Jump to content


Photo

Poll On Viewing Habits


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 June 2005 - 06:06 PM

Any one have any comments on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/st...poll050616.html

R,
  • 0

#2 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 16 June 2005 - 06:44 PM

People are getting lazy... As home technology increases, people would much rather sit on there ass's at home and watch a movie than actually get out and do it... I think this accounts for a majority of the overweight issue in the world... We hardly have to even get out of our homes for everyday life...drive through, home food delivery, home office, ect... everything has something to do with "Home"...

I think they should do away with things that make life easier, and make people get off there ass's and do something instead of sit around all day, thats when cinema attendance will increase!

Heck, it cant be because the films are getting worse... Films today are no worse than they where in 1994.. cinema has always been filled with bad movies, and the few good movies in between...

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 16 June 2005 - 06:49 PM.

  • 0

#3 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 16 June 2005 - 07:02 PM

Any one have any comments on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/st...poll050616.html

R,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"People" also prefer Britney Spears to Mozart judging from record sales. I don't think theatrical release of films is going to go away anytime soon. However, the best film of 2004 (IMHO), "Touching the Void" did only $4.8 million at the box office:

http://pro.imdb.com/...79557/boxoffice

but has done three times that -and counting- in rentals:

http://pro.imdb.com/...57/videorevenue

Criminally overlooked by the Oscar bunch.

So that makes for a pretty successful documentary and that's all for the better. I think there will always be a segment of people who want to experience art in the intended medium and as with anything, a much larger segment of people who want to live it from the lazy-boy. How many people actually go to football games?
  • 0

#4 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 07:02 PM

Don't confuse USA and world.
  • 0

#5 Gillian

Gillian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 June 2005 - 07:17 PM

Or in this case Canada... (That report was from CBC.ca, at http://www.cbc.ca/news/, I saw it this morning)
I go and see the movies that really interest me in the theaters and I save the rest for rentals.

  • 0

#6 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:18 PM

You need to look at more detail to see what "people" are thinking or doing about "the movies". Not all people are the same, nor ar all movies.

I've done some similar research myself, albeit on a much smaller scale, and not statistically valid - but here are some extra points to consider:-

Most "people" said they would go to the cinema to see blockbusters and sci-fi or FX films, but would choose to get DVD's for some other genres such as romantic comedy.

Most "people" said the key advantages of cinema versus DVD/home theatre were (a) image and sound quality and "size" and (B) the social aspects: you go out to be with your friends, regardless of the movie.

Many more people would rent DVDs if they came out simulataneously with the cinema release. It's the "see it in the first week" phenomonon.

In certain Asian countries where piracy is widespread, it is common to see people queueing to get into a new film, while VCD copies are being sold for a fraction of the ticket price outisde in the street. So the cinema experience does still count for something.

THe slight blip in box office takings this year (a few percent) bears no relation to the increase in DVD sale and rental figures (up 40% or more). You can't interpret this as people substituting DVD viewing for cinema visits. As always, what we are seeing is the growth of a NEW and ADDITIONAL entertainment sector.
  • 0

#7 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:18 PM

The story is on the CBC site, but it's a poll of 1000 Americans, not Canadians.

As for USA vs World numbers, the USA is of course the single most important movie market.

R,
  • 0

#8 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:29 PM

Is that still true? I thought I'd read that India was a bigger market than USA.

As far as popular polls go, it reminds me of some boy's room grafitti -

"Eat S---!!! 50 Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong!
  • 0

#9 James Brown

James Brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:58 PM

In Australia the Film Industry is in absolute crisis and the junk that is coming out at the cinema is not interesting people. The only films that people go and watch in Aus is American Films, and what has came out this year? Not Much. At the moment Mr and Mrs Smith- Are we kidding ourselves? and The Longest Yard, a remake of The Mean Machine but with Adam Sandler.


We have to ask ourselves, why arent we going to the cinema's as much these days? We are the ones that are in the industry and should be supporting it. If there is not films that makes us go "cant wait for it to come out" then why go and wast our money on watching commercialised crap.

