2011 didn't seem that good.

A

Aspiring Mogul

The New York Times is saying that the executives are getting more and more alarmed at the poor showing the movies have. This may be due to the global economy, but the youngsters are going to video games instead of movies, and that's worrying too.

I think there will always be a market for stories, as opposed to games, and they should know that, in this uncertain time, people will not spend as they would otherwise.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Of course none of us really know how accurate any of these numbers are, but I'm pretty sure the aberrantly bizarre numbers from AVATAR really buggered up the revenue statistics for 2010, otherwise, 2011 was not such a bad year even when compared to pre-global financial collapse periods:
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/


As more and more films become produced it becomes much more easy to commoditize them as generic tapestry of entertainment rather than as individual gems each.

People still have 24hrs in a single day, and only 7 days a week.
Unless our work weeks magically reduce in hours, or sleep time reduced, there will always remain a limit as to how much "entertainment time" can be spent in a week.

How people choose to allocate time towards that endeavor at the expense of other activities - and - what they choose to watch/listen/do are separate.

The increasing accommodation of EXPECTED fragmentation of ANY experience (film, sleep, meal, or even sex) means that increasing streaming entertainment on demand on personal devices is going to send theatrical releases to the wayside like physical books.

Oh.
Wait.

Bookstores have plenty of product, still.
Never mind.



Short sweet: as the market environment changes and even expands different economic organisms will exploit new territories/opportunities.
Former keystone beasts may find themselves replaced by new less-spectacular keystone beasts.

Cave Bear replaced by Caveman
Hardly a majestic turn of events.

giant-cave-bear.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filmmakers should not be concerned about ticket sales per se, if DVD and online streaming can provide other sources of revenue; their main concern should be selling movies and making money - the outlet is not really relevant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
_Rok_ said:
Hells Angels (1930) took in $8 million at the box office, or $105m in today's dollars. You need to sell a ton of seats at $0.25+ to earn 8m.
Click to expand...

Yes, the exact number would be 32 million tickets sold. Do you know how many times 32 million goes into 4.7 billion?

There would have to be at least 146 movies just as successful as "Hell's Angels", in 1930, to reach 4.7 billion tickets sold.

I don't doubt, for one minute, that a greater percentage of people went to the movies back then. But this 4.7 billion number just doesn't add up, and is an obvious exaggeration.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filmmakers shouldn't care about ticket sales? Mogul, perhaps you and I aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about working Diretors, not amateurs like us (I'll assume neither of us are Directing blockbusters, yet!).

Anybody can buy a DSLR and make a 'movie' and post it here, only concerned with the narrative. But selling tickets is what makes a professional, a professional. Yes, yes, yes, story IS important, but it's really a small part of the business of Directing.

All the working Directors I've known follow the business very closely. They know all about the latest films, and how they opened, and on how many screens; who wrote what script; what scripts sold, and what didn't. They study the current trends, and adapt them into their style. Choices like 3D, IMAX, wide aspect, direct-to-video, and internet-only releases all have a huge impact on how a Director frames his shots, stages his actors and edits the sequences. So, if there's a tectonic shift in how movies are viewed in America, it matters. To live in a creative vacuum and ignore the market is a little reckless for a professional filmmaker.

Selling tickets is essentially the name of the game, and the working Director is well aware that this is their job. That's the simple difference between us and them.


_Rok_
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker, I don't want to provoke some childish fight over this, but I'd wish you would do even the smallest amount of research on the topic before making such a strong accusation about me. Please stop.

I'm not lying, exaggerating, or telling tall tales to impress the others here. I'm trying to contribute to the knowledge base at IndieTalk. I've worked in the film industry for a long time and wish to pass on what experiences may be of value to others. But I'm here to study, learn, and get inspiration from the other members; not come off as a know-it-all.

_Rok_
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most of these numbers come from previous articles I've come across. I know the MPAA had a good study that laid it all out in one spot, but their link is bad. I'll track it down. In the mean time, here's an article that indicates similar figures.


