It appears so according to an intriguing report out today from Cowen & Co analyst Doug Creutz. His conclusion comes from a 12-year comparison he’s been making of the total number of tickets sold domestically each year vs the average scores that voters on Rotten Tomatoes give to the 50 most widely released films. He has found a consistent correlation — attendance was high in years when Rotten Tomatoes scores were high — for every year except 2011 and, now, 2012. The two years had the highest average Rotten Tomatoes scores in the period he studied, but below-average ticket sales. Although Creutz recognizes that’s not conclusive evidence of a trend, it leads him to suspect that “the domestic demand curve for movies has meaningfully shifted down since 2010.” That’s worrisome: In a year of less popular films “ticket sales could drop well below any level we have seen in the last 12 years….This would certainly represent a bit of a catastrophe for the industry (including exhibitors) and would certainly get the attention of Hollywood executives.” He estimates that theaters sold 1.38B tickets in 2012, down from 1.44B in 2009 and 1.41B in 2000. Although box office revenues have increased over the decade, to $10.8B last year, that “has been made possible entirely through increasing ticket prices.” What accounts for the apparent disconnect between movie quality and attendance? Creutz says it could reflect consumer resistance to rising ticket prices, and improvements in home entertainment including home theater systems and video games. He also notes that last year the average film was available for home viewing about 123 days after it first appeared in theaters, down from 221 days in 2000.


123 days is the average? It feels more like 90. I love the movies theater experience (mostly), but there’s not munch incentive for me to go when for a little more than the price I pay for a full ticket, I can literally own it in 3 months or so. (And even less now, with these early digital releases. Taken 2 was available online a mere 60 days after its release.)
At this point, if I don’t make it to the theater in the first week or two of something I want to see, I am not going to go and just wait to see it at home.
I love going to the movie theaters, but I must admit, the past few years, I’d rather wait 3 months to get the movie on Blu-Ray for the same price I’d pay for a movie ticket. Plus, I can watch in my own home without being annoyed by people constantly checking their cellphones for text messages.
Although box office revenues have increased over the decade, to $10.8B last year, that “has been made possible entirely through increasing ticket prices.”
DUH.
Perhaps moviegoers outside of the M1224 demo are tired of endless sequels, remakes, reboots and movies primarily geared toward an Oscar campaign.
Reboots and remakes suck, but why would we be tired of sequels?
We need more sequels. Part of the problem today is that we’re getting less sequels and studios are jettisoning established casts and continuity in favor of rebooting.
Reboots suck. More sequels, please.
I don’t like the movie theater experience, and barely even like movies these days. They feel pointless when I could be binging on a great TV show instead.
Plus there are just so many other high quality entertainment options nowadays, movies, especially at the theater are a bottom of the list, last resort option.
A quality moviegoing experience is elusive these days. Digital installations have actually raised the quality of exhibition for the near term (the equipment is new, there was nowhere to go but up after film projection was literally given no quality control) but it’s mostly unpleasant with everyone ignoring toothless policy trailers about texting/phoning and generally carrying on like they’ve never had to make civil allowances for anyone else in shared space before. Add on the prices and you are paying a premium for, on average, a frustrating experience compounded if you happen to not like the movie all that much. I love the cinema experience but home installs with BD’s beat most theatres on price and experience. How theatres get beat on the latter should be a source of endless embarassment.
I love the theater-going experience, but simply put, you’ve made it too expensive to go on a regular basis. We just can’t afford it.
Hollywood also makes fewer interesting, risky, adult, quality films that take chances and show us anything new. Your product has become generic, made for the widest, international, easily translatable tastes.
It’s a shame. The movies used to be so interesting.
This isn’t remotely surprising. Most of the film-goers are under 30 years old, and in today’s society, short form technology, ie, text messages, Twitter, Facebook, etc, has put pressure on keeping anyone’s attention for longer than a 120 characters on someone’s Twitter feed. Combine that with a down economy, especially for “kids” between 16-25 who are not only wildly unemployed by comparison to the rest of the labor market, thereby holding less resources and purchasing power, but they also simply don’t earn enough in the jobs they do have to spend on tickets by comparison to those who are in their mid-thirties and older. Furthermore, gas prices are universally more expensive than they were a decade ago, making everything from soda to eggs more expensive, while wages have not kept up, making disposable income more scarce than it was a decade ago as well. Additionally, though the video game markets are also suffering, purchasing a game for $55-60 that’ll give you a minimum of 25 hours of entertainment is exceedingly more valuable on a per hour cost basis. Even free or $1-3 mobile games for the casual gamer arguably provide more fun entertainment than theatrical films. In the end, when evaluating a few big factors of employment, inflation, technology, social norms and general entertainment quality, it becomes clear that the recipe for lost box office attendance is more complex than it may seem on first blush.
