Domestic (US) Box Office Hitting a Brick Wall ?

[Mandon Knight]

To me, it's becoming apparaent in quite a few 'major' blockbuster examples of Summer (or otherwise) releases that what is regarded as the usual 'depndendable' US domestic box office is being financially taken over by the international overseas market, now I know that a whole bunch of oversea countries combined will make up a lot of WW box office, but it seems films can no longer fall back on or be guarranteed a strong US $$ stronghold on their WW box office. I am in the UK, can cannot vouch for all the reasons why this this may be the case, but it appears to be happening more and more, that films overall BO are relaying on strong overseas $$$ for sustained 'success'.

Example being....

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=terminator2015.htm

Would be regarded as doing well internationally but a domestic showing of just over $70m is pretty bad at this stage of release, has the US given up on cinema ? Equally people have made a bit of a hoo-ha over AoU's reduced domestic BO compared to the first film.

Thoughts anyone ?

 

[Wildcard]

I disagree as there have been plenty of movies this year, let alone in the past few, that have been very, very successful domestically. Again, it all depends on quality. If the movie is good & worth seeing, people will see it, word about it will spread. If not, they'll stay home until something worthy of their money comes out.

It's all about the interest level. People want to know they're spending both their time & money well.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Maybe the US is finally getting tired of the bad movies Hollywood keeps churning out. There are three movies already that have crossed the $300 million mark, which is huge and Inside Out will get there. Plus I'm sure there will be 3-4 more that hit that mark by year's end. Terminator looked awful so the US didn't want to see it. China is a powerhouse market now because pretty effects is all they need, they love the Transformers series.

 

[Victarion]

Joss Whedon did this.

 

[Pickleweasel]

Yes that is why this year will be the highest grossing domestic box office year ever.

 

[Doctor Jones]

People have been saying this every year and things are fine. The only way that things will get bad is if these big movies keep flopping. Usually the bad movies flop. Thankfully we're in an age where blockbusters are on the high. People still think this is the 90's.

 

[:eek:]

Yes that is why this year will be the highest grossing domestic box office year ever.

While that is possible, 2002 is still the year when most tickets were sold in the more recent movie history So, yeah, I think you could say that the US market has stagnated.

 

[Wildcard]

^ Not really....if it was stagnant Universal wouldn't be having the biggest year in their 103 years of history.

The films that completely flopped this year at the box office legitimately sucked and that's why they flopped. The fact that two films have made over $1.5 billion this year alone shows the box office is far from being stagnant.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Two of the top ten movies ever at domestic box office came out this year, with pretty much a guaranteed third coming out later.

 

[Hush]

While that is possible, 2002 is still the year when most tickets were sold in the more recent movie history So, yeah, I think you could say that the US market has stagnated.

Amount of tickets sold and amount of money made do not really matter anymore it seems to Studios. One ticket sale these days is worth essentially 2 & in some markets 3 tickets from the 90's or early 2000's prices. So tickets sales are generally a wash at this point.

 

[:eek:]

^ Not really....if it was stagnant Universal wouldn't be having the biggest year in their 103 years of history.

The films that completely flopped this year at the box office legitimately sucked and that's why they flopped. The fact that two films have made over $1.5 billion this year alone shows the box office is far from being stagnant.

It's stagnant because overall the number of people going to the movies hasn't increased. You can't really pick one movie or one movie company. You have to look at the big picture. If everything was fine, why would big names like Spielberg and Lucas say they are worried about the future and say there could be an "implosion" (as they put it) of the movie industry?

 

[Dr.]

Back in the day, a studio might expect (hope) to make a profit from a movie’s domestic rentals. I.e., this was viable economic model. And any international revenues were “gravy.” But for mega-budget movies, it’s almost impossible to rely on domestic revenues. For instance, Age of Utron’s domestic gross is (currently) a staggering $455M(!). But as big as this figure is, it’s not enough to cover Ultron’s $250M budget (+ marketing, etc. costs). (Studios only recoup about 50% of the BO). So international revenues are no longer just bonus $$$ - they’re vital for breakeven or profit.

(Jurassic World is highly atypical. Usually, studios can’t rely on a $600M domestic gross. )

 

[Supernova]

Hard to say if the box office has hit a wall but I will admit though that at this point in the year and summer and only a handful of movies have crossed 300 mil domestically is not good given hundreds and hundreds of films are rleased a year. Its all what the public wants now and not yesterday. I see at some point comic book movies loosing steam especially outside of the avengers team up films. Antman is a big test for marvel because last year gaurdians was a hit and if antman is a hit then who knowsZ

 

[Val_Zod]

Hard to say if the box office has hit a wall but I will admit though that at this point in the year and summer and only a handful of movies have crossed 300 mil domestically is not good given hundreds and hundreds of films are rleased a year. Its all what the public wants now and not yesterday. I see at some point comic book movies loosing steam especially outside of the avengers team up films. Antman is a big test for marvel because last year gaurdians was a hit and if antman is a hit then who knowsZ

There may come a point in time where studios might just want to push out comic book films, only if they are big ensemble events. 2016 looks like the year studios are trying to one up eachother through sheer scope. Sort of like the current state of comicbooks.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I think this thread is equally prevalent this year....

