16 ms·

I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping...

521 points by benjaminfox 15y ago

ChrisLTD 15y ago
Hard to argue with anything Ebert says in that article. As a kid I loved going to the theater. I tried to see a movie every time I had a free weekend. However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often. As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home. Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?
- dantheman 15y ago
  Agreed, I find that the independent movie theaters cater to a crowd that actually cares about film. They also show a mix of old and new films so you can catch the classics on the big screen. The Harvard Film Archive just had a great retrospective on Clouzot and the experience of the theater is really impressive.
tptacek 15y ago
I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002. There've been good years in the preceding decade. Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D. I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome. Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  One quibble, in 2002 people weren't texting like mad on their bright white 4+ inch smartphone displays.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    No, they were texting like mad on their little Nokia dumbphone displays. Also, LASER POINTERS.
    - ChrisLTD 15y ago
      At least those weren't as bright! :-)
      - lloeki 15y ago
        Not so bright, and not so big-ass screen. We're actually using those screens as flashlights nowadays. Flashlights.
    - weeksie 15y ago
      Not in the US they weren't, at least not _nearly_ as much as they are now. But I don't think texting is nearly as much as a problem as the outsized ticket price increases for 3d films
- jwallaceparker 15y ago
  > these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002 Netflix streaming wasn't around in 2002. This (and similar services) is the biggest factor in theaters losing market share.
  - mitchty 15y ago
    Don't forget Amazon and iTunes rental streaming. Since I've gotten my appletv 2 I have found that waiting for it to stream on iTunes has replaced netflix and most of my theater trips. Its nice to be able to pause and go to the bathroom at home. Do I miss some of the movie theater experience? Yeah, but not having kids kicking my seat, or people talking during the movie/etc... basically makes me not care about the plight of pre streaming movie distribution.
jwallaceparker 15y ago
> 5. Competition from other forms of delivery. This is by far the biggest reason. All of my peers own Netflix streaming accounts and watch most of their movies this way.
- nlawalker 15y ago
  Don't forget the bit he dropped in that same bullet point about better home theater technology. Instant availability and movie delivery would still leave a lot to be desired compared to the theater if we were watching it on boxy 27" CRTs with stereo sound and "tracking...tracking...tracking" on the media player. Flat screens measured in feet and thinner than a ream of paper and surround sound (all digital) are now within reach of a large segment of the population. The higher quality of picture and sound at a theater, relative to a home setup, no longer outweighs the negatives, many of which have gotten worse in the last ten years (price, distractions, miscellaneous theater rigmarole). IMAX is pretty much the only theater experience I still leave the house for. The screen size and sound are still novel enough to draw me in, and I find that the audiences tend to be more focused on the movie-going experience as opposed to being obnoxious.
tsunamifury 15y ago
I like that some independent films are beginning to branch out in their strategy. For example, one of the best films of the year -- Margin Call -- was released on a variety of streaming services the same day it was available in theaters. Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup. That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production. I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  Not to mention HBO, which is a more direct challenge to theaters in the "you give me money, I give you high-quality content" sphere than, say, AMC, which is still ultimately banking on selling advertisement.
- archangel_one 15y ago
  Totally agree on the TV. The Christmas episode of Downton a few days ago was encroaching on the length of a movie and much more interesting than nearly all of them. Let alone the fact that it's free to watch and we could record it etc.
  - vl 15y ago
    Come on, Christmas episode of Downton Abbey is a disappointment: annoying dude popping up all the time when Mary was talking to other dude, predictable Bates story, ghost of the dead bride wishing Mary and annoying dude happiness, and most of all, mixed servant-master ball (after two self-served events, because servant had time off)?? Seriously? What's up with that?
- 15y ago
jsaxton86 15y ago
In addition to ridiculous ticket prices, the actual movie doesn't start until 15 minutes after the scheduled showtime. While you're waiting, you're expected to watch advertisements. I don't have any concrete data to back this up, but I feel it wasn't always this bad.
- tsunamifury 15y ago
  Not sure why you've been down-voted, but this has infuriated me more than any other single thing. I pay a good deal of money to see a film in which I am so bombarded with ads beforehand that its ruined the film experience. The last film I saw had a full 15 minutes of ads and trailers before it started! My girlfriend asked me if we could just leave and get our money back.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    I don't so much mind seeing trailers before a movie. It seems like a tradition, and trailers can be fun to watch. However, ads for other stuff like cars, or soft drinks cheapens the experience. I'm at a damn movie theater, don't remind me that it's really just a big TV screen.
- zackzackzack 15y ago
  I went to a movie a few days ago for the first time in months. As soon as the advertisements started for other movies/consumer good I had to walk out. I couldn't bear to sit through 10 minutes of all that advertisements anymore. I've told my parents that I like movies but I hate going to movie theaters before and I think this might be why.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  I love movie trailers. That 15 minutes is one of the reasons I go to a theater instead of streaming something at home.
  - dmbass 15y ago
    You might like this: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/ http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/ They even provide an RSS feed of new trailers.
michaelpinto 15y ago
I don't think movie houses have been friendly to anyone above the age of 30 for quite a few years so I'm not sure that chasing that demographic will help the industry. In fact if anything they really need to figure out how to make Gen Y and their younger peers feel more at home by embracing their technology (free wifi, offer the ability to download the film when done watching, encourage opening night parties, etc.). I also think that biggest opportunity for theaters isn't films but being a place to see streaming of live events like concerts and plays (and that will attract an older audience).
brador 15y ago
I'd add two more: 1. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead. 2. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap. Don't get me started on the overuse of CG. Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I actually find it very difficult to watch Jurassic Park these days. The CG has not aged well at all. With Ghostbusters, the effects look terrible in a few scenes (the claymation dogs spring to mind), but it's not so jarring in the context of a comedy.
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    > The CG has not aged well at all. Really? I look to Jurassic Park as what CG should look like in movies. The opening reveal of the brontosauruses is still amazing, especially when you think of when the movie was made. What hasn't aged well? Other movies from the mid-to-late 90s, on the other hand, have not aged well. Many of these used CG for the sake of having CG and did not take any care of ensuring it integrated into the rest of the shot.
    - phaus 15y ago
      No one is disputing how awesome it looked when it first came out, but the same thing could be said for quake 1. As our eyes adjust to the ever increasing details in movies and games, what used to look awesome begins to look awful. Here is the scene with the Brontosaurs While it seemed photo-realistic when it first came out, it now looks choppy, grainy, and artificial. Most low-budget T.V. shows have better CG now. But that's just the way computer animation works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg
neutronicus 15y ago
I still go to the movies. It's still a great excuse to turn your phone off for an hour or two, tell your friends to shut up and sit still for an hour or two, crank the volume all the way up for an hour or two, and have animated discussions about the thing you just watched with people who also just watched it and paid attention to the whole damn thing.
joshuahedlund 15y ago
Some good reasons, especially regarding competition with other forms of entertainment, which is one of the bigger factors IMO. But I can't believe he didn't say anything about sequels. The top 7 grossing movies of this year were all sequels (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm) On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.
killnine 15y ago
What does it take to have movies that are in theater streamed to your home? Would you not watch more movies at theater prices if you could watch it on your couch at 12:01am Friday morning? I think the problem is at the theater, the companies get $12/person, $12 PER person. How can we come up with a solution where they still get their dollars, but I don't have to leave my couch to go sit in a dirty, loud theater to watch it?
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I'd pay double, maybe even triple the regular price of streaming rental (~$5) to see movies at home on the day of release.
  - 3lit3H4ck3r 15y ago
    ^-Same here. However that is not going to happen due to the fact that Hollywood is devoted to protecting their brick and mortar distribution network, a.k.a, the theater.
    - jordan0day 15y ago
      I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise. I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market.
      - 3lit3H4ck3r 15y ago
        ^ "I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise." - I stand corrected. I think you just might be right. "I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market." I agree. However, is not Netflix trying to go this route as a content producer? I hope they succeed.
maeon3 15y ago
Movie revenue is dropping for the same reason buggy whip sales decreased with the deployment of engines. Movies are a dead medium walking. Interactive beats mindless observation. The mpaa wont go down without taking a handfull of civil liberties with it though.
- dantheman 15y ago
  I disagree about film dying, we still have traditional theater, we'll always have film.
- jwingy 15y ago
  Interactive entertainment is a markedly different form of entertainment from movies. You're comparing apples to oranges I'm afraid.
  - bayleo 15y ago