If a movie is popular, it will sell tickets, so your topline is a contradiction.
If you mean that movies that are sequels nr 4 or remakes and movies that have the same faces all the time,
in other words movies that Hollywood tags popular in advance, do not sell tickets,
Well people may be sick an tired of those same faces and sequel nr 6 and the forced to your throat having to be Box Office hit to pay the ridiculous anounts of those pompous Hollywood stars that need 30 million per movie, and with that budgets rise to 150 million for making a movie.
For 1 Overblown Star, paid 30 million dollars, you can make an entire tv series or 6 great movies with great actors that do not play the Hollywood game.
Hollywood should stop giviing the same people all the jobs, the same actors, directors etc all that money ,
it is even worse these days than the old Studio days.
The problem is not just the salaries for A list talent. It’s marketing. You can make six $5,000,000 films for what Tom Cruise would earn in just one film. The problem is, even if you go for the low end of a wide release (1,500 screens), you’re still looking at at least $12,000,000 in P&A costs per picture. Between total negative costs and marketing, the total shoots up to over $100,000,000 for all six films combined.
Don’t forget the high prices at the snack bar make it more expensive for people to go to the movies, and not just families.
There’s always been more bad movies than good. Quality is not the problem. Blaming marketing or what you perceive as an influx in unoriginal material is not at fault.
The simple fact is movies are no longer the only, nor the best, game in town. There was a time that if I wanted certain escapism, movies were the only thing. Now? TV shows with better writing. Video games with better writing. Amazing home theaters. And every other form of digital entertainment available at my fingertips from my computer. I used to see multiple movies a month when I was young because it was all that was available. Now, my options have more than quadrupled.
It’s not that the majority of movies suck (the majority of them have always sucked) It’s that there’s more competition.
Movies no longer have the monopoly.
I’d love to see the methodology and all the different factors he considered. Surely movie scores and ticket sales can’t be all that led him to discover a meaningful correlation? Many of those high scoring movies don’t open in nearly as many theaters as some of the mediocre ones, I think.
Did you know that gloom-and-doom “important” reviewers’ darlings are not considered date-movies? I hope that impostor won’t add another comment in my name as he did on the Mistresses post. Did you know that the Tomatometer measures reviewers’ opinion of a movie and is NOT an indicator for how well a movie will be doing?
I think Mr. Creutz was looking for a correlation between the review score and the # of tickets sold, essentially testing your last question. If the fifty films he looked at counted for more than 80% of the tickets bought, his conclusion might be closer to being significant, but it’s still a pretty loaded number with only twelve data points.
Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are silently killing the industry.
If the studios would STOP ADVERTISING on these sites, the stupid, worthless critics would go away into oblivion where they belong.
Your right on the first point. Nothing kills a bad product faster than good social media. (At this point it’s become instant death.) Advertising on these sites does nothing to mollify the sites or change the bias of the reviews and absolutely has note driven the popularity of sharing bad reviews.
This report does not account for the quality of the film criticism which has become as homogenized as the films they’re reviewing. I’ve too often taken the word of high scores with the likes of Rotten Tomatoes and have been disappointed. Granted, criticism is subjective but these critics seem to be following the herd and hype way too much.
“Although box office revenues have increased over the decade, to $10.8B last year, that “has been made possible entirely through increasing ticket prices.” What accounts for the apparent disconnect between movie quality and attendance?”
Apparently, someone’s bad at putting two and two togther.
Well said, Rob. Hollywood films are by and larger generic (in every since of the word), boring and uneventful.
The memorable film I saw was a French film from 2010, that I believe is being made with mark wahlberg – how sad.
Whoever said the theater experience is the last resort entertainment option is spot on; ever notice how all the “What’s Popular on Netflix” is always several TV series and no movies?
As its the writing, and writing is crippled in film and living in the lap of luxury on TV.
I’m surprised Netflix doesn’t raise their prices to $12.95/month, people would still pay because the competition doesn’t have the same brand equity or licensing deals or smart original programming (House of Cards beats all HBO shows since The Wire ended).
The movies aren’t going anywhere. Leaving your home and watching a giant screen in a room full of strangers is completely different than watching VOD or a Blu-ray. The studios will make less money, the budgets will come down, but people are ALWAYS going to gather in crowds to watch stories silently in the dark.