Hossage Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 What we need are more awesomely risky and very easily manipulatable investments that are driven by insider knowledge. Then we can put a team of former movie executives on the panel to oversee it to ensure its corruption.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 From what I know, heard and read, it's a criminally stupid idea. "Opening weekend" and all of its pressures and monies has ruined the film business enough, especially for moviegoers. This just makes it worse, and perhaps substantially worse if this thing catches on. I'm thinking it's not going to be a big deal after awhile but who knows.
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 From what I know, heard and read, it's a criminally stupid idea. "Opening weekend" and all of its pressures and monies has ruined the film business enough, especially for moviegoers. This just makes it worse, and perhaps substantially worse if this thing catches on. I'm thinking it's not going to be a big deal after awhile but who knows. No I think the lack of quality entertainment has ruined the movie business.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 No I think the lack of quality entertainment has ruined the movie business. Actually that's the point. They don't make half as much quality entertainment anymore, don't take half as many chances on non-blockbuster material and talent, don't make half as many movies so moviegoers have more choices, all, basically, because of "Opening Weekend".
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Actually that's the point. They don't make half as much quality entertainment anymore, don't take half as many chances on non-blockbuster material and talent, don't make half as many movies so moviegoers have more choices, all, basically, because of "Opening Weekend". That's an interesting point -- I don't recall ever hearing that phrase until about 10 years ago. Now, those 15-second national news briefs during Sunday prime time invariably include the 'weekend box office winner'.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 That's an interesting point -- I don't recall ever hearing that phrase until about 10 years ago. Now, those 15-second national news briefs during Sunday prime time invariably include the 'weekend box office winner'. Printing the weekend box office has hurt the movie business tremendously, in a lot of people's minds. I suppose it's a free speech/free press thing, but when a huge percentage of moviegoers see these numbers they say to themselves, "well, this is the one other people are going to see, it must be good". So they buy tickets for it when they likely wouldn't have if they didn't know those numbers. Slowly, but inarguably, moviegoers started going to see the films that were at the top of the top ten list instead of making their choices by reading about the movie, reading reviews and word of mouth. They didn't want to not be able to talk about the movie other people were talking about, be it good or bad. Couple that with the fact that "opening weekend", the movie studios distributing the film get like 80% of the ticket sales, and the theatre owners get 20%. The numbers may slightly differ depending on the movie and studio and theatre chain, but it's usually between 70-90% for the studios. Then the second weekend the percentage goes significantly down, and down some more each ensuing week. It bottoms out and usually averages about 55-65% for the studios (or distributors) and 35-45% for the theatre owners. So the studios pounced on this when, like you say, "opening weekend" started to mean so much 10-15 or so years ago. They started pouring all of their advertising dollars into making sure "it opened" well without much care for what happened after. If it opened really well, it was almost sure to make a profit, even if it fell off a lot. In turn, they started buying and making less and less smaller movies that had little to no chance of opening well, because their budgets didn't allow huge money for advertising. Most of these big movies spend as much on advertising as it costs to make the movie. The second level studios like New Line and others that made a lot of the best movies started having trouble making money and are now becoming extinct. And if the "opening weekend" was a huge hit, suddenly everyone wanted to go (again, whether it was good or not) and they realized they could make hundreds of millions on a blockbuster. In turn, they are much more willing now, because of "opening weekend", to spend 150 mil on one movie with a chance to be a big hit, rather than 50 mil each on three different kinds of films that would be much higher quality entertainment that moviegoers had their choice to see. And because morons go see sequels at a stupid rate, they will gladly make a sequel instead of making an interesting idea, even if they LOVE the screenplay themselves.
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Actually that's the point. They don't make half as much quality entertainment anymore, don't take half as many chances on non-blockbuster material and talent, don't make half as many movies so moviegoers have more choices, all, basically, because of "Opening Weekend". So the reason they're making crap movies is to make more money on opening weekend? I'm not sure who is dumber here, Hollywood or the American public. Which came first?
UConn James Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Kelly, it wasn't a movie, so it's a slightly different animal.... but the only reason LOST got on the air initially (with an astronomical $12M pilot episode) was b/c Lloyd Braun wanted to stick it to ABC b/c he knew he was about to be fired. Otherwise, I've been inside a movie theatre three times in the past 15 years, and even for those, I was goaded into it by somebody saying, "I want to see a movie tonight." Movies are 95 percent sh-- these days. Best thing to do is get Netflix and relive better days of the industry.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 So the reason they're making crap movies is to make more money on opening weekend? I'm not sure who is dumber here, Hollywood or the American public. Which came first? The American public is dumber. They are getting and watching crappier movies because they're lemmings. The studios are making more money because of "opening weekend" or they wouldn't be doing it. If people would make their choices based on not looking at top ten lists of box office, the studios wouldn't make nearly as many of these crappy movies. They're whores. They will make anything people will buy. They'd actually PREFER to make better entertainment, they just can't trust you bastards to buy tickets to them.
