The Odd Case of the Disappearence of the “Non-Franchise” Film

[Barnack]

12 hours ago, cannastop said:

Yeah but American ticket prices were a little more expensive then than what the article said.

By a good 50 cent (versus mpaa average), could be 2D (or at least non-Imax) ticket price or like a lot of those list, very loosely made.

[Lordmandeep]

To me its rather simple...

 

Why would i watch some romantic comedy or serious adult film in theaters when there is no great "urge" to see it right away and can watch after at home on netflix.

 

Even if I want to watch it in theaters, the idea if I watch a 90 min romantic comedy in theaters when for the same price I could watch a movie like Avengers Endgame in theaters.

 

So the dual issue of urgency to see those romantic comedies and adult films has gone down in audiences who will wait till after release.

 

Also, that audiences want to see novelty and spectacle at theaters. Reality is, a scene like Portals in EG is something i never really experience in these other films. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Lordmandeep

[JB33]

8 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

To me its rather simple...

 

Why would i watch some romantic comedy or serious adult film in theaters when there is no great "urge" to see it right away and can watch after at home on netflix.

 

Even if I want to watch it in theaters, the idea if I watch a 90 min romantic comedy in theaters when for the same price I could watch a movie like Avengers Endgame in theaters.

 

So the dual issue of urgency to see those romantic comedies and adult films has gone down in audiences who will wait till after release.

 

Also, that audiences want to see novelty and spectacle at theaters. Reality is, a scene like Portals in EG is something i never really experience in these other films. 

I agree with the sentiment. However, I'm starting to see more dramas and comedies in theatres because I want to put my money where my mouth is and support cinema. I can't sit here and whine about the death of cinema but only go to the big tentpoles myself. Naturally, there are only so many movies I can afford to go to, but a huge percentage of my disposable income goes to Cineplex. I want to do my part to keep studios and cinemas having faith in what they're doing. I dread the day they all decide to throw in the towel.

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, JB33 said:

I agree with the sentiment. However, I'm starting to see more dramas and comedies in theatres because I want to put my money where my mouth is and support cinema. I can't sit here and whine about the death of cinema but only go to the big tentpoles myself. Naturally, there are only so many movies I can afford to go to, but a huge percentage of my disposable income goes to Cineplex. I want to do my part to keep studios and cinemas having faith in what they're doing. I dread the day they all decide to throw in the towel.

It's not I am against big budget tentpole films, it just I want more of a choice at the movies then I am getting.

Sad thing is there are people out there who do not remember when the movies were not totally dominated b y a comparatively few big franchises. Not so long ago a film like "As Good As It Gets" or "Saving Private RYan could be a huge box office hit. Not nowdays.

And at the risk of sounding like a snob, Aristotle in his essay on Drama considered spectacle to be the least important element in drama.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by dudalb

[dudalb]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 3:28 PM, baumer said:

This is such a frustrating topic.  I miss the days when you could go see movies like The Firm, A Few Good Men, Julia Roberts and /or Mathew McConnaughey romcoms at the box office.  All these types of films are basically extinct now.

In  1997 the top ten at the box office included films like "As Good As It Gets" and "Goodwill Hunting" That ,sadly, could not happen nowdays.

[AndyLL]

On 7/6/2019 at 11:21 AM, The Panda said:

People are also just less willing to give these non-tentpole films a try in the theaters.

In theaters is the key term

 

$400 - Sharp - 58" Class - LED - 2160p - Smart - 4K UHD TV with HDR - Roku TV 

 

You can get 40" HDTVs for under $200 now.

 

Sound bars are cheap.

 

You can watch on your computer/IPAD connected to your wireless beats headphones.

 

You know a movie will be streaming or available on DVD/Bue-Ray several months after release.

 

Going to the theater is expensive for families.  It can be a poor experience based on stories I hear here.  

 

Why wouldn't people wait to see most movies at home?

 

Big CGI event movies are the exception.  Fans want to see them with a big crowd on a big screen with big sound.

 

Yesterday is a great example.  My family really wants to see it.  However its an investment of 4 hours ( theater we go to is 45 minutes away ) and $60-$70.  No reason to see it the theaters... we'll just rent it from Redbox in a few months and watch it on my 80" TV with a 7.2 sound system.

 

Large consolidating studios are an easy target but a small part of the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[75Live]

I agree with a lot of the settlements in here. I for one used to go almost every week to the movie theater. It did not really matter what kind of film it was, just as long as something interested me, that I would go watch it. I don't know if it's me getting older or anything like that, however a lot of movies lately have not been interesting to me. I know people like to go with the we need to support original films but if they don't look good, for me personally, I don't care if they are original or not.

