PDA

View Full Version : CNN Survey: Poor movies to blame for slump


RobertoOrtiz
08-31-2005, 09:52 PM
Quote:
"The main reason for the box office slump is the quality of the movies themselves, according to a survey of moviegoers' opinions found in Internet chat rooms and posted on message boards.

Even when moviegoers cite other reasons for going to theaters less often than they used to, they still circle back to the quality of films as the root cause for their disaffection, according to research company Brandimensions."

>>Link<< (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/30/film.slump.reut/index.html)

DUH!

-R

jeremybirn
08-31-2005, 10:29 PM
Yeah, "DUH." I could have told you that opinion by reading cgtalk.

I do think that the declining percentage of movies seen in theaters is a perminant overall trend, though, whether there are several great movies next year or not. Nothing will reverse the improving quality of home theaters and expanding options for what you can watch on them.

I see at least 20x as many movies on DVD as in a theater.

-jeremy

percydaman
08-31-2005, 11:18 PM
yup...it basically has to be a mega blockbuster type of movie for me to go see it in the theatre....otherwise Id rather pop some popcorn, and cuddle up on the couch with the wife....

DorkmanScott
08-31-2005, 11:30 PM
The industry's also probably losing money by paying for studies regarding questions that any imbecile could answer for them.

Hazdaz
08-31-2005, 11:31 PM
Well 'quality'.... oh, and the fact that movies cost $10/ticket for the chance to pay $8 for a cup of ice-filled, watered-down soda, and $7 for a bag of stale popcorn, then watch the movie in a noisy theater, but not before you have to sit through 10 comercials, and that doesn't include the 100 product-placement ads within the movie itself.

Hmmm, I am sure none of that has anything to do with poor ticket sales.... :rolleyes:

TopherMartini
08-31-2005, 11:36 PM
I see at least 20x as many movies on DVD as in a theater.
Quoted for total agreement...

For 2 people to goto the movies it's into the $20/$30 range these days, when for $10/$20 you can buy the same movie on DVD and get the benefit of behind the scenes and making of bonus content.

Home theaters will never replace going out to the movies, but at least at home you won't have someone kicking the back of your seat and talking throughout the entire movie :banghead:

t-toe
09-01-2005, 12:04 AM
for me, a big factor of not enjoying the movie-going experience lately is the stupidity of the average audience. a majority of the big blockbusters I've seen this year have gotten laughs in places where they were completely not intended. such as the death of a major character. someone getting shot in the chest three times. the list goes on. the average movie-going audience these days is so emotionally constipated, all they want to do is laugh at everything they see on screen.

Hazdaz
09-01-2005, 12:07 AM
for me, a big factor of not enjoying the movie-going experience lately is the stupidity of the average audience. a majority of the big blockbusters I've seen this year have gotten laughs in places where they were completely not intended. such as the death of a major character. someone getting shot in the chest three times. the list goes on. the average movie-going audience these days is so emotionally constipated, all they want to do is laugh at everything they see on screen.

http://images.nasioc.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://images.nasioc.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://images.nasioc.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

oh wait... that was an inappropriate place to laugh. opps.

Hoser
09-01-2005, 12:23 AM
So what do you think should be done about it? What is a real handling?
Or do you think it will just handling itself, i.e. big movie exexutives realizing that declining income means they will have to make good movies instead of cash cows? For some reason I think they'll just going on making bad movies until someone who makes good movies starts cutting into their money. Then maybe they'll get the point.

UrbanFuturistic
09-01-2005, 12:37 AM
Of course, because in a year when overall CD sales are up and the big five are seeing less profit because just they are selling less they're not at all blaming it all on P2P or anything (and competition from DVDs, how dare those movie studios make sales!). No, because of course it couldn't be anything they're doing; if overall CD sales go up so must their sales because the turds they're selling are coated in 24 carat marketing gold.

Cynical? Moi?

regards, Paul

LaVolpe
09-01-2005, 01:24 AM
Very amusing...

I was reading the monday morning write up for weekend box office receipts a few weeks ago. This was the weekend that Stealth had opened and tanked. Once again, they had this industry expert to explain the continuing summer slump and the poor box office results in general.

"This summer's audience", the expert explained " is just not interested in seeing action films right now. Romantic comdies like Wedding Crashers are really what's connecting with audiences this year."

