Hollywood Hot Air

And finally, I must speak out about the "slump" at the box office. I've read several Doom & Gloom articles about how horribly the box office is suffering this year, despite highly anticipated films such as Star Wars Episode III, Batman Begins and War of the Worlds. I am going to quote an article in Variety today that simply confounds the issue so much by dragging it through the muddy waters of industry performance measurements that one could go blind or suffer an aneurysm (or the latter first, leading to the former) after reading it.

"Thanks to a potent first quarter that has offset a weak summer, the majors and mini-majors, have taken in $4.333 billion at the domestic box office. Through the same point in 2004, their receipts had amounted to $4.301 billion."

Starts out simple enough, right? What an English teacher would conclude after reading this sentence is that a good box office total in the first three months of the year has balanced out a slow box office in the next three months of the year. In fact, domestically, the box office brought in 33 million dollars more than they had last year to the same point.
"So, why is total box office down for the year? Look at the indies. Last year, because of the runaway success of "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," independent distribs took in $633 million through the second weekend of July. This year, without a blockbuster to match those titles, the sector has grossed $189 million, a difference of more than $440 million."

Here's where things start to get murky. Now they're talking about independent distributors - not the major studios. They're talking about two films that were super-hyped, had great word-of-mouth and opened in an election year - great for both conservative Christians (Passion) and the ultra liberals (Fahrenheit). What they're talking about are two fluke films - neither was expected to do so well. They far surpassed expectations for indie pics. And yet, here in this article, Variety seems to expect that, since those two films were successful, all independent films should now do so well. What would be interesting would be to see what the indie market made in 2003 - I'd imagine the numbers are probably similar to this year.

That shortfall is the sole explanation for why this year's box office is trailing 2004 by 8.4% or $4.522 billion to $4.934 billion.

Sooo ... without any explanation whatsoever as to whether the initial numbers they [made up? - ed.] cited, now we're talking about a difference of $4.522 billion this year to $4.934 billion last year. I'm not sure if we're talking about cumulative B.O. including foreign earnings in addition to domestic, or if they're making a distinction between major studios and majors studios plus indie distributors. Either way, we're still doing fine in terms of domestic B.O., and in fact are up against last year.

"The weekend-to-weekend comparison has never been the best measure of box office strength (during the so-called "slump" there have actually been several weeks, for instance, where 2005 has outpaced 2004), but the streak has been the basis for many cavalier pronouncements that Americans were no longer interested in going to the movie theater."

Again, the writer points out that there are multiple instances of this year doing as well or better than last year. However, it's worth pointing out that if we're off the mark for the year, we have a few colossal failures, including Kingdom of Heaven.

"And as far as the studios are concerned, this will be largely a summer to forget. Last year, on the backs of huge franchise sequels like "Shrek 2," "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" and "Spider-Man 2," the summer set a record, with the majors taking in $2.15 billion through this point. So far this summer their titles have grossed $1.9 billion. (Majors include 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Sony, Paramount, Universal and Walt Disney, DreamWorks, MGM and New Line and their subsidiaries.)"

So ... apparently the difference of $250 million will make this year forgettable in terms of major releases - like, you know, the last Star Wars film EVER and the critically acclaimed revamp of a major Warner Bros film franchise (Batman Begins). Honestly, industry analysts strike me as the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

When asked to find reasons for why the box office "slump" is occurring, the fingers always seem to point to "New technologies" and "Digital piracy." Apparently, enough people find watching low-quality, compressed images their computers (or, without the benefit of surround sound, on their televisions) to be enjoyable enough to forgo the theatre experience. Also, televisions and home stereos make for more enjoyable movie-watching environments than giant screens and a lively audience.

That's bullshit. There is nothing better than being in a good crowd to see a great film on a huge screen. The only thing preventing people from truly wanting to see films in theatres is the cost of going. It has become prohibitive. The national average for ticket prices is $6.50 ... the average cost in a major metropolitan area such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston or Baltimore? $10. A bulk of the box office comes from major cities - where ticket costs are higher. So they look at the national average and say, "Can't be prices, those are just fine,".