PDA

View Full Version : World box office dipped 7.9 pct to 23 billion dollars last year


RobertoOrtiz
03-09-2006, 10:39 PM
Quote:
"Hollywood movie ticket sales around the world dropped by 7.9 percent last year to 23 billion dollars, with the US box office accounting for nearly 40 percent of the haul, a study showed.

Movie ticket receipts in North America dipped by six percent in 2005 to nine billion dollars, according to a study by the ratings statistics firm Nielsen Entertainment/NRG that comes as movie-goers increasingly stay out of cinemas. "

>>LINK<< (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/09/060309211938.c3imi3s8.html)

-R

CupOWonton
03-10-2006, 12:12 AM
Are they blaming it on piracy? Rather than the fact that there are less and less interesting movies each year?(Im too lazy to read the article)

hellgatemedia
03-10-2006, 02:37 AM
It's because all they do is release crap and more crap.
I work in a video store, let me tell you, they are dying off too. Because not only
are people not going to theatres, they just aren't renting either.
No one but Hollywood executives who greenlight pictures seem to want these
god awful remakes. Nothing new and original is coming out, and although they have given some studios 100 million plus to make movies, it's not like it used to be, where they'd take the money, and it would show. Part of that is due to bloated salaries, Chris Tucker is estimated to take in over 20 million to do Rush Hour 3. So you got these movies now, where they hit 50 million in salaries alone, before they ever start rolling a camera. Some of these guys are being forced to take pay cuts to stay in business, but I don't think some actors hwo make crappy movies need to be getting paid big bucks.
The other thing is, you have a group of actors who are making ridiculous amounts of movies on a yearly basis.
Will Ferrel, and Ryan Reynolds were in over 5 movies last year each. Than there was Nick Cage, Jake Gyllenhall, and Vince Vaughn and a few others who did just TONS of movies.
With technology getting cheaper and cheaper, I'm hoping this is going to open windows for people like myself who have the skill and talent, but not the resources. Because they better do something, and they better do it fast. There are no more original ideas in hollywood

JDex
03-10-2006, 02:45 AM
World cell-phone usage in inappropriate settings up 34.5%
World @ss-hat census up 21.25%
World bad sequel index up 12.75%

I'd say they're lucky that the box-office isn't down 79%

huydoan.com
03-10-2006, 03:24 AM
1. it cost $10-11 to see a movie in San Francisco (even on weekends). Matinees are around $7. And there'es still 2-3 commercials even before the trailers start.
2. DVDs come out 2-5 months after the movie release. Why pay $21.50 for two tickets when I can buy the DVD and watch it on my home theater system whenever I want?
3. Netflix and blockbuster have unlimited monthly rentals for $15+ per month. And there are literally dozens of similiar businesses. Why buy when you can rent?
4. And then there's of course piracy. But most people can barely send an email, let alone download and burn pirated movies.

X-Men 3 is worth $10. The Hills have Eyes? Yeah, I'll pass on that....

toonman
03-10-2006, 04:40 PM
I still like going to the movies a lot, and I must say, I'm not sure if it's the location, or my daily bowl of lucky charms (ha! I lied... I'm on a heavy-fibre diet now :)), but the movie goers here in Montreal are pretty respectful (or maybe it's just the audience of the movies I go to watch). In any case, I DO avoid MOST of the movies being shown, either because they're crap and I will never see them, or because they're not good enough to be worthy of my $30 Can, in which case, I wait for the DVD to come out, to either rent it, or buy it (if it's something I really really want). I must confess... even though movie downloads are just a few clicks away, I don't know why, they don't spark my interest (I know about the legal side, so please spare me the sermon if you suddenlt feel the urge). I prefer to get the DVD, and honestly, I don't see spending $25 or less in a good movie as a huge expense. However, I do see the pressure that's building inside the Hollycrap pot, so they will have to take steps if they intend to stay in business. I can think of two things right now...

Cut the crap you're producing. We don't want it. We don't see the point on spending 3 hours of our life and $15 bucks per person (parking kinda included there) on a stupid story, with stupid, unrealistical characters, performed by sometimes unskilled actors.
High-profile actors are going to HAVE TO take a salary cut. Sorry boys, that's reality. No more $20mill per film paycheks. You don't need them. What? How am I going to afford my huge mansions and sports cars, I hear? Well... you either take the cut, or open a restaurant franchise. Take your pic...
Ah, well... time to go see what's playing at the theaters tonight... :)

gruvsyco
03-10-2006, 04:57 PM
World bad sequel index up 12.75%
That was the year before last... last year was the year of the bad remake not the bad sequel.

bleeper
03-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Quote:
"Hollywood movie ticket sales around the world dropped by 7.9 percent last year to 23 billion dollars, with the US box office accounting for nearly 40 percent of the haul, a study showed.

