Deftones

Some movies just need to be seen in a theater. For me, it's most of the summer tentpoles (Avengers, TDKR). I usually see about 5 movies per year in the theater, and 4 of them are generally in the summer.

The Bus

I saw about fifteen movies that were released in the US during the "summer" period. Some (Avengers, Battleship) we got early, others we got late. At least half of those were "traditional" summer fare (action/thriller, comedies), so going to the movies four or five times is a pretty good number. Really, there's not much more great fare than that (for that audience).

The attendance is worrying and Aurora probably was an issue. It wasn't here (anecdotally).

Studios are also getting screwed in China, where the limit of foreign films has been increased, but the government is purposefully releasing them against each other: the new Batman and Spider-man films opened the same week.

I don't think the issue this summer was that there were too many sequels, just that the sequels were not exciting. Bourne didn't have Damon or Greengrass. Spider-man had only commercial reasons to be released. No one asked for Men in Black III (although I admit it was entertaining). The only sure-fire success was Batman, and Avengers to a degree.

There was no new Avatar, no new Star Trek. If Abe Lincoln was Wanted 2, this would've made much more money. There was also room for another superhero movie, and we could've very easily had an X-Men stand-alone film.

We also had no Harry Potter, no Transformers, no Pirates. There wasn't anything reliable to get people in the seats.

If we're missing the above, then we need more movies like Ted or Magic Mike, and they weren't enough of them this summer.

Jules Winfield

I try to go to the movies at least once a week. Just the thought of going three to four times a year depresses me. The smell of the popcorn, yada, yada, yada. But it's true. When you see a movie with an audience that is really digging the movie, nothing at home matches that. Yeah, there are assholes at the theater but it's still worth it to me because that shit's fucking magical. I'll be in the dark staring up at a huge screen in wonder by myself if I have to.

RichC2

I just wish some studio would put a stop to all eggs in one basket theory of summer movies and split a single $150m movie into a handful of interesting $10 - $30m movies with limited advertising budget.

Sure, it doesn't make any sense at all from a business level, but I want that

Matthew Chmiel

It does. Universal should listen to you.

Their biggest hit of the year, Ted, only cost $50 million to make. The film has made $384 million worldwide and still has markets to be opened in.

... Snow White and the Huntsman cost $170 million to make and has made $394 million worldwide.

... The Bourne Legacy cost $125 million to make and has made $161 million worldwide (and counting).

... Battleship lost the studio money as it had a production budget of $210 million.

Once Ted finishes out its theatrical release, it'll gross more (and have made the studio more money) than their prior hit Snow White and the Huntsman. In fact, its profits will help clean up the mess left by Battleship.

Warner's Magic Mike cost only $7 million to make and has grossed over $155 million worldwide. In fact, none of Channing Tatum's films this year have cost more than $40 million to produce and each one has grossed more than $100 million domestically. No wonder he's bankable.

You know why The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises and The Hunger Games grossed over $400 million domestically this year? There was actual care, heart, but most importantly, thought put into them. You know why The Amazing Spider-Man didn't gross nearly as much as the last three films in its franchise? The right people were not in place to execute. Word of mouth killed it's chances of being as successful despite 3D and IMAX surcharges available to "heighten" its box office gross.

Make a good movie and people will come and see it. Over and over and over again. It could cost $0.1 million to $300 million to make that film. Studios need to recognize that fact before it's too late.

bunkaroo

You had me until you listed Hunger Games as being made with care. Seriously I thought it sucked. It has a built-in fan base like Twilight to go see it.

Everything else, good points.

Solid Snake

I call bullshit on that. Transformers kills that logic w/ a goddamn ugly stick. While it does some very spectacular elements involved. To fully call one of those films "good" is a fucking challenge. TF1 isn't that bad but still...it's got a lot of shit....nowhere near the levels of TF2 and TF3 though. Yet...people saw it like crazy too. Quality means absolute fuck all when it comes to things like movies. As long as one can find enjoyment on whatever level..that's the string that pulls people back. TF...has that for a lot of people. Not me but to many.

LosingMyMind

Don't you DARE bad mouth the holy trilogy.

DJariya

I saw 12 movies this summer going back to May when Avengers opened. I normally see about that many during the summer season.

For those of you complaining about prices. I pay about $7.50-8 per ticket by purchasing the Regal Cinemas Premium Super Saver Tickets from work. That also doesn't count the occasional free movie coupon I may get from buying some select DVD or BD that offers them. Very rarely would I pay the extra $3-4 for 3D tickets. Also, very rarely do I buy the over-priced concession stand snacks unless I get a free or discount coupon via by Regal Points Card. You just have to be more aware that you can buy discount tickets and not have to pay full price. Hell, my local Triple A office also sells discount movie tickets for Regal and AMC.

Granted not every movie I see in the theatre is worth owning or re-visiting, but I still have a fun time driving to the local cinema and seeing something on a weekend or a day off.

The Bus

So... Fox Searchlight?

(Although I think $30MM is stretching it, budget-wise)

The Bus

You could argue Lionsgate used to do that too.

mcnabb

I go less today simply because most movies are sequels, remakes, prequels, etc, and I am not going to waste money on that crap. If Hollywood could get some originality again, I would gladly go to the movies more.

Matthew Chmiel

The Hunger Games only cost $80 million to make. The Expendables 2 cost $100 million, but Lionsgate only acts as a distributor. Millennium Films paid the upfront cost for the film.

Outside of those two films, every film released by Lionsgate this year cost under $40 million to produce.

DieselsDen

Like others here, I used to love going to the movies. The whole experience was every bit as meaningful and enjoyable (if not too sedentary) as going to a ballgame.

Working in a movie theatre in my teens was another dream come true. It was the perfect job, and I learned a lot about film projection, surround sound, and exhibition in general.

