Depressed Box Office

Today I saw not one, not two, but three different articles deploring the state of the box office this year. Each of them asked why such "sure-fire hits"” as The Island or Stealth have done so poorly at the box office.

Each of these articles talked with "industry insiders,"” heads of studios, and theater owners. Each postulated on why these and other movies have been less than successful.

In all of these articles I didn'’t see the most obvious two things mentioned: ticket prices and the glut of movies.

Ticket Prices
Four years ago I could go to the matinee at the theater across the street for $6.50. This seemed pretty reasonable; more than a video rental, but I was getting the benefit of the bigger screen, the better sound, and the group environment. I rarely went if it was after 5 pm, as the $8.50 they charged then seemed too much.

The last movie I went to see, Fantastic Four, was a decent movie, with okay special effects and a fairly generic story and acting. The difference? The ticket cost me $8 for the matinee. Nearly the same cost as the full-price just a few years ago. So, if a family of four wants to go see a matinee movie of a passable but not spectacular movie, it is going to cost them $32 before any snacks. Add in a big tub of popcorn and a couple of beverages, and the family is out well over $40 for 2 hours of entertainment. If they go after the matinee prices, the cost is upwards of $60.

I own a decent sized television screen, a pretty good surround sound system, and a fairly cheap subscription to Netflix. For $14.95 a month, I can watch as many movies as I can rent, watch, and return in a month. Most months I can watch around 10-12 movies. That averages out to about $1.25 a movie. I am in the comfort of my own home and I do not have to deal with the crowds or a talking patron who forgets to turn off his cell phone.

This huge difference in price makes it hard to justify going to the theatre to watch a movie.

The Movie Glut
A few years ago as the first signs of today'’s box office morass were being seen, the studios correctly guessed that the sheer volume of movies they were unleashing on the public was partly to blame for the lower box office take of all but the most successful movies. I recall reading an article that said that some of the largest companies were going to cut their movie slate by up to 10%. At that time, the average slate was around 120 movies a year being put into production. By cutting this by 10%, they could focus on just the best of their slate and realize more value by their production.

Since then, the slate of movies being produced has actually risen” from 120 to about 132 (most recent stat I could find). This increase means that more movies make it through production, more movies vie for the fickle public'’s valuable dollar, more money must be spent on advertising all these movies, and the production dollar must be spread over more productions, inevitably lowering the value of the majority of the slate.

I, like most movie-goers, am a pretty stingy viewer. There are only about four movies in any given year I feel are "must see."” That means that the five major studios' slate of 132 movies each is vying for just four paid performances. Outside of these four "must see" event movies, I may decide to see 2-4 more movies on speculation or due to friends recommendations or persuasive advertisements.

Once upon a time, when production companies release far fewer movies, you could have a movie released and leave it out in front of the viewing public long enough for people to make up their minds and decide it was worth one of their precious few "“must see"” movie dollars. There is a tale of the movie Bonnie and Clyde. It was not immediately successful, but Warner Brothers kept the movie out there and, as the audience found it and critics started to rave about it, the studio re-released it to theatres and it became a success. That would not happen today. If a movie does not "open"” well, it is yanked and another of the 132 films is put in its place.

This huge slate also ensures that every single week of the year, but especially during the ultra-competitive summer months, there are multiple "must see"” movies being released. If I have four paid performances I'm will to see, and there are twelve weekends during the summer months each with at least 2 "big"” movies, some twenty movies are going to get the shaft. I just don'’t have the time, the patience, or the money to spend on each one of these releases.

The Solution(s)
In order to turn around the current box office woes, the studios need to cut way back on the movies they produce. They need to really review the scripts and the budgets and try to make the best films they can. Instead of having two or more big releases every week, there needs to be not more than four big releases in a month. This provides two values: the studio has a better shot at getting some of my viewing dollar and a movie has more time to find its "“legs."” Movies make money on repeat visits. If there is always something new the next week, people don'’t go back to a film, even one they enjoyed.

Secondly, the theatres need to cut prices. Make it a cost-effective night out for that hypothetical family of four. If that family can go out to a matinee showing for under $30 dollars, they are more likely to increase the number of films they will see in a year. The theatres benefit by having that family attend their facility (and all the beverages and popcorn those repeat visits bring in-- where the real money is for a theatre) and the studios benefit by getting more dollars from that family.