 

So yes maybe I am more picky than I ever have been and when I actually go to a theater. Yes some big spectacle films need to be seen on the big screen, I have no argue with that whatsoever.

 

As somewhat of a solution to this problem, not sure it can actually work, however I wonder if they can do what some of the sports leagues have started to do? They have a tier pricing system. Basically when a big rival comes in, the prices are higher than say if a team that nobody cares about comes into town.  For those games the tickets are much cheaper 

 

I get movie studios won't go for this, but to me if you buy two tickets at a cheaper price it still makes up for the one ticket that they won't sell anyway

 

So yes I think the combination of more ways of watching movies than ever, the no need to see a non spectacle film on a screen anymore, money issues, less free time, and other things  really hurt the non-franchise films

 

I even think the lack of bankable movie stars have caused this to happen too. Before you could just say let me see an Arnold film, or Tom Cruise film, or Will Smith film and that's all you would need. Nowadays though that's not enough to get people to go to a theater

 

 

[TServo2049]

I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I think these bread-and-butter movies were tied to moviegoing as something to do, a way to spend a couple hours. Who ever just goes to the movies on a date (or uses it as an excuse to make out in the dark) anymore? When do people just decide on impulse to see what’s playing?

 

For example, I like reserved seating for not having to show up as early and being able to skip part of the trailers, but it’s also basically an admission that moviegoing isn’t really an impulse activity anymore, and also ensures it won’t be again.

 

Also, another tangent - why is it I’ve almost never had a bad experience at the movies in my entire 31 years? I’ve had maybe one or two projection problems, one film break, one or two air conditioning failures, one time the lights wouldn’t stay off, a couple crying babies, maybe one intrusive (but still quiet) argument, and only maybe a dozen or so cell phone rings. (I’m not counting Fathom screenings, which have their own problems, I mean regular movie screenings.) And that’s not recently, this is all the stuff I remember going back to the 90s. That’s it. Am I just really lucky?

Edited July 10, 2019 by TServo2049

[CoolioD1]

i feel the opposite as most people here i guess when it comes to seeing "spectacle". i think a movie like avengers plays pretty much the same for me in the cinemas and at home but an arthouse movie like say Burning or High Life i think i like a lot better when i see them in the cinema because i can really focus in on what they're trying to do. it can be easy to get distracted watching slow mood pieces like that at home. i'm aware that those are never exactly the kind of movies people ever saw in cinemas in droves anyway so what's my point? I DON'T HAVE ONE.

[Mekanos]

25 minutes ago, TServo2049 said:

Also, another tangent - why is it I’ve almost never had a bad experience at the movies in my entire 31 years? I’ve had maybe one or two projection problems, one film break, one or two air conditioning failures, one time the lights wouldn’t stay off, a couple crying babies, maybe one intrusive (but still quiet) argument, and only maybe a dozen or so cell phone rings. (I’m not counting Fathom screenings, which have their own problems, I mean regular movie screenings.) And that’s not recently, this is all the stuff I remember going back to the 90s. That’s it. Am I just really lucky?

I'm the same way, my theater experience has been overwhelmingly positive. I've never felt "I don't want to go to the movies, the people and theater are annoying." 

 

I also used to go to the movies a lot when I was younger, I remember summer was so exciting in high school because my friends and I would be in the theater almost every week, didn't matter what crap was playing, we were just excited to see a movie, and if it was bad we talked afterwards about how bad it was. Now it's just, people are busier, it's more expensive, there's so many other options... and I think I'm a more critical viewer too so I'm more picky and will steer clear of sure duds.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Mekanos

[Morieris]

1 hour ago, TServo2049 said:

I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I think these bread-and-butter movies were tied to moviegoing as something to do, a way to spend a couple hours. Who ever just goes to the movies on a date (or uses it as an excuse to make out in the dark) anymore? When do people just decide on impulse to see what’s playing?

 

For example, I like reserved seating for not having to show up as early and being able to skip part of the trailers, but it’s also basically an admission that moviegoing isn’t really an impulse activity anymore, and also ensures it won’t be again.

 

Also, another tangent - why is it I’ve almost never had a bad experience at the movies in my entire 31 years? I’ve had maybe one or two projection problems, one film break, one or two air conditioning failures, one time the lights wouldn’t stay off, a couple crying babies, maybe one intrusive (but still quiet) argument, and only maybe a dozen or so cell phone rings. (I’m not counting Fathom screenings, which have their own problems, I mean regular movie screenings.) And that’s not recently, this is all the stuff I remember going back to the 90s. That’s it. Am I just really lucky?