    That said, there's only a certain amount of time each person can spend on escapism. If gaming is occupying more of that space it is intrinsically encroaching on other forms of entertainment. Ebert is notorious for writing off the gaming industry, so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned in this article.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      The MPAA has been having record profits, 2011 was a very odd year. I don't think the gaming industry has much to do with it.
      - bayleo 15y ago
        I'm not sure that profit is relevant here; you would have to look at revenue or (even better) head-counts of moviegoers. My understanding is that domestic (US) ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58B while revenue continued to rise until 2009 due to rising ticket prices. Source: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ Anyway, my original point was that if you assume aggregate leisure time has changed little over the last decade -- it's impossible to ignore competition from other entertainment activities vying for the same space -- especially when you've got absolutely meteoric growth in the gaming industry.
MikeCapone 15y ago
I was sure he was going to say that it was partly because every movie now seems to be a sequel or based on a comic book. It's so rare to find a mainstream 100% original movie anymore it seems...
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Top ten movies for 2011- 1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 4. The Hangover Part II 5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 6. Fast Five 7. Cars 2 8. Thor 9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes 10. Captain America: The First Avenger Yes, every single one is a comic book or a sequel. That's why they get made, they're what people pay to see. Everyone complains about it, everyone sees 'em. If you want different movies to be made, go see different movies.
  - SourPatch 15y ago
    I complain about this all the time and I've seen zero of those movies. Some of them I haven't even heard of.
  - nhebb 15y ago
    Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If most of what they make are movies in these genres, that's what people will see. I don't even rent many movies any more, and I used to rent a lot! There just isn't much that's interesting, and i have pretty low standards when it comes to action / guy-flicks.
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  As a business if you have a popular iphone game that, would rather create a new game from the ground up or make the sequel of that game?
  - nvk 15y ago
    It's a valid question, but what's the point of making a sequel that no one would buy because they know it will be crap. Money is definitely the main factor, so you must make something that the consumer will buy. The whole argument is that consumers are not consuming this product anymore (Theater Experience). With that premis I'd make a new one.
ubercore 15y ago
One thing that's become an issue for me, at least at my local theater (and I admit I may be in the minority here), is volume. Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.
- krschultz 15y ago
  I think that just goes back to quality. When I go see a movie in a theater the screen better be right and the sound better be right. If the screen is so dark it is unwatchable and the sound is so loud it hurts, I am better off just watching it at home. And if the movie or sound cuts out, that is a big problem. I think I only saw 1 movie in theaters this year, and I saw about 5 or 6 last year. A large part of that for me is that the quality of the actual screen & sound sucks at the local theaters by me.
- spodek 15y ago
  I'll see your loudness and raise you that the theaters are freaking cold! I don't like to bring a coat and a set of earplugs with me to see a movie.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Sounds like a bug in your local theater's sound setup. The local theaters here seem to have it set up about right: loud when it should sound loud, quiet when it should sound quiet, and never painful.
  - ubercore 15y ago
    I thought so too. In fact, I complained multiple times at one movie. They said they have no control over it, and couldn't turn it down if they wanted to. I'm not sure I believe it; _someone_ must be able to turn it down, but I may believe that the average employee on a random Saturday may not be able to.
- 15y ago
smokeyj 15y ago
Movies now days are like commercials designed to last an hour long. I especially love when they blatantly promote products in the movie. Did I really have to know that the main character uses iTunes and drinks Pepsi? Fuck you Hollywood.
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  And maybe that should be their business model. Focus 100% on product placements and impressions and release movies for near-free.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  How do we know your comment isn't product placement? :-)
msluyter 15y ago
I think Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is doing it right: 1. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn. 2. Cellphones must be turned off. 3. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect. 4. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights. 5. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc... I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.
- deathwarmedover 15y ago
  The Prince Charles Cinema in London, UK [1] is also doing this kind of thing and is about the only place I can be bothered to go see a film these days. [1] http://www.princecharlescinema.com/ http://www.princecharlescinema.com/
  - ticks 15y ago
    There's quite a few independent cinemas in UK cities, all doing that sort of thing - many of them are non-profits as well. Fewer screens than multiplexes yet a more eclectic choice.
  - personlurking 15y ago
    And like the Alamo Drafthouse, the Parkway and the Cerrito Speakeasy in the East Bay were doing something similar...though they closed in the economic downturn.
  - vdm 15y ago
    The Electric on Portobello Road[1] is nice too. 1. http://www.electriccinema.co.uk/experience.php http://www.electriccinema.co.uk/experience.php
- jakarta 15y ago
  I'm a big fan of Alamo Drafthouse as well. I think their model really brings back a sort of "event" feeling to going to the movies which helps differentiate away from going to an ordinary theater or watching at home.
webwanderings 15y ago
We've been hearing that economy is bad, but this indicator of movie business is a proof that economy is really bad. So that's one reason why revenues are down. Logically, with the outpouring of 3D movies and additional cost, the revenue should be up, but obviously the 3D has not helped. I think people are also realizing that 3D is only a gimmick. Besides few forced scenes, typically a 3D is hardly a 3D. Hugo this year obviously made a difference but I wonder if others are going to follow?
CrLf 15y ago
Sequels, remakes, remakes of sequels, remakes of remakes. No need to go any further.
- matwood 15y ago
  Actually I don't mind prequels, sequels, or remakes as long as they are well made. The problem is that they are often a cop out and use the original as the only draw to see a new not so good movie.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Which as it turns out are the movies that make money.
  - CrLf 15y ago
    When you only make a kind of movie, it's expected that's the only kind that will make you money. Actually, it's the distribution channels that block other kinds of movies from catching audiences. They only want "safe" blockbusters. Eventually, that will be their demise.
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      133 movies this year opened in more than 1000 theaters. There was plenty of choice, every single weekend of the year.
alex3780 15y ago
to me it's simpler - big budget, well-made TV series are flat out better than movies. id rather spend the same money as two theater tickets a month for HBO / Showtime and watch Homeland, Game of Thrones, 24/7 etc. Example: Girl with a Dragon tattoo would be an unreal premium TV series. A 2hr 40min movie seems rushed and messy whereas a 12-18 episode TV season could do this and other amazing books justice.
bradly 15y ago
The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies. I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America. edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?
- jarito 15y ago
  You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for 2011 was independent films. You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly could make great movies significantly cheaper. I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.
  - bradly 15y ago
    Thanks for the reply. You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes, but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.
    - Game_Ender 15y ago
nikki9696 15y ago
I'll tell you the two major reasons I don't go. 1: Nothing worth seeing and 2: When it IS worth seeing, it's not worth the price of the movie and concessions. I can get a 12 pack of soda for what they charge for a "small". No thanks. I'll wait for the DVD. I can buy the DVD for the price of getting into the movie anyway.
nvk 15y ago
I'm in Toronto (Canada), it's pretty much the same thing in terms of "*plex" experience. Some reality check, they maximized things for profit so much that: 1. Most Hollywood movies suck to a extraterrestrial degree. 2. The food sucks and its expensive. 3. Say whatever you want, 3D still sucks comparing to the default 2D experience. 4. Way too expensive for what the experience provides. 5. Niche theaters with quality stuff are always sold out. 6. 15 min of commercials. 7. Noisy teenagers. 8. Most of these movies are a 1 hour long product placement Finally: if they decide to compete with the home, they loose, my TV is huge, my speaker set is awesome, my food is better, my sofa or bed are more comfortable. They need to find other ways to convince me to move my ass, pay $$$, and be there.
OoTheNigerian 15y ago
Other reasons... BBM, Facebook and Twitter. When RIM had their outage a few months ago, everywhere (in real life) was packed. People actually left their lying down position and went outside, visited friends and the movies. It lasted for all of 3 days then things went back to 'normal' PS: Nigeria is a VERY BlackBerry centric country.
cdcarter 15y ago
This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but last night I went to see Hugo at a new megaplex that just opened by my house. Not only was the movie incredibly heartwarming and reminded me of why I love the movies, the experience was great. There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect. There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.
huhtenberg 15y ago
The one and only reason I stopped going to the movies was 20 minutes worth of obnoxious commercials that preceded every movie.
afterburner 15y ago
