So we hear it from Hollywood everyday now:
“This movie made less than expected”,“That movie didn’t draw them in like anticipated”,“nobody’s going to the movies anymore”.
I’ve heard all the excuses, some of which I buy into, others which are lame excuses.
The Lame:
The audiences at theatres have gotten more annoying.
Yes, I hate people talking throughout movies as much as the next person. But is it worse than it used to be? I don’t think so. People have always been rude and noisy in theatres. Ain’t nothing new.
The movies have gotten too expensive.
Sure, it’s $8. Sure a coke and popcorn are way overpriced. But when actually has movie coke and popcorn been cheap? At $8 a movie is still pretty damn cheap compared to other forms of entertainment out there. Concerts $15+, plays and musicals $50+, professional sporting event $20+. At $8 to see a multi-million dollar production it’s still a good deal. People have the money.
The movies nowdays are crap.
They’re still hit and miss like they’ve always been. The crap, the mediocre, the acceptable, the good, the occasional gem. As if every movie in the 80’s was a hit.
And the two reasons I buy into (IMHO)
The decline in price and increase in quality of home theatre.
How did we used to watch movies at home? On our 27" 4:3 set with mono or stereo sound with a vcr tape. Not very theatre like.
Nowdays tv’s are huge and cheap, everyone has crystal clear dvd players, the tv’s are widescreen, and everyone’s hooked up with surround sound. And cheaply too. Bigscreens are a little over a grand and you can buy a home theatre in a box from Costco. Why go to a theatre when you have one at home.
(And this is where Hollywood shots itself in the foot) The turnaround time of theatre release date to DVD release date.
How often have you heard someone say “I’m not going to see it, I’ll just wait for the DVD”. Pretty easy to say when the average turnaround is about 3-5 months.
Nobody skipped a hit movie back when once it disappeared from the theatres you weren’t going to see it for a couple years. Now, who cares. V for Vendetta? August on DVD. MI:3? You can have it in October. Pretty much any summer blockbuster can be yours to own or rent by Xmas. So why go to the movies when theres no urgency?
So, I’ve said my piece. It’s all my opinion but pretty much sums up why I don’t go to theatres like I used to.
Seems to me that if movies were so unprofitable, there would be less of them and less stars to film them and less awards to devote to them and less money to pay actors to be in them.
Since the celebrity list just seems to grow (or at least not diminish), I’m going to call bullshit on this one.
Movies are still profitable and people still go to see them and box office sales are still being broken.
I’ll see you release date for home and raise you its released at all.
Before the advent of the VCR, you really had to see it in the theatre or wait years for a TV release. Which would be edited, chopped into peices and perhaps preempted by the football game. So if you wanted to see Rocky or Star Wars or Jaws - you pretty much had to see it in the theatre - or have incredible patience. And then there was no guarentee it would show up on TV - the movie might be held for re-release.
Movie companies release it on DVD so fast because it lets them maximize all those dollars they put into marketing. They don’t want you to forget about V for Vendetta before you see the DVD at Target (did I want to see that?). Since they still make money hand over fist on DVD sales, they are really only shooting the theatre owner in the foot.
But I don’t buy the movie is too expensive is crap. The movie is too expensive - when I can get it from Netflix six months later. I take the family to the movies and its $50 - or I wait six months and get it for part of my $21 Netflix fees - along with six or seven other movies that month (and we don’t churn ours like others) for a per movie cost of $3. I go to few concerts, see few musicals, and go to few sporting events - its an occational treat. A movie is suppose to be a regular treat (i.e. Saturday matinees for a nickle like my Dad used to do).
#1 - Cell phones. Audiences are far more annoying now than they were 20 years ago.
#2 - For the cost of going to the movies, I can wait a few months and BUY the DVD. Still less than the theater, and I get to pause it, rewind, eat good food during, and the only yammering I have to endure is the wife’s.
For me, it’s the cost. I’ll spring for the close to 10 bucks for a movie with the kind of special effects that demand the great big screen in a dark room. The rest – I can wait til it’s out on cable. So, yeah, I’ll probably go see Superman and Pirates of the Carib in the theater, but can’t think of anything else out soon that I can’t enjoy more at home.
We don’t. We spent ours on a big-screen TV, comfy couch and recliner, and Netflix subscription.
Now the serious answer. I think it is too expensive when you take all of your points into consideration. For the price that it costs my husband and I to get into a movie, get popcorn, etc., we can rent a movie or even two, order a pizza, buy a whole sack of popcorn to pop at home, plus a two-liter of soda. Then, we can watch it uninterrupted if we so choose (or interrupt it if we so choose to use the bathroom, etc.) in the comfort of our own home without others talking rudely around us or having their cell phones go off. I’m not going to pay $16 for tickets plus the cost of food to do something I don’t enjoy doing all that much. I’d rather do it at home.
