Image Credit: Clay Enos
With movie attendance down a staggering 20 percent so far this year this compared to 2010, the studios are desperately seeking answers. Some observers cite higher ticket prices in the midst of a slow-to-recover economy. Others think big-screen television technology makes home viewing too tempting, and others point to video games and the Internet as box-office distractions. But give the industry some credit: In just about every analysis, some level-headed studio exec will look in the mirror and blame the product itself. “So far there is just nothing terribly compelling about what we’re delivering as an industry,” Michael Lynton, chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment recently told the Los Angeles Times. It’s a frank self-criticism, but there’s comfort in it, too: Make the movies better and the customers will come back.
But are the movies really that bad? Aren’t films notoriously awful in the first few months of every year, when the studios dump their dregs in between awards season and the summer? Is this year’s crop really worse than last year’s or the year before that? I haven’t forgotten — though I’ve tried — that I paid to see Clash of the Titans last year.
Critically speaking, 2011′s top box-office films are actually better than last year’s class. According to Metacritic.com, the online critical aggregate that condenses reviews to a numerical value between 1-100, the average score of this year’s top 20 films is 47.5. Pretty mediocre. But it’s actually up compared to last year, when the 20 top films released during the first 14 weeks of the year scored just 46.7. In 2009, that figure was slightly higher (48.2), but 2008 (44.4) and 2007 (42.9) posted the lowest grades in the last five years. So as disappointing as Season of the Witch, Battle: Los Angeles, and The Roommate have been, 2011 is no worse than recent history in the minds of the men and women who critique the art of filmmaking.
Granted, box-office success does not always correlate with critical reception, and perhaps this year’s films lack some innate four-quadrant quality that connects with moviegoers and brings them back again and again. But to say that Hollywood’s serious problems are primarily the result of inferior product sounds a little like denial. In light of the anecdotal data, the reality might be much more alarming. Studios can tell themselves that audiences will return to the theater when better and bigger movies arrive, but what if we have crossed a tipping point where cost, quality, and comfort have pushed us toward different entertainment choices? What if all of Jack’s pirates and all of the Avengers can’t put Hollywood’s Humpty-Dumpty together again?
The true test starts next month, when Thor kicks off the summer movie season on May 6. Do you think this summer’s blockbusters will deliver the industry from its current doldrums?
Read more:
Hollywood’s slump slogs on: What’s keeping you away from the multiplex?
What’s your biggest pet peeve about going to the movie theater?
Theater owners and movie studios are both having difficulty with decreased sales; perhaps it’s time to reevaluate ticket prices (and food prices).
Sorry Jeff, I do blame the movies. I know January to May is always a dumping ground for Hollywood, but this year has taken the proverbial biscuit for lousyness.
And they usually release good movies in December, but last year we got Yogi Bear, Gulliver’s Travels, and Little Fockers.
@Shamus. Uh, and we also got Black Swan, True Grit, and The Fighter
I do too, Matt. Remakes of Arthur? Soulless big-effects movies like Sucker Punch? I refuse to pay money to see those so that it’s clear I’m not validating the lazy, effects-is-all-we-need-instead-of-story mindset of Hollywood studios. A good, original plot well done — is that really so tough?
Oh let’s blame high ticket prices.. That’s the ticket!
COMATOSE JOB MARKET+
NO RAISES+
HIGH TICKET PRICES+
RUDE NOISY PATRONS WITH THEIR CELLPHONES+
BEDBUG RISK=
R.I.P. CINEMA IN AMERICA
I couldn’t agree more about the bed bugs. I found two on one of my daughters after leaving a movie. My husband thought I was crazy when I made us go to a Gap in the area and made us all get new clothes and throw the old stuff away for the ride home. It would have cost a lot more to deal with the bed bugs.
My daughter got lice at a movie theater!
Add gas at four dollars a gallon which means less spending money for everything else
Theater owners also have to compete with my plasma TV and home theater setup. All I gotta do is wait 3 months and watch pretty much any movie at home with my family, all for the price of a rental.
