Film Sales Drop

[Fan of Kubrick]

Technology these days has advanced so much from the time of the Golden Age of Hollywood, that people are able to sit at home and watch a movie in all its brilliance on a widescreen 50-inch TV with surround sound speakers. People choose to stay at home and play video games or write e-mail rather than go to a movie at an "inconvenient" time. Sure, I can see things from their point of view: a lot of moviegoers are also young students, and they have to fit studying and homework into their schedule. But being a student myself, I find that I have plenty of time to attend such extensive showings as the San Francisco International Film Festival. The reason I can attend 13 movies over two weeks and juggle school while other students can't find the time to go to three movies a year? I don't spend twenty hours a week playing Playstation 2 or XBox. Do I watched DVDs? Of course I do. But I spend my time watching classics that I wasn't alive to see in theatres.

Today the youth of America has so much technology available that it seems to refuse to leave its comfortable couch with a laptop computer, TV, video-on-demand and an XBox all at their fingertips. Children don't even go out to play baseball anymore. I'm still growing up, but I played in Little League for eight years. There is an obesity problem in the United States, and it is not only because of fast food restaraunts like McDonald's or Burger King. It is also because of lack of exercise, (i.e. standing up) and laziness. Laziness has gripped the U.S. so hard that people can't even bother to walk to their car (and sit down again), drive to theatre, wait in line for maybe a minute or two for tickets, and then sit your but in a comfortable seat again and watch a huge 20 or 30 ft. screen. If it is summer, the theatre is air-conditioned. If it is winter, it is heated. Sure, it is overpriced, but hell, look how much money those people spent on the movie. The directors and gaffers need their money also...

I am greatly annoyed at the laziness of the public today. They say that the theatre is a hastle, yet they go to the most crowded and hastling movies, such as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I was wondering if anybody else shared my opinion on why the box office sales have been down for several years now, or if they disagree with me and why. Any thoughts?

[Johann]

I agree.

Their loss.


Some of the blame is on the studios. Some of the blame is on the public. Some of the blame is on our hectic world, economics or just plain ignorance. Lots of variables.

But I know what you're saying. It seems people don't recognize the benefits of going out to a theatre. Life is what you make it.
If you place more meaning on watching DVD's and eating your microwave popcorn in your skivvies, then that's your world.

I can't get enough of the big screen experience. Home viewing is best for re-watching your favorite DVD's and giving important films scrutiny. (plus you have access to a fridge of beer- not so at cineplex odeon)

I don't know why people wouldn't want to see films as they were meant to be seen. DVD is great, I got a few. I watch a lot of them-probably more than most people. But looking up/at a gigantor screen and being blasted from all sides with fine-tuned sound, can't beat it bubba.

[wpqx]

Well I'm in this age group as well so I'll voice my two cents. I don't get to the movies as much as I'd like, but still more than many people. The reson for this is inconvenience. I can't sit through crap, so the few films that come out that I actually want to see are usually playing at one theater 50 miles away, this can be discouraging, and frequently let's me say "I'll wait until the DVD comes out". The theater is more a social activity for me. So it seems like 9 out of 10 dates wind up in a movie theater.

As for the "experience" I'm not sure it is always best in a movie theater. The last film I saw in the theater though, is the classic case of a movie made for an audience and that was the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Watching Rocky at home, is nowhere near the same as in a theater with 50 people or so screaming different shit all at once. I have a harder time going to movies by myself now, than I used to, and that sometimes affects what I see. If I can't find someone willing to drive for an hour to go see Old Boy, well then I just don't go see Old Boy.

As for video games, I do have a few but I NEVER play any of them. I just can't play a game for a couple hours when I could be spending that same time watching one of my DVD's or VHS tapes, which seriously is a never ending pile.

I also agree with the inappropriate time management. I work 40 hours a week, go to school four nights a week, and still can watch a dozen movies in a week. Maybe I just know how to use the clock, or maybe I'm just a genius that doesn't have to work to hard on school work. Take your pick, but some people really don't know how to juggle multiple tasks.

A certain level of blame should be placed on what gets released though. The theater may be great, but I sure as hell have no interest in seeing a remake of The Longest Yard, or a remake of anything for that matter, Jesus Christ get some original ideas. Shame that the only really original films that come out usually require the great hunts in theaters. Even when great films get a re-release (like Au Hasard Balthazar last year), You have to go ridiculously out of your way to catch them. Balthazar was worth the drive, but that was a solo trip, hard to convince anybody to see a B and W French film about a donkey.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I can see your points, and I agree with you on most of them, but I don't think we can blame the bad movies that keep coming. I thought last year was a terrible year for movies, as it was the year that I turned into a true film nut. I felt the anxiety of no movies coming out. But now that I see this year compared to last, I'm wondering if I should reconsider my opinion of good. Ticket sales have been dropping over the past 4 years or so, and DVD sales have rocketed (61% just last year). I don't think that it's all bad movies. I mean, Star Wars was a decent movie, but it still couldn't stop the drop. Total income that weekend was down 3.5%.

Of course, living a long distance from a smaller theatre that shows foreign and independant films can be a drag also. But that has no impact at all on ticket sales. How many people besides film buffs do you think went to see Old Boy? Not too many, I doubt that the film was even in the top 30 in ticket sales.

Some people do have trouble balancing out their schedule, but I'm not asking people to go to the movies every Saturday instead of staying home from a terrible hangover the night before. Maybe once or twice a month would be enough to bring sales back up to what they used to be. I doubt it will happen, but I don't want film to turn into a DVD release only field. That would depress me greatly.

