4 ms·

I'm disappointed, but not suprised, to see this post so high. Despite all the ways of watching films at home, cinema is having its most successful years ever, s

I'm disappointed, but not suprised, to see this post so high. Despite all the ways of watching films at home, cinema is having its most successful years ever, so clearly many people are enjoying the films Hollywood is putting out.

oliwarner 7y ago
I'm disappointed, but not surprised in your measurement of success. Many tout record box office takings as clear success but I rather think that really reflects on inflation (both real and artificial). Look at admissions over time. I only have UK numbers to hand [1] but despite an increasing population, we're still at barely a tenth of our 1950 numbers. MPAA stats [2] seem to show the US in decline over the last few years but I cant find a nice table to do an 84y comparison. So again, cinema might be taking absolutely more money than ever before, but that's probably through higher ticket sales. Numbers of bums on seats is not breaking any records. 1: https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-industry/facts-and-figures/uk-cinema-admissions-and-box-office/annual-admissions/ https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-industry/facts-and-figures/u... 2: PDF!! https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final.pdf https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatri... (there are other reports for other single years but they're hard to grok out the attendance numbers).
- oblio 7y ago
  He he. Your argument is that cinema is dead because it's not as popular as it was in the 50's, before TV, video games, home cinemas, and the internet? Even the fact that the numbers are comparable in 2019 says about cinema's staying power ;)
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    I'm not saying cinema's dead, rather that headlines of "RECORD BOX OFFICE RETURN" that drive the genre of comment I was replying to are bullshit.
    - oblio 7y ago
      They're not. Inflation adjusted, Endgame's about to beat Avatar. Only Gone with the Wind is ahead. There's tons more money out there now.
      - oliwarner 7y ago
        Those aren't the numbers I see [1]. For domestic US, Endgame is in 18th place. Why not worldwide? Even the US numbers are rickety. There are multiple ways to account for inflation, multiple ways of record counting for sales, trying to factor in re-showings, etc. Adding on multiple currencies and economies is a power of extra complexity. > There's tons more money out there now Yes. Money. My whole thing here has been about weighing success by monetary takings. It doesn't necessarily track. The price of a ticket has far outstripped what retail indexed inflation. Tickets, after inflation, are eighteen times more expensive than their 1950s counterparts. You only a eighteenth of the 1950s audience to gross the same. But while we're talking about bullshit headlines, looking up Endgame renders some gems [2]. Things like "Fastest to $1bn" aren't just historically incomparable because of inflation but because distribution has changed significantly. Movies in the US used to have months of lead-time ahead of the global market. There still is for many languages. Modern studios recognise the waste and damage in this. Endgame was globally available (to over half the population) within 4 days. "Highest Opening Weekend" grossses also have the same problem. 1: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Avengers:_Endgame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set...
        oblio 7y ago
        The US economy hasn't grown much, adjusted for inflation, compared to the world economy. That's primarily because of the rest of the world was much poorer. And your numbers are not accurate, I think. Inflation from 1950 to the present day has been 900% if this site is to be believed: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1950?amount=100 http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1950?amount=100 So the 50 cent cinema ticket from back then would be 5 dollars now and instead it's around 9 dollars. Double, but not 18x.
- simonh 7y ago
  From the data in your link [1] Cinema attendance looks very healthy, and in fact in 2018 was at it's highest level since 1971 and is more than tripple it's low point in 1984. That much better than I was expecting and frankly in my eyes kills the 'Cinema is dying' meme stone dead. I don't understand how you can be looking at the same table and coming to such a different conclusion.
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    I'm not saying cinema is dying, at all. I'm reacting to a statement that said "cinema is having its most successful years ever". That is only true in gross and that's only true because tickets are so expensive. If you're going to make qualitative claims, where the price of a unit is largely fixed at a point in time, I think you have to compare quantity of sales, not gross. It's all marketing wank. A way for producers to pomp around with their "record"-breaking titles. And at a financial level, sure, whatever... But that's not how these statements are used.
    - simonh 7y ago
