
The year 2011 was a schizophrenic scene for both indies and studios in film. It began with the promise of an avalanche of Sundance Film Festival acquisitions and promised new vigor and buyers in the independent film sector. But it ended with movies underperforming at the domestic box office and down hundreds of millions of dollars compared to last year. While some of those grosses were Avatar’s tail end in early 2010, studios in 2011 didn’t make enough compelling films that drew audiences into theaters. It was an alarming trend that started during the summer and
continued through year’s end. Both the majors and indies also struggled to embrace shifting distribution paradigms; the indies are finding salvation in VOD while the majors are still sparring with exhibitors. Studio attempts to build new franchises brought some breathtaking flops. And efforts to build bankable new stars was a study in frustration as well. So is it an exaggeration to say that studios are in a state of crisis? The signs of strain are certainly showing. One of the most surprising continual headlines over the year was the number of major films that studios drew hard lines in the sand and unplugged major projects they paid millions of dollars to develop, alienating top stars, directors and producers who are not used to being told no.
From a quality standpoint, studios provided a lackluster film slate that felt too familiar and therefore boring. But it’s hard to blame Hollywood’s slavish devotion to sequels, prequels, reboots, and brands. Especially when 2011′s top seven grossing films of the year were sequels — Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2, Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon, Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1, The Hangover II, Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides, Fast 5, and Cars 2. The next three on the list were brands — Marvel’s Thor, Fox’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Marvel’s Captain America. Despite the challenges and the doom and gloom, the year brought highlights and surprises that disprove every assumption. They include sleeper summer hits The Help, Bridesmaids and Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, the latter a gem that Sony Pictures Classics opened in the heat of summer. It out-grossed all of the director’s previous films with $56 million domestic and $145 million worldwide. After a year in which 3D conversions seemed to be little more than a gimmick to charge higher ticket prices, Martin Scorsese took the baton from James Cameron with budget-buster Hugo. And the year ends with Tom Cruise reestablishing his box office might with the refreshed franchise Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol. And despite what I’ve said about sequels, who could not be excited about Christopher Nolan’s final Batfilm The Dark Knight Rises, or Ridley Scott’s return to Alien territory with Prometheus, or Peter Jackson’s return to Middle Earth with the first installment of The Hobbit?
As for budget-cutting, it’s to be expected after several attempts to launch new franchises blew up in the moguls’ faces. Warner Bros had a big swing and a miss with Green Lantern, whose $219 million worldwide gross only slightly eclipsed its $200 million budget. It was the second straight year that Warner Bros tried and failed to turn one of its DC Comics characters into hit films after last summer’s Jonah Hex debacle. And even the upcoming Man Of Steel has raised questions whether this Superman reboot can resurrect the troubled franchise.
Perhaps the biggest game-changing summer flop was Cowboys & Aliens, a film that had been developed over more than a decade by some of Hollywood’s brightest minds (Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jon Favreau), and a dream pairing of the actors known as Indiana Jones and James Bond. The genre mash-up lost a fortune for DreamWorks, Universal, and Relativity Media. Audiences didn’t connect with the concept, and didn’t care about Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. That left a reported $163 million budget film (I’ve heard it was higher) with a $174 million worldwide gross. Factor in the P&A spend, then cut that revenue in half to account for the exhibition split, and this is a big fat failure. The ripples were felt as far away as India where the film is rumored to have dampened the enthusiasm of DreamWorks’ financing partner Reliance.
These kinds of huge flops happen, but it was certainly no coincidence that shortly after Cowboys & Aliens got scalped, Disney pulled the plug on another Western, The Lone Ranger. This despite the presence of the world’s most bankable star, Johnny Depp (who starred in three billion dollar grossing films for the studio), being directed by Gore Verbinski, helmer of three Pirates of the Caribbean hits, and produced by Disney’s cornerstone producer Jerry Bruckheimer, the man behind the Pirates hits. The studio halted a fall start because, insiders told Deadline when we revealed the story, they feared that the budget could hit $270 million. Disney refused to budge unless the cost came down to $200 million. They eventually compromised at around $215 million—costs were trimmed from the production budget and Depp and his cohorts restructured their deal and took on some of the risk. This fiscal scrutiny became a running story in 2011.
