The movie moguls hate it whenever their studios are judged by market share. Which is why it’s so much fun to spotlight at the end of the year. Final figures aren’t in yet, but the order isn’t going to change: Warner Bros is No. 1 (for the third straight year), followed by Paramount, then Fox, then Disney, then Sony, and finally the bomb factory known as Universal. Next comes the mini-majors with Summit Entertainment, and Lionsgate bringing up the rear. The only surprise is the high placement of Fox even though it took a terrible beating from the media all year, and the low order of Sony which appeared to dominate box office week in and week out. Go figure.
As for overall grosses, 2010 alas was not a record-setting year. My pal Paul Dergarabedian over at Hollywood.com is projecting that when full year revenues come in by Monday, the expected figure of $10.5 billion will fall just short of 2009’s record $10.6 billion. ”This is only the second time in box office history that full year revenues will top the $10 billion mark. However, the last time that revenues fell short of the prior year was in 2008 when they dipped 0.52% from 2007. More telling is that attendance this year will see a 5.36% downturn vs. 2009 giving us the biggest percentage drop year over year since 2005 when attendance fell a whopping 8.14% vs. 2004.”
He says this will also be the second lowest attended year of the decade (only 2008 was lower). This past summer was the lowest attended in over a decade, and the current holiday season has been a bummer by experiencing seven consecutive “down” weekends vs. last year and a 20% attendance deficit. Given all that, Dergarabedian says, “it is not surprising that even with higher average ticket prices that full year revenues and attendance have fallen short of 2009.”
Meanwhile, for the record, the Top 5 Grossing Movies of 2010 in North America were Toy Story 3 (3D – Disney/Pixar), Alice In Wonderland (3D – Disney), Iron Man 2 (2D – Disney/Marvel distributed by Paramount), The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2D – Summit Entertainment), and Inception (2D – Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures). Interesting how not all were 3D despite the higher ticket prices, which has prompted one prominent media analyst this week to call on the movie industry to scale back on the number of 3D movies it has planned because demand for them is lessening and 3D is “not the panacea which Hollywood studios hoped it would be”, says Rich Greenfield.
He notes that total movie industry box office is down over $152M or 30% year-over-year. And 4th quarter-to-date, box office is now down over 8% and could easily end the quarter down 9% given how poorly newly opened films are performing. In turn, attendance for Q4 2010 will likely be down around 12% – “a staggering number for an industry that expected 3D technology to motivate people to get out of their houses and go to the movies,” he says. ”The U.S. consumer is becoming increasingly less interested in 3D movies. While the horror and gross-out comedy genres may benefit from 3D (think Saw 3D or Jackass 3D), the vast majority of 3D movies this year have been disappointing at best (the exceptions being Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, and Despicable Me).”
Greenfield calls this “A Recipe for Disaster: Hollywood is combining substantial price increases ($3.25 3D upcharge is the average in the US on a $7.00-$7.25 average 2D ticket), with annoying glasses that substantially dim the light of a movie and which young children spend more time playing with than wearing, with sub-par content (not to mention the fact that 3D gives some people headaches and others cannot see 3D imagery at all). While you may think of us as the ’3D Grinch’, we fundamentally believe content and story are the key factors to success and that technology alone is not a long-term path to success or profits. The movie industry should reduce the number of 3D movies it has planned or at least substantially scale back the upcharge as they are simply charging way too much for poor content. Did a Jack Black comedy, Gulliver’s Travels really need to be in 3D? We suspect even if the movie was bad, lowering pricing (to 2D levels) would have ended up selling more tickets.”
Although others’ projections for 2011 and 2012 box office are upbeat, Greenfield maintains that weak box office is likely to accelerate studio plans for early release premium Video-On-Demand. “While the exhibitors continue to focus on the risks to cutting into their 4-month release window, we suspect the weakness in exhibition attendance trends is likely to provoke Hollywood to accelerate their plans to release movies earlier in the home. Studios need to find new revenue streams to bolster movie profits in 2011 and beyond. We continue to expect multiple studios to begin trialing early-release, premium-priced VOD by late Q1 2011/early Q2 2011.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Yeah also not too spectacular year for quality films especially in the blockbuster department. One interesting thing to note though is the inclusion of two films directed primarily at females in the top 5. I’m surprised how little talk I hear about Hollywood trying to make big movies that target the female demographic despite there recent proven success.
I don’t get why everyone goes so crazy in there hatred for 3D. Movie theatres offer 3D as an option, you can still see it in 2D. I also don’t understand why 3D is considered to just be a gimmick. Of course it’s pretty much only been used on big blockbuster gimmicky films but that’s to be expected when a new technology comes out. If you look back in film history to the first color pictures that came out try and find how many of those are considered classics vs. big budget gimmicky films. I have no doubt that once the technology becomes better with 3D projection that it will become the standard and to our children, calling 3D a gimmick will seem as funny as calling color films or stereo sound is to us.
In the UK its very very rare for a multiplex to screen a 2D version of a film if the 3D format is available so the assertion that it’s just option is plain wrong.
It may depend where in the UK one is, but I have NEVER had a problem finding a 2D screening of a 3D film at a time that suited me without having to go out of my way to see the 2D version.
It is not rare, and it is not impossible to find them easily enough where I am.
Yeah, I live in SoCal, and it’s almost impossible to watch a 2-D version of a film in it’s first 3-4 weeks. I even asked a manager of one of the theaters and she said that for some films, it’s ONLY going to be played in 3-D. AND here it’s a 4 dollar upcharge. I had to drive 30 miles to a smaller theater chain just to see Tangled in 2-D. AND the same goes for Tron. The 3-D upcharge is so bad, that I saw a mom buy 4 tickets for her and her daughters and her friends to Harry Potter (which isn’t playing in 3-D) and sneak into Tangled (which didn’t have any 2-D option). They saved the glasses from the last time they saw a movie and just used them for that viewing. The 3-D prices hurt films people are unsure of going to see like Narnia and Yogi Bear. Attendance is down , because no longer can families afford to make a spur of the moment decision to watch a movie. Not when their expected to pay an extra 12-16 dollars for a family of 4 for something like Yogi Bear. Theater owners are only hastening their doom by pushing large prices on consumers, and paving the way for faster transition to at home video.
As a small theatre owner, I can tell you that ticket price is more dictated by the studios than most people would ever realize. Also realize how small a percentage the theatre actually takes. At our own theatre, we pride ourselves on charging as little as the studios will allow (and they gripe to us OFTEN). We did recently go 3D, and because we own the glasses (non-disposable), we can set the upcharge wherever we want. We have to charge some, because of the actual cost of the glasses and the labor/materials to clean them (yes, we do actually clean them!), but at that, we charge a $1 premium for 3D. On average, we see a small increase in the number of people to see the film in 3D, but given the small increase in ticket price, a.)most people do not complain about the ticket price (Adult 3D ticket is $8), and b.)because the studio STILL gets their percentage for the upcharge, we see only a little additional revenue.