      Fair enough, thanks for the clarification, and the link to the data.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    > Cinema attendance looks very healthy, The problem with cinema attendance, at least here in the United States, is you can't trust the numbers anymore. Take AMC, they have their A List that allows you to see 3 movies a week for a monthly fee, if you head over to /r/AMCsAList/ you will find a good number of people that will go see movies they have little interest in JUST to use all their 'free' movies each week so now you have someone that may have seen 2-3 movies a month, seeing 12 movies. Occasionally you'll even see threads over there where people brag about how many weeks long their streak of seeing all their movies is. Similarly there was MoviePass (I think it's mostly dead now) that was allowing people to do the same for over a year.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  A big (huge) driver is the Asian markets, with China having allowed more foreign movies in - and a huge upsurge of cinemas being built there. A lot of (blockbuster) movies are actively made nowadays with the huge Chinese market in mind, and / or are being co-produced and / or funded by Chinese companies. (There's some common tropes in that category; PG-12, if that rating, has to feature at least one major Chinese city and one or two Chinese actors, and the Chinese are never the bad guys. These things also apply to the Americans. Basically, the two propaganda machines combined.)
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    I have also noticed a decent amount of new releases have both a Chinese and American production company associated with the movie, and there appear to be cultural and character references that resonate with both. Pretty cool.
  - pfisch 7y ago
    Are you saying Americans can't be the villains in blockbusters? That is definitely not correct. None of the things you mentioned are required by the US like China requires things in its movies.
blahblahblogger 7y ago
> cinema is having its most successful years ever, so clearly many people are enjoying the films Hollywood is putting out. Is that really true or is it just films like "Avengers" who make Hollywood's balance sheet look better than ever? I'm not entirely convinced that the film industry can survive without giant blockbusters like that. You might say that there's always been blockbusters, but although I don't have any data on this I imagine the proportion of $ that these films make up has only grown over time. Maybe leading to a reliance on a few big hits. I consider this one of the reasons we've seen a proliferation of super-hero/comic adaptions (an endless supply of material here) and other giant movies tapping into an existing fanbase (Star Wars, Fast/Furious, etc).
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Some people I know in film have told me the following: A lot of films that would have US pull no longer get made. That's because the US is at most 300m people, and there's billions more that aren't reached. Whereas any movie made now needs to have international trends. So you end up with comic books made as movies and tv shows. They have been tested in print, work with other cultures, and make money hand over fist. Tl;dr. Making movies for a country is last century. New movies need to capitalize on international sales.
  - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
    Poignant example is the World of Warcraft movie; it bombed in the US, but it was super popular in China. This is also why Netflix will probably not die; for me personally, 90% of their original content is a bit shit, however I am also very aware that a lot of people enjoy that 90% I don't, e.g. my parents. And then there's the huge international market, each country, each region has its own preferences. What I'm saying is there will be people that enjoy some content and keep their subscription for that show. Netflix doesn't need to optimize for one demographic.
  - netwanderer3 7y ago
    That's an interesting take on the quality issues of these recent films. It's true that you sort of have to dumb down your content if you aim to make it popular for a wider population. If the movie plots require a bit of thinking or the use of brain resources then most viewers probably will not get it. Though I understand Hollywood has always been about about making profits, but in the end this will only lead to more movies simply being treated as a tool to generate revenue rather an outlet for creativity and great story telling, which was exactly what made them great in the past. In that perspective, there's no difference between a movie and a piece of commercial software. Big explosions and FX effects are not elements that make a film great as they do nothing to connect deeply with the audiences on a human level. They are shallow, cool and awesome for five seconds but that's about it. The more you watch these films, the more you become like the population they want to target. No wonder books are still selling so well today.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I bet the accounts still say they lost money. If only they didn't have to pay offshore shell corporations hundreds of millions to use their IP ...
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
We like to see big movies (Avengers, Star Wars, etc) on the big screen. Everything else, we much prefer at home. But, I don't disagree with OP. Movies are either Nth in a series are a remake of a remake or just meh. Explosions are fun on the big screen, but that's about all.
Retra 7y ago
Couldn't that be illusory? There's more people watching films now than there ever has been before. And if there were only one film released this year, it would surely break all the records because nobody would have anything else to watch. That wouldn't mean that film was the best film ever. A larger number of more diverse films could generate more total income and offer more satisfaction, but it would be much harder for them to break records.

