
I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping... - benjaminfox
http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111228/COMMENTARY/111229973/
======
msluyter
I think Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is doing it right:

1\. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to
overpriced popcorn.

2\. Cellphones must be turned off.

3\. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and
amusingly) worded statement to that effect.

4\. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights.

5\. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live
comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food
pairings, etc...

I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds,
they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.

~~~
tptacek
I went to an Alamo in Houston and while I liked the concept, the theater was a
bit dank (which I worry is an inevitable result of serving beer and food) and
not a place I'd prefer taking my kids --- which is relevant because "family of
four" seems to be the core market for blockbuster films.

I _like_ Alamo, don't get me wrong, but there are downsides to the model.

~~~
megaman821
I don't think you could take your kids to Alamo unless it is a special event.
It is 18+ only.

~~~
projectionist
One of their household rules is that "Minors must be accompanied by a parent
or guardian".
[http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/10/alamo.draft...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/10/alamo.drafthouse.league/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2)

------
rhplus
_2\. Ticket prices are too high. People have always made that complaint, but
historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league
sports and restaurants._

I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog
people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010
dollars[2], I get the following:

Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI

\---------------------------------

2010 | 7.89 | 7.89

2005 | 6.41 | 7.15

2000 | 5.39 | 6.83

1995 | 4.35 | 6.22

1990 | 4.22 | 7.04

1985 | 3.55 | 7.19

1980 | 2.69 | 7.12

1975 | 2.03 | 8.23

1971 | 1.65 | 8.88

1967 | 1.22 | 7.96

1963 | 0.86 | 6.13

1958 | 0.68 | 5.13

1954 | 0.49 | 3.97

1948 | 0.36 | 3.26

Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket
prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s
and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on
a march upwards again.

So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And
compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet
tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer
from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and
internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need
to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the
same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not
have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more.

Sources:

[1] <http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm>

[2] <http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl>

~~~
drzaiusapelord
7.89 for movies? What? Where? I'm guessing this data is skewed by the low
prices of rural and suburban centers that are underpopulated. Here in the
urban world where most of the population lives, movies start at 11 or 12
dollars and then there's a 3D surcharge of a couple bucks. When my gf and go
to the movies here in Chicago its about 30 dollars before any snacks. Toss in
a few bucks parking too. Oh, want to order online? That's another two dollars
per ticket.

At the end of the day, Hollywood is asking us to drop 30-40 bucks to see yet
another disposable experience. On the value vs cost curve, Hollywood is
losing.

Meanwhile, Netflix streams to all my computers and my Boxee. Vudu too. I think
I can wait a few months until its on Vudu or On-Demand for a fraction of that
price. Even then its still not a compelling experience. I'm in my 30s. Where
are the Scorsece's, Allen's, Spielberg's, and Coppola's of my generation? I'm
not sure, but they aren't getting work in mainstream Hollywood.

~~~
superchink
The prices he lists are “…adjusted to 2010 dollars…” based on the linked
calculator.

EDIT: Please ignore this comment. See reply below. Sorry for missing the point
here.

~~~
timwiseman
2010 was last year (Ok, it will be the year before last in a couple of days,
but...), inflation is not sufficient to effect it that much when compared with
this year.

Like the grand-parent, this does not fit with my experience. When I got to a
new release I usually pay around $13 per person at a decent theater in Las
Vegas, and up to $18 per person for Imax 3D.

But the other thing that may skew the results is budget or "dollar" theaters
that show older releases. I frequently take my kids to those for around $2 per
ticket.

~~~
superchink
I just realized that I misread the comment, and for that I apologize; I
totally missed the boat with my reply.

I actually agree that the average ticket price is way below what I'm used to
paying here in Los Angeles. At the same time, I suppose that's the point, to
take into account both the high and low ends of the pricing spectrum.

That said, I'd gladly pay $7–8 for a movie!

------
tsunamifury
I like that some independent films are beginning to branch out in their
strategy. For example, one of the best films of the year -- Margin Call -- was
released on a variety of streaming services the same day it was available in
theaters.

Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a
chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my
girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup.

That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to
the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content,
some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and
high quality television production.

I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions
though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with
extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I
have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more
rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.

~~~
archangel_one
Totally agree on the TV. The Christmas episode of Downton a few days ago was
encroaching on the length of a movie and much more interesting than nearly all
of them. Let alone the fact that it's free to watch and we could record it
etc.

~~~
vl
Come on, Christmas episode of Downton Abbey is a disappointment: annoying dude
popping up all the time when Mary was talking to other dude, predictable Bates
story, ghost of the dead bride wishing Mary and annoying dude happiness, and
most of all, mixed servant-master ball (after two self-served events, because
servant had time off)?? Seriously? What's up with that?

------
ubercore
One thing that's become an issue for me, at least at my local theater (and I
admit I may be in the minority here), is volume.

Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm
only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am
no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still
enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs
to movies. They can be downright painful at times.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Sounds like a bug in your local theater's sound setup. The local theaters here
seem to have it set up about right: loud when it should sound loud, quiet when
it should sound quiet, and never painful.