There is always hope in the industry but with new modernisation of home theatre systems people are staying home with their plasma screens and surround sound.

To sum up, Better Films - More Viewers.

James.
  • 0

#10 drew_town

drew_town
  • Sustaining Members
  • 383 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Southeast US

Posted 16 June 2005 - 09:21 PM

The way I see it is the clincher of the article states that people (around half of those polled) believe that movies' quality is progressively declining. I might agree with that statement and have voted likewise. In my opinion, those fortunate enough to get the jobs making features are in a rare position to use the opportunity to make quality material. So often I have wondered how a movie even got made because it was so god-awful.

Here's a list of movies that I have seen VERY recently in the theaters that I thought were outstanding and worth my $8.00:

Cinderella Man
The Interpreter

Here's a list of movies that I have seen VERY recently in the theaters that I thought were in the mediocre to "blah" range:

Batman Begins
Crash
Sin City
Tarnation

Here's a list of VERY recent movies that I have NO intention of ever seeing for one reason or another:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Madagascar
The Longest Yard
The Adv. of Sharkboy...
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Honeymooners
Monster In Law
High Tension
The Perfect Man
Lords of Dogtown
Kicking and Screaming
Sahara
Ladies in Lavender
The Pacifier
Unleashed
House of Wax
Fever Pitch
Miss Congeniality II
Ice Princess
The Upside of Anger
A Lot Like Love
and many many more...

Granted I am one consumer who has a specific liking for certain types of movies. However I would wager at least half the movies in the last category are not, by any means, worth my money or my time.

I'm just saying if you can't make a good movie, why make a movie at all? Give someone else the opportunity and means.

I will say one thing, if the film industry ever gets saturated with the same piss-poor garbage that the music industry is tolerating these days, I'll stop supporting the industry. I've bought one CD over the last 7 years. And that's not because I'm downloading them. It's because I don't want to hear that crap.

The turn of the century will be known as the age of the remake and sequel/prequel for movies. It is in my opinion the worst era in terms of quality material the movie industry has seen. Can you really blame people for staying home? Give me something worth watching.

There have been some really good points brought up. And I know full-well you can't depend on statistics and polls to acurately represent every situation. But I felt like I had to get that off my chest.
  • 0

#11 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:13 PM

"Is that still true? I thought I'd read that India was a bigger market than USA."

Ah, I said the most "important" not the biggest.

USA is the most important in terms of dollar generation.

R,
  • 0

#12 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:49 PM

What I was really referring to was Landon's opening paragraph.
  • 0

#13 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:58 PM

Granted I am one consumer who has a specific liking for certain types of movies. However I would wager at least half the movies in the last category are not, by any means, worth my money or my time.

How do you know its a bad movie unless you see it? You certainly dont rely on what "Yahoo" users say about them?

Its one thing is you know a movie is not your type, but to say they ALL SUCK is amnother thing...
  • 0

#14 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:07 PM

C'mon Landon. What did you say about War of the Worlds in the Spielberg thread? You said - "I mean I just can't say I like his recent more contemporary films. . . Such as War of the Worlds" - and it hasn't even been released yet.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:13 PM

Landon's own response about the lack of good theaters around him suggest that this poll should have been broken down regionally -- i.e. do people who live in cities with great movie theaters have the same preference for home video as people living in smaller towns, etc. Certainly if I lived in the middle of nowhere, I might cherish my home theater system more compared to someone who lived a block from the Arclight in Hollywood, for example.

Also, it worries me that there's this notion that people will just start watching movies on kick-ass home theater systems -- excuse me, but what about all the people around the world who can't afford such systems? It's like saying we don't need libraries because people can just get the book at Barnes & Noble now.
  • 0

#16 drew_town

drew_town
  • Sustaining Members
  • 383 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Southeast US

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:34 PM

How do you know its a bad movie unless you see it? You certainly dont rely on what "Yahoo" users say about them?