Universal jettisoned an ambitious adaptation of Stephen King’s The Dark Tower series that Ron Howard was to direct with Javier Bardem starring, with three feature films and two TV series runs planned. More shocking was Universal’s decision to unplug At the Mountains of Madness, the Guillermo del Toro-directed adaptation of the HP Lovecraft tale that had Tom Cruise poised to star. Because Universal would not make a $150 million horror film without a guarantee from the director that it would be PG-13 and not R-rated. At year’s end, Legendary Pictures halted plans to begin production in January on Paradise Lost, the epic-sized Alex Proyas-directed film about the battle between good and evil inspired by the John Milton poem and starring Bradley Cooper as Lucifer. The problem: the $120 million budget already had been exceeded by 10%-15% because of the high green screen visual effects costs needed to stage the celestial battles. (Legendary is working to bring down those costs with hopes of making the film before summer.) Warner Bros hit the brakes on Arthur & Lancelot, the David Dobkin script that the studio paid $2 million to acquire last summer so he could direct. The studio originally hoped to make the film for $90 million, then watched the budget balloon to $130 million. That’s pricey for a film that stars two up-and-comers who are not stars. (I’m told that Warner Bros will make the film for $110 million.) Warner Bros also parted ways with Steven Soderbergh on The Man From U.N.C.L.E. over budget and casting issues after George Clooney bowed out. The studio gave the film to Sherlock Holmes director Guy Ritchie.
How is all this affecting the day-to-day business in Hollywood? For all but the biggest stars and their dealmakers, it has made an already hard job much more difficult. First dollar gross deals are a distant memory, and agents tell me that now. So is the system where supporting players establish a quote from previous studio jobs. Now studios assemble lists starting at the top and then go down until they find the actor who’ll work for the discount price allotted for the role. The pendulum swing of leverage away from talent isn’t helped by the fact that studios no longer trust the star system. Beyond Angelina Jolie and a handful of male stars like Depp, Will Smith, Brad Pitt Adam Sandler and Tom Cruise, nobody is a safe bet. Even reliable veteran Tom Hanks was hit challenged. Attempts to mint new franchise stars has been most frustrating. Despite the billion dollar success of the Twilight Saga series, neither Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, nor Taylor Lautner have proven that their audience will follow them to other films. Ryan Reynolds’ attempt to reach stardom took a serious step back with Green Lantern and The Change-Up.
That doesn’t mean studios will stop trying to create new stars. Tom Hardy is on a fast track, playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, and taking over the hero role in George Miller’s Mad Max series with Fury Road. These films will give Hardy global visibility. Is he a star? Hardy turned in an Oscar-caliber performance in Gavin O’Connor’s mixed martial arts drama Warrior. Nobody seemed to notice. Disney and Universal are betting big on Taylor Kitsch, who played the hard-luck fullback Tim Riggins on Friday Night Lights for six seasons. Kitsch first plays the title role in John Carter, Disney’s adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel John Carter of Mars which opens March 9. And then Kitsch follows in the Peter Berg-directed Battleship, a big budget film that carries the Hasbro board game brand, an extraterrestrial storyline, and the future of the studio. Kitsch then stars in the Oliver Stone-directed adaptation of the Don Winsow novel Savages, which Universal releases September 28.
Writer reps tell me that a mindset of one-step deals and the demeaning practice of sweepstakes pitching (where scribes must prepare ideas to win a job) has become commonplace. There is no shortage of competition for those gigs because good jobs are harder to find. Agents say that whenever possible, they’ve become de facto producers who take client-generated material to build packages with agency-repped filmmakers and cast. Studios and financiers don’t mind this, because their focus is readying tent pole films that studios feel will perform overseas. The strain on the feature business is evident at all the agencies including CAA. That agency ended the year with a flurry of exiting agents, with rumors that others may follow in the next few months. Once famous for finding jobs for long-timers, CAA now has a partner in TPG and a long roster of agents who have built up salaries in flush days that are not currently justified in an era of diminishing returns in the movie business and less money to go around.
While global box office has become a more dominant part of the revenue stream of many studio successes, the flattening of DVD revenues created a hole that still hasn’t been filled. Shortening theatrical windows and even issuing major movies day and date in theaters and home viewing at premium price points seems inevitable, but not when major theater chains assume an over-my-dead-body position. That is understandable: the theater chains own the real estate and the screens, and they clearly will lose some moviegoers who’ll wait to rent a DVD. In a provocative interview with Deadline, Magnolia Pictures and Landmark Theater chain co-owner Todd Wagner suggested redrawing the revenue relationship with exhibitors and cutting them in on ancillary revenue streams or giving gross percentages. Which is why most of the deals at Toronto were day and date VOD-centric. The Weinstein Co launched a division dedicated to VOD releasing.