Also, at least on my cable, we now have HBO on demand, Cinemax on demand, Starz on demand, etc. With this service, we can start a movie whenever we want, like pay per view, except we pay for it in the price of our regular cable subscription. Not only is that cutting down on our trips to the theater, it’s cutting down on our movie rentals.
I like to go to movies, but to be honest, I only go when I think it is something I have to see on “the big screen”. A silly comedy or an artful drama - well, unless it is something I really can’t wait to see, I usually wait until it comes out on DVD or even until it appears on HBO.
I think movie theaters have gotten much better. Sound is so good that unless you are sitting directly next to some jerk talking, I never hear anyone in the audience. Most of the theaters here have comfortable stadium seating, are clean and at least in Las Vegas, half price tickets if you go before 6:00 PM.
I think The DaVinci Code will do quite well, and I would be surprised if Superman doesn’t sell tickets faster than a speeding bullet. But when you also have crap like RV, well - even half price is too much to pay for a movie like that.
Another factor I haven’t seen brought up yet is the endless pre-show advertising. I last went to the movies two months ago, and was bombarded by several commercials, then trailer after trailer. The feature finally started almost 30 minutes after the advertised starting time. On most DVDs, I can skip through all of this and just start the movie, so why sit through it?
A few year back I would see about 5 movies a week! In a theater! Sometimes on a Saturday I would go to the theater with a friend when it opened up and stay until 8 or 9 PM… catching 3 movies. :rolleyes:
But then something happened. I got married and didn’t have the free time that I used to have. I still go to the occasional movie with my wife, but it’s now down to about once per month. I always sneak food in so I don’t have to pay $5 for a small bag of popcorn and a soda. I still see lots of movies… thanks to Netflix and my new plasma TV with surround sound.
What bothers me most about going to a movie in a theater is:
Too many ads and trailers…
The cost keeps going up and up…
Fighting the crowds on a Friday or Saturday night…
Noisy patrons (and my poor hearing)
Taking a chance on a movie that may be a complete waste of time and money
Just thought of something else: remakes. In the past few years, we’ve been bombarded with remakes of movies, or movies based on TV shows. Recent ones I can think of are “Dukes of Hazzard,” “King Kong,” “Charlie & the Chocolate Factory,” and “War of the Worlds.” This summer they’re coming out with “Poseidon.” Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but when I hear they’re doing yet another remake/TV show-based movie, I tend to roll my eyes and wonder if people never have original ideas anymore.
I don’t think the shit-ass quality of the movies can be underrated. Sure, there are some great movies out there, but the ones that take up the most space at the multi-plexes are the big-budget, crap special effects movies (and the endless sequels to same) and crap-ass Rich Schneider "comedies. Because the studios strong arm theater chains into devoting screens to the latest, lowest common denominator, commercial garbage, the minority of creative, intelligent and interesting films are shunted to independents or gone after a week. Less and less effort goes into writing and character development and the focus on name stars miming “action” moves in front of a blue screen or Adam Sandler farting in some guy’s face.
New films are also test marketed to death and tailored to get good reactions from morons off the street who want predictability, happy endings and no requirement to think. It’s true that Hollywood has always churned out crap but there used to be a better quality of crap. Grindhouse movies, women’s prison movies, kung fu flicks, blaxploitation films, etc. all were entertaing at least on a base level. Even the SFX blockbusters of yore had better writing and characters. Compare the original Poseidon Adventure to waste of potential guitar picks currently cluttering up malls all over the country. 70’s disaster films may have been schlock but at least they tried to be good schlock. Now it’s just about packaging something to try to get a big opening weekend.
I think that people could live with some of the other issues if they really felt like they had a chance of seeing a really good movie, but the expectations have sunk to the point where we’re just hoping Superman doesn’t suck too bad.
I go to the theater whenever I get a chance, which isn’t very often. I usually get a slice before the movie and skip the popcorn, which makes the cost bearable. I also go at odd times, so audience shennanigans is never an issue.
The theater experience still beats my home theater hands down, and I think I have a pretty nice home theater (projector, all the sound I could possibly want). The problem is that it’s in my home and I’m easily distracted with the little ones running around and whatnot. I still do 95% of my viewing with it, though. With the movie house, the movie’s what you’re there for. No distractions, nice little break from the world. It’s worth the ‘premium’, which is $10.75 in NYC these days.
I used to go to the movies constantly. At least weekly, and often more than that. I’m the type of person who is perfectly happy to see a favorite movie many times, and I would often go to my favorite movies multiple times in the theater. I went to the theater fewer than 10 times last year, and I haven’t yet gone this year (but I probably will once or twice this summer). The above two factors have certainly been part of that decision. I used to put up with people talking in the theater… but now I don’t have to. I used to spend money on movie tickets every week, but now I spent a big chunk on a projector and a surround sound system, and I can watch movies cheaply at home.
None of the trends, by itself, would have weaned me from theater-going, but all together, they make it more and more likely that I’ll stay home.