Wow. So, the fact that These movies were crappy had nothing to do with it. What's really happening is that all of america ( and the rest of the world ) suddenly decided it wasn't interested in violence anymore. All at the same time. And all simultaneously decided to embrace Owen Wilson.

If any of you wants to be an industry expert, just do the following:
1. Check to see what tanked
2. proclaim that whatever genre that is is no longer 'in'
3 Check to see what has been doing well
4. Proclaim that genre is really 'connecting' with audiences
5. make some room for the bags of money you just earned

oh yah!

PyRoT
09-01-2005, 02:51 AM
Well I can say from experience, that after Charlie's Angel's 2.. and a few movies I saw around that time.. I have stopped going to the movies as often as I used to. I hardly ever go now. I just remember walking out of what was like.. the 4th crap movie i had seen in a row and realising taht I had just spent atotal of over around 45 dollars on those movies and they sucked. I reasoned that unless its a good blockbuster movie that I really want to see, I will just wait to borrow it on DVD. Even in the case of some blockbusters, it just seems like a waste of money as the ticket can cost me 10.50 while teh dvd will cost me 2 dollars to borrow. Sure there is a time delay but I don't mind. This is also because I wanted to see AvP and it was a blockbuster and well it sucked.

Tomek

animateddave
09-01-2005, 02:57 AM
Bah poor movies have nothing to do with it. Its all because of the moon's alignment with mercury.

LaVolpe
09-01-2005, 03:27 AM
mercury is really connectiing with audiences right now...

helicopterr
09-01-2005, 03:51 AM
Very amusing...

I was reading the monday morning write up for weekend box office receipts a few weeks ago. This was the weekend that Stealth had opened and tanked. Once again, they had this industry expert to explain the continuing summer slump and the poor box office results in general.

"This summer's audience", the expert explained " is just not interested in seeing action films right now. Romantic comdies like Wedding Crashers are really what's connecting with audiences this year."

Wow. So, the fact that These movies were crappy had nothing to do with it. What's really happening is that all of america ( and the rest of the world ) suddenly decided it wasn't interested in violence anymore. All at the same time. And all simultaneously decided to embrace Owen Wilson.

If any of you wants to be an industry expert, just do the following:
1. Check to see what tanked
2. proclaim that whatever genre that is is no longer 'in'
3 Check to see what has been doing well
4. Proclaim that genre is really 'connecting' with audiences
5. make some room for the bags of money you just earned

oh yah!

Why do you think they are industrial experts and not people who actually work in the industry? They are not paid to have intelligent or insightful opinions, they are paid to have have lots of things to say. They understand their job and thus their opinions are always simple and self-evident.

pushav
09-01-2005, 04:00 AM
What we need are more explosions and hot women along with cigar smoking heroes who will defusse a bome with .00000009 seconds left to save the world. This spells blockbuster people. Now to sell my idea to lionsgate films. They publish anything.

Personally I think movie producers concentrate too much on cg fx over story organization. I've noticed poor character direction in movies now and days. Not to metion the writer's forgetfullness when it comes to charater attributes.

Flog
09-01-2005, 05:49 AM
It's all that pirating going on.

Actually I think the main 3 reasons for movies going downhill lately at the theatres is

1)Home Theatres and quick turnaround from Movies to DVD
2)Rising costs of movie tickets
3)Quality and tons of Remakes

I really have yet to understand the rising cost of going to the movies, considering if you lower the price you'll sell in bulk.

I'd rather sell 4 Tickets at 5.00 instead of 1 at $10. You fill the seats.

What is amazing is that the Original Star WArs when adding inflation, would have made 1 billion dollars in today's market at the theatre.

BillSpradlin
09-01-2005, 07:49 AM
Sin City cost 40 mill to make and grossed over 100, Pulp Fiction cost 8 million to make and grossed over 200 million. It doesn't cost much more to make movies now days then it did 10-15 years ago, but somehow movies have gotten shittier with increased budgets.

I do agree with the VFX thing. The best movies are where the vfx isn't noticeable, it's done subtly and at the right time, not when it's centered upon.

capone_adam
09-01-2005, 09:14 AM
I really wonder if cinemas will soon become a thing of the past. Maybe within 50 years. I think most people these days prefer to save the money on good home setups. It would make sense to be able to just buy and download movies like you do with music nowadays.

tozz
09-01-2005, 09:59 AM
I can't even understand why cinemas still exist, they serve no purpose what so ever.

