Moviegoing Falling in US

[missdupont]

Here is a study showing moviegoing falling, but other entertainments that can be viewed from home growing. As many of the commenters point out, prices are probably keeping more and more people away.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/moviego ... ons-study/" target="_blank

[Daniel Eagan]

Ironically filmgoing is up this year, with the summer take likely to top $5 billion, higher than last year.

But the downward trend has been apparent for a while.

[Michael O'Regan]

Who'd bother when practically the same experience can now be achieved at home?

[sethb]

I agree that technically, it's about the same, because you can certainly get a huge 10-12+ foot widescreen picture from a HD projector, along with lovely stereo sound, in your living room.

However, many movies (and certainly those made in the 20's, 30's and 40's) were made to be seen by an audience.
For example, many Laurel & Hardy shorts seem to be slow-paced when watched by just one person or a small group of individuals. But with a large audience, the "slow" pacing turns out to be time deliberately inserted to provide for audience reaction. And you will definitely get bigger laughs from a bigger crowd than you will from a smaller one, because laughter is usually contagious.

Unfortunately, the social norms of those times are now gone, so that moviegoing is often an unpleasant experience rather than a good one. People assume that just because they purchased a ticket, they are entitled to do whatever they please, including carrying on long conversations with their companions, talking on their cell phones, playing video games that beep and boop, and so on. Movie theaters used to be palaces and people knew how to behave in public, but those days are gone.

So it's probably true that many people would rather watch movies at home, where these sorts of distractions are eliminated. But a lot is lost in the process. SETH

[westegg]

If you're lucky, cities (or towns) have specialized film theaters/festivals where one can see vintage films the way they were intended, though they are of course few, compared to the usual chains of theaters.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Well, I did my part by going to the early matinee Thursday of FOR GREATER GLORY, shown in a real theatre on genuine 35mm film in CinemaScope (that was even in focus)! It even had three trailers to films that looked like something I might even want to see (some Meryl Streep/Tommy Lee Jones sex comedy, Bill Murray as FDR hosting the English royal family, and one other I forget)! FOR GREATER GLORY is a good old-fashioned uplifting war epic set in late 1920s Mexico that drags in spots and sometimes gets just a bit heavy-handed, but overall is reasonably effective and sometimes quite powerful. It's well-worth seeing, featuring a strong cast that includes Andy Garcia, Oscar Isaac, Eva Longoria, and Peter O'Toole, among others. The "R" rating for "war violence and some distubing scenes" would have been a PG or PG-13 about 20-30 years ago, but the ratings board has its peculiar agenda, giving a PG-13 to movies that would have been R or X a generation ago. Anyway, there were about a dozen or so others in the audience at the 12:35 matinee, mostly appearing to be in their late 60s through 80s (I guess people who didn't have to work weekday afternoons). Two or three besides me actually stayed through the end of the closing credits.

Moviegoing nationally seems to go in spurts, but probably will never disappear completely even after the studios' planned switch to all-digital projection by next year. There is something about the extra-large screen and the audience reaction, not to mention the ritual of entering the lobby with all its Hollywood promotional displays, then buying a ticket, making your way to the auditorium, and finding a seat, that still makes it a special occasion. I make an extra effort to see most limited releases in theatres, and look for 35mm film screenings of major releases, but for the average movie screening only with digital projection I'd rather wait for the Blu-ray and watch it in my basement 10 feet wide with just as sharp an image and better sound than most of the local auditoriums, sometimes even purchasing the Blu-ray for the cost of one or two theatre tickets, sometimes even for less (as with BROTHERS and WINTER'S BONE, THE SPIRIT, and HARD RAIN, which cost only $5 each).

[drednm]

Main reason I stay away from theaters is that today's product has just about zero appeal for me. There are a few good films turned out now, but they are few and far between.

[sc1957]

However, many movies (and certainly those made in the 20's, 30's and 40's) were made to be seen by an audience.

I've always found this to be an odd argument (even moreso if you limit it to the 20's, 30's and 40's, but I'll let that pass). Sure, movies (and the plays that proceeded them) were shown to groups of people. That's because there was no feasible way to shown them to one person at a time (and recoup your investment). But to use this as an argument for why theaters are better than living rooms? I dunno. Are books meant to be read by one person at a time? What if books were originally always read to groups of people by someone standing on a stump in the city park? Would we have the same argument today that's it's a lesser experience to read a book by yourself?

