I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping...

1. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn.

2. Cellphones must be turned off.

3. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect.

4. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights.

5. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc...

I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.

I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following:

Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI

---------------------------------

2010 | 7.89 | 7.89

2005 | 6.41 | 7.15

2000 | 5.39 | 6.83

1995 | 4.35 | 6.22

1990 | 4.22 | 7.04

1985 | 3.55 | 7.19

1980 | 2.69 | 7.12

1975 | 2.03 | 8.23

1971 | 1.65 | 8.88

1967 | 1.22 | 7.96

1963 | 0.86 | 6.13

1958 | 0.68 | 5.13

1954 | 0.49 | 3.97

1948 | 0.36 | 3.26

Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again.

So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more.

Sources:

[1] http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm

[2] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup.

That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production.

I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.

Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.

Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.

I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.

Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?

1. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead.

2. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap.

Don't get me started on the overuse of CG.

Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.

However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often.

As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home.

Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?

I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America.

edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?

Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie.

I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.

On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low-risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.

There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect.

There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.

On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal.

I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews.

I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down.

Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.

The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more.

The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat.

It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.

Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$.

Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc.

The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.

I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google

Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already.

The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.

No need to go any further.

Some reality check, they maximized things for profit so much that:

1. Most Hollywood movies suck to a extraterrestrial degree.

2. The food sucks and its expensive.

3. Say whatever you want, 3D still sucks comparing to the default 2D experience.

4. Way too expensive for what the experience provides.

5. Niche theaters with quality stuff are always sold out.

6. 15 min of commercials.

7. Noisy teenagers.

8. Most of these movies are a 1 hour long product placement

Finally: if they decide to compete with the home, they loose, my TV is huge, my speaker set is awesome, my food is better, my sofa or bed are more comfortable.

They need to find other ways to convince me to move my ass, pay $$$, and be there.

When RIM had their outage a few months ago, everywhere (in real life) was packed. People actually left their lying down position and went outside, visited friends and the movies. It lasted for all of 3 days then things went back to 'normal'

PS: Nigeria is a VERY BlackBerry centric country.

Or.... Huuuuge screen, maybe good maybe bad sound (definately played way tooooo loud), sticky/wobbly/uncomfortable chairs, crappy overpriced snacks, and a room full of obnoxious self absorbed strangers, watched when and where the theater tells us, all at $12 (plus snacks) per person.

Yeah, boggles my mind why movie revenue is dropping.

id rather spend the same money as two theater tickets a month for HBO / Showtime and watch Homeland, Game of Thrones, 24/7 etc.

Example: Girl with a Dragon tattoo would be an unreal premium TV series. A 2hr 40min movie seems rushed and messy whereas a 12-18 episode TV season could do this and other amazing books justice.

For me, it's always been the quality of the content. SO many movies are such garbage, and, at least to me, that was more true in 2011 than in recent years. Look at all the reboots that came out this year and think how many of them were worth seeing at a premium in theaters...

Ebert came close to hitting it with that point, especially at the end, but missed it a little. I don't think people prefer indie, foreign and documentaries because of what they are, nor because of the theaters they are shown in. Those movies have better turnout because they are better than most of the big Hollywood titles.

I won't pay twelve dollars a ticket to watch a movie in the theater when it probably will be just as enjoyable at home. That goes for a lot of comedies and movies that lack the cinematography to justify seeing on the big screen. I'll still see the ppv movies and pay to do so, but not at the cost of going to the theater.

The blockbusters mentioned in the article - Batman and Avatar, were blockbusters largely because they were worth seeing on the giant screen and even worth dealing with the cost and hassle of 3D. I'll keep going to films with big visuals, but not the rest.

This is by far the biggest reason.

All of my peers own Netflix streaming accounts and watch most of their movies this way.

People don't care if a movie is domestic or foreign, so long as it is well done. I think the popularity of independent films is due to the fact that a higher percentage of the best independent films show up on netflix vs the percentage of popular Hollywood movies.

Its obviously going to be much easier to negotiate a contract with an independent studio that needs the money than it will be to do the same with a movie studio executive that hates the fact that your business even exists.

It isn't just the context, it's the content too.

That's becoming harder and harder, because all sides of the equation have been getting hit. On the pricing side, it goes without saying that higher prices place a greater burden on entertainment value. But on the entertainment side, we now have a) alternatives (Netflix, video games, etc.) that are increasingly attractive, inexpensive, and readily available, and b) movie offerings that have, at best, held steady in their general entertainment value.

Interestingly, the theater-going experience itself has been improving over the past few decades. But at the heart of it all, customers aren't there for the window dressing; they're there for the content. A juicy piece of IP, such as Harry Potter, would drive people to a run-down shithole of a theater if they had to go -- but conversely, a shitty product wouldn't attract people to the nicest theater ever built. So, while we can all applaud the efforts of theater chains to improve their general offerings -- atmosphere, food, dining, etc. -- we shouldn't believe that such improvements are wholly sufficient, or ever could be. (At worst, if the cost of such atmosphere, ambience, furnishings, services, etc., eventually leaks into the ticket prices, then theaters are making the game even harder for themselves).