The studios have no sense. It used to be that a movie took 6-7 months to come out on dvd, now its 3 months. The town came out in theaters in September 2010 and was in stores on dvd before christmas. Now if your going to charge 12 bucks for a movie I can watch on redbox for a dollar in 3 months what’s the incentive to go see it in a theater? It used to be people went to see movies in the theater for something to do, now it’s cost-prohibitive. Unless it’s a great movie, a 3 month wait and a dollar rental will win every time.
In New York City, where I live, there are NO matinees at any of the theaters. No matter what time of day you go and what day of the week the price is always the same.
Adult-$12.50 to $13.00
Adult with 3D – $3 upcharge so $15.50 to $16.00
IMAX- $18.00
IMAX in 3D- $21.00 (YES $21)
I moved here in 2009 and I was an avid theater goer. I would go to the movies to watch crap and great films. Movies to get me through Sunday afternoons and days off work. I went to the movies at least 1 time a week to sometimes 3 or 4 times. But back home there were matinees of $6 every day before 6. At night it was only $9. There was $5 dollar Tuesdays and 3D was just starting and not a factor. IMAX was only $12.
I can tell you that since I’ve moved to NYC I’ve seen a movie at most ONCE a MONTH in the theater. Honestly. Spending more on a ticket to see it on a regular screen some wihtout stadium seating for what I could see an IMAX film back home is very hard to swallow. Plus I used ot hit up matinees now going to a movie is AT LEAST TWICE the cost of a matinee. Truth is I miss running off to a movie on a whim and just for fun. But I can’t afford it here.
Where in NYC do you live? I go to matinees all the time. $6 movies at AMC before noon! (42nd street, columbus circle, herald square, 84th streeet, and more)
Matinees @ Magic Johnson theater in Harlem for $6 as well (124th & 8th Ave)U need to explore NYC more newbie
It’s actually still like that here in Canada, if you go to a Cineplex theatre on a tuesday night $5 dollars.
$6 in NYC?
Geez, I live in Wisconsin and the matinees around here are $7-10. Which is the #1 reason we’ve gone to one movie so far this year. Our income is going down, prices for food and fuel are going up — a movie has to basically be a “sure thing” in terms of entertainment value before I’ll shell out that much of my money to see it. Otherwise I’ll wait til it’s available on Netflix or Red Box. Another advantage is I won’t have to deal with people talking on their phones or obnoxious children parents refuse to control.
I admit- theater quality is down from when I was a kid, but I will always prefer the theater over watching something at home any day of the week, because movies were made to be seen on a huge screen with the great sound. Sorry, but the home theater experience will never be able to match that. Movie quality is not the problem, as far as I’m concerned, because 2011 has brought some nice surprises (“No Strings Attached,” “Gnomeo & Juliet,” “The Adjustment Bureau,” “Rango, “Win Win,” “Source Code”). Quality has never been a problem, evidenced because “Just Go With It” actually made money. I think I’d point my finger at the 3D. I always made it a point to find the 2D version if available, but I understand those with kids probably have no such choice. Since the 3D on a lot of these movies is done at the last second (“Clash of the Titans”- blame the 3D, not the movie. It’s goofy trash like the original), audiences are probably getting tired of paying more for an inferior product. I personally find 3D pointless in any film (including “Avatar”- it wasn’t bad 3D, but it added absolutely nothing to the experience) and am hoping it will all slowly disappear. 3D will either go away all together or end up costing the same as a regular ticket. But James Cameron, please, enough with the “3D this” and “3D that.” It is a cheap gimmick, even in your movies, and it will never be anything more than a distraction.
Don’t forget that a third of the country was in a continuous winter through Jan and Feb, and werent able to get out much.
ticket prices are why my family does not go to the movies. I wait for ‘a really good movie’ before I go. Harry Potter, Thor, Green Lantern and maybe one more will me the only movies I go to this year.