[Mitch Farish]

I think as long as films are made primarily for the date crowd - the extremely jaded 17-34 year-old demographic - filmmakers automatically freeze out older people like me, who might like to go out to see movies but don't because they know they won't like the explicit violence, sex, and language they see when they get there. What ever happened to movies made for adults that parents would not be ashamed to take kids to see? There is no such animal. The only time I can go out to see films like that is when our local film festival shows the classics.

[sepiatone]

Main reason I stay away from theaters is that today's product has just about zero appeal for me. There are a few good films turned out now, but they are few and far between.

ditto. All of the techo appeal and promotion can't replace a good story for me. Not having had cable for years I can't just click past a movie in session and latch on to out of curiousity. I'll go to several libraries and do a browse and random selection(brick & mortar stores like Blockbuster are all but kaput in our area). This works for me though I may get to a title a few years after it has been out. This is how I happened on to LONELY HEARTS with Salma Hayek, whom I usually didn't like. But she was sexy, femme fatale in a modern noirish movie that worked for her and based on a real life story. Other flicks that I enjoyed from just a random dvd pluck off the shelves were PIRANHA-3D and OPEN WATER. I wasn't impressed with 3D back in 1982 and am not now, though this seems to be the trend to market modern movies now. Why not just give us a real thrill and do more IMAX style films?

[Richard M Roberts]

However, many movies (and certainly those made in the 20's, 30's and 40's) were made to be seen by an audience.

I've always found this to be an odd argument (even moreso if you limit it to the 20's, 30's and 40's, but I'll let that pass). Sure, movies (and the plays that proceeded them) were shown to groups of people. That's because there was no feasible way to shown them to one person at a time (and recoup your investment). But to use this as an argument for why theaters are better than living rooms? I dunno. Are books meant to be read by one person at a time? What if books were originally always read to groups of people by someone standing on a stump in the city park? Would we have the same argument today that's it's a lesser experience to read a book by yourself?

Actually, this is some of the most convuluted thinking I've heard outside of politics in some time. Of course movies were designed to be seen by an audience, mainly because there was no other actual way to show them to people and make money at it until television came along (and then Studios fought against showng their product on television as long as they could) however, because theatrical presentation had been the total precedent for acting and entertainment before that time, of course the narrative and directorial styles were predicated on the films being shown to groups. That's why comedy films are timed for laughs(and all films are timed and paced to dramatic effect) and a number of performers come off a bit more intense in a private home viewing that work just fine in a theater.

And yes, books are indeed written to be read by one person at a time, which is why performed readings of a lot of literature fall flat. And on the same token, the most successful radio and television work, especially in the early days of both mediums, were by the broadcasters and performers who realized they were not working to a crowd of millions, but to individuals or small groups of people in a more intimate home setting. It is also why some comedy films don't work as well on one-on-one viewings, but spring to life with a crowd.

At the film weekend I'm currently attending, someone got up to introduce a Billie Ritchie comedy, and, most likely having previewed it alone on a flatbed, happily announced to the group that it was not funny. How surprised indeed he was to discover all the laughs the film got from the audience.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[entredeuxguerres]

Main reason I stay away from theaters is that today's product has just about zero appeal for me. There are a few good films turned out now, but they are few and far between.

Very few & very far between, & in addition, my tolerance for inconsiderate behavior--talking, eating, getting up & down--has diminished to 0.0. Leaving the theater in cuffs would be a very real possibility.

[momsne]

Left out in this discussion of moviegoers is the fact that the major Hollywood studios have been cutting their film output. Sure, the reduction in the production slate for movies from Hollywood studios has been a fact of life for 60 years. But the last few years have been brutal for studio film output. Hollywood studios put their resources in "tentpole" movies that cost $150 million and up. Fine if your blockbuster is a success, like "Ghost Protocol," but what if your big budget movie craters the first weekend it is in release, like "John Carter" or "Rock Of Ages?" Even a movie that ended up making money, 2007's "The Golden Compass," did not make enough of a profit (great box office overseas but Warners Bros. sold those rights away to foreign distributors), so Warners pretty much decimated New Line Cinema. To play it safe, studio executives make sequels and, nowadays, movies based on comic books.

