Box Office Slump Hurts Hollywood Or Theater Owners?

Forums: Movies
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The rise of Pay-Per-View, cable movie channels (both now in Hi Def), DVD rentals and sales -- this is even more of a reason why theater owners are getting the brut of the slump in box office. DVD sales and rental now counts for over 50% of the profits on a film. Ever since the break-up of Lowe's Theaters in the 50's, owned by MGM, it seems Hollywood was always looking new ways to offer their products other than the movie theater. First it was broadcasting on the big three TV networks not that long after a movie left a theater. Then cable and VHS, then DVD and Pay-Per-View. One can now watch a movie on their computer and even download it -- many of the young male viewers (a large portion of moviegoers) that once went out to the movies are now watching them at home. All these factors, including the price of admission and a trip to the snack bar have finally began effecting figures at the cineplex. But when a film does, say, only $60M at the box office, it does another, on average, $60M in all the after bookings, perhaps even more. Even if the film cost was $40M, it's made money. I believe the film industry has to start looking at more small independent films to get the adults out to the cinema on a date night, single or married. The big CGI fueled epics need to have more attention paid to story and script. There's no shortage of some of our best actors to star in these films. This year, I think "Mission Impossible III" is set-up for box office failure -- the popcorn movie needs a revamping.

Hollywood is experienceing a competition and it won't be long before it has to be referred to as "the movie industry," with a huge new studio constructed in NYC and in Canada.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 992 • Replies: 18

No top replies

Quote:

I believe the film industry has to start looking at more small independent films to get the adults out to the cinema on a date night, single or married.

LW- Could this be why the Oscars went to the films that it did this year? Are we beginning to see the beginning of a trend? The baby boomers are getting older, and they are, for the most part, not interested in the films tnat Hollywood turned out for the teen and young twenty crowd.

Maybe the only way to keep the movie theatre business solvent is to bring out films that more mature, more selective audiences will go out to see.

0 Replies

It does partly account for the Oscar viewing audience being down this year. The younger viewers didn't switch it on. Wouldn't the studios realize as much money with more serious small films without huge budgets and fewer, and better thought out, popcorn epics?

0 Replies

ticket stub marking for now, Mr. Wizard.

0 Replies

They had better watch it. India is beginning to turn out the kinds of cheap popcorn munchers that used to be the bread and butter of Hollywood. My friend the documentary producer loves them, and she is pretty good a spotting trends.

0 Replies

I am dissapointed in Ebert and Roeper that although they review independent films with consistancy, they do not review foreign films. It makes them seem like they are pandering to the mainstream. I considered, for instance, that although "Crash" was an independent film, it was now considered very mainstream, being a carbon copy of several films before it.

0 Replies

Mr. Wizard, I didn't know that Crash was a carbon copy; however, I did note that Ford is going to remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, and that, I think, is one of the reasons that Hollywood is losing touch. To me, the remakes are never as good as the original.

0 Replies

"Crash" is in the same format of much better movies, "Magnolia," "Short Cuts" and "Grand Canyon."

Ford isn't remaking "Raiders," it's Indiana Jones IV.
Bad idea IMHO.

0 Replies

Raiders IV? Not Harrison Ford, I hope.

I need to check out Grand Canyon. I saw that movie, I think, but not Magnolias nor Short Cuts.

0 Replies

"Magnolia" is a brilliant film of "short stories" about each character that intersect and so is Altman's "Short Cuts." "Magnolia" is the most believable, where as I found several parts of "Crash" that streached credibility past the breaking point. Like the film but won't be watching it again. I have watched "Magnolia" many times and "Short Cuts" twice.

0 Replies

Well, Mr. Wizard. I did see Grand Canyon, but all I can remember of it is Danny Glover with a smile on his face, looking down into the canyon.

Several of us discussed the part about the Persian man trying to kill the Hispanic man (I think, Hispanic) and finding that his gun was full of blanks. Did his daughter realize in advance that her father was angry and deliberately bought the blanks? That has been a bone of contention in my family.

I'm not likely to watch Crash again as I rented it the first time.

