The dearth of movie going?
Oh, and the movie was okay. If you like time travel stories like Deja Vu and Groundhog Day, then you'll probably enjoy this one.
Wanna go fifty-fifty on the royalties?Quote: teddysWhoa! How did you know my script idea?
Quote: zippyboyThen I realized I'm just used to my hi-def wide-screen at home with the crisp picture, and first run movies would likely always be blurry by comparison. I got restless after 15 minutes since I'm always walking around and hitting 'pause' on my DVR at home. Sitting through a whole movie in one sitting now is almost intolerable these days. Sound was okay, but I have Sony headphones attached to the TV at home which are better. I certainly didn't waste money on the $4.50 coke and $7 popcorn. Does anyone buy that stuff anymore? I wanted to see Tron and Inception last year, but didn't. Should be on HBO in the next month or so. DVRs rule.
The distribution companies are considering introducing premium pay per view which would allow you to buy a movie only 8 weeks after it is released onto a movie screen. Clearly since many movie advertising campaigns last several weeks, the idea would be a single campaign would cover the theaters and the premium pay per view release.
Theater companies feel that they are looking at mass closings of public cinemas.
Quote: pacomartinThe distribution companies are considering introducing premium pay per view which would allow you to buy a movie only 8 weeks after it is released onto a movie screen.
I would do that if I could record that showing and rewatch again at a later date. The one time I bought a PPV movie through DirectTV 3 years ago, I had to watch the entirety within 24 hours, then it erased itself. So I haven't done it since.
I remember The Girlfriend Experience was released simultaneously in theaters, on disk and on satellite few years ago.
Quote: zippyboyI would do that if I could record that showing and rewatch again at a later date. The one time I bought a PPV movie through DirectTV 3 years ago, I had to watch the entirety within 24 hours, then it erased itself. So I haven't done it since.
I remember The Girlfriend Experience was released simultaneously in theaters, on disk and on satellite few years ago.
The decision for art house movies to be shown once in theaters, and then released later on pay per view makes very little financial sense anymore. Mostly it is an ego thing, as the director and actors would prefer not to be associated with direct to DVD release.
But last year 9 movies made 25% of the boxoffice, 28 movies made 50%, and 52 movies (one per week) made 68.7%. The top 150 made 94.9% of boxoffice sales.
So fiscally, it doesn't matter that much what happens to other 400 or so movies made every year. I think that it is primarily ego at that point. But the consumer doesn't care. He would just as easily watch it on the computer.
Quote: zippyboy
I remember The Girlfriend Experience was released simultaneously in theaters, on disk and on satellite few years ago.
I don't recall that movie or that release mixture at all. Though I dimly recall some television program that was on the major networks and also on the cable channels at the same time. Its similar to hardback and paperbacks being released simultaneously. It used to never happen that way.
I guess if you have a media blitz and a website with an interactive component and fan blogs and all that, you might as well Go For Broke and have it released all over the place at once. It certainly maximizes the return on the advertising budget which these days seems critical. Book marketing is often heavily influenced by author's travels now. Its strange but that's the way it is. Whenever a tail wags the dog, but money is made on the dog its hard to allocate value over time.
Too many viewers are used to DVDs, VCRs, TIBOs and stuff like that... Pause buttons, commercial modulate buttons, watch when you want situations, watch half the movie, go pick up the brat at soccer, come back and watch the other half. I guess even first release in movie theaters may be an endangered species of some sort.
Movies may be lousy now. I don't know if they will get better, but I do fear that movie theaters are a thing of the past. If movie theaters are going to continue to exist their money will come from commercial tie-ins with restaurants, bars, dance halls, etc. Life seems to be Vaudeville now: Eight acts in one night. No one much cares if a few of them are really bad because five or six of them will be good and if the two girls swinging on the trapeze aren't such a good act the music group that performs simultaneously beneath the trapeze will be better, or you can watch the dancers in the front near the stage or the fire-swallowing Belly Dancer or you can just drink your beer. It all goes on simultaneously.
Take a look at today's Dark Cabaret and you will see the movie industry five years from now.
Quote: FleaStiffQuote: zippyboy
I remember The Girlfriend Experience was released simultaneously in theaters, on disk and on satellite few years ago.
I don't recall that movie or that release mixture at all.