What if you don't like comic books like "Iron Man?" Slim pickings. I can't imagine movies like the made in Europe Liam Neeson hits "Unknown" and "Taken" being made in Hollywood. For Hollywood, Neeson starred in "The A-Team," based on the TV series of the same name.

When I check what movies are in current release, I don't see much that appeals to me. PG-13 rom coms, usually starring Jennifer Aniston, improbable buddy movies and superhero movies. It now seems that these cookie cutter movies are even losing their target audience, school age girls aged 14 - 22, who have a big say in film going. Had Hollywood studios made more movies dealing with different subjects - detective stories, political corruption, corporate chicanery, Wall Street looters, families trying to survive hard times, then I think the corporate moviemeisters at the Hollywood studios would not be seeing such a sharp decline in attendance over the past few years. Trouble is, originality is not a strong suit for the "empty suits" who greenlight movies.

I expect next to see more articles about how sales of Blu-rays and DVDs are continuing to fall. Not a surprise when you consider that if moviegoers won't pay to see your movies on the big screen, they might also have second thoughts on paying to see the same movie recorded on a 12 centimeter polycarbonate disc with a shiny surface. Also having a negative impact on film going is the fact that most of the world is in terrible economic shape thanks to the US and UK allowing the predators from Wall Street and the City of London to run amok. Now a movie on Wall Street banksters would be interesting to me, but not to teeny boppers.

[Frederica]

What if books were originally always read to groups of people by someone standing on a stump in the city park? Would we have the same argument today that's it's a lesser experience to read a book by yourself?

And yes, books are indeed written to be read by one person at a time, which is why performed readings of a lot of literature fall flat.
RICHARD M ROBERTS

I'll interrupt this discussion for a brief moment to point out that the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod's poetry, Beowulf, the Tain, etc., etc., were all written to be performed by someone standing on a stump in the agora/longhouse/city park, etc., etc. I now return you to your original debate.

[drednm]

Very few & very far between, & in addition, my tolerance for inconsiderate behavior--talking, eating, getting up & down--has diminished to 0.0. Leaving the theater in cuffs would be a very real possibility.

You forgot cell phones. There have been some interesting news stories in the last few months about theaters trying to ban cell phone use.

[syd]

I recently went to see a matinee of The Avengers.
The experience took place at a theater that was part
of the AMC chain. The matinee ticket was 6.00. The
drink was 5.00. The popcorn was 6.00. A 17.00 tab
altogether. There was not a popcorn machine in sight.
The popcorn appeared to come from another location
and bagged at the theater. I went into the auditorium
to sit down. It was about 20 minutes before the start
of the movie. Did AMC allow me to sit quietly in the
semi-darkness so I could collect my thoughts? No.
They showed (loud) advertisements on the screen
for the duration of the pre-movie time. I felt like I was
was sitting at home on my couch without a remote control
to turn down the sound. Folks, we are a loooong way from
the days of the movie picture palaces when the patron
felt the moveigoing experience was a reverent and respectful
affair. Nowadays the patron is treated with indiifference bordering
on hostility. We're almost back to the days of the nickelodeon when
patrons were encouraged to keep their babies and livestock quiet.

[Joe Migliore]

Frederica wrote:

I'll interrupt this discussion for a brief moment to point out that the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod's poetry, Beowulf, the Tain, etc., etc., were all written to be performed by someone standing on a stump in the agora/longhouse/city park, etc., etc. I now return you to your original debate.

This was true as recently as THE CANTERBURY TALES, which Chaucer wrote to be read to the King's court. As Terry Jones has pointed out, unless you were a scribe or something, to be seen reading a book silently to yourself would have been seen as distinctly odd. I don't know how anyone can argue that movies were not meant to be screened to large groups of people.

[Frederica]

Frederica wrote:

I'll interrupt this discussion for a brief moment to point out that the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod's poetry, Beowulf, the Tain, etc., etc., were all written to be performed by someone standing on a stump in the agora/longhouse/city park, etc., etc. I now return you to your original debate.