[Chris Knipp]

I would like to hear more about the economic aspects of this. Videos have been the salvation of small films in some cases, haven't they? Isn't it true that they or DVD's supply residuals to make up an initial loss that before the possibility of such sales would deter investors from backing a certain film? It seems that in the early days of movies absolutely everybody went to the flickers once a week. Then I understand in the Fifties as Americans all began owning TV's the movie ticket sales dropped by about half. If the sales are dropping more, why does it seem that there are still so many more movies to see in theaters than there used to be fifty years ago? And there seems to be a greater variety of films from abroad, despite Rosenbaum's (no doubt valid) complaints of our being limited in what foreign films we can see. And there are all those film festivals. But I think we have to hear more about what is happening to the distribution and theaterical economics.

Finally, is the drop in ticket sales a real problem? If so, what will its effect be on the movies, besides the fact that more people will stay home and play with their gadgetry?

I can certainly agree that home viewing is seductive, but not the same. I don't care how big your monitor is and how nice your surround sound is, after doing about a decade or more of mostly constant video watching, when having a VCR and laser disc player was still a novelty to me, I now recognize that theater viewing is the way a movie is meant to be seen. It remains true that DVD's have become a great resource for students of film on this site who go beyond Netflix to Nicheflix, and so on, but the difference of scale is tremendously important.

I believe the difference is much more important for some movies than others. A small relationship/talking heads film or something done like a stage play obviously works better at home than Kingdom of Heaven or Collateral or Star Wars or anything visually ambitious--despite the home big-screen owner's pride in all the noise he can generate with a DVD

[Fan of Kubrick]

The 50s were the decline of the studio years. TV shows such as Dragnet were short and entertaining and you could stay home on your couch. Theatres were long and you couldn't leave during the studio breaks. The studios' power declined until the late sixties. During this period, foreign and independant films grew in strength and number. Kubrick was one of the first independant filmmakers (although he often worked with English film companies) when he left Hollywood after making Spartacus. Robert Altman got a start in about 1969. But 1969 is also the year that the studios came back big. Realism became the American New-Wave. Films like Easy Rider cost very little to make and brought huge returns. Of course, the studios never really fully recovered from those 15 years or so of money loss. People realized films didn't have to be from a studio to be good.

But of course, the seventies brought the birth of the blockbuster film, and those killed out the small art films and many of the great foreign films. Today, only those small films and those foreign films are only available on DVD. Also, ticket sales aren't a huge problem at the moment, but if they continue to drop as they have we'll find movies making the same amount of money here as they do in Russia. Or the studios could die out one by one. I am not a huge fan of Hollywood movies, but I also realize that not all of the movies made in Hollywood are bad, although the majority of them are. The movie industry is almost like a baseball player. Even the best baseball players only get hits 3 out of 10 times. How many good movies do you see every 10? Unless you are very good at picking movies, then I would say maybe 5 or 6.

Today, many filmmakers look at their movies making 5 million dollars and saying that international sales and DVD sales will make up for the low sales in the U.S. of A. It happens much too often.

[Chris Knipp]

It seems there is still a huge amount of money turning over in Hollywood. But isn't there the same problem as in other economic spheres, that the sitation is getting more and more monopolistic, everything is being gobbled up by huge corporations whose main product is not movies?

Still isn't there big money in Hollywood because of (1) the sheer size of the US market alone, and (2) the US global dominance. Isn't this a lot different from the often excellent film industries of smaller countries, whose costs and returns are so much smaller? j It seems that making a movie in France or Italy must be much more efficient, despite the fact that they don't make much money for the most part. But are small film industries like France's better hitters than Hollywood? We don't get to see their bad stuff. We don't even get to see all their good stuff. Mostly we get to see their most safe and bland and exportable (i.e. more translatable) stuff.

what I see in movies I do select carefully so it usually interests me so much that I can have a hard time rating it. Probably I should see more average American movies to develop my rating skills and also to appreciate the good stuff more.

It's amazing to me that people don't go to movies once or twice a month. But I guess all those gadgets at home deter them from bothring.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Fan of Kubrick
The 50s were the decline of the studio years.

I'm assuming your thinking specifically of the financial decline of the major studios, and not a decline in the quality of the movies made in Hollywood. This financial decline came as a result of several variables including the popularity of TV as you state, but also lawsuits against the majors' monopoly on theatres, the stars' demands for higher salaries, etc. Can you guys believe that, in the mid 40s, Americans were buying 95 million movie tickets per week?

The potential big losers right now are not the Hollywood studios. It's the theatres. What's keeping them profitable are popcorn and soda sales. The studios, after all, make money from home video and global tickets sales.

Regarding foreign film distribution, it depends on where you live. If you live in Mobile, Alabama or Albuquerque, NM or Akron, OH and you like indies and foreign-language films you'll have to watch them at home. If you're an internationalist film buff and you don't live in NYC, Paris and maybe London, buy yourself a player that can handle discs from all regions in any format.

[Chris Knipp]

But while you are urging people to buy all-region DVD players, I am wishing as Fan of Kubrick was that more people would just go out and buy tickets, and maybe a bag of popcorn too. A lot of those people in Akron or Albuquerque or wherever you were naming won't die of disappointment if they can't watch Hou Hsiau Hsien or Tsing-Ming Liang, and they could go to two movies a month, movies which are going to be showing at their local theater. This is a different issue, and you are bypassing the issue Rosenbaum is so concerned about, too, of how the big distributors control what we can see, because if you just get your own supply, you are helping yourself, but the public remains deprived.

[tabuno]

I'm with wpqx on this one. If it weren't for the DVD, I would have had an opportunity to see so many independent, quality, original productions now being distributed in my neighborhood DVD rental store. As with Cable/Satellite Television, DVD has made in-roads into the home consumer market as has Cable/Satellite Television made major incursions into the television network market.

The big blockbuster is probably here to stay just for the entertainment, popularity, and extravaganza experience as well as the potent dating experience (humans will still need ways to continue to propagate our species). Anyway theater popcorn still can't be matched.