Bigger screen and louder sound than at home, sure, but the image is also worse and the sound picture is awful. I still haven't seen a movie where surround actually added to the value of the movie instead of just being an effect. And in cinemas the placement of speakers are pure crap (not to mention unbalanced audio).

As previous posters already stated you have to listen to idiots talking and crunshing their chips, candy and slurping cola trough the entire movie. Not to mention cell phones...

Drop cinemas already, the quality is gone, gone gone...

pogonip
09-01-2005, 10:13 AM
I'd rather sell 4 Tickets at 5.00 instead of 1 at $10. You fill the seats.

.

Also on the side of theatre owners it would make sense to do this as they make the majority of there money in conssesion sales . Speaking of which they are also another factor why I dont go to movies as much. Consessions are highway robbery I mean 4-5 dolers for popcorn and then 3-4 dollers for a soda .. 3.00 for a bag of M&M's ?? Really the only reason I go to movies anymore at all is just to get out of the house and do something . I usually go with my GF and eat dinner then movie then maybe live music somewhere .

WingedOne
09-01-2005, 01:13 PM
The MPAA will probably say piracy is to blame. :rolleyes:

tufif
09-01-2005, 02:24 PM
What we need are more explosions and hot women along with cigar smoking heroes who will defusse a bome with .00000009 seconds left to save the world. This spells blockbuster people. Now to sell my idea to lionsgate films. They publish anything.

Wouldn't work, movies have to be all PC now. He'd have to be an ex-cigar smoker and spread anti-smoking propoganda between killing bad guys with his machine gun. :thumbsup:

theCloudmover
09-01-2005, 03:31 PM
A movie costs $10.75 in NYC. It's no longer an impulse buy.

Couple that price with the fact that BUYING the DVD of the movie costs approximately the same give or take $5.00 and movie theaters don't make sense as an experience anymore. Unless, of course it's something huge like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

I don't think the quality of the movies has anything to do with the slump. If all theaters reduced their ticket prices more people would be willing to take a chance on a movie they may or may not like.

Flog
09-01-2005, 03:51 PM
Price of DVD $20 Dollars
But you can have a 100 friends over to watch the movie, whenever you feel like it.

10 Dollars per movie ticket, for me and my wife=20. Only 2 of us get to watch the movie and we can only see it that once.

I love the movies, but I think the cost is getting stupid.

It is not the Theatre charging but the movie industry that sets that price. Theatre's make money off of concessions. I think the more money people think they charge the more money they will make. Nobody ever thinks of selling low and making money in bulk sales.

Instead they raise the prices, but are killing potential sales. Can they not do the math? They think if they raise the price they will make their money back. I'm saying lower the prices of movie tickets and reap the benefits of having twice as many people go.

It is a formula between how good the movie is vs how much it costs to see.

What is your return? If I pay 10 dollars do I get a show worth my 10 dollars?
That is the balance they need to find. People are going to take less chance on spending their money if all they get is a mediocre experience.

Customer's if having to pay more will take less chances. It is the same math behind stocks.
Buy low, sell high. Your investment pays off. Lately at the box office the investment has not.

KayosIII
09-01-2005, 04:11 PM
The last time I went to the movies was to see the two towers and I was shouted a ticket... The movie before that was Fellowship of the ring..... I just can't really think of why I would want to go to the movies to see anything in the last few years - Its generally not that long until it will be out on dvd. The only reason I could see myself going is if an attractive member of the opposite sex asked me to go.

I remember a very interesting interview of an old school hollywood script writer. He had a lot of interesting things to say about the way the movie industry hand changed in his lifetime. Twenty years ago there would be three people in the room making desisions about how a movie would happen. Now it is more like 500 most of them with no connection to the actual making of the movie. You generally can't get funding for a movie unless you have MacDonalds or at least 7-11 as a marketing partner. were some of the things he brought up. His predictions for the movie industry were pretty dire.

I have to agree the big lavish productions don't do it for me... I have seen enough of those. I want to see something that really touches me, and adds to my understanding of life. I don't want to feel dumber when I walk out of the theatre...

SirRon
09-01-2005, 06:39 PM
Well I hope Serenity does well. In fact I'm going to go watch it just because I love the Firefly series. :thumbsup:

If only more movies had that kind of storytelling. *sigh*

sly
09-01-2005, 07:16 PM
I can't even understand why cinemas still exist, they serve no purpose what so ever.

