Banner
Home Forums Movie Theaters The Lobby Are the movies dying?
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Are the movies dying?

Re: Are the movies dying? 11 Oct 2005 22:37 #11627

  • RoxyVaudeville
  • RoxyVaudeville's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 889
  • Thank you received: 16
  • Karma: 3
Quote: [Young men lead audience flight from struggling US cinemas]

That article seems to completely substantiate what I said in my earlier post where I explained why my business is up this year when most find it down.

Since I seldom get young males of that age group, 13 to 24, and they seem to be the ones that have cut back drasticly on their moviegoing, I didn't have an audience to lose. My audience, the young families and the over 40 group are still going pretty much as usual.

As an update on that fact I find that I will easily beat last year, unless the bottom falls out during the next 11 weeks that remain, but that looks highly unlikely at this time. Actually, it looks as though I have a slight chance to beat 2003 which was the best year I ever had. It will all come down to what I get to play over the Christmas holiday week.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 12 Oct 2005 01:30 #11628

  • outaframe
  • outaframe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 672
  • Karma: 0
That's good to hear, ROXY... They just keep releasing good to excellent pictures at the moment, and they're dying on the vine as first run (probably due to the lack of interest by that very age group) but the second run potential looks great, to me... If only they don't rush them into ancillary release before we have the chance to play them all!...

On the minus side, the young families and over 40 groups are the ones who will be most effected by (or at least are likeliest to cut back on spending as a result of) threatened huge energy cost increases...

[This message has been edited by outaframe (edited October 12, 2005).]
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 12 Oct 2005 10:23 #11629

  • D. Bird
  • D. Bird's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: 0
I keep wondering why the studios seem to gleefully talk about shortening windows and moving to home distribution etc. Whether or not that's what they really want, isn't it alarming to them when one way or another, less people want to see their pictures? Doesn't it speak to them when losing 18-24 year old males affects them profoundly? What is their plan for selling to these devoted movie goers when they turn 30? 40? Those with families? These people have a pace of life or schedule which means they don't always run out opening weekend. Roxy's results and the field full of minivans at my local drive-in for slightly older product bears that out, and it's good to see....
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 12 Oct 2005 17:54 #11630

I still really like the idea of releasing a version of a movie to theatre's only.

Trailers and one sheets, and all tha other marketing could all say "THE VERSION YOU CAN ONLY SEE IN THEATRES!".

Then, when the DVDs come out, and they say "THE VERSION YOU COULDN"T SEE IN THEATRES!", sales will double. Maybe not actually double, but they'd still go up!

Then, a longer window and I think we're all set.

All jokes aside, I think this could really work. That way, with an additional 15 or 20 minutes for extra scenes, and an additional 10 minutes for an alternate ending, I don't think people would feel ripped off for paying $9 to see an 82 minute movie.

Opinions?
Since 1987
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 13 Oct 2005 12:19 #11631

BUMP

And while I'm at it, has any thread on BSB ever got this big?
Since 1987
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 13 Oct 2005 13:59 #11632

  • AdFilms
  • AdFilms's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
Interesting topic.

Old, but interesting.

Haven't the doomsayers been predicting the death of the movie theatre since the advent of television?

The only thing wrong with the industry now is the lack of original product, and the strenuous relationship between studios and exhibitors. As a wise poster already alluded, the studios used to work with the theatres, now they work for the bottom line.

Remember when VCR's put a scare into the industry. Well, what did the studios do? They embraced it, gradually reducing the window between play-date and video release, and hung the exhibitors out to dry to cannibalize eachother.

Meanwhile the studio signs agreements with McDonalds to market their sweatshop toys to overweight children, and yet the theatres are the ones to continually get the shaft for trying to pad their bottom line by playing a few ads before the movie (I'm biased here). And some companies (read: Disney) have the gaul to forbid theatres from screening ads before their movies?

It simply astounds me how the exhibitor keeps getting kicked around, when all they're trying to do is survive.

Rant over (for now)

Keith
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 13 Oct 2005 17:16 #11633

  • RoxyVaudeville
  • RoxyVaudeville's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 889
  • Thank you received: 16
  • Karma: 3
Quote: [Haven't the doomsayers been predicting the death of the movie theatre since the advent of television?]

No, it has been since the advent of radio.

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 14 Oct 2005 11:44 #11634

Isn't it funny how no one ever actually complains about all the advertising at a NASCAR track or at a sports venue, like an arena, ballpark or stadium?

People are consistantly subjected to advertising in these venues, when they paid alot more than $8 to see that particular entertainment, yet they bitch about our 15 minutes of advertisements when we're just trying to make ends meet.

On top of that, the theatre I work in has a few franchises, but the Burger King has meals for about $9-$14 for combos (with theatre size Pepsi cups). How much is a no name burger at a stadium? At ours, its about $5.00 for that no name cheeseburger, $4.00 for a 600ml (20oz?) bottle of pop, and $3.50 for a (small) portion of fries. Well, that's pretty much in line with Burger King, isn't it?
Since 1987
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 15 Oct 2005 15:56 #11635

  • jimor
  • jimor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 395
  • Karma: 0
Dbird asks why Hollywood distributors are talking gleefully about ever shorter windows of distribution, and not bemoaning the loss of the prime male audience. The answers to these questions come from the same source: the conglomerates that now own the studios and the distributors --but not the same conglomerates that own the cinemas.


