CNN Money has an article that says that bad movies are the reason for low attendance at movies, not Netflix.
A recent survey of blogs and chat rooms and e-mails from moviegoers done by market research firm Brandimensions showed that better technology is not the number one reason why people are not venturing out to the theater.How do we put this delicately? Movie fans are staying at home because they think that most new movies STINK!
Heheh. I agree with him. Who wants to pay money (or burn gas) to see movies like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.
That's my excuse. And the arty-farty movies I like don't come here anyway.
Posted by: Becky | August 31, 2005 at 08:22 AM
that's a huge bitch!
Posted by: misfit | August 31, 2005 at 08:39 AM
im in agreeance with all the above.
Posted by: | August 31, 2005 at 09:21 AM
Yes, movies suck nowadays and they aren't worth paying $10+ to see.
Posted by: Kevin Hubbard | August 31, 2005 at 01:37 PM
There have always been both good and bad movies, and there always will be - it's easy to point fingers at films such as Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, but there have always been lame retreads, second-rate sequels, dumb action movies and unfunny comedies. Movies aren't getting any worse overall, but people's patience with bad movies is wearing out thanks to increased options - people are less willing to go to movies they think will suck out of boredom. Hell, this might also apply to DVD rentals - one thing I've noticed is that since I've started using Netflix, I've rented far fewer of the second-tier films (movies you rent when you want to rent something, but the movies you really want are all rented out) then I used to...
Posted by: | August 31, 2005 at 02:17 PM
Its sad it took a survey to figure out something that is basic common sense. Of course now we will get a marketing campaign from the studios and nothing more.
I family member told me that Walmart, in order to increase customer service, ran a huge marketing campaign talking about how much their service had improved. When some research looked into it, it turned out Walmart had not spent one dime actually in improving costumer service, besides the ad campaign. But wouldnt you know it, the next survey out, showed Walmart with better service.
Posted by: Gregory | August 31, 2005 at 03:01 PM
I do not mind paying for technical
achievement...but what always works for me is a well
written and/or funny/interesting story.
Leaving Las Vegas was hilarious.
Spotless Mind was amazing.
WOTW and The Island were fun.
There are still good films being made!
It occurs to me that the DVD explosion has allowed
more bad films to be distributed. Take "The Glass Trap"
as an example.
This film would/should have died at the theatre, but it is given a typical send off
on DVD.
Posted by: PlungeBob | August 31, 2005 at 04:00 PM
"Leaving Las Vegas was hilarious."
Whoops, I meant "Elvis has left the Building"
(this would seem an odd impression!)
Posted by: PlungeBob | August 31, 2005 at 04:01 PM
Don't make me man-whore, he-b*tch slap you!
Posted by: | August 31, 2005 at 09:47 PM
Are you all insane?
Sure there is crap at the theatres. There always has been. But not all movies are crap. What's change is the numorous forms of entertainment.
Back in the day, movies was one in few forms of entertainment. Now it's one of many (home video, games, internet, etc). That's the biggest reason the box office sales are down. That wouldn't change even if every single movie that came out was better than the next one.
That's true common sense. Idiots thing otherwise I suppose . . .
Posted by: | August 31, 2005 at 10:21 PM
Look, you can go to www.the-numbers.com to verify this if you wish.
This summer (late-april to today) there have been NINE movies that have grossed over $100 million in the USA.
This exact time last year, there were only EIGHT movies that had grossed over $100 million in the USA.
Now, hasn't this been summer been deemed the "worst slump ever" ???
Movies are especially crappy this year. Yes, there have always been crappy movies, but this year I think they said "Hey, um, I got nothing...just throw something together and we'll see how it goes"
Besides the 9 movies that have grossed
> $100 million, there are possibly 3 or so movies that you could even classify as worth seeing (not that the big "9" the amazing movies, but you understand my point).
People are willing to spend $7-$10 on a movie ticket, but it just has to be something worth seeing. Who wants to spend that kind of money on "The Cave" or "Herbie Fully Loaded" or "Stealth."
---------
Off topic, what about these crazy gas prices? There was seriously a line of at least a third of a mile to get into gas stations. This morning, it went from $2.71 to $2.96 at noon and to $3.40 by 5pm.
What the hell is that about? Out of the 8 gas stations that are about a mile radius from me, they're all out of gas! It's crazy.
Yeah, yeah London is $7 bucks a gallon...and when I was growing up, I had to walk 10 miles in the snow, up hill, carrying my two siblings in one arm and my books in the other....
Posted by: What are you talking about? | September 01, 2005 at 03:34 AM
I think the big problem is the movies are all very politically correct these days. White bad guy, check. Ensemble minority cast, check. Unconfident, conflicted White semi-hero, check.
Seems to me it started going downhill real bad after 1997, although I didn't figure out why until two years ago.
Posted by: 80s boy | September 03, 2005 at 06:13 PM
As a matter of fact, I'll tell you one of my 'moments' when I saw things getting sour quick: The Lost World. Goldblum's character had a Black kid. WTF?!?
Posted by: 80s boy | September 03, 2005 at 06:16 PM
"Goldblum's character had a Black kid"
This is turning into the Volksfront website.
You should be proud.
Posted by: Emmanuelle | September 04, 2005 at 04:14 AM
test
[url]http://www.test.com[/url]
http://www.test.com
Posted by: | November 13, 2005 at 10:22 AM