
For more estimates listed by title, see box office results here...FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 10, 2010
WORLDWIDE BOX OFFICE CONTINUES TO SOAR;
U.S. ADMISSIONS ON THE RISE
3D gives a boost to box office growth
Los Angeles – The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) today released its annual Theatrical Market Statistics Report for 2009. The report shows that global box office receipts reached an all time high of $29.9 billion, an increase of 7.6% over 2008 and almost 30% from 2005. The U.S./Canada market reached $10.6 billion, an increase of more than 10%, and International receipts increased 6.3% to $19.3 billion in 2009. The 3D market gave the U.S./Canada box office a
boost accounting for 11% of the total compared to just 2% in 2008. With 20 films released in 3D compared to just eight in 2008, higher value entertainment contributed significantly to box office revenues.
“While the motion picture industry continues to face tremendous challenges elsewhere in our business, we’re reminded again this year that the cinema is the heart and soul of our industry and it is thriving,” said Bob Pisano, President and Interim CEO of the MPAA.
Ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada rose more than 5.5% from 2008, the first admissions increase in two years. Per capita ticket purchases in the U.S. and Canada also increased 4.6% to 4.3 tickets per person, the first significant increase since 2002. Sales were fueled by repeated visits to the cinema by frequent moviegoers – those who go to the movies once a month or more and who make up only 10% of the population – who bought half of all tickets sold in 2009.
“Four straight years of box office growth– the last three each setting a new record – show the enormous appetite audiences continue to have for great and entertaining movies in the best way to enjoy them – on a big screen with a big crowd,” said John Fithian, President and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners.
At the end of 2009 there were more than 16,000 digital cinema screens worldwide, up 86% from the end of 2008, a net gain of more than 7,000 screens. The fastest growing sector of digital screens is 3D. The number of digital 3D screens worldwide more than tripled in 2009, reaching 8,989, or about 6% of screens in the world.
“Digital technology is the foundation on which 3D has been built. Together, digital presentation and 3D hold the promise of a dramatic game change in moviemaking and movie-going. The global film audience is voting with its feet, and those feet are planted firmly in the direction of local cinemas that have the latest technology,” said Pisano.
While box office revenues and admissions surged, films produced by U.S. production companies declined over the past three years. In 2009, the number of U.S. produced films released in domestic theaters decreased 12%, the first decline since 2003. The decline is attributable in significant part to labor issues affecting the industry in 2007-08, the recession and the challenges to investment recovery due to rampant content theft, and the decline in DVD sales.


So what happens when 3D enters the home market? Die golden goose! DIE!!!!
3D won’t be big in the home market for at least 5 years or more. The 3D televisions are just about to come out this month but the technology won’t be perfect for many many years. Until then movie companies will make huge money from these 3D movies.
Not true some relative bought that Michael Jackson DVD.
They didn’t want to see the movie in three D the red and blue paper glasses but they bought the DVD anyway.
When you can buy red and blue comfortable frames at rite aid this will blow away the market.
Now, if they buy my 3D epic script they will really make money.
3-D is the best thing to happen to the movies since THX sound.
I hope all the talent agencies and studios don’t just repackage their existing movies in development into 3-D productions just to take advantage of 3-D…
But instead the studios should develop actual made-for-3D movies that are expecially written to include never-before-experienced 3-D special effects that will thrill, excite or scare the hell out of a very eager audience that will be drawn to such 3-D promoted movies.
The 3D argument can go both ways. The higher ticket prices surely turn some people off. Not to mention it will stop a lot of people from seeing the movie multiple times.
Dont use Avatar as the example to end all. A movie like Avatar and Titanic only comes around every decade or more.
OF COURSE studios are going to repackage movies to be in 3D. They just did that with Clash of the Titans, which is why I am seeing it in 2D. Like you, I believe 3D should be used to heighten the experience (a la Avatar), but be gimmicky.
The industry is running on a false high when it comes to 3-D right now. AVATAR was a singular, new experience that delivered a lot in terms of its 3-D. Though there may have been story problems, it was worth checking out again for that experience. But unless movies are crafted to replicate that style of visual immersivity, it’s not going to have the same effect (already people are musing that ALICE might be one to check out in 2-D instead).
And that’s nothing to say for the banality that’s going to set in when Every. Single. Movie gets released in 3-D, whether it was conceived and shot as such or not. When the experience stops being special, it stops being worth the extra money.