~~~
ubercore
I thought so too. In fact, I complained multiple times at one movie. They said
they have no control over it, and couldn't turn it down if they wanted to. I'm
not sure I believe it; _someone_ must be able to turn it down, but I may
believe that the average employee on a random Saturday may not be able to.

------
tptacek
I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these
are all critiques you could have leveled _with equal force_ in 2002. There've
been good years in the preceding decade.

Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.

I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the
far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a
kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal
concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching
South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.

Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core
market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the
substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to
1995, _spectacular_ home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding
content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?

~~~
jwallaceparker
> these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002

Netflix streaming wasn't around in 2002. This (and similar services) is the
biggest factor in theaters losing market share.

~~~
mitchty
Don't forget Amazon and iTunes rental streaming. Since I've gotten my appletv
2 I have found that waiting for it to stream on iTunes has replaced netflix
and most of my theater trips.

Its nice to be able to pause and go to the bathroom at home. Do I miss some of
the movie theater experience? Yeah, but not having kids kicking my seat, or
people talking during the movie/etc... basically makes me not care about the
plight of pre streaming movie distribution.

~~~
Tycho
And Xbox Live streaming (or 'Zune' as it's called)

------
jsaxton86
In addition to ridiculous ticket prices, the actual movie doesn't start until
15 minutes after the scheduled showtime. While you're waiting, you're expected
to watch advertisements. I don't have any concrete data to back this up, but I
feel it wasn't always this bad.

~~~
tsunamifury
Not sure why you've been down-voted, but this has infuriated me more than any
other single thing.

I pay a good deal of money to see a film in which I am so bombarded with ads
beforehand that its ruined the film experience. The last film I saw had a full
15 minutes of ads and trailers before it started! My girlfriend asked me if we
could just leave and get our money back.

~~~
ChrisLTD
I don't so much mind seeing trailers before a movie. It seems like a
tradition, and trailers can be fun to watch. However, ads for other stuff like
cars, or soft drinks cheapens the experience. I'm at a damn movie theater,
don't remind me that it's really just a big TV screen.

------
brador
I'd add two more:

1\. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before
the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to
go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for
pizza/bowling instead.

2\. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore,
every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap.

Don't get me started on the overuse of CG.

Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from
animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over
emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool
anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and
ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't
look obviously fake.

~~~
ChrisLTD
I actually find it very difficult to watch Jurassic Park these days. The CG
has not aged well at all. With Ghostbusters, the effects look terrible in a
few scenes (the claymation dogs spring to mind), but it's not so jarring in
the context of a comedy.

~~~
jonhohle
> The CG has not aged well at all.

Really? I look to Jurassic Park as what CG should look like in movies. The
opening reveal of the brontosauruses is still amazing, especially when you
think of when the movie was made. What hasn't aged well?

Other movies from the mid-to-late 90s, on the other hand, have not aged well.
Many of these used CG for the sake of having CG and did not take any care of
ensuring it integrated into the rest of the shot.

~~~
phaus
No one is disputing how awesome it looked when it first came out, but the same
thing could be said for quake 1. As our eyes adjust to the ever increasing
details in movies and games, what used to look awesome begins to look awful.
Here is the scene with the Brontosaurs While it seemed photo-realistic when it
first came out, it now looks choppy, grainy, and artificial. Most low-budget
T.V. shows have better CG now. But that's just the way computer animation
works.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg>

~~~
BrandonM
I appreciate the link, but I definitely disagree with you.

------
neutronicus
I still go to the movies. It's still a great excuse to turn your phone off for
an hour or two, tell your friends to shut up and sit still for an hour or two,
crank the volume all the way up for an hour or two, and have animated
discussions about the thing you just watched with people who also just watched
it and paid attention to the whole damn thing.

------
ChrisLTD
Hard to argue with anything Ebert says in that article. As a kid I loved going
to the theater. I tried to see a movie every time I had a free weekend.

However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of
anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and
less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding
cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often.

As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it
in my own home.

Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding
takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?

~~~
dantheman
Agreed, I find that the independent movie theaters cater to a crowd that
actually cares about film. They also show a mix of old and new films so you
can catch the classics on the big screen. The Harvard Film Archive just had a
great retrospective on Clouzot and the experience of the theater is really
impressive.

------
bradly
The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost
100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they
must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that
brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can
franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in
hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with
the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies.