My elementary school kids, however, and others like them, usually don't regard seeing a film as anything special. Unless it's a spectacle like THE AVENGERS or TRANSFORMERS 3, they find the difference between watching movies on a 55 inch screen with seven speaker Dolby Digital and seeing it on a big screen with 28 speaker DTS not worth the bother.

And come to think of it...I can't blame them. When I was young, if you couldn't see a picture in the theatre, then you had to see it on - at best - a 31-inch screen with 240 lines and passive Dolby Surround. The poorer quality was obvious. Now, you get a perfect picture with sound equaling the original masters.

I can see a time when going to the movies is as passe as going to a bookstore. I'm not saying I like it that way, but cultural changes in how we consume pop entertainment are bound to happen with technology. Nostalgia can't prevent progress.

sharkstank

I still love going to the movies and find excuses to make it out to the theater. Every year people complain about the summer schedule "being shitty" this year, but there is always good and bad. Attendance was low but a lot of money was still made, no big deal.

Anyway, looking back, summer movie season started with Avengers on the first weekend of May, I went and saw:

Avengers (free screening), Dark Shadows, Moonrise Kingdom, Snow White (free screening), Prometheus, That's My Boy (free screening), Brave, Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Ted, Spider-Man, Ice Age, Dark Knight Rises, The Campaign (free screening), ParaNorman, Expendables 2 and The Possession yesterday.

Mattflix

It's a changing atmosphere and it is a progress of technology as well.

The big reason I always hear to go to the theater is to get a pumped audience together for an unrepeatable experience of enjoying a movie together. That's great, but for me that seems to only make it more likely that there's going to be a talker or a baby in the theater with us. That's a rare experience to get that to work. Also it would only be possible for a large release. By that regard there's no reason to see a smaller film in the theater with a smaller crowd and is pleasantly enjoying a movie together.

So by accounting for inflation, Gone With the Wind is the highest-grossing movie ever, but is that fair if it wasn't going to be on Blu-Ray 3 months after its release? If you loved a movie back then and wanted to see it again, you had to see it in the theater again.

Add the atmosphere of constant advertising and expensive consessions. And you don't get to lounge in your underwear. And there's always an embarassing walk of shame when you need to use the restroom and you can't pause it while you go. I end up dehydrating myself whenever I want to go to the theaters.

But the industry is changing too. The supposed glory days of cinema were before people were even able to own a home movie library, much less hi-def and streaming movies.

One of my problems is why is a movie's theatrical run the only way we seem to view its success? I can go and buy any older movie on DVD now, but all people will care about is their theater gross. With the changing environment this needs to be taken into account as well.

Mattflix

Also at home I have a popcorn air-popper, and I make a great topping by cooking fresh garlic cloves in lowfat butter. Pour some chopped dill over that and you've got a great movie snack that can be made in under 10 minutes!

RichC2

A lot of speciality brands do sub $30m movies, but tend to veer more toward that indie feel. Paramount Vantage comes to mind (There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men were both $25m).

Fox Searchlight usually acquires distribution rights to these movies, they don't usually set out to make them (Little Miss Sunshine, Napoleon Dynamite, Juno and Beasts of the Southern Wild were all acquired by Fox Searchlight following their showings at film festivals (I think all of those were Sundance)). Similarly Magic Mike was funded for $7m, then sold to Warner upon completion. I meant more mainstream style features with minor budgets.

Stuff like Dark City ($27m budget), Chronicle ($12m), Underworld ($22m), Taken ($25m), District 9 ($30m), Zombieland ($23.6m), Dodgeball ($20m), etc;

I know I'd rather have 3 or 4 of those over a Bourne Legacy. (Dark City was a poor example, I love the movie but even with a $27m budget it was still a flop). There are still plenty of "micro-budget" films being released (Hit & Run came out a couple weeks ago, that had a $2m budget.)

On a side note, while looking up the budget for Magic Mike I saw:

Channing Tatum originally wanted Nicolas Winding Refn to direct the film but Refn had to turn it down due to scheduling conflicts with Only God Forgives.

I think that'd be the only way I'd be interested in seeing the movie. I like Soderbergh but his output the last few years hasn't really been to my liking (outside of Contagion). Refn must be one of the few affordable distinct directors out there right now.

d2cheer

If you loved a movie back then and wanted to see it again, you had to see it in the theater again.


Very good point Mattfilx. Movies would play for well over 6 months to a year in the days before home video, they didn't get blitzed on thousands of screens like today. Now like he stated if you want to wait 3 months get the blu for $20.00 or less you can save well over $30-$50 that it usually costs for 2-3 to go to the movie (including snacks).

Giles

very true, I never read the Hunger Games book, but the movie was so underwhelming and paint by the book in filmmaking, that it left me completely unimpressed.

as for the summer movies in general, I thought the selection and number of movies released seemed sparse compared to other years.

Mattflix

Thanks!

Heck if you can wait a few months past that point the price on the Blu will drop significantly. With a little patience you can own the movie for less than the price of a movie ticket. And if you've got 1000's of movies on your plate then that's probably not a problem unless it's a major movie that you're dying to see.

mndtrp

Breaking my back kept me out of the theater this summer. However, even if that didn't happen, I would have gone less than last year. Every year I go less and less. The price is the main reason, as I haven't had too many issues with disrespectful people.

wm lopez

That the movie comes to dvd in less than a year and free t.v. in about 2 years is mine.

Dr. DVD

Sounds interesting, but I wouldn't want to be around you in a crowded theater.

joliom

I've been to the theater 21 times so far this year compared to just 4 times last year, and 11 times in 2010. Over the summer I saw:


The Avengers (3D IMAX)
Ted
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Dark Knight Rises (IMAX)
Total Recall
The Expendables 2