The dearth of movie going?

Empty theaters.
EvenBob composes his
poetic comebacks.

In all seriousness, I imagine there are two components to this "movie going business".

The "movie" is one; the "going" is another.

Its possible for us to focus on the quality of the movies and to debate the differences between films of old and modern films.
The industry seems more affected by the "going".

The term cocooning has been used to illustrate the trend to small groups and close friends rather than crowded events, so too has the term 'bowling alone' to represent small group bowling rather than larger leagues. If these trends actually exist then I imagine that the movie industry is as much affected as anything else.

Movies are often side entertainment these days: displayed on the backdrop of a vaudeville or dark cabaret, shown on the wall of a coffeehouse, shown in a film club. The "going" to the movies has been diminished because there is no longer the primacy of the movie itself. The primacy is the evenings entertainment: the totality of the vaudeville acts, the booze, the cake and coffee, the discussion group. One goes to the movies now and it is no longer hundreds of people trooping into a theater and remaining seated and quiet during the performance. The theaters are not full and the audience is not quiet and attentive. Its reminiscent of an Indian wedding: the groom intentionally arrives late and spends his time talking to his friends to show that the proceeding has little meaning to him.

A couple of slot addicts get sore fingers hitting the red button, so they take a break and go to the movies instead. A Bingo player gets a comp to a movie or takes advantage of the early bird senior special and pays two dollars for an afternoon performance. Some parents ditch the kids in the movie theater as a cheap babysitting service.

Perhaps the industry itself is changing. TV shows lagged behind HBO because HBO could offer sexual themes and sexual content. Perhaps its the same way with films. The narrow audience is profitable because its trendy but the broader audience will only get pablum.

Tattoos, piercings, vampires, zombies ... why on earth would I want to go to the movies?

Movies are entertainment. At one time, they were the only form
of entertainment readily available to the average person. Now
we're completely surrounded by entertainment at home, the
world is nothing like it was when the movies were at their zenith.

We need more musicals!

Quote: s2dbaker

We need more musicals!

You have my permission to produce one.

Quote: EvenBob

Movies are entertainment. At one time, they were the only form of entertainment readily available to the average person. Now we're completely surrounded by entertainment at home, the world is nothing like it was when the movies were at their zenith.

I think that your statement is a given. We are a long way from 1965 when the Sound of Music could sell 142 million box office tickets to a population of about 200 million. Even longer from the day when Gone with the Wind took the country by storm.

The biggest films are now selling twice as many tickets overseas as they are inside the USA. Clearly fantasy, animation, and action have moved into the forefront.

However, we still sell more theater tickets in the USA per person than they do in Europe. I personally don't want to see all media on my computer screen. The bigger and bigger screens are getting popular. That 20 minutes in "The Dark Knight" that were shot with the IMAX camera were spectacular.

Quote: FleaStiff

You have my permission to produce one.

I was thinking about a rock opera. The plot would surround Satan's glorious victory over Jesus last May 21st where Satan saves the Earth from destruction by the evil Jesus and His minions. Would it play in Peoria?

Nope. You can have Satan but not Jesus. You have to go where the money is. Just remember the tattoos, the nipple clips and the bondage devices

Quote: FleaStiff

Just remember the tattoos, the nipple clips and the bondage devices

That Jesus is a Fr3aK!!!

Quote: EvenBob

Movies are entertainment. At one time, they were the only form
of entertainment readily available to the average person. Now
we're completely surrounded by entertainment at home, the
world is nothing like it was when the movies were at their zenith.

I remember the movies where a really really rich person would have a theater set up in his home.

Quote: pacomartin

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.

Nothing new about low averages; back in the late 1990s, I frequented Friday noontime matinees of movies that had been out for a few weeks, and very rarely were there more than five other people there (in fact, in one case, I was the only person in the theater).