Bigger screen and louder sound than at home, sure, but the image is also worse and the sound picture is awful. I still haven't seen a movie where surround actually added to the value of the movie instead of just being an effect. And in cinemas the placement of speakers are pure crap (not to mention unbalanced audio).

As previous posters already stated you have to listen to idiots talking and crunshing their chips, candy and slurping cola trough the entire movie. Not to mention cell phones...

Drop cinemas already, the quality is gone, gone gone...


Personnaly, I like going to the cinema a lot more than watching something at home and i'd be very sad to see them disapear. If only they could get rid of all the commercials at the beginning i'd be perfectly happy with them.

MattClary
09-01-2005, 07:23 PM
for me, a big factor of not enjoying the movie-going experience lately is the stupidity of the average audience. a majority of the big blockbusters I've seen this year have gotten laughs in places where they were completely not intended. such as the death of a major character. someone getting shot in the chest three times. the list goes on. the average movie-going audience these days is so emotionally constipated, all they want to do is laugh at everything they see on screen.

Did you stop to think maybe you just didn't get the joke?


*bum-bum-BAAA*!!!

:applause:

toonman
09-01-2005, 07:27 PM
Why do you think they are industrial experts and not people who actually work in the industry? They are not paid to have intelligent or insightful opinions, they are paid to have have lots of things to say. They understand their job and thus their opinions are always simple and self-evident.

I hate experts.
:)

stuh505
09-01-2005, 07:52 PM
The quality of movies has everything to do with the market demands right now. Over the last 10 years, people have been attracted to more special effects, more big name actors, more hot girls, more catchy lines, more instant big-hits.

There are thousands of brilliant writers and they could be putting out as many high quality movies as they want, it's all a matter of where the budget goes. And everyone in the movie industry knows that a movie with little substance that has the name Spider Man / Bat Man / Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter...whatever, already has a huge fan base and will instantly make a lot of money even if it has no real substance.

People have started to get fed up with the crap they show in theatres and when the market falls to a certain level, they will counter by producing more quality movies.

percydaman
09-01-2005, 08:05 PM
The quality of movies has everything to do with the market demands right now. Over the last 10 years, people have been attracted to more special effects, more big name actors, more hot girls, more catchy lines, more instant big-hits.

There are thousands of brilliant writers and they could be putting out as many high quality movies as they want, it's all a matter of where the budget goes. And everyone in the movie industry knows that a movie with little substance that has the name Spider Man / Bat Man / Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter...whatever, already has a huge fan base and will instantly make a lot of money even if it has no real substance.

People have started to get fed up with the crap they show in theatres and when the market falls to a certain level, they will counter by producing more quality movies.

yeah frankly it seems the entire movie industry has turned into EA's. Loathe to create anything "new" if they can just keep rehashing old storylines and sequels.

Stormy151
09-01-2005, 08:29 PM
The following has been brought to you by the MPAA:

"Yes, the movies are crappy. But the films are tanking because people are DOWNLOADING the crappy movies! Ma and Pa Kettle don't go to the drive in anymore because they are 733t h4xx that download all the latest crappy films we force on audiences!

It's the DOWNLOADING. WE GOTTA STOP THE DOWNLOADING! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE DOWNLOADING!"

I'm surprised they haven't been shouting down this study with cries about the evil BitTorrent...lol

Smartypants
09-01-2005, 09:36 PM
The Quality of Movies issue is interesting to me. Personally, I think there are some great movies being made out there, but nobody is seeing them.

I make my point in a post I made here (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=2585588#post2585588), where I compare the box office take of the movie Finding Neverland to the box office take of White Chicks. Personally, I considered Finding Neverland to be a great movie, and it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, but it didn't do very well at the box office.

Why?

And what about the unexpectedly good performance for the movie March of the Penguins (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428803/) this year? Granted, it's no blockbuster ($57,586,618 domestic take (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marchofthepenguins.htm), according to Box Office Mojo) but let's compare it to Michael Bey's tanker The Island (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=island05.htm), which has only made $35,690,849. March of the Penguins has enjoyed the rarity of seeing its box office take go UP instead of down over time. (you should read the spoof rant (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37499) about this at the Onion. It's funny.)

It's mighty hard to predict what people want to see. But I think studios need to stop overthinking their movies, stop trying to make them "marketable", stop making stupid remakes and sequels and for God's sake, stop raping perfectly good comic books. My message to the movie studios would be, take a freakin' risk once in a while and make an original idea into a movie without meddling in it. People want to see something new.

pearson
09-01-2005, 09:42 PM
Quoted for total agreement...