This was true as recently as THE CANTERBURY TALES, which Chaucer wrote to be read to the King's court. As Terry Jones has pointed out, unless you were a scribe or something, to be seen reading a book silently to yourself would have been seen as distinctly odd. I don't know how anyone can argue that movies were not meant to be screened to large groups of people.

Not just odd. You would be rich, very, very, very rich. I think we can safely state that older films were meant to be seen by an audience. Some modern films seem designed to be seen on smaller screens at home, which would only make sense since many people see them that way rather than in a theatrical setting. But you know, just because The Iliad was meant to be sung to an audience doesn't mean I can't read it on the backlit screen of my kindle and enjoy the living heck out of it.

[drednm]

Frederica wrote:

I don't know how anyone can argue that movies were not meant to be screened to large groups of people.

I think it's a moot point. Technology has made it so.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Frederica wrote:

I'll interrupt this discussion for a brief moment to point out that the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod's poetry, Beowulf, the Tain, etc., etc., were all written to be performed by someone standing on a stump in the agora/longhouse/city park, etc., etc. I now return you to your original debate.

This was true as recently as THE CANTERBURY TALES, which Chaucer wrote to be read to the King's court. As Terry Jones has pointed out, unless you were a scribe or something, to be seen reading a book silently to yourself would have been seen as distinctly odd. I don't know how anyone can argue that movies were not meant to be screened to large groups of people.

Not just odd. You would be rich, very, very, very rich. I think we can safely state that older films were meant to be seen by an audience. Some modern films seem designed to be seen on smaller screens at home, which would only make sense since many people see them that way rather than in a theatrical setting. But you know, just because The Iliad was meant to be sung to an audience doesn't mean I can't read it on the backlit screen of my kindle and enjoy the living heck out of it.

The expectation/design of books to be read aloud lasted long past the age of Chaucer. Dickens certainly was intended to be read aloud. Olivia de Haviland's reading of David Copperfield in GWTW was no artistic license or convenient plot device. In the mid-19th century, that was a way to pass an evening.

There is something primal about sitting in the dark and being told a story - whether that be in the cinema, legitimate theatre or in front of the campfire. It's not a deal-killer by any stretch of the imagination to remove the communal portion from our entertainment equation (although, as Mr Roberts has pointed out, it's particularly useful for comedy.)

From my own post-modern movie-going experiences, some "big" films continue to play better on a big screen than at home. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Brokeback Mountain and, with all its faults, Cameron's Titanic immediately come to mind. One way or another, I doubt those types of events will ever go completely away, even as we move further and further away from the age of projected film. We will, however, continue to have more and more films designed and shot that will play as well on your iphone as they will at the Cinerama Dome.

[Daniel Eagan]

Frederica wrote:

I don't know how anyone can argue that movies were not meant to be screened to large groups of people.

I think it's a moot point. Technology has made it so.

This is not in any way a moot point. Just because you have the technology to watch a movie by yourself doesn't mean that is the best way to see it. And I've never met a filmmaker who didn't prefer his or her movie screened to an audience in a movie theater over any television, computer or handheld device.

[drednm]

It is a moot point since the original posting here was about falling film attendance. The thread is not about whether a film is better viewed in an audience or alone. Technology has granted us the choice to watch films in ways that filmmakers cannot control. They may wish for large audiences to watch their films, but more and more of us choose to watch them in the comfort and quiet of our homes.

Any savvy filmmaker today probably knows that half (or whatever the number really is) his/her audience won't be in a theater.

A good question then, assuming that to be true, is does this home audience affect the way films are made now? Are they structured differently?

[Harlett O'Dowd]

A good question then, assuming that to be true, is does this home audience affect the way films are made now? Are they structured differently?

Of course films are designed/structured in terms of the home video market.

Many are designed to play "smaller" (smaller apsect ratios to avoid pan-n-scan at home, etc.) so the screen-to-video adaptation will not suffer much in the translation.

On the other hand, we also have enhancements such as 3D and surround sound which are meant to draw audiences into the theatre. While home theatres are constantly getting larger and more sophisticated, some technologies (3D in particular) have not yet caught up on the home-end of the market.

Hollywood product is also designed to play overseas, which also contrubutes to design, technical and other construction decisions.

Psst, THE AVENGERS is not all about the art. It's a business.

