Poll On Viewing Habits

[Guest]

Any one have any comments on this?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005...poll050616.html

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

People are getting lazy... As home technology increases, people would much rather sit on there ass's at home and watch a movie than actually get out and do it... I think this accounts for a majority of the overweight issue in the world... We hardly have to even get out of our homes for everyday life...drive through, home food delivery, home office, ect... everything has something to do with "Home"...

 

I think they should do away with things that make life easier, and make people get off there ass's and do something instead of sit around all day, thats when cinema attendance will increase!

 

Heck, it cant be because the films are getting worse... Films today are no worse than they where in 1994.. cinema has always been filled with bad movies, and the few good movies in between...

Edited June 16, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Tim J Durham]

Any one have any comments on this?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005...poll050616.html

 

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"People" also prefer Britney Spears to Mozart judging from record sales. I don't think theatrical release of films is going to go away anytime soon. However, the best film of 2004 (IMHO), "Touching the Void" did only $4.8 million at the box office:

 

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/boxoffice

 

but has done three times that -and counting- in rentals:

 

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/videorevenue

 

Criminally overlooked by the Oscar bunch.

 

So that makes for a pretty successful documentary and that's all for the better. I think there will always be a segment of people who want to experience art in the intended medium and as with anything, a much larger segment of people who want to live it from the lazy-boy. How many people actually go to football games?

[Luke Prendergast]

Don't confuse USA and world.

[Gillian]

Or in this case Canada... (That report was from CBC.ca, at http://www.cbc.ca/news/, I saw it this morning)

I go and see the movies that really interest me in the theaters and I save the rest for rentals.

[Dominic Case]

You need to look at more detail to see what "people" are thinking or doing about "the movies". Not all people are the same, nor ar all movies.

 

I've done some similar research myself, albeit on a much smaller scale, and not statistically valid - but here are some extra points to consider:-

 

Most "people" said they would go to the cinema to see blockbusters and sci-fi or FX films, but would choose to get DVD's for some other genres such as romantic comedy.

 

Most "people" said the key advantages of cinema versus DVD/home theatre were (a) image and sound quality and "size" and (B) the social aspects: you go out to be with your friends, regardless of the movie.

 

Many more people would rent DVDs if they came out simulataneously with the cinema release. It's the "see it in the first week" phenomonon.

 

In certain Asian countries where piracy is widespread, it is common to see people queueing to get into a new film, while VCD copies are being sold for a fraction of the ticket price outisde in the street. So the cinema experience does still count for something.

 

THe slight blip in box office takings this year (a few percent) bears no relation to the increase in DVD sale and rental figures (up 40% or more). You can't interpret this as people substituting DVD viewing for cinema visits. As always, what we are seeing is the growth of a NEW and ADDITIONAL entertainment sector.

[Guest]

The story is on the CBC site, but it's a poll of 1000 Americans, not Canadians.

 

As for USA vs World numbers, the USA is of course the single most important movie market.

 

R,

[Robert Hughes]

Is that still true? I thought I'd read that India was a bigger market than USA.

 

As far as popular polls go, it reminds me of some boy's room grafitti -

 

"Eat S---!!! 50 Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong!

[James Brown]

In Australia the Film Industry is in absolute crisis and the junk that is coming out at the cinema is not interesting people. The only films that people go and watch in Aus is American Films, and what has came out this year? Not Much. At the moment Mr and Mrs Smith- Are we kidding ourselves? and The Longest Yard, a remake of The Mean Machine but with Adam Sandler.

 

 

We have to ask ourselves, why arent we going to the cinema's as much these days? We are the ones that are in the industry and should be supporting it. If there is not films that makes us go "cant wait for it to come out" then why go and wast our money on watching commercialised crap.

 

There is always hope in the industry but with new modernisation of home theatre systems people are staying home with their plasma screens and surround sound.

 

To sum up, Better Films - More Viewers.

 

James.

[drew_town]

The way I see it is the clincher of the article states that people (around half of those polled) believe that movies' quality is progressively declining. I might agree with that statement and have voted likewise. In my opinion, those fortunate enough to get the jobs making features are in a rare position to use the opportunity to make quality material. So often I have wondered how a movie even got made because it was so god-awful.

