Summer movie box office sales down 20%

[smackababy]

As someone who actually goes to the movies quite a lot, they are really slacking in terms of good movies being released. The blockbusters aren't coming out and a lot of people can't afford to spend that kind of money for mediocre entertainment. It costs like $40 for me and the GF to go to the movies, after tickets and concessions. If we had kids, that would be a lot more.

This summer's movies have been pretty lackluster as well. I know the upcoming films should do well (The Rock is a huge box office hit, as he should be, and Marvel is releasing a film) so that might boost it, but they've already lost the momentum.

 

[ponyo]

What I've noticed is the parking lot of new restaurant movie theaters like The Movie Tavern are full and standard AMC theaters are empty.

I haven't gone to movie theater in years. I only went because of my daughter. Now that she's older, I don't have to see every kids movie.

 

[zinfamous]

I like going to the movies but it is a hassle in the summertime to smuggle in all my candy and drinks.

exactly!

 

[Aikouka]

Just take a look at Rotten Tomatoes summer 2014 scorecard. Most of the movies that are considered "poor performers" are on the rotten section (about half of the movies are rotten) or they're indie films with a limited release (not enough screens/showings to get a ton of sales). I know that I used to be the type that would just go and see movies if they "looked good." I got burned enough times by awful movies that I just started reading reviews instead. I've already cancelled a few tickets this year (at no penalty to me) because of poor reviews.

One thing in relation to the scorecard is that I don't think superhero movies are doing poorly... in general at least. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is probably the only example of a poorly performing comic book movie this summer season. After the recent departure of the writer (Orci), there's a bit of lingering doubt as to whether there will be any spin-offs (Sinister Six, Venom) and maybe not a sequel.

There have been quite a few box office successes this summer - but people have been avoiding the blockbusters as they are just recycled sequels.

Keep in mind that advertising and such isn't counted into the budget. A movie that appears to at least double its low budget may barely break even after advertising. Also, some actors will have a percentage of the gross earnings as part of their contract. There's a good chance that some of those movies are considered too much of a risk to receive a(nother) sequel.

I mentioned Spider-Man 2 above, and I wonder how much the advertising affected its revenue. According to Wikipedia, it made ~700 million, which seems great given a ~200 million budget; however, the movie was advertised at what felt like everywhere. They even had that silly USPS priority mail tie-in!

Proving to the film industry it does not require $210M to make a movie in the hopes you break even. Transformers AoE - Cost $210M - $227M to date.

Sure. It just depends on what sort of movie you want to make. The most expensive movie on your list is 22 Jump Street, and given the effects, stunts and locales in the movie, it's probably understandable.

EDIT:

It costs like $40 for me and the GF to go to the movies, after tickets and concessions. If we had kids, that would be a lot more.

I don't know why people spend so much at movies on concessions. I drink like a goddamn camel (at home and work) and I would argue that I probably eat too many snacks, yet I don't get popcorn or buy drinks at the theater. Popcorn is just overpriced and not healthy. I also find that if a movie is actually good, I end up being captivated by it enough that I ignore any sort of snack anyway. Why buy a drink? If you're already hydrated, that stuff will just flow right through you, and you'll be getting up in an hour to go to the bathroom! D:

That's also why I have my rule: no drinking once its an hour before showtime. It's rather unpleasant when I don't follow that rule.

 

[zinfamous]

Impossibly expensive for my family of 4 to see a movie together - $10-$15 per ticket. Some snacks (yes, they are "required". It is part of the experience itself) and you're talking just south of $100. That's ridiculous. We can wait until it's available on BR, make our own (much more delicious) popcorn and pause the movie if my 64oz of soda makes me take a pee break.

I love the movie theater "experience"... but it just in my middle-class families budget anymore.

with kids, absolutely. This has never been required for me, and isn't part of the necessary experience (I personally hate the chomping and rustling noises from Bluto that I have to suffer through when trying to watch something in the theater).

--but with taking my nephew to a movie, it is nearly impossible to skip popcorn and a slurpee or diabeetus syrup beverage. He's a pretty amenable kid about most things, but one of these is required for a 2.5 hour superhero explosionfest.

For only the two of us, that's usually a $30 outing around here.

 

[smackababy]

I don't know why people spend so much at movies on concessions. I drink like a goddamn camel (at home and work) and I would argue that I probably eat too many snacks, yet I don't get popcorn or buy drinks at the theater. Popcorn is just overpriced and not healthy. I also find that if a movie is actually good, I end up being captivated by it enough that I ignore any sort of snack anyway. Why buy a drink? If you're already hydrated, that stuff will just flow right through you, and you'll be getting up in an hour to go to the bathroom! D:

That's also why I have my rule: no drinking once its an hour before showtime. It's rather unpleasant when I don't follow that rule.

I really like popcorn. I can easily go through a large before previews are finished and finish the free refill before the movie's end. And the GF enjoys candy, even though I always tell her to bring her own.