For indies, an intriguing case study happened quietly with Margin Call, the J.C. Chandor-directed financial crisis drama that Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions released in October and got on as many as 350 screens. Even though major chains AMC, Cinemark and Regal usually won’t release films that open simultaneously on VOD, Roadside Attractions paid $1 million to four-wall the film in AMC and Landmark Theaters. The film, which cost $3.4 million to make, has grossed close to $10 million between theater and VOD receipts. The success didn’t make the theater lobbying NATO happy, and several rival distributors said that the film would have done much more business with a traditional platform theatrical release, one that would have created more awards season awareness. But Margin Call insiders said that paying $10 million in P&A would have made those higher grosses very expensive and the film less profitable for a film that was acquired for about $1 million. The split with cable companies brings back 60%-70% to the film, which is better than the 50/50 split with theaters with a much smaller P&A spend. “It all becomes about the P&A. We all know that unless you can spend $20 million or $30 million, why bother?” Wagner told me. But with VOD, “you reach the entire country, cable companies promote your product through running their own spots, there is a frictionless collections process, and most importantly, I don’t have to run a TV commercial. I believe there is a huge mass of movies this model makes sense for.”
Even though the reshaping of the independent sector is already underway with day and date theatrical and VOD releases, studios have yet to find common ground with exhibitors on feature films. Moguls want to believe people would pay extra to watch films premiere at home in a timely fashion. But at what price point? Every other media – from publishing to music to television – have responded to the digital age with new and successful revenue initiatives. It has been much harder for studios to crack that model because exhibitor resistance has shackled the majors to an arcane system where VOD and DVD releases still come weeks later. Universal Pictures chairman Adam Fogelson got shut down cold by the major theater chains when he tried to test the viability of premium VOD by offering home viewing of Tower Heist in Atlanta and Portland three weeks after the film’s theatrical opening, at $60. This was as bold as when Disney shrank the window of Alice in Wonderland, but Disney knew what it was doing by trying with a film theaters had to have. Theaters decided they could live without Tower Heist (it turned out that many moviegoers felt the same way), and Fogelson had no choice but to scrap the test. Exhibitors were conciliatory in rejecting Universal (whose Comcast owners are clearly invested in fostering this business), but this will be a hard battle to win.
Clearly something or someone has got to give in 2012. Things could get worse for everyone in the movie biz — and not just agents – if the business keeps contracting and/or buyers keep disappearing. Summit Entertainment and Lionsgate may merge, but not if Summit and Miramax marry first. Relativity Media may not find new financing. Other companies are less publicly in trouble. The resurgence of deals at Sundance and Cannes was fueled by new buyers like Open Road and FilmDistrict which has at least temporarily left the distribution business following the exit of Bob Berney. I’m told FilmDistrict will continue to be a buyer. But who knows what 2012 will bring?


New blood…New blood…New blood…
Interesting piece. The thing is, studios seem a bit out of touch with what typical consumers want. I talk with people online and offline asking about this subject and I always get three answers:
1) Ticket prices are WAY Too expensive. Just can’t afford to go out.
2) “I haven’t seen anything I want to go see at the movies.”
3) I got so much other stuff to do i.e. social networking, video games, netflix, etc.
I think if studios didn’t remake so many properties that already had a large fan base and just created more original content I think audiences would be more excited to go to the theaters. One thing that struck me as odd is that I saw a video from a studio exec at Universal where he repeatedly said “fuck the story. We just want to make money.” All I kept thinking, was times have changed. Anyone can see this and get alienated. You tell someone you want to make quality films for them they’ll clamor to support you. You tell them you just want to make a buck off of them while lowballing the team that helped you make your movie… you get low attendance. But, I can GUARANTEE you business will be good next year with so many ten pole/blockbusters coming out.
So to sum it up… this has been a shitty year for movies.
It wasn’t a terrible year for movies. It was a terrible year for Hollywood movies. If you just rely on the movies spoon-fed to you in 30-second spots on NBC. That said, of course Hollywood movies could be better. But, typically, there’s always a segment of the market that will fill the void with good, quality material. Look increasingly to international film industries to provide us with content. The American audience is going to have to become a bit more cultured.
I find it interesting that I keep reading columns like this and it’s frustrating. It’s not a mystery… all you have to do is read online comments are ask a friend… ticket prices are way too high, the quality of films are terrible, and no one in Hollywood seems to really care. 2012 however will have a great rebound in business because of the huge franchise films that are coming out.
The problem is two-fold; one fold, actually.
1. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, knows the business from the finance side.
2. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, understands the probabilities. The entire industry is built around the returns being Gaussian which they aren’t. Entire portfolios are financed & credit extended on that proposition.
No replies, because nobody understands your comment.