The cost and the inconvenience really are substantial factors that allow DVD and alternative stay at home options to be considered by anyone who's trying to make a living in America. It's almost become a requirement - making a living while the rich few are able to buy their movie studios. Costs increase and time decreases - increases the need for entertainment and stress relief outlets that we've never necessarily had the need for.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I was referring to the economics of the system when I talk about the decline of the studios, but the studios lost power during that time as well. During the 40s people bought 95 million tickets a week as you say. But if you think about it, one ticket then cost what? 5 cents? 10 cents? Movies still made millions of dollars then. Look at how much a ticket costs now? Ten bucks a pop at one of the nice theatres and seven or eight or one of the smaller independant theatres. That is yet another factor in the equation. I am of the opinion that theatres should lower their prices. If they did just that, ticket sales would increase much more. I mean, a new DVD costs only ten bucks more than an actual ticket to the movies. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Second, I'm not complaining about DVD players. They are one of the greatest inventions to ever exist in my opinion. If they are used for foreign films, that is great. My complaint is that people are staying home and watching movies like The Aviator at home (just for example). Even with the new Star Wars out, ticket sales over that weekend were still down 3.5%. If sales drop like that, than the film lovers will be in an upsetting situation. The few good films that do come out of Hollywood will become even fewer. More films made for masses will take over. Successful blockbusters will be the only type of movie worth seeing from Hollywood. There will always be independant films, but that doesn't factor into the fact that ticket sales are dropping.

The issue is the fall of ticket sales. Not the fact that if it weren't for DVD players you wouldn't see foreign and independant films. Many of those smaller movies are great, but never become a major factor in ticket sales.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to see films like Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator and Finding Neverland out of Hollywood. Not things like The Longest Yard or Are We There Yet.

[tabuno]

Ever try to go to see movies on a budget nowadays. Two people on a date can't get in and out without spending $20 to $30 in what used to be $10 or $15. Wait six months or a year, try being patient, instead of being one of the joneses and save a buddle, a huge buddle. DVD and home entertainment is all about the money.

Seeing the Aviator on anything but a wall screen, a huge one would be a really shrinkage in terms of cinema impact, but hey, the American family has to make sacrifices somewhere. Will it be the newest computer? The family vacation? What about that SUV?

Perhaps it's time to see a drop in ticket sales some more as the multi-million dollar budgeted films suck up the excitement and leave the rest of quality films to suffer. Could it be that perhaps the American public is beginning to discover something about quality films and are beginning to discovery something different about where to put their scarce monetary resources. No...American public...it's not about increasing ticket sales and packing the theaters again, it's about finding the qualitative niche known as good cinema again to get people to come back to the movies. Like Field of Dreams, built it they will come, so with movies, make good movies and they will come. As I've mentioned elsewhere earlier this year, the qualitative of movies in 2005 seems to be less than last year overall and so well what else do we expect? Increased ticket sales? No way!

[Chris Knipp]

I have to admit I now qualify for senior tickets, and that works even in Paris, and I'm not financially strapped. But as has been mentioned, it's a matter of budgeting, budgeting your time and budgeting your money. Back in the day, when fancy movies theaters upped their ticket prices from a dollar to three dollars, that was huge. When a ticket was 5 cents or 10 cents, the difference between five cents and ten cents was a very significant difference, but going to the movies was an important thing to do. I see people who aren't necessarily anything you could remotely consider rich splurging on snacks at the cineplex, so I guess that's just what they want to do. And if you're going to go out on a date and not just stay home and watch TV, apart from walking through the park, what can you do that isn't going to cost you money? Buying a couple of movie tickets and some popcorn and soda is not an expensive date nowadays. But we all go through periods when we don't have the money -- or the physical or psychic energy -- to do much, part of which is undoubtedly that something else, raising kids, courting, finishing school, getting out of debt, has the top priority, and entertainment out just isn't one of them at that time. By and large though, people like going out for a spot of entertainment, and the movies is one of the least expensive but still festive and fun things you can do, other than just walking around. Going to a museum in this country generally costs ten dollars now too, and if you go to a restaurant other than a fast food place, it's not going to be cheaper than a movie and would very often cost quite a bit more. Theater? Concert? Double, triple, or even up to ten times what a movie costs. How about the SUV? How about not getting an SUV, and how about at least not buying a new car?

[wpqx]

Honestly who cares that individual ticket sales are dropping? There will always be a place for film, because no matter how good DVD's get, and how big your TV, there is nothing like the "communial" experience of movies. I'll admit my attention span is horrible watching movies at home. Often I'll stop a film ten times or zone out. In a theater, you have no where to look but at the screen.

As for the prices, I don't know where you're all going but movies aren't THAT expensive. I have been able to do dinner and a movie for two for $20. Granted the dinner was fast food, but still, every theater has a matinee, and there are always student discounts. Most places don't even ask for student id's, you just have to look the part.

Can't say there is anything that I'm itching to see at the theaters in the near future, but that doesn't mean that I'll stay away.

[Chris Knipp]

Good to hear that. I hope the drop in ticket sales is not going to have a big impact in the long run. Good point about attention span. You just tend not to focus on anything internsely when you're watching it home and can stop it with the remote in a second. Of course that has a study value. There is an advantage to tapes, that you could stop them anywhere like for me when I am watching a French or Italian one for the language practice, and then pick it up again right where you left off, whereas though on my computer it does a DVD like that, the home theater setup doesn't and you have a laborious restart procedure. Meanwhile, it is not special like watching a theatrical showing, especially on opening day.... which ist still is, .....or why would all the Star Wars nuts have been out standing in lines? The magic is not gone, just in some ways faded. Go to an old classic hall like the Castro Theater in San Francisco or the Grand Lake in Oakland and you can see what a swell thing seeing a movie could be once upon a time.

[Johann]

Swell?
You used the word swell!


One thing that irks me and something that I know goes on in homes all over north america is the people with MASSIVE DVD collections who never watch or rotate their titles.