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 The American public is dumber. They are getting and watching crappier movies because they're lemmings. The studios are making more money because of "opening weekend" or they wouldn't be doing it. If people would make their choices based on not looking at top ten lists of box office, the studios wouldn't make nearly as many of these crappy movies. They're whores. They will make anything people will buy. They'd actually PREFER to make better entertainment, they just can't trust you bastards to buy tickets to them. I haven't bought a movie ticket in probably four years. And I can't believe I'm in that much of a small minority. I'm thoroughly convinced that Hollywood has forgotten how to make good movies. They do have to power to drive what people will like to go see.
DrFishfinder Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Kelly, it wasn't a movie, so it's a slightly different animal.... but the only reason LOST got on the air initially (with an astronomical $12M pilot episode) was b/c Lloyd Braun wanted to stick it to ABC b/c he knew he was about to be fired. Otherwise, I've been inside a movie theatre three times in the past 15 years. Movies are 95 percent sh-- these days. God bless Lloyd Braun. Network TV is back to 99% crap now that LOST has ended.
Lurker Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 The American public is dumber. To be honest, aren't we really saying American TEENS are dumber? The adult population has become a smaller and smaller target audience over the years, with fewer and fewer films being made that tell real stories, about beliveable characters with no use of CG or coma-inducing flash cuts. Teens are predictable--they'll watch anything on date night to cop a feel--so why bother with the hit-or-miss prospect of making an adult-oriented flick (although I've got to say, I was encouraged by films like Hurt Locker and Up In The Air last year possibly being a small bit of progress).
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 To be honest, aren't we really saying American TEENS are dumber? The adult population has become a smaller and smaller target audience over the years, with fewer and fewer films being made that tell real stories, about beliveable characters with no use of CG or coma-inducing flash cuts... Not sure. 20s, 30s, and 40s go see this crap, too, in huge numbers. The average age of video game users is ridiculously high, and not teens like you would think. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but kind of. Movies are being made like videogames. Look at these 2009 facts... America's entertainment software industry creates a wide array of computer and video games to meet the demands and tastes of audiences as diverse as our nation's population. Today's gamers include millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, more than two-thirds of all American households play games. This vast audience is fueling the growth of this multi-billion dollar industry and bringing jobs to communities across the nation. Below is a list of the top 10 entertainment software industry facts: U.S. computer and video game software sales grew 22.9 percent in 2008 to $11.7 billion – more than quadrupling industry software sales since 1996. Sixty-eight percent of American households play computer or video games. The average game player is 35 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 39 years old. Forty percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (34 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent). In 2009, 25 percent of Americans over the age of 50 play video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999. Thirty-seven percent of heads of households play games on a wireless device, such as a cell phone or PDA, up from 20 percent in 2002. Eighty-four percent of all games sold in 2008 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. For more information on game ratings, please see www.esrb.org. Ninety-two percent of game players under the age of 18 report that their parents are present when they purchase or rent games. Sixty-three percent of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives.
Lurker Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Not sure. 20s, 30s, and 40s go see this crap, too, in huge numbers. The average age of video game users is ridiculously high, and not teens like you would think. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but kind of. Movies are being made like videogames. Look at these 2009 facts... Gamers are couch spuds and a very differnent demo from the date night croud. Here's some age profile data (UK demos, but probably very similar in the U.S.) 2003 Arbitron Study (check page 11 for age demos)
Kelly the Dog Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Gamers are couch spuds and a very differnent demo from the date night croud. Here's some age profile data (UK demos, but probably very similar in the U.S.) 2003 Arbitron Study (check page 11 for age demos) Hard to say. Consider this, from last year: According to the MPAA, over the past decade moviegoing has dropped 21% among the under 25s, as well as 24% among the 25-29 year-olds. Not sure what the adult numbers are in comparison. I will try to look it up. They may be slightly higher, not sure. Of course, box office numbers and how much movies really make are really skewed by DVD and rentals and foreign sales, but I really don't think there is a much greater percentage of teens going to see films than there ever was. Here are some numbers of all moviegoers from 2009: * P12-17 - 15% * P18-34 - 31% * P18-49 - 53% * P25-54 - 40%
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 To be honest, aren't we really saying American TEENS are dumber? The adult population has become a smaller and smaller target audience over the years, with fewer and fewer films being made that tell real stories, about beliveable characters with no use of CG or coma-inducing flash cuts. Teens are predictable--they'll watch anything on date night to cop a feel--so why bother with the hit-or-miss prospect of making an adult-oriented flick (although I've got to say, I was encouraged by films like Hurt Locker and Up In The Air last year possibly being a small bit of progress). Can we take this thought even further and say that American teen GIRLS are dumber? After all, who do you think gets to pick the movie?
Lurker Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 I really don't think there is a much greater percentage of teens going to see films than there ever was. But I suspect the percentage of adults (at least regular moviegoers) is dropping, so the teen's share of the boxoffice is increasing. Moviegoers 2010 (no demos, but interesting, nevertheless)
Lurker Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Can we take this thought even further and say that American teen GIRLS are dumber? After all, who do you think gets to pick the movie? They've essentially become on par with teen boys, you mean. Title IX at the boxoffice....
Recommended Posts