Saying the returns are not distributed normally implies you know their distribution. Please enlighten us.
don’t forget the massive bellyflop THE A-TEAM
with a worldwide total of $180 million on a $125 million dollar production budget and $100 million promotion
Fox had 2 planned sequels for the franchise….
uhm…..guess not
Wasn’t the A-Team in 2010??
Does anyone here think that traditional movie theatres will exist, in the future, as they have in the past? I’m not asking if you WANT them to exist, I’m asking if you think they WILL.
There’s an entire generation of movie consumers who are learning they don’t NEED movie theatres anymore to enjoy films. The theatre owners themselves are contributing to the lesson by raping the consumer both at the snack counter AND the box office. Fifteen dollars to see a 3-D film at a cineplex in Santa Clarita? Get real.
The promise of the cineplex was diversity and choice. Yet Regal Cinema, the only theatre chain in Santa Clarita (a suburb of Los Angeles that has a big population of below-the-line industry folks), can’t bring themselves to screen anything more challenging than Twilight, and that on several screens. So much for diversity.
Older filmgoers who, in spite of the market research, are CRAVING good films, something they won’t get unless they travel to get it or wait for it to be OnDemand. Regal Cinemas has 22 screens in Santa Clarita, yet I have to drive 20 miles to the Arclight to see The Artist. Absurd!
Another problem is that studios are no longer run be executives who have any artistic taste or even the slightest notion of the cultural zeitgeist that would embrace and make a success of films like The Help and Midnight in Paris. When it happens, it’s an accident that all in Hollywood marvel at. Wow! A film with a STORY about people! And no CGI! What a concept!
One studio has a franchise? So they ALL gotta run out and get one, throw $100 million at it, put it in 3-D, and expect the dollars to flow. The Three Musketeers, anyone? ANOTHER Superman? Tower Heist, ffs???
Meh.
Couldn’t have said it better…
EXACTLY.
I had to drive 105 miles here in North Dakota just to see The Hurt Locker. The movie complex here in Minot has 8 screens but they will show movies that blatantly bomb for weeks before they show anything artistic (unless it’s expected to make money). Carmike Cinemas motto should be: if it’s s**t we will show it.
I also had to drive over 20 miles to see The Artist, which was playing on only one small screen in all of Palm Desert. And although worth the trip, it still rankled me that none of the dozens of area ‘plexes were exhibiting what might very well become this year’s Best Pic. Is it any wonder that older audiences – often with the most disposable income – feel so orphaned by studios and chains continually chasing after the same over-saturated youth and family market?
Exactly. My wife and I have been waiting for the Michael Fassbender starrer “Shame” to come within 50 miles of our city, however, Jack and Jill is on every screen.
I definitely HOPE they will. The only way I BELIEVE they will is if the studios decide it’s crucial and look to Congress to negate US V. Paramount (1948) and then invest in exhibitor acquisition. The only way to save, let alone increase, the profit in theatrical is to re-merge production/distribution with exhibition, imo.
There is an easy way to save theater exhibition that the studio could implement tomorrow. Lengthen the home video release window. These idiots shot themselves in the foot by shortening it in the first place trying to pump up their quarterly bottom lines. It keeps the movies in theaters longer so they have more time to recoup costs and gives the studios a better idea of what kind of films will be successful instead of just rolling the dice on every comic book property or endlessly rebooting/sequelizing/prequelling.
I absolutely believe that theater owners are mostly responsible for the box office slump.
The economy’s bad, movies are too expensive to be recession-proof, so what do they do? Raise prices. Factor in rising concession costs and poor presentation and sound, obnoxious audience members, and audiences can watch what they want to watch 3-4 months later on demand, Itunes, bluray, Redbox, Amazon, etc for a fraction of the cost.
Movie theaters are absolutely what’s keeping audiences away. And I speak as someone who goes to the movies practically once a week.
If they expect to survive, they have to make the theater going experience immaculate. They have to make going to the movies special again. If they can do that, audiences will return.
I think this is spot on.
Quality of films is not what keeps me from the theater — it’s the quality of the moviegoing experience itself.
At all the big chain theaters I’ve seen this year (AMC, UA, Regal, etc…), it has become the norm to endure constant talking, cell phone use, and texting. Theater owners do nothing to curtail any of this.
Plus, there’s poor presentation. 3D lenses left on for 2D movies, making them ridiculously dim. Bad speakers humming throughout a film.
The apparent answers from the chains are to refurbish the lobbies, install more IMAX screens, and add a ton of food items to their menus. I realize they get the bulk of their revenue from the concessions, but who GOES to the movies for the food? You go for the movie.