IIRC, the last three movies I saw in theaters were the new Star Trek (it was supposed to be a digital projection, but they had a problem with the digital projector), The Simpsons Movie, and Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters. However, with the closing of all of the rental stores near me, it is almost at the point where going to a matinee is about the same price as waiting a few months and then watching it on PPV.

Quote: s2dbaker

We need more musicals!

Only musical worth seeing was "The Blues Brothers."

Quote: AZDuffman

Only musical worth seeing was "The Blues Brothers."

Except for Saturday Night Fever. There's a reason it's still the highest selling soundtrack album ever. If you haven't seen it, you don't know what you're missing!
(if you've got any prejudices against disco, put them aside and have a look - the music in this movie is outstanding, as are the authentic NY locations)
I wasn't old enough to see this in the theatre, but have watched the DVD several times.

Quote: AZDuffman

Only musical worth seeing was "The Blues Brothers."

Now you won't have to dance. You can pay extra for a D-Box char that dances for you during the movie. When the Blue's Brothers careen around in their car, your chair will careen with the movie.

Quote: algle

Except for Saturday Night Fever. .

That was a good movie on the big screen. I saw
it again last year and had forgotten what a good
dancer John Travolta was. He was in 2 of my favorite
movies, Get Shorty and Be Cool. I have them both
and have seen them many times.

What's wrong with Oklahoma?

Commies.

Eh, I liked Moulin Rouge. I'm not sure if I know any more recent musicals.

I'm not sure if Saturday Night Fever is a musical. It's certainly not like another Travolta vehicle like Grease, which I'm pretty sure is a musical.

I'd say West Side Story is a musical. And pretty good, if I remember right.

The Music Man And I am so old the pool room I played in at age 17 had a billiard table and I hustled my first bet on a 3 rail billiard game.

Harold Hill: Mothers of River City, heed that warning before it's too late! Watch for the telltale signs of corruption! The minute your son leaves the house, does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knee? Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger? A dime-novel hidden in the corncrib? Is he starting to memorize jokes from Captain Billy's Whiz-Bang? Are certain words creeping into his conversation? Words like "swell" and "so's your old man"? If so my friends, ya got trouble!

"Trouble. I'm talkin' 'bout trouble, with a capital 'T' and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool."

Ya Got Trouble

"Why sure, I'm a billiard player, certainly, I'm mighty proud to say it, always mighty proud to say it! I consider the hours that I spend with a cue in my hand are golden!It helps you cultivate a horse sense. A cool head, and a keen eye. Now folks, let me tell you what i mean. You got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pockets on a table! Pockets that mark the difference between a gentleman and a bum! That's a capital B THat rhymes with P that stands for pool!"

Ya Got Trouble

Quote: buzzpaff

The Music Man And I am so old the pool room I played in at age 17

A lot of people don't know that Music Man was a smash
Broadway hit and Robert Preston, who was Harold Hill
in the movie, played the same role on Broadway for
1375 performances. Thats why he was so believable
in the movie, he really was Harold Hill. Can you imagine
having to sing those songs 1375 times? You would be
sick to death of them, but thats why they call it acting.

I love MM because of the era, 1912. 1890 to about
1925 was an idyllic time to be in America. So much was
happening. Of all the time periods, its looked upon with
more nostalgia than any other. It was the Victorian era
running head on into the modern 20th century.

Quote: EvenBob

Movies are entertainment.

I think its been a rather long time since I found a movie to be entertaining. Movies quite obviously still exist as an entertainment option but I don't know if its a matter of budgets, quality, or market forces but its just no longer a viable option for me. Music still exists, but that does not mean I will tolerate some sort of rap concert.

I look at these opening First Week Gross figures that occasionally make the news and have no idea what to think. Obviously people are still going to the talkies but sometimes I wonder if its a matter of alternatives and expectations. I sat thru Avatar on a hotel room TV quite some time ago and it was mainly absolute boredom for me. I kept wanting to reach for the remote and I think I would have pressed the infomercial button if that was my only alternative but my companion was clearly enjoying the movie and I didn't really have any alternatives since Lady Variance had tapped me out but good!