0 Replies

I think the movie industry, the music industry, Big 3 Network TV and general Mainstream Press - all of which are hurting, and complaining about the damage done to them by the internet and other consumer electronic media, all suffer from the same problem, which none of them recognize; they have lost touch with their market, no longer offer product the market is willing to pay for, and continue digging themselves deeper into their self-dug hole all the while looking for external excuses to account for internal failures. They have lost and will continue to lose market share simply and exclusively because they are not meeting the wants and needs of the marketplace. Offer folks something they want to pay for, and they'll pay for it, pretty much in direct proportion to how much they like what is offered.

0 Replies

I agree, timber.

0 Replies

They are also not making as many movies that take advantage of the big screen and even then, many Americans now own large wide aspect TV's. I realize that "King Kong" was filmed in Super Panavision and even letterboxed on the home TV aspect will not be the same as seeing it in the theater. However, many will pass to see it at home. The sound on a good home theater system is, for me, better than most theaters. I saw "Master and Commander" at a theater and then at home. The improvement in the sound was astounding.

I think it's got a lot do to with the studios having a bit of a blind spot towards theater owners because they know that not only can they recoup losses on home video, they can build on the profits made on a successful film. For instance, it looks like the April release of "Brokeback" on DVD has been cancelled and moved forward. It's still hovering around at the ten and twelve spot after many months.

Could it be the stories and scripts are not up to par? One of the considerations those executives should look at in the "bored" room.

Theaters are looking for ways to get people to include the cineplex on their dating routine. Dinner and a movie will likely never dissapear. Some theaters have even opened bars in the lobby. Oh, great, not only can we expect cell phones ringing in the middle of a movie but some drunk shouting at the screen! Very Happy

0 Replies

We could be at the cross-roads of new technlogy that marked the change in the industry when TV in the Fifties began cutting into theater audiences. They got audiences in with 3-D but it really turned around when CinemaScope hit the screens. Some films now are being released simultaneously in IMAX but there are few IMAX theaters, for instance. No glasses 3-D holography is now possible but the cost is still prohibitive. What's next?

0 Replies

Now, IMAX is awesome if done right - which isn't always the case; I won't mention which one, but I've been to an IMAX theater which had horrible accoustics. Same problem with 2 different films, months apart, so it is a flaw inherent to the theater.

As for watching at home, that's pretty much been my preference for years; better picture, better sound, more comfortable seating, no parking hassle, no lines, no cellphones, no rowdy kids or screaming toddlers, no endless ads and trailers, pause and replay, and the refrigerator is in the next room.

0 Replies

We have two Century Cineplexes near us with THX certified picture and sound. They are excellent.

I have seen films at some older theaters, specifically the Edward's Theaters in the OC which went bankrupt and got gobbled up by Regal (who I hate as they take up time at the beginning of the film with TV like commercials!) I actually designed the lighting in the private home of the Edwards and over the years designed lighting for their theaters. I guess I charged them too much?

0 Replies

I agree with timberlandko. It depends on whether or not Hollywood is willing to wake up and smell the coffee.

For the longest time, the Big Three TV Networks seemed determined to ignore such things as VCRs and cable channels. They went right on ahead with their outdated programming strategies. One network would schedule it's highest rated show up against the highest rated show on a competing network.

It was as if they refused to acknowledge that VCRS (and now DVD players) had rendered those kind of programming wars useless.

0 Replies

Oh, I think they've smelled the coffee. I just believe they think it is too strong for them. The network programmers on TV try to follow the strategy of the Hollywood machine. They are really guilty of not being able to market a unique, good quality product. HBO is left for that chore, and sometimes Showtime. "Angels in America" was better than any Hollywood product for the last twenty years. It could have easily beat out "A Beautiful Mind" or even, dare I say, LOTR if it were pitted against them in theaters. Of course, it was way too long and would not have worked broken up into two or three films.

With the financial success of "Brokeback Mountain," it may not only change the way about how some people think about homosexuality, it may change the way they think about making films of substance.

0 Replies

Box Office Slump Hurts Hollywood Or Theater Owners?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know