I do agree that studios should release fewer 3D films. This will keep it more ‘special’. Some films (like Tron) are much better in 3D. Others offer no merit in being 3D. This part, of course, is subjective, What’s more, the quality of the 3D must be tops, or it will just turn off the audience – maybe permanently. I think that is the biggest danger to theatres. We generally do not have a much better idea of how good the film will be upon receiving it, than the public has when walking in the door. Most theatre owners cannot afford the time, or great travel to go to film screenings. Think you, as the customer, feels ripped off when you go to see a much hyped film, only to find it is a bomb? The theatre owner hurts much more, I guarantee it!
On studios. Studios generally have a hate relationship with exhibitors. They would like to skip us altogether, and go straight to video where they make the most revenue. On the other hand, without the exhibitor advertising their materials, straight to video generally flops. This is a cycle that moves through Hollywood. Generally, it is the exhibitor that pays the price for Hollywood to “learn” that going straight to video is not a good idea. Then the studios back off the tight release schedule for a while, until, it seems, a new batch of execs move in, and try the whole thing over again. In general, this is about a 5 year cycle.
Lastly, on a theatre showing the film in both 2D and 3D. This generally will only happen if the theatre is showing the same film on more than one screen, and there are more screens than 3D systems. In other words, if the auditorium is equipped with 3D, then the studios generally require that the exhibitor show that particular film in 3D.
Thanks for the Great post! We went to see one 3D movie of fairly recent Avatar. Loved the movie hated the 3d. Saw it twice just to see the 2D version and liked it much better. Our boys dont mind. We wont go and see a 3D movie again until they losse the glasses.
Saw only one movie in 2010 Iron man 2, the rest just did not seem interesting enough to go to a theatre.
THANK YOU!!
Your assessment of the market is excellent.
As a customer, in our local market in Columbia, SC, the theaters have just (in December, 2010) initiated an 11.1% general admission price increase, and they charge $3.00 for the 3D glasses. My family, with four children, can no longer afford to attend movies since the “experience” can cost over $100.00.
With the quality of the product on average so poor, family “friendly” movies so rare, prices increasing so much (When SC currently “enjoys” 11% unemployment), why would I spend ANY money on feature films?
Answer: My family will not.
Agree, shady theatre owners should be taken to task, but by and large, most owners care about their theatres and their customers even more. Our glasses are a non-disposable type, and represent a significant investment by us. We do sterilize our glasses after each and every use.
As for the upcharge, the equipment may eventually pay for itself, but there is always upkeep of that equipment (which is above and beyond 2D equipment), but also the upkeep and replacement of the 3D glasses themselves. They don’t last forever…
And it doesn’t matter if a 2D version is available because if it is it’s on the low end, postage stamp-sized screens and not the multiplex’s big screens. At that size the impact is no greater than watching a 50″ screen at home. So I stay home.
“Movie theatres offer 3D as an option, you can still see it in 2D.”
Even in the United States, it is becoming less common for studios to offer 2D versions of 3D-applied films.
The physiological effects of 3D are very interesting. Approximately 5% of the population cannot see 3D at all. Their depth perception cannot be tricked – even with the glasses on, they see it as two distinct channels. The remaining 95% will all experience some negative physiological effect as a result of 3D. Normally, when an object comes towards us, our eyes turn inwards and our eyes’ lenses change shape to compensate for the alteration in depth to keep the object in focus. With 3D, because our eyes are being tricked, they only turn inwards, the lenses do not change shape. The result of this is that prolonged viewing of 3D causes eyestrain, and in some cases, nausea, because your body cannot compensate for the trickery. In tests, 100% of people report eyestrain after watching 3D for an hour. The adverse effects are heightened by length of time spent viewing 3D and proximity to the screen. So, a visit to the movie theatre to watch a film for a couple of hours might just leave you with tired eyes and a feeling of disorientation. But prolonged use of a 3D television might be a very different matter, where average viewing time will be longer and people will naturally sit much closer to the screen. Which is why Samsung’s 3D televisions come with an advisory warning to avoid prolonged use. 3D is a gimmick, and for many people, not a particularly enjoyable one. But because it enables movie theatres to charge a premium on tickets, I don’t see it going down the tubes as quickly as the last 3D fad.
I have been watching my Samsung for hours and experienced no problems. My wife even can see 3D from this set while not at the theater. Maybe the 5 per cent figure is less for at home sets.
I love my new 3d tv! When my husband suggested getting one I was apprehensive at first, but it has really turned out to be quite entertaining. My only issue is the current lack of content for these home sets, right now the majority of 3d flicks are all little kiddie movies.
2D/3D/4D OR WHATEVER D YOU CHOOSE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOLLOWOOD FILMS ARE DESTINED FOR THE ROOM TEMPERATURE IQ’S OF THE GREAT UNWASHED AND UNEDUCATED AMERICAN TEENY BOPPER. THESE INCLUDE THE SAME GROUP WITH THE SAME SOPHISTICATION AT 50 AS THEY HAD AT 13. THANK GOD FOR BOOKS. THE SHXT FROM HOLLOWOOD IS UNWATCHABLE IF YOUR HAVE ANY FUNCTIONING BRAIN CELLS.
Movies are a diversion. “Entertainment” is the key word here.
I agree with this 100%. I refuse to go the movies when they are churning out shite. I also will NOT pay $13 for a bag of popcorn and a soda. 3D is and always has been just a gimmick. It has never enhanced any story. Sure Avatar looked cool, but it was the exact same movie in 2D! My advice to Hollywood is to save your money on the 3D and hire yourself a good writer and people who can act. They are out there. Oh yes, they are!
Never understood why people constantly complain about the cost of popcorn and soda. It’s a two hour movie – are you telling me you can’t go two hours without stuffing your face with something?
It’s embarassing to comprehend just how much money is earned by these charlatans posing as “actors”, as well as those who direct, write, produce the utter garbage that Hollywood spews forth year after year.Joel’s assessment is dead on. I have a teenage son. He wanted to see DUE DATE. It was so bad that even my son wanted to leave halfway through. I was happy to oblige. That film sums up everything that’s wrong. Overrated talent,infantile writing(try watching the masturbating dog scene),etc. 3-D is even worse because they abandon any attempt at making a good movie and think that “dazzling” the rubes with multitudes of objects being hurled at the audience will suffice.
Nothing original – just special effects. And that’s what attracts the “sheep” that blindly follow FOLLYWOOD. If anything original came out of FOLLYWOOD, then the “sheep” would pass out since their brains couldn’t take it.
2d? 3D? I don’t really care either way. What I do care about is the outrageous prices for tickets.
Instead of paying between $11 and $15 per ticket and then sitting in a crowded theater with noisy and rude patrons, I can now patiently wait for a few months, rent the blue-ray HD version from Redbox for $1.50 and watch it in the privacy of my own home theater. At a savings of over $50 per movie (taking wife and kids). It doesn’t take too many deferred viewings to pay for a nice bigscreen 1080p video display.