Quote: FleaStiff

I think its been a rather long time since I found a movie to be entertaining. Movies quite obviously still exist as an entertainment option ....

Perhaps it's YOU who has changed. The movies you found great as a child are now simplisticly silly as an adult. You and I are so far past Bedknobs and Broomsticks now. Kids today who think the Harry Potter movies are great will always think they're great because that's what they grew up with. People in their 30's like the Alien and Terminator movies probably, and will always think so far into their 70s. My parents liked Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind, but geeeeez, I can't sit through those more than once. It was a Big Deal that Clark Gable said "damn"?.....ooohhhhhhh, who cares. Was the movie scene really sooooo bereft at the time that West Side Story was considered masterful? Hard to believe ANYONE liked it when it came out. Really??? It was faggoty blecch to me. But then again, I didn't grow up with it always thinking it was the epitome of genres.

I didn't grow up with Elvis or John Wayne. I think they're both overrated. John Wayne had one role in every movie, just one. He played it well, but were movies really so lacking in character that we went to yet another John Wayne movie every year AGAIN (!) just because HE was in it? Elvis Presley was King in the 50's because he was physically perfect and shook his hips. oooohhhhh. He couldn't keep that up forever. By the 1970's, people were mimicking him as they do today on the Vegas streets. Elvis was so perfect in his youth that even ELVIS couldn't do Elvis towards the end. He died a bloated drug-addicted washout but folks still revere his performances of his youth. (Same folks will always think West Side Story and GWTW can never be knocked off the Great Movie List, but as they die off, people will replace those with movies like The Sting and Network, and then in 50 years, Avatar and Titanic and GWTW will be considered quaintly artful). Remember when the Post Office gave us the choice of stamps of early Elvis vs. old Elvis? (Amy Winehouse didn't have to get to that stage of her career. Enough people today will remember her as being at the top of her game when she died.) There are people today who think Michael Jackson was the King of Pop and can do no wrong, but I think he was a creepy well-documented pedophile with enough plastic surgery and skin bleaching to make him a public joke well into the next century.

So I'm just sayin'. Maybe you're too old to care about movies today, and keep holding them to the standard of movies of yesteryear that you thought were good because you hadn't seen anything like it up to that point. There was a time when the Duesenberg was considered the greatest car, but now we'd think it slow, heavy and pretentious. It was the Citizen Kane of its time. It had its place...time to move on. It's 2011.

Quote: zippyboy

I didn't grow up with Elvis or John Wayne. I think they're both overrated. .

Elvis yes, John Wayne no. Yes, he played John Wayne in every
movie, but did it expertly. He was the American spirit at that
time and people loved him. Hell, I love him. He was the same
on screen and off screen, he was as authentic as they come.

I have movies from all generations that I like. Movies are art,
you have to have certain tastes and pick what you like. What
do you like, Zip, I'm curious.

As an aside, I can't stand West Side Story, never seen it all the
way thru. Most people don't know Natalie Wood hated her
male co star and didn't speak to him once during the entire
movie. As soon as their scenes were done, she marched off
to her dressing room. They had no chemistry onscreen, gee,
I wonder why.

I wonder how much movies have changed because of different American tastes or demographics, and how much has changed because the worldwide target audience has changed.

In 1989 the top 25 movies were responsible for 45% of the domestic box office. But only 8 of those 25 films made more money in foreign box office than in North America. For these 25 films foreign box office was 90% of domestic box office.

In 2010 the top 25 movies were responsible for 45% of the domestic box office. But now 24 of those 25 films made more money in foreign box office than in North America. The lone exception, Iron Man 2, only beat the foreign box office by a very narrow margin. For these 25 films foreign box office was 169% of domestic box office.

It is a rare movies, like The Blind Side which is a domestic hit, but has little overseas audience. Where it had some success was only in countries where English is widely spoken.

A movie must be profoundly different if most of your attendees do not speak English as a native language.