Regardless of buying concessions, the tickets alone are $22. Then, say we spend another $4 in candy at a store, that is still pushing $30, for 2 hours of maybe entertainment.

 

[zinfamous]

RIAA blamed sluggish cd's sales on Napster and piracy when it was people no longer wanted to buy a plastic disc with 1 or 2 good songs on it. Sites like Pandora is the best thing to ever happen to music, hardly anyone downloads songs anymore since it's all available for streaming.

Let's look at some of the 2014 movies, shall we:
* Godzilla - horrible remake with hardly any monster battles
* Transcendence - Johnny Depp downloads his mind into a computer and comes back to life, typical Hollywood nonsense
* Edge of Tomorrow - basically Groundhog Day but in wartime.
* Sex Tape - Hollywood still doesn't understand how the internet works.
* Lucy - magical powers comes to people who use 100% of there brain

Yep, Hollywood keeps pumping out crap. With movies tickets around $13, $20 with popcorn. A family of four would spend close to $70 see a movie. We need a Pandora version for movies. You pay one price per month and can view all the newest releases or older stuff instantly.

I predict movie theaters are going the route of the VHS and DVD players.

Hah! I love your summaries, especially Lucy. That one annoys me the most, because everyone does actually use 100% of their brains.

Nephew and I saw this preview at X-Men, and he's like: "Wow, that looks great!"
I said, "You know, we actually..."
"Yes, we do use 100% of our brains," he sighed. Kid is 8. I chuckled.

 

[ponyo]

I don't know why people spend so much at movies on concessions. I drink like a goddamn camel (at home and work) and I would argue that I probably eat too many snacks, yet I don't get popcorn or buy drinks at the theater. Popcorn is just overpriced and not healthy. I also find that if a movie is actually good, I end up being captivated by it enough that I ignore any sort of snack anyway. Why buy a drink? If you're already hydrated, that stuff will just flow right through you, and you'll be getting up in an hour to go to the bathroom! D:

That's also why I have my rule: no drinking once its an hour before showtime. It's rather unpleasant when I don't follow that rule.

You don't have kids. It's totally different when you're entertaining others.

 

[smackababy]

Hah! I love your summaries, especially Lucy. That one annoys me the most, because everyone does actually use 100% of their brains.

Nephew and I saw this preview at X-Men, and he's like: "Wow, that looks great!"
I said, "You know, we actually..."
"Yes, we do use 100% of our brains," he sighed. Kid is 8. I chuckled.

Lucy has such a bad premise... But, it does have ScarJo so everyone is going to go see it.

Sex Tape is the one that annoys me the most. "Nobody understands the cloud!". I am so sick of 1) the 'cloud' buzzword and 2) people acting like it is some kind of mystifying bullshit that is hard to grasp. Hell, even a fairly good tech show (Silicon Valley) manages to use that bullshit cloud is hard plot device.

 

[zinfamous]

Sad truth. As I was typing that, I realized I was mocking a mockery. The average American is an idiot, rehashed garbage is what they want.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

thing is, just about everything is a remake, and many of the great films are remakes of lesser films from long ago, or oft-repeated stories that few seem to recognize as remakes.

Shit, Shakespeare only had one play that is known to be truly original (Hamlet).

It's that the remakes these days are horrible, and any fool can see how dated they are at release (22 Jump Street--which is now a franchise? wtf--colored with jokes and references that will be dated and meaningless in 2 year's time).

You guys are right--blame the mouthbreathers that line up for the next F&F shitfest or Transformers embarrassment. It's not an overabundance of remakes and sequels (as I would say that trend has been relatively flat for the last 40 or so years); it's the lack of quality content.

Bear in mind--those golden years of Hollywood cinema--the 50s and even the 70s, there were tons of terrible and forgotten films released. And a lot of those have been remade and re-imagined into better fan and critically-acclaimed pieces--just look at everything Tarantino has ever done.

 

[zinfamous]

Lucy has such a bad premise... But, it does have ScarJo so everyone is going to go see it.

<--willing and shameless victim of this axiom. (well, Netflix, anyway)

 

[squarecut1]

Instead of watching predictable third rate Hollywood movies, watch foreign movies with subtitles. Or read a book - there are so many to choose from.

 

[BoberFett]

thing is, just about everything is a remake, and many of the great films are remakes of lesser films from long ago, or oft-repeated stories that few seem to recognize as remakes.

There are common themes in literature, but I'm talking about tweaking the script of a movie made 15 years ago and putting [current popular star] in it.

You guys are right--blame the mouthbreathers that line up for the next F&F shitfest or Transformers embarrassment. It's not an overabundance of remakes and sequels (as I would say that trend has been relatively flat for the last 40 or so years); it's the lack of quality content.