 

I can name 3 in the past 3 years that were plagued by technical issues (Zootopia, Queen of Katwe, and The Mummy, though to be fair the last one was probably a blessing). Mostly it's theatergoers being obnoxious, but that's also rare.

[75Live]

Oh I've had tons and tons of horrible experiences at movie theaters ,including people answering their phones during the movie and having an actual long conversation,  .  literally maybe one bas time was technical issues. But even with all that and the dumb, horrible people that watch movies nowadays don't stop me from going. I get why it does for some but that's never been my main issue.

 

I do agree with @TServo2049 about that it's not really a spur-of-the-moment to see movies anymore. I get why people like reserved seating, and I do to a certain extent, but yes now going to the movies is more of a planned out thing as opposed to just, hey do you want to go see a movie? Because the fact is it's hard to have walk-ups nowadays because you don't know if any seats that you want to use are available.  Not saying I want to go back to the long lines concept but at least then you knew you had a shot. Nowadays you can walk up have no lines go to the counter and  oh look there only two seats are all the way in the front corner so you're obviously not going to see the movie. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by 75Live

[filmlover]

I feel kinda lucky that I never really have to deal with rude audiences.

 

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

i feel the opposite as most people here i guess when it comes to seeing "spectacle". i think a movie like avengers plays pretty much the same for me in the cinemas and at home but an arthouse movie like say Burning or High Life i think i like a lot better when i see them in the cinema because i can really focus in on what they're trying to do. it can be easy to get distracted watching slow mood pieces like that at home. i'm aware that those are never exactly the kind of movies people ever saw in cinemas in droves anyway so what's my point? I DON'T HAVE ONE.

Well...you're not wrong. Even though I'm not completely enamored with the movie overall I'm happy I saw Midsommar in theaters given the amazing level of visual and sound design craft put into it (and on a budget that doesn't even cover the cost for catering on an MCU movie for that matter). 

[cannastop]

35 minutes ago, Morieris said:

 

I can name 3 in the past 3 years that were plagued by technical issues (Zootopia, Queen of Katwe, and The Mummy, though to be fair the last one was probably a blessing). Mostly it's theatergoers being obnoxious, but that's also rare.

Man there was like a momentary projector breakdown when I saw Zootopia once and they showed it in the wrong aspect ratio multiple times. This wasn't at an AMC or Regal or Cinemark though.

[YM!]

The worse movie experience for me was a young couple doing oral in the back of the theater during The Nun

[TMP]

2 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

i feel the opposite as most people here i guess when it comes to seeing "spectacle". i think a movie like avengers plays pretty much the same for me in the cinemas and at home but an arthouse movie like say Burning or High Life i think i like a lot better when i see them in the cinema because i can really focus in on what they're trying to do. it can be easy to get distracted watching slow mood pieces like that at home. i'm aware that those are never exactly the kind of movies people ever saw in cinemas in droves anyway so what's my point? I DON'T HAVE ONE.

Wow, yeah - I feel exactly the same. Dumb schlock like X-Men Apocalypse is passable on the small screen, but something smaller/more intimate like Room plays so much better on the big screen for me.

[JB33]

5 hours ago, dudalb said:

It's not I am against big budget tentpole films, it just I want more of a choice at the movies then I am getting.

Sad thing is there are people out there who do not remember when the movies were not totally dominated b y a comparatively few big franchises. Not so long ago a film like "As Good As It Gets" or "Saving Private RYan could be a huge box office hit. Not nowdays.

And at the risk of sounding like a snob, Aristotle in his essay on Drama considered spectacle to be the least important element in drama.

 

Oh I hear ya. I don't disagree.

 

It would be interesting to see in an alternate universe where tickets were much cheaper if those mid-budget dramas/comedies/rom-coms you're talking about were as successful as they were before or if there's a whole different reason behind their death. 

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

The worse movie experience for me was a young couple doing oral in the back of the theater during The Nun

[Lordmandeep]

I actually think that modern audiences prefer watching movies in theater with spectacle or that have a novelty.

 

For example the ending of Avengers endgame was glorious to see after 11 years watching all those films in theaters and seeing it with the loud cheers of fellow fans

[Krissykins]

On 7/6/2019 at 5:39 PM, CJohn said:

Those movies belong to Netflix now.

I hope not! 

 

I’d rather watch everything in the cinema, than at home.