The studio moguls and their hollywood harlots greedily lust for more and more money. It is basic economics – you can raise the price for your commodity as high a you like, but the higher you go, the steeper the drop in demand. The ironic thing is that the greed driven industry will try to compensate by charging higher prices still…with the inevitable further loss in revenue.
Brilliantly said. diddo.
great post. When you have 3 children, paying to watch a terrible movie at the theatre is not a fun, family night out when you can rent and stay at home and watch the same terrible movie for much less.
Aren’t these the same “creative” freaks that scream at “greedy” corporation? Yet these “creative” freaks bow down to the greed that drive FOLLYWOOD.
I will NEVER see another movie in 3D, 3D movies give me a terrible headache. Not to mention I find 3D distracting, it’s like producing a pop-up book version of a classic novel (assuming of course the movie is a good movie to begin with, which few, if any, 3D movies are anyway).
You are aware this isn’t 3D’s first trip on the Hollywood Merry-Go-Round…this isn’t even new technology. The only difference is it’s Digital this time around and the resolution is “better.” Now as far as the whole this is the future for our children have you not been reading about the apparent danger 3D media can be for any child under the age of 6′s optical development? In 5 years no one will be talking about 3D until it’s fourth dip in the spin cycle. 3D is a fanboy “cult” niche genre at best. It’s nice that James Cameron poured so much into Avatar and it was an all right movie at best…because content is king, technology serves as the frame to the mural of the movie…the subject, characters, plots, emotions of the movie is what makes movies magical…why do certain films utilize the 3D–as a slight of hand gesture to help you forget you’re watching a bad film. Now before you get your panties in a bunch i’m not saying all 3D is bad…but it is abused/overused by less talented entities. This is a fact…when 3D has emerged in the past…some stellar concepts were the early stock, but allow the get rich quick fold to the table and it very quickly falls into the unwanted step child category…and the movie “money” makers get tired of cutting their losses and the trend deflates back into the mire that is the film industry.
I need to close with this…3D is a personal preference, and theaters should only offer a 3D film if they can accommodate the more practical 2D iterations.
Tell them to turn down the volume … movies are too loud in recent times.
As they say, if it’s too loud, you’re too old.
3-D movies are not new at all they were popular in the early 50′s when the movie industry tried every gimmick in the book to compete with the new medium of television. There were even a couple of stincker movies in “Smellovision”, true. 3D was a gimmick then and its a gimmick now and will never last unless you get rid of those crummy glasses. To compare stereo sound and color as also gimmicks is false, those elements improved on an already existing technology without audience inconvenience, e.q. glasses.
Jimmy – 3D is not “new.” It is the same 3D technology developed in the 1950s and promptly abandoned before the decade was over.
The same technology? Really? You’re wearing red and blue glasses to watch today’s 3D? Get real. I’m not saying I like 3D, but to say it’s the same 3D technology as the 1950s is absurd.
New technology? Do your homework. “3-D films have existed in some form since the 1950s, but had been largely relegated to a niche in the motion picture industry because of the costly hardware and processes required to produce and display a 3-D film, and the lack of a standardized format for all segments of the entertainment business. Nonetheless, 3-D films were prominently featured in the 1950s in American cinema, and later experienced a worldwide resurgence in the 1980s and ’90s driven by IMAX high-end theaters and Disney themed-venues.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film
Ignorance has no limits and some mouths operate in absence of a controlling brain.
High prices and bad movies which have no content equal an industry in decline. There is no substance in Hollywood except substance abuse.
There will never, ever be a film made that I will pay to wear plastic glasses for. Add that to the fact that I will never, ever pay almost 50 bucks for a wife and two kids to watch even a blockbuster 3D film.
The idea that 3D is a gimmick hasn’t even crossed my mind. It comes down to price point and the inconvenience of *paying* to wear shit on my face for a dumbass film which is the terminology I would utilize to describe 98% of the movies produced by the cash-guzzling studios who mainly suck up to the simplistic mainstream masses.
“the Top 5 Grossing Movies of 2010 in North America were Toy Story 3 (3D – Disney/Pixar), Alice In Wonderland (3D – Disney), Iron Man 2 (2D – Disney/Marvel distributed by Paramount), The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2D – Summit Entertainment), and Inception (2D – Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures).”
Jimmy,
Notice that the Top 5 movies are FAMILY MOVIES. When will Hollywood realize that producing trash [sex, violence, cussing, blood, gore, etc.] isn’t going to make them money, stop pandering to the immoral and start making money by producing good, clean family fun?
On what planet are Inception, Twilight and Iron Man 2 family films? And even if you accept that they are, you contradict yourself by saying the top 5 are family films, but that Hollywood needs to make family films to make money?
3D is not new, repeat- NOT NEW. Remember all the horror 3D films from the 50′s. The home version (shutter manipulation) will ultimately fail because of the stupid glasses. I’m simply not willing to buy nor wear those things just to watch a show. Besides, does 3D really add to a movie or are movies adjusted to make room for cool new 3D scenes? I saw Alice in Wonderland in both 3D and 2D- really preferred the 2D version.
SUB-PAR CONTENT? YOU BET! I wanted to see a movie many, many times this year and usually found only 2 or 3 interesting, well-done films per month out there. I love action films, but not dumb ones. I love dramas & comedies (any age range!) with sparkling, sharp dialog and good, original stories (that aren’t ripped off from older films). But those are few & far between.
I know there are some damn good writers out there, but the studios seem to prefer hiring the WGA hacks – there must be an equasion: if a movie costs more, than the studios go with lesser talents. And what kills me is that YOU SEE THE SAME NAMES AGAIN & AGAIN, ruining film after film. With their boring dialogue & story points & twists taken from movies made within the last ten years.
It doesn’t matter if you write a bomb – if it was for a $80 million film, then FOX, SONY, UNIVERSAL, want to hire those guys right back for their next mega production. WHY??
NIKKI, when you said, “We fundamentally believe content and story are the key factors to success and that technology alone is not a long-term path to success or profits.” AMEN!
These Hollywood fools DON’T SEEM TO REALIZE: myself and millions & millions of others would rather spend 4 hours on our computers (nope, not even Cable TV) than wasting our money & time seeing boring movies that smell like a retread.
3D doesn’t bring us to the theaters; big movie stars don’t get us into the theaters. Great word-of-mouth from a friend or an excited Twitter does.
And the movie has to be really GOOD. When it’s not, we all blab to anyone who will listen: THAT MOVIE WAS A PIECE OF JUNK!
I was right there with you until your “WGA hacks” comment. Being in the writer’s guild is not synonymous with being in “the club,” and to suggest that there are no talented writers who happen to be in the WGA is ridiculous. There are hacks in and out of the guild, and the bottom line is, the people calling the shots don’t know what’s good and often make their business decisions on who they like (who is hot within the insulated hollywood community at any given time), not who has the chops nor even who has had box office success.