 

Here's a list of movies that I have seen VERY recently in the theaters that I thought were outstanding and worth my $8.00:

 

Cinderella Man

The Interpreter

 

Here's a list of movies that I have seen VERY recently in the theaters that I thought were in the mediocre to "blah" range:

 

Batman Begins

Crash

Sin City

Tarnation

 

Here's a list of VERY recent movies that I have NO intention of ever seeing for one reason or another:

 

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Madagascar

The Longest Yard

The Adv. of Sharkboy...

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

Honeymooners

Monster In Law

High Tension

The Perfect Man

Lords of Dogtown

Kicking and Screaming

Sahara

Ladies in Lavender

The Pacifier

Unleashed

House of Wax

Fever Pitch

Miss Congeniality II

Ice Princess

The Upside of Anger

A Lot Like Love

and many many more...

 

Granted I am one consumer who has a specific liking for certain types of movies. However I would wager at least half the movies in the last category are not, by any means, worth my money or my time.

 

I'm just saying if you can't make a good movie, why make a movie at all? Give someone else the opportunity and means.

 

I will say one thing, if the film industry ever gets saturated with the same piss-poor garbage that the music industry is tolerating these days, I'll stop supporting the industry. I've bought one CD over the last 7 years. And that's not because I'm downloading them. It's because I don't want to hear that crap.

 

The turn of the century will be known as the age of the remake and sequel/prequel for movies. It is in my opinion the worst era in terms of quality material the movie industry has seen. Can you really blame people for staying home? Give me something worth watching.

 

There have been some really good points brought up. And I know full-well you can't depend on statistics and polls to acurately represent every situation. But I felt like I had to get that off my chest.

[Guest]

"Is that still true? I thought I'd read that India was a bigger market than USA."

 

Ah, I said the most "important" not the biggest.

 

USA is the most important in terms of dollar generation.

 

R,

[Luke Prendergast]

What I was really referring to was Landon's opening paragraph.

[Landon D. Parks]

Granted I am one consumer who has a specific liking for certain types of movies. However I would wager at least half the movies in the last category are not, by any means, worth my money or my time.

How do you know its a bad movie unless you see it? You certainly dont rely on what "Yahoo" users say about them?

 

Its one thing is you know a movie is not your type, but to say they ALL SUCK is amnother thing...

[Luke Prendergast]

C'mon Landon. What did you say about War of the Worlds in the Spielberg thread? You said - "I mean I just can't say I like his recent more contemporary films. . . Such as War of the Worlds" - and it hasn't even been released yet.

[David Mullen ASC]

Landon's own response about the lack of good theaters around him suggest that this poll should have been broken down regionally -- i.e. do people who live in cities with great movie theaters have the same preference for home video as people living in smaller towns, etc. Certainly if I lived in the middle of nowhere, I might cherish my home theater system more compared to someone who lived a block from the Arclight in Hollywood, for example.

 

Also, it worries me that there's this notion that people will just start watching movies on kick-ass home theater systems -- excuse me, but what about all the people around the world who can't afford such systems? It's like saying we don't need libraries because people can just get the book at Barnes & Noble now.

[drew_town]

How do you know its a bad movie unless you see it? You certainly dont rely on what "Yahoo" users say about them?

 

Its one thing is you know a movie is not your type, but to say they ALL SUCK is amnother thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Suck is a subjective term, whereas I have a pretty good idea of "the value of my time and money." "Suck" is what my gut tells me when I see the preview, read reviews, and discover who made the movie and juxtapose past productions. "Not worth my time" is what I say right before I decide not to go see it. Trust me, I really wish I didn't feel that way. But I think back to how many times I gave the screen the bird because my gut was indeed correct.

[David Mullen ASC]

Fundamentally, I like the moviewatching experience. Even as a child back when they showed science films in class with a 16mm projector, I liked it when the house lights were dimmed and the movie started up. I enjoyed seeing images projected on a screen, almost any images as a young person.