But then audiences won’t have a choice because all ticket prices will be bumped to the 3-D price of $16 or higher, right? Well that’s when our industry will have priced us right into the complete collapse of theatrical exhibition.
Naaaaaaaah…really?
AVATAR = Game changer
3D is a huge JOKE and FAD. Nothing in that technology has changed in fifty years! Yes they used the polarized glasses in the fifties. Why have they not come out with a screen where you don’t need those stupid glasses! It’s the 21st century you would think they could have come up with that by now. What a waste, give me a @#$%&! good story in 2D any day.
George Patton are you crazy or just misinformed? In order to get the 3D effect of a movie you MUST have the 3D glasses. 3D while it may in fact be a fad is brining hundreds of millions of dollars more to a film and until that stops 3D movies won’t stop.
Sony and other manufacturers are working on 3-D displays that do away with the glasses, that “trick” the eyes/brain into thinking the display is 3-D, but DOES cause headaches and works poorly with lots of corrective lenses.
The glasses are a definite barrier, and the fundamental technology is indeed old. Prototypes exist now and have been exhibited, but remain too costly for production, from what I’ve read in both the WSJ and FT.
The AVATAR effect is likely to end soon. Not only does 3-D remain a problem for most existing TVs, it requires essentially Blu-Ray for storage and playback. Even Sony only plans to sell 2.5 million 3-D TVs globally in 2011. That’s 10% of their planned TV production which is 25 million units, up from about 15 million last year.
MOST of the money studios earn is from home video sales and rentals. For 3-D to have any real effect (I suspect most of the AVATAR ticket grosses were due the co-financers for the movie) it has to be able to command higher prices for consumers in a broad way.
Basically, consumers have to have enough money to replace perfectly good TVs and DVD players with hi-def, next generation 3-D sets requiring new battery operated glasses and pricey Blu-Ray players.
This means a global economic expansion that erases the approximately 17 million people out of work by massive hiring and wage increases (given consumers avoidance now of debt to make electronics purchases). How likely is that? Three-D games are no use because I can purchase a new computer monitor a lot cheaper than a new home entertainment system. Gaming won’t drive the adoption. Unless hardware makers can work a miracle and make these systems for around $70-$150 total.
Meanwhile I can watch video on an Iphone, or my laptop, often for free. From Hulu or cheap downloads from Itunes or Amazon or other places. Or rent a DVD for $1 at Redbox on my way out the Supermarket.
I find that hard to believe that most of the money studios make home videos sales. while I don’t disagree that they make a lot of money that way movies in theaters can still make money especially with 3D. Look at the remake of My Bloody Valentine which came out January 2009. It was a remake of a very small horror film that was made in the 80s and they remade in 3D and because of it being in 3D the movie made big money and h=gave the studio profit. If a small time horror movie from the 80s can be remade in 3D and make profit it shouldn’t be hard for other movies either. Another example is The Final Destination. Yes that is a popular horror franchise but the series was declining before the 3D movie. And by the way that 3D movie also made huge money and made profit.
Stay tuned for the MPAA to announce that water is wet and the sky is blue.
Had the industry not received this release, we might have lived our lives thinking films like My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destinations were actually appreciated by their audiences for their high quality, not just their studios’ marketing decision.
3D isn’t new. It was a fad in the 50′s; key word being “fad”. It came and went. Today’s 3D craze will come and go as well.
The next phase will be holographic movies.
3-D or 2-D or good story & script?
I’ll bet ont the good story & script.
When I first got into the business, and old-sage writer named Milton Gelman tossed a phrase at me: It’s the performance and not the picture.
Would Pixar’s “Up” have made money in 2D? Did Toy Story and Nemo and WALL-E make money? Did “Titanic” (no snickers please) make money in 2D? Was/is “Lawrence of Arabia” a good film in 2D? Does “I Love Lucy” reruns on TV make you laugh…in standard-definition video and simple-dimple sets?
I got to hand it to Milt.
There is a place in our industry for spectacle, of course. “Avatar” in IMAX is such. “2001: A Space Odyssey” in 2D is another. “Heaven’s Gate” in 2D, 3D, or as a holographic experience is not…
We have to bang the drum for audience attention, certainly, but we’ll always return to the story & script. For you writers out there, some of us still cherish the great story…and the audience will always recognize your work.
Ciao for now…
John