Yeah right! Tell that to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci and Akiva Goldsman ,three of the highest
profile WGA geniuses working today.
I apologize – I didn’t mean to suggest that all WGA writers are hacks – just a proportion of them… If you look at the biggest, most expensive (and miserable) films that have failed over the last 10 years, for example) – you’ll find a bunch of writers (or writer-teams, and I won’t mention any names here) who often got these jobs & delivered inferior, teeth-grinding stuff.
AND it’s WGA, because these behemoth productions by the majors are always using WGA talent. And yes, there ARE state there a lot of phenomenally talented writers out there, but look at the names of the Worst big-budget flop movies over the last decade, and you’ll see certain WGA people in the credits, time after time. Do the research . . .
You might also want to consider that writers generally work for hire, and their finished products are typically not always theirs from start to finish.
Development executives mix and match writers, sometimes even penning lines themselves, and studio notes are the cause of many misguided subplots (per “research”, “exit polling”, “focus groups” and “tracking”).
There is no easy way to determine what percentage of any given final draft of a script belongs to any individual writer. It has been written here before that only the writers themselves and development executives know for sure.
Just keep this in mind the next time you lash out at the writers listed on a movie’s IMDb page.
You are misinformed. Not only do you erroneously attribute Mr. Greenfield’s quote to Finke… You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the WGA. It is not some ‘storefront’ that provides the studios with writers… It’s a guild which represents individuals and protects their working rights. And if you think writers are the ones calling the shots and making the bad dicisions that lead to awful movies then you do not understand the hierarchy of the film industry whatsoever.
1st, I can’t stand Unions, so don’t take this as a blanket defense of same.
2d, The Studios use Guild members because they know them. Are they locked into only Guild members? No, they just have to follow Guild rules.
You are engaging in the logical (well more than one actually) fallacy of correlation meaning causality. It does not. (ditto for aorb above)
3d it’s not always the writer’s fault that the movie sucks. Remember that the Directors (and especially the DGA) trumpet that the Director is the auteur, not the writer. So blame the Directors!
4th, I have said for years that the public is fed up with Hollywood’s elitist, arrogant, and anti-American attitudes. The chickens have come home to roost.
How many more causalities will Obama cause? Think about it. The H’wood denizens and Oprah are all getting hammered since they backed this guy. The Public is feeling under siege and wondering if they are soon to be the “Cratchit” family. Many are, already.
It may only be the straw that broke the camels back, but it’s clear that America is fed up with the crap coming out of H’wood, and it’s buddies in DC. It’s not just “bad” scripts, either.
3D is a gimmick. When you reprint a film from 2D to 3D, it’s a gimmick. H’wood was hoping for more revenue at BO, as usual they got it wrong. (It’s like raising taxes, brings down revenue). Theater owners were hoping to sell more seats and thus more high margin treats (that’s where they make their money). Neither has happened. ToldYaSo!
Agree with you. Those not in the guild or those who don’t write don’t seem to realize that writers have to sell product in order to live and feed their families. Would those who owned or worked in a restaurant, for example, serve food that no one would buy?
As to WGA hacks. There is an old, old proverb that relates to organisations like the WGA, viz,
If you lie down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get up with fleas.
You tend to be known by the company you keep. :-/
Totally agree with just about everything said by Paul Magid. It’s not easy to find good writers, I guess. I believe writers should be able to create smart dialogue without resorting to the F-word or sexual jokes. In fact, I believe when writers create funny, intelligent dialogue suitable for the whole family, the film is usually a hit. But apparently that’s too hard for most writers, so stupid, puerile, sexually-charged jokes are what they fall back on.
Please read the above chain that provides disambiguation between writers and the materials often completely attributed them.
Paul,
I think you are on to something here. And I think there are several reasons behind the trends you describe.
Caveat – I am a thrice retired professional(Naval Officer, Civilian Electronic Spy & Senior Executive,Fortune 100 Information Security Executive) now living in Florida. I’ve had two full-length stage plays that received commercial readings, and some other minor successes. I started writing an original comedy stage play after moving to Sarasota, FL, but quickly realized that I needed a Sherman Tank in the story, and so drifted into studying screenwriting. I now have a “finished” screenplay there, have submitted a television treatment for a scripted comedy sries contest, and am currently outlining a Cold War espionage thriller loosely based on some of my personal experiences.
As I haven’t gone to full marketing mode for my screenplay comedy, and four or five producers have asked to read the “completed” script (rule: needs to be as perfect as I can get it before sending out), I can’t bitch too hard at this point, but my initial perception after two trips out to Hollywood are that most studios theoretically don’t “accept unsolicited” submissions for two main reasons: (1) they’re drowing under all the scripts – many of them crapola – they receive, and (2) the lawyers have effed this up with so many other things, i.e., if they read my/others’ scripts, then they might be liable for any alleged appropriation of material. So they tend to go with the same folks, or those who somehow get known (and trusted – by the studios) representation (a trick in itself)where they’re less wary of lawsuits. The result is that for me (just my whiny opinion) and some others who just might have the original content/story-based scripts you seem to be looking for, if not frozen out, it’s an extremely uphill haul at best.
BTW, I’m not about to give up, as I know that somewhere out there are folks who are looking for original material that can be made into a profitable movie, and I might have it, or produce it.
Just my three cents.
Dan
WGA hacks? You are confused. There are not just the 50 names in the WGA you see on movies. For the uninformed… Anyone who sells a script to a studio has to join the WGA. So ALL the quality writers are WGA, known as well as mostly unknowns. There are 12,000+ WGA Writers (7,500+ in the west)… The same writers’ names you see over and over are the top 50 wage earners, NOT a fair representation of the WGA writers as a whole at all. Most WGA Screenwriters are still waiting for one script to be produced. You haven’t seen the fresh voices, because studios often finance production based on the biggest names, who attract the biggest directors with their big agents who rep the biggest movie stars. It’s a cycle, vicious or not. Though it is good business to work with those with the highest success rate, I do agree it results in every movie sounding the same.
I couldn’t agree more.
Here is how bad it is, my spouse and I get into movies free of charge. We get into Sneak Previews, new releases ALL movies free of charge. We are huge movie buffs, to say the least.
That said, we have gone to exactly 3 movies since October. 2 Kid’s films Potter and Narnia and True Grit. Truth is the rest was mediocre crap. I’d rather spend my time doing something else than go and see a poorly made movie and waste two hours of my day, even if it is it cost me no money. Our time is worth something.
3D has proven to be a failure. Those comparing it to the advent of technicolor were woefully off target. Technicolor WAS a major revolution in cinema, 3D will be remembered as a major gimmick. It makes the overall experience uncomfortable (dim colors, having to wear bulky glasses that infants throw around, headaches ecetera) and having to pay double for the priveledge. Sorry Mr James Cameron. Your 3D crusasde has failed.
