>No one goes to the movies anymore
legit all made this decade
No one goes to the movies anymore
Jaxon Murphy
Other urls found in this thread:
iveybusinessreview.ca
redef.com
boxofficemojo.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Eli Martin
More money is going to fewer movies, it's all concentrating on a smaller number of films.
Charles Cook
inflation+growth of international market
movie going is definitely on a decline in the American box office, but Hollywood hasn't really cared since a billion Chinese people started buying tickets
Carson Rogers
>19 years undefeated
Hudson Torres
avatar 2 will be the end of him, don't screencap this
Landon Sullivan
Wow, it's almost as if ticket prices have gone up
Bentley Campbell
this
Michael Watson
>in 30 years that Titanic number will still stand as the only pre 2000s number in the top 50 of all time
John Cooper
>Minions
Asher Wood
>It was at this time that user realized that he was, in fact, retarded
Easton Adams
>Minions
Josiah Wood
>It was at this time that user realized that he was, in fact, retarded
Isaac Johnson
>Minionposting is back
Levi Gomez
Wouldn't the more meaningful measurement be the ratio of revenue to tickets sold?
William Cox
Literally wtf Titanic
Love it or hate it but it's the oldest movie on that list. 20 years old and it's puts capeshit in the dust.
Jeremiah Fisher
not exactly. Ultimately Hollywood is only concerned with the money it gets, so the number of tickets doesn't really matter to them.
There's already issues with comparing box office revenues to movies of even 2 decades ago just because the climate is so different.
Many people don't go to the movies anymore because of the vastly increased number of entertainment options. Back in the 40s and 50s going to the movies was one of the few things to do so you went frequently and it wasn't peculiar in the slightest to see the same movie multiple times. To compensate for the decrease in attendance, tickets are a lot more expensive now.
Nicholas Gomez
even more impressive when adjusted for inflation and the fact there were less theaters worldwide
Adam Reyes
*None this decade.
Colton Walker
I've seen like 2 of those
Sebastian Johnson
It deserves it. They actually did their research to make it accurate to real events and people on the ship. The scene with band still playing while the ship is going down still haunts me.
Aaron Rodriguez
With the rise of the internet and piracy, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Jason Wright
The effect piracy has on the industry is largely exaggerated.
Adrian Davis
What does your cinematic illiteracy have to do with this conversation, Reddit?
Angel White
I'm not reddit. I'm 82 years old. I've only seen Gone with the Wind and Snow White.
Jose Wood
How did Jaws and The Sound of Music get that high?
Michael Powell
Most of the box office is going to just a few high budget movies which led to WBs slate of $150m+ movies over the past 2 years and those have mostly bombed outside of Mad Max and BvS
Jaxson Rivera
Titanic is amazing, critics panned it and thought it'd be one of the biggest flops in history
Angel Roberts
Why did Avengers and Jurassic World?
People eat shit up no matter the quality if it's marketed enough. That's just how it goes.
Austin Peterson
sound of music was an event at a time when there was no competition and was in theaters for over a year, same deal with jaws, it's not like nowadays when there's an event film released every week
Adrian Parker
Avengers and Jurassic World are big spectacle at least, but Jaws?
Parker Flores
It was a big spectacle in 75.
Aaron Davis
The chart above (which you can think of as a studio’s gross profit margin) drills home how miserable the theatrical film market really is. Even the world’s largest, most well-funded and powerful studios struggle to maintain positive returns, with the ten year industry average at -15%. Collectively, the studios have lost $17B on $110B in marketing and production spend. The best performing studio, Fox, was down over $900M on $16.5B – largely due to 2009’s Avatar, which grossed a record breaking $2.8B globally. Note, too, that despite leading the box office in 2012, Sony was still stuck at a sub-zero return, suggesting the studio might have simply “spent” its way to the crown.
While this third chart is essentially a recut of the second, it answers a more intuitive question: how much did a studio spend to generate $1 in box office revenue. With approximately 53% of proceeds (60% globally, 45% in North America) retained by movie theaters, a studio needs to spend less than 47¢ for every $1 in revenue (on average), to generate a positive theatrical return. Over the past decade, the Big Six studios have achieved this individually only 10% of the time and not a single year has been cumulatively profitable.