For 2 people to goto the movies it's into the $20/$30 range these days, when for $10/$20 you can buy the same movie on DVD and get the benefit of behind the scenes and making of bonus content.

Home theaters will never replace going out to the movies, but at least at home you won't have someone kicking the back of your seat and talking throughout the entire movie :banghead:

Hmm. Let's go back a couple of years ago. My friend was so proud of his Atari 2600! I couldn't see what the big deal was; the games in the arcade looked waaay better than the blobs on his fuzzy TV. Plus, in a few short years, there were machines at the arcade that let me sit in an actual car, which turned when I turned the steering wheel!! :eek: Home video game machines could never match the arcade experience!

But we all know how it turned out. A decent arcade is about as rare as a drive-in theater now. The same thing will happen to regular theaters. They will keep pushing ticket prices up until the DVD is the same as just one ticket...

Boone
09-01-2005, 10:59 PM
Well, its not totally to do with films lacking in quality...

1) Price of admission. To see a film at your local Odeon is roughly 7.30. A bag of M&Ms is about 2.99 and a coke is 2.80. Hmmmm... I could rent the same film in roughly six months time on DVD for 3.50, nip round the local supermarket and buy a 2litre bottle of coke for 1.40 and a bag of M&Ms for 1.50... :hmm:

2) Audience. After paying over your hard cash, the last thing you expect is some prick trying to rile you up by throwing popcorn at you or giving a rather hostile "audio commentary" for the entire duration of the film. If the person next to you smells of shit...hmmm.

3) Trailers'n'ads. A bit of advertising is acceptable( hey, you can't blame them for wanting to make a bit of cash, can you? ), but when they run for 20-to-40 minutes...thats just simply too long. Also, as an example, they were still showing the Orange advert with Darth Vader making his film pitch AFTER episode3 had finished its main run. Don't we get fed up with seeing the same sodding advert? :shrug:

4) Toilet breaks. Face it - you REALLY need to answer nature's call at the best bits. How many times have you found yourself wishing that you could press pause on a remote control? :D

5) The cost of filmmaking. Lets face it - its risen from an average of 15million to a ridiculous 100million in roughly 20 years...even with inflation thats a hellva change in costs!

6) The quality of films. This comes associated with price of admission as when the audience is considering that the DVD rental is only a few months away - it has to be a rather special film! :deal:

7) DVD extras. Why just settle for just the film when you can have the bonus stuff thrown in as well?


...overall, I would say that its not just the quality of the films but the film experiance that needs looking at. ;)

stuh505
09-01-2005, 11:38 PM
I've never heard anybody decline a movie for those reasons.

Nobody cares about spending $7.50 to see a great movie with friends. But it sucks when you pay $7.50 to see a REALLY SHITTY movie. But if you download it, that's free and you can turn it off if it sucks. And when 99% of the movies are really shitty, that means that 99.9% of the movies should only be viewed on a computer screen.

If 99.9% of the movies were quite good, then I would be more willing to go to a theatre to see them.

And by the way, Finding Neverland was very mediocre. There was nothing spectacular about the story or acting, or level of emotion. I think your standards are just lowered from all the crap thats been on the big screens lately.

JeroenDStout
09-01-2005, 11:50 PM
What we need are more explosions and hot women along with cigar smoking heroes who will defusse a bome with .00000009 seconds left to save the world. This spells blockbuster people. Now to sell my idea to lionsgate films. They publish anything.

Personally I think movie producers concentrate too much on cg fx over story organization. I've noticed poor character direction in movies now and days. Not to metion the writer's forgetfullness when it comes to charater attributes.
Actually, if that hero is Duke Nukem it could be good. I'd love to see a no-nonsense action movie which'd by cynical about stereotypes. Seriously, I mean it. Even this idea could be entertaining. It won't be, though, as studios will cut the funny dialogues, the cigar and, ultimately, make the hot woman a secret agent (puke).

I can't even understand why cinemas still exist, they serve no purpose what so ever.
Awww, c'mon, have you lost the joy of taking a friend or your wee lass to the movie theatre? TV's nice, aye, but at the theatres you're just more.. into it. At home you get up for drink, you can pause the film, you get people who talk because 'they're at home'.. etc.

