Movie attendance down... let's blame piracy.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:22 pm

From here.

Boring post about how badly the movie-going experience is declining.

Edited By GORDON on 1120570878

Post by **TPRJones** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:27 am

Piracy is like cheating in MMOGs in that it mainly exists because the system is broken. Cheaters cheat because the game is dull if they don't. Pirates pirate because movies are overpriced and ... well, you described it well.

Sure, some people pirate because they are cheap or are legitimate criminal types, but I really do think they are the exception rather than the rule. The majority of individuals pirating wouldn't do so if the movie distribution industry weren't so shitty.

This, too, shall pass. The digital revolution will completely alter movie distribution just as it will music distribution. It's inevitable. The days of the RIAA and their ilk are limited if they don't learn to operate in the real world as it is now.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:52 am

Not surprised. I just don't like going to the movie theatre as much as I used to. It's nice, cuz the picture is big, but that's about it.

I HATE the commercials, and I really don't want other people to disturb my movie viewing experience, which, with cell phones, just happens all the more frequently these days. Going to a theatre just isn't as much fun.

As for piracy, no one in their right mind would skip the theatre just to see some shitty CAM/TC movie they dl'ed off of BT.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:20 am

Movie attendance is down, IMHO, because most movies just aren't very good, and there's no compelling reason to put up with all the crap you've listed to get what Catt already pointed out is the single benefit of seeing it in the theater. And I think that really IS the only benefit of seeing it in the theater: big screen (maybe you can include the ear-splitting sound system, too, but then you get to listen to two or three other movies at the same time).

Now if only these Hollywood dispshits would listen to us....

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:36 am

Maybe I'm just cheap, but movies are expensive. $25 to take the family to see the movie? That doesn't even include snacks. It's got to be something REALLY good, else I'll just pick it up from blockbuster.

unkbill · Post by **unkbill** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:52 am

Maybe I'm just cheap, but movies are expensive. $25 to take the family to see the movie? That doesn't even include snacks. It's got to be something REALLY good, else I'll just pick it up from blockbuster.

I'm with Cake. It must not be to bad because they plan on building a new complex not to far from here. Right next to the drive-in. Wonder how well they will fair if Oregon approves the zoning change.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:16 pm

17 straights weeks down from last year

The slump may be a sign that more people are seeing movies at home. An Associated Press-AOL poll last week found that 73 percent of adults prefer watching movies on DVD, videotape or pay-per-view rather than going to the theater.

Studio executives blame the downturn on a comparatively weak lineup of movies this year and say it will take more time to determine if DVDs and other home-entertainment options are eroding theater business.

Music:
100 years ago: phonograph
30 years ago: Cassette
20 years ago: CD
So, basically it's: smaller, higher fidelity, easier to access, but the same basic product.

Film:
100 years ago: black and white, no sound
70 years ago: sound
60 years ago: color
30 years ago: VHS/Beta viewing at home
10 years ago: DVDs
Now: add'l special effects
So the product is much better, but not much changes lately 'cept the effects.

Video games:
30 years ago: Pong.
20 years ago: Nintendo
Now: Nearly realistic graphics, semi-immersive gaming, persistent online gaming.

Which is providing more bang for the buck over time?

Edited By TheCatt on 1119226593

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:26 pm

For me... it's the degraded movie theater experience.

1 movie ticket costs $10, and more than likely you won't be able to enjoy the movie due to other people being assholes. I've gone to a movie alone 1 time in the last 10 years, and that means $20 for tickets.

1 new DVD costs $15, and I have a 5.1 surround sound system in my living room.

Paying for a shitty theater experience gets harder and harder to justify.

Edited By GORDON on 1119227209

Post by **TPRJones** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:29 pm

Plus, you can't pause the movie in the theater to go take a piss, you can't grab a beer from the fridge for the second act, and you can't watch the movie again for the commentay track. DVDs are a much higher quality experience, IMO, as long as your AV setup is halfway decent. And Netflix brings them to me so I don't have to go out.

I only go to movies in the theater for three reasons anymore: 1) because I want to enjoy the "opening day" experience (eg Star Wars III), 2) I've got a date (not in recent history), or 3) I want to support a film's success in order to increase the odds of more of the same coming along (eg Serenity).

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:04 pm

I only go to movies in the theater for three reasons anymore: 1) because I want to enjoy the "opening day" experience (eg Star Wars III), 2) I've got a date (not in recent history), or 3) I want to support a film's success in order to increase the odds of more of the same coming along (eg Serenity).

Exactly.

You have better luck catching a matinee when all the kiddies are in school, but even that is hit and miss.

I wish more movies were rated R to keep the unattended kids out, but even R movies are becoming fewer and fewer.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:29 pm

I wish more movies were rated R to keep the unattended kids out, but even R movies are becoming fewer and fewer.

Let's hear it for NC-17!

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:51 pm

I can't wait for the days of my own private home theatre, with the beer fridge next to me, and the large screen with a projector. It keeps seeming like they are close, but not close enough to have the screen/projector down to the $1000-1500 range and solid quality.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:58 pm

I can't wait for the days of my own private home theatre, with the beer fridge next to me, and the large screen with a projector. It keeps seeming like they are close, but not close enough to have the screen/projector down to the $1000-1500 range and solid quality.

The day my ex-hillbilly buddy up north installed an actual home movie theater in his house, I knew they had arrived.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:17 pm

I still enjoy movies, I'm just behind. Rather than pay my $15 for a pair of tickers, plus another $10 for snacks, then put up with a screaming kid or cell phone, we'll wait 9 months and buy the DVD for less.

Some stuff I *must* see on the big screen. But rather than see it a second time in theatres we'll wait to buy it.

The last movie I saw twice in theatres was The Matrix, and I didn't have a DVD player then.

Edited By Paul on 1119302246

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:19 pm

The last movie I saw in theatres multiple times was actually Jumangi (1995?). It was at the $1.50, and it was a fun movie to see on a big screen when your a poor college kid.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:27 am

Return of the King.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:30 pm

Worse movie weekend since 1985.

You know, it is said that the current music scene sucks because (almost) all music is produced by mega-corporations, where profit is the goal.

Could the same be said of the movie industry?

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:05 pm

I dunno. 1999 was a stellar year at the movies (quality-wise) and movie growth had been pretty solid until 2004 (barely up from 2003).

I think that as DVDs spread, movie creators care significantly less about theatres.

They keep less than 50% of box office receipts, but 90% of DVD sales.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:07 pm

a beer to anyone who can find yearly #s back to 1985...

Hell, I can't even find em but for 2003, 2004 and 2005

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:12 pm

2004 - 9.23
2003 - 9.17
2002 - 9.27

(billions of $)

And 2005 is tracking down to 2004... but that's all I can find.