I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a
movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not
sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America.

edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?

~~~
jarito
You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be
expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for
2011 was independent films.

You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these
big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly
could make great movies significantly cheaper.

I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could
draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I
would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year
than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if
they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely
explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.

~~~
bradly
Thanks for the reply.

You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get
the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies
need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The
indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes,
but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.

~~~
Game_Ender
You can actually get decent effects and explosions these days for "cheap".
District 9, one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies, had a budget of $30 million and
was amazing. If they made movies around that size, they would lower their risk
profile, while still having enough effects punch to make a blockbuster.

------
Shenglong
_Ticket prices are too high._

Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to
watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission
ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D,
it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading
a movie.

I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic
market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.

------
joshuahedlund
Some good reasons, especially regarding competition with other forms of
entertainment, which is one of the bigger factors IMO. But I can't believe he
didn't say anything about sequels. The top 7 grossing movies of this year were
_all_ sequels
([http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm](http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm))

On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand,
the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of
comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom
math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think
this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the
proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-
risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap
into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get
burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the
other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.

------
cdcarter
This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but last night I went to see Hugo at
a new megaplex that just opened by my house. Not only was the movie incredibly
heartwarming and reminded me of why I love the movies, the experience was
great.

There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature
started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed
to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D
film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect.

There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that
time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.

------
spodek
I don't know how many others get this benefit, but I live across the street
from a library. It's awesome. Dvds are free for a week, they have tons of old
and artsy stuff, they have a great collection of educational stuff (especially
the Great Courses -- <http://www.thegreatcourses.com>), and things you put on
hold they deliver to the library of your choice.

On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time,
also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body,
just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I
don't get around to reading them, no big deal.

I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help
me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other
people's reviews.

I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might
shut the libraries down.

Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture
is more convenient than cars here.

------
b3b0p
I never go the theater anymore. The largest factors for me are the cost and
comfort.

The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or
Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever
buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable,
cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more.

The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant
experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+
hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the
bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a
winter coat.

It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just
wait for the Blu-ray.

------
WalterBright
Now with HD and home digital projectors, I've lost all interest in going to
the theater.

Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4
hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to
start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost
$$$$.

Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You
can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone
needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece
of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf
the movie won't make you deaf, etc.

The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.

------
daimyoyo
I haven't seen a movie in months and don't plan to for the foreseeable future
and the movie going experience is a major reason why. I will pay the ticket
price without too much trouble, I don't mind kids(going to midnight showings
during the week helps with that) and I never eat concessions so I don't care
how expensive they are. My problem is once I get into the theater. Most movies
today aren't shown correctly(I have no idea why they expect some kid making
minimum wage to run 20 screens at once to know what he / she is doing), the
watermarks every 20 minutes, and the poor sound quality. But the worst part by
far is the commercials. I find it incredibily insulting that I pay $12 for the
privilage of watching ads for 15 minutes straight. No one likes a double
dipper.

~~~
JeffL
I agree about the commercials. With TiVo, I don't ever watch commercials at
home any more, why would I watch them when I've paid so much money for a movie
ticket? Plus I've found that I have no tolerance for them anymore.

------
jarjoura
The problem is simple. Hollywood is conservative and hates taking chances.
Every movie that's come out the last couple of years has been a sequel,
another comic book franchise, or a remake of an already epic (unneeded remake)
movie.

I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who
Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating
movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. _Think
iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google_

Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies
are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding
them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few
years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well
adept at running slim already.

The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it.
Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people
will go see them.

------
smokeyj
Movies now days are like commercials designed to last an hour long. I
especially love when they blatantly promote products in the movie. Did I
really have to know that the main character uses iTunes and drinks Pepsi? Fuck
you Hollywood.

~~~
ChrisLTD
How do we know your comment isn't product placement? :-)

------
CrLf
Sequels, remakes, remakes of sequels, remakes of remakes.

No need to go any further.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Which as it turns out are the movies that make money.

~~~
CrLf
When you only make a kind of movie, it's expected that's the only kind that
will make you money.