Quote: EvenBob

I have movies from all generations that I like. Movies are art,
you have to have certain tastes and pick what you like. What
do you like, Zip, I'm curious.

I agree completely. I'm gonna see Cowboys and Aliens this weekend because it looks fun. Will it be as good as fun movies from past years, like Raiders of the Lost Ark? or Blade Runner? Who knows. Who cares. This is 2011 and this is what's offered today, so I'm gonna see it. I'm not gonna see Raiders over and over all my life just because that's what was good 20 years ago and claim "It's the BEST fun movie". Anyone who claims "Citizen Kane is the BEST movie" seems pathetically stuck in the past to me. I listen to today's music too. I can't keep listening to Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd the rest of my days, can I? There was a time for Floyd and that was then. Now it's Katy Perry and Cee-Lo Green that's being offered so that's what I listen to. And I'm 47 by the way. I wouldn't listen to Robert Plant now even IF he had a new CD out.

I think it's amusing that if you give a radio to a diverse group of people (say, at work) and say pick a station....the old people will pick Glenn Miller, the 50-year-olds will pick 60s Motown & Beatles, the 40-somethings will pick classic rock, the 30-somethings will pick Police and Pat Benatar, the 20-somethings would pick rap and Beyonce, teens would pick the flavor of the month. People seem to be stuck mentally with whatever music they grew up with in high school and I frankly just don't get that. I couldn't possibly listen to Supertramp and Genesis the rest of my life. That's crazy. Any more than I could keep watching the same movies over and over the rest of my life. Or eating the exact same food. Driving the same car. Or sleeping with the same woman.

Quote: zippyboy

This is 2011 and this is what's offered today, so I'm gonna see it. I'm not gonna see Raiders over and over all my life just because that's what was good 20 years ago and claim "It's the BEST fun movie".

So what are your favorite movies? What do you
like to see over and over? Show me yours and
I'll show you mine.

Here's a funny story. In 1965 I was a Junior in
high school and I had a friend who wanted to
be an usher in a movie theatre because he could
watch a lot of movies for free. This was in the
days before mall multiplexes, the only theatres
were the downtown palaces built in the 20's
and 30's. So he got a job as an usher at the
Midtown, the biggest theatre in town, it even
had a double balcony. He had a neat uniform
and a red flashlight, The same week he got hired,
The Sound of Music opened, to rave reviews. You
really can't imagine what a huge smash hit that
stupid movie was, unless you were around to see
it. To make a long story short, it played at the
Midtown for over a year. Thats right, a year. My
friend worked there the whole year, and only got
to see one movie. The irony of it has never left me.

Sarah Pain's movie is doing some awesome business:
linky

Doublepost!

As far as I can tell, modern movies are still following a lot of the same basic formulas of old movie making. They sell movies as star vehicles, or they sell them as action flicks, romances or comedies. Artistic movies rarely get much attention, but they never did. FX is updated from Forbidden Planet to something like Avatar.

They still mainly market to the younger groups who make up the most of the movie going scene. That hasn't changed.

90% (or more) of everything put out is instantly forgettable after it runs its initial course or just plain trash to start with. A few movies will transcend enough to entertain several generations without losing their appeal.

I like movies. A lot. But I'm not gonna pay sixty bucks to see one in the theater more than once or twice a year.

Quote: pacomartin

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), up from eight in 2010.
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), down from seven in 2010.
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.

So we are about halfway through the record breaking 27 sequels scheduled for this year. At this point 8 of the top 10 films so far this year are sequels. While Thor is technically not a sequel it falls squarely into the franchise. I didn't see Bridesmaids, so I don't know how far it deviated from the genre

1 Transformers: Dark of the Moon
2 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
3 The Hangover Part II
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
5 Fast Five
6 Thor
7 Cars 2
8 Bridesmaids
9 Kung Fu Panda 2
10 X-Men: First Class

I see that they are re-making Total Recall which doesn't seem that old of a movie to me. I think the Spider-man is more of a re-imagining then a re-make (but it's a close call). I would say the same thing about The Thing.