Same. I’m only inspired to spend my money if the movie is something I really want to see. But considering there are quite a few big movies coming out this year: Deathly Hallows 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Fast Five, The Hangover 2, Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Transformers 4, etc….the box office numbers should sky rocket.
Why pay $20 for 2 movies tickets when I can wait for a few months and OWN the movie for the same amount of money?
The extra money is for the proper theater experience that dvd or blu-ray at home can’t offer. Inconsiderate patrons aside, nothing can match the experience of the house lights going down and then watching something that was made to be seen on the big screen.
I do not care the cost, I love movies so I watch them in theater. The point is the movies are awful then why bother? Made better or at least more attractive movie. I watch the trailer and have no that feeling that “I have to see that”. Blame the movies
I blame both. I might have gone to seen the craptastic Sucker Punch but definitely not for the price of a movie ticket. But it’s very true that January to the beginning of May is the dumping ground for lousy films.
y continue to pay 20 mil a pic for ANY actor! most movies (esp sequals)r horrible!
Yeah, ticket prices are a huge issue. Now there’s all these specialty theatres that charge a couple bucks extra cause they claim to have enhanced sound or picture. I could care less.
Same. I had to pay $11.50 for a ticket to Paul on a Saturday morning and the movie wasn’t even in 3D. Haven’t been back to that theater. It kind of put a buzzkill on the movie too.
I took two kids to a matinee of “Gnomeo and Juliet” last month (not realizing that it was only available in 3D), bought myself a soda and them each a kiddie snack pack thing. Grand total: $54!!!
And while the movie was cute enough, the 3D was completely unnecessary.
Greedy f-ing theaters and studios…
Luckily, I was able to find “Gnomeo & Juliet” in 2D, but I wonder, would the kids have made a fuss if they hadn’t gotten to see the 3D version. Do parents know that only a handful of these movies are available exclusively in 3D? 90 percent of the time there is a 2D version (usually the way it was originally intended before the last minute conversion) available either at the same theater or at another local theater. I’m sure the kids might whine because they feel they “have” to see the 3D version but parents- put your foots down! Make the effort to seek out the 2D version and take the kids to that or nothing at all. 3D version looses money- everybody wins.
With a family of 5 it can cost $100 for an afternoon of entertainment (matinee prices are a tad cheaper), including Popcorn, etc.
I’ve tried to set a budget for myself of about $100 a week for entertainment, including eating out… so you can guess how often I’m choosing to blow an entire week’s money on a movie.
Or I can wait a few months and see it on a premium channel or netflix or rent it. Or just purchase the Blue Ray for about $30 and watch it as many times as I want.
Sadly, I think the movie theaters and production offices may want to consider lowering the prices of movies and concessions a little.
Yes, the best (or favorite) movies will still get us to go to the theaters, but those are few and far between. I wish they would ignore the prices and look to actual ticket sales. I don’t remember the last movie I saw (even on opening day) that was even a third full.
When Hollywood starts producing original material, as opposed to all of these remakes and sequels, the tickets sold might increase again.
That theory doesn’t hold up when you look at the money those films have made. They are no less successful, as a rule, than other movies. They’ve actually done reasonably well.
Sadly the idea of original stories is not completely true. Being a fan of Classic Cinema I was surprised how many sequels and remakes they made in the Golden Era of Hollywood. It is a myth they never did. No the issue is too many Hollywood films are preachy, try to hide bad plots with over the top special effects or 3D. I am not against Special Effects but used to help the story not be the story. That is what is now. Special Effects are the story and no substance. Also most of the actors in Hollywood now look great on the screen but most cannot act. Everyone has to be overly good looking in films and they all look cookie cutter. What happened to realism in casting? Show me an actor and actress that can act nit some model who thinks they can act.
As much as I hated it quality-wise, Avatar was an incredibly pro-environmental preachy movie an d it promptly became the highest grossing movie of all-time. There goes your theory about “preachy” movies being part of the problem.