Actually, it's the distribution channels that block other kinds of movies from
catching audiences. They only want "safe" blockbusters. Eventually, that will
be their demise.

~~~
waterlesscloud
133 movies this year opened in more than 1000 theaters. There was plenty of
choice, every single weekend of the year.

------
nvk
I'm in Toronto (Canada), it's pretty much the same thing in terms of "*plex"
experience.

Some reality check, they maximized things for profit so much that:

1\. Most Hollywood movies suck to a extraterrestrial degree.

2\. The food sucks and its expensive.

3\. Say whatever you want, 3D still sucks comparing to the default 2D
experience.

4\. Way too expensive for what the experience provides.

5\. Niche theaters with quality stuff are always sold out.

6\. 15 min of commercials.

7\. Noisy teenagers.

8\. Most of these movies are a 1 hour long product placement

Finally: if they decide to compete with the home, they loose, my TV is huge,
my speaker set is awesome, my food is better, my sofa or bed are more
comfortable.

They need to find other ways to convince me to move my ass, pay $$$, and be
there.

------
OoTheNigerian
Other reasons... BBM, Facebook and Twitter.

When RIM had their outage a few months ago, everywhere (in real life) was
packed. People actually left their lying down position and went outside,
visited friends and the movies. It lasted for all of 3 days then things went
back to 'normal'

PS: Nigeria is a VERY BlackBerry centric country.

------
MikeCapone
I was sure he was going to say that it was partly because every movie now
seems to be a sequel or based on a comic book. It's so rare to find a
mainstream 100% original movie anymore it seems...

~~~
waterlesscloud
Top ten movies for 2011-

1\. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2\. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

3\. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

4\. The Hangover Part II

5\. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

6\. Fast Five

7\. Cars 2

8\. Thor

9\. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

10\. Captain America: The First Avenger

Yes, every single one is a comic book or a sequel. That's why they get made,
they're what people pay to see. Everyone complains about it, everyone sees
'em.

If you want different movies to be made, go see different movies.

~~~
nhebb
Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If most of what they make are movies in
these genres, that's what people will see. I don't even _rent_ many movies any
more, and I used to rent a lot! There just isn't much that's interesting, and
i have pretty low standards when it comes to action / guy-flicks.

------
vonskippy
Lets see..... at home I have a 60" Plasma, surround sound, comfy chairs, great
food & drink, and 6-8 hand selected guests to watch a DVD I paid on average
$15 from Amazon on our personally selected date and time.

Or.... Huuuuge screen, maybe good maybe bad sound (definately played way
tooooo loud), sticky/wobbly/uncomfortable chairs, crappy overpriced snacks,
and a room full of obnoxious self absorbed strangers, watched when and where
the theater tells us, all at $12 (plus snacks) per person.

Yeah, boggles my mind why movie revenue is dropping.

------
alex3780
to me it's simpler - big budget, well-made TV series are flat out better than
movies.

id rather spend the same money as two theater tickets a month for HBO /
Showtime and watch Homeland, Game of Thrones, 24/7 etc.

Example: Girl with a Dragon tattoo would be an unreal premium TV series. A 2hr
40min movie seems rushed and messy whereas a 12-18 episode TV season could do
this and other amazing books justice.

------
w33ble
"6. Lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was
the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. [...] Instead, all the
shopping center compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped
disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of
weeks, and disappear."

For me, it's always been the quality of the content. SO many movies are such
garbage, and, at least to me, that was more true in 2011 than in recent years.
Look at all the reboots that came out this year and think how many of them
were worth seeing at a premium in theaters...

Ebert came close to hitting it with that point, especially at the end, but
missed it a little. I don't think people prefer indie, foreign and
documentaries because of what they are, nor because of the theaters they are
shown in. Those movies have better turnout because they are better than most
of the big Hollywood titles.

------
nikki9696
I'll tell you the two major reasons I don't go. 1: Nothing worth seeing and 2:
When it IS worth seeing, it's not worth the price of the movie and
concessions. I can get a 12 pack of soda for what they charge for a "small".
No thanks. I'll wait for the DVD. I can buy the DVD for the price of getting
into the movie anyway.

------
dabent
One of the major reasons I don't see many movies in the theater is that the
movie companies have made much cheaper alternatives available.

I won't pay twelve dollars a ticket to watch a movie in the theater when it
probably will be just as enjoyable at home. That goes for a lot of comedies
and movies that lack the cinematography to justify seeing on the big screen.
I'll still see the ppv movies and pay to do so, but not at the cost of going
to the theater.

The blockbusters mentioned in the article - Batman and Avatar, were
blockbusters largely because they were worth seeing on the giant screen and
even worth dealing with the cost and hassle of 3D. I'll keep going to films
with big visuals, but not the rest.

------
jwallaceparker
> 5\. Competition from other forms of delivery.

This is by far the biggest reason.

All of my peers own Netflix streaming accounts and watch most of their movies
this way.

~~~
nlawalker
Don't forget the bit he dropped in that same bullet point about better home
theater technology. Instant availability and movie delivery would still leave
a lot to be desired compared to the theater if we were watching it on boxy 27"
CRTs with stereo sound and "tracking...tracking...tracking" on the media
player.

Flat screens measured in feet and thinner than a ream of paper and surround
sound (all digital) are now within reach of a large segment of the population.
The higher quality of picture and sound at a theater, relative to a home
setup, no longer outweighs the negatives, many of which have gotten worse in
the last ten years (price, distractions, miscellaneous theater rigmarole).