oliwarner 7y ago

I'm disappointed, but not surprised in your measurement of success. Many tout record box office takings as clear success but I rather think that really reflects on inflation (both real and artificial). Look at admissions over time. I only have UK numbers to hand [1] but despite an increasing population, we're still at barely a tenth of our 1950 numbers. MPAA stats [2] seem to show the US in decline over the last few years but I cant find a nice table to do an 84y comparison. So again, cinema might be taking absolutely more money than ever before, but that's probably through higher ticket sales. Numbers of bums on seats is not breaking any records. 1: https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-industry/facts-and-figures/uk-cinema-admissions-and-box-office/annual-admissions/ https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-industry/facts-and-figures/u... 2: PDF!! https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final.pdf https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatri... (there are other reports for other single years but they're hard to grok out the attendance numbers).

oblio 7y ago
He he. Your argument is that cinema is dead because it's not as popular as it was in the 50's, before TV, video games, home cinemas, and the internet? Even the fact that the numbers are comparable in 2019 says about cinema's staying power ;)
- oliwarner 7y ago
  I'm not saying cinema's dead, rather that headlines of "RECORD BOX OFFICE RETURN" that drive the genre of comment I was replying to are bullshit.
  - oblio 7y ago
    They're not. Inflation adjusted, Endgame's about to beat Avatar. Only Gone with the Wind is ahead. There's tons more money out there now.
    - oliwarner 7y ago
      Those aren't the numbers I see [1]. For domestic US, Endgame is in 18th place. Why not worldwide? Even the US numbers are rickety. There are multiple ways to account for inflation, multiple ways of record counting for sales, trying to factor in re-showings, etc. Adding on multiple currencies and economies is a power of extra complexity. > There's tons more money out there now Yes. Money. My whole thing here has been about weighing success by monetary takings. It doesn't necessarily track. The price of a ticket has far outstripped what retail indexed inflation. Tickets, after inflation, are eighteen times more expensive than their 1950s counterparts. You only a eighteenth of the 1950s audience to gross the same. But while we're talking about bullshit headlines, looking up Endgame renders some gems [2]. Things like "Fastest to $1bn" aren't just historically incomparable because of inflation but because distribution has changed significantly. Movies in the US used to have months of lead-time ahead of the global market. There still is for many languages. Modern studios recognise the waste and damage in this. Endgame was globally available (to over half the population) within 4 days. "Highest Opening Weekend" grossses also have the same problem. 1: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Avengers:_Endgame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set...
      - oblio 7y ago
        The US economy hasn't grown much, adjusted for inflation, compared to the world economy. That's primarily because of the rest of the world was much poorer. And your numbers are not accurate, I think. Inflation from 1950 to the present day has been 900% if this site is to be believed: http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1950?amount=100 http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1950?amount=100 So the 50 cent cinema ticket from back then would be 5 dollars now and instead it's around 9 dollars. Double, but not 18x.
simonh 7y ago
From the data in your link [1] Cinema attendance looks very healthy, and in fact in 2018 was at it's highest level since 1971 and is more than tripple it's low point in 1984. That much better than I was expecting and frankly in my eyes kills the 'Cinema is dying' meme stone dead. I don't understand how you can be looking at the same table and coming to such a different conclusion.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  I'm not saying cinema is dying, at all. I'm reacting to a statement that said "cinema is having its most successful years ever". That is only true in gross and that's only true because tickets are so expensive. If you're going to make qualitative claims, where the price of a unit is largely fixed at a point in time, I think you have to compare quantity of sales, not gross. It's all marketing wank. A way for producers to pomp around with their "record"-breaking titles. And at a financial level, sure, whatever... But that's not how these statements are used.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification, and the link to the data.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  > Cinema attendance looks very healthy, The problem with cinema attendance, at least here in the United States, is you can't trust the numbers anymore. Take AMC, they have their A List that allows you to see 3 movies a week for a monthly fee, if you head over to /r/AMCsAList/ you will find a good number of people that will go see movies they have little interest in JUST to use all their 'free' movies each week so now you have someone that may have seen 2-3 movies a month, seeing 12 movies. Occasionally you'll even see threads over there where people brag about how many weeks long their streak of seeing all their movies is. Similarly there was MoviePass (I think it's mostly dead now) that was allowing people to do the same for over a year.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
A big (huge) driver is the Asian markets, with China having allowed more foreign movies in - and a huge upsurge of cinemas being built there. A lot of (blockbuster) movies are actively made nowadays with the huge Chinese market in mind, and / or are being co-produced and / or funded by Chinese companies. (There's some common tropes in that category; PG-12, if that rating, has to feature at least one major Chinese city and one or two Chinese actors, and the Chinese are never the bad guys. These things also apply to the Americans. Basically, the two propaganda machines combined.)
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  I have also noticed a decent amount of new releases have both a Chinese and American production company associated with the movie, and there appear to be cultural and character references that resonate with both. Pretty cool.
- pfisch 7y ago
  Are you saying Americans can't be the villains in blockbusters? That is definitely not correct. None of the things you mentioned are required by the US like China requires things in its movies.