I'm certain there are scads of people who "love movies" and buy DVD's like they're goin' outta style. They watch the movie once, and then send it to the shelf to collect dust or the TV cabinet to be forgotten.

I know a guy in Calgary who buys 5 DVD's per paycheck.
He watches the films once and then "files" them away.
He's got a HUGE collection, about 500+ titles.

I called him on it and he said "I just like having them- I don't need to watch them".
What!?
The studios must love guys like him: buy, buy, buy, file away, file away, file away.
There should be laws against this kind of behavior.
Why? because not only does he not watch them after that first new viewing, he doesn't lend them out either: "Too much of a risk of damage- no one touches my DVD's".

Ugh. (He doesn't know about this site so I can express my disgust with immunity)

I would love to have constant, uninterrupted access to a 500+ title DVD library.
And here we have people stomping on earth who have no tangible appreciation for the sanctity of viewing cinema.
I've been rotating and trading and lending and adding to my collection for years- and I still sit at less than 100 titles.

I'm not rich (yet) but things like materialistic ignorance and odd logic should not control the future of film consumption.

People buy their home theatres and think "No need to go out to the theatre- I got THX in my livingroom".
And then they sink into questionable viewing practices.

You know they do. Like you were discussing earlier: attention spans are a factor, finances are a factor, time is a factor, PEOPLE are a factor....

What to do?

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Johann
One thing that irks me and something that I know goes on in homes all over north america is the people with MASSIVE DVD collections who never watch or rotate their titles.

The studios must love guys like him: buy, buy, buy, file away, file away, file away



I agree. And furthermore, it's not like they're purchasing quality films that've just come out on DVD for the first time, but rather, they have the unbridled urge to obtain the rated, unrated, and the SE versions of "The Girl Next Door" or whatever the heck it's called. And then the same people turn around and complain about the ticket prices and what not.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to attend quite a few free screenings, so perhaps I'm not the right person to analyze how the economics of frequent theater visits play out, but as wpqx pointed out earlier, there are ways one can limit the damage.

As you (Johann) mentioned, there are many factors contributing to this decline: "Some of the blame is on the studios. Some of the blame is on the public. Some of the blame is on our hectic world, economics or just plain ignorance. Lots of variables." Studios will make money one way or the other, but it's the theater owners that are feeling the pressure (something Oscar said), and they want a bigger cut, so most of the noise being generated right now is actually from them.

[Chris Knipp]

Swell?
You used the word swell!

I sure did, and it's a swell old word, ain't it?

Johann, I'm glad to hear from you on this. I knew you'd have something amusing and pungent to say. As for the DVD collection prigs, I plead not guilty. I used to copy videos onto videotape and I think I have over 300 movies, and I admit that a lot of them have just sat there in the nice well organized closet full of shelves. But, first of all, I've loaned them out a lot, and still will if anybody wants them, and second, I am not much of a collector of DVD's -- I only have a few -- and those I have are pretty carefully selected to be things I genuinely want to view repeatedly, like Ripey's Game, the UK Queer As Folk, and the collected works of Wong Kar Wai. (I wonder if I will watch Kieslowski's Dekalog much more? Well, Oscar helped me find that, and I was infected by his enthusiasm to track down the rare item .) But does it really matter? Johann, you've ignoring the natural human drive to just collect things, like marbles, stamps, or whatever that stuff is that homeless people carry around in those purloined shopping carts. Whether they're used again or just put away and taken out to look at once a year doesn''t matter; they satisfy the eternal urge to gather

One time years ago a very amusing woman I know from my days in MOrocco came to see me in San Francisco with her Danish diplomat husband, and I told about collecting all these videos. "Oh," she said, ""do you really want to watch all these again?" I was struck dumb.

I'm sure Oscar has a really choice and valuable and rare collection, like the kid who bought the truly collectible stamps while I was just buying the big colorful African ones because they looked so pretty pasted in my stamp book.

Well, arsaib, free screenings is a guilty pleasure I'd be glad to have to admit to, but can't.

The world is not such a bad place, but the little independent theaters are the ones that have been beaten out of the village.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I'm going to agree with Chris and wpqx on this. It's not that I care that ticket sales are down, it's that I'm worried. I guess in a sense that is caring about the ticket sales, but it is a different kind of caring. Soon classic old theatres like the Castro (which still has a live organ player I might add) will go out of business. Theatres in big cities cost more these, and it is expensive to go to these theatres (dates or otherwise.) I have to say that DVDs are one of the best inventions pertaining to movies. But the magic is gone when you watch the DVD alone with somebody or your family (especially if it is a comedy.) I myself enjoy owning a lot of movies, even if I don't watch them all the time. Of course, I own mostly classics or newer films that I enjoyed quite a bit. I don't watch these films that often, and I don't obsess over getting my money out of them either. I don't own 500 either.

I'll agree. Movies are sucking this year.

[arsaib4]

"...little independent theaters are the ones that have been beaten out of the village." (Knipp)

"Soon classic old theatres like the Castro (which still has a live organ player I might add) will go out of business." (FOKubrick)

Now, this I think is a slightly different issue, and DVD sales are not the reason why local theaters are being affected.

[pmw]

Originally posted by arsaib4
"...little independent theaters are the ones that have been beaten out of the village." (Knipp)

Now, this I think is a slightly different issue, and DVD sales are not the reason why local theaters are being affected.

Im curious - what is the reason?
Not to derail the dvd / ticket sale discussion...