There was some hype, so I caught it on my DVR. Horrible movie. No action, no plot really, no nudity (tragic considering its prostitution story and all-natural porn starlet Sasha Grey in starring role), it was all dialog that was boring and poorly delivered.
Literally the cure for insomnia.
Quote: zippyboyQuote: FleaStiffQuote: zippyboy
I remember The Girlfriend Experience was released simultaneously in theaters, on disk and on satellite few years ago.
I don't recall that movie or that release mixture at all.
There was some hype, so I caught it on my DVR. Horrible movie. No action, no plot really, no nudity (tragic considering its prostitution story and all-natural porn starlet Sasha Grey in starring role), it was all dialog that was boring and poorly delivered.
Literally the cure for insomnia.
Part II? lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cure_for_Insomnia
In January 2008,virtually all subscribers now are entitled to unlimited hours of streaming media at no additional cost.
I read the Netflix has managed to double it's subscriber base from 10 million to 20 million in the two years since they have been streaming media. There is about to be a mad rush into the field, as services by Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, and Direct TV (who bought Blockbuster).
I have trouble finding reliable statistics, but it's been suggested that about 30% of the population never goes to a movie theater. Maybe another 20% goes to one film a year in the theaters. The faithful who go to ten or more movies a year I think are mostly under age 25.
As I post this, movie attendance is still down 20% from last year (by dollar) and more by actual tickets sold. The first big budget comic film, Thor, will be released on May 6, but Iron Man 2 was released on May 7 last year.
So far this year there has been no movie that premiered to a $40 million opening weekend. Last year at this time, there were four, who all went on to earn much more money than anything released this year.
1) Valentine's Day
2) Shutter Island
3) Alice in Wonderland (2010)
4) How to Train Your Dragon
Teens now have more distraction now. They have HD at home. They have I-Tunes, I-Phones, and text devices which have reduced their attention span to a few minutes. They can download apps for $.99 and play games while chatting with their friends while driving. Movies cost $20 to go to (including snacks). And you can only put so many movies of the same type into the theater before you realize that you're watching the same movie.
Fast Five is the biggest hit of the year so far, though it looks like Thor will also be huge.
Critics gave fairly good reviews of Fast Five.
I don't think critics gave fairly good reviews of all those Grade B movies about motorcycles, car crashesQuote: pacomartinFast Five is the biggest hit of the year so far, though it looks like Thor will also be huge. Critics gave fairly good reviews of Fast Five.
Man this is sad. One of the few advantages to 35mm film, or even better IMAX film is that it has really high resolution, and has more data per frame than BluRay, much less compressed HDTV via satellite or cable. Sadly though many studios only look backwards, and if they don't record films in 1080p digitally they run the film through digital post-processing and then back to film, knocking the resolution down in the process. They then show that mediocre resolution on a giant screen, and not surprisingly it looks blurry. Even worse is when the above is done and then the movie is shown in "IMAX," the quotes denoting that all they do is enlarge the crappy resolution even more.Quote: zippyboyI thought the picture was blurry. Then I realized I'm just used to my hi-def wide-screen at home with the crisp picture, and first run movies would likely always be blurry by comparison.
When I saw Dark Knight in IMAX there were a few scenes shot on IMAX film, with that tens of millions of pixels of resolution that entails. The audience audibly gasped, that's how much better things looked. If I'm emperor for a day I want every movie shot in that kind of resolution, so when we have 4,320p holo displays in the future every movie made between 2000 and 2020 won't be considered unwatchable ;)
Quote: FleaStiffI don't think critics gave fairly good reviews of all those Grade B movies about motorcycles, car crashes
I think most critics try and judge a movie by about how good it is at achieving it's objective. Even an action movie can still have good pacing, decent dialogue, and realistic characters. Fast Five didn't get great reviews, like Thor, but the reviews are considerably better than Fast and Furious from two years ago.
Quote: zippyboyI'm looking forward to the day when "movies" are actually 3-D holographic projections shown on the center stage with the audience encircling the action taking place in the center of the theater. People would return for more showings because their perception of the action would change depending on where they sit in the theater, and their viewing angle. Similar to Star Trek's holodeck. Think this is possible in our lifetimes?