blahblahblogger 7y ago

> cinema is having its most successful years ever, so clearly many people are enjoying the films Hollywood is putting out. Is that really true or is it just films like "Avengers" who make Hollywood's balance sheet look better than ever? I'm not entirely convinced that the film industry can survive without giant blockbusters like that. You might say that there's always been blockbusters, but although I don't have any data on this I imagine the proportion of $ that these films make up has only grown over time. Maybe leading to a reliance on a few big hits. I consider this one of the reasons we've seen a proliferation of super-hero/comic adaptions (an endless supply of material here) and other giant movies tapping into an existing fanbase (Star Wars, Fast/Furious, etc).

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Some people I know in film have told me the following: A lot of films that would have US pull no longer get made. That's because the US is at most 300m people, and there's billions more that aren't reached. Whereas any movie made now needs to have international trends. So you end up with comic books made as movies and tv shows. They have been tested in print, work with other cultures, and make money hand over fist. Tl;dr. Making movies for a country is last century. New movies need to capitalize on international sales.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  Poignant example is the World of Warcraft movie; it bombed in the US, but it was super popular in China. This is also why Netflix will probably not die; for me personally, 90% of their original content is a bit shit, however I am also very aware that a lot of people enjoy that 90% I don't, e.g. my parents. And then there's the huge international market, each country, each region has its own preferences. What I'm saying is there will be people that enjoy some content and keep their subscription for that show. Netflix doesn't need to optimize for one demographic.
- netwanderer3 7y ago
  That's an interesting take on the quality issues of these recent films. It's true that you sort of have to dumb down your content if you aim to make it popular for a wider population. If the movie plots require a bit of thinking or the use of brain resources then most viewers probably will not get it. Though I understand Hollywood has always been about about making profits, but in the end this will only lead to more movies simply being treated as a tool to generate revenue rather an outlet for creativity and great story telling, which was exactly what made them great in the past. In that perspective, there's no difference between a movie and a piece of commercial software. Big explosions and FX effects are not elements that make a film great as they do nothing to connect deeply with the audiences on a human level. They are shallow, cool and awesome for five seconds but that's about it. The more you watch these films, the more you become like the population they want to target. No wonder books are still selling so well today.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I bet the accounts still say they lost money. If only they didn't have to pay offshore shell corporations hundreds of millions to use their IP ...

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

We like to see big movies (Avengers, Star Wars, etc) on the big screen. Everything else, we much prefer at home. But, I don't disagree with OP. Movies are either Nth in a series are a remake of a remake or just meh. Explosions are fun on the big screen, but that's about all.

Retra 7y ago

Couldn't that be illusory? There's more people watching films now than there ever has been before. And if there were only one film released this year, it would surely break all the records because nobody would have anything else to watch. That wouldn't mean that film was the best film ever. A larger number of more diverse films could generate more total income and offer more satisfaction, but it would be much harder for them to break records.