_Rok_
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
_Rok_ said:
Cracker, I don't want to provoke some childish fight over this, but I'd wish you would do even the smallest amount of research on the topic before making such a strong accusation about me. Please stop.

I'm not lying, exaggerating, or telling tall tales to impress the others here. I'm trying to contribute to the knowledge base at IndieTalk. I've worked in the film industry for a long time and wish to pass on what experiences may be of value to others. But I'm here to study, learn, and get inspiration from the other members; not come off as a know-it-all.

_Rok_
Click to expand...

What makes you think I want to fight you? I don't believe I've made any attack against you. To be honest, I think you're reading a little too much into my words. I never said that you exaggerated. I said that the number is exaggerated. My intuition tells me that your source is flawed. Seriously, the numbers just don't make sense (I'm very good at math, and this math ain't working).

All is good between us, on my side, bro. I think it's very possible to disagree on a subject and still be friends, no? I have absolutely no ill-will toward you, and I believe that you and I are here for roughly the same reasons. I just don't buy those numbers, no hard feelings intended. Cheers. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Those numbers are suspect, to say the least. There weren't that many movie theaters, back then. Plus, people were poor. Going to a movie used to be a really special event -- suit & tie kinda night. Nowadays, people do it when they're bored. I don't know your source, but I'm afraid I don't buy these "statistics", not even slightly.
Click to expand...

Just to give you a source. :) I provided the link to the paper. This guy lists his sources. I just put a couple quick factoids fromt he paper.

1930 - 65% of the resident population went to the movies weekly

= 80,000,000 x 52 = 4,160,000,000 in the U.S. alone.

2000 - 9.7% of the resident population.

= 27,300,000 x 52 = 1,419,600,000

http://org.elon.edu/ipe/pautz2.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Let me throw some numbers at you. In 1930, the US population was roughly 122 million. In order for 4.7 billion tickets to be sold, EVERY SINGLE PERSON would have to go to the cinema more than 38 times per year. Every five-year-old, every newborn, every 90-year-old on their deathbead, every single person, would have to watch 38 movies per year.

That doesn't sound unreasonable to you? Internet statistics are not to be trusted, and the source you cited is not exactly reputable. Seriously, the numbers just don't add up.

Your point remains true -- less people watch movies today, than they used to. That is true. But 4.7 billion can not be an accurate number.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Murdock said:
Just to give you a source. :) I provided the link to the paper. This guy lists his sources. I just put a couple quick factoids fromt he paper.

1930 - 65% of the resident population went to the movies weekly

= 80,000,000 x 52 = 4,160,000,000 in the U.S. alone.

2000 - 9.7% of the resident population.

= 27,300,000 x 52 = 1,419,600,000

http://org.elon.edu/ipe/pautz2.pdf
Click to expand...

I read the same paper. That 65% seems very suspect to me. Did you check the source of that "statistic"? Just cuz something's on the internet, that don't make it true (it usually isn't).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That 65% statistic probably came from some random social survey -- one which did not take into account differences in age, ethnicity, or economic background. Do you have any idea how many people could barely feed themselves? Blacks and Mexicans, to name just a couple of major ethnic populations, were poor as shit back then. There is no chance in hell that 65% of them were attending the cinema every week.

I would believe that 65% of middle-class whites attended the cinema every week. But 65% of the entire American population?! That's ludicrous.

Again, no hard feelings to anybody here. Just a simple disagreement. Cheers. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would think just the opposite. Its more believable because of when it happened. One dollar in 1930 had the same buying power as $12.74 dollars today. I submit to you, if it only cost $3.25 to go to the movies today, we would see similar stats like those of 1930. I say similar because I think it would still be less cause of the net and other similar factors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
_Rok_ said:
Filmmakers shouldn't care about ticket sales? Mogul, perhaps you and I aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about working Diretors, not amateurs like us (I'll assume neither of us are Directing blockbusters, yet!).