IMAX is pretty much the only theater experience I still leave the house for.
The screen size and sound are still novel enough to draw me in, and I find
that the audiences tend to be more focused on the movie-going experience as
opposed to being obnoxious.

------
phaus
I'm not trying to discredit the merits of watching independent films, but I
think that they are disproportionately popular on netflix because netflix's
streaming selection is terrible to begin with.

People don't care if a movie is domestic or foreign, so long as it is well
done. I think the popularity of independent films is due to the fact that a
higher percentage of the best independent films show up on netflix vs the
percentage of popular Hollywood movies.

Its obviously going to be much easier to negotiate a contract with an
independent studio that needs the money than it will be to do the same with a
movie studio executive that hates the fact that your business even exists.

------
mathattack
I will add anecdotal evidence.... Movies this year suck. We have Grandma the
babysitter around and my wife and I only took advantage once. After seeing
Sherlock Holmes none of the movies beat Netflix.

It isn't just the context, it's the content too.

------
jonnathanson
In its most simple and irreducible form, the challenge is this: big-screen
movies need to offer an experience so preferable to home viewing (or video
games, or TV, or other uses of leisure time) that customers will pay time and
ticket prices for it.

That's becoming harder and harder, because _all_ sides of the equation have
been getting hit. On the pricing side, it goes without saying that higher
prices place a greater burden on entertainment value. But on the entertainment
side, we now have a) alternatives (Netflix, video games, etc.) that are
increasingly attractive, inexpensive, and readily available, and b) movie
offerings that have, at best, held steady in their general entertainment
value.

Interestingly, the theater-going experience itself has been improving over the
past few decades. But at the heart of it all, customers aren't there for the
window dressing; they're there for the content. A juicy piece of IP, such as
Harry Potter, would drive people to a run-down shithole of a theater if they
had to go -- but conversely, a shitty product wouldn't attract people to the
nicest theater ever built. So, while we can all applaud the efforts of theater
chains to improve their general offerings -- atmosphere, food, dining, etc. --
we shouldn't believe that such improvements are wholly sufficient, or ever
could be. (At worst, if the cost of such atmosphere, ambience, furnishings,
services, etc., eventually leaks into the ticket prices, then theaters are
making the game even harder for themselves).

In summation, I place the burden for the future of the big-screen movie
business primarily on the shoulders of the movie studios. Not the exhibitors.
Studios can't keep rehashing the same, warmed-over crap each year and expect
anything more than a dice roll from the outcome. They need to place bigger
bets with breakthrough IP. They need to wean themselves from the largely
mistaken belief that uber-expensive movie stars drive box office attendance
(overseas, they do; domestically, there's almost zero correlation). And they
need to go all-in on the bets they do place. No more licensing, buying, or
developing 100 properties to produce 2. Borrow a page from the Apple product
philosophy, and launch only the titles you are dead serious about supporting.
Fewer, but better.

Finally, as a whole, the industry needs to stop being so stridently anti-
consumer. Enough with the war on piracy, the DRMs, the 50 super-uber-ZOMG-
uncensored-platinum-edition releases of every title on DVD and Blu-ray, and so
forth. Studios, you are product companies. Focus your time, your attention,
your budgets, and your people on your products. And make every product count.

~~~
erichocean
> They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber-
> expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do;
> domestically, there's almost zero correlation).

I hate to tell you this, but the formula of using big movie stars for oversees
growth won't be changing anytime soon: Hollywood had another record year in
their _actual_ growth market, which is the foreign box office.

I'd love to see a more robust domestic box office, but wishing won't make it
so. At the cost of films these days, global box office results will continue
to dominate, and I expect 2012 to be even more lopsided.

Before the decade is out, I expect the US to be down to less than 20% of total
worldwide box office.

~~~
jonnathanson
All absolutely true, but what it tells me is that the same product isn't
really working in both markets, with the occasional big exception. There's no
question that the overseas markets are the growth engine of the business,
though.

But I wonder how long the era of one-size-fits-all product for all territories
can last. Eventually, specialized studios for each market could swoop in with
better localized product using the same stars. It's tempting to think that the
era of globalization will give us a homogenous set of middle-class consumers
worldwide, all with roughly the same tastes. In practice, though, local
culture and preferences still matter in a big way. The question is whether
local culture is on its way out with globalization, and accordingly, whether
local tastes are simply artifacts of the pre-global marketplace. Or, frankly,
if a new global homogeneity is emerging, how likely that standard is to be set
outside of the US. Twenty years from now, which consumers will be deciding
what's cool for the rest of the globe? The US middle class seems like a
largely spent force in that role.