Its one thing is you know a movie is not your type, but to say they ALL SUCK is amnother thing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Suck is a subjective term, whereas I have a pretty good idea of "the value of my time and money." "Suck" is what my gut tells me when I see the preview, read reviews, and discover who made the movie and juxtapose past productions. "Not worth my time" is what I say right before I decide not to go see it. Trust me, I really wish I didn't feel that way. But I think back to how many times I gave the screen the bird because my gut was indeed correct.
  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:52 PM

Fundamentally, I like the moviewatching experience. Even as a child back when they showed science films in class with a 16mm projector, I liked it when the house lights were dimmed and the movie started up. I enjoyed seeing images projected on a screen, almost any images as a young person.

So even if I don't think most of the movies I see are any good or worth watching twice, I'd rather go out and see movies than NOT see movies. I'll see a movie on the thinnest excuse, like "I heard they shot their exteriors on Fuji F500D." I went and saw "Sahara" just because I like desert movies (I grew up in the desert) and I like Civil War action scenes and I read that it opened with one. And I wanted to see what the "Sahara Gold" filter did. No, it wasn't a good movie. But I learn from all movies.

I remember Robert Altman's comment that he learned more from watching bad movies because they told him what NOT to do. Kubrick made a similar remark once.

But I like seeing movies. That's why I got into this business.
  • 0

#18 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 17 June 2005 - 12:00 AM

Suck is a subjective term, whereas I have a pretty good idea of "the value of my time and money." "Suck" is what my gut tells me when I see the preview, read reviews, and discover who made the movie and juxtapose past productions. "Not worth my time" is what I say right before I decide not to go see it. Trust me, I really wish I didn't feel that way. But I think back to how many times I gave the screen the bird because my gut was indeed correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Get ready for some fresh ideas! Check this list:

http://pro.imdb.com/...s-preproduction

and this:

http://pro.imdb.com/.../status-filming

and this:

http://pro.imdb.com/...-postproduction

"Only" about half HALF! are either sequels, remakes or TV-show-turned-into-movies. The brilliant ideas are bursting through the seams, 'course that half represents about 80% of the production budget of all the films on those lists combined. No doubt it'll also represent 80% of the box office....
  • 0

#19 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 17 June 2005 - 01:07 AM

I don't live in the middle of no where #1... I live in a college town with 60,000 + people... We have 2 cinemas, both Showplace's... One's a 12 screen (where i work) the other is a 11 screen... Most majot films are screened at the Showplace 12 (newest one) with stadium seating, Curved screens, 6.1 surroud sound... ect. Most small but still wide release movies open @ 11... Which is fairly old (maybe 1970?) and has 5.1 Surround, no stadium seating and the screens are flat... Both have LARGE screens, but just in selected theaters... Like all Megaplex cinema's, We have large screens and small screens... 12 has 4 HUGE screens, 4 Medium Sized ones and 4 Small ones...
Most of 11's are the same size though.. about 1 story I think...

So I dont live in the middle of no where, and the cinemas we have a pretty well off.

While we dont have any Arclight's or anything like that, we do have 2 nice cinemas...

#2:

C'mon Landon. What did you say about War of the Worlds in the Spielberg thread? You said - "I mean I just can't say I like his recent more contemporary films. . . Such as War of the Worlds" - and it hasn't even been released yet.


Ok, I think I sat myself up for that one...

And David:

Landon's own response about the lack of good theaters around him suggest that this poll should have been broken down regionally

A Majority of the population dont live in Hollywood, or LA, or New York.. So if you single it out to "Only people who live in big cities" than thats not an acurate representation of why people dont go to the movies... because 98% of the population DONT have ab Arclight or any big nice theaters like that.
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2005 - 01:33 AM

Sorry, I thought I read a post from you about having only small screens in your town, but I guess that was someone else's post.

I'm not invalidating the opinions of those who live outside a major city; I'm only saying that the notion that movie theaters are not very good and home systems are comparable does not apply everywhere. Whenever I hear people say "theaters suck" my response tends to me "then go to one that's good" -- but I can do that where I live, not everyone can.

As for the notion that the majority of Americans don't live in big cities with big theaters, I'm not sure that's true -- an awful lot of the population obviously DO live in big cities or else they wouldn't be big. But I don't know what the breakdown is like.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineLab

CineTape

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

CineLab