Anybody can buy a DSLR and make a 'movie' and post it here, only concerned with the narrative. But selling tickets is what makes a professional, a professional. Yes, yes, yes, story IS important, but it's really a small part of the business of Directing.

All the working Directors I've known follow the business very closely. They know all about the latest films, and how they opened, and on how many screens; who wrote what script; what scripts sold, and what didn't. They study the current trends, and adapt them into their style. Choices like 3D, IMAX, wide aspect, direct-to-video, and internet-only releases all have a huge impact on how a Director frames his shots, stages his actors and edits the sequences. So, if there's a tectonic shift in how movies are viewed in America, it matters. To live in a creative vacuum and ignore the market is a little reckless for a professional filmmaker.

Selling tickets is essentially the name of the game, and the working Director is well aware that this is their job. That's the simple difference between us and them.


_Rok_
Click to expand...

If DVD sales can compensate for lost ticket sales, why would they care? I'm not in the business, so I'd like to learn. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Aspiring Mogul said:
If DVD sales can compensate for lost ticket sales, why would they care?
Click to expand...

DVD sales can't compensate for lost ticket sales. It's much more profitable to sell the same product multiple times than to have to keep coming up with new products to sell - and this is the business model the studios have been operating on for roughly the past 30 years.

A family of four goes to the theater and pays 4x$10 for their tickets = $40. Later they buy the DVD for $20. Total revenue is $60 - if they don't go to the theater and just buy DVDs the studio needs to sell that same family two additional DVDs to get the same revenues. That's two additional production budgets, and two additional marketing expenses, just to make up for the lost theatrical ticket sales. Probably more than two additional production and marketing budgets because you may have to make several additional films to find each new one that is a hit with the same market. If the family just rents DVDs (or VOD) for $5 each (or less) then the math is even worse - now you have to convince them to rent eight films just to equal the theatrical ticket revenues from one film, and you may have to make a dozen or more just to get them to rent eight...

Considering that tickets are now climbing well over the $10 in this example, and per-unit rental prices dropping (thanks to netflix, etc) well below $5, theatrical ticket sales are clearly to single most important opportunity to recoup production costs - with DVD, rental, VOD, etc seen as additional long term revenue streams. As those supplemental streams start to cut into theatrical it gets harder to justify the kinds of budgets that are typical for mainstream hollywood films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just want to remind people that during the depression theatre owners gave out premiums such as dishes to get into the theatres. Remember the term depression glass. There was not a lot of entertainment choices.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think Blurays are still over priced when they sell for $30 or more a movie for new ones at times at stores. At least they have some that are more reasonable priced like the bargin bin ones or getting them off Amazon.com because there prices are better there. I agree having the Bluray players go down in price helped a lot. Now I think once new Blurays are similar priced to DVDs they will sell more of them. It is near there now but still $30 for a Bluray is crazy. I remember seeing Avatar a special version that was like $40 or more dollars when it came out. Seemed to high to me. I think it was the Three-Disc Extended Collector's Edition it is near $30 bucks now.

I am sure the economy is the main reason for lower ticket sales. I think the ticket sales are probably down because of the 3D movies. People would rather see them in 2D. If you have theaters that could be showing movies in 2D showing in 3D you could be loosing ticket sales. I know 3D tickets cost more to help pay for the loss of number of tickets sold. But the extra cost could be a reason people don't go to these 3D showings also. I don't like 3D mainly because it makes me sick but I can tell that for some people it could be cool. I saw some of Avatar in 3d and it was neat but I had to leave the theater after awhile.

Netflicks has to lower some of the DVD/Bluray rentals and sales. I think in this down economy people are looking for the cheapest way to be entertained. The red box is another reason of slipping DVD/Bluray sales I am sure. The fact movies come on HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax not long after DVDs are out is probably another reason. I think they need to look at the timing on when things come to DVD then when to show on premium channels. They may be accelerating too much in order to use some of the marketing from the film for Theater to stay fresh when the DVDs come out. That may be the issue. People know that a few months after it is in the theater it will be on DVD more than likely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top