------
michaelpinto
I don't think movie houses have been friendly to anyone above the age of 30
for quite a few years so I'm not sure that chasing that demographic will help
the industry. In fact if anything they really need to figure out how to make
Gen Y and their younger peers feel more at home by embracing their technology
(free wifi, offer the ability to download the film when done watching,
encourage opening night parties, etc.). I also think that biggest opportunity
for theaters isn't films but being a place to see streaming of live events
like concerts and plays (and that will attract an older audience).

------
thirdsun
I can't emphasize enough how important Ebert's 6th point about "Lack of
choice' is. I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are
about 50 Kilometers and while I simply prefer watching movies on my admittedly
better than average setup with decent 720p projector and very good A/V
receiver and speakers, it's mostly the selection of movies those cinemas offer
which keeps me away from them. I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar
and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there
is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other
movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept.

Of course i guess this is a different situation in urban areas where some
cinemas certainly cater to interests like mine. However if there's anything to
'the Long Tail' mainstream cinemas are of course still losing audiences. These
cinemas serve the purpose of showing big films for a very short period of time
before they rapidly become meaningless. With the growing the popularity of on
demand services like Netflix, iTunes, amazon and so on this time frame doesn't
matter any longer. People can dive into special interests, classics and films
that once were only catered to a niche audience and see them immediatelly. So
the limited selection and the instant availability from alternative sources
hurts those mainstream cinemas twice. That said, the cinemas I know wouldn't
see me even if I lived just across the street.

~~~
derleth
> I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50
> Kilometers

It's worse in America, which you would expect, given relative sizes and
population densities: My nearest cinema is only about 8 km (5 miles), but
that's a small four-screen place with very few interesting films. After that,
it's 160 km (100 miles) to the next larger cinema, which still isn't that much
larger. It's almost 600 km (350+ miles) to the nearest cinema that might be
showing a film that isn't one of the week's designated 'blockbusters'.

> I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just
> have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for
> people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just
> don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept.

Same here unless you're in a fairly major urban center. Out here we don't even
get all the 'blockbuster' mainstream films.

I am very happy to have the Internet, a good video rental place, and Turner
Classic Movies on satellite TV.

------
afterburner
Countering a few of Ebert's points:

"historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league
sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer."

I'm not experiencing this. The cheapest concerts in my area are generally $40,
with older popular bands going for at least $80. Sports games start at $20 for
crappy seats for crappy teams during regular season, more like $100 and up if
you want at least one of the good things (seat, team, playoff game). I'm all
for bringing movie prices down and I think it will help (which may be Ebert's
real point), but comparing them to other things isn't doing him any favours,
even going back historically.

As for concessions, dear lord, I never buy food at the movie theatre. And I
_still_ think it's kind pricey. Well, at least the base price; you can easily
buy coupons for Cineplex/Famous Players that reduces the original price by
30%.

And frankly, I can't recall the last time I was annoyed by the other patrons
at the theatre. Is it because I only go to the latest showing? (Speaking of
which, I would appreciate a return of 11pm and midnight showings... may not be
as cost effective, but keeps up interest in theatres.)

So I think the winning arguments go to home theatres being way better, intense
sequelitis this year, and as Ebert says lack of choice.

~~~
InclinedPlane
What concerts are you using as comparison? There's a world of difference
between a major concert of a band that's been a household name for decades and
a live show at a small local venue. If you live in a reasonably sized city
with an active music scene then finding live shows in the $10 - $20 per person
range is easy. The same is true for major league sporting events as well. I
can go see a baseball or soccer game for about the same per person cost as
seeing a movie.

------
forkandwait
I can tell you why... most movies suck. Not only do they suck, but they suck
expensively because they rely on production values to compensate for the lack
of plot, premise, and acting. As I understand it, Woody Allen is a solid money
making enterprise because he makes good films with good actors and good
scripts, and which cost an order of magnitude less to produce than crappy
films based on car chases, laser guns, and heavy-handed soundtracks.

------
VonLipwig
I used to go to the cinema all the time. Unfortunately, as my local cinema no
longer has a projectionist and no staff are apparently watching the movie
people talk, they text.. some even get up and run around. I don't bother going
much now.

I was watching the Harry Potter part 8 movie and teens came with their dad.
They talked on and off for the first half of the film. Their dad did nothing.
It wasn't until I turned around in my seat and told them to shut up that they
actually did.

Flash back about 10 years. Maybe a bit more. There was a projectionist. There
was often a staff member sitting by the entrance of the movie. Some kids would
mess around. The staff would wait to see if it settled down for a minute or so
then a flash light would come on and out would go the talkers.

I forget what film it was but there were 4 major distractions where staff had
to come in and order people out. As we left staff members apologised and
handed out vouchers because they knew the screening had been ruined.