I think Cowboys and Aliens may be as close as we get to Inception this year.

Quote: zippyboy

I agree completely. I'm gonna see Cowboys and Aliens this weekend because it looks fun. Will it be as good as fun movies from past years, like Raiders of the Lost Ark? or Blade Runner? Who knows. Who cares. This is 2011 and this is what's offered today, so I'm gonna see it. I'm not gonna see Raiders over and over all my life just because that's what was good 20 years ago and claim "It's the BEST fun movie". Anyone who claims "Citizen Kane is the BEST movie" seems pathetically stuck in the past to me. I listen to today's music too. I can't keep listening to Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd the rest of my days, can I? There was a time for Floyd and that was then. Now it's Katy Perry and Cee-Lo Green that's being offered so that's what I listen to. And I'm 47 by the way. I wouldn't listen to Robert Plant now even IF he had a new CD out.

I think it's amusing that if you give a radio to a diverse group of people (say, at work) and say pick a station....the old people will pick Glenn Miller, the 50-year-olds will pick 60s Motown & Beatles, the 40-somethings will pick classic rock, the 30-somethings will pick Police and Pat Benatar, the 20-somethings would pick rap and Beyonce, teens would pick the flavor of the month. People seem to be stuck mentally with whatever music they grew up with in high school and I frankly just don't get that. I couldn't possibly listen to Supertramp and Genesis the rest of my life. That's crazy. Any more than I could keep watching the same movies over and over the rest of my life. Or eating the exact same food. Driving the same car. Or sleeping with the same woman.

I agree on books, movies and TV shows, but when it comes to music, there's "older" stuff that I keep listening to, as it invokes an emotional response. Not to say I don't listen to recent stuff (though not mainstream pop), but every so often, getting out my old Carter USM, Nirvana, Senseless Things and Soundgarden records is good times, as much as listening to the new album by Ko or a random assortment of dub-step mashups.

Music CAN invoke such a low level response in people that makes it very different from more visual medium. I think any music is valid if it makes you feel something. It's why movies without a soundtrack seem odd and flat. You need it to heighten the response of the audience.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the pick for the grown up movie for this December.

A nine-year-old amateur inventor, jewelry designer, astrophysicist, tambourine player and pacifist, searches New York for the lock that matches a mysterious key left by his father when he was killed in the September 11 attacks. Starring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock and a 12 year old kid who won Jeapordy in October. The book was inspired by this photo.
' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2011/09/09/AP010911117496_232927.jpg]




The summer season sequels did very well, so the year is not as horrible as it looked in the first four months, but it will still set a new low for the last 16 years.
Ticket sales should end up between 1.26 billion (1995) and 1.29 billion (1994) when Toy Story and Forrest Gump were the #1 pictures. But all the 3D, big screens, vibrating seats, and smelling cards in movies doesn't look like it can bring attendance close to the 1.58 billion peak box office sales of nine years ago when Spiderman was released.

So far 1/3 of the box office tickets have gone to the following movies

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 :sequel
Transformers: Dark of the Moon :sequel
The Hangover Part II :sequel
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides :sequel
Fast Five :sequel
Cars 2 :sequel
Thor :Not a sequel, but part of a franchise
Captain America: The First Avenger :Not a sequel, but part of a franchise
Bridesmaids :Original movie, but very much a genre film
Rise of the Planet of the Apes :Loosely a remake, but it was so original that it more properly a new treatment of older story
Kung Fu Panda 2 :sequel

The dearth of movie going is not the fault of Earl Dittman

Quote: rxwine

The dearth of movie going is not the fault of Earl Dittman

The guy would have had 7 promotions where I used to work. That type of person was known as having integrity.