Movie ticket receipts in North America dipped by six percent in 2005 to nine billion dollars, according to a study by the ratings statistics firm Nielsen Entertainment/NRG that comes as movie-goers increasingly stay out of cinemas. "

>>LINK<< (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/09/060309211938.c3imi3s8.html)

-R
[ot] at $23 billion dollars:eek: thats more money then some countries GDP .in fact right just around the 107 mark:eek:

mummey
03-10-2006, 06:11 PM
Thanks to Blockbuster Online I rarely see the need for cable anymore, let alone movie theaters. The last film I saw in a theater (not counting pre-screenings) was Mirrormask.

EdHarriss
03-10-2006, 07:06 PM
The last film I saw in a theater (not counting pre-screenings) was Mirrormask.

- And it was worth it, that movie was a complete surprise.
- I too use online rentals. (Netflix) I still go to movies, but I almost never watch TV.

pearson
03-10-2006, 08:04 PM
Poor quality and high prices? Can't be that! I blame Napster...

opus13
03-10-2006, 08:08 PM
last time i went to a movie it cost 2x what i was expecting to pay (and i wasn't expecting a miracle price either). i havent been back since the summer --its just not worth it. i can wait for the dvd to hit the pawnshop (purchase for $4.00!)

aaraaf
03-10-2006, 08:23 PM
I really enjoy going to the theatre. There are some interesting things I've noticed with advertising films... at least in Chicago... that I think is hurting things.

1) I haven't got the slightest idea when a film is coming out anymore... when's the last time you saw a release date on a trailer or commercial that wasn't for something of Spider-Man caliber? Summer 2005 doesn't count. Had to look up the last Harry Potter release date... it wasn't on many of the billboards in Chicago.
2) I don't even know that movies are out sometimes... I saw more info on Mirrormask AFTER its theatre run... (got it on DVD and can't wait to find a good time to watch it!)

Another interesting thing is that last year (2005) was okay, but the year before (2004) was bangup with the last LOTRs (end of 2003 into early 2004) AND a Pixar movie. These things matter. Kong was long and released when people already have too much to do, and Narnia outperformed everyone's expectations but these two movies shouldn't have gone head to head. Put one up against movies that have a smaller audience... those movies'll be seen anyway. If the studios would quit trying to one up and battle each other, they'd realize that the market's large with a great audience and there's room for most everyone.

richcz3
03-11-2006, 07:13 PM
The studios need to realize that the public has many options for entertainment. Spending $15
for a movie ticket and a pretzel isn't so appealing. I can wait 3 months and get the DVD for $20.

The reasons global box office has dropped is too simple. People have many more diversions than they had just 6 years ago. The reach of Broadband (Cable and DSL) is expanding and DSL prices are dropping to $20 in some areas. Gaming is the #1 contender to studio profits. It has little or nothing to do with pirating. TV viewership amoungst key male demographics is dropping off faster.
So who pirates TV shows? :surprised

pogonip
03-11-2006, 07:40 PM
- And it was worth it, that movie was a complete surprise.
- I too use online rentals. (Netflix) I still go to movies, but I almost never watch TV.

Your missing CSI : Las Vegas and LOST then ! :eek:

JDex
03-11-2006, 08:04 PM
Your missing CSI : Las Vegas and LOST then ! :eek:

He'd probably be much better off with BSG and The Shield though. :p

richcz3
03-11-2006, 08:16 PM
I personaly just don't put an effort to watch TV on a regular basis. When I am using my laptop I switch between the History Channel and Discovery Channel. Nova (PBS) is the only TV show I have watched since like ... before some of you were born.

And on the rare occasion I get home to watch Battlestar Galactica. What...last night was the last show of the season...oh well....I'll watch History Channel and Discovery Channel in the background.

VenomZER0
03-11-2006, 08:42 PM
I don't even own a TV, 90% of terrestrial is terrible, and being at university really cuts down on free time.

World of Warcraft has me and all my friends locked down in our free time, blame Blizzard! ^_^ (gaming is increasing faster than I'd ever imagined)

durbdk
03-11-2006, 09:21 PM
To me it seems hollywood has become too much of a business; it seems the driving force in deciding to make a movie is how safe it is finacially, and that the people making the decisions have no clue!. I was very surprised, and shy to admit it, but one of the best movies I remember seeing in recent time was Brokeback mountain; not because it was incredibly good, but because it was unexpected. I love to go to a movie that is so original that you leave feeling like you just experienced something good. I guess I love creativity and boldness as apposed to blandness and cliché; it's the difference between David Copperfield and Dime Novels.

Then again, I am a technical graphics professional, and have nothing to do with entertainment, but if I feel thius way then it's a sure bet many others do to.

PhilOsirus
03-12-2006, 02:48 AM
Technology evolves quickly and so do the habits of those who use the technology.

