lemastre]

With the advent of new ways to project DVDs in the home, it is not necessary to travel to theaters and pay their prices in order to see a topnotch presentation of a movie. The problem today is finding a movie worth seeing. Unless theater owners can devise new ways to get people in, the modern movie theater may become a thing of the past, just as the old-time single-screen palaces are.

Special effects have become as good as they need to be, since computers can do just about anything needed, including creating lifelike characters. The first job of the movie-maker is still to create interesting stories about interesting characters. And of course, stories about people are more compelling than all-action flicks depending on computer-generated critters or car chases and explosions, which are offered when there is really no story to tell.

The availability of digital video gear should make it possible for small groups of actors and writers everywhere to produce flicks that can be distributed via internet or informally via DVD for little more than the cost of equipment and materials involved. This approach to movie art is comparable to the small theater productions taking place in many cities or to the way in which poetry is circulated. And it is the way a lot of today's movie-makers began.

[Lemastre]