The new Twilight Saga movie has pushed "Bridesmaids" and "The Help", the only two original movies out of the top 10 for the year. Box office gross domestically is down 4.1% despite higher ticket prices. Increased foreign attendance, especially in China makes up for weak domestic attendance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 :sequel
Transformers: Dark of the Moon :sequel
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1:sequel
The Hangover Part II :sequel
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides :sequel
Fast Five :sequel
Cars 2 :sequel
Thor :Not a sequel, but part of a franchise
Captain America: The First Avenger :Not a sequel, but part of a franchise
Rise of the Planet of the Apes :Loosely a remake, but it was so original that it more properly a new treatment of older story

The next Mission Impossible movie might push Planet of the Apes out of the top 10.

I think there is a chance that "Tin Tin", or "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (a remake of a Swedish film) will put a non-sequel movie into the top 10 before the end of the year. But I am guessing that this year's record crop of 27 sequels will be beaten next year.

Stan Lee will be age 89 in two weeks. His creations from fifty years ago seem like they will still be ascendant by the time he reaches age 100.



As recently as 2000, only one of the top 10 movies was a sequel. And there was a good selection of thrillers and movies geared for grown ups.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Cast Away
Mission: Impossible II
Gladiator
What Women Want
The Perfect Storm
Meet the Parents
X-Men
Scary Movie
What Lies Beneath

Quote: pacomartin

Are movies in theaters going to keep on fading away? Have you seen a movie this year?

Doing some side-work auditing attendence this weekend (on a break now) and I can say the view of the employees on the inside isn't great. Manager has been in the biz all his life by the looks of it. He was telling me how another theatre nearby just ripped out the heart of his business, but even that doesn't explain all of it. The place I am at, he was telling me attendence figures and the kid working then (I doubt he was alive then) was in disbelief. And how many employees they had then--said there were 2-3 ushers just guiding traffic in the parking lot.

He said right to me that with $10+ tickets the "family of 4" just can't do it after they buy popcorn and admission. Then there is all the youtube/on-demand/etc.

The biggest telling thing to me was number of screens. Fifteen years ago they built them in the 20s. Now he said the most they do is 12-14 since they just cannot fill more.

Hollywood keeps churning things out... the money gets recouped somewhere... I just don't think its at movie theaters all that much. That family of four prefers to rent a movie and make their own popcorn and not deal with parking lots or lines or someone else's schedule.

I've seen The Social Network at least half a dozen
times on cable, and had no idea the Winklevoss
twins were played by one actor. What a great
editing job, sure fooled me. The real Winklevoss
twins are even better looking than the actor who
played them. They're rowing again in the 2012
Olympics.

Here they are:

Quote: AZDuffman

The place I am at, he was telling me attendence figures and the kid working then (I doubt he was alive then) was in disbelief. And how many employees they had then--said there were 2-3 ushers just guiding traffic in the parking lot.

Estimated 1,283 million tickets sold in 2011
Estimated 1,263 million tickets sold in 1995 (Toy Story, Batman Forever, Ace Ventura)

They are in a desperate race to build bigger screens, better sound systems, etc to a diminishing audience with more and more films oriented to children.

Production companies are counting more and more on the Russian, Chinese, Indian audience to consume pictures.

I really think the theater companies should simply start showing Daytime talk shows, TV sports, etc. Don't charge admission, just prohibit private food, and sell beer.

On a side note, the guy who was dean at Harvard
and was played by an actor in the movie, said the
Winklevoss twins were a couple of 'real assholes'
and had a swagger when they walked that he'd
never seen before. Being 6' 5" Olympic rowers,
being at Harvard, having a father worth
hundreds of millions and having movie star good
looks tends to make young men swagger.

Drive-Ins Make A Comeback.

New outdoor theaters are opening, and shuttered ones are being revived as people rediscover the pleasures of watching movies outdoors with no restrictions on chatting, screaming kids, cellphone use or smoking.

The movies are doing better by 10% in revenue from last year. But the sequels remain unabated.