 

So even if I don't think most of the movies I see are any good or worth watching twice, I'd rather go out and see movies than NOT see movies. I'll see a movie on the thinnest excuse, like "I heard they shot their exteriors on Fuji F500D." I went and saw "Sahara" just because I like desert movies (I grew up in the desert) and I like Civil War action scenes and I read that it opened with one. And I wanted to see what the "Sahara Gold" filter did. No, it wasn't a good movie. But I learn from all movies.

 

I remember Robert Altman's comment that he learned more from watching bad movies because they told him what NOT to do. Kubrick made a similar remark once.

 

But I like seeing movies. That's why I got into this business.

[Tim J Durham]

Suck is a subjective term, whereas I have a pretty good idea of "the value of my time and money." "Suck" is what my gut tells me when I see the preview, read reviews, and discover who made the movie and juxtapose past productions. "Not worth my time" is what I say right before I decide not to go see it. Trust me, I really wish I didn't feel that way. But I think back to how many times I gave the screen the bird because my gut was indeed correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Get ready for some fresh ideas! Check this list:

 

http://pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-preproduction

 

and this:

 

http://pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-filming

 

and this:

 

http://pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-postproduction

 

"Only" about half HALF! are either sequels, remakes or TV-show-turned-into-movies. The brilliant ideas are bursting through the seams, 'course that half represents about 80% of the production budget of all the films on those lists combined. No doubt it'll also represent 80% of the box office....

[Landon D. Parks]

I don't live in the middle of no where #1... I live in a college town with 60,000 + people... We have 2 cinemas, both Showplace's... One's a 12 screen (where i work) the other is a 11 screen... Most majot films are screened at the Showplace 12 (newest one) with stadium seating, Curved screens, 6.1 surroud sound... ect. Most small but still wide release movies open @ 11... Which is fairly old (maybe 1970?) and has 5.1 Surround, no stadium seating and the screens are flat... Both have LARGE screens, but just in selected theaters... Like all Megaplex cinema's, We have large screens and small screens... 12 has 4 HUGE screens, 4 Medium Sized ones and 4 Small ones...

Most of 11's are the same size though.. about 1 story I think...

 

So I dont live in the middle of no where, and the cinemas we have a pretty well off.

 

While we dont have any Arclight's or anything like that, we do have 2 nice cinemas...

 

#2:

C'mon Landon. What did you say about War of the Worlds in the Spielberg thread? You said - "I mean I just can't say I like his recent more contemporary films. . . Such as War of the Worlds" - and it hasn't even been released yet.

 

Ok, I think I sat myself up for that one...

 

And David:

Landon's own response about the lack of good theaters around him suggest that this poll should have been broken down regionally

A Majority of the population dont live in Hollywood, or LA, or New York.. So if you single it out to "Only people who live in big cities" than thats not an acurate representation of why people dont go to the movies... because 98% of the population DONT have ab Arclight or any big nice theaters like that.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry, I thought I read a post from you about having only small screens in your town, but I guess that was someone else's post.

 

I'm not invalidating the opinions of those who live outside a major city; I'm only saying that the notion that movie theaters are not very good and home systems are comparable does not apply everywhere. Whenever I hear people say "theaters suck" my response tends to me "then go to one that's good" -- but I can do that where I live, not everyone can.

 

As for the notion that the majority of Americans don't live in big cities with big theaters, I'm not sure that's true -- an awful lot of the population obviously DO live in big cities or else they wouldn't be big. But I don't know what the breakdown is like.

[Guest]

FYI, CNN is running their version of this story now.....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/...l.ap/index.html

 

R,

[Matt Pacini]

"... a much larger segment of people who want to live it from the lazy-boy. How many people actually go to football games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are there 5 different football games being shown in every town, several times a day?

It's a totally different thing, and it's sure as hell more expensive and more of a hassle.

 

That's the inherent weakness with these types of conversations.

You gotta remember, people get paid to write about "trends" (that may or may not actually be happening) then make wild theories about why they are happening, some of which are ridiculous.