Content is king. Always was and always will be. The story is the backbone of any film, no matter what technical wizardry you have. Case and point, the Matrix, great concept, great story, great movie. It had it’s innovations in technology, but it was the story that allowed for this technical wizardry, not the other way around. 3D is cool, I like it, and i would love to see more quality films in 3D, failing that, I’d like to some more quality films.
On the back of all of this is attendance to the actual cinema. The cinema experience is far from great. Overpriced tickets, uncomfortable seating (lack of leg room), staff who don’t care, and an audience that has no respect for anyone else and can easily ruin a movie because they want to.
Now I’m fast approaching 40, and that puts me in the old fart category, and I have fond memories of going to the cinema when it didn’t cost the earth and it was revered as a special place to watch great movies.
If the film industry want to get people back into the cinemas I think they are going to have to do some romancing, make people fall in love with the cinema once again. This will mean quality over quantity. I’m not talking period dramas and slushy love films, just quality films that make you think, take you away to another world, allow you immerse yourself in the story and magic that is still there in the cinemas.
But, business is business, and the studios won’t think of the moviegoer, they think of the money, and thats the problem. For me, I’d rather stay home in comfort with the wife and kids and rent a dvd or blue ray, it’s cheaper and a lot less hassle.
Maxxoveride
You have hit on a major issue for me: theaters are unfriendly places for me. I am hearing impaired such that I cannot stand overly loud noise (THX bass rumble all the time), nor can I track all the whispery dialogue. Your discomfort/rudeness factors are large, also.
I am quite willing to wait for the DVD/Blue-ray to come out for those films I care to watch for the price of a few movie tickets that I can watch as many times as I want at home with closed-captioning, pausing when I want, cheap food/drink of my choice, and no obnoxious audience.
You forgot having to sit through 20-30 minutes of commercials both for local businesses and repeats of what we have to endure on TV.
And $5.75 for 10 cents worth of popcorn., $3.50 for a candy bar, etc.
I’m an old fart who used to feel BETTER coming out of a movie but in most cases these days I feel WORSE.
I prefer to see the film in the movie theater as I get more engrossed in the movie, the screen pulls me in and there are no interuptions, like the phone.
I always go in the afternoon and am often the only person in the show.
The popcorn is inedible, so I stop at the convenence store and pop a bag and buy some candy and tuck it under my coat. Then I will buy a soda with refills. I will go to the later of the 2 oclock shows. For example of the 2:00, 2:20, 2:40 and 2:55 shows. I would go to the 2:55. Watch it and then slide over to the earlier of the 4:00 shows. In some theaters you can do this.
For such a theater, they get my admission of $6 and $5 for the coke ot $11. And I usually go twice a week. So that $22 or $about a hundred a month. I slide in quietly and slide out quietly as well. So that’s $1,200 a year from me.
I think its a bargain for the theater.
The other way I play it is to go to the first of the 2:00 movies and watch half an hour of it and if it is obviously a terrible movie, then I slide over to the 2:40 movie and stay there, unless it is also terrible upon which I just go home.
I like to buy the TV series DVDs a few years after the series has been raved about as being fantastis. I have the whole west wing series and will soon buy Mad Men.
There are many Hollywood gens out there, you just have to diligently sift thru the chaff.
Peace, be with the force and enjoy. Great movie watching is still possible.
The 3D breasts at the beginning of Pyrannah are unbeatable, Russel Crow in The Next Three Days is A plus, Unstoppable about the runaway train with Denzel Washington if very good, and on and on.
About 5% is kick ass off the chart wonderful.
Marketing to someone like you, no wonder so many movies are being dumb downed.
Maxx, I agree with you 100%. I am releasing a film this year, and SAG (only union involved) has treated us very disrespectfully and acted as if they own the show. The unions are so corrupt and over-funded there will be no easy solution. The most effective is not going to the movies as you describe. I’ve avoided unions my whole career, so you folks will have to look for us filmmakers if you want to see the good films. If you avoid Hollywood studio, Sundance, or Cannes films, you will find an abundance of guys like me making great new stories with VisFX that are actually written better than most studio films. And all done for a half-penny on the dollar. You can practically watch my films for a nickel and I could still pay the cast/crew and make a dime on it. The only way that works is if there are no unions involved. That is a sad fact.
Oh and Maxx, watching DVD’s is no different than the theater. Those movies will not get any better by just you sitting on and paying from your couch. You have to go out of your way to the Netflix’s and tell them to buy more independent shows (not offered at studio film markets). Eztakes is one distributor that only shows indie films– Not Hollywood garbage. If you want Hollywood back, the audience has to take it back, and I’m afraid you have to look for us. If you haven’t heard, the black list is back in Hollywood. If you don’t support Obama and the Democrat Socialist party, you don’t work.
One of the main ideas behind unions is to give the talent in your film a piece of the cut, if deserved. As a filmmaker, you may become frustrated at the costs involved and not care to give any of the talent a piece of your movie, or maybe you don’t feel you need proper insurance, or making sure that the actors receive the proper breaks and pay bumps for physically exhausting work may not be your main concern. Or possibly you’d rather not pay into your talent’s health benefits and SSC.
But unions are concerned about this, and they theoretically exist to enforce these basic working conditions and benefits. Yes, many times they do tend to over-regulate and under manage. But what is the alternative for talent – nothing??
Unions are destroying the whole country, not just Hollywood. We need to make this a “right to work” country. More power to you Joe!
Unions cover fewer workers than at any time since unionization started in this country. So to say that unions are destroying this country is ridiculous, since so few workers are covered by unions. In 2009, it was only 12.9% of workers and it goes down every year. In 1954 (during a Republican administration), it peaked at 34.7% of workers.
Back in the 60′s – 80′s, when unions had real power, corporations frequently used to give better salaries/benefits to non-union workers, just to keep the union out. For a while, it seemed like unions were no longer necessary.
But if you look at how corporations have treated their workers over the last 20 years from both a compensation and a safety standpoint, it makes the case for unions in certain industries stronger than ever.
But I do think that some of the pension agreements have to be rolled back, especially for public workers. This country cannot afford public workers who retire after 20 or 25 years on 80% to 200% of annual salary. That is completely absurd and is bankrupting most cities and was at least partially responsible for the bankruptcy of GM.
It’s beyond frustrating to see this year’s glut of conversions referred to as 3D. Let’s be clear, America. There were two stereoscopic live action 3D films released in theaters in 2010. Tron and Step Up 3D. Despite the fact that both of these films were spectacular visceral experiences, neither of these films represent the look of future 3D live action content. Let’s all take a look at the forthcoming movies shot on the RED Epic (Spiderman, Pirates) and then decide whether 3D is just a gimmick or the way you and your children will watch stories unfold for the rest of your waking lives. I’m not here to defend the film studios or distributors–they both made colossal and cynical errors this year by releasing conversions and raising prices, respectively. And I can’t defend the quality of the vast majority of studio releases. It is indeed a dark time for original storytelling. But let’s all take a deep breath and let the future evolve, just as we did with color and sound. It will get better soon. The Hollywood fools promise.