And when it’s dim, tinny, and the audience is loud and rude, who wants to pay a premium for that? Studios deserve criticism for poor films. But exhibitors need to own up to their own (multiple) failures. The product being sold has two components — the content and the presentation — and failing on either one will continue to drive people away.
Well said from the hart…. absolutely agree with you!
My husband and I loved Cowboys and Aliens. I’m just grateful it got made and we got to see it.
I thought it was pretty good, too. But not enough people agree with us, which is why the 2nd weekend ticket sales plummeted off a cliff.
Studios can’t survive investing that much in something that misses that badly and, as this article points out, there really is no way anymore to CYA in the exec suites. The closest thing seems to have been spending yourself to quality, which is a canard anyway.
The big problem is going to be working around a generation or two of D/Prod execs who have not been motivated to think of the blueprint (ie: the story/script) as the key element to success instead of the just the key to landing the director or talent you want.
You’re right. I know the highest grossing movies this year were branded franchise movies, but there were many you and this article mentioned that horrendously failed. New Technology, challenges in the economy, new channels of entertainment have ALWAYS been issues that have provided obstacles to the movie industry. What keeps audiences coming to theaters and paying money is story. There were too few good stories told in 2011. Hollywood’s biggest asset is the handful of risk takers who gamble on good stories and put it all on the line. It seems that the studio’s biggest problem is that these risk takers have been largely replaced by corporate lackeys and suits who think that the formula for a good story can somehow be quantified through research groups and business models.
The problem is the price for the ticket to go see a movie, and the snack bar for that matter. Lower the prices and more people will come to the movies.
People may want to see a movie but it costs $20 a person for the tickets and a trip to the snack bar, they won’t go cause it’s not worth the price and in some cases families can’t afford it. In my area adult tickets are $11.50 and $8.50 for kids, so a family of four, say two parents and two kids is $40 just for the tickets. Say each spends about $10 per person at the snack bar is another $40, so you are talking about $80 total. That is way too expensive for families to go to the movies. More for 3D movies. There is a local theatre that charges $6 per person for a manatee but that’s still $24 just to get in the door. You can buy or rent a movie for a lot less and can see it more then once. It’s a matter of being able to afford it in many cases.
I agree with your intelligent comment… but I did have to laugh at the six dollar herbivorous sea cow reference. Matinee, I believe you meant
“herbivorous sea cow.” Love it. Very perceptive.
Corporations are people too– talentless people.
Over here a bunch of millionaire and billionaire suits with no more interest in story than an equal number of bankers might have.
Over there, the unemployed, underemployed, scared, but saturated-with-entertainment choices audience.
Somehow the millionaires can’t connect with the people. Huge surprise.
I see two major issues at work here.
First is using things like 3d inappropriately. It should be planned from day one and only when it will enhance the story. Like how it works with annie to give depth. With something like Avatar there was so much CGI that it might as well have been annie. Bad 3d turns people off, especially when they are asked to pay more for it.
The second issue is that the studios, like the TV networks, refuse to admit that times have changed. They scorn digital instead of embracing it.
Case in point. Rattner freaking over the suggestion of a two mid level city on one cable company test of VOD on Tower Heist starting 3 weeks after the movie premiered. He said that it would kill box office etc. Guess what, the box office sucked and instead of making some money off legal $30 a pop VOD, folks just used torrents etc. Then they pull moves like only putting movies up on places like iTunes in 480p. Or requiring huge windows before the home video release.
Anime? I don’t remember a 3D Broadway musical.
…mmmmmm….I think they are ALL in 3D….
I still don’t get the Cowboys and Aliens failure. I thought it was a fun movie (though certainly not intellectually stimulating). It was paced well and the acting was decent. Was it excellent? No. But hardly a bad movie.
I agree. “Cowboys & Aliens” was a fun popcorn movie for my wife and I on a Saturday night. I think the problem, as a previous post mentions, is how a $190 million film isn’t grossing over $500 million it’s considered a flop. The studios are right to try and get these runaway budgets under control. Their masochistic tentpole strategy is like playing Russian roulette. Instead of making one movie for $150 million they could make 6 movies at $25 million a pop, then have 6 shots at a box office bonanza rather than just one. I’m sure Disney wished it had done so following “John Carter.”
Ok here’s what I don’t understand.
If a retailer buys a product that doesn’t live up to expectations he marks it down and moves it out the door.
When a 3-D film like “Hugo” wasn’t meeting projections why not put it on sale and cut the price?
At $7.50 it would have moved tons of tickets before heading off to VOD.
“The Sitter” just Sitting there?
How ’bout $5 for that “B” picture.
Beats my $1.25 at Redbox or lets face it my $0 online!