A conglomerate's only reason for being is get as much money as possible in the shortest possible length of time. Since they forsee DVDs and on-line movies as a much more profitable future largely free of piracy of their products, they welcome the day when then may have to pay for film prints for maybe only a dozen show houses in the nation to act as publicity showcases, and then can rely on the local and national news from TV to create the market, along with other advertising. They look forward to the demise of the many cinemas since they are not making the studios as much profit as other forms of display will make for them. Every day, the costs to operate a cinema soar (heat, salaries, insurance, etc., etc.), so the potential for profits from them decline --even if the movies are good --which they usually aren't. So it sands to reason from the point of view of greed that one should select the least expensive form of distribution to the consumer in order to maximize profits.

AS to the young males: they don't really matter anymore since they don't really want the young males, since their target audience is now the same as TV: young women, and young women mostly buy 'chick flicks' which young males usually hate. Ever since the 1920s, the marketing types have noticed that women/girls in general are ten times more likely to spend money, simply for the joy of spending money, than are men, even if men had more disposable income (though nowadays women have just as much and often more than men). Thus, it is the advertisers who determine what TV shows get on TV for the most part, to appeal to women/girls, and the movie makers now listen to the conglomerates and the banks that finance the films since both are interested in marketing their films to the same demographic: young women who will see both the commercials in cinemas and later on TV as well as the "product placements" and will supposedly run out and buy whatever they see. This translates to hoped for greater profits --the reason that the studios now exist. Art has nothing to do with it; the conglomerates wouldn't know what 'art' was if it came up and bit them. ONLY that which can appear on a profits-and-loss sheet will matter in their decisions on films, and while some films will attract more males, they guys are not as willing to spend as the gals are, and most products are more appealing to the females in any case. Did you forget that money was involved in these matters, and that it is ONLY the IMMEDIATE profits that matter? Well, now you know never to forget that. AS the movie WALL STREET put it: "Greed is Good!"
Jim R. (new E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) member: www.HistoricTheatres.org
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 15 Oct 2005 15:58 #11636

  • jimor
  • jimor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 395
  • Karma: 0
D.bird asks why Hollywood distributors are talking gleefully about ever shorter windows of distribution, and not bemoaning the loss of the prime male audience. The answers to these questions come from the same source: the conglomerates that now own the studios and the distributors --but not the same conglomerates that own the cinemas.


A conglomerate's only reason for being is get as much money as possible in the shortest possible length of time. Since they forsee DVDs and on-line movies as a much more profitable future largely free of piracy of their products, they welcome the day when then may have to pay for film prints for maybe only a dozen show houses in the nation to act as publicity showcases, and then can rely on the local and national news from TV to create the market, along with other advertising. They look forward to the demise of the many cinemas since they are not making the studios as much profit as other forms of display will make for them. Every day, the costs to operate a cinema soar (heat, salaries, insurance, etc., etc.), so the potential for profits from them decline --even if the movies are good --which they usually aren't. So it sands to reason from the point of view of greed that one should select the least expensive form of distribution to the consumer in order to maximize profits.

AS to the young males: they don't really matter anymore since they don't really want the young males, since their target audience is now the same as TV: young women, and young women mostly buy 'chick flicks' which young males usually hate. Ever since the 1920s, the marketing types have noticed that women/girls in general are ten times more likely to spend money, simply for the joy of spending money, than are men, even if men had more disposable income (though nowadays women have just as much and often more than men). Thus, it is the advertisers who determine what TV shows get on TV for the most part, to appeal to women/girls, and the movie makers now listen to the conglomerates and the banks that finance the films since both are interested in marketing their films to the same demographic: young women who will see both the commercials in cinemas and later on TV as well as the "product placements" and will supposedly run out and buy whatever they see. This translates to hoped for greater profits --the reason that the studios now exist. Art has nothing to do with it; the conglomerates wouldn't know what 'art' was if it came up and bit them. ONLY that which can appear on a profits-and-loss sheet will matter in their decisions on films, and while some films will attract more males, they guys are not as willing to spend as the gals are, and most products are more appealing to the females in any case. Did you forget that money was involved in these matters, and that it is ONLY the IMMEDIATE profits that matter? Well, now you know never to forget that. AS the movie WALL STREET put it: "Greed is Good!"
Jim R. (new E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) member: www.HistoricTheatres.org
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 16 Oct 2005 11:10 #11637

  • rodeojack
  • rodeojack's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1242
  • Thank you received: 3
  • Karma: 0
Isn't it funny how no one ever actually complains about all the advertising at a NASCAR track or at a sports venue, like an arena, ballpark or stadium?

Andrew, you make an interesting observation. However, the comparisons are not similar.

