my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Finally, a voice of reason about the "slump" (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Finally, a voice of reason about the "slump" Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2005 10:50 PM                        From Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" at www.rogerebert.com : The passion of the slump December 25, 2005 Q. If this was such a great year for movies, why are box-office receipts so far down from last year, even though admission prices are at an all-time high? Do you feel that there is such a growing disconnect between Hollywood and America that Hollywood had better wake up or face serious consequences? Cal Ford, Corsicana, Texas A: No, I don't, because the "box-office slump" is an urban myth that has been tiresomely created by news media recycling one another. By mid-December, according to the Hollywood Reporter, receipts were down between 4 percent and 5 percent from 2004, a record year when the totals were boosted by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which grossed $370 million. Many of those tickets were sold to people who rarely go to the movies. 2005 will eventually be the second or third best year in box-office history. Industry analyst David Poland at moviecitynews.com has been consistently right about this non-story.  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-27-2005 11:00 PM                     A ticket sold is a ticket sold.... it's lame how people have to justify sales for The PAssion to mold their opinions on box office receipts.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-27-2005 11:33 PM                        All I know is that the "box office" is still getting their asses handed to them by video games!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-27-2005 11:37 PM                     When I saw the movie trailer for "Miami Vice" my first thought was, "great, we get to watch even more TV on the movie screen." Maybe that's another reason for the push to video projection. So many of the movies are really just blown up TV shows. So why not get rid of the film and just replace it with a big freaking TV set?  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 12-28-2005 12:18 AM                     Ebert is right...the slump is a myth...people have been crying about the death of the theatre since television. The theatres are still here 50 years later... Let there be no doubt that for a lot of theatres, the "Passion" was a huge boost. At my theatre, its the largest grossing film I've ever had. It did almost double the #2 movie ever (Shrek 2).  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 12-28-2005 07:48 AM                     If the studios are doing so great, why are theaters doing so poorly "Movie Answer Man"?  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-28-2005 07:59 AM                     why are theaters doing so poorly Too many screens, all running the same film, and being forced to hold the film longer than it is profitable. This is the problem with national "boxoffice" figures. They do not indicate how individual theatres are doing. Nationwide Average gross per screen for an entire year would be a more telling number to judge the trends.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2005 08:24 AM                     I've gotten replies from our customers that they are down between 7% and 24% for the year. I generally ask how things have been for the year when I'm on my service calls. It careens all over the place. Some continue to build.... closing gown older sites and replacing them with new cinemas in an effort to lure customers in and to make operations more efficient and cost saving. We have several customers who's groses are up, one of them is up 40%! This is in the gold mining area of the country though and since there is now a boom in gold again the population base is alot higher in those areas than it was. I do think Hollywood is in a slump though and that its a big time slump. Anyone out there can easily recognize this because we have too much crap like "Miami Vice", and "King Kong" to contend with... a lack of originality is what it is, long inflexible run contracts, little to no profit from the film itself, and actors that think they're god. With conditions like this it becomes really disappointing for exhibitors in general. Lame actors & lame pictures = lame profits! There's no way around that. While theatre owners seemingly keep pace by overhauling themselves I feel its also time for Hollywood to do the same thing and become original again. Mark P.S. I never did agree much with Ebert anyway..... another case of he sits in his nice office, goes to the screening room and does his reviews, then tapes his shows.... Since Gene passed on he's become a burned out old movie critic that should retire and fade away. His show is dull and boring to say the least and it's worn out and to me just another phony part of the press. He doesn't get to see the reality side of the exhibition buisness that most of us get to see. Believe him if you want to but you'd also probably believe they are raising the Titanic next week as well.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-28-2005 11:49 AM                        There is now and have always been "cycles" in the business. Assume 5 directors (or studios, actors, etc). Some have a hit every 3 years, or 4 or 5. The industry as a whole will "win" when all cycles are positive and be "lose" when all cycles are negative. If you understand probability. It all makes sense. It would help, however, if scripts were more intelligent and less derivitive. Louis  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2005 12:06 PM                        quote: a lack of originality is what it is, Boy I couldn't agree more. Remake after remake, it's like the "writers" forgot how to be creative. Or maybe the creative writers have all died or retired or something.  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 12-28-2005 12:42 PM                     Talent has always been the rarest of commidities. I think we look back on the past with rose colored glasses. Only a handful of the thousands of old movies are remembered today. I think the studios have always made "safe" pictures. They do not want to risk thier money on gambles when the alternative is to make a safe (yet crappy) sequel, remake, or genre picture.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2005 12:42 PM                        quote: John Walsh why are theaters doing so poorly "Movie Answer Man"? A 9% downturn is not "doing so poorly." It's just a down year. If you're a NATO member, go get your Encyclopedia of Exhibition and look at the 30-year history and look at the up-and-down cycles.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2005 12:47 PM                     quote: Matt Fields Talent has always been the rarest of commidities. I think we look back on the past with rose colored glasses. Only a handful of the thousands of old movies are remembered today. Oh Matt... come on! There are thousands upon thousands of extremely talented people working in the film industry.... I can vouch for that since I spent alot of time working in it. You can only remember a handful of old movies...... I can remember hundreds and I think many others here can as well. There were threads in the past pertaining to this sort of thing.... do a search for it to find those hundreds of titles, then you'll know. quote: Matt Fields I think the studios have always made "safe" pictures. They do not want to risk thier money on gambles when the alternative is to make a safe (yet crappy) sequel, remake, or genre picture. Hahaha, There is a crapo movie called King Kong playing on screens now that will never recoup even its negative cost. Yea, this was one real original film.... ha....... There was another one called Waterworld.... Heavens Gate.... and so many garbage "B" movies that I can't even remember the title of one of them. I don't expect every film to be a landmark trend setting film but lets throw away the stupidness in films that seems to prevail. This is the sort of UNSAFE stuff thats ruining hollywood and film in general. Go ahead....bring digital projection on.... if there's anything left to show with it..... Mark  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 12-28-2005 01:31 PM                    Two quick observations... 1. Why do we measure box office success by counting dollars instead of total ticket sales? 2. Why is "Passion" considered a film that "boosted" the box office? Why didn't he say that "Shrek 2" boosted the box office? It made 441 million. Or "Spiderman 2" which made 374 million? "Passion" only made 370 million. How about that God aweful "Troy" movie which had no business making 130 million dollars. Or "The Bourne Supremacy" which made 170 million. Why aren't they considered "boosts"?  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 12-28-2005 01:36 PM                     CNN's morning weather girls were spouting off about why King Kong hasn't done as well as Titanic... It's the same general malaise that people who always expect everything to sell out & are surprised to find out that most people have better things to do than see the released this year. The creative train in the movie world stops every other year or two to dump remakes & TV-show adaptations that are destined to fail. Hopefully next year they'll make that train run again. But people have unrealistic expectations for their movies. Their peers in focus groups tell Hollywood what they like & the studios plug in demographic-friendly elements to otherwise pale stories. Moreover, there's been less showmanship by studios & cinemas alike this year. There's probably more advertising & less lighting on screens around the country. And then all the fake-indie crap dumped into megaplexes but ignored by the real independent houses. I couldn't justify a mere $8 for most films this year, so I've kept my mouth tight-lipped when patrons ask me if anything is a good film. I try to let the tone of my voice say more truth  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.