Hudson Martinez
Why then, do executives continue making films? They have few (if any) levers they can reliably play with, the success of individual films causes massive disruptions in annual performance and in the long run, performance is unlikely to break-even, let alone outpace market returns.
The answer: ancillary revenue. In 2012, box office receipts represented only 52% of revenue for the average film, with the remainder comprised of home video sales, pay-per-view and TV/OTT licensing, syndication fees and merchandising. After appropriating for related costs, as well as backend participation (Robert Downey Jr. took a reported $50M from Avengers) and corporate overhead, the average Internal Rate of Returns (IRR) for the majors jumps to roughly 80%1.
When compared, the point is clear: the motion pictures business is no longer about theatrical performance. Success at the box office performance, of course, still matters – and will be strongly correlated to licensing and merchandising value – but the goal is largely to recoup costs, not reap profit. Individual films, too, matter less than ever. In December 2012, Netflix purchased exclusive streaming rights to Disney’s entire catalogue starting in 2016. A few weeks later, HBO bought exclusive rights to Universal’s film library through 2023. What’s more, the above IRR excludes the proceeds retained by the license holder and not paid to the studio as a royalty. However, they often share the same corporate parent. Disney’s Marvel Studios, for example, will receive royalties from film tie-ins released by Marvel Comics’ subsidiaries, but it will not recognize related profits or benefit from increased overall interest in Marvel products and characters.
Michael Torres
I haven't been to a theater in years desu
I don't even watch movies anymore.
William Evans
iveybusinessreview.ca
More important, however, is the impending ‘Film as a Platform’ implosion. Looking at 2016′s dense release schedule, theatrical losses per blockbuster are likely to increase considerably. Not only will increased competition drive down average attendance, it could push studios to invest even more into their film properties in the hopes of standing out. This itself isn’t a fatal exposure – studios will simply need to rely more heavily on ancillary revenues. However, the real issue is that further audience fragmentation will make it even harder to achieve the critical mass audience needed to support ancillary revenue streams. Worse still, the growing number of franchise films may end up flooding ancillary channels.
Ancillary markets such as home video, merchandising and children’s television can only absorb so much content. A child, after all, will not want a Christmas comprised of various X-Men, Star Wars and Avatar paraphernalia and parents are unlikely to purchase multiple bedroom sets. Television audiences, can support only so many series in a given genre (the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have 7 in 2015 alone). Though themed sets have been a strong sales driver for the Lego Group, optimizing marketing and inventory investments will limit the number of franchises they will support – especially in the holiday season. As a result, the deluge of ‘platform films’ is likely to significantly reduce the ancillary revenues studios rely on for film profitability. To make matters worse, it would take at least two years for studios to emerge from this crunch due to the fact films are released 1-2 years after investment/production decisions are made.
Ian Morales
Oh baby, I've missed post-ironic minion posting.
Anthony Cooper
redef.com
boxofficemojo.com
Buena Vista so far has a 32.8% Market Share for box office revenue. This a greater share than any listed for any other year listed on Box Office Mojo back to 2000, although the year is not yet over.
Xavier Carter
repeat after me, children
GLOBALISM
Xavier Thomas
>20 out of the thousands of movies released in theaters this decade have made tons of money.
Your point?
Joseph White
Can we consider LOTR: ROTK as pre-2000s?
The original LOTR movies all were filmed in a short window, and there was a fucking huge amount of pre-production.
This was also before capeshit, so between post-production timelines, and also banking on the same holiday season, they needed a year apart to prevent audience fatigue as well.
>Considered to be one of the biggest and most ambitious film projects ever undertaken, with an overall budget of $281 million (some sources say $310-$330 million),[3] the entire project took eight years, with the filming for all three films done simultaneously and entirely in New Zealand,
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Technically as early as 1997 for storyboarding and 1999 for principal photography and addition of team members.
I doubt there will be other movies willing to include so many costumed extras in the future except maybe China. It's a bit disappointing.