It’s a very carefully managed racket that still seems to be working. But there are rumblings, so it may not do so forever.
Nothing wrong with movies, they should continue forever and ever. It’s the absurd economics that keeps Hollywood* circulating that needs to be stripped out and rebooted.
*Only Hollywood. All other countries struggle to find money to make their films
Just because you think the truth is tiresome doesn’t make it any less true.
As others have said, movies continue to get made because they generally make a profit. When movies stop making a profit, people will stop making them.
My SO occasionally likes to go see a movie. I STFU and enjoy the film.
(Ha! Bet you didn’t think I’d have an answer, did you?)
Is this directed to me? Be a special snowflake all you want. If you want to start a thread saying, “hey, I don’t get why there are sports. Ballet has everything sports has but is better because of x, y, and z,” go for it. If you can get people to participate, you may have a interesting conversation about the value people find in sports. You may learn something.
You’re welcome to. No one’s stopping you. If you have much to add about why, you could even have an interesting discussion about it. Here. In this thread.
Just because you think something is the truth don’t make it so.
People like them?
Granted, there are series like Game of Thrones or Black Sails that have near movie quality production values. But people don’t always want to or have time to get engrossed in 10 to 22 episodes of an entire season.
Thank you for that. Also, I didn’t say there should be no movies, and I didn’t tell anyone not to go to them, or that they are stupid if they do. I just ASKED for an explanation of why the IMO better product gets paid so much less. It just doesn’t seem like an economically viable situation.
Beats me why I’m getting so much hostility. And I do thank the many who have answered my question with some thought.
Aren’t there still a whole lot of people who can’t afford or won’t get cable or buy a dvd player out of technical inertia but will once or twice a year go to a theater?
I think cultural inertia, and the fact that movies fill a certain social “niche”, has a lot to do with it. “Dinner and a movie” is the proto-typical first date for a reason, after all.
Movies are useful since they’re a sort of social activity, but they don’t actually require a lot of socializing with the person you’re with. Similarly, if you want to get out of the house, but there’s bad weather or you just don’t feel up to doing anything particularly energetic, movies are a pretty good default activity.
So they serve a purpose beyond just their pure (entertainment value)/dollar. As such, people are willing to shell out 12 bucks a pop, even though they could get probably watch something just as interesting at home for much less money.
And of course, for movies that are big special-effect filled blockbusters, the big screen and large production values do add a lot. But its pretty hard to argue that watching Lliam Neeson growel at the camera, or Adam Sandler make jokes about bodily functions is any more compelling when they’re on a big screen.
Why would I make threads like that? I already know people find sports and TV and ballet and whatnot enjoyable and find value in spending their time with such interests. And that’s perfectly fine. I don’t start threads about things I’m not into just to bash those things. If I wanted to learn more details about why someone likes something I’d use the Subject Line “Why do you like ____?” which would be a better way to start a conversation about the merits of whateveritis than asking why whateveritis still exists.
Talking about movies I like and why I like movies in a thread that’s already predisposed to movie/theater bashing? No. I saw 302 movies in the theater in 2013, (which is actually down from the previous 3 years). I enjoyed the majority of them on one level or another because I don’t go see movies I don’t think I’ll like. I just made my schedule for the month-long European Union Film Festival where I’ll be seeing 63 of the 64 films. I expect to like or at least find some value in most of them because of the story, the directing, the acting, the setting. The OP would not find any of that the least bit interesting. I saw a fantastic documentary today called Tim’s Vermeer about an inventor who discovered how Vermeer most likely got his paintings to look they way they did using technology of the time (mirrors!). The OP would not find discussion about that the least bit interesting. Why bother?
It’s worth bearing in mind that outside the US (and possibly Canada), most people don’t have Pay TV.
I’m assuming the OP is referring exclusively to Hollywood films, because the question is going to have different answers in different places - vast numbers of people in India don’t have televisions, so a trip to the movies is a major source of entertainment (and, I’m told, one of the reasons Bollywood produces so many “masala” films with a mixture of elements in them - there has to be something for almost literally everyone in there).
For me, going to the movies is an event - it requires some planning and there’s a (often mild) sense of occasion. Lots of people feel the same way, which is why there’s still a film industry and probably will be for as long as human civilisation is presenting stories in an audio-visual medium.