[Chris Knipp]

I'm no expert on any of these economic issues but I should think diminishing ticket sales would have a direct bearing on the beating out of small independent theaters. The cineplex can compensate for losses on one film by the ones that draw crowds. Some small two-auditorium theaters are doing okay, or so it seems, by choosing their movies well to suit their local audience. I would say the Albany Theater just outside Berkeley is like that. It picks movies that appeal to its mostly older middle class white audiences and seems to always have one auditorium filling up well. But I could be wrong, and anyway, what am I talking about? It's part of the Landmark chain. The Oaks, up the street, seems to make consistently lousy choices, and hardly ever has a line outside, but it's owned by the owner of the Grand Lake which, like the Castro, has a Wurlitzer, but I think he's just a rich man who runs a successful auction business and runs the Grand Lake as a hobby, though having a good location and being attractive and having the ability to show blockbusters in a big auditorium, the Grand Lake can draw in an audience. It's owner has restored the spectacular Thirties-style big rooftop flashing neon outside in all its almost-original glory and he has installed Tiffany windows inside, which he sure didn't have to do to run a movie theater. It's his baby. Without him, making the theater attractive and choosing movies well, the Grand Lake would go down the tubes I guess, become tacky, an lose its customers to the new cineplexes. Small individual movie theaters are always marginal, but I think what has caused them to close around here is that they can't compete with the cineplexes and California rents are too high. Again I don't really know, but I would assume that the Quad and Cinema Villege in NYC which are very small but show lots of interesting small films survive because in New York everything fills the auditorium, there are so many audiences there, particularly sophisticated ones, and when a film tanks it is qickly changed--as everywhere else, but this may be more important there, because the audience is less sure for something like "Historias Minimas" (though that was actually at another, larger Village theater)..

Why are we talking about all this? Because movies are a business. All art is a business. As an artist I have had to sell my art work. And since it has stopped selling well, I have been producing less. The same kind of thing. You've got to sell, you've to to make some money, to go on producing your work. Or else you have to have a day job.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by pmw


Im curious - what is the reason?
Not to derail the dvd / ticket sale discussion...

Well, just like with the other issue at hand, I think there are several factors present here:

1)Big Chains: They prevent small-er theater owners from booking commercial films, thus making it harder for them to generate revenue.

2)Operating costs are on the rise, including prints, projectors etc.

3)Ticket prices, of course, since they have to try to be competitive.

4)In most cases, what kind of films play in those theaters? Indie and foreign films. And as we’ve discussed before, market isn’t very strong for them. These film aren’t “critic proof” (for the most part), so bad reviews hurt them in big markets, and if they can’t generate enough there, indie companies cut their losses and usually decide not to go much further with them, hence they never reach mid-to-small level markets. That's why if you live in one of those smaller markets, you'll notice that even on 2 or 3 screen theaters, same films play on for weeks at a time. It's a big ugly cycle.

...I've just realized that JACKIE BROWN is playing on IFC, so goodbye for now.

[tabuno]

Salt Lake City fell to probably the same scenario of the collapse and closure of the grand old theater. At one point Salt Lake City had the Rialto Theater, the Utah Theater, the mega-sized Capitol Theater and Center Theater and the Villa Theater as well as the more modern versions in the seventies and eighties, the The Century Theater and The Regency. One by one all have closed, except for the Capitol Theater that was revitalized and preserved as a historic stage production theater and the Villa Theater is now preserved but only as a lavish, upper-end rug shop. The relatively newer Century Theater was physically divided into three separate theaters until it was torn down and make into a parking lot for the multi-plex that was built bearing the same name.

For all the ticket sales drops, the Tower Theater survived, even once being a X-rated porn theater, and has expanded into a closed multi-plex to show independent fillms along side the once closed multi-plex chain, rescured theater multi-plex at Trolley Square as an independent chain only to close and reopen with a new owner/management. The independent film distribution in Salt Lake City is stronger than ever. It seems that it's the multi-plexes that are struggling now with their ticket sales.

[Chris Knipp]

It seems that it's the multi-plexes that are struggling now with their ticket sales.


I guess the point is they're all losing some ground, if only by the 3.5% Fan of Kubrick cited. The trouble with the cineplexes is they're all the same, knocked out by the same big impersonal cookie cutter. Therefore they generate no loyalty. Even before I'd ever been there I'd heard from my father's film buff friend Kirk Bond about the legendary Museum of Modern Art Film showings, and I feel a kind of long distance loyalty to Film Forum in NYC for the special premieres I have seen there, and for what it represents in terms of encouraging serious filmgoing. It's my personal failing and laziness I guess that I am not much of a supporter of the Pacrfic Film Archive, though its once director Tom Luddy made a strong impression on me when he ran the F.W. Murnau Film Society on the UC BErkeley campus. Of course Pauline Kael's then husband ran a movie theater on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, but that was a bit before my time. . .

Maybe one reason small theaters fail is that their managers are not good businesspeople, just as a lot of art galleries fail because their owners are art lovers with a bit of money to blow rather than canny judges of the market? The cineplexes may be losing, but they can absorb their losses or their conglomerate owners can invest elsewhere, whereas the small theater owner is more vulnerable?

[Fan of Kubrick]

3.5% was Star Wars opening weekend. This memorial day weekend was down 5%. Yes, ticket sales are affecting the smaller theatres greatly, although it is not the largest factor. DVD sales are most definately an impact on those smaller theatres. As has been said, smaller theatres show mostly smaller indie and foreign films. As has also been said before, people don't like to drive for 45 minutes to see a small movie alone because not many mainstream filmgoers like the independant films. So what do these film buffs do? They buy those small films on DVD. It is a chain that can be followed to one of the smaller impacts of the dropping ticket sales.

One of us people (who's not exhausted and/or lazy) should look around for the actual numbers. I am getting my updated figures from IMDb.com as it comes out each day but I don't know the former years other than the fact that it has been falling since 2000. Then we could see how serious it really is. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Fan of Kubrick
DVD sales are most definately an impact on those smaller theatres. As has been said, smaller theatres show mostly smaller indie and foreign films. As has also been said before, people don't like to drive for 45 minutes to see a small movie alone because not many mainstream filmgoers like the independant films. So what do these film buffs do? They buy those small films on DVD.


