Board index › Topical Discussion › Television, Film, and Video

Why movie revenue has been down in 2011

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

22 Feb 2012, 1:20 pm

Endinglignt wrote:
To both storm and TM.

Movie cost a lot to be made(even the weak ones. If people download one the good ones and pay to see the bad ones which do you think they will make more of? Reason people download is because movies cost to much. They cost to much because people are downloading them for free and they raise the price. They raise the price people download.


That's one of the reasons I've been a proponent of paid download services for movies and TV-shows, not only would it give them better statistics to work off, it would also more likely than not increase revenue. The main reason for me downloading things is because there isn't a paid service available and there is no service where I can download the movies/tv shows shortly after they air.

Endinglignt wrote:
3D is not a cruch but costly so something needs to by cut. Sometimes actors and others story. 3D is very nice when used right. But since half the of the 3d movies out now were either made 2d and had 3d slashed into it(making the 3d look bad) or great 3d but bad plots.


I was hoping they'd use 3D the way special effects should be used, as spice not foundation. Part of the reason why the Star Wars prequels are much worse than the original trilogy is that the new ones are a total of like 6 hours of special effects masturbation.

Good actors and a good story should be there before 3D.



DC1977
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 76
Location: Scotland

22 Feb 2012, 6:49 pm

I tend to avoid the big blockbusters at the movies now as they are nowhere near as fun as the early nineties.

40+ inch HDTV's and surround sound are making the cinema experience even more redundant as most of my work colleagues usually wait until it comes out on disc now, as do I.

3D? As one of the lucky few people that doesn't have pinocular vision, I don't see the effect and would not be laying down some extra cash for the added effect. A bad film in 3D is still a bad film.



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

22 Feb 2012, 7:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
The current crop of Hollywood movies (the ones I saw in 2011) are derivative, formulaic, or both, and not worth the price of admission (in my opinion).


This


_________________
Not currently a moderator


munch15a
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 153

17 Mar 2012, 1:48 am

Quote:
Fnord wrote:
The current crop of Hollywood movies (the ones I saw in 2011) are derivative, formulaic, or both, and not worth the price of admission (in my opinion)



agreed Hollywood does not make films for profit they make them so others in Hollywood can tell them how great they are and then every now and then they are forced to make a good film which they personally don’t like just to bring in some cash



Alexender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194
Location: wrongplanet

17 Mar 2012, 1:55 am

I think this years movies look a lot better. Chronicle was really good. And other movies that look cool are 21 jump street, batman, spiderman, hunger games, the avengers, and the hobbit part 1.

But yeah, I didn't think 2011 seemed like as great of a year to go to theaters


_________________
www.wrongplanet.net