Why does rock exist when we have hip-hop? Why does sculpture exist when we have painting? Movies and TV shows are different art forms, with different merits. Sometimes I want to see a long, episodic story unfolding across 22 hours, and sometimes I want to see something more self-contained. Both are perfectly legitimate options.
The big screen *by itself *may not make a Liam Neeson or Adam Sandler movie more compelling, but watching one of their movies on a big screen with a large, appreciative audience certainly does. Lots of movies work best as communal events. Comedies seem funnier when a whole theater erupts in laughter; tragedies seem sadder when someone starts to cry. One of my best moviegoing experiences was seeing “The Hangover” in a packed theater in Times Square. It was hilarious. If I saw that movie sitting at home alone late one night I probably would have chuckled, may even have laughed out loud, but it would not have been remotely the same experience.
Granted, you can sometimes get the same effect at home if you have a big screen and you throw a movie night and a bunch of friends come over and you have enough seats that everyone can watch comfortably. That can be great. But that also takes planning, and it’s prone to interruptions that ruin the effect - “Pause it for a few minutes while I go to the bathroom,” “Let’s put something else in, this is boring,” “The pizza’s here, let’s watch the rest later,” etc.
Look at what you are comparing - big visuals with works requiring more … subtlety - timing and tone and expression and dialog. Big and small screens are diverging - one is all visual and flash and color and splendor and the other more subtle.
Why should people get paid so much more for the product you do not prefer? I may be mistaken, by I think foreign releases - explosions, car chases, and other visual extravagances don’t require translation.
I do not own a big screen TV. I do not own a HDTV or a Blu-Ray player. I subscribe to basic cable. Television is not important to me and I cannot see myself investing the time needed to appreciate the more involved TV shows. I am an entertainment industry Luddite. I am not alone.
I can go to a movie with my Wife a couple of times a month, if there is anything that catches our interest.
Right, TV and movies are similar have major differences. Sometimes you want to make the time commitment to something, sometimes you just want to have one evening’s entertainment. I’ve never seen Deadwood, but I bought the DVD box set last year, but I’ve never gotten around to watching it, since it’s many hours of show. If it was just a 2 hour movie, I’d probably have watched it by now.
Right, the big action movies are successful everywhere. The prestige TV dramas might travel as well, but not nearly as big of an audience everywhere, and definitely not making as much money.
Speaking of audiences though, look at the audiences for Taken compared to Homeland and Justified. Taken made $145 million in the US, Taken 2 made $139 million in the US. Dividing by the average ticket costs per year ($7.50 in 2009, $7.96 in 2012) that means that around 19 million people in the US went to see Taken, and around 17 million people went to Taken 2. While Homeland had 2.4 million viewers for its third season finale, and Justified had 3.82 million people for its “live +7” viewers for its fourth season finale.
There is a lot of very high quality entertainment on TV these days. But it’s still niche entertainment, seen by a fairly small percentage of the population. It just seems like they have bigger audiences, since the audience that does watch Homeland and Justified and the other prestige dramas are the same people that are online and talking about the shows and writing articles about them.
A big honkin deal … Hmmm …
There are so many other reasons to avoid going to movies.
. The sound level is almost always way too loud or way too low and you have no control over the sound level.
. There are almost always some inconsiderate jerks who disrupt the experience by talking, snorting, smoking, getting up and sitting down several times during the show.
. There are many, many commercials forced on you. One of the big complaints about TV used to be all the commercials and movies were said to be so much better because they are commercial free. Well, who knew?
. Extra costs like parking, baby sitting, food sold by the theatre. Just try to bring your own food into a movie. The ushers react with horror as if there is something wrong with anyone who doesn’t want their awful popcorn and soda.
There are many other reasons. But I just hate going to the movies so much that I can’t force myself to list them all.
Even though network TV and the pay cable stations are getting better and better with the quality of their programming they’re still very restricted by their budgets and simply can’t do some of the things movies can do with their enormous budgets.
As much as I love Game of Thrones they’re still very restricted as to what they can show and have to work the stroy around it. They simply don’t have the budget to put massive battles on screen so we are often limited to more intimate off the battlefield stuff. Where something like the LOTR movies or Braveheart can afford to create epic set pieces.
Great storytelling and characters are great and the networks are embracing that. But sometime you want a little spectale to go along with it.
Inertia has nothing to do with it. People like them and film producers can make tons of cash producing them. You need to rid yourself of this notion that producers of movies like taken are trying to produce art. It’s a business and a darn good one:
As long as profits are potentially that high, movies will continue.