Brian, you are spot on about Hollywood’s history of remaking movies. The “classic” version of The Maltese Falcon was the third production in 10 years. Imagine if Hollywood tried to do that today?
I don’t think sequels are a problem and don’t understand the hate they get. If you watch TV, then sequels should be no different than successive episodes of a show, except that they come out less frequently than TV episodes.
Ticket sales are down because people are getting VERY tired of having to deal with rude-ass people in the theatres. I saw INSIDIOUS recently and two couples showed up 10 mins late – into the movie, not the trailers – and interrupted people finding seats and talked while doing it, four people checked their phone with that annoying “blue light” that everyone sees, one girl kept kicking a chair and to top it off, the theatre itself was icicle cold.
Yes totally agree. I only go to the movies about 4 times a year. To go to the movies, I have to find a babysitter, waste gas driving there, stand in line for tickets (there always seems to be a line), find seats where I can see the whole screen, watch 20 minutes of previews, and deal with annoying/rude people the entire length of the film. For all that hassle, I can usually wait the few months it takes for the movie to come out on DVD.
There are a combination of reasons for this:
1. The ticket prices are insane. 2. Having 3-D shoved down our throats.
3.The experience is simply not as enjoyable. I don’t want to pay $25 for two tickets for a film where I sit for over two hours and be bombarded by commercials for twenty minutes straight. Then when the movie actually starts I have to deal with loud talking, texting, cell phone conversations, and overall rudeness. My wife and I will just stay home and wait for home video or On-Demand.
I agree Dan, for all that ill stay home and rent the movies in a couple of months out of the redbox or netflix, just to avoid all that hassle of dealing with people that think they are the only ones in the theater. Also agree with the pricing i can rent three movies, buy drinks and get a pizza for that price and as many people I want can watch the movie and they get rude i can tell them to leave or shut up.
As with most things there’s more than one answer. However it’s funny that studios try to blame movie quality because it’s easier than saying “we’re charging too much for tickets; we have to stop charging extra for 3D, or at least charge less for them.” Also as people are saying charge less for the food etc, once you’re there.
Also let’s be realistic, last year had the tail end of Avatar and the massive Alice In Wonderland; you simply cannot assume you’ll get that level of attenance evry year.
Also we won’t see with Thor, we’ll see with Fast 5. We may already have seen though, outside of North America has been lower too, though not as bad I think, but Rio had a masive opening this past weekend. If there’s a “must see” film, you will get people to go. The problem is, with the expense, people are seeing fewer films as “must see” films.
Agreed: last year saw in its first quarter The bulk of Avatar money, Alice in Wonderland, and How to train your Dragon. They have missed the massivly successful kids/family/all ages (or most ages with avatar) and have been much more focused on genre films. The family movies just haven’t connected in a big way. Look at the trend to be blamed on the underperforming of Tron (replacement for avatar) Rango/Hop (replacement for How to Train your Dragon) and no real replacement for Alice.
What the studios haven’t figured out yet is that it’s not the fact that the movies are necessarily bad. It’s that they’re not good or exciting enough to compel people to go through the hassle and expense of going to the movies. Unless a movie has enough spectacle or pre-opening buzz, many people will now wait the three months to watch it at home. For example, The Social Network was a great movie, but did it gain enough from the big screen to warrant babysitter, drive to theater, money to park, $10+ per ticket, $15-20 for concessions, poor projection and sound, texting, cell phones, rude patrons, etc.? Avatar and Harry Potter, maybe. A small intimate drama, not so much.
well, not everything can be james cameron or the most successful book series in the world. some of us like smaller quality dramas
With Fast Five coming out April 29, Hollywood may get an early indicator as to how the summer box office will go. I do agree with other comments but there is still no replacing seeing movies on the big screen
I agree. I don’t want to lose the theater experience. Yes, sometimes I have to deal with rude people but it usually isn’t that bad. Yes, tickets are too expensive but I have a theater near me that charges half-price for evening shows on weeknights and the same price before noon on weekends, so they can be affordable. Theater food is NOT a necessity. I do like to watch movies at home but who wants to spend their whole life just sitting on their couch?