All the BO’s are computerized.
There really can’t be any technical reason not to vary prices to meet market demand.
Turn those theater seats into airline seats and move the prices up and down.
Charging the same price for Every flight seems stone aged!
Hey maybe you could even get $20 (25-30 even opening night) for Mission Impossible or Avatar when they see other films for far, far less.
Oh and you theater owners can’t sell me overpriced popcorn if I’m Not There!
Sony did exactly what you suggested earlier this year by offering 2 for 1 tickets to Moneyball/Ides of March. Double features on older titles could make a comeback.
Absolutely stupid idea. You clearly have zero idea about how film economics work. Go back to flipping fries and stay off these boards.
What an ass*#$% comment. Okay, genius. Why don’t you enlighten the rest of us with your command of film economics.
Double Feature?
Who has the time or the desire to sit in dark theater for two full length films?
Not to mention how much popcorn can one person eat?
No, they have to turn those seats but fill them first!
It might be that Americans are simply to obese to fit into theatre seats. It can’t be that comfortable for lard buckets to sit in a confined space for 2 hours straight, even if you are stuffing your pie hole with popcorn and soda…
Movie theater owners are lousy retailers and the good filmmakers suffer because of it. Theaters rely on Hollywood to drive an audience to their doors and then give them a technically subpar and expensive experience. They are lazy cause the big studios made them complacent.
Do more films suck than in the past or is the cost not worth the financial risk? The latter? Yes, I agree, price tickets based on demand and location in the theater, it’s ridiculous we don’t do it.
Prices for concessions at sporting events and art galleries are just as expensive as movie theaters, and ticket prices for these venues are equal to, or astronomically more than a movie ticket, so somewhere the overall value has come into question for cinema. But all seats at a stadium are not priced equally and the value of each ticket on the open market is weighed by the quality of the match up.
Note to self: 50″ HDTV set with 3.1 GoogleTV and Netflix is a heck of an option.
They’ve even closed the gap between the matinee evening performances.
The matinees are empty and the tickt price is only a dollar or two less.
They used to be half!
NHBill, They do that in my town. They will be at the multiplex for a week or two at full price. Films that don’t cut it either disappear or sometimes move to a smaller theatre at the mall for $1.50. The company is Regal Cinemas.
There are a few second run theaters around.
But home video has put the vast majority of them out of business.
The new megaplex is where we all want to buy our popcorn.
But every movie selling for the exact same ticket price is stone aged thinking.
1) Ticket prices are too high. It’s not a fun experience to go to the movies anymore. They’re dirty and in some cases riddled with bedbugs.
2) Forgettable films. I couldn’t tell you a single thing I remember from Transformers Dark of the Moon after I left the cinema. Why would I then go on to buy the dvd?
3) The death of the movie star. None left nor any that can be created.
4) Distinct lack of choice.
5) Hollywood is out of touch with reality.
Totally agree. Also, eyeballing everything as a “Franchise” or a “Blockbuster” has killed movies. They’re bloated, overstuffed and not any better because of the $250 Million spent.”
Okay, here is how I see it: what is the one thing every producer, director, actor, & studio exec asks when considering making a movie? What. Is. The. Story. What story are you selling to your audience. Granted, a studio wants to create brands that are highly profitable based on content already known, but why are we still ignoring the story we are telling? These tent pole films are clearly regulated to the summer and fall, bit what about the rest of the year? Katzenburg famously said in his 1990′s that they skoul be focusing on single & doubles as he coined it, films that can graduate to a home run, based on the quality of the STORY & film.
Now, someone mentioned new blood. Remember, Mike Medavoy famously discovered Coppola, Lucas, Milius & Spielberg as the future filmmakers right out of school. Where are the foot soldiers scouring the schools,? How about film festivals? Ive shot 2 award winning shorts & have a stack of scripts, but can’t get arrested because there is not a forum to go to showcase my work.
This continual selling 7 to get 10 is way to risky & doesn’t appear to be working. The audience is clamoring for more original content, bit who said you had to spend $100 mill at it? Why not create 2, 3, 4 modestly budgeted films & see how they play out. Bridesmaids wasn’t an accident. Neither was Horrible Bosses. With stars vying for anything that can get, you could actually pair new stories with top stars & create quality, original films that, when added together, can generate the results of a tent pole, while spreading the risk amongst several properties. And, the more stars you get with international appeal, the better.
But cutting down on the number of films & sacrificing quality in the name of building a bigger bridge blows up, makes as much sense as cutting taxes for the wealthy so they can create jobs & it trickle down to the rest of us.