It's the DOWNLOADING. WE GOTTA STOP THE DOWNLOADING! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE DOWNLOADING!"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/propaganda_in_the_internet_age.jpg

visionist
09-02-2005, 01:27 AM
Also on the side of theatre owners it would make sense to do this as they make the majority of there money in conssesion sales . Speaking of which they are also another factor why I dont go to movies as much. Consessions are highway robbery I mean 4-5 dolers for popcorn and then 3-4 dollers for a soda .. 3.00 for a bag of M&M's ?? Really the only reason I go to movies anymore at all is just to get out of the house and do something . I usually go with my GF and eat dinner then movie then maybe live music somewhere .

Don't blame the theater about the High ticket prices. Yes they make most of the money from the food stands, and most of the money from ticket prices goes in the pockets of the producers and the directers and everyone and anyone else involved. So the more expensive movies become the more expensive ticket prices become.

And onother note with this on demand and pay per view, and other services that bring the movies to you, with out leaving the couch. People enjoy just sitting at home and watching a movies just a few months off from the release date instead of fighting traffic to get ot the local theater. and for 4 bucks you can have the movie for 24hrs to show everyone and their grandmother.

DigiLusionist
09-02-2005, 02:00 AM
I'll tell you why I don't bother going to the theaters anymore:

I hate people. They walk on the wrong side of the walkways, they walk slowly or they stop short in front of you altogether; they yammer and act stupid in the theater; and, the friggin prices of concessions!!! Plus: movies suck! 99% of them do. Those that don't could just as well be enjoyed in a home theater.

Movie Theaters are soon to be a thing of the past, at least as they are now.

gabe28
09-02-2005, 04:45 AM
For now I still put up with theaters... but the day I get a good HDTV I vow never to enter a theatre again. Especially once they start releasing movies on HD disks (what ever standard wins). Seriously, I won't go to the theaters anymore.

As far as consessions go, I've been smuggling in my own snacks to theaters for years. No way am I going to pay those extortion prices.

And.... If I have to watch 20 minutes of friggin commercials (I'm not talkin' trailers) then I definately should get a cheaper ticket.

t-toe
09-02-2005, 04:59 AM
...Nobody cares about spending $7.50 to see a great movie with friends...

$7.50?! dude, where do you live? that was like three years ago where I am.

darktding
09-02-2005, 06:09 AM
yeah theaters a waste of time... I would wait for the movie to come on dvd (which is like what a month max?) netflix it, beer, popcorn and voila my own theater with no one to disturb me and its cheaper that way too!

RocketBoy
09-02-2005, 08:18 AM
$7.50?! dude, where do you live? that was like three years ago where I am.

Five years ago where I'm at.

I just saw a preview on tv tonight for The Constant Gardner. After telling us how exciting the movie is, trailer voiceover-man then told us to "See it on the big screen!" So obviously, hollywood has chosen to blame DVDs for their underwhelming box office income.

I don't think I buy that poor quality movies are to blame. Sure, the vast majority of movies released absolutely suck, but that has alway been the case; no more this year than other. I can't help but feel that ticket price is the biggest factor in box office decline, especially when there are other more necessary things competing for our spare change, and not so spare change.

LaVolpe
09-02-2005, 08:23 AM
Boone-

a bag of M&M's goes for 1.50 over there?

blimey...



/..calculates the exchange rate...

Boone
09-02-2005, 08:35 AM
Re: La Volpe.

Errr...ummm...is that considered a bargin or daylight robbery? :shrug:

Re: Stuh505.

Was you refering to my post regarding the $7.50? If so, you're looking at it from the "wrong angle" - I live in the UK which is in pounds - not dollars. Do a conversion and you'll see why most people I talk to say "7.30? They're avin'a'Turkish!" :D

azazel
09-02-2005, 08:37 AM
Well, i actually like watching movies in theaters. Sure, there happens an annoying prick in the audience sometimes, but not that often. And, i go there to watch the movie, not to eat popcorn and such... so i don't pay for that. 17" lcd monitor, however nice, is not as good as theatre screen.....

Boone
09-02-2005, 08:47 AM
Re: Azazel.

Yeah, I went to see SW:ROTS four times for the "big screen experiance". The opening battle has to be seen on a large screen for that "Holy shit - LOOK OUT!" feeling...money is no object in those instances!:bounce:

Dougs
09-02-2005, 02:48 PM
I think this was discussed last year but I think the [post was closed due to flaming and what not. Gee I wish I could find it.