Countering a few of Ebert's points: "historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer." I'm not experiencing this. The cheapest concerts in my area are generally $40, with older popular bands going for at least $80. Sports games start at $20 for crappy seats for crappy teams during regular season, more like $100 and up if you want at least one of the good things (seat, team, playoff game). I'm all for bringing movie prices down and I think it will help (which may be Ebert's real point), but comparing them to other things isn't doing him any favours, even going back historically. As for concessions, dear lord, I never buy food at the movie theatre. And I still think it's kind pricey. Well, at least the base price; you can easily buy coupons for Cineplex/Famous Players that reduces the original price by 30%. And frankly, I can't recall the last time I was annoyed by the other patrons at the theatre. Is it because I only go to the latest showing? (Speaking of which, I would appreciate a return of 11pm and midnight showings... may not be as cost effective, but keeps up interest in theatres.) So I think the winning arguments go to home theatres being way better, intense sequelitis this year, and as Ebert says lack of choice.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  What concerts are you using as comparison? There's a world of difference between a major concert of a band that's been a household name for decades and a live show at a small local venue. If you live in a reasonably sized city with an active music scene then finding live shows in the $10 - $20 per person range is easy. The same is true for major league sporting events as well. I can go see a baseball or soccer game for about the same per person cost as seeing a movie.
Shenglong 15y ago
Ticket prices are too high. Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie. I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.
spodek 15y ago
I don't know how many others get this benefit, but I live across the street from a library. It's awesome. Dvds are free for a week, they have tons of old and artsy stuff, they have a great collection of educational stuff (especially the Great Courses -- http://www.thegreatcourses.com http://www.thegreatcourses.com), and things you put on hold they deliver to the library of your choice. On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal. I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews. I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down. Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.
samgrover 15y ago
The problem is that the studios are going to read this and try to come up with even more ways to screw up streaming.
dabent 15y ago
One of the major reasons I don't see many movies in the theater is that the movie companies have made much cheaper alternatives available. I won't pay twelve dollars a ticket to watch a movie in the theater when it probably will be just as enjoyable at home. That goes for a lot of comedies and movies that lack the cinematography to justify seeing on the big screen. I'll still see the ppv movies and pay to do so, but not at the cost of going to the theater. The blockbusters mentioned in the article - Batman and Avatar, were blockbusters largely because they were worth seeing on the giant screen and even worth dealing with the cost and hassle of 3D. I'll keep going to films with big visuals, but not the rest.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
There were more sequels and remakes in the theaters in 2011 than in any previous year in history. Some sequels can be good movies, but that tends not to be the norm.
b3b0p 15y ago
I never go the theater anymore. The largest factors for me are the cost and comfort. The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more. The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat. It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.
blhack 15y ago
I've been saying it forever, but theaters need to adopt seating charts. I will pay you more money for a center/center seat, and people sitting in the front row, and the front-corners should not be paying much-of-anything for a ticket.
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  Interesting idea, but the results would be worse than horrendous. It would drive up costs running a theatre massively, and it smacks of classism. Can you imagine how pissed people would be that they had to sit in the shit seats while the rich people seats were empty? Or you let people move when the movie starts, and the people that paid for premium tickets feel ripped off.
- thehodge 15y ago
  Our local cinema does this, they have 'premium seating' which are the two best rows in the cinema, you have to pay an extra £2 a ticket to sit in them..
- toyg 15y ago
  Some cinemas in the UK do this. It's hell to police, especially at "low" times, and because of that, most high-payers end up resenting it.
timjahn 15y ago
Movie revenue is dropping because it's simply too expensive for the average American family to go to the movies regularly. I love going to the movies. I love the experience, the big screen, the large sound system, etc. But it's a luxury that can easily be discarded when it's too expensive. Lower the price of movie tickets to what they were 5-10 years ago and watch Hollywood smile, as more people start going back to the theaters. Drop the price of concessions a bit, same result. Let me reiterate: I LOVE MOVIES. But movies will never be a necessity, always a luxury. The sooner Hollywood understands this, the sooner they can stop complaining and start brainstorming solutions to what is really a very simple problem.
mathattack 15y ago
I will add anecdotal evidence.... Movies this year suck. We have Grandma the babysitter around and my wife and I only took advantage once. After seeing Sherlock Holmes none of the movies beat Netflix. It isn't just the context, it's the content too.
rhplus 15y ago
2. Ticket prices are too high. People have always made that complaint, but historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following: Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI --------------------------------- 2010 | 7.89 | 7.89 2005 | 6.41 | 7.15 2000 | 5.39 | 6.83 1995 | 4.35 | 6.22 1990 | 4.22 | 7.04 1985 | 3.55 | 7.19 1980 | 2.69 | 7.12 1975 | 2.03 | 8.23 1971 | 1.65 | 8.88 1967 | 1.22 | 7.96 1963 | 0.86 | 6.13 1958 | 0.68 | 5.13 1954 | 0.49 | 3.97 1948 | 0.36 | 3.26 Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again. So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more. Sources: [1] http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm [2] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
- MichaelApproved 15y ago
  "both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming." Live events shouldn't be so easily compared to movies and home entertainment. While you can wait for a movie to come to DVD for a similar experience, it's not the same for a live event. Watching a concert on YouTube isn't nearly as much fun as going to watch it live. Going to a live event is an experience.
  - RobAtticus 15y ago
    Concerts maybe not, but watching sporting events at home can usually be a better view and watching experience. Yes, the atmosphere of a home game for a passionate fan base cannot be replicated, but for casual fans who just want to watch the game in comfort, HD TV, comfy couches, and regularly priced food and drink is an attractive alternative compared to going to the stadium.
ianstormtaylor 15y ago
Pretty sure #5 should be a bit higher on that list. As soon as we see more movies make iTunes debuts at the same time as theatre debuts it'll surely get worse and worse.
mkramlich 15y ago
I thought of dozens of ways to improve on the current big movie theatre model but ultimately decided it was much simpler and easier to just have a good home theatre system for private use. Also I figured it was so obvious how to improve and innovate in that area that if it hadn't already been done by now there were probably nasty little complexities or political/bureaucratic swamps involved. Because there were no significant purely physical or technical challenges.
jsz0 15y ago
I think point #5 (home viewing) is the most important one. The other issues have, more or less, existed for quite sometime now. It's only fairly recently that the average person could afford a pretty nice home theater setup. I've had a home theater with a projector for the last 5 years or so and the idea of going to a theater to watch a movie seems ridiculous to me. It's like going to a concert hall to hear a CD played over the PA. Why bother? The industry has to focus on delivering content to home-viewers the same day it's released to theaters. They do all this marketing for a new film and exclude a huge portion of its potential audience who would rather watch at home?
daimyoyo 15y ago
I haven't seen a movie in months and don't plan to for the foreseeable future and the movie going experience is a major reason why. I will pay the ticket price without too much trouble, I don't mind kids(going to midnight showings during the week helps with that) and I never eat concessions so I don't care how expensive they are. My problem is once I get into the theater. Most movies today aren't shown correctly(I have no idea why they expect some kid making minimum wage to run 20 screens at once to know what he / she is doing), the watermarks every 20 minutes, and the poor sound quality. But the worst part by far is the commercials. I find it incredibily insulting that I pay $12 for the privilage of watching ads for 15 minutes straight. No one likes a double dipper.
- JeffL 15y ago
  I agree about the commercials. With TiVo, I don't ever watch commercials at home any more, why would I watch them when I've paid so much money for a movie ticket? Plus I've found that I have no tolerance for them anymore.
int3rnaut 15y ago
The biggest reason why I believe movie revenue is dropping is the ability for anyone to pick up a camera (high tech low cost now), create a movie, and upload it to the eyes of many people (like on youtube). Because of this, there are just so many more options to catch ones visceral media experience. I really like Science fiction and while there were certainly some good Sci-Fi movies (and television) out in the past year or so, there were many more interesting and thought provoking movies and shorts (going back to the previously brought up idea of short attention spans) on youtube than there were movies I would actually want to go to a theatre and pay for--and to be quite honest, I am sure that some of the things I saw on youtube recently were far more enjoyable than some of the things tossed at me by Hollywood. It's not so much a money thing for me, it's a time thing, and I want to spend it wisely.
businessideas 15y ago
@samgrover I am agree with you and indeed they need to work on this if they want to grow up more.
vonskippy 15y ago
Lets see..... at home I have a 60" Plasma, surround sound, comfy chairs, great food & drink, and 6-8 hand selected guests to watch a DVD I paid on average $15 from Amazon on our personally selected date and time. Or.... Huuuuge screen, maybe good maybe bad sound (definately played way tooooo loud), sticky/wobbly/uncomfortable chairs, crappy overpriced snacks, and a room full of obnoxious self absorbed strangers, watched when and where the theater tells us, all at $12 (plus snacks) per person. Yeah, boggles my mind why movie revenue is dropping.
dillidumpling 15y ago
There's no pause button at the cinema.
phaus 15y ago
I'm not trying to discredit the merits of watching independent films, but I think that they are disproportionately popular on netflix because netflix's streaming selection is terrible to begin with. People don't care if a movie is domestic or foreign, so long as it is well done. I think the popularity of independent films is due to the fact that a higher percentage of the best independent films show up on netflix vs the percentage of popular Hollywood movies. Its obviously going to be much easier to negotiate a contract with an independent studio that needs the money than it will be to do the same with a movie studio executive that hates the fact that your business even exists.
WalterBright 15y ago
Now with HD and home digital projectors, I've lost all interest in going to the theater. Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$. Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc. The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.