And until IMAX 3Desque screens become the norm, definitely watch 3D movies on IMAX 3D screens. It’s the best there is.
Small clarification, but Pirates was shot with Red One, not Red Epic.
TRON wasn’t shot in 3d… obvs you haven’t seen it. There is a freakin disclaimer at the beginning of the film that indicates that it was shot in 2d, but asks that the audience wear the 3d glasses the entire time anyway. A handful of scenes were in 3d, but most of the film is viewable w/out the glasses.
Hmmm. Were we watching the same film? Sure, much of the first act was in 2D. But past that, 3D seemed to rule the running time – even down to the credits…
I’m afraid you misread what the opening disclaimer was telling you … most of Tron:Legacy was shot with 2 cameras in true Stereoscopic-3D, but the opening scenes (outside the grid) were shot in 2D (ie one camera) as they are not intended to be viewed in 3D. the disclaimer is simple telling you to keep the glasses on through the opening scenes.
3D sucks. I hope this is just a fad that ends soon. I hate it.
It’s rather odd that the best movie story, the one with the most heart, in 2010 was Toy Story 3. When Andy goes off to college and a new family gets the toys, it’s heartbreaking yet reassuring, too.
In contrast, I’m supposed to want to see “Black Swan” because Natalie Portman is naked and has a lesbian scene?
The bulk of Hollywood is seriously out of touch with human values and things that truly matter. Thank God Pixar is not.
“I’m supposed to want to see “Black Swan” because Natalie Portman is naked and has a lesbian scene?”
Works for me!
Furthermore, God did not create PIXAR, he is merely a shareholder.
Hilarious!
“It’s rather odd that the best movie story, the one with the most heart, in 2010 was Toy Story 3. When Andy goes off to college and a new family gets the toys, it’s heartbreaking yet reassuring, too.
In contrast, I’m supposed to want to see “Black Swan” because Natalie Portman is naked and has a lesbian scene?
The bulk of Hollywood is seriously out of touch with human values and things that truly matter. Thank God Pixar is not.”
This is by far one of the laziest assessments of the film industry I’ve ever read on this website, and that’s saying a lot. Did you even see Black Swan or did you just read a news blurb to come to your ridiculous conclusion of the film? You highlighted one scene that doesn’t run longer than a minute “at most” in a film that has so much more going for it. Perhaps complex adult features aren’t your thing, and if so there are plenty of other films being made for you to go and see if your willing to look for them.
Here are a few quality big budget films “with heart” that came out in 2010. (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Tangled, The Chronicles of Narnia TVOTDT, How to train your Dragon, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, The Karate Kid, Secretariat, Despicable Me, Legend of the Guardians, Tron Legacy.) Yes even Tron had some positive themes despite the overall execution.
Everyone of the movies I mentioned had themes of friendship, love, bettering ones self, and family bonding. Go figure!
That said, as much as I love Pixar I would hate to wake up to a film landscape that produced nothing but family films or animated features. Granted, I have nothing against either genre and tend to enjoy both quite often. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that variety is important, and that the films no matter the subject matter or genre should be of the highest quality possible. Which by the way, a film like Black Swan clearly is.
Every single non-industry person I speak to bemoans the lack of decent movies coming out of Hollywood. Raising prices to mask a dwindling audience will only work for so long. The fundamental truth is that people are bored of the same old crap. Most movies look and feel very familiar. The best movies entertain the audience and give them an experience they’ve never had before. Keep on churning out ‘by-the-numbers’ productions and the business will steadily decline. Let’s hope 2011 starts to see people take some risks. There’s no hope like false hope!
“The fundamental truth is that people are bored of the same old crap”
So that’s why seven out of the top ten grossing movies of 2010 were remakes,sequels, or in the case of Alice In wonderland, a gothic reimagining…
Redmenace, your comment only proves that there will always be an audience for well marketed, nicely polished turds.
I agree with you, Fan. I managed a digital 3-D, 6 screen cinema for the last year and Alice was among the most unremarkable films I’ve seen in recent times. Undoubtedly Johnny Depp’s least involved performance and Alice herself was as wooden as a fence post. The reasons for it’s box office numbers are Depp’s star power and the 3-D upcharge, otherwise it would have been another forgettable 3-D snoozer. I have concluded the 3-D experiment is a failure with virtually no film I have seen benefitting from the effect with the exception of the animated features like Dragon and Toy Story, and perhaps Avatar. However, I’ve also screened Avatar on a blu-ray in 2-D and it was just as stunning visually as the 3-D drive was.
@ redmenace: Actually, that is precisely the reason that 7 of the top 10 were remakes…. They are not putting out anything original that is worthy of my time or money. It is nothing but remakes, re-invention, or sequels.
I watch tons of movies, but have not been to a theater since I took my son to see Madagaskar, which we left 45 mintues into it because the theater was too noisy to enjoy the film.
Red- you only stated a fact and the vultures came out. My god- the poster only pointed out a fact, why the personal attacks? Any time anyone points out a fact about what the public actually consumes
people respond with what they WISH they would consume. The public picks the movies they want to see- sorry.
It is indeed a dark time for original storytelling. But let’s all take a deep breath and let the future evolve, just as we did with color and sound. It will get better soon. The Hollywood fools promise….. My boyfriend thinks the same as I do. He is eight years older than me, lol. We met online at agegaplove“.com a nice and free place for younger women and older men, or older women and younger men, to interact with each other. Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.
is this a movie round table or ripoff E-Harmony website?
3D is useless- unless it is a true spectacular journey that must be seen ( Avatar ). I mean – Yogi Bear in 3D!! C’mon Man!! Wana know what I do? We keep the glasses after we leave and the next time we have to see a film in 3D – we pay 2D prices and walk into the 3D film and we reuse the glasses we paid for months ago. Truth is – most kids don’ give a rats asssbout 3D either- they are just happy to be in a theatre.
“We keep the glasses after we leave and the next time we have to see a film in 3D – we pay 2D prices and walk into the 3D film and we reuse the glasses we paid for months ago.”
I’m not sure what kind of theater you go to, but many of the theaters that offer 3D in my area post ushers at the doors for 3D movies, and ask you for your ticket stub before they allow you to enter.
The Movie Makers of Hollywood have lost sight of the real world.
Times are tough, $20 to watch a mediocre movie . No way.
I wait for the British Movies and they get my $20. I get a good movie that way.
Do you mean gangster films mate?
While 3D might add a bit to a movie’s revenue, I’ll bet there’s just as many times it takes away potential profits as well. After coming late to the party, my local theatre complex went from not showing anything in 3D to showing everything in 3D. We don’t get a choice of dimensions. So with the extra 3D prices (more than $3 a ticket here), and my wife’s general disinterest in 3D, there’s many movies throughout the year that we would have seen in 2D but didn’t go to at all in 3D.