Off hand, I would say no. The hardware to pull something like this off would be insanely expensive, and how many "movies" would they have to have to make it viable? IMAX... real shot on film IMAX had, and still has, this same problem. The film, projectors and theatres are specialized and huge. Much of what is advertised as, and charged a premium as IMAX these days is unwatchable, shot on digital then re-mastered junk.
I had also heard that theatre receipts are down due to less films being in wide release. There are less choices at many multiplexes, with multiple screens showing the same film, sometimes in different formats (3-d, digital 3-D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, etc.)
Sure. Sort of a Theater in the Round but with sharp holographic images. Would probably be possible, its just that with the utter nonsense that available now, what is the use of seeing it in a holographic virtual image? This vampire stuff is utter nonsense and seeing displayed via a hologram is not going to make up for the utter lack of content.Quote: zippyboyI'm looking forward to the day when "movies" are actually 3-D holographic projections shown on the center stage with the audience encircling the action taking place in the center of the theater.
Quote: AyecarumbaOff hand, I would say no. The hardware to pull something like this off would be insanely expensive, and how many "movies" would they have to have to make it viable? IMAX... real shot on film IMAX had, and still has, this same problem. The film, projectors and theatres are specialized and huge. Much of what is advertised as, and charged a premium as IMAX these days is unwatchable, shot on digital then re-mastered junk.I had also heard that theatre receipts are down due to less films being in wide release. There are less choices at many multiplexes, with multiple screens showing the same film, sometimes in different formats (3-d, digital 3-D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, etc.)
I think Ayecarumba has hit the nail on the head. The cinema chains are going to start buying their own movies just to have content. Similar to SYFY channel on TV producing all of these $1m-$3m exploitation films. They need content to fill the TV, it doesn't have to be great. Very few film productions are using the technology they already have.
I did talk to a producer who used the IMAX camera. He said they are crazy difficult to work with. They would constantly get great footage, and the IMAX film would break all the time because it was so flimsy.
Without a hit so far from the new movies released this year, it looks like the record numbers of sequels will continue to grow. So far there is one bomb among the sequels, two that did reasonably, and one breakout smash hit (Fast Five).
Of the 27 sequels,
Nine are second movies (Cars 2, Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules, The Hangover Part II, Happy Feet 2, Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil, Johnny English Reborn, Kung Fu Panda 2, Piranha 3DD, Sherlock Holmes 2 )
Five are third movies (Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son, Madea's Big Happy Family, Paranormal Activity 3, Transformers: Dark of the Moon)
Five are fourth movies (Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Scream 4, Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One)).
Five are fifth movies (Fast Five, Final Destination 5, Puss in Boots, X-Men: First Class, Winnie the Pooh).
Two seventh movies (The Muppets, Rise of the Apes) and
One eighth entry (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two).
None of this is counting New Year's Eve, which may or may not be a sequel to Valentine's Day, or The Thing, which may be a prequel.
This comic book hero comes with an entourage of Frandal, Volstag and Hogun where most comic heros were loners. In the movie they are kind of a weak point, as they seem to do very little to propel the action.
Character of Darcy Lewis (actress Kat Dennings) is a subtle standout.
Quote: pacomartinI think Ayecarumba has hit the nail on the head. The cinema chains are going to start buying their own movies just to have content. Similar to SYFY channel on TV producing all of these $1m-$3m exploitation films. They need content to fill the TV, it doesn't have to be great. Very few film productions are using the technology they already have.
Could they make their own movies? Both legally and practically. Legally, I think this type of vertical integration was banned in the 1920s as back then say MGM would own the studio and theatre. No other theatre got the flicks and no other flicks got in the theatre. Practically, I see a problem in that studios just don't care to entertain as much anymore. Creativity has been lost the more and more computer-power they get for special effects.
Another thing was back in the 1920s they made many more movies than they do today, with a smaller population to watch them. Stars got signed for so many years of pictures and they showed up to work that picture. Costs were thus controlled. Today a Tom Cruise gets $5-10MM off the top so a star-power film must be a big budget blockbuster to be viable.
I've said it here before, movie chains are real estate plays. Studios know the big money for the big budget film is in DVDs and international. If you want a storyline that is not cookie-cutter you need to see indie films.
.But seriously, now.
The issue with movies today is that teenagers and young adults have so many other attractions. Yes, 35mm film is awesome film quality and 3-D is great technology, but when kids are watching movies on their iPhone or IPAD, the resolution and Dolby Digital 3D experiences doesn't really matter that much to them.