nhangen 15y ago
Two reasons I don't hit the theaters as much: 1. Quality Very rarely do they release a movie I feel is a must see. MI:4 was probably the most recent, but it's still not Batman or Avatar. 2. People As others have said, the amount of texting, talking, and overall noise/distraction is unreal. People kicking my chair, non-stop talking, laughing, etc.
te_chris 15y ago
I live in Auckland, NZ and am from Wellington, NZ. Auckland has a few decent theatres but Peter Jackson has just opened up the most beautiful theatre in one. Of Wellington's suburbs http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/ http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/ the best part is, it's cheaper, AND more civilized. This is what going to the movies needs to be these days as my ps3 and 40" Bravia do a damn fine job day to day.
thirdsun 15y ago
I can't emphasize enough how important Ebert's 6th point about "Lack of choice' is. I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 Kilometers and while I simply prefer watching movies on my admittedly better than average setup with decent 720p projector and very good A/V receiver and speakers, it's mostly the selection of movies those cinemas offer which keeps me away from them. I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept. Of course i guess this is a different situation in urban areas where some cinemas certainly cater to interests like mine. However if there's anything to 'the Long Tail' mainstream cinemas are of course still losing audiences. These cinemas serve the purpose of showing big films for a very short period of time before they rapidly become meaningless. With the growing the popularity of on demand services like Netflix, iTunes, amazon and so on this time frame doesn't matter any longer. People can dive into special interests, classics and films that once were only catered to a niche audience and see them immediatelly. So the limited selection and the instant availability from alternative sources hurts those mainstream cinemas twice. That said, the cinemas I know wouldn't see me even if I lived just across the street.
- derleth 15y ago
  > I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 Kilometers It's worse in America, which you would expect, given relative sizes and population densities: My nearest cinema is only about 8 km (5 miles), but that's a small four-screen place with very few interesting films. After that, it's 160 km (100 miles) to the next larger cinema, which still isn't that much larger. It's almost 600 km (350+ miles) to the nearest cinema that might be showing a film that isn't one of the week's designated 'blockbusters'. > I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept. Same here unless you're in a fairly major urban center. Out here we don't even get all the 'blockbuster' mainstream films. I am very happy to have the Internet, a good video rental place, and Turner Classic Movies on satellite TV.
evo_9 15y ago
Wow, it's not because of pirating? Spot on Mr. Ebert. I predict 2012 will magically bounce back because of a few AAA features hitting next year: The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rising, and the incredible Prometheus by Ridley Scott (who is returning to Scifi - finally - after 20+ years).
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  If the directors of the first two Alien films are returning to sci-fi, I wonder if David Fincher will follow.
jarjoura 15y ago
The problem is simple. Hollywood is conservative and hates taking chances. Every movie that's come out the last couple of years has been a sequel, another comic book franchise, or a remake of an already epic (unneeded remake) movie. I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already. The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.
coffee 15y ago
Here in Berkeley we have the local Shattuck Cinemas. They are taking a different approach on movie viewing as well. They provide couches (literally) instead of seats. http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac.html http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac... It's a wonderful way to watch a movie, and something that brings me out of the house and into the theater...
forkandwait 15y ago
I can tell you why... most movies suck. Not only do they suck, but they suck expensively because they rely on production values to compensate for the lack of plot, premise, and acting. As I understand it, Woody Allen is a solid money making enterprise because he makes good films with good actors and good scripts, and which cost an order of magnitude less to produce than crappy films based on car chases, laser guns, and heavy-handed soundtracks.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
executive 15y ago
I went to a VIP theater in Mexico City a few years back. Amazing. You get your own private cabana with drapes on the left/right and a fully reclining sofa that turns into a bed. And they serve alcohol/proper meals.
phil 15y ago
I think it's basically #5 in his list: > 5. Competition from other forms of delivery. If you look at the film industry as a whole, it's projected to grow over the next several years: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-electronic-200881 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-e...
Tloewald 15y ago
I'm curious about his disparagement of "noisy fanboys an girls". Is fanboy now just a generic term for someone we don't like?
WhatsHisName 15y ago
Two more reasons (1) aging populations (2) high unemployment.
brownbat 15y ago
He brushed against this, but we have more (nearly) free ways to instantly entertain ourselves than anyone else has had throughout history. Thank you, Internet. We have hit post-scarcity for fun.
VonLipwig 15y ago
I used to go to the cinema all the time. Unfortunately, as my local cinema no longer has a projectionist and no staff are apparently watching the movie people talk, they text.. some even get up and run around. I don't bother going much now. I was watching the Harry Potter part 8 movie and teens came with their dad. They talked on and off for the first half of the film. Their dad did nothing. It wasn't until I turned around in my seat and told them to shut up that they actually did. Flash back about 10 years. Maybe a bit more. There was a projectionist. There was often a staff member sitting by the entrance of the movie. Some kids would mess around. The staff would wait to see if it settled down for a minute or so then a flash light would come on and out would go the talkers. I forget what film it was but there were 4 major distractions where staff had to come in and order people out. As we left staff members apologised and handed out vouchers because they knew the screening had been ruined. I don't mind people gasping or saying "Oh no he didn't!" during scary films. There have always been idiots at the cinema. They have only started ruining films of late because cinemas have lost the will to deal with these people.
jbjohns 15y ago
IMO, the problem is that the guaranteed short-term profit strategy (MBA?) has infested Hollywood. These days they will only make a movie that has already done well. That means sequels and remakes. Every time you think your seeing an original Hollywood film in the last "I don't even know how many" years you're actually just seeing a foreign remake (e.g. Shall we Dance, Departed, 13, 3 idiots, etc.). These days they're waiting less and less time to remake popular foreign films. 3 idiots is from 2009 and they're already copying it. Some people are saying "but this is what makes the most money!"... weren't we just complaining that revenues have fallen? They may make the most money of any of their other offerings (which are just more of the same!) but they're making less over all. People still try to have the movie experience as we have for so long but then why pay so much? I can watch a well made series on free TV and then I only need to wait a week to see the next episode instead of 2-3 years.
xero5er 15y ago
http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com
xero5er 15y ago
http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com
jonnathanson 15y ago
In its most simple and irreducible form, the challenge is this: big-screen movies need to offer an experience so preferable to home viewing (or video games, or TV, or other uses of leisure time) that customers will pay time and ticket prices for it. That's becoming harder and harder, because all sides of the equation have been getting hit. On the pricing side, it goes without saying that higher prices place a greater burden on entertainment value. But on the entertainment side, we now have a) alternatives (Netflix, video games, etc.) that are increasingly attractive, inexpensive, and readily available, and b) movie offerings that have, at best, held steady in their general entertainment value. Interestingly, the theater-going experience itself has been improving over the past few decades. But at the heart of it all, customers aren't there for the window dressing; they're there for the content. A juicy piece of IP, such as Harry Potter, would drive people to a run-down shithole of a theater if they had to go -- but conversely, a shitty product wouldn't attract people to the nicest theater ever built. So, while we can all applaud the efforts of theater chains to improve their general offerings -- atmosphere, food, dining, etc. -- we shouldn't believe that such improvements are wholly sufficient, or ever could be. (At worst, if the cost of such atmosphere, ambience, furnishings, services, etc., eventually leaks into the ticket prices, then theaters are making the game even harder for themselves). In summation, I place the burden for the future of the big-screen movie business primarily on the shoulders of the movie studios. Not the exhibitors. Studios can't keep rehashing the same, warmed-over crap each year and expect anything more than a dice roll from the outcome. They need to place bigger bets with breakthrough IP. They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber-expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do; domestically, there's almost zero correlation). And they need to go all-in on the bets they do place. No more licensing, buying, or developing 100 properties to produce 2. Borrow a page from the Apple product philosophy, and launch only the titles you are dead serious about supporting. Fewer, but better. Finally, as a whole, the industry needs to stop being so stridently anti-consumer. Enough with the war on piracy, the DRMs, the 50 super-uber-ZOMG-uncensored-platinum-edition releases of every title on DVD and Blu-ray, and so forth. Studios, you are product companies. Focus your time, your attention, your budgets, and your people on your products. And make every product count.
- erichocean 15y ago
w33ble 15y ago
"6. Lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. [...] Instead, all the shopping center compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of weeks, and disappear." For me, it's always been the quality of the content. SO many movies are such garbage, and, at least to me, that was more true in 2011 than in recent years. Look at all the reboots that came out this year and think how many of them were worth seeing at a premium in theaters... Ebert came close to hitting it with that point, especially at the end, but missed it a little. I don't think people prefer indie, foreign and documentaries because of what they are, nor because of the theaters they are shown in. Those movies have better turnout because they are better than most of the big Hollywood titles.