This! I felt less people went to see Step Up 3D because of the higher ticket prices on a film with only good dancing going for it. Fewer people seeing the movie means less DVD sales!
You people can’t have it both ways.
Anyone who works in this business saw that 2010 was simply a horrendous year for filmmaking by and large (with a few noteworthy films). Everyone said the numbers would be down for the most part and now that the numbers have come in, people are saying “whaa, the numbers are down, who could’ve imagined?”
The marketing departments at quite a few studios were doing yeoman’s work to try and sell these turkeys. Gulliver’s Travels. I mean really John Davis, this is the best you can do? Maybe you need to stop buying so much junk from friends and look for an outside voice for a change.
Someone has to explain how comedies that don’t have international appeal can exceed 60 million bucks (and even that is a bit much for me). James L. Brooks should be ashamed of himself. 5 years ago, that’s a 20 million dollar cute comedy, but this year it’s a 120 million dollar disaster.
Will 2011 be better? I think so, but common sense has to eventually take over. The studios still haven’t learned that talking animals movies don’t gross more than animated movies, yet they cost the same amount of money. Just make those Gerbil, Ferret, Yogi Bear, etc… CG-animated like Shrek and rake in the dough.
I’m sure around June we’ll see a few heads rolling at FOX and Universal, not naming names though because they could turn it around.
A disappointing end to another disappointing artistic year. I believe Hollywood’s greed and its’ insistence on pushing out 3-D on several irrelevant films will backfire. 2010 is the first time in Hollywood’s history that film box office and attendance will go down during an economic recession. You don’t raise ticket prices on substandard product during a recession! Especially during a period with new technologies that are finally at a price point that allows their availability to the masses (VOD, TIVO, flat screen TVs, Blu-Ray, etc.). 2010 shows that the average family had a choice of paying 25-50% more to see a average (at best) film in 3-D, or watching something at home and they clearly chose the later.
Hollywood is quickly pushing out the theatre owners, and ‘training’ audiences to seek a lower price point.
I totally agree with the comment on Toy Story 3 when it comes to story but overall, I love Iron Man 3 for it not being animated and that the betrayals can be forgiven.
LOL@Bomb Factory.
True Grit is an example of smart film making. This is an expensive film. It is not ungodly expensive like many of the films that have come out this year. people love this movie. We love the characters, the dialogue and the story. We dont care how much it costs, or how much cgi is in it, or if it is in 3D. It is also a remake and adaptation. We dont care. I’m trying to make this as simple as possible, Make a good movie, make good money. Got it Hollywood?
I agree with you in theory but there were a lot of movies that made money this year that weren’t good movies.
As romanticized as your theory is, “Make a good movie, make good money” just doesn’t cut it in the marketplace.
A story was just published on this site about the woes of “Buried”, which has outstanding reviews, a lot of buzz and a mainstream star. Same can be said about “The King’s Speech”. Generally it is due to lack of marketing muscle in these cases, but it just goes to show that even positive WOM is not enough.
It takes much more than just great content to make money at the multiplex.
Sorry I meant make a movie that people will be interested in. unfortunately that is probably too difficult for these people to understand. So lets just start with making good movies.
That’s because the main movie-goers (young people) deem such films ‘boring’. I’m certain King’s Speech is a GREAT film, but I’ll rather watch it on TV than on the silver screen. Going to the movies is a fun activity you do with your friends and relatives. You get together, buy some popcorn and drinks and watch a fun film that will look great on the big screen.
I dunno. Even if it’s a good story the 3D takes away from it. I just don’t think it’s necessary and those stupid glasses give me one heck of a headache, plus I REALLY don’t appreciate being charged even more than usual because the 2D choices are slim. Didn’t we already go through 3D and it failed? That being said the best film I’ve seen this year was The King’s Speech, followed up by Unstoppable, and I only saw Unstoppable because it was playing at the time I went to the theater. I thought it was going to be awful, which says a lot about what I’ve come to expect from vapid Hollywood.
I’m an avid movie goer and this is the first time in my life (I’m in my mid 40s) that I actively stayed away from about a dozen movies I might otherwise have gone to because the price (esp here in NYC – $13 for a ticket!) has gotten so ridiculous. Clearly others did the same thing.
As for the person who commented about the movie going experience – you are dead on. If Hwood isn’t able to participate in making the movie going experience better for the audience (with profit sharing so that theatre owners can hire competent staff that care about the job they’re doing) then why should I pay higher prices? I’ll either just wait for the DVD or skip it completely. It’s like they WANT to work themselves out of the movie making business. I think there should be a term for this .. like Zuckeritis – the inability to care about the business you’re actually employed by.
“esp here in NYC – $13 for a ticket!”
It’s the same in LA.
You can add Chicago to the list of places where a movie ticket costs $13. It’s cheaper for me to watch an movie on VOD or DVD than it is for me to go the the movie theater.
Same in Atlanta (about $13). I used to go to about 2-3 movies a month, now about once a quarter (I’m house poor due to recession). The price for a family of four is completely unaffordable.
For my family, the issue is 100% about price. I don’t care about 3d, if 2d costs less and is available, I go for 2d. If Hollywood types want consumers to be able to afford outrageous prices they shouldn’t have voted in the recession named Obama.
The add the obscene concession prices. A family of four to go see a mediocre movie will shell out 52 bucks for admissions, then 10 bucks for a popcorn and soda combo. Add a candy bar and you are looking at 100 bucks for 100 minutes of entertainment. I saw an NHL hockey team advertising a family package of four game tickets, four family meals (hamburger and fries) and four sodas for 79 dollars. You get up to 2 hours of entertainment in the arena in a venue where you can talk, use the phone and cheer out loud if you wish. Give me pro sports over the movies anytime.
The reason why theaters have to charge so much for concessions is that they make almost nothing on the movie. In the opening weeks of a film, most theaters only receive 5% of the gross. Movie theaters are actually candy stands that happen to show movies, not the other way around. The problem is that the studios are so greedy, they’re killing off the theatres. That’s why there’s been so much consolidation (and bankruptcy) in the theatre business in the last 10 years.
My prediction is that we’re going to see a great decline in the number of movie theaters in the next ten years, especially in cities with real-estate demand.
Take New York City, for example. While there are still many screens, there is no longer a single movie theatre on Broadway between 20th street and 63rd street.
The biggest problem in the movie business today is that all the major studios only want to make blockbusters and every branch of each theater chain plays exactly the same movies. I remember when NYC had several independent movie chains that played mostly art films. Now they’re mostly either gone, part of AMC/Loews, Regal/UA or Clearview.
The studios are committing suicide anyway. With ever-shortening windows and a push for day and date release in all media, they’re going to kill the theater business, which will slowly kill the demand for movies overall.
Another reason why box office grosses continue to drop:
98% of America is f**king broke. Real unemployment is 20%. Over 50 million Americans survive on ‘food stamps’ alone – up 28% in just one year. 3 million home foreclosures per year since 2007. Gas over $3/gallon and rising; food prices up 22%.
