B. Riley analyst Eric Wold says it will in a major look-forward report today for the film business. He predicts 4% growth in box office sales this year — the result of a 1% uptick in attendance and a 3% rise in average ticket prices. What makes him so confident, especially following the 3.9% drop in 2011? Wold says that more consumers would have gone to the movies last year if Hollywood hadn’t released so many dogs. He dismisses another theory: that tickets are becoming too expensive. If that were the case, he says, then we would have seen soft numbers throughout the year — instead box offices set records in Q2 and Q3. He’s also optimistic about 2012 because there’ll be at least 25 sequels of films that collectively generated $3.64B at box offices. Sequels typically deliver about 6% less in ticket sales than the originals. But even if 2012′s films slip 20%, consumers will spend 12% more than they did for sequels in 2010. That could “set up 2012 for a potential rebound,” Wold says. He’s also encouraged to see that there’ll be at least 40 wide-release 3D films this year, up from 36 last year and 22 in 2010. That leads him to believe that 3D will account for 20% of domestic box office revenues, up from 18.9% in 2011. If he’s right about all the cash that will be flowing into theaters, then it will provide large exhibition chains with the fuel they need to buy smaller companies. Wold says that firms that aren’t well capitalized may not be able to afford digital projectors and equipment before Hollywood studios stop distributing film reels — which could happen by the end of 2013. ”Without a doubt, we expect all three [major publicly traded] exhibitor chains – Regal, Cinemark and Carmike – to complete acquisitions during 2012,” he says. Despite his bullish predictions, the analyst decided to play it safe with his financial forecasts following the disappointing box office sales at the end of 2011, He lowered his 2012 revenue estimates for the major publicly traded chains: He forecasts $510M for Carmike (-2%), $2.5B for Cinemark (-7.9%), and $629M for Regal (-4.7%).

I didn’t see Mission Impossible in Imax because I didn’t want to spend the extra money.
you made a mistake – the dubai sequence is heart stopping in Imax. It’s worth it.
I prioritize my money differently.
@BMC – I sympathize with your philosopy and am very selective with which films I deem worthy of theatrical prices. (Last year I saw: MI:4, Midnight in Paris, Planet/Apes, Harry Potter, Thor and Fast Five in theatres, and I didn’t pay for 2 of those films).
I would recommend seeing MI:4 in Imax (maybe a matinee?). The action sequences (Kremlin, Dubai, Parking Lot lifts) really are worth paying to see on a giant screen. It just won’t be the same on a regular screen or at home on tv.
I’m confused… didn’t they try 3D and sequels in 2011?
I know every time I’ve visited the theater lately people are always marveling about how low ticket prices are and complaining about the lack of 3D fare and sequels.
WOW!
We must be going to the same theater because I hear the same comments.
In fact, when I recently took my grand nephews to see The Lion King, they specifically said, “No 3D”…but they are only kids…what do they know?
XD
I honesty can’t tell if that’s sarcasm.
It is absolutely…sarcasm.
BTW – The only word I know in the English language with all the vowels in order A,E,I,O,U including ‘sometimes Y’…is…are you ready…FACETIOUSLY.
Happy 2012!
really? let me FTFY – its sarcasm.
What’s the deal with 3-D? For two years now we’ve been hearing how it’s a failure, how people aren’t going, how studios are losing money on it, etc. but now here’s a guy who says that he is “encouraged” by the fact that 40 of next year’s offerings are 3-D.
Can anybody shed some light on this?
These financial predictions are reminiscent of the financials of the banks before the collapse. Maybe that’s why Goldman Sachs is divesting themselves of their movie business, they can’t afford to get caught up in the sake scam again.
a saké scam has a ring to it. I’m thinkig eric roberts disguised as a japanese businessman.
I think this guy is correct about 2012. Batman and Spider-Man return. A Jason Bourne spin-off. Good times…
I can’t even count how many times this year I opted out of going to the movies because of the ridiculously high ticket prices. And I never see films in 3D…
wait a minute. 3 D and sequels didn’t work in 2011, what makes them think they’ll work in 2012. These people need to get their shit together.
Said it before and I’ll say it again, studios can try whatever they want, but it’s not the movies keeping people away, it’s the actual THEATERS that are responsible for the slump.
If you actually got a great moviegoing experience (great picture, great sound, horrible patrons ‘bounced’ out of theaters, etc.) for the price you pay, audiences would actually return.
Fast-forward one year. Everyone will be calling 2012 an encouraging success, ignoring the fact that without The Dark Knight Rises it would have been even worse than this year.
I usually avoid 3D because of the higher prices, but I shall be spending my hard earned sheckles on seeing The Hobbit and Prometheus in 3D, because I’m eagerly anticipating those films. It’s the movie that sells the 3D, not the other way around.