Marvel Comics
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
The Avengers 2
Captain America 2
Iron Man 3
Thor 2
X-Men: First Class 2
Wolverine 2

DC Comics
The Dark Knight Rises
Superman: Man Of Steel

Not surprising sequels
Avatar 2
Despicable Me 2
The Expendables 2
Fast & Furious 6
G.I. Joe: Retaliation
The Bourne Legacy
The Hangover 3
Kick-Ass 2
Monsters Inc. 2
The Ring 3D
Star Trek 2
Taken 2
xXx: The Return Of Xander Cage
300: Battle Of Artemisia (Prequel)

Sequels to movies that did poorly
Riddick 3
Sin City 2

Sequels to longstanding series
Skyfall (James Bond 23)
Die Hard 5
Terminator 5

Sequels to movies from the past
Anchorman 2
Beetlejuice 2
Bill And Ted 3
Blade Runner 2
Twins 2
Ghostbusters 3

Re-imagine
The Hobbit
Oz Wars
Oz: The Great and Powerful (Prequel)

Maybe Drive-Ins are just cheap, but maybe people have gotten more used to watching TV outdoors.

Apparently, movies are not alone in this; the number of people who attend ("can afford to attend" is probably more accurate) NFL games has dropped to the point where the NFL recently announced a change to its "blackout policy"; a game can now be shown in the home team's area if only 85% of it seats, rather than 100%, are sold at least 72 hours in advance.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Apparently, movies are not alone in this; the number of people who attend ("can afford to attend" is probably more accurate) NFL games has dropped to the point where the NFL recently announced a change to its "blackout policy"; a game can now be shown in the home team's area if only 85% of it seats, rather than 100%, are sold at least 72 hours in advance.

I read that, I think it is a new rule where the team can take it as low as 85% -- but the lower they go that becomes the threshold to split the gate with the other team.

I do not see why this is a suprise. Lets see, $20 to park, $60+ for a ticket, $6 or more for each beer, how much more for food, then you get to sit in traffic after the game. OR you can either watch on a nice, big-screen at home while you have your laptop looking at fantasy stats or how everyone is doing ATS while you sit in comfort eating good food and beer of your choice OR if you want the crowd-feel you go to a nice, warm sports-bar for 1/3 the price.

FWIW I remember when the Steelers went to SB XIV the local news said how the NFL raised the price of a beer from $.90 to $1 so you would not have to wait for change. I won't even waste my time comparing this increase to the CPI. They pushed too hard with things and now people have said, "ENOUGH!"

In some areas you have to also factor in the cost to repair the bullet holes in your windshield.

There is a small, locally owned cluster of three theaters nearby which provide a premium movie going experience: a lot of leg room, great sound and DLP film quality, great seats, food and alcohol available.

Just opened a venue with 23 separate theaters.

http://www.cinetopia.com/location/vancmall.htm

Could this take off nationwide?

I think I've mentioned the last time I went to the movies was to see "The Dark knight."

The thing is I no longer get excited about movies. Any movie. And I've been disappointed by several movies over the past fifteen years or so. Take "Prometheus," for example. When I found it was related to the "Alien" movies, my desire to see it dropped dramatically. Honestly I can't say what was the last decent, never mind good, SF movie I ever saw.

On the other hand there have been several good SF series on TV, like Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1. And even mediocre fare like Voyager and Enterprise managed a few good episodes now and then.

So if I'm going to be disappointed by a movie, I'd rather not pay to see it. Eventually they all make it to some cable channel or another.

Quote: Nareed

Honestly I can't say what was the last decent, never mind good, SF movie I ever saw.

What, you didn't like "Avatar?"

While not of the same caliber, "District 9" was pretty good, as was "Monsters" and "Moon."

i never go anymore. The DVD of the flick -less than 4-5 months after movie release- has a lot to do with decline in attendance.

If I see a movie I'm interested in, I buy the DVD. Always have the Movie that way. I like having my own Movie library.

Consider also,--- the internet has the undividing attention of everyone just about----this has to have something to do with decline in attendance.