Stop with increased ticket prices for 3D movies that don’t need 3D. Instead of gimmicks make a movie that has a decent script, actors, and direction. Cut the prices for admission and food then maybe people will come back to the movies. It’s insane that for a family of 4 to go to a movie you have to spend $40-$50 just to be admitted and if you want something to eat or drink you have to take out a bank loan. I love my big screen tv, netflix and chinese/pizza delivery.
I have a 65″ plasma with an awesome picture. Why bother.
Why leave the house at all, really?
I know I wouldn’t.
DAMN TROY!
I think there is something different about the audience (i.e. us) explaining the decline. Take a movie like “Pretty Woman.” It was not a great movie, yet was a huge hit. That doesn’t seem to happen much anymore. Especially when movies, like rom-coms, don’t need to be viewed on a big screen. There’s just too much out there grabbing our attention.
Plus it was a very cold and snowy winter. Might have something to do with it.
I love how some people deny the obvious: These movies suck. I’m sorry, Jeff, but your statistical reasoning is flawed. Just because the average metacritic score is LESS THAN 1 point higher (!) you can’t make the conclusion: “Well, the films are actually a lot better.”
The films sucked last year. The films suck this year. Hollywood is obsessed with copying what was successful before and not doing anything original. As an example: The first “Iron Man” was fun. The second one was more of the same and was decidedly less fun. Now we have “Thor” and “Captain America” which are going to essentially be a lot similar to the 50 other comic book movies that have been released in the last 10 years. Except they don’t have Robert Downey Jr. charisma. I mean is anyone REALLY excited to see ANY movie this summer? It’s sad when the most original sounding movie is “Super 8″ and THAT movie looks like a total cross of “War of the Worlds”, “Cloverfield” and “E.T.”
Wake me when it’s over.
Brian
My spouse and finally cut out the time for a date night. For us, that means, let’s go to the movies. We could not find anything we wanted to watch, not with precious date night time and money. We ended up going to a bookstore and a cafe. We would have loved to have gone to a movie but why sit through mediocre? We know the beginning of the year is the time to burn off the bad movies, but, eh, this year they’re really bad. There’s usually one or two little movies that look interesting. I agree with your evaluation of the metacritic score. Too many variables to say the overall quality is better.
The experience of going to the movies always used to be pretty exciting for me. It didn’t matter what movie it was, or how many previews they showed, or the fact that my feet were constantly sticking to the floor. Of course now ticket prices are an issue, but moreso I feel like studios are more and more condescending. They expect us to be impressed with CGI and 3D and all these ridiculous technologies when the quality of the film is really what matters to us. Give audiences more credit, execs, we’re smarter than this.
The number one thing keeping me from going to movies more often is the price. Movie prices are about $5 bucks too high. When it costs more to see the movie in the theaters once than it costs to own it on dvd a few months later you have crossed the line and need to pull the prices back. They won’t do it and no increasing the price of dvds isn’t the option Hollywood. I alsoo don’t mind a buck or two extra for 3d but give people the option that if they have glasses already from a previous movie that you won’t charge them for it. Its stupid to charge people for glasses and then ask them to “recycle” them at the end of the movie. I paid for them. I’m taking them home with me.
#1 – ticket prices. If I’m going to spend that much on a film, I better know FOR SURE that I’m going to like it. Even then, with ticket prices so high, I may just wait for it to come out on DVD.
#2 – If the movie-quality is bad, there’s even less chance I’ll see it at high prices. And many movies are extremely bad lately.
I agree on both counts. Who wants to spend $12.00 on a movie that doesn’t deliver? People have to spend wisely nowadays, and if the product doesn’t look good, no one’s buying.