And all 2011 predictions are that things are only gonna get worse… unless you’re in the 2% of Americans who are richer than they’ve ever been in our history. Too bad said 2% rarely, if ever, actually go out to the movies…
The children of the 2% are the people working in the film industry these days. Many are Ivy League educated and are subsidized by their parents (the only way you can survive the low paid entry level jobs). It’s considered a cool job among the wealthy. Are they passionate about art and film? Do they undestand what makes a good story? No, not at all. A lot of them are scared because they have no idea what they’re doing. They went to business school or studied biology and they cover up their ignorance with arrogance and snarky comments. I think this business needs to get back to basics, telling good stories that illuminate the human experience.
On the contrary, when people are poor they cut down on life’s little luxuries. Maybe not buy that certain brand of shampoo, clothes, etc. But tough economy rarely has any effect on movie going (last year was a record year despite the economy). People want to escape reality for a couple of hours, and generally seeing a good film lifts you up a little.
The American public cuts down on life’s little luxuries, but it’s too bad Hollywood actors haven’t. Do they really feel their work is worth upwards of $20 million dollars? You know, if I had a job where I could do the same thing over, and over, and over again, and even if I totally screwed up my boss could take my best moments and put them together saying “look how wonderful Ellie_C is,” what a wonderful life it would be…ugh, I hate Hollywood. Jerks still complain about answering a few press questions too.
That’s the theory I hear. I know my money is down and so is my moving watching at $20 a pop (after popcorn). I am finding a lot more important things to do with that $20 these days.
I’d rather go to a ball game. It’s cheaper if you buy the cheap seats, concessions are far cheaper and it’s much more entertaining.
As of today January 1st, worker’s take home pay is going to go up by 2%. This is because the Social Security tax has decreased 2% under the new tax plan signed by the President 2 weeks ago. If your gross pay is $33,800 a year your weekly paycheck will go up 13 dollars or just enough for a movie ticket.
“We fundamentally believe content and story are the key factors to success and that technology alone is not a long-term path to success or profits.”
I’ve got to whole heartedly agree with this and the comments Paul made above. Story makes a movie. Not vampires, zombies, comic books and the same Rom Com we’ve seen a dozen times. Take me to a new world, provide sustained conflict, and give me an ending that I couldn’t have imagined and you have made a MOVIE!
I think the industry is killing 3D — by raising prices so dramatically this year — they were never this high and you can’t even use your discount tickets without paying a 4 dollar upgrade fee per person — come on. As much as I would love to see some movies in 3D, it’s a pick and choose game.
I’ve only seen one movie in 3D where the 3D added to the experience. Avatar, of course.
You should see “Tron”, if only for the experience alone.
My “experience” of Tron was paying $16 for the IMAX 3D version at the Palms’ Brendan theatre in Las Vegas.
I want at least $12 of my money back – there were perhaps 5 minutes of truly effective 3D images in the film.
And at least 15 minutes of truly risible dialogue.
And a film’s worth of incoherent storytelling.
I won’t be going to a 3D film again for a long, lonG, loNG, lONG, LONG time (note *free* 3D effect…)
What are you people talking about with “Tron had incoherent storytelling”? How could you not understand the story? It was plain as day!
Now, the film’s horrible dialogue is another matter, but don’t confuse one for the other.
Finally… FINALLY someone who agrees with my assessment of Tron in 3D! You’re points about the movie are right on.
I hated this movie… Not because the acting or the story but because I was promised something that was not delivered.
The movie promised groundbreaking 3D. I paid $18 to watch it in 3D IMAX. Lo and behold, the first insert of the movie states that SOME OF THE MOVIE IS NOT IN 3D. WHAT THE???
Cas127, you’re right. There is only about 5-10 minutes of noticeable 3D. Not great 3D mind you, only noticeable. For most of the movie, I had to check my glasses and the screen and make sure I was in the right theatre.
Tron is a failure. I love that it is failing horribly. I was a huge fan of the original… was greatly anticipating the sequel… but felt cheated.
I agree completely. I like Tron as a movie and the FX, but the 3D or lack thereof was completely insulting and a waste of money. I’ll be glad to see it fail.
Tron will not fail, sorry haters. It only has $30M more to go before making ALL of its money back. And THEN it has home video, merchandising, soundtrack, non-theatrical revenue, an inevitable Disney ride simulator, consumer products… need I go on?
The movie is a nice investment in the Disney library, and will likely pay off for years.
Why should I pay $12 to see a movie in a theater when I can Netflix it only three months later? With that said, 3D sucks.
If the experience of seeing a movie in the theater and on your home computer are indistinguishable to you, then you have correctly answered your own question.
I applaud your decision. No offense, but I probably don’t want to be sitting next to you in a public theater anyway.
I use my Playstation and XBox to play Netflix, RedBox, bought blu ray, Windows Media recordings on my 120 inch projector and then use my 46 inch 3D TV to watch sports. I do not need to go to the theater. It is very relaxing.
The attendance numbers are VERY IMPORTANT.
When you discount an entire segment of your audience (meaning adults who like intellectual stimulation in their entertainment) and pour your resources almost exclusively into toy products for teens, you’re boxing yourself in to an unfortunate business model that has more in common with addiction principles than good business practice.
I’m 44, and in my lifetime ‘the movies’ have never been as uninteresting as they are today. Movies drive culture and there are responsibilities that come along with that. Those responsibilities are being ignored.
The critics are saying that Black Swan is a great movie.
Really wanted to love it but didn’t until the last third, when it made up it’s mind as to what kind of film it was.
Brace yourself then, since movies seem to reflect pop culture generally, Jackass 3-D will be just the beginning. Once the Biggest Loser movie comes onstream complete with all the back dramas and cheating side plots, we will know Hollywood has lost it’s last vestige of respectability. Cecil B. DeMille is spinning in his grave.
“The U.S. consumer is becoming increasingly less interested in 3D movies.”
It’s 1953 all over again. “Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.”
Its the economy. People are forced to become more conservative in their habits. I’m from NYC and boy does that $13 price tag piss me the fuck off…which in turns is forcing me to be conservative in my choices.
I agree. A group of friends and I used to go the movies every Friday night, but lately, the lameness of the movies has discouraged us — because when you have to pay $15 a person for a bad movie, that just seems stupid. Before, a $10 movie could be so-so and you didn’t feel like a fool for paying that much, but now you can wait for Netflix or cable and save the $15 for must-see experiences which have become fewer and further between.
3D gives me a *massive* headache. I made that mistake once last year during Avatar. I stayed as long as I could, because my wife was enjoying the movie, but at one point I had to leave because it was torture for me. The sooner 3D goes away, the sooner I can start going to the movie theater again.
Oh, brother, the 3-D gives me a headache crowd. The same ones that killed it in the 50s. You’re probably also allergic to cats and complain about almost everything else, too.