521 points by benjaminfox 15y ago

Hard to argue with anything Ebert says in that article. As a kid I loved going to the theater. I tried to see a movie every time I had a free weekend. However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often. As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home. Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?

dantheman 15y ago
Agreed, I find that the independent movie theaters cater to a crowd that actually cares about film. They also show a mix of old and new films so you can catch the classics on the big screen. The Harvard Film Archive just had a great retrospective on Clouzot and the experience of the theater is really impressive.

tptacek 15y ago

I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002. There've been good years in the preceding decade. Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D. I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome. Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?

ChrisLTD 15y ago
One quibble, in 2002 people weren't texting like mad on their bright white 4+ inch smartphone displays.
- tptacek 15y ago
  No, they were texting like mad on their little Nokia dumbphone displays. Also, LASER POINTERS.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    At least those weren't as bright! :-)
    - lloeki 15y ago
      Not so bright, and not so big-ass screen. We're actually using those screens as flashlights nowadays. Flashlights.
  - weeksie 15y ago
    Not in the US they weren't, at least not _nearly_ as much as they are now. But I don't think texting is nearly as much as a problem as the outsized ticket price increases for 3d films
jwallaceparker 15y ago
> these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002 Netflix streaming wasn't around in 2002. This (and similar services) is the biggest factor in theaters losing market share.
- mitchty 15y ago
  Don't forget Amazon and iTunes rental streaming. Since I've gotten my appletv 2 I have found that waiting for it to stream on iTunes has replaced netflix and most of my theater trips. Its nice to be able to pause and go to the bathroom at home. Do I miss some of the movie theater experience? Yeah, but not having kids kicking my seat, or people talking during the movie/etc... basically makes me not care about the plight of pre streaming movie distribution.

jwallaceparker 15y ago

> 5. Competition from other forms of delivery. This is by far the biggest reason. All of my peers own Netflix streaming accounts and watch most of their movies this way.

nlawalker 15y ago
Don't forget the bit he dropped in that same bullet point about better home theater technology. Instant availability and movie delivery would still leave a lot to be desired compared to the theater if we were watching it on boxy 27" CRTs with stereo sound and "tracking...tracking...tracking" on the media player. Flat screens measured in feet and thinner than a ream of paper and surround sound (all digital) are now within reach of a large segment of the population. The higher quality of picture and sound at a theater, relative to a home setup, no longer outweighs the negatives, many of which have gotten worse in the last ten years (price, distractions, miscellaneous theater rigmarole). IMAX is pretty much the only theater experience I still leave the house for. The screen size and sound are still novel enough to draw me in, and I find that the audiences tend to be more focused on the movie-going experience as opposed to being obnoxious.

tsunamifury 15y ago

I like that some independent films are beginning to branch out in their strategy. For example, one of the best films of the year -- Margin Call -- was released on a variety of streaming services the same day it was available in theaters. Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup. That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production. I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.

neutronicus 15y ago
Not to mention HBO, which is a more direct challenge to theaters in the "you give me money, I give you high-quality content" sphere than, say, AMC, which is still ultimately banking on selling advertisement.
archangel_one 15y ago
Totally agree on the TV. The Christmas episode of Downton a few days ago was encroaching on the length of a movie and much more interesting than nearly all of them. Let alone the fact that it's free to watch and we could record it etc.
- vl 15y ago
  Come on, Christmas episode of Downton Abbey is a disappointment: annoying dude popping up all the time when Mary was talking to other dude, predictable Bates story, ghost of the dead bride wishing Mary and annoying dude happiness, and most of all, mixed servant-master ball (after two self-served events, because servant had time off)?? Seriously? What's up with that?
15y ago

jsaxton86 15y ago

In addition to ridiculous ticket prices, the actual movie doesn't start until 15 minutes after the scheduled showtime. While you're waiting, you're expected to watch advertisements. I don't have any concrete data to back this up, but I feel it wasn't always this bad.

tsunamifury 15y ago
Not sure why you've been down-voted, but this has infuriated me more than any other single thing. I pay a good deal of money to see a film in which I am so bombarded with ads beforehand that its ruined the film experience. The last film I saw had a full 15 minutes of ads and trailers before it started! My girlfriend asked me if we could just leave and get our money back.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I don't so much mind seeing trailers before a movie. It seems like a tradition, and trailers can be fun to watch. However, ads for other stuff like cars, or soft drinks cheapens the experience. I'm at a damn movie theater, don't remind me that it's really just a big TV screen.
zackzackzack 15y ago
I went to a movie a few days ago for the first time in months. As soon as the advertisements started for other movies/consumer good I had to walk out. I couldn't bear to sit through 10 minutes of all that advertisements anymore. I've told my parents that I like movies but I hate going to movie theaters before and I think this might be why.
dangrossman 15y ago
I love movie trailers. That 15 minutes is one of the reasons I go to a theater instead of streaming something at home.
- dmbass 15y ago
  You might like this: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/ http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/ They even provide an RSS feed of new trailers.

michaelpinto 15y ago

I don't think movie houses have been friendly to anyone above the age of 30 for quite a few years so I'm not sure that chasing that demographic will help the industry. In fact if anything they really need to figure out how to make Gen Y and their younger peers feel more at home by embracing their technology (free wifi, offer the ability to download the film when done watching, encourage opening night parties, etc.). I also think that biggest opportunity for theaters isn't films but being a place to see streaming of live events like concerts and plays (and that will attract an older audience).

brador 15y ago

I'd add two more: 1. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead. 2. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap. Don't get me started on the overuse of CG. Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.

ChrisLTD 15y ago
I actually find it very difficult to watch Jurassic Park these days. The CG has not aged well at all. With Ghostbusters, the effects look terrible in a few scenes (the claymation dogs spring to mind), but it's not so jarring in the context of a comedy.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  > The CG has not aged well at all. Really? I look to Jurassic Park as what CG should look like in movies. The opening reveal of the brontosauruses is still amazing, especially when you think of when the movie was made. What hasn't aged well? Other movies from the mid-to-late 90s, on the other hand, have not aged well. Many of these used CG for the sake of having CG and did not take any care of ensuring it integrated into the rest of the shot.
  - phaus 15y ago
    No one is disputing how awesome it looked when it first came out, but the same thing could be said for quake 1. As our eyes adjust to the ever increasing details in movies and games, what used to look awesome begins to look awful. Here is the scene with the Brontosaurs While it seemed photo-realistic when it first came out, it now looks choppy, grainy, and artificial. Most low-budget T.V. shows have better CG now. But that's just the way computer animation works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg

neutronicus 15y ago

I still go to the movies. It's still a great excuse to turn your phone off for an hour or two, tell your friends to shut up and sit still for an hour or two, crank the volume all the way up for an hour or two, and have animated discussions about the thing you just watched with people who also just watched it and paid attention to the whole damn thing.

joshuahedlund 15y ago

Some good reasons, especially regarding competition with other forms of entertainment, which is one of the bigger factors IMO. But I can't believe he didn't say anything about sequels. The top 7 grossing movies of this year were all sequels (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm) On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.

killnine 15y ago

What does it take to have movies that are in theater streamed to your home? Would you not watch more movies at theater prices if you could watch it on your couch at 12:01am Friday morning? I think the problem is at the theater, the companies get $12/person, $12 PER person. How can we come up with a solution where they still get their dollars, but I don't have to leave my couch to go sit in a dirty, loud theater to watch it?

ChrisLTD 15y ago
I'd pay double, maybe even triple the regular price of streaming rental (~$5) to see movies at home on the day of release.
- 3lit3H4ck3r 15y ago
  ^-Same here. However that is not going to happen due to the fact that Hollywood is devoted to protecting their brick and mortar distribution network, a.k.a, the theater.
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise. I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market.
    - 3lit3H4ck3r 15y ago
      ^ "I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise." - I stand corrected. I think you just might be right. "I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market." I agree. However, is not Netflix trying to go this route as a content producer? I hope they succeed.

maeon3 15y ago

Movie revenue is dropping for the same reason buggy whip sales decreased with the deployment of engines. Movies are a dead medium walking. Interactive beats mindless observation. The mpaa wont go down without taking a handfull of civil liberties with it though.

dantheman 15y ago
I disagree about film dying, we still have traditional theater, we'll always have film.
jwingy 15y ago
Interactive entertainment is a markedly different form of entertainment from movies. You're comparing apples to oranges I'm afraid.
- bayleo 15y ago
  That said, there's only a certain amount of time each person can spend on escapism. If gaming is occupying more of that space it is intrinsically encroaching on other forms of entertainment. Ebert is notorious for writing off the gaming industry, so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned in this article.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    The MPAA has been having record profits, 2011 was a very odd year. I don't think the gaming industry has much to do with it.
    - bayleo 15y ago
      I'm not sure that profit is relevant here; you would have to look at revenue or (even better) head-counts of moviegoers. My understanding is that domestic (US) ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58B while revenue continued to rise until 2009 due to rising ticket prices. Source: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ Anyway, my original point was that if you assume aggregate leisure time has changed little over the last decade -- it's impossible to ignore competition from other entertainment activities vying for the same space -- especially when you've got absolutely meteoric growth in the gaming industry.