People want everything-on-demand and they don't want to sit in a chair away from their own homes' comfort to watch a movie with other people for 2 hours. People have their iPods and video games, their cellphones and internet. Everything must be quick, portable and on-demand.

amannin
03-12-2006, 07:53 PM
And on the rare occasion I get home to watch Battlestar Galactica. What...last night was the last show of the season...

that season finale definitely went in a different direction than i though it would -- same with 24 on FOX.

------------------------------------------

i wonder if the people in hollywood are really baffled over this? it doesn't seem to me that they would be that stupid or ignorant to the times, unless of course, they don't have an email account... but even then, i think they are using piracy as a scapegoat, but don't really believe it. They have to know, that people are getting sick (have been sick) of remakes and sequels, I wonder why they aren't acting on it --- maybe they are just trying to milk it for all its worth and then move on???

Szos
03-13-2006, 01:53 AM
Not sure if this was posted already, but this 7.9% decline is only after Hollywood hit record sales just a few short years ago. Well no sh!t sales are gonna be down - you can't have record sales every damn year!

These were already mentioned, but simply put, these are the causes of Hollywoods declined sales:

-overpaid actors. It's kinda tough to make a profit, when the lead actor alone is making more than what the entire rest of the budget is.

-Remakes, remakes, remakes.

-unoriginal, formulaic stories.

-expensive ticket prices.

-commercials and product-placement.

Ofcourse it is easier for Hollywood to blame the 'evil doers' and say that downloaders are causing the decline. :rolleyes:

jeremybirn
03-13-2006, 02:54 AM
-overpaid actors. It's kinda tough to make a profit, when the lead actor alone is making more than what the entire rest of the budget is.

Box office sales are down, not profits. Profits were actually good for a lot of companies in the film industry. And if you're worried about who earned the money, actors aren't the biggest earners, financeers and producers and other executives take a bigger slice of the pie than actors do.

I don't think the overall trend away from box office and towards home video can be reversed. Sure, if this year there are more hit movies and if theaters work to make a better experience for the audience the trend could slow down a bit. But in the end, movie theaters were just middle-men like travel agencies or video arcades, and their future seems more about being a special event destination people go out to once in a while than being a mainstream way for most people to watch most of the movies they see.

-jeremy

JDex
03-13-2006, 03:13 AM
Box office sales are down, not profits. Profits were actually good for a lot of companies in the film industry. And if you're worried about who earned the money, actors aren't the biggest earners, financeers and producers and other executives take a bigger slice of the pie than actors do.

I don't think the overall trend away from box office and towards home video can be reversed. Sure, if this year there are more hit movies and if theaters work to make a better experience for the audience the trend could slow down a bit. But in the end, movie theaters were just middle-men like travel agencies or video arcades, and their future seems more about being a special event destination people go out to once in a while than being a mainstream way for most people to watch most of the movies they see.

-jeremy


I think to a degree, you are right... but I personally still like to go to a theater for some movies, and also some circumnstances. I think many others do too. If the theaters do find a way to make the movie going experience:

A. More comfortable
B. More consistant
C. A better value (not necessarily cheaper)

Then I think they could find a decent niche market that could be quite profitable. The uber-megaplex, 20 screen, get them in -- get them out theaters are a big part of what's wrong.

I think that the future is going to be driven by box-home (not office) sales but as the mega theaters crumble, new small niche theaters will fill the void and make "going to the movies" experience something more inline to what it used to be (before my time). At least that's my hope.

jsmithee
03-13-2006, 04:58 AM
This drop in itself could just indicate that their current marketing strategy is a-whack. As the article indicates the theatre-goers are in a large part happy with the quality of the movies and the general experience of 'going out to the movies'.

I find it interesting here in cgtalk though, that while most seemed to people disagree with the George Lucas quote thread that movie production costs need to drop most in this thread seem to agree with him in terms that it is too expensive.

Personally Ive never grasped where _all_ the money goes as with a large vfx blockbuster, a relatively small amount of money goes to the vfx house, this ofcourse not being helped that large vfx houses which recieve funding from other industries undercut the rest of the competition while the smaller houses that have a small overhead can try to get a few bites of the small pie. Pure marketing costs are never in the actual production budget and would typically range from 70-200 million anyway, now some production studios view theatre-released as a advanced form of marketing for DVD as similar. Out of the whole business model the money they get from the theatre release is very small compared to these other areas.

Anyway, most people here seem to group theatres into the same 'business' as the production studios themselves. Theatres are just another business that need to fund their employees salaries and prime estate locations with the ticket prices themselves. If you have a bad experience in the theatre I bet most managers would listen if you'd speak up, but most people tend to be very passive aggressive about these things.

CGTalk Moderation
03-13-2006, 04:58 AM
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.