Personally, I like movies with excellent story development and developing characters -- good character stories. When movies were broadcast on regular television, you were motivated go out and see a good movie at the theater because you realized that the picture quality from standard-definition TV or DVDs would detract from the quality and experience of the movie. I realized when I got my HD 5 years ago with my surround sound could pretty much emulate the movie experience enough for our family to enjoy action films and not lose much of the experience of going to the theatre, and for me, I know I could enjoy the films that I wanted to watch at home without losing any discernable quality at home.
There are few movies out there to watch where the quality of the movie on 35 - 70mm would rule out me waiting for the movie to come out on BlueRay. Action films are too formulaic and have run their course.
Quote: AZDuffmanCould they make their own movies? Both legally and practically. Legally, I think this type of vertical integration was banned in the 1920s as back then say MGM would own the studio and theatre. No other theatre got the flicks and no other flicks got in the theatre. Practically, I see a problem in that studios just don't care to entertain as much anymore. Creativity has been lost the more and more computer-power they get for special effects.
Another thing was back in the 1920s they made many more movies than they do today, with a smaller population to watch them. Stars got signed for so many years of pictures and they showed up to work that picture. Costs were thus controlled. Today a Tom Cruise gets $5-10MM off the top so a star-power film must be a big budget blockbuster to be viable.
I've said it here before, movie chains are real estate plays. Studios know the big money for the big budget film is in DVDs and international. If you want a storyline that is not cookie-cutter you need to see indie films.
AMC Independent is a marketing arm to aid small companies in promoting films that are then aired in AMC theaters.
But the larger concern is that AMC and Regal forming new venture to acquire and release movies.
While a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court consent decree barred the major studios from owning movie theaters, the federal government has relaxed the rules over the last two decades. In 1996, MCA Inc., the former owner of Universal Pictures, bought a large stake in theater company Cineplex Odeon. Also, the parent company of Sony Pictures Entertainment previously owned Loews Theaters.
Currently, the Massachusetts theater chain National Amusements Inc., is privately held by Sumner Redstone, the controlling shareholder in Paramount Pictures parent Viacom Inc. And, the largest shareholder of Regal, Philip Anschutz, also owns the movie production company Walden Media.
In addition, independent film financiers such as Mark Cuban own small movie companies and theater chains.
A recent count said there 38,605 indoor screens in 5,561 sites and 628 Drive-In screens in 381 sites as of 2009. AMC and Regal control about 31% of the screens. It would take about 6 companies to control 50% of the screens in the USA.
Quote: boymimboInteresting choice of a picture for Kat Dennings, Paco. I might have chosen, oh, this one:
The photo was one from the movie. She was playing a fairly plain girl, who clearly was not supposed to overshadow the primary love interest. What was impressive was that her character was so sexy, while the character of Jane was fairly stiff and with very little chemistry with the Thor actor.
I am not a big Natalie Portman fan. While she is certainly a decent actress, I think she gets more than her far share of attention while their are other actresses about her age. Summer Glau, Eliza Dushku, Michelle Williams, Christina Ricci, and Julia Stiles that are much better.
Quote: pacomartin
While a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court consent decree barred the major studios from owning movie theaters, the federal government has relaxed the rules over the last two decades. In 1996, MCA Inc., the former owner of Universal Pictures, bought a large stake in theater company Cineplex Odeon. Also, the parent company of Sony Pictures Entertainment previously owned Loews Theaters.
Thanks, I knew it was once an anti-trust issue but didn't know they had walked it back some. I still say the theatre-chain is really a real-estate play similar to McDonald's real-estate arm.
The studios are all crooks. Henry Hill said in his follow-on book that he found the studios more crooked than the mafia. At the time (2004ish), "Goodfellas" had not made a profit on paper.
Quote: EvenBobAll the multi-plex theatres in my area take one screen in each complex, and make it a $3 movie on Sunday nite. They take a movie thats playing that week and make it $3 instead of $8. They also have an all you can eat popcorn deal for a set price. The movie is always sold out. My sister got there an hour early last week and it was already sold out, those people were willing to sit in front of a blank screen for 90min to 2 hours, just to save $5 on a ticket. This is middle class America I'm talking about, not the Hood where everybodys broke. No movie is worth that much of my time.. And they turn away enough people to fill another theatre, I'm told.