It's nice to see that people are coming around to the conclusion I had back then. The quality of films was already on the decline then. The only reason it's goes on is I think it takes Hollywood a while to admit to itself that it's their fault and not just marketing and ticket prices.

They have to improve their products or the movie theaters will become a thing of the past. And I don't think anybody really wants to see that happen.

I mean sure a dvd costs around 20 bucks or so now. What happens when they start shutting down theaters? How are they going to make up for all that lost revenue?

SpeccySteve
09-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Yeah, I went to see SW:ROTS four times for the "big screen experiance". The opening battle has to be seen on a large screen for that "Holy shit - LOOK OUT!" feeling..

Yup, I'll always go and see something like Starwars or Lord of the Rings on a huge screen but I don't think romantic comedies or thrillers really benefit much from the "big screen experience" , they can wait for dvd.

-Steve

Spritemare
09-02-2005, 05:11 PM
here's another fine example :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/02/review.thunder/index.html

f97ao
09-04-2005, 09:47 AM
But guys, there are quite alot of good movies out now?

Sin City is playing here in Sweden. What is wrong with that
Batman Begins? I only read it's good but haven't had time to see it yet.
Dark Water was quite good, asian horror movie. Quite different and original too.
War of the Worlds seems good, a movie I wanted to get up to the big screen for a long time.

Myself I'm happy that the last years they are actually doing sf movies, and movies about say Spider Man etc. When I was younger we never had that kind of movies.
Ok sure we have had more bad movies with bigger budgets. Alien vs Predator was amazingly poor for example.

Aren't we a little too bitter here? So much complaining on this board.

/Andreas

jordibares
09-05-2005, 01:46 PM
Andreas, don't take it wrong but IMHO none of these were any good..

Yes, i know, different tastes and all that but a fact is that there has been _very very very_ little comming from Hollywood lately that is even close to interesting.

If you want interesting movies, great movies, better look to Europe, South America and the Middle East (yes, i said Middle East). For example have a look at "Lilia for ever" or "The Warrior" or "10" or "Taste of Cherry" or "Life is a miracle" or "Black cat, white cat" or "Together" or...

IMHO the way modern Hollywood runs cinema as a factory instead of as a craft is what makes people feel cold about a story... a story can't be a product of a board of directors but a Director, an author.

my 2 cents
jb
BTW, please don't call a movie a "product".

But guys, there are quite alot of good movies out now?

Sin City is playing here in Sweden. What is wrong with that
Batman Begins? I only read it's good but haven't had time to see it yet.
Dark Water was quite good, asian horror movie. Quite different and original too.
War of the Worlds seems good, a movie I wanted to get up to the big screen for a long time.

Myself I'm happy that the last years they are actually doing sf movies, and movies about say Spider Man etc. When I was younger we never had that kind of movies.
Ok sure we have had more bad movies with bigger budgets. Alien vs Predator was amazingly poor for example.

Aren't we a little too bitter here? So much complaining on this board.

/Andreas

Papa Lazarou
09-05-2005, 04:06 PM
I thought Sin City was pretty good. But many of the blockbuster films of the past were not so incredible either. There's a massive dung heap of would-be blockbusters from the eighties and nineties. I think the seventies was a better period for filmmaking. There was a lot more independent-minded studio films being made, or independantly financed films being successful. One reason I have heard is that the tax laws in the U.S. changed in the 80s, making it riskier for investors in independent films. The studios have the distribution system fairly sewn up right now(like back in the forties), and for an independent film to get mainstream distribution is like winning the lottery. There's a lot of independent films, but they all just wind up being ghettoized as 'arthouse' films. Folks would sooner see something mainstream like "Dukes of Hazard", which is guarenteed to suck, than take a chance on some independent film that might completely alienate them.

The problem with the big FX films, is that the producers who make them are the superficial types who read these surveys and try to follow the trends. It should be perfectly possible for more indepentently minded films to have big fx used in an intelligent way.

One thing to notice, is that the best films the big studios are making these days, are being done outside of L.A.; Peter Jackson out in New Zealand, Pixar up in San Francisco, Sin City in Texas, Lilo & Stitch in Florida. The feeling is that they are away from the Hollywood types, and around a more down-to-earth crowd, and thus more in tune with what people really want to see. They don't have executives second-guessing every original idea they have.