[Frederica]

This is not in any way a moot point. Just because you have the technology to watch a movie by yourself doesn't mean that is the best way to see it. And I've never met a filmmaker who didn't prefer his or her movie screened to an audience in a movie theater over any television, computer or handheld device.

I'm sure that is so, but to be honest, I don't care. I usually see movies theatrically during the spring and summer, which these days is Superhero Season (I have absolutely no problem with that, bring 'em on, says I), and then during the end of the year, which is Serious Oscar Nomination Relevance season. I am never bothered by rude customers, cell phones, blah, blah because that does not happen in the theaters I patronize, nor, frankly, can I tell the difference between film and digital presentation, so I cannot work up a good head of steam over that issue either. My film-going outings can be spendy given that they usually include a nice lunch/dinner with friends and often there is shopping. For me there is much more involved with "seeing a film" than seeing the film.

I'm aware that the experience of watching a movie at home is qualitatively different than is watching it in a theatrical setting, but that difference doesn't add up to the comfort of lying on my couch with a purring kitty while quaffing a glass of (insert beverage here). I'm willing to sacrifice visual quality for the purring kitty. (I also get the purring kitty when I'm reading The Aeneid on my kindle, big win for me.)

Then again, much of what I'm watching at home was made for television, or (these days) for the computer screen (for instance, Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog). As discussed in the original article, cost might be one of the factors involved in the attendance decline, but there are many forms of visual entertainment offering competition for the entertainment dollar these days.

[Frederica]

Psst, THE AVENGERS is not all about the art. It's a business.

Hello, have you seen Chris Hemsworth's biceps? If those ain't art, I don't know what is.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Psst, THE AVENGERS is not all about the art. It's a business.

Hello, have you seen Chris Hemsworth's biceps? If those ain't art, I don't know what is.

Ack! He's a baby! Throw him back till he grows up

[Daniel Eagan]

Technology has granted us the choice to watch films in ways that filmmakers cannot control.

This is demonstrably untrue. You cannot watch Avatar or The Avengers or thousands of other films in your own house, on your own terms, no matter what technology you employ.

You may eventually be able to watch a home market version of these films, prepared for you by the filmmakers, but that is not the same thing.

So far you haven't offered any proof that technology is the reason for declining film attendance, other than to insist that it's a moot point.

[Donald Binks]

I suppose if cinemas gave us an orchestra, a cinema organ, a stage show, short films and luxurious surroundings complete with a full staff - we might actually take the trouble to go out to them. We couldn't get all that at home.

Over the years audiences have put up with less and less when going to the pictures. I mean who ever in their right mind would pay to sit through advertisments?

I very rarely go out these days. I might occasionally with a friend - but mostly I watch films at home in my own home cinema - it's no different to what I would have had I gone out, except that I don't have ads, volume up too high or annoying patrons.

[drednm]

Daniel... I can watch AVATAR at home any time I choose to. It may not "equal" a theatrical experience, but that doesn't stop me from watching it if I choose to. I can watch a foreign language film without subtitles if I choose. I can turn off the music track on a silent film if I choose. The home theater experience is mine to control.

Home theaters and technology have hastened the departure of many from the theaters. And most of us have never looked back.

What I said was a moot point was that the "communal" experience of watching a film in a theater versus watching it home alone is not what this thread was about. That's been hashed out in other threads.

[WaverBoy]

I think as long as films are made primarily for the date crowd - the extremely jaded 17-34 year-old demographic - filmmakers automatically freeze out older people like me, who might like to go out to see movies but don't because they know they won't like the explicit violence, sex, and language they see when they get there. What ever happened to movies made for adults that parents would not be ashamed to take kids to see? There is no such animal. The only time I can go out to see films like that is when our local film festival shows the classics.

I have no problem with explicit sex and violence, as long as there's a good story or at least interesting direction and camerawork to back it up. For instance, I love love LOVED the film KICK-ASS, which is extremely bloodily violent, but the story and heroes were charming, the villains truly horrendous, and the direction and editing absolutely divine. Every once in a while Hollywood surprises me with a winner. Just not very often anymore. For instance, all THE AVENGERS has going for it is Scarlett Johansson in lovely red hair and an extremely sexy skin-tight outfit. I hope she sticks with the red hair; blond doesn't do her justice.