Now we know where the Pit Bosses who let $10 table sit empty with a wait for the $5 tables go for their junior management training.....
And you should see how a brand new car used in a movie is sold at creative accounting prices. Even that blue door from that Notting Hill bookstore was taken off its hinges due to its perceived value but the account books probably don't reflect that.
I have never seen the Hangover movies, but at least domestically it is ahead of Pirates of the Caribbean by $22 million at the same number of days in release. Of course POTC may make a billion dollars overseas. R rated comedies don't make huge amounts of money internationally. Still these Hangover films are insanely profitable since there are no special effects. They are in the process of starting on the third one, and they aren't going to change a thing.
What could be the biggest film of the year is being released on friday. Super 8 is by JJ Abrams, the director of Lost, Cloverfield, Fringe and Star Trek. Steven Spielberg is the producer, and if you haven't seen the trailer, it looks like a cross between Lost and ET. It is set in 1979 so that it is in the same time period of ET.
Quote: pacomartin... at least domestically it is ahead of Pirates of the Caribbean ....
My wife and I went to see the newest "Pirates" film last week -- first time we had bothered to go to a film in almost two years. This film had everything we expected -- if something was reasonable/rational, then they didn't include it. Just plain fun.
For those of you who plan to go see it and who typically jump and run when the end credits start to roll, here's a little tip: If you sit through every last line of the credits, at the end you get a quick glimpse of a teaser for the next sequel!
I have seen the trailer, and it looks exactly like ET. I am shocked Spielberg is involved in both, since it looks like a complete rip-off. Did he think people would forget about ET?Quote: pacomartinWhat could be the biggest film of the year is being released on friday. Super 8 is by JJ Abrams, the director of Lost, Cloverfield, Fringe and Star Trek. Steven Spielberg is the producer, and if you haven't seen the trailer, it looks like a cross between Lost and ET. It is set in 1979 so that it is in the same time period of ET.
Quote: teddysI have seen the trailer, and it looks exactly like ET. I am shocked Spielberg is involved in both, since it looks like a complete rip-off. Did he think people would forget about ET?
Super 8
While generally getting as good as reviews as X-Men first class, it is not quite as well reviewed as Star Trek two years ago.
Quote: Bad Review (no spoilers)There is something disheartening about not liking something that is trying so very hard to get you to like it. And Super 8 jumps up on your lap and purrs and licks your face. It does everything it can to get you to feel like you were touching a member of the opposite sex for the first time and not being able to catch your breath. But it stops short of any real intimacy, a series of rose-colored moments that never get the viewer dirty, in the best or the worst sense of that word.
Basically, Super 8 is a live-action episode of Robot Chicken, as delivered by a Steven Spielberg tribute band.
If you want to be reminded just how mighty Mr. Spielberg is as an audience-thrilling, heart-pounding, emotion-yanking director, you should see Super 8… because it is practically a textbook on how to make a 70s/80s Spielberg movie… with all the dryness of a textbook and none of the magic of a movie master.
...
Quote: Good Review (no spoilers)Like an old airplane (or spacecraft) jerry-rigged from scrap pieces and made air-worthy again, Super 8 has been patched together with 30-year-old spare parts to provide an enjoyable ride of its own. With writer-director J.J. Abrams capably manning the controls but with producer Steven Spielberg conspicuously on board as navigator to provide sage advice, this science fiction adventure centered on film geek kids in smalltown 1979 America is something Spielberg can easily be imagined having made himself around the same time and is, indeed, unthinkable without him. Engaging on its own terms and sharply tuned in to the wavelength of pubescent boys and girls, this Paramount release looks set for a profitable flight as a widely appealing general audience summer attraction.
...
If Spielburg wants to reinvent 1979ish Sci-Fi, toss in a Star Wars/Superman/Aliens theme. ET?, not for me then or now.
Meh, I pass.
N&B
Quote: NandBPaco et al:
If Spielburg wants to reinvent 1979ish Sci-Fi, toss in a Star Wars/Superman/Aliens theme. ET?, not for me then or now.
Meh, I pass.