Same for me. Movies like Star Wars and Batman are made originally to be campy. They are entertaining because they make fun of themselves. And then the sequels take themselves seriously and appear to directed by 12 year olds.
The movies I remember most have the simplest backdrops with good scripts. Movies like “the Spitfire Grill” or “With Honors”. Even escapism movies like “Groundhog Day” or “K-Pax” can be good if directed right. I don’t expect to see too many actors like Robert Duvall so to me the script is everything. If a movie requires special effects then the director should understand what the limitations are. Jurassic Park was very well done because they kept it to a minimum. Many of the scenes were flashes of dinosaurs. Instead of trying to make the motions look real the viewer fills in the blanks from snippets shown.
Basically, the theaters don’t offer a worthwhile experience for the money they ask. It’s not up to me to demonstrate conclusively why I shouldn’t go; it’s up to them to convince me why I should. And they don’t.
There are no theaters in my immediate neighborhood, so I have to hop on a train to go to one. When I get there, I have to pay 1800yen (about US$15) for one ticket, and I have to arrange my viewing around their schedule. Inside, it’s quiet and comfortable. The snacks aren’t all that expensive, but the selection is a bit limited.
With video, otoh, there’s a rather large shop very close to my apartment, where I can rent movies for an entire week for 400yen. They’re open until 2am and have a convenient drop box where I can return movies on my way to work. I can watch the movie whenever I want, pause when I need to go to the bathroom, and eat and drink whatever I want. My sofa is also more comfortable than a theater seat.
The theater wins on screen size and quiet, but video wins big on price, convenience and refreshment stand selection. Overall, there’s not much going for theaters besides the occasional “let’s go out” impulse.
And to add to the ‘crap movie’ complaints, I went with my wife and a friend a while back to see the re-release of E.T. (man, that didn’t age well). I was struck by the fact that, of the eight screens at the theater, seven were showing sequels, remakes, re-releases or feature-length versions of current TV shows. What was the one result of Hollywood trying to produce something original?
I love movies and watching movies in the theatre. It’s the audience that’s keeping me away lately. People talk in movies all the time. Not just little whispered comments, but flat out conversations. It drives me absolutely insane to pay so much for a movie to have it ruined by people who talk. If you talk during a movie, you are wrong and should be ashamed. If you want to talk so damn badly, rent a movie and sit home on the couch.
The movies are just too damned expensive for anything less than a truly Epic film nowadays, IMO.
Tickets here are AUD$15, popcorn and coke another $10, so for 2 people to go the movies you’re looking at AUD$50 for two hours entertainment. $50 is a lot of money, especially to those of us who don’t earn squillions.
That and you’ve got huge crowds of other people (invariably teeny-boppers), and the general crapness of movies in general these days…
Let’s put it another way: Computer Games are better entertainment, IMO.
Ha! Maybe where you live. It’s pushing $10 here, and in New York City it’s crossed that barrier.
It’s not about the raw cost, it’s about the enjoyment I get in comparison to the amount of money I spend. I had way more fun paying $80 to see the Allman Brothers this winter - and that was $80 per show for several shows - than paying $10 for Fun with Dick and Jane once. (Seeing the movie multiple times would have only made it worse.) Let’s estimate that I paid 30 times as much money to see the band as I did to watch that movie. I had way more than 30 times as much fun at the shows, so even proportional to the cost, the concerts were an excellent investment.
[quote]
At $8 to see a multi-million dollar production it’s still a good deal.
It’s not a good deal just because it’s cheap. You can spend $100 on something worthwhile, and you can waste $5 on something that isn’t. And I don’t care how much money went into the product either. I care about how good it is. They can get great production values on special effects, but if the movie bores me, I won’t care.
That’s totally true. But a movie doesn’t have to be amazing to be worthwhile. A passable movie could be any one of a lot of things - interesting, novel, cute, surprising, funny, blah blah blah. How many new and interesting movies are being made right now? I think the number is low. I would rather watch an intriguing failure of a movie [like The Ladykillers] than a movie that aims for down-the-middle dullness and achieves it [America’s Sweethearts]. You may say this is a lame reason, but I think it’s true that there are some trends in the movie business that are turning people off. One trend is that, because your average movie is now so expense, studios are playing it safer and safer. They don’t want to gamble tons of money on something they aren’t even sure people will like, so they want to make movies with built-in audiences, and the low expectations are boring. We’re seeing more remakes, biopics, movie versions of old TV shows and adaptations of comics and things. There’s nothing new under the sun, but movies lately are suggesting there isn’t even that much under the sun. Why do I need to pay $10 a ticket to see stuff I’ve already seen? There’s no point.
They haven’t shot themselves in the foot; this has been a big gain for them. The movie studios are now making most of their money from DVDs; I have seen a bunch of authors say that the theatrical run is now basically an ad for the DVD and the on-demand cable orders. The studios don’t care if it hurts the movie theaters. That isn’t their problem.