I think the other big reason less people are going to the cinema, is that there's so many different types of media and products vying for our money and our free time these days. Twenty years ago computer games weren't what they are now, there wasn't as big a selection of music and video and cable/satellite entertainment. We weren't buying new PCs and ipods every 2 years. There's just so much choice, and while older media like books and comics and theater can still compete, they just have to accept that they will never have the market share they once enjoyed. Maybe new markets have opened up in other countries, but they have their own locally grown media and entertainment as well.

The arcade analogy that one poster used is interesting, though one could also look at bars and pubs. Why aren't people drinking at home more? Why do they still go out? Naturally it is for the social element. Why is it that when it comes to cinema, all of a sudden, hell is other people? Chewing on their noisy snacks, making their smart-ass comments etc. Over the years the nature of cinemas has changed. They used to be palaces, then there was the drive-ins and now we have multiplexes. Perhaps for cinemas to have a continued relevance, there will have to be a further shift; they will have to change to something slightly different.

jordibares
09-05-2005, 05:01 PM
I agree that probably 99% of the really interesting stuff is being shadowed badly by the big productions, even more probably is that we (outside US) will not have the chance to see these films.. which is a shame.

Also agree with the fact that there is a bigger cake and more slices so is not going to be like the good old times any more. Specially if they use cinema as a marketing tool for DVDs, games and the lot.

Anyway, what i don't agree is with your examples... none of them. But may be is just me. :-/

cheney
09-05-2005, 05:46 PM
All the CG in world will not make a great movie. What makes a great movie has changed very little since the invention of film. Here is what it takes in exactly this order:

1) writing - Ultimately the buck stops here.
2) direction - A well planned and executed film is clearly recognizable
3) photography - This is how the film will look
4) film/stage production - This is how things will work and look in a shot
5) acting - Good actors are the most important feature after all the production is considered
6) CG/makeup - this can make a film look great, but is never necessary unless it is used to compensate for crappy writing.

While this model is never absolutely it is roughly true all the time. In my opinion many modern films seem to be relying upon CG as its most important factor or they are not considered low budget and marketed as such. It is this mentality, in my opinion, that is failing the movie industry.

A good example of a good film is the recent Chinese film, Hero. This film did not have great writing, but the writing was pretty good and everything else was fantastic. As a result it was a great movie that could have been a little bit better if the writing were a little bit better.

Another good example is Star Wars: Phantom Menace. The writing in this movie was complete garbage. This movie had great CG, but all the CG in the world would not have saved this failure.

Papa Lazarou
09-05-2005, 06:30 PM
I think in the past there has been different trends with different genres. There has been film noir, westerns, thrillers, etc. If you wanted to make one of these films successful, what you needed was obvious. Good writing, good actors, good direction. With the current trend of cg movies, the focus is on the visuals. If you can't keep up with the current standards, people will complain about the terrible effects. So the focus has been on "pushing the envelope", having all sorts of camera moves and the latest rendering, even if you have to change the movie to fit it in. Forget about tension or suspense or subtext, they have to make room for the big effects showcase. How else to explain films like "Van Helsing". If they'd tried to make that film in the pre-digital days, the focus would have been completely different. Probably would have worked out a lot cheaper and a lot better.

jordibares
09-07-2005, 12:07 PM
IMHO the problem lies in that they want to please the biggest audience without entering into tricky territories (offend any potential client), this obviously influences the film and what probably was a decent script (or not) and gets watered down into a less-than-interesting "product".

What is left? with no real script they pump all they can in big names/stars (which is not the same as good actors), they pump money into huge marketing and obviously they try to dress the movie with all the tricks they can, sound design, visuals, cg...

At this point the conclussion of this negative point of view i am making is that either the industry takes control and starts to understand fx are a way to help the story, not the story itself, or we will face very soon the rejection of anything with fx.

An example of this could be the total success of a movie about Penguin migration this summer!!! Do i need to say more?

An example of a good movie with good fx helping the story is OLDBOY, hope you guys have seen this one.

Neil
09-07-2005, 05:30 PM
i don't mind people talking, i don't mind the concession prices (i just don't buy it), i don't even mind paying the big bucks to see a movie on a big screen...
the thing preventing me from going is the fact that I sit there for close to 20minutes just watching commercials. total waste of my time. i already arrive 10 minutes late to begin with, but since there is no confirmed starting time anymore, you still gotta show up relatively close to the 'projected' starting time.

it the movie starts at 8:00 then boom it should start at 8:00, roll those intro credits. That would just make people get there at 7:50 and then they can watch a few commercials until 8:00.

CGTalk Moderation
09-07-2005, 05:30 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.