N&B
I did see the movie "Super 8", on opening day. It is a solid entertaining movie, but it feels like a dozen different movies that you've already seen. Besides ET and Poltergeist it seemed to take a lot from the Fugitive. The plot is a little incoherent, full of narratives that seem to simply vanish, and a whole lot of coincidences and lucky breaks, and no real plot twists. Predictably, the military plays the worst villains. Most of the characters are hopelessly one dimensional, although the primary boy and girl were quite good (roughly 13-14 years old).
Quote: pacomartinI did see the movie "Super 8", on opening day. It is a solid entertaining movie, but it feels like a dozen different movies that you've already seen.
We saw it today and agree. Very entertaining. I commented that we were watching a new version of "Goonies" with much better special effects. I did relate to the kid that wanted to blow everything up, though. It reminded me of the days when we could do some real damage with our chemistry sets and buy serious explosive chemicals at the local hobby shop.
Now we have Spielberg producing the JJ Abrahams move with Elle Fanning who is now age 13. The movie is entertaining, the special effects even more elaborate, and the younger sister is also an excellent actress. Same rating of PG-13. But the fear and angst are simply not there. You just sit there thinking, "that special effect was cool", "that reminds me of Goonies, ET, Fugitive, etc. ". There is no build up of emotion or any feeling of danger.
When I first saw the Super 8 trailer last fall, I thought it'd be a good movie, but every subsequent trailer was more and more aimed at children. Everything paco has said here supports that, so I'm no longer interested. When I was little I thought Bedknobs and Broomsticks was pretty cool, as kids today will think Super 8 is pretty cool. But I'm no longer a kid.
Quote: zippyboyDifference is War of the Worlds was not a kid's movie. When I first saw the Super 8 trailer last fall, I thought it'd be a good movie, but every subsequent trailer was more and more aimed at children. Everything paco has said here supports that, so I'm no longer interested. When I was little I thought Bedknobs and Broomsticks was pretty cool, as kids today will think Super 8 is pretty cool. But I'm no longer a kid.
Very minor spoilers
ET sold roughly 130-140 million tickets when the population was roughly 240 million. That's well over half the population. Avatar sold 100 million tickets when the population was 300 million. That's about a 1/3.
Even though ET was a children's movie, the emotions were real enough to appeal to adults. Then angst of 13 year old boys was much more realistic in "Stand by Me" than in "Super 8".
Little discrepancies like the dogs all running to the next county. Even kids know dogs don't run 20 miles away when they are scared. They run home.
The train wreck is pretty spectacular, but you get jaded because you know it is better and better computers doing the graphic imaging. Then the guy who caused the train wreck with a head on collision in a pick up truck wearing only seat belts survives and regains consciousness in minutes.
I do recommend the movie, if not in the theater, then rent the DVD. It just isn't a great movie.
Now, on the other hand, I am REALLY looking forward to going to the local high end theater, Cinetopia, and seeing "Cowboys and Aliens," a full blown, modern Spielberg flick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXHhnT1tHNM
Quote: MrVNow, on the other hand, I am REALLY looking forward to going to the local high end theater, Cinetopia, and see this full blown, modern Spielberg flick
It is firefly with big budgets and Olivia Wilde. How cool is that ?
Quote: EvenBobET was just cornball garbage
It is estimated that there are just fifteen movies that have sold over 90 million tickets domestically. Some with repeated releases. How many did you like?
Quote: Toes14
Another part of it is the cost. When it was $5-6 plus another $2-3 for popcorn & a soda, no big deal. Now it's $10 + $3 more for 3d glasses, plus $10 more for popcorn and a soda.
Same for me. Last time I went, the Saturday matinee was $6.50. I'll wait until I can see it on pay-per-view and record it. Save the cost of buying it later if I really like it!
| 1939 | repeated | Gone with the Wind | 202.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | repeated | Star Wars | 178.1 |
| 1965 | The Sound of Music | 142.4 | |
| 1982 | repeated | E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial | 141.9 |
| 1956 | The Ten Commandments | 131.0 | |
| 1997 | Titanic | 128.3 | |
| 1975 | Jaws | 128.1 | |
| 1965 | Doctor Zhivago | 124.1 | |
| 1973 | repeated | The Exorcist | 110.6 |
| 1937 | repeated | Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs | 109.0 |
| 1961 | repeated | 101 Dalmatians | 99.9 |
| 1980 | repeated | The Empire Strikes Back | 98.2 |
| 1959 | Ben-Hur | 98.0 | |
| 2009 | repeated | Avatar | 97.3 |
| 1983 | repeated | Return of the Jedi | 94.1 |
Carmike Cinemas the 4th largest cinema chain in the USA, estimates that it sold tickets last quarter at the rate of 46.3 per screen day. Since a movie is normally shown four times per day, that works out to less than 12 people per film showing on average. Of course their are huge swings from average. I assume that the average film theater is over 200 seats.
