Comments on: The sky is not falling

By: Six

Six — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:29:04 +0000

When they start releasing movies for download on the Internet the same day as they come out in theatres, they'll see a HUGE increase in sales.

It's just less comfortable and more expensive for me to go out than it is for me to stay in and watch something at home or just surf the 'Net.

By: Ken Sherman

Ken Sherman — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 20:33:04 +0000

It would seem that everything is a matter of perspective. Sort of like the blind men describing an elephant with each having taken hold of a different part of the elephant. When I was in school, which is so long ago, I don’t even want to think about it, I was taught that, “Necessity is the mother of strange new inventions.” In today’s perspective, evolving technology is solving the problem of content selection. Those in control of content, and what will be offered the movie going audience, have come face to face with a reality that the world of technology has forced upon them. They made conclude that the marketplace wants to see movies dealing with the issues of homosexuality, lesbianism, racism, adultry, and fornication, and create content accordingly. Their content may even make money; maybe not as much as they would have made if they would have broadened their effort to include a larger market, but they seem satisfied with their decision. We might also add that the porn industry serves a market, and its income is probably larger than most people realize. Technology will soon change everything as the Internet, even now has the capability to have someone watch the movie of their choice on their computer, or even have it played through their computer and watch it on their televisio set. As we evolve into this new arena, producers may choose to bypass traditional channels of distribution, and instead make their content available to the massive audience on the web that is growing day by day. Then, that audience that is currently being ignored, will have a choice to watch the content of their choice. In the end, it will make little difference to the producer of content whether their product is seen in a theater, DVD, on your computer, or going through your computer and watching it on your television set. The market will always drive an industry, and in the case of the movie industry, the market will watch the content they want to watch. Television did not put radio out of business, but it did offer a new option. We can learn from history, or we can ignore it, and suffer the consequences. We can benefit from our perspective, or we can be hurt by it. There are many reasons why the movie audience is declining, and that audience will resolve its own issues.

By: TruthTeller

TruthTeller — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:47:16 +0000

You industry insiders are kidding yourselves. The movies matter less and less to Americans….and you’re recycling the same cliches. But your fat paychecks will keep you in the dark. My advice? Move out of LA and live among regular people. Then maybe you’ll see a world that should be reflected in your writing.

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:35:21 +0000

I'm coming late to this discussion, but as someone pointed out earlier, ticket prices have not stayed the same - they have increased in cost. As a result, using gross sales as the measure for movies is probably not the best approach - we should be looking at attendance numbers to get a sense of current trends in movie viewership.

From CBSNews site, via AP:

(AP) Box office receipts soared to a new record in 2004, although the actual number of moviegoers declined for a second year in a row.

Movies took in $9.4 billion in 2004 at the domestic box office, according to tracking firm Exhibitor Relations. Revenue for the year was lagging last year going into the final weeks, but "Meet the Fockers," the sequel from Universal Pictures, propelled gross revenues with total ticket sales of $162.5 million in the last two weeks of the year.

But the record gross was due more to rising ticket prices than attendance.

Factoring in the nationwide average ticket price of $6.22, attendance fell about 1.7 percent in 2004 to 1.51 billion. Attendance in 2003 was 1.54 billion, down 4.3 percent from 2002. The average ticket price last year was $6.03.

Banner Year At Box Office

This article is about 2004, and as we know so far 2005 has been a disappointment in terms of attendance - so what we have is a decline in the general public's participation in movies (obviously could be and likely is due to a large number of factors). Bottom line I think is that movies in theaters are increasely a shrinking business.

By: monkyboy

monkyboy — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:40:54 +0000

I know the studios are just cogs in giant conglomerates now, Konrad, but "Hollywood" will always mean big movies with big stars playing on big screens to me. But I still think box office revenue is far more important than other revenue streams for movies.

What you are suggesting is analogous to NASCAR, seeing that most of its revenue comes from sponsorships and licensing fees, decides it's not that big a deal whether they actually race their cars around the track or not...

By: Konrad West

Konrad West — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:11:23 +0000

Monkyboy, you missed my point. Studios are well aware that few movies will break even from just box-office revenues. Box-office revenues represent less than 20% of major studio revenues.

The box-office share of revenue has been going down since movies started screening on TV. People now watch many more movies on DVD and TV than at the theatre. Studios earn from all of this (remember they own the TV networks too).

You're confusing Hollywood with the box-office. Even if ticket sales dropped by 50%, movies would still get made, because people still buy and rent them on DVD. It's just a matter of which revenue stream the income comes from.

By: Christopher Coulter

Christopher Coulter — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:50:22 +0000

The Hollywood crisis that isn’t Everyone panic – that’s an order!

http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/04/hollywood_crisis_no_crisis/

Barely a week has gone by without reports of Hollywood’s great box office slump of 2005. So our thanks go to screenwriter John August for pointing out that on closer examination, the ’slump’ is as elusive as missing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

By: Sylvain

Sylvain — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:04:19 +0000

Me, upset by now? Okay, Vlad and Gary... i "wanted" to share my thoughts on the now infamously stupid slump. It's all in the attitude against others or deserved ignorance. Translate all you want, both of you are provocative and that's too bad for JA's blog.

I might not fit your definitions of proper englo-slang but i know how to detect insults or idiocy from total strangers.

For anyone else reading this, sorry i HAD to defend myself.

Who cares anyway, right?

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:57:07 +0000

One thing that’s funny about the quality argument of the “slump” is that most of the movies that don’t seem to find and audience here, that take in little money and are labeled “flops” tend to make most of their money (often a profit) overseas. The Island was a big loser here (though I liked it) but is doing remarkably well overseas. So can we still say quality is a valid argument? Any thoughts?

By: Vlad

Vlad — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:03:31 +0000

I’m always surprised at how upset Sylvain gets that no one understands what he’s trying to say. You’d think he’d be used to it by now.

By: monkyboy

monkyboy — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:44:06 +0000

I disagree, Konrad.

Without the big screen, movies are just TV. And let's be honest, TV is better at TV. "Deadwood" is better drama than any recent movie. "Family Guy" is funnier than any movie comedy. The new Battlestar Galactica is better Sci-Fi than anything Hollywood has cranked out since "Blade Runner."

No box ofice, no more Hollywood...