MikeCapone 15y ago

I was sure he was going to say that it was partly because every movie now seems to be a sequel or based on a comic book. It's so rare to find a mainstream 100% original movie anymore it seems...

waterlesscloud 15y ago
Top ten movies for 2011- 1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 4. The Hangover Part II 5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 6. Fast Five 7. Cars 2 8. Thor 9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes 10. Captain America: The First Avenger Yes, every single one is a comic book or a sequel. That's why they get made, they're what people pay to see. Everyone complains about it, everyone sees 'em. If you want different movies to be made, go see different movies.
- SourPatch 15y ago
  I complain about this all the time and I've seen zero of those movies. Some of them I haven't even heard of.
- nhebb 15y ago
  Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If most of what they make are movies in these genres, that's what people will see. I don't even rent many movies any more, and I used to rent a lot! There just isn't much that's interesting, and i have pretty low standards when it comes to action / guy-flicks.
rokhayakebe 15y ago
As a business if you have a popular iphone game that, would rather create a new game from the ground up or make the sequel of that game?
- nvk 15y ago
  It's a valid question, but what's the point of making a sequel that no one would buy because they know it will be crap. Money is definitely the main factor, so you must make something that the consumer will buy. The whole argument is that consumers are not consuming this product anymore (Theater Experience). With that premis I'd make a new one.

ubercore 15y ago

One thing that's become an issue for me, at least at my local theater (and I admit I may be in the minority here), is volume. Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.

krschultz 15y ago
I think that just goes back to quality. When I go see a movie in a theater the screen better be right and the sound better be right. If the screen is so dark it is unwatchable and the sound is so loud it hurts, I am better off just watching it at home. And if the movie or sound cuts out, that is a big problem. I think I only saw 1 movie in theaters this year, and I saw about 5 or 6 last year. A large part of that for me is that the quality of the actual screen & sound sucks at the local theaters by me.
spodek 15y ago
I'll see your loudness and raise you that the theaters are freaking cold! I don't like to bring a coat and a set of earplugs with me to see a movie.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
Sounds like a bug in your local theater's sound setup. The local theaters here seem to have it set up about right: loud when it should sound loud, quiet when it should sound quiet, and never painful.
- ubercore 15y ago
  I thought so too. In fact, I complained multiple times at one movie. They said they have no control over it, and couldn't turn it down if they wanted to. I'm not sure I believe it; _someone_ must be able to turn it down, but I may believe that the average employee on a random Saturday may not be able to.
15y ago

smokeyj 15y ago

Movies now days are like commercials designed to last an hour long. I especially love when they blatantly promote products in the movie. Did I really have to know that the main character uses iTunes and drinks Pepsi? Fuck you Hollywood.

rokhayakebe 15y ago
And maybe that should be their business model. Focus 100% on product placements and impressions and release movies for near-free.
ChrisLTD 15y ago
How do we know your comment isn't product placement? :-)

msluyter 15y ago

I think Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is doing it right: 1. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn. 2. Cellphones must be turned off. 3. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect. 4. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights. 5. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc... I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.

deathwarmedover 15y ago
The Prince Charles Cinema in London, UK [1] is also doing this kind of thing and is about the only place I can be bothered to go see a film these days. [1] http://www.princecharlescinema.com/ http://www.princecharlescinema.com/
- ticks 15y ago
  There's quite a few independent cinemas in UK cities, all doing that sort of thing - many of them are non-profits as well. Fewer screens than multiplexes yet a more eclectic choice.
- personlurking 15y ago
  And like the Alamo Drafthouse, the Parkway and the Cerrito Speakeasy in the East Bay were doing something similar...though they closed in the economic downturn.
- vdm 15y ago
  The Electric on Portobello Road[1] is nice too. 1. http://www.electriccinema.co.uk/experience.php http://www.electriccinema.co.uk/experience.php
jakarta 15y ago
I'm a big fan of Alamo Drafthouse as well. I think their model really brings back a sort of "event" feeling to going to the movies which helps differentiate away from going to an ordinary theater or watching at home.

webwanderings 15y ago

We've been hearing that economy is bad, but this indicator of movie business is a proof that economy is really bad. So that's one reason why revenues are down. Logically, with the outpouring of 3D movies and additional cost, the revenue should be up, but obviously the 3D has not helped. I think people are also realizing that 3D is only a gimmick. Besides few forced scenes, typically a 3D is hardly a 3D. Hugo this year obviously made a difference but I wonder if others are going to follow?

CrLf 15y ago

Sequels, remakes, remakes of sequels, remakes of remakes. No need to go any further.

matwood 15y ago
Actually I don't mind prequels, sequels, or remakes as long as they are well made. The problem is that they are often a cop out and use the original as the only draw to see a new not so good movie.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Which as it turns out are the movies that make money.
- CrLf 15y ago
  When you only make a kind of movie, it's expected that's the only kind that will make you money. Actually, it's the distribution channels that block other kinds of movies from catching audiences. They only want "safe" blockbusters. Eventually, that will be their demise.
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    133 movies this year opened in more than 1000 theaters. There was plenty of choice, every single weekend of the year.

alex3780 15y ago

to me it's simpler - big budget, well-made TV series are flat out better than movies. id rather spend the same money as two theater tickets a month for HBO / Showtime and watch Homeland, Game of Thrones, 24/7 etc. Example: Girl with a Dragon tattoo would be an unreal premium TV series. A 2hr 40min movie seems rushed and messy whereas a 12-18 episode TV season could do this and other amazing books justice.

bradly 15y ago

The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies. I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America. edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?

jarito 15y ago
You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for 2011 was independent films. You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly could make great movies significantly cheaper. I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.
- bradly 15y ago
  Thanks for the reply. You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes, but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.
  - Game_Ender 15y ago

nikki9696 15y ago

I'll tell you the two major reasons I don't go. 1: Nothing worth seeing and 2: When it IS worth seeing, it's not worth the price of the movie and concessions. I can get a 12 pack of soda for what they charge for a "small". No thanks. I'll wait for the DVD. I can buy the DVD for the price of getting into the movie anyway.

nvk 15y ago

I'm in Toronto (Canada), it's pretty much the same thing in terms of "*plex" experience. Some reality check, they maximized things for profit so much that: 1. Most Hollywood movies suck to a extraterrestrial degree. 2. The food sucks and its expensive. 3. Say whatever you want, 3D still sucks comparing to the default 2D experience. 4. Way too expensive for what the experience provides. 5. Niche theaters with quality stuff are always sold out. 6. 15 min of commercials. 7. Noisy teenagers. 8. Most of these movies are a 1 hour long product placement Finally: if they decide to compete with the home, they loose, my TV is huge, my speaker set is awesome, my food is better, my sofa or bed are more comfortable. They need to find other ways to convince me to move my ass, pay $$$, and be there.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

Other reasons... BBM, Facebook and Twitter. When RIM had their outage a few months ago, everywhere (in real life) was packed. People actually left their lying down position and went outside, visited friends and the movies. It lasted for all of 3 days then things went back to 'normal' PS: Nigeria is a VERY BlackBerry centric country.

cdcarter 15y ago

This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but last night I went to see Hugo at a new megaplex that just opened by my house. Not only was the movie incredibly heartwarming and reminded me of why I love the movies, the experience was great. There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect. There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.

huhtenberg 15y ago

The one and only reason I stopped going to the movies was 20 minutes worth of obnoxious commercials that preceded every movie.

afterburner 15y ago

Countering a few of Ebert's points: "historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer." I'm not experiencing this. The cheapest concerts in my area are generally $40, with older popular bands going for at least $80. Sports games start at $20 for crappy seats for crappy teams during regular season, more like $100 and up if you want at least one of the good things (seat, team, playoff game). I'm all for bringing movie prices down and I think it will help (which may be Ebert's real point), but comparing them to other things isn't doing him any favours, even going back historically. As for concessions, dear lord, I never buy food at the movie theatre. And I still think it's kind pricey. Well, at least the base price; you can easily buy coupons for Cineplex/Famous Players that reduces the original price by 30%. And frankly, I can't recall the last time I was annoyed by the other patrons at the theatre. Is it because I only go to the latest showing? (Speaking of which, I would appreciate a return of 11pm and midnight showings... may not be as cost effective, but keeps up interest in theatres.) So I think the winning arguments go to home theatres being way better, intense sequelitis this year, and as Ebert says lack of choice.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
What concerts are you using as comparison? There's a world of difference between a major concert of a band that's been a household name for decades and a live show at a small local venue. If you live in a reasonably sized city with an active music scene then finding live shows in the $10 - $20 per person range is easy. The same is true for major league sporting events as well. I can go see a baseball or soccer game for about the same per person cost as seeing a movie.