I don't mind people gasping or saying "Oh no he didn't!" during scary films.
There have always been idiots at the cinema. They have only started ruining
films of late because cinemas have lost the will to deal with these people.

------
killnine
What does it take to have movies that are in theater streamed to your home?

Would you not watch more movies at theater prices if you could watch it on
your couch at 12:01am Friday morning?

I think the problem is at the theater, the companies get $12/person, $12 PER
person.

How can we come up with a solution where they still get their dollars, but I
don't have to leave my couch to go sit in a dirty, loud theater to watch it?

~~~
ChrisLTD
I'd pay double, maybe even triple the regular price of streaming rental (~$5)
to see movies at home on the day of release.

~~~
3lit3H4ck3r
^-Same here. However that is not going to happen due to the fact that
Hollywood is devoted to protecting their brick and mortar distribution
network, a.k.a, the theater.

~~~
jordan0day
I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't
get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie _at home_ , so the theater
model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise.

I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game
industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of
hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course,
but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like
films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised
to really disrupt that market.

~~~
3lit3H4ck3r
^ "I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they
can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the
theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise."

\- I stand corrected. I think you just might be right.

"I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game
industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of
hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course,
but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like
films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised
to really disrupt that market."

I agree. However, is not Netflix trying to go this route as a content
producer? I hope they succeed.

------
jbjohns
IMO, the problem is that the guaranteed short-term profit strategy (MBA?) has
infested Hollywood. These days they will only make a movie that has already
done well. That means sequels and remakes. Every time you think your seeing an
original Hollywood film in the last "I don't even know how many" years you're
actually just seeing a foreign remake (e.g. Shall we Dance, Departed, 13, 3
idiots, etc.). These days they're waiting less and less time to remake popular
foreign films. 3 idiots is from 2009 and they're already copying it.

Some people are saying "but this is what makes the most money!"... weren't we
just complaining that revenues have fallen? They may make the most money of
any of their other offerings (which are just more of the same!) but they're
making less over all.

People still try to have the movie experience as we have for so long but then
why pay so much? I can watch a well made series on free TV and then I only
need to wait a week to see the next episode instead of 2-3 years.

------
int3rnaut
The biggest reason why I believe movie revenue is dropping is the ability for
anyone to pick up a camera (high tech low cost now), create a movie, and
upload it to the eyes of many people (like on youtube). Because of this, there
are just so many more options to catch ones visceral media experience. I
really like Science fiction and while there were certainly some good Sci-Fi
movies (and television) out in the past year or so, there were many more
interesting and thought provoking movies and shorts (going back to the
previously brought up idea of short attention spans) on youtube than there
were movies I would actually want to go to a theatre and pay for--and to be
quite honest, I am sure that some of the things I saw on youtube recently were
far more enjoyable than some of the things tossed at me by Hollywood. It's not
so much a money thing for me, it's a time thing, and I want to spend it
wisely.

------
jsz0
I think point #5 (home viewing) is the most important one. The other issues
have, more or less, existed for quite sometime now. It's only fairly recently
that the average person could afford a pretty nice home theater setup. I've
had a home theater with a projector for the last 5 years or so and the idea of
going to a theater to watch a movie seems ridiculous to me. It's like going to
a concert hall to hear a CD played over the PA. Why bother? The industry has
to focus on delivering content to home-viewers the same day it's released to
theaters. They do all this marketing for a new film and exclude a huge portion
of its potential audience who would rather watch at home?

------
timjahn
Movie revenue is dropping because it's simply too expensive for the average
American family to go to the movies regularly.

I love going to the movies. I love the experience, the big screen, the large
sound system, etc.

But it's a luxury that can easily be discarded when it's too expensive. Lower
the price of movie tickets to what they were 5-10 years ago and watch
Hollywood smile, as more people start going back to the theaters. Drop the
price of concessions a bit, same result.

Let me reiterate: I LOVE MOVIES. But movies will never be a necessity, always
a luxury. The sooner Hollywood understands this, the sooner they can stop
complaining and start brainstorming solutions to what is really a very simple
problem.

------
te_chris
I live in Auckland, NZ and am from Wellington, NZ. Auckland has a few decent
theatres but Peter Jackson has just opened up the most beautiful theatre in
one. Of Wellington's suburbs <http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/> the best part is,
it's cheaper, AND more civilized. This is what going to the movies needs to be
these days as my ps3 and 40" Bravia do a damn fine job day to day.

------
coffee
Here in Berkeley we have the local Shattuck Cinemas. They are taking a
different approach on movie viewing as well. They provide couches (literally)
instead of seats.

[http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac...](http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac.html)

It's a wonderful way to watch a movie, and something that brings me out of the
house and into the theater...