Bear in mind--those golden years of Hollywood cinema--the 50s and even the 70s, there were tons of terrible and forgotten films released. And a lot of those have been remade and re-imagined into better fan and critically-acclaimed pieces--just look at everything Tarantino has ever done.

Even back in the day they did remakes. I love the original Philadelphia Story: Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart. Great movie. Of course even that was a film adaptation of a play. But was there really a need to remake it as a musical again in the 50s? Hell, White Christmas, that beloved cheesefest, was an update of Holiday Inn.

So yes, Hollywood is known for not being original. It just seems like the remake/sequel garbage is more egregious these days.

 

[K1052]

It just seems like the remake/sequel garbage is more egregious these days.

That's just your perception, obviously you are only going to mostly remember the good stuff from years past not all the crap forgettable stuff that you might have seen also. It has been this way for MANY decades.

 

[smackababy]

There are common themes in literature, but I'm talking about tweaking the script of a movie made 15 years ago and putting [current popular star] in it.



Even back in the day they did remakes. I love the original Philadelphia Story: Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart. Great movie. Of course even that was a film adaptation of a play. But was there really a need to remake it as a musical again in the 50s? Hell, White Christmas, that beloved cheesefest, was an update of Holiday Inn.

So yes, Hollywood is known for not being original. It just seems like the remake/sequel garbage is more egregious these days.

One of the problems is the proliferation of the marketing machine for movies. I can't remember seeing a ton of trailers on every channel in the 90s. You saw trailers for releasing movies before the movie you went to see and might not see it again until it comes out, or you happen to notice a poster for it somewhere. Now days, every movie releasing in the next year has their trailer in regular circulation on every cable channel. And, the amount of movies being made now is likely higher than the amount being made in decades past, so we are bound to get more (and see more trailers for) complete crap, where a dud in 1988 might go completely unnoticed.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Tv series are more enjoyable than the Hollywood crap.

so much this!

 

[TwiceOver]

If there was a good theater here, I'd go to it.

LOL, just kidding, I still wouldn't go to it. Yes, some movies you can't beat the experience. But at the price of admission, I can live with it.

Also, having a mild summer is bad for theaters as that is often the haven for those that want a nice place to hang out for a few hours that is cool.

 

[Ns1]

Last years movies were huge. This years movies are not.

No further discussion necessary.

 

[Exterous]

If you need something with more recent releases then redbox for $1-$1.50 a rental.

Hell with all the coupon codes out there I get annoyed if I pay $0.53 for a Blu ray rental from them instead of my normal $0.32

(Another one: Film cameras. Kodak: "Digital photography is just a fad. It'll go away soon."
A few years pass.
"..... shit. I think we screwed up. Anyone know anything about CCDs or CMOS photo things?!? How soon can we get one to market?")

Heh. I think Seagate narrowly missed the same thing with SSDs

 

[Pocatello]

Instead of watching predictable third rate Hollywood movies, watch foreign movies with subtitles. Or read a book - there are so many to choose from.

This.

 

[squarecut1]

Hollywood :

Things get blown up
Raunchy comedy
"Inspiring", the guy/gal overcomes odds

Have I missed any formula?

 

[smackababy]

Hollywood :

Things get blown up
Raunchy comedy
"Inspiring", the guy/gal overcomes odds

Have I missed any formula?

The "based on a true story" one, where the basis is literally "the guy in the movie was an actual guy".

 

[dr150]

I will go when the finally reboot Batman. Batman begins is just way too old at this point.

I'll go when they reboot Spiderman.

I wanna see other "untold" stories of Parker's Uncle and how Peter got bit.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is probably the only example of a poorly performing comic book movie this summer season. After the recent departure of the writer (Orci), there's a bit of lingering doubt as to whether there will be any spin-offs (Sinister Six, Venom) and maybe not a sequel.

I believe contract states that Sony has to make a Spiderman movie every 2-3 years, otherwise the rights revert back to Marvel permanently.

Marvel Studios would like nothing more for this to happen.

Expect more stupid, unoriginal Spiderman movies down the pike.

 

[DesiPower]

I vote diversity, they are making same thing or prequels and squeals of the same thing over and over again, it sucks to the point where I don't want to waste $40 on watching them anymore and wait for them to be available on redbox

 

[mmntech]

I will say I still really like the drive in, even if the movies are only so so, it's a fun experience with your friends to grill out, hang out and drink and watch some movies on a great weather night and tend to be much cheaper than theaters.

Drive ins are ideal for families. One fee per car load and you won't disturb anybody if your kids start fussing. There's still two in Toronto that I know of. One is across the road from where I work. Can see them playing movies when I leave at night. I think they're the kind of assholes who check your car for contraband though.

I think the problem with Hollywood is they don't take risks on films any more. Films try to appeal to as many people as possible, then get watered down in the process. The ham and eggers are starting to notice too, which is bad news for them. Makes more sense to make four mid budget movies that appeal to 30 million people than one big one that appeals to 100 million.