I think you're jumping ahead a bit. That's not the case at this point, otherwise you'd see a lot more indie/foreign films available at your local chain store. Most companies don't even bother to release these kinds of films on DVD due to production costs. Actually, I wish people were buying them on DVD. Specific examples (of personal nature) don't properly apply in discussions like these, because they don't always relate to the big picture.

[oscar jubis]

Approximate # of US theatre admissions according to a chart that appeared in the NY Times.

2000- 1.40 Billion
2001- 1.45 Billion
2002- 1.70 Billion
2003- 1.55 Billion
2004- 1.50 Billion
2005- Estimated to continue declining, perhaps back to the 2000 figure.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno

For all the ticket sales drops, the Tower Theater survived, even once being a X-rated porn theater, and has expanded into a closed multi-plex to show independent fillms along side the once closed multi-plex chain, rescured theater multi-plex at Trolley Square as an independent chain only to close and reopen with a new owner/management. The independent film distribution in Salt Lake City is stronger than ever.

That's great. So, we should expect to hear a lot from you in discussions pertaining to foreign/indie films.

[arsaib4]

Laura Holson, of the NY Times wrote an article on this recently.

"Studios have made more on DVD sales and licensing products than on theatrical releases for some time. Now, technologies like TiVo and video-on-demand are keeping even more people at home, as are advanced home entertainment centers, with their high-definition television images on large flat screens and multichannel sound systems.

'It is much more chilling if there is a cultural shift in people staying away from movies,' said Paul Dergarabedian, president of the Exhibitor Relations Company, a box-office tracking firm. 'Quality is a fixable problem.'

But even if the quality of movies can be improved, Mr. Dergarabedian said, the fundamental problem is that 'today's audience is a much tougher crowd to excite. They have so many entertainment options and they have gotten used to getting everything on demand."'

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/business/media/27movie.html

[Fan of Kubrick]

I read that shortly after I posted this. You should read that article to see what the Times says about things.

[Chris Knipp]

I think we would all like to see progress both in the sophistication level of DVD's and in theatrical ticket sales. Fan of Kubrick was not referring to chain stores earlier but to film buffs in saying they might buy a DVD rather than drive 45 minutes. BUt if it's a rare film, arsaib is undoubtedly right: they can't buy it and they won't drive 45 minutes to see it either. Maybe DVD sales don't impact small theaters in particular but I should think everything does. They're the little guys, the vulnerable ones.
There's no reason why in an ideal world we can't have both a wide range of DVD's even at local chain stores, and better theater ticket sales, which putatively better quality movies would foster. BUt it's a far different world than in 1920, 1950, or 1970 with more specific kinds of competition all the time.

It's true that anecdotal evidence can mislead. A lot of this seems to be about facts that are either hypothetical or unknown. Even when statistics are cited, the chain of cause and effect here is very uncertain. Nonetheless certain trends show up in the Times article and elsewhere that are incontrovertable. But also I enjoy the sharing of personal information since this is a thread that is germane to individual moviegoing experiences at different periods and in different parts of the country. Newspaper articles such as the Times article, which shows the currency of this thread, rely on anecdotal evidence too; without it the statistics would be too dry.

I was amused by the quote, "Quality is a fixable problem" (Mr. Dergerabedian, of a "box office tracking firm", is speaking.) There you see the corporate ( or more properly corporate-tracking) mind at work. Who's going to "fix" it?

Another amusing quote: "'It's really just not as comfortable and fun as being at home,' he said. 'You can pause, go to the bathrooom, deal with a crying kid.'" Such fun.

[wpqx]

Most of what needs to be said has been said.

I'd just like to point out that I'm one of those lunatics with an uncountable number of DVD's. Nearly every movie I've seen I have on DVD or VHS, so the number is a lot. Let's just say 500 would be a very small estimate. Oh and very rarely do I watch anything more than once.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I'd just like to point out that I'm one of those lunatics with an uncountable number of DVD's. Nearly every movie I've seen I have on DVD or VHS, so the number is a lot. Let's just say 500 would be a very small estimate. Oh and very rarely do I watch anything more than once.

But I'm sure most of what you own is quality stuff. Not to mention the films that aren't readily available.


What may be closer than we think is the idea of releasing films theatrically and on DVD the same day. Studios are considering it as piracy continues to be a problem in many markets. (Surprisingly, currently the only company which employs this technique is an indie company called Film Movement (https://www.filmmovement.com/Default.aspx).) The window has already shrunk. What used to be about 6+ months is now down to merely 4 in most cases. And I wouldn't be surprised if this trend continues.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Johann, I'm glad to hear from you on this. I knew you'd have something amusing and pungent to say. As for the DVD collection prigs, I plead not guilty.
I'm sure Oscar has a really choice and valuable and rare collection, like the kid who bought the truly collectible stamps while I was just buying the big colorful African ones because they looked so pretty pasted in my stamp book.

Guilty!
But I've been to the movie theatre exactly 75 times during the first five months of 2005. How can I afford it? Basically, I dress like a bum, never eat out, plan to drive my '99 Chevy Prizm for many years, and I don't go to clubs anymore. I do collect dvds although I rent if I don't think I'll want to watch the film at least twice. Most of the region 1 discs I buy are used. But most of the ones I buy are foreign-made dvds of films not "coming to a theatre near me". I do plan to sell about 100 of them so that I can afford to buy new ones. I used to give them to my video store owner and friend Isaac but he passed away. A new development: exchanging discs with a guy from New Zealand who has transfered his amazing vhs and dvd collection to dvd-r format. I just received "clones" of the Japanese dvd of Antonioni's The Passenger, and rare films by Straub/Huillet and Joao Cesar Monteiro.