I remember reading an interview with some studio guy last year, where he said the reason Passion of the Christ did so well, was because the blood & guts inspired teenage boys to go see it, which is of course absurd. If any demographic is to credit(or blame, depending on your outlook) for the success of that film, it's the fact that 99.999% of churchgoers went to see it.

 

Anyway, the fact is, some people go to the theater 3 times a week, no matter what's playing, and other people don't go at all, and the rest are everything in-between.

I personally think if there is a "trend" having to do with home viewing (DVD/VCR), it's that most "regular" people go to the theater a couple or a few times a year, but rent the rest of the time, and they rent films that have had all the biggest marketing campaigns - movies they've heard of before.

Most of these people ignore anything off the beaten path, indies, etc., and only respond to highly hyped films, which is a shame.

 

All this hand-wringing by the studios about "trends" without mentioning anything about the quality (or lack) of the films, just shows that they don't even care if their movies are good or not. All they see is "we spent $40 million to market this thing, and nobody's showing up. It must be home video killing the market". You would think after 35 years, they'd realize this is a stupid argument.

When 1/2 the people coming out of theaters are telling everyone they know a movie sucks, then it is not going to do well. Pretty simple.

 

 

MP

[Landon D. Parks]

Something that is similare to this case is here (from the Hollywoof Reporter) while its not exactly on the same subject, it still accounts for some of why theater attendance is down...:

 

 

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Let's debunk a popular myth: Grown-ups don't go to the movies.

 

Truth is, they still go. "Ray," "Million Dollar Baby," "Shall We Dance?" and "The Interpreter" all played primarily to adults. And movies like "Ray" and "Million Dollar Baby" earned their audiences the old-fashioned way: They took their time.

 

But "Cinderella Man," the most recent film to attempt to court the older-than-35 crowd, is finding that time is a luxury it might not have. Ron Howard's earnest Depression-era boxing drama might have looked like a slam-dunk. Initial audiences liked what they saw, with the film winning a 99% excellent rating from Cinemascore, and a respectable 83% "fresh" rating from the Internet review site http://www.rottentomatoes.com.

 

But exit polls told a further part of the story: Fully 50 percent of the "Cinderella Man" audience was older than 50. That's a serious drawback for a movie that cost some $88 million to make and $40 million to release because this group can't be counted on to rush to theaters on a movie's first weekend. "Cinderella Man" opened on over 2,800 screens to $18.6 million, landing in fourth place behind three holdovers, and fell 46.8% on its second weekend.

 

Releasing a high-profile movie for mature moviegoers at the height of summer, when competition is most intense, was not a brilliant move. "The farther away you get from age 25, the more difficult," one marketer says. "While the appetite for those films is there all year round, adults don't feel that sense of urgency to see the film. They don't commit, it's crowded, they wait to see it later."

 

Universal Pictures is now counting on DVDs to salvage "Cinderella Man." Come late fall, when star    Russell Crowe's anger issues will have faded from the public's memory, Universal Studios Home Entertainment will stage a well-funded comeback for the drama (which has grossed a piddling $36 million to date), aimed at both DVD buyers and Oscar voters.

 

When it comes to DVD consumers, the studios are confident that if they build a strong adult movie, the audience will come. That feeling does not extend to theatergoers.

 

For that, the studios have only themselves to blame. They're driving that ever-loyal viewer home to watch HBO or DVDs by not keeping the moviegoing habit going with strong movies aimed at adults. "The movie business is pushing them away," says producer Sean Daniel, "making them look for other things, like renting all the seasons of 'Six Feet Under."'

 

Since the dawn of Hollywood, a wide swath of the American public counted themselves among the faithful: frequent moviegoers. Through the late 1970s, that throng was dominated by adults. Movie critics wrote their reviews for adults. TV, radio and print ads were targeted at adults. Movies were constructed by adults for adults. Sure, there were always youth-market movies, but they were always ancillary, not primary.

 

Then came the wide-audience marketing revolution. With each succeeding decade, the Hollywood studios, driven by the relative ease of selling their movies to the dominant demographic (young men under 25) that showed up on opening weekends, increasingly aimed their movies at less demanding kids. Slowly but surely, they decreased the number of movies for more discerning grown-ups, leaving that headache to the likes of Miramax Films' Harvey Weinstein, who specialized in building the drumbeat of year-end accolades that accompanies an Oscar campaign.