If you go to a NASCAR event, I very much doubt you'll see advertising or other activities that would motivate you to compare the experience with a competitive racing activity. In that sense, the racetrack is not actively torpedoeing their own business, which is (I believe) exactly what the movie business is doing with their network-delivered digital advertising packages.

People are entertained by the content on their tv set. Today, whether fair or not, they're making more comparisons between what they see on TV and what they get in a movie theatre.

The sale of commercial minutes/hours is the direct financial foundation of the broadcasting industry in this country, so the daily onslaught of advertising is something that people expect to see in commercial television.

If the US broadcasting industry tried to move toward a subscriber-paid model, maybe on the lines of what used to support British broadcasting, you'd see an incredible amount of resistance from the consuming public.

In comparison to motion picture entertainment: People who are offended by on-screen advertising consider their paid admission to cover what they're going to see in the auditorium. They'll even accept, to a point, that concession sales aren't a total source of gravy for the exhibitor. At a stretch, they might even go along with a lobby full of video games... they're not in the auditorium, after all... are optional, and can be avoided easily enough.

Not so, the on-screen advertising packages. They're getting bigger, louder and more intrusive, complete with surround sound and thundering bass. A reasonable observation by an unhappy patron is that he paid admission for his evening's entertainment. Why should that also include a raft of commercials, for which the theatre also gained income? Some of those ads can be offensive. You don't get a list of the commercials you'll be seeing when you look up what's playing at the local cinema.

The cinema experience is consistently moving away from the traditional entertainment package that is exclusive to movies, and like the broadcasting comparison above, some people are resisting it at one level or another.

The offensive thing to me is that the major players in this networked commercialism continue to loudly deny that their advertising has a negative effect of any kind on ticket sales... interesting, because any poll that they themselves don't commission tends to indicate that well over half don't care for it at all.

As long as the industry continues to do things that make their patrons compare the theatrical product to what they can see on their own TV, people WILL make those comparisions, and choices... and having forced that thought process themselves, the cinemas will continue to lose customers to the in-home experience... something that doesn't bother the home electronics companies at all.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 16 Oct 2005 11:24 #11638

  • rodeojack
  • rodeojack's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1242
  • Thank you received: 3
  • Karma: 0
Sure, better movies is one thing, but don't you think that it just might be time to bring back that panache like Roxy does? That doesn't mean close the multiplexes, but shouldn't they be building these things with nostalgia, service and just enough opulence and tuxedoed managers to harken back the day?

Dave makes a point that I've always felt is extremely valid. However, I admit I've never had any hard statistics (other than personal experience) to point to.

Here's an example:
While the cinema industry has not increased their attendance numbers every year over the past few, many drive-in operators have enjoyed annual records. Why? I tend to believe it's the fact that every drive-in in this country is a unique entity. Chances are, you will never see two drive-ins that are as much alike as are most indoor houses today. Even the product you see at a drive-in varies greatly from town to town.

In the past 5 or 6 years, more people have noticed their local drive-ins. The ozoners have experienced a tangible resurgence in recent years, much to the relief of Mom & Pop owners... many of whom have clear memories of what the business was like in the late 80's to mid 90's.

Why is this? I'd bet it's because most of the remaining drive-ins in this country are owned by the very people who work at them. They hear what their communities want and are in a position to make those individual adjustments... unlike the operational model that most large chains are tied to.

I know this is a small example... something that's probably available only to small independent operators. But considering that small independents make up the bulk of this board's membership, it's something I'd bet most of you understand.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 18 Oct 2005 14:09 #11639

  • AdFilms
  • AdFilms's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew McCrea:
People are consistantly subjected to advertising in these venues, when they paid alot more than $8 to see that particular entertainment, yet they bitch about our 15 minutes of advertisements when we're just trying to make ends meet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this has more to do with history. Nascar has probably had corporate tie-ins since its inception. Television has always been an advertising-based medium (somebody tell that to my cable company).
Wide-scale cinema advertising is still relatively new in North America, and the backlash stems from introducing something that wasn't there before. Resentment stems from that.
However, I'm sure the demographic skew in the studies referred to by Jack would suggest that teenagers today do not mind the advertising as much as their parents do. Teenagers of course are much more media-saavy as well.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 18 Oct 2005 16:39 #11640

  • rodeojack
  • rodeojack's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1242
  • Thank you received: 3
  • Karma: 0
I'm sure the demographic skew in the studies referred to by Jack would suggest that teenagers today do not mind the advertising as much as their parents do....

Sadly, you could be right.

[This message has been edited by rodeojack (edited October 18, 2005).]
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Are the movies dying? 25 Oct 2005 02:13 #11641

  • jacker5
  • jacker5's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 874
  • Thank you received: 6
  • Karma: 7
This was in The NY Post by writer Bill Hoffman.

"Hollywood still continued its seemingly endless box-office slump,with the top 12 movies taking in just 71.3 million-down a whopping 27% from the same weekend last year."
"I am very concerned about the marketplace," said Nikki Rocco,head of the distributio of Universal which released Doom and had expected a bigger gross.
"There are so many moives out there,so much to choose from,yet the marketplace continues to fall and not just by little amounts."

Something to ponder!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.317 seconds
attraction attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction