There is no language in the world more universal than heroes destroying bad guys with explosions. The necessity to create a single product for a global crowd encourages studios to produce the artistic equivalent of Rosetta Stones, interpretable for many tongues. and Canadian markets have grown by less than $1 billion. In the last five years, the Eastern Asian and Latin American markets have grown by $6 billion, while the U.S. (This strategy will also inevitably yield historic flops, since the cost of getting the American moviegoers’ attention is just so high.)Īt the same time that movies’ domestic audience flatlined, its worldwide audience bloomed.
#Movies in theaters now 2016 movie
In a market where it costs $60 million just to earn $100 million, movie makers are spending an enormous amount of money on fewer blockbusters and advertising the bejesus out of them. In 1980, Hollywood spent less than 20 cents on advertising for every $1 it earned at the box office. In this environment, where Americans buy only four movie tickets a year, it’s more expensive to create an audience for a film. (Domestic box office is growing mostly because average ticket prices are rising.) Today, buying a movie ticket is more like going to the doctor-something many Americans never do and most Americans do only four or five times a year for routine cultural check-ups. In the first half of the twentieth century, going to the movies was like going to church: Americans did it almost every week. Film used to be the dominant visual medium in the U.S. The construction of the “Sequel Machine,” as my colleague David Sims called it, has been a deliberate Hollywood strategy to control the risk inherent in making an expensive product for tens of millions of people whom studios don’t know and will never meet. The deeper answer is that, on top of long-term structural declines in movie attendance, Hollywood is losing its grip on young people. What’s really happening? How did Hollywood become overrun with sequels, and why does it suddenly seems as if nobody wants to see them? The short answer is that the movie industry has over-learned the lesson that sequels perform well at the box office and has tried to sequelize every marginally successful movie. “Hollywood is in a creative funk,” Jeff Bock, an analyst, told The Hollywood Reporter. VII and The Revenant-were actually released in 2015. The sixth and seventh highest-grossing films of 2016- Star Wars Ep. But this year might even weaker than it looks.
This is an extrapolation based on previous years’ sales progressions, and a strong summer or fall could boost the final figures. tickets per person of any year since perhaps before the 1920s and the fewest total tickets in two decades. In 2016, the film industry is on pace to sell the fewest U.S. Perhaps Hollywood’s funk is even worse than a sequel slump. Several follow-ups-including Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, Zoolander 2, The Huntsman: Winter’s War, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, The Divergent Series: Allegiant, Barbershop: The Next Cut, and Alice Through the Looking Glass-have “disappointed or flopped outright,” The New York Times reported.
Last year, the eight biggest opening weekends were all sequels, including Furious 7 and the latest Star Wars installment.īut in the last six months, the sequel strategy seems to be deflating. In 2011, the seven top films were all sequels, including Fast 5 and the final Harry Potter installment. Sequels have been the lifeblood of the movie business for more than a decade.
0 kommentar(er)