[wpqx]

envious of those films, particularly the Passenger, but who knows the day may come.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I'm going to agree with Arsaib4 on this one. DVD and theatrical release on the same day not only seem to be coming, but also a good solution. Although, this will drop sales steeply, the revenue from both together will be tremendous. And if the movie is meant to be seen on the big screen. Release it only for the big screen for a few weeks, then throw the DVD out there. I didn't know that a company already did that.

I also agree with wpqx. Everything that needed to be said has been said. I'm gonna shut up now unless something interesting comes along.

[tabuno]

arsaib4: "That's great. So, we should expect to hear a lot from you in discussions pertaining to foreign/indie films."

tabuno: A very nice attempt to pull me into alternative movie discussions. Alas, married and actually living about 30 minutes from the action which in my thick of the woods is a long time. My spouse isn't a fan of any of the movies that you would be interested in discussing. I'm one of those hard working white collar workers who must find relaxation and entertainment with those mainstream, mindless mass-produced theatrical releases. The foreign/indie films require an amount of sustained, quality attention and mind-power that I'm not sure I have enough in reserve to actually tackle such substantative movie fare. Try getting my wife to "waste" her time and our money. I think it will be a little while before I will be found on more than a few of these threads.

arsaib4: "otherwise you'd see a lot more indie/foreign films available at your local chain store."

tabuno: While I can vouch for other people, I am one of those people that Fan of Kubrick is talking about. I usually end up seeing the indie/foreign films on DVD months after they have come out, many times purchased at a sale price from Blockbuster.

[tabuno]

The word "quality" has been raised recently on this thread, but without definition as if everyone understand what one means by quality film. I for one haven't pinned the term down, but I remain an optimist in regards to qualitative improvements. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've perceived a gradual qualitative improvement in the general, mass-produced, studio film productions of the general genre films that have come out over the past few years. It is because the competition has been tough and the American audience demands something new, exciting, and novel that we've begun to see gradual positive changes in the classic romantic comedies, comedies in general, and even reaching into the television series such as Buffy, Charmed, Angel and even series I haven't seen directed towards teenagers and young adults. There is now a greater exploration between comedy and drama in movies now, a difficult directorial, screenplay, acting accomplishment - even Ally McBeal brought new qualitative media awareness. Mean Girls representative the trend towards somewhat more intelligent, meaningful theatrical programming, selection. If the mass audience continues to respond to these gradual efforts towards qualitative growth then there remains the possibility that the indie/foreign films will still have some audience to draw upon in the future. Recent attempts as the musical - Moulin Rouge, Chicago and to a lesser extent the western - Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves, war movies Saving Private Ryan, sci fi with The Truman Show, mystery with LA Confidential, even horror with The Blair Witch Project, drama with Traffic and American Beauty, Comedy with The Full Monty - I think that the American public at their core "can" respond to quality. This particular public has several hundred years to catch up to their older European brothers, and probably a thousand to their Asian brothers/sisters.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno
The word "quality" has been raised recently on this thread, but without definition as if everyone understand what one means by quality film. I for one haven't pinned the term down.

I can't speak for others, but my usage was in comments relating to wpqx's library, and since we have a similar taste in films, I'm sure he understood.

I don't think one necessarily needs to pin the term down for its universal connotations. Our subjective tastes can eventually manifest themselves to a point where we're able to define the term for ourselves.

"...but I remain an optimist in regards to qualitative improvements. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've perceived a gradual qualitative improvement in the general, mass-produced, studio film productions of the general genre films that have come out over the past few years.

Yes, I believe you have mentioned this before. And I disagreed with your statements in that thread. It seems like you assumed that the term "quality" was in some way used to attack American cinema, and thus you felt the need to defend films like "Mean Girls" and "Chicago." I don't like circling around issues so no, I don't think much of those films, but like most years, some worthy American films have come out during Fall and Spring like Crash (which you also like), Assault on Precinct 13 etc. And once again, they've been surrounded by tons of other releases that I feel don't even deserve a mention.

I think that the American public at their core "can" respond to quality.

I think so too, although, it seems like we've been gradually beaten down into submission to blindly accept what is usually put forth in front of us. I hope other avenues eventually become available to our mainstream audiences, so they can have a better scope on things.

[tabuno]

arsaib4: "Yes, I believe you have mentioned this before. And I disagreed with your statements in that thread. It seems like you assumed that the term "quality" was in some way used to attack American cinema, and thus you felt the need to defend films like "Mean Girls" and "Chicago." I don't like circling around issues so no, I don't think much of those films, but like most years, some worthy American films have come out during Fall and Spring like Crash (which you also like), Assault on Precinct 13 etc. And once again, they've been surrounded by tons of other releases that I feel don't even deserve a mention."

tabuno: Your comments still don't invalidate nor detract from my original statement about the qualitative improvement of the American cinema in various genres. It is quite valid to state you don't think much about "Mean Girls" and "Chicago" because with my argument you don't necessarily think much about these films to still have the idea that the qualitative improvement of American cinema be correct. You seems to be looking at my statement in terms of black and white and using a more rigid standard of quality than I am. The progressive qualitative improvements don't with the belief that such movies as I deem as improvements are necessarily going to meet the criteria of quality as is being used here. What I am comparing these movies to are others from the same industry, media-inspired, mass-audience, Hollywood studio production. I think it would be possible to point to the better integration of comedy and drama in movies now than in earlier works - raising the bar of the comedy genre, suggesting and quietly introducing more substantive issues into these movies. I see a creeping emphasis on darker themes and less black and white thinking in the popular movies. I haven't seen much support, rather derision of American popular movies and what I'm saying is that they are moving, however, slowly upwards towards qualitatively better standards, they are having to.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno
Your comments still don't invalidate nor detract from my original statement about the qualitative improvement of the American cinema in various genres.

They weren't intended to invalidate your statement outright. They were presenting a different POV. It's obvious that you aren't willing to comprehend the other side of the argument, something you did in the other thread.