They are considering selling a "premium pay per view" for a movie. At 60 days after opening it would cost $30. The film theaters believe it may nearly kill most theaters.
What will be the future? Will micro cinemas become popular again? Will the habit of selling beer and wine make movies profitable?
I see that giant screen 3-D movies are becoming a new hit (not IMAX). Will that do it?
| 1939 | repeated | Gone with the Wind | 202.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | repeated | Star Wars | 178.1 |
| 1965 | The Sound of Music | 142.4 | |
| 1982 | repeated | E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial | 141.9 |
| 1956 | The Ten Commandments | 131.0 | |
| 1997 | Titanic | 128.3 | |
| 1975 | Jaws | 128.1 | |
| 1965 | Doctor Zhivago | 124.1 | |
| 1973 | repeated | The Exorcist | 110.6 |
| 1937 | repeated | Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs | 109.0 |
| 1961 | repeated | 101 Dalmatians | 99.9 |
| 1980 | repeated | The Empire Strikes Back | 98.2 |
| 1959 | Ben-Hur | 98.0 | |
| 2009 | repeated | Avatar | 97.3 |
| 1983 | repeated | Return of the Jedi | 94.1 |
Carmike Cinemas the 4th largest cinema chain in the USA, estimates that it sold tickets last quarter at the rate of 46.3 per screen day. Since a movie is normally shown four times per day, that works out to less than 12 people per film showing on average. Of course their are huge swings from average. I assume that the average film theater is over 200 seats.
They are considering selling a "premium pay per view" for a movie. At 60 days after opening it would cost $30. The film theaters believe it may nearly kill most theaters.
What will be the future? Will micro cinemas become popular again? Will the habit of selling beer and wine make movies profitable?
I see that giant screen 3-D movies are becoming a new hit (not IMAX). Will that do it?
| 1939 | repeated | Gone with the Wind | 202.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | repeated | Star Wars | 178.1 |
| 1965 | The Sound of Music | 142.4 | |
| 1982 | repeated | E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial | 141.9 |
| 1956 | The Ten Commandments | 131.0 | |
| 1997 | Titanic | 128.3 | |
| 1975 | Jaws | 128.1 | |
| 1965 | Doctor Zhivago | 124.1 | |
| 1973 | repeated | The Exorcist | 110.6 |
| 1937 | repeated | Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs | 109.0 |
| 1961 | repeated | 101 Dalmatians | 99.9 |
| 1980 | repeated | The Empire Strikes Back | 98.2 |
| 1959 | Ben-Hur | 98.0 | |
| 2009 | repeated | Avatar | 97.3 |
| 1983 | repeated | Return of the Jedi | 94.1 |
Carmike Cinemas the 4th largest cinema chain in the USA, estimates that it sold tickets last quarter at the rate of 46.3 per screen day. Since a movie is normally shown four times per day, that works out to less than 12 people per film showing on average. Of course their are huge swings from average. I assume that the average film theater is over 200 seats.
They are considering selling a "premium pay per view" for a movie. At 60 days after opening it would cost $30. The film theaters believe it may nearly kill most theaters.
What will be the future? Will micro cinemas become popular again? Will the habit of selling beer and wine make movies profitable?
I see that giant screen 3-D movies are becoming a new hit (not IMAX). Will that do it?
and Ben Hur. I probably like some of the others
when I was a kid, that doesn't count. Avatar made
me motion sick, Titanic made me puke, I forgot
the Star Wars movies as soon as I left the theatre.
Doctor Chicago put me to sleep.
Damn, EvenBob, you are such a
downer. And what's with this
new abridged posting format?
Are you posting from a phone?
Are you hitting a carriage return
willy-nilly?
Quote: zippyboy
Are you hitting a carriage return
willy-nilly?
Its the way I write emails,
its much easier to read and
it wraps right too.
From EvenBob to the gamblers
Poet of his time
