For the second straight year, domestic attendance at movie theaters across the U.S. took a steep plunge. More than 50 million fewer tickets were sold in 2008 over attendance figures for 2007, a major drop of 3.6 percent. Hollywood had already experienced a net loss of tickets sold in 2007 from the previous calendar year of 2006. Figures for the industry were released Jan. 2 by industry tracker Box Office Mojo.
Inevitably, Hollywood will try to backtrack and blame the economy. But, that would contradict predictions made by National Association of Theater Owners President John Fithian earlier in 2008 when he said that movies would not be affected by by a looming recession, telling the AP, “We certainly have done very well during recessions.”
The newly released figures also are shattering the old Tinseltown adage “Hollywood thrives when the economy dives.” In fact, other than a small bump in theater attendance in 2006, movie box-office numbers have been steadily declining since the boom year of 2002 when over 1.5 billion movie tickets were sold, which translates into 220 million more tickets sold than 2008 totals. Factoring in the new 300 million-plus U.S. population, the theater attendance decline is actually much steeper.
Some apologists for the movie industry are trying to point the finger at shorter release windows for films and the emergence of DVD home entertainment sales. However, Dan Ramer of dvdfile.com notes, “Part of that may be due to more people purchasing DVD players … but clearly a contributing factor is also the product, the films themselves.”
Translation: Most movies are just not worth the moviegoer’s time and money in addition to being largely out of touch with the American and worldwide audience. Furthermore, in January of 2008, the Digital Entertainment Group reported that sales and rentals of DVDs fell for the first time in the 10-year history of the format.
As movie attendance began sliding in the first decade of the 21st century, the Movie Advisory Board conducted a survey in March of 2006 asking, “Why not go to a theater?” The No. 1 reason given by respondents: “Movies are not very good and do not meet expectations.”
Incredibly, there are still a few straightforward executives in Hollywood who don’t blame “new technology” for the ongoing slide in theatrical attendance. In the words of Clark Woods, president of distribution for MGM, “Let’s be honest. We didn’t exactly come out with the best products in the past few years.” More to the point, Woods summarized the problem that has plagued Hollywood for the past 40 years of lackluster results. “I think we may have forgotten a little about Middle America … your success is going to be listening to what all the country wants to see.”
While the Hollywood entertainment media boasts of outstanding gross receipts for certain films at the box office throughout the year, it is not a reliable forecast of a film’s true success. A better way to gauge a movie’s overall popularity and profitability is to look at the ratio of gross box-office receipts in relation to the film’s budget. Using this more accurate formula, “Fireproof” came out of 2008 as the clear winner, pulling in over $33 million on a film with a budget of only $500,000, an outstanding 66-fold return.
The biggest loser for 2008 was “Frost/Nixon,” which had only returned box-office receipts of $4 million in the last three weeks of December since its opening on the 5th of the month. That’s a 12-to-1 loss on investment with a budget of $25 million. In a move of “desperation marketing,” the loss was even deeper when factoring in Universal’s decision to pump an additional $10 million into promoting the filmed account of British TV journalist David Frost’s 1977 interview with former President Richard Nixon. While the film continued to play into the first week of January 2009, it had lost its footing by the first Sunday of the month.
On the other hand, “Fireproof” became a hit largely due to word-of-mouth promotion and a minimal advertising budget provided by Sony Provident and Samuel Goldwyn Films. “Fireproof” proved what MGM’s Clark Woods echoed by “listening to what all the country wants to see.” In the film, directed by Alex Kendrick of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., Kirk Cameron plays fireman Caleb Holt whose marriage is on the rocks until he accepts a 40-day challenge presented by his father known as “The Love Dare.” The dare speaks to faith in God as a power higher than his own to save Holt’s marriage, instead of Hollywood’s favorite “resolution” of divorce – the quicker the better.
Elizabeth Eubanks of Atlanta remarked, “‘Fireproof ‘ literally saved my marriage. My husband and I went to see a movie for entertainment and came away with a solution to our own personal crisis. Hollywood can be a powerful force for good when it chooses to be, which isn’t often.” Unfortunately for director Ron Howard, the Eubankses did not feel the same way about “Frost/Nixon.” After seeing the previews and reading an article by Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, the couple decided to avoid the movie altogether. “We thought Oliver Stone had already assassinated Nixon once. What more do they [Hollywood] want?”
As Clift wrote in the Dec. 5, 2008, issue of Newsweek, “Ron Howard said he started out looking for a reason to forgive Nixon, but concluded that abuse of power can never be forgiven.” This is not surprising. In Howard’s newfound role as God, he lost many fans after directing “The Da Vinci Code,” which was clearly intended by author Dan Brown to cast doubt on people’s faith in Christ.
Perhaps 2009 will be a chance for Hollywood to “get in touch” and make a profit at the same time. However, there’s always George Clooney, who proclaimed at the 2006 Oscars, “I’m proud to be out of touch.” And that may explain why his box-office appeal is fading.