 

When the studios produce movies that adults might enjoy, like "The Bourne Identity," "Seabiscuit" or "Gladiator," they try to make sure that the younger demo will like them too. It has become rare to greenlight a big-budget studio movie aimed squarely at the older-than-30 set. But the studios that take that gamble often score: "Fried Green Tomatoes," "Driving Miss Daisy," "Cocoon," "The First Wives Club," "Training Day," "Grumpy Old Men," "The Truman Show" and "Braveheart" all come to mind, along with a laundry list of    Clint Eastwood movies.

 

But these movies were surprise breakouts; they didn't start out as summer tentpoles or wear their self-importance on their sleeve. They had time to earn word-of-mouth and media attention. "Clearly older audience movies have to be made for a price," says one studio marketing chief, "by a director who will deliver the product."

 

The real trick for these movies is to give them enough time to grow legs. (Not the studios' strong suit.) Take "Crash," which has earned $44 million for Lions Gate Films since it opened May 6 on 1,500 screens. It is scoring with the same cinemagoer that loves "Cinderella Man," but at a fraction of "Cinderella Man's" costs. That means that it can afford to hang in for the long haul, even in the summer. It's playing and playing and playing, much the way "Sideways" did last year. That movie cost $16 million and grossed $71.5 million in North America.

 

Obviously, "Cinderella Man" is a different species. It's an A-list top-of-the-line studio movie from Imagine Entertainment, the Tiffany production label on the Universal lot. It's from the so-called "Fab Four" who brought you "A Beautiful Mind": Howard, Crowe, producer Brian Grazer and writer Akiva Goldsman, all of them Oscar winners. This means that "Cinderella Man" can't afford to be modest about anything: budget, star, marketing campaign, release, PR, expectations. No wonder one of the best actors of our time lost his temper after he failed to deliver a $30 million weekend.

 

At least Crowe appeals to the adult crowd. When 20th Century Fox cast Orlando Bloom, a young actor with a primarily female audience, in Ridley Scott's big-budget spectacle "Kingdom of Heaven," the studio failed to broaden the film's mature appeal. Unless a movie appeals to male and female viewers, young and old -- the so-called "four quadrants" -- it can't afford to cost $110 million.

 

There's no reason why the studios can't keep making smart movies just for grown-ups. They just need economies of scale: Put    Tom Cruise in "Magnolia,"    Jim Carrey in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,"    George Clooney in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" Russell Crowe in "Cinderella Man" -- just don't pay their action movie prices.

 

That way a beautiful movie about a lovable boxer can hang in theaters long enough to catch on with the slowpokes. They still flock to theaters when they're given something to see, like the independent "The Passion of the Christ" or "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." And they turned up for all five of last year's best picture Oscar contenders (all indie-financed, even when studios eventually distributed them).

 

As more and more people settle into the Netflix habit, the studios might regret letting that sophisticated audience slip away. They need people to go to theaters to establish their titles in the first place. They need real people in seats to validate the titles they spent so much to create. (This will become harder as the DVD window gets shorter.)

 

The audience that can't be counted on to stay loyal is playing with gizmos and gadgets and video games and computers and cell phones. The younger demo could lose the frequent moviegoing habit.

 

That's when the movie business will need adults again. If they haven't already fallen in love with their fancy home entertainment centers.

 

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

[Filip Plesha]

I didn't know there was such a myth

[Jason M Silverman]

The difficulty in a discussion like this is the difficulty of conducting proper sociology, and to do a proper sociological study of trends in something as big as film-going would take much more time and money than any of the networks are going to spend; they only want their sensational headline.

 

i would comment, though, that while it may be true that there has always been bad and good films made, it seems as if hollywood has fronted the dollar before the art, which is always a bad thing. while some good stuff will manage to get through anyway, from both an aesthetic and a business point of view i would think it would behoove the producers to focus on quality product if they want to draw the audiences in. just my two cents.

 

i'd be one of those going to the cinema every week if i could afford it...

 

peace

 

jason