 

[MadVillainy]

Domestic Box Office was bad this year
1. It's an election year and generally spending goes down then
2. The major releases this year so far havent been great and people can tell

 

[Teelie]

We have not ended the year yet and Rogue One alone is going to do huge numbers and yet the domestic box office is doing poorly?

2016 $10,168.7 billion
2015 $11,128.5 billion

Box Office Mojo

Granted it may not pass the previous year by a lot but I doubt it is going to decline in any meaningful amount either. Sounds like a lot of Chicken Little talk to me.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think this thread is equally prevalent this year....

Maybe you should look at the numbers first. Because you were completely wrong last year, and are already wrong this year.

 

[Wildcard]

 

[TheVileOne]

In situations like these you can always twist the numbers to meet whatever type of view.

That being said, I think there is a big problem with an over-reliance on sequels, reboots and adaptations. As a result, we've lost a lot of quality mid-level movies that seldom get made anymore. Most of those types of movies have gone to Netflix or VOD or straight to home video releases.

Like now studios think they can reboot anything even if it had a semi-cult following beforehand or is a semi-recognizable name.

 

[Teelie]

2016 numbers are pretty much final here: $11.4 Billion

So much for the brick wall. The world is changing. Cinemas need to change as well and slowly they are. Not always in the right way (looking at you, 3D) but if they want to retain audiences they are going to have to do more than what they have been doing.

Part of this problem too is how studios painted themselves into the corner of extravagently expensive movies at the cost of lower budget movies but as the article points out, VOD is where they may excel.

I'm sure at the time movie theaters were new, people similarly proclaiming the death of the play. When television became a household thing, we again heard how movie theaters were threatened.

Neither of those has come to pass and all the calls about the death of movie theaters are again exaggerated. There may be a large dying off of theaters but they won't disappear any time soon.

 

[MbJ]

2016 numbers are pretty much final here: $11.4 Billion

So much for the brick wall. The world is changing. Cinemas need to change as well and slowly they are. Not always in the right way (looking at you, 3D) but if they want to retain audiences they are going to have to do more than what they have been doing.

Part of this problem too is how studios painted themselves into the corner of extravagently expensive movies at the cost of lower budget movies but as the article points out, VOD is where they may excel.

I'm sure at the time movie theaters were new, people similarly proclaiming the death of the play. When television became a household thing, we again heard how movie theaters were threatened.

Neither of those has come to pass and all the calls about the death of movie theaters are again exaggerated. There may be a large dying off of theaters but they won't disappear any time soon.

I saw an interesting take where the author suggested that part of the solution needs to be making movie theaters appealing again, because people are increasingly getting sick of dropping a bunch of cash for a sub par theater experience.

 

[Erzengel]

In situations like these you can always twist the numbers to meet whatever type of view.

That being said, I think there is a big problem with an over-reliance on sequels, reboots and adaptations. As a result, we've lost a lot of quality mid-level movies that seldom get made anymore. Most of those types of movies have gone to Netflix or VOD or straight to home video releases.

Like now studios think they can reboot anything even if it had a semi-cult following beforehand or is a semi-recognizable name.

In the mid 2000s, you had half the movies being "original". Now it's only a couple in the top 10 in the past few years.

We are dependent on franchises (sequels), reboots/remakes, etc.

 

[Teelie]

If the remakes, sequels and so on are good, I have no problem with them. There will always be people making new, original content. It just might not always be easy to find in the theater.

Something that is original that sparks an interest will get noticed and a wider spread in theaters. Or it will show up in VOD/streaming format and still gain an audience.

The theatrical experience has come to this point because of poor choices by both the theater owners and the studios. Theaters can't be held responsible for what studios produce and studios can't make theaters improve their audience experience.

It is harder to make a successful original franchise now with so many movies coming out so studios play it safe, which means theaters have to take what they can get.

 

[metaphysician]

I saw an interesting take where the author suggested that part of the solution needs to be making movie theaters appealing again, because people are increasingly getting sick of dropping a bunch of cash for a sub par theater experience.

I know that my wife and I have gone to the movies much more eagerly since our local theater switched to the all recliner seating.