------
huhtenberg
The one and only reason I stopped going to the movies was 20 minutes worth of
obnoxious commercials that preceded every movie.

------
phil
I think it's basically #5 in his list:

> _5\. Competition from other forms of delivery._

If you look at the film industry as a whole, it's projected to grow over the
next several years:

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-
by-e...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-
electronic-200881)

------
nhangen
Two reasons I don't hit the theaters as much:

1\. Quality

Very rarely do they release a movie I feel is a must see. MI:4 was probably
the most recent, but it's still not Batman or Avatar.

2\. People

As others have said, the amount of texting, talking, and overall
noise/distraction is unreal. People kicking my chair, non-stop talking,
laughing, etc.

------
evo_9
Wow, it's not because of pirating? Spot on Mr. Ebert.

I predict 2012 will magically bounce back because of a few AAA features
hitting next year: The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rising, and the incredible
Prometheus by Ridley Scott (who is returning to Scifi - finally - after 20+
years).

~~~
Apocryphon
If the directors of the first two Alien films are returning to sci-fi, I
wonder if David Fincher will follow.

------
blhack
I've been saying it forever, but theaters need to adopt seating charts.

I _will_ pay you more money for a center/center seat, and people sitting in
the front row, and the front-corners should not be paying much-of-anything for
a ticket.

~~~
jcampbell1
Interesting idea, but the results would be worse than horrendous. It would
drive up costs running a theatre massively, and it smacks of classism. Can you
imagine how pissed people would be that they had to sit in the shit seats
while the rich people seats were empty? Or you let people move when the movie
starts, and the people that paid for premium tickets feel ripped off.

------
executive
I went to a VIP theater in Mexico City a few years back. Amazing. You get your
own private cabana with drapes on the left/right and a fully reclining sofa
that turns into a bed.

And they serve alcohol/proper meals.

------
brownbat
He brushed against this, but we have more (nearly) free ways to instantly
entertain ourselves than anyone else has had throughout history.

Thank you, Internet. We have hit post-scarcity for fun.

------
ianstormtaylor
Pretty sure #5 should be a bit higher on that list. As soon as we see more
movies make iTunes debuts at the same time as theatre debuts it'll surely get
worse and worse.

------
InclinedPlane
There were more sequels and remakes in the theaters in 2011 than in any
previous year in history. Some sequels can be good movies, but that tends not
to be the norm.

------
WhatsHisName
Two more reasons (1) aging populations (2) high unemployment.

------
webwanderings
We've been hearing that economy is bad, but this indicator of movie business
is a proof that economy is really bad. So that's one reason why revenues are
down. Logically, with the outpouring of 3D movies and additional cost, the
revenue should be up, but obviously the 3D has not helped. I think people are
also realizing that 3D is only a gimmick. Besides few forced scenes, typically
a 3D is hardly a 3D. Hugo this year obviously made a difference but I wonder
if others are going to follow?

------
Tloewald
I'm curious about his disparagement of "noisy fanboys an girls". Is fanboy now
just a generic term for someone we don't like?

------
samgrover
The problem is that the studios are going to read this and try to come up with
even more ways to screw up streaming.

------
dillidumpling
There's no pause button at the cinema.

------
mkramlich
I thought of dozens of ways to improve on the current big movie theatre model
but ultimately decided it was much simpler and easier to just have a good home
theatre system for private use. Also I figured it was so obvious how to
improve and innovate in that area that if it hadn't already been done by now
there were probably nasty little complexities or political/bureaucratic swamps
involved. Because there were no significant purely physical or technical
challenges.

------
maeon3
Movie revenue is dropping for the same reason buggy whip sales decreased with
the deployment of engines. Movies are a dead medium walking. Interactive beats
mindless observation.

The mpaa wont go down without taking a handfull of civil liberties with it
though.

~~~
jwingy
Interactive entertainment is a markedly different form of entertainment from
movies. You're comparing apples to oranges I'm afraid.

~~~
bayleo
That said, there's only a certain amount of time each person can spend on
escapism. If gaming is occupying more of that space it is intrinsically
encroaching on other forms of entertainment. Ebert is notorious for writing
off the gaming industry, so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned in this
article.

~~~
icebraining
The MPAA has been having record profits, 2011 was a very odd year. I don't
think the gaming industry has much to do with it.

~~~
bayleo
I'm not sure that profit is relevant here; you would have to look at revenue
or (even better) head-counts of moviegoers. My understanding is that domestic
(US) ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58B while revenue continued to rise
until 2009 due to rising ticket prices. Source:

<http://www.the-numbers.com/market/>

Anyway, my original point was that if you assume aggregate leisure time has
changed little over the last decade -- it's impossible to ignore competition
from other entertainment activities vying for the same space -- especially
when you've got absolutely meteoric growth in the gaming industry.