It is quite valid to state you don't think much about "Mean Girls" and "Chicago" because with my argument you don't necessarily think much about these films to still have the idea that the qualitative improvement of American cinema be correct.

Not quite. I could've mentioned "tons of releases" that would support my argument against any qualitative improvement of American cinema but I don't like repeating myself.

[Chris Knipp]

Maybe you can start a new thread on that issue: Is American cinema improving or deteriorating? To me it seems like there is a lot of fare available, but whether it is any good is another question.

[Chris Knipp]

David Denby this week in a double issue (June 13 and 20) of The New Yorker wrote a double review (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/050613crci_cinema) of Batman Begins and Mr. and Mrs. Smith and draws conclusions about film attendence and what he views as unwise and damaging Hollywood production choices. I'll quote it because The New Yorker doesn't always make its movie reviews available online for long:


(David Denby writes in The New Yorker:)
Both of these digital spectacles are aimed at twelve- to twenty-four-year-old males—the age and gender group that is most likely to turn out for a movie in the first weekend or two of its run. (Movie advertising and DVD promotion are tied to the size of the opening-weekend box-office.) Yet, for the third year in a row, audiences have been increasingly staying away from the theatres, while DVD—and video game—sales have been steadily rising. The movie business is hardly going bust, but, as domestic theatre attendance has fallen, it has become clear that the strategy of tailoring movies for teen-age boys can create a trap for moviemakers. A good part of this audience has never known the satisfactions of story and characterization and emotional involvement. How do you keep bringing these kids in? By continually upping the ante with greater and greater digital thrills. If you can’t do that, they’ll wait for the DVD—or skip the movie altogether.

The studios could, of course, try to broaden the summer theatre audience—or at least make more films that appeal to men and women over forty, a group that still goes out to see Hollywood movies, especially in the autumn, pre-Oscar season. Now, however, directors like Nolan and Liman, whipping their films into a meaningless frenzy, have got themselves caught in the trap. “Batman Begins” and “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” may appeal to the target audience, but, for the over-twenty-fours, these movies are so overdone and underfelt that they’re hell to sit through. The directors have trashed their own work in pursuit of a dwindling theatre audience.

[Johann]

Denby is evil.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp quoting David Denby: "Both of these digital spectacles are aimed at twelve- to twenty-four-year-old males—the age and gender group that is most likely to turn out for a movie in the first weekend or two of its run...The movie business is hardly going bust, but, as domestic theatre attendance has fallen, it has become clear that the strategy of tailoring movies for teen-age boys can create a trap for moviemakers. A good part of this audience has never known the satisfactions of story and characterization and emotional involvement. How do you keep bringing these kids in? By continually upping the ante with greater and greater digital thrills...The studios could, of course, try to broaden the summer theatre audience—or at least make more films that appeal to men and women over forty, a group that still goes out to see Hollywood movies, especially in the autumn, pre-Oscar season. Now, however, directors like Nolan and Liman, whipping their films into a meaningless frenzy, have got themselves caught in the trap. “Batman Begins” and “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” may appeal to the target audience, but, for the over-twenty-fours, these movies are so overdone and underfelt that they’re hell to sit through. The directors have trashed their own work in pursuit of a dwindling theatre audience."

tabuno: According to boxofficeguru.com the primary audience that came out to Mr. & Mrs. Smith that grossed $50.3 million were female 56% and over 25 and older 57% a target group that prefers "the satisfactions of story and characterization and emotional involvement" and is known for its stable and persistant boxoffice turnout over time contrary to David Denby's statements. It looks like he was totally wrong on this one!!! The actual boxoffice results tends to support the likelihood that Mr. & Mrs. Smith contains characterization and emotional involvement if one actually watches Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and story satisfaction (examine the plotline) not action in this movie. Here we have a big boxoffice theatrical film that has content supporting that quality programming does exist this year along with bringining in the bucks!

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by tabuno
According to boxofficeguru.com the primary audience that came out to Mr. & Mrs. Smith that grossed $50.3 million were female 56% and over 25 and older 57% a target group that prefers "the satisfactions of story and characterization and emotional involvement"

Actually, the explication provided by "the guru" for the high percentage of females and over-25s is the exposure via tabloids about the affair between the leads. I have no opinion since I haven't watched it. But the premise of the movie is so silly and what's on the trailer so repugnant and over-the-top that I will pass on it.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't really mean to spur a debate on the virtues of these two movies, which nobody seems yet to have seen anyway. And I also didn't quote Denby because I endorse what he says, only because it is germane to the discussion of theater ticket sales and movie marketing. If you read all of Denby's piece you'll find he refers to Mr. and Mrs. Smith as "this taboid-juiced project." It sounds like it tries to please everybody, kids and over-25 women too.

[Johann]

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of those movies I really hate.
I haven't seen it nor do I want to.
The trailer is all you need to see. Really.

You got two of the biggest egomaniacs in the history of cinema in an action movie that sells itself as Bond-cum-Bonnie & Clyde-cum-Romancing The Stone.

No thanks. Jolie and Pitt are 2 of the most self-absorbed actors ever, and they are allowed to play. And they expect me to PAY. Forget it hombre. Craptack to the third power. To be fair, Pitt can act when he wants to and Jolie is incredibly hot in Alexander.




Batman Begins is a whole other story. I just read Ebert's review. His reaction seems very honest and pure, and I suspect I'll be seeing Nolan's movie many times.

Criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot. I must strike fear into their hearts...

[tabuno]

The trailer of Mr. & Mrs. Smith does a disservice to the movie. All it attempts to promote is action and violence. The actual movie, for those that go see it, is a romantic comedy that is about marriage and relationships that is enhanced by the unusual premise of the marriage of two assassins, allowing the movie to go places with marriage that ordinary movies couldn't even touch. This movie a lot more about the fun dialogue and excellent performances of innuendo about the issues that arise in being married. I very nice vehicle to bring up this topic in an entertaining way.