Maybe Wold was looking at his forecast report for 2011, which would mean he double-failed.
Typical Hollywood reaching the exact opposite conclusions of its target demographics when the writing is on the wall in plain english.
Audiences made it VERY CLEAR they were NOT on board with 3D or sequels in 2011. Why would it be any different in 2012?
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing… blah blah.
Audiences made it VERY CLEAR they were NOT on board with 3D or sequels in 2011. Why would it be any different in 2012?
Maybe you should look at the top 10 box office hits of 2011.
More 3D and sequels. They are truly out of their minds… Thank God I have a projector and am watching real cinema like that. It’s dreadfull what we find at the major screens… Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. And I love going to the movies…
many around the country are still unemployed. that won’t change anytime soon. they won’t be able to go to movies every week. ticket prices and concessions are too high. they will pick and choose those select few titles worth spending their money. they will wait to watch them months later in the comfort of their own home, where it’s CHEAPER to watch. lower the ticket prices. make better movies. stop with the gimmicks.
Are they out of their minds? Sequels and 3D???? Ahhhhhhhh!!! And I love cinema but won’t go. I’ve gotten a projector at home and am watching real cinema here. The theaters are also to blame by not supporting good movies that does not come out of majors. Common. We’re bored…
He is right. The whole anti 3d hype and anti-sequel hype has no basis in fact. The reality is that sequels are close to sure things. Some underperform, some overperform but none bomb. Original movies are very liable to bomb. The reality is that sure when prices are relatively higher, less people attend. Much of the lower attendance can be traced to higher comparative prices nowadays (regardless of 3D) which means the gross is still ok. Prices are higher than any time since early 1970s when attendace were at record lows.
Did anybody stop to consider that the top 7 films of the year were ALL sequels and that the top two domestically and globally were also offered in 3D before espousing the clearly rubbish notion that people don’t want sequels?
Nope, I guess not.
One of the few people I’ve ever known who actually seemed to understand the theatrical distribution business was my old college professor Art Murphy.
“Murph,” as some of you will no doubt remember, spent many years tracking box office figures for Variety. By the late 1980’s, experience had taught him that the movie business was cyclical, and during class he would assure us (in his benignly crusty fashion) that no matter how bad, or good, things got the scales would invariably tip in the opposite direction, ultimately achieving a sort of long-range equilibrium.
Murphy died in 2003, but to this day I can’t read one of these biz blogs without wondering to what extent (if any) the arrival of the internet, the collapse of the music industry, the popularity of video gaming, and the evolution of Home Theater would have effected Murphy’s generally sanguine outlook regarding the future of theatrical distribution.
I’m NOT a 3-D fan but will watch a GOOD movie, no matter how it’s filmed. Originality would be a plus.
Yes, because sequels and 3D worked SO WELL this past year
Seriously, sequels by themselves are not necessarily problematic as long as they are done for the right reasons – not just a cash grab (Chipmunks 3 anyone?). Harry Potter proved the power of a well-crafted franchise. Mission:Impossible has had ups and downs, but many seem to have embraced the fourth “chapter”.
3D, on the other hand, has not been as successfully implemented. And when directors try to go back and add 3D to older films (I’m looking at you, Cameron), well it just sounds like a pitiful attempt to extract more money from consumers.
Hollywood needs to come to grips with what 3D can (or should) be. It should not just be used for every future film – do we REALLY need the Great Gatsby in 3D, Baz? And Hollywood should spend more time working on new 3D technology that finally eliminates those expensive and silly glasses. Really, it’s like it is the 1950′s all over again.
So if Hollywood does not want another down box-office year, they ened to get serious. No more crap, guys.
I keep laughing at that Sony commercial where the little girl says, “You ever heard of 3D Grandpa?” I keep wanting the Grandpa to say, “Hell yes I have. We already rejected that crappy style of movie sixty years ago.”
I personally don’t know a single person who prefers to go see a movie in 3D. I know that doesn’t necessarily mean much (it’s not like I know everyone), but where I live (outside of LA and NY), all the 3D movies are offered in 2D (typically on more screens that way too). Every time I’m in LA or NY and want to check out the latest blockbuster, I’m shocked to discover that it is really difficult to find 2D versions of the 3D films. Consequently, I just don’t go, as I can live without the headache, the glasses, the fact that I can’t turn my head to any angle other than horizontal while watching. But it makes me realize that that is probably where a lot of the 3D numbers come from. Some people don’t have the option to watch it in 2D.
For example, on Christmas Day, there were 2 screenings of Tintin in 3D at my local theater. Not two screens playing it… 2 screenings all day (both nearly empty). In 2D, there was several screens playing it all day. 3D is a fad. It was a fad the first time and it certainly is a fad again now.
PS Avatar was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. So cliched. So crappy. Just sayin.