Shenglong 15y ago

Ticket prices are too high. Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie. I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.

spodek 15y ago

I don't know how many others get this benefit, but I live across the street from a library. It's awesome. Dvds are free for a week, they have tons of old and artsy stuff, they have a great collection of educational stuff (especially the Great Courses -- http://www.thegreatcourses.com http://www.thegreatcourses.com), and things you put on hold they deliver to the library of your choice. On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal. I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews. I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down. Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.

samgrover 15y ago

The problem is that the studios are going to read this and try to come up with even more ways to screw up streaming.

dabent 15y ago

One of the major reasons I don't see many movies in the theater is that the movie companies have made much cheaper alternatives available. I won't pay twelve dollars a ticket to watch a movie in the theater when it probably will be just as enjoyable at home. That goes for a lot of comedies and movies that lack the cinematography to justify seeing on the big screen. I'll still see the ppv movies and pay to do so, but not at the cost of going to the theater. The blockbusters mentioned in the article - Batman and Avatar, were blockbusters largely because they were worth seeing on the giant screen and even worth dealing with the cost and hassle of 3D. I'll keep going to films with big visuals, but not the rest.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

There were more sequels and remakes in the theaters in 2011 than in any previous year in history. Some sequels can be good movies, but that tends not to be the norm.

b3b0p 15y ago

I never go the theater anymore. The largest factors for me are the cost and comfort. The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more. The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat. It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.

blhack 15y ago

I've been saying it forever, but theaters need to adopt seating charts. I will pay you more money for a center/center seat, and people sitting in the front row, and the front-corners should not be paying much-of-anything for a ticket.

jcampbell1 15y ago
Interesting idea, but the results would be worse than horrendous. It would drive up costs running a theatre massively, and it smacks of classism. Can you imagine how pissed people would be that they had to sit in the shit seats while the rich people seats were empty? Or you let people move when the movie starts, and the people that paid for premium tickets feel ripped off.
thehodge 15y ago
Our local cinema does this, they have 'premium seating' which are the two best rows in the cinema, you have to pay an extra £2 a ticket to sit in them..
toyg 15y ago
Some cinemas in the UK do this. It's hell to police, especially at "low" times, and because of that, most high-payers end up resenting it.

timjahn 15y ago

Movie revenue is dropping because it's simply too expensive for the average American family to go to the movies regularly. I love going to the movies. I love the experience, the big screen, the large sound system, etc. But it's a luxury that can easily be discarded when it's too expensive. Lower the price of movie tickets to what they were 5-10 years ago and watch Hollywood smile, as more people start going back to the theaters. Drop the price of concessions a bit, same result. Let me reiterate: I LOVE MOVIES. But movies will never be a necessity, always a luxury. The sooner Hollywood understands this, the sooner they can stop complaining and start brainstorming solutions to what is really a very simple problem.

mathattack 15y ago

I will add anecdotal evidence.... Movies this year suck. We have Grandma the babysitter around and my wife and I only took advantage once. After seeing Sherlock Holmes none of the movies beat Netflix. It isn't just the context, it's the content too.

rhplus 15y ago

2. Ticket prices are too high. People have always made that complaint, but historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following: Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI --------------------------------- 2010 | 7.89 | 7.89 2005 | 6.41 | 7.15 2000 | 5.39 | 6.83 1995 | 4.35 | 6.22 1990 | 4.22 | 7.04 1985 | 3.55 | 7.19 1980 | 2.69 | 7.12 1975 | 2.03 | 8.23 1971 | 1.65 | 8.88 1967 | 1.22 | 7.96 1963 | 0.86 | 6.13 1958 | 0.68 | 5.13 1954 | 0.49 | 3.97 1948 | 0.36 | 3.26 Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again. So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more. Sources: [1] http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm [2] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

MichaelApproved 15y ago
"both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming." Live events shouldn't be so easily compared to movies and home entertainment. While you can wait for a movie to come to DVD for a similar experience, it's not the same for a live event. Watching a concert on YouTube isn't nearly as much fun as going to watch it live. Going to a live event is an experience.
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  Concerts maybe not, but watching sporting events at home can usually be a better view and watching experience. Yes, the atmosphere of a home game for a passionate fan base cannot be replicated, but for casual fans who just want to watch the game in comfort, HD TV, comfy couches, and regularly priced food and drink is an attractive alternative compared to going to the stadium.

ianstormtaylor 15y ago

Pretty sure #5 should be a bit higher on that list. As soon as we see more movies make iTunes debuts at the same time as theatre debuts it'll surely get worse and worse.

mkramlich 15y ago

I thought of dozens of ways to improve on the current big movie theatre model but ultimately decided it was much simpler and easier to just have a good home theatre system for private use. Also I figured it was so obvious how to improve and innovate in that area that if it hadn't already been done by now there were probably nasty little complexities or political/bureaucratic swamps involved. Because there were no significant purely physical or technical challenges.

jsz0 15y ago

I think point #5 (home viewing) is the most important one. The other issues have, more or less, existed for quite sometime now. It's only fairly recently that the average person could afford a pretty nice home theater setup. I've had a home theater with a projector for the last 5 years or so and the idea of going to a theater to watch a movie seems ridiculous to me. It's like going to a concert hall to hear a CD played over the PA. Why bother? The industry has to focus on delivering content to home-viewers the same day it's released to theaters. They do all this marketing for a new film and exclude a huge portion of its potential audience who would rather watch at home?

daimyoyo 15y ago

I haven't seen a movie in months and don't plan to for the foreseeable future and the movie going experience is a major reason why. I will pay the ticket price without too much trouble, I don't mind kids(going to midnight showings during the week helps with that) and I never eat concessions so I don't care how expensive they are. My problem is once I get into the theater. Most movies today aren't shown correctly(I have no idea why they expect some kid making minimum wage to run 20 screens at once to know what he / she is doing), the watermarks every 20 minutes, and the poor sound quality. But the worst part by far is the commercials. I find it incredibily insulting that I pay $12 for the privilage of watching ads for 15 minutes straight. No one likes a double dipper.

JeffL 15y ago
I agree about the commercials. With TiVo, I don't ever watch commercials at home any more, why would I watch them when I've paid so much money for a movie ticket? Plus I've found that I have no tolerance for them anymore.

int3rnaut 15y ago

The biggest reason why I believe movie revenue is dropping is the ability for anyone to pick up a camera (high tech low cost now), create a movie, and upload it to the eyes of many people (like on youtube). Because of this, there are just so many more options to catch ones visceral media experience. I really like Science fiction and while there were certainly some good Sci-Fi movies (and television) out in the past year or so, there were many more interesting and thought provoking movies and shorts (going back to the previously brought up idea of short attention spans) on youtube than there were movies I would actually want to go to a theatre and pay for--and to be quite honest, I am sure that some of the things I saw on youtube recently were far more enjoyable than some of the things tossed at me by Hollywood. It's not so much a money thing for me, it's a time thing, and I want to spend it wisely.

businessideas 15y ago

@samgrover I am agree with you and indeed they need to work on this if they want to grow up more.

vonskippy 15y ago

Lets see..... at home I have a 60" Plasma, surround sound, comfy chairs, great food & drink, and 6-8 hand selected guests to watch a DVD I paid on average $15 from Amazon on our personally selected date and time. Or.... Huuuuge screen, maybe good maybe bad sound (definately played way tooooo loud), sticky/wobbly/uncomfortable chairs, crappy overpriced snacks, and a room full of obnoxious self absorbed strangers, watched when and where the theater tells us, all at $12 (plus snacks) per person. Yeah, boggles my mind why movie revenue is dropping.

dillidumpling 15y ago

There's no pause button at the cinema.

phaus 15y ago

I'm not trying to discredit the merits of watching independent films, but I think that they are disproportionately popular on netflix because netflix's streaming selection is terrible to begin with. People don't care if a movie is domestic or foreign, so long as it is well done. I think the popularity of independent films is due to the fact that a higher percentage of the best independent films show up on netflix vs the percentage of popular Hollywood movies. Its obviously going to be much easier to negotiate a contract with an independent studio that needs the money than it will be to do the same with a movie studio executive that hates the fact that your business even exists.