Bottom line: focus on story, grab the stars, create bigger films all on their own, & spread the risk around. Much safer & we might actually get a good number of quality films out of it we can be proud of & make some damn money. Just a thought.
I seeing plenty of fine films.
Just not at the theater.
Who’s going to pay the same top dollar for a low budget indie such as Martha Marcy May Marlene as Mission Impossible?
Why can’t That film play at the exact same megaplex for 30% less than the Tom Cruise picture?
Or even 50% less?
Meek’s Cutoff at $5 would have got people off the couch.
At $12 or more they’ll wait.
” I still don’t get the Cowboys and Aliens failure.”
Oh, that’s easy. The movie delivered exactly what the title promised, no less…and, unfortunately, no more. C&A was shockingly afterthought and underdeveloped–it felt as if everyone involved stopped thinking past the initial concept. If you are doing a genre mashup, you have to do something fresh with both genres and how you mix ‘em, not just figure putting them together is automatically going to make something fresh.
Agreed. The aliens were just generic monsters. Yeah, there was the scarred one the Craig had to face, but I felt they were really underdeveloped. It lacked any good villains.
In general…Been around a bunch of regular folks who just watch movies for entertainment who all liked “Cowboys & Aliens.” I was excited by the project but underwehlmed by the movie. However, all the folks I talk to who saw it on DVD liked it. All of them saw it at home though. How is it doing on DVD and rental?
Correct, lack of villain and secondly no comedic release/sidekick. It was a strange move, deliberate or not, to have Craig and Harrison play the same gruff monotone stereotype cowboy but the fact there was no comedic sidekick to make light/be the audience of the absurd situation gave it no air and it drowned accordingly.
Um, make that “…shockingly underthought.” Sorry!
$15 dollars too expensive for a ticket? What planet are you on? That is 50% cheaper than a ticket in most other countries. You are just so used to paying peanuts for everything (food, gas etc) that when you actually have to pay a bit more all you do is bitch.
Price is not the problem. Quality is the problem.
Price absolutely IS the problem, particularly at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. I am one of many people who stopped going to the movies after ticket prices went over five dollars, not because I couldn’t afford it, but because I was sick and tired of hearing about actors making $20 million to star in films that were pure garbage. I’d much rather give five dollars to someone who needs it.
Why does it matter what tickets cost in other countries? Are Americans going to travel to other countries just to watch a movie?
The price comparison that matter are things like this: I spend an average of $1.50 per DVD through Netflix (and I could drive that down further if I turned around a disk faster). Or I could switch over to Netflix streaming for a similarly low per-movie price. Or I could download any movie I like from the torrents for $0 and get it faster. And any of these methods are the same price, regardless of the number of people watching the movie.
If movie theaters want to charge $15 or anything close to that, they need to reinvent themselves so that they are not just delivering content that people are already getting far cheaper. They need to deliver a positive experience that people cannot get in their living rooms – the environment, the social aspect, etc.
The experience they are now delivering is so bad that it actually serves is a disincentive. So they have a long way to go, but they might as well start now. The technology trends that have driven content down towards zero are not going away.
“That is 50% cheaper than a ticket in most other countries.”
Huh? In Latin America ticket prices vary from US$2-5.
2011 was a very good year for quality movies.
Most critics are blowing out their top 10 lists and listing 20 or more films.
Wait. Wait.
Compelling content that is delivered at a price that a large swath of consumers are willing to pay will win the day? Really? Shocking! No one has ever said that before.
All these comments could have been written about 2001 box office and 1991 box office and 1981 box office and… You get the idea.
Television was going to kill movie theaters, then it was VCR, then is was cable, and then it was some other form of entertainment.
Yet, here we are. Movie theaters still exist. Stars are still made. People still watch movies. What has changed? Another generation of writers, stars, executives have arrived. They have no sense of history and, thus, no sense of perspective.
Tell that to the music industry.
What has changed? The internet, VOD, and cheap home theater systems have reset the price point. $15 is a price that fewer and fewer consumers are willing to pay because there are cheaper and better alternatives. I saw MI4 right before Xmas – paid $11 for a ticket and the picture was blurry and the theater didn’t have stadium seating. And it wasn’t even a good movie! (93% on Rotten Tomatoes?!? Really?) At home I have a projector that I can focus, a sofa, and beer. So why not wait a few months and rent the movie for 1/3 the price of two movie tickets?
“What has changed?”
Internet, baby.
I am only thirteen but thanks to my family I have fallen in love with cinema. If my local cinema doesn’t show the Artist next week I will hunt it down. I would rather watch an interesting movie like that for £6 than go to Sherlock Holmes or New Years Eve for free.