In summation, I place the burden for the future of the big-screen movie business primarily on the shoulders of the movie studios. Not the exhibitors. Studios can't keep rehashing the same, warmed-over crap each year and expect anything more than a dice roll from the outcome. They need to place bigger bets with breakthrough IP. They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber-expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do; domestically, there's almost zero correlation). And they need to go all-in on the bets they do place. No more licensing, buying, or developing 100 properties to produce 2. Borrow a page from the Apple product philosophy, and launch only the titles you are dead serious about supporting. Fewer, but better.

Finally, as a whole, the industry needs to stop being so stridently anti-consumer. Enough with the war on piracy, the DRMs, the 50 super-uber-ZOMG-uncensored-platinum-edition releases of every title on DVD and Blu-ray, and so forth. Studios, you are product companies. Focus your time, your attention, your budgets, and your people on your products. And make every product count.

Of course i guess this is a different situation in urban areas where some cinemas certainly cater to interests like mine. However if there's anything to 'the Long Tail' mainstream cinemas are of course still losing audiences. These cinemas serve the purpose of showing big films for a very short period of time before they rapidly become meaningless. With the growing the popularity of on demand services like Netflix, iTunes, amazon and so on this time frame doesn't matter any longer. People can dive into special interests, classics and films that once were only catered to a niche audience and see them immediatelly. So the limited selection and the instant availability from alternative sources hurts those mainstream cinemas twice. That said, the cinemas I know wouldn't see me even if I lived just across the street.

"historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer."

I'm not experiencing this. The cheapest concerts in my area are generally $40, with older popular bands going for at least $80. Sports games start at $20 for crappy seats for crappy teams during regular season, more like $100 and up if you want at least one of the good things (seat, team, playoff game). I'm all for bringing movie prices down and I think it will help (which may be Ebert's real point), but comparing them to other things isn't doing him any favours, even going back historically.

As for concessions, dear lord, I never buy food at the movie theatre. And I still think it's kind pricey. Well, at least the base price; you can easily buy coupons for Cineplex/Famous Players that reduces the original price by 30%.

And frankly, I can't recall the last time I was annoyed by the other patrons at the theatre. Is it because I only go to the latest showing? (Speaking of which, I would appreciate a return of 11pm and midnight showings... may not be as cost effective, but keeps up interest in theatres.)

So I think the winning arguments go to home theatres being way better, intense sequelitis this year, and as Ebert says lack of choice.

I was watching the Harry Potter part 8 movie and teens came with their dad. They talked on and off for the first half of the film. Their dad did nothing. It wasn't until I turned around in my seat and told them to shut up that they actually did.

Flash back about 10 years. Maybe a bit more. There was a projectionist. There was often a staff member sitting by the entrance of the movie. Some kids would mess around. The staff would wait to see if it settled down for a minute or so then a flash light would come on and out would go the talkers.

I forget what film it was but there were 4 major distractions where staff had to come in and order people out. As we left staff members apologised and handed out vouchers because they knew the screening had been ruined.

I don't mind people gasping or saying "Oh no he didn't!" during scary films. There have always been idiots at the cinema. They have only started ruining films of late because cinemas have lost the will to deal with these people.

Would you not watch more movies at theater prices if you could watch it on your couch at 12:01am Friday morning?

I think the problem is at the theater, the companies get $12/person, $12 PER person.

How can we come up with a solution where they still get their dollars, but I don't have to leave my couch to go sit in a dirty, loud theater to watch it?

Some people are saying "but this is what makes the most money!"... weren't we just complaining that revenues have fallen? They may make the most money of any of their other offerings (which are just more of the same!) but they're making less over all.

People still try to have the movie experience as we have for so long but then why pay so much? I can watch a well made series on free TV and then I only need to wait a week to see the next episode instead of 2-3 years.

I love going to the movies. I love the experience, the big screen, the large sound system, etc.

But it's a luxury that can easily be discarded when it's too expensive. Lower the price of movie tickets to what they were 5-10 years ago and watch Hollywood smile, as more people start going back to the theaters. Drop the price of concessions a bit, same result.

Let me reiterate: I LOVE MOVIES. But movies will never be a necessity, always a luxury. The sooner Hollywood understands this, the sooner they can stop complaining and start brainstorming solutions to what is really a very simple problem.

http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac...

It's a wonderful way to watch a movie, and something that brings me out of the house and into the theater...

> 5. Competition from other forms of delivery.

If you look at the film industry as a whole, it's projected to grow over the next several years:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by-e...

1. Quality

Very rarely do they release a movie I feel is a must see. MI:4 was probably the most recent, but it's still not Batman or Avatar.

2. People

As others have said, the amount of texting, talking, and overall noise/distraction is unreal. People kicking my chair, non-stop talking, laughing, etc.

I predict 2012 will magically bounce back because of a few AAA features hitting next year: The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rising, and the incredible Prometheus by Ridley Scott (who is returning to Scifi - finally - after 20+ years).

I will pay you more money for a center/center seat, and people sitting in the front row, and the front-corners should not be paying much-of-anything for a ticket.

And they serve alcohol/proper meals.

Thank you, Internet. We have hit post-scarcity for fun.

The mpaa wont go down without taking a handfull of civil liberties with it though.