WalterBright 15y ago

Now with HD and home digital projectors, I've lost all interest in going to the theater. Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$. Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc. The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.

nhangen 15y ago

Two reasons I don't hit the theaters as much: 1. Quality Very rarely do they release a movie I feel is a must see. MI:4 was probably the most recent, but it's still not Batman or Avatar. 2. People As others have said, the amount of texting, talking, and overall noise/distraction is unreal. People kicking my chair, non-stop talking, laughing, etc.

te_chris 15y ago

I live in Auckland, NZ and am from Wellington, NZ. Auckland has a few decent theatres but Peter Jackson has just opened up the most beautiful theatre in one. Of Wellington's suburbs http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/ http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/ the best part is, it's cheaper, AND more civilized. This is what going to the movies needs to be these days as my ps3 and 40" Bravia do a damn fine job day to day.

thirdsun 15y ago

I can't emphasize enough how important Ebert's 6th point about "Lack of choice' is. I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 Kilometers and while I simply prefer watching movies on my admittedly better than average setup with decent 720p projector and very good A/V receiver and speakers, it's mostly the selection of movies those cinemas offer which keeps me away from them. I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept. Of course i guess this is a different situation in urban areas where some cinemas certainly cater to interests like mine. However if there's anything to 'the Long Tail' mainstream cinemas are of course still losing audiences. These cinemas serve the purpose of showing big films for a very short period of time before they rapidly become meaningless. With the growing the popularity of on demand services like Netflix, iTunes, amazon and so on this time frame doesn't matter any longer. People can dive into special interests, classics and films that once were only catered to a niche audience and see them immediatelly. So the limited selection and the instant availability from alternative sources hurts those mainstream cinemas twice. That said, the cinemas I know wouldn't see me even if I lived just across the street.

derleth 15y ago
> I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 Kilometers It's worse in America, which you would expect, given relative sizes and population densities: My nearest cinema is only about 8 km (5 miles), but that's a small four-screen place with very few interesting films. After that, it's 160 km (100 miles) to the next larger cinema, which still isn't that much larger. It's almost 600 km (350+ miles) to the nearest cinema that might be showing a film that isn't one of the week's designated 'blockbusters'. > I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept. Same here unless you're in a fairly major urban center. Out here we don't even get all the 'blockbuster' mainstream films. I am very happy to have the Internet, a good video rental place, and Turner Classic Movies on satellite TV.

evo_9 15y ago

Wow, it's not because of pirating? Spot on Mr. Ebert. I predict 2012 will magically bounce back because of a few AAA features hitting next year: The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rising, and the incredible Prometheus by Ridley Scott (who is returning to Scifi - finally - after 20+ years).

Apocryphon 15y ago
If the directors of the first two Alien films are returning to sci-fi, I wonder if David Fincher will follow.

jarjoura 15y ago

The problem is simple. Hollywood is conservative and hates taking chances. Every movie that's come out the last couple of years has been a sequel, another comic book franchise, or a remake of an already epic (unneeded remake) movie. I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already. The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.

coffee 15y ago

Here in Berkeley we have the local Shattuck Cinemas. They are taking a different approach on movie viewing as well. They provide couches (literally) instead of seats. http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac.html http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac... It's a wonderful way to watch a movie, and something that brings me out of the house and into the theater...

forkandwait 15y ago

I can tell you why... most movies suck. Not only do they suck, but they suck expensively because they rely on production values to compensate for the lack of plot, premise, and acting. As I understand it, Woody Allen is a solid money making enterprise because he makes good films with good actors and good scripts, and which cost an order of magnitude less to produce than crappy films based on car chases, laser guns, and heavy-handed soundtracks.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

executive 15y ago

I went to a VIP theater in Mexico City a few years back. Amazing. You get your own private cabana with drapes on the left/right and a fully reclining sofa that turns into a bed. And they serve alcohol/proper meals.

phil 15y ago

I think it's basically #5 in his list: > 5. Competition from other forms of delivery. If you look at the film industry as a whole, it's projected to grow over the next several years: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-electronic-200881 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-e...

Tloewald 15y ago

I'm curious about his disparagement of "noisy fanboys an girls". Is fanboy now just a generic term for someone we don't like?

WhatsHisName 15y ago

Two more reasons (1) aging populations (2) high unemployment.

brownbat 15y ago

He brushed against this, but we have more (nearly) free ways to instantly entertain ourselves than anyone else has had throughout history. Thank you, Internet. We have hit post-scarcity for fun.

VonLipwig 15y ago

I used to go to the cinema all the time. Unfortunately, as my local cinema no longer has a projectionist and no staff are apparently watching the movie people talk, they text.. some even get up and run around. I don't bother going much now. I was watching the Harry Potter part 8 movie and teens came with their dad. They talked on and off for the first half of the film. Their dad did nothing. It wasn't until I turned around in my seat and told them to shut up that they actually did. Flash back about 10 years. Maybe a bit more. There was a projectionist. There was often a staff member sitting by the entrance of the movie. Some kids would mess around. The staff would wait to see if it settled down for a minute or so then a flash light would come on and out would go the talkers. I forget what film it was but there were 4 major distractions where staff had to come in and order people out. As we left staff members apologised and handed out vouchers because they knew the screening had been ruined. I don't mind people gasping or saying "Oh no he didn't!" during scary films. There have always been idiots at the cinema. They have only started ruining films of late because cinemas have lost the will to deal with these people.

jbjohns 15y ago

IMO, the problem is that the guaranteed short-term profit strategy (MBA?) has infested Hollywood. These days they will only make a movie that has already done well. That means sequels and remakes. Every time you think your seeing an original Hollywood film in the last "I don't even know how many" years you're actually just seeing a foreign remake (e.g. Shall we Dance, Departed, 13, 3 idiots, etc.). These days they're waiting less and less time to remake popular foreign films. 3 idiots is from 2009 and they're already copying it. Some people are saying "but this is what makes the most money!"... weren't we just complaining that revenues have fallen? They may make the most money of any of their other offerings (which are just more of the same!) but they're making less over all. People still try to have the movie experience as we have for so long but then why pay so much? I can watch a well made series on free TV and then I only need to wait a week to see the next episode instead of 2-3 years.

xero5er 15y ago

http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com

xero5er 15y ago

http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com

jonnathanson 15y ago

In its most simple and irreducible form, the challenge is this: big-screen movies need to offer an experience so preferable to home viewing (or video games, or TV, or other uses of leisure time) that customers will pay time and ticket prices for it. That's becoming harder and harder, because all sides of the equation have been getting hit. On the pricing side, it goes without saying that higher prices place a greater burden on entertainment value. But on the entertainment side, we now have a) alternatives (Netflix, video games, etc.) that are increasingly attractive, inexpensive, and readily available, and b) movie offerings that have, at best, held steady in their general entertainment value. Interestingly, the theater-going experience itself has been improving over the past few decades. But at the heart of it all, customers aren't there for the window dressing; they're there for the content. A juicy piece of IP, such as Harry Potter, would drive people to a run-down shithole of a theater if they had to go -- but conversely, a shitty product wouldn't attract people to the nicest theater ever built. So, while we can all applaud the efforts of theater chains to improve their general offerings -- atmosphere, food, dining, etc. -- we shouldn't believe that such improvements are wholly sufficient, or ever could be. (At worst, if the cost of such atmosphere, ambience, furnishings, services, etc., eventually leaks into the ticket prices, then theaters are making the game even harder for themselves). In summation, I place the burden for the future of the big-screen movie business primarily on the shoulders of the movie studios. Not the exhibitors. Studios can't keep rehashing the same, warmed-over crap each year and expect anything more than a dice roll from the outcome. They need to place bigger bets with breakthrough IP. They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber-expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do; domestically, there's almost zero correlation). And they need to go all-in on the bets they do place. No more licensing, buying, or developing 100 properties to produce 2. Borrow a page from the Apple product philosophy, and launch only the titles you are dead serious about supporting. Fewer, but better. Finally, as a whole, the industry needs to stop being so stridently anti-consumer. Enough with the war on piracy, the DRMs, the 50 super-uber-ZOMG-uncensored-platinum-edition releases of every title on DVD and Blu-ray, and so forth. Studios, you are product companies. Focus your time, your attention, your budgets, and your people on your products. And make every product count.

erichocean 15y ago

w33ble 15y ago

"6. Lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. [...] Instead, all the shopping center compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of weeks, and disappear." For me, it's always been the quality of the content. SO many movies are such garbage, and, at least to me, that was more true in 2011 than in recent years. Look at all the reboots that came out this year and think how many of them were worth seeing at a premium in theaters... Ebert came close to hitting it with that point, especially at the end, but missed it a little. I don't think people prefer indie, foreign and documentaries because of what they are, nor because of the theaters they are shown in. Those movies have better turnout because they are better than most of the big Hollywood titles.