RE: The Artist. Don’t bother, wait for it on Netflix. Save your quid.
P.S. I agree with annoyed. Everything is cheaper in the US. Be fair.
.to be fair…a gallon of gas “costs” the same everywhere, it is a traded commodity plus shipping…TAXES make up the difference in price either higher or lower…why be annoyed that your govt isn’t taking away more of YOUR money? If you feel bad that you are paying half of a German’s ticket…tip the kid who got your popcorn $15…rather see them get it and you can feel better about living in a market/consumer driven country rather than the basket of snakes that Europe(EU) has become…just being fair
This may well be the stupidest and most ill-informed comment I’ve seen on the internet all day. Thanks JImTX, you save me having to listen to Hannity today.
Yes, be fair to the poor, starving Hollywood moguls and pampered, overpaid stars! Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
I’m with HBN. If I have an extra $15, I’ll give it to the guy living out of his car down the street.
Stop 3D! I almost did not see HUGO because I hate 3D and would have missed a wonderful film. People are getting over it already and time to move on.
…I went to see TRON 3D…have loved films all my life…3D is a gimmick and it will go away and return etc etc…just saw Dragon Tattoo, put your feet up,relax, I’m gonna tell you a story…wonderful to have scenes cuts in excess of 13sec…I’m sure some will say slow..I loved it…TRON in any D,except the original,will suck…a great story with actors and directors who know the medium will always beat out “tricks”..3D might add to a film,might,but there must be a film standing on it’s own to add too…HAPPY NEW YEAR
Interesting in all of this is how HBO, TNT, AMC, etc, have taken what traditional Hollywood won’t produce any more: amazing, compelling, shocking, moving, outrageous stories with damn fine acting for the most part. Story telling has moved to tv and online clearly. It is thriving. We are joyous! I went to more movies this year than in several years past and nearly all of them were forgettable and/or barely tolerable. Movies like Thor were a waste of a couple hour of my life, forget about the money. I left as soon as I could.
I love going to the movies. I love the collective, community feeling of “giving it up” and “giving it over” to the cinematic experience. But I cannot remember the last time I left a movie theater feeling joy and the glory of the movies
Excellent point. Movies have become drivel because they are becoming standardized mindless nonsense chasing the global market, where the need to appeal to a wide audience requires that the content be blanded down into nothing.
Cable TV is benefitting from the opposite trend: audiences diffusing into small, specialized niches that can support content that is very focused on serving those niches. No more globalized blanding, so the result is far better.
Since I get TV and movies both largely through Netflix now, I don’t really distinguish between the two modes, and I’m unlikely to cut movies any slack just because they operate under very different rules. I just saw “Margin Call” – great flick – and I think of it in the same category as “Sons of Anarchy” or “Justified,” and certainly not anything to do with “Transformers.”
With all the execs touting idiotic concepts like “branding” and “franchises,” they’ve lost their way. They need to retrace their steps and rediscover that story matters. Originality matters.
It always has.
It always will.
Just saw Mission Impossible GP. Fun at first then then it really wore thin. All action, no story. Even our college student son said, “Eh,” meaning not so hot. Said he wouldn’t reccomend to friends. At the other end of the spectrum, we saw The Artist at Houston’s Cinema Arts Festival. We laughed, we cried, we were moved, we were entertained and we left the theater with joy in our hearts and a big grin on our faces. That’s a REAL movie! Story is everything!
I keep hearing that the reason for box office decline is Hollywood “not making good enough movies”. And yet the year’s top-grossing films are all brands and sequels, sequels and brands. Seems to me the audience is getting exactly what it wants — and deserves.
I don’t understand how studios can spend $80, $100, $150+ million on a single movie. I don’t care who is in it, what effects you have, how many extras… where is all this money going?
I think they should be making 90% of movies for under $30 million, and maybe a few would deserve more than that. What is the point of having a studio to make movies in the first place? It is supposed to be a place that has developed the craft of movie making so it can make many pictures (hopefully good) as *efficiently* as possible. Bring everything under one roof, and that synergy and expertise can translate across multiple projects.
The entire system is out of touch with the consumer and the times. And I don’t think it’s the execs mainly…
Last year was a lesson in what to do to make money — True Grit, The Fighter, The Town, Black Swan
ADULTS ARE THE AUDIENCE! THESE ARE ALL CLASSIC STUDIO MOVIES, NOW PLAYING IN THE ARTHOUSE BUT CHEAP TO MAKE!
This year’s lesson is how to lose money — both on the big and small ends —
Mainstream movies are moronic, and awards films are obscure and a drag.