HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
A collection of Avengers-related thoughts about the movies.
1. The movies may be following a luxurification path similar to that experienced with respect to many goods and certain entertainments (sporting events, concerts). As the American economy intensifies the have-have not divide, exhibitors and producers could understandably focus on high-end consumers who are relatively price-insensitive, willing to pay for 3D enhancement and better refreshments. This could generate higher prices (and profits, consequent to luxury-level margins). If the industry had a do-over for the Avengers weekend, it might have charged an additional buck or two for Avengers showings. Increased prices could remove some consumers from the mix, but they probably would be abandoned as much as lost by the industry. Will affluent consumers prefer different types of movies? How much would variable ticket pricing influence greenlight decisions?
2. Competitive factors may incline exhibitors and producers (to the extent producers' interests or sympathies are aligned with those of exhibitors) to favor spectacular movies at the expense of less-flash, more-substantive works. I rarely attend a theater because I prefer to watch movies (and other entertainments) at home, for reasons including convenience, comfort, and far better refreshments. More threatening to exhibitors: My children increasingly share this preference. The primary motivator for a trip to the big screen is a movie whose scale can not be handled by even the largest home screen. I am willing to drive to the theater, bend to the theater's schedule, eat lesser popcorn, put up with rude patrons, etc. for The Dark Knight Rises in a theater, but not for an Adam Sandler film -- even if I love Sandler. The Sandler movie is better at home. But the Dark Knight is better in a theater. These "scale" movies may be the most potent weapon theaters (and producers, to the extent they care about exhibitors) possess in which may be a battle for survival. This point, again, seems likely to become more influential in determining which movies are made (or at laest are well-funded).
3. We may be witnessing the infantilization of the movies (and their patrons). Young children not only do not mind watching a rerun, they often prefer a rerun to an unfamiliar episode. When watching something for the first time, young children like familiar characters. Young children like simple entertainments. Studios are producing movies based on standby characters, with concepts as shallow and familar as board games -- the Tic Tac Toe Movie is likely being pitched this week -- for undemanding consumers who watch multiple showings. Producers are grafting ever-more-predictable plots on ever-more-familiar, ever-flimsier canvasses. Children of all ages are eating this stuff up like it was Velveeta-flavored Cheetos. HSX traders appear to be honoring this trend by gobbling every comic-related security in sight today.
4. It will be interesting to observe how some of these trends affect the star system (and the role of talent among actors). Comic-spawned movies do not rely on huge stars. Comic-based casts do not require huge paychecks. CGI and explosions do not require much acting talent. In a world in which exhibitors push superhuman spectacle, will Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks be able to command a $15 million fee? Will Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie be able to compete with dynamite and software for eyeballs?
5. Will "artist" directors be made obsolete by "plumber" directors? Two of the most common paths to big-budget directing careers today involve music videos and commercials. Are these directors capable to telling a story more complicated than Cialis commercial? Is there any reason for them to do so? Will (could) Michael Bay ever become a Scorcese or Spielberg? Will the next Eastwood or Wilder or Lumet be able to compete for funding with someone who lands Iron Man 9 based on Motley Crew videos and Budweiser ads?
Before crediting any of this, you should probably check the GPA list for Delta House brothers.
A collection of Avengers-related thoughts about the movies. May 07, 07:46
agreed on your point 3. Furthermore; 'why so serious' about this kiddiefare May 07, 07:53
You should probably go back and re-read points 1, 2, 4, and 5. :) {nm} May 07, 08:04
okay... tried again... head hurts... AAArgh... JMT Smash ! {nm} May 07, 08:50
The most important point was in the final line.{nm} May 07, 10:23
Luxurification? Infantalization? {nm} May 07, 08:28
I don't really agree with your points. May 07, 08:29
I believe Robert Downey Jr. sold some Avengers tickets. But isn't that a vivid exception? Edward Norton is a fine actor, but May 07, 08:47
RDOWN, in the same way JDEPP made the "Pirates..." franchise work, or HLEDG made BATM2 something very good into something... May 07, 09:31
I think your mixing some rotten apples in with your oranges. May 07, 09:58
Following this logic, box office figures seem to suggest that many ANVGR patrons did not see any other movie ever May 07, 10:42
What form of logic do you have in mind? Deductive, inductive, and even abductive appear to be out of the running.{nm} May 07, 11:20
The argument of it being Hackneyed is academic, and applies to everything. May 07, 11:34
The Audience is the correct answer. May 07, 12:17
The Audience is the only measuring stick you really have. May 07, 13:54
Don't worry. It's the blockbusters that pay the way for artistic films. May 07, 09:05
And if anyone fixates on artistic films, it's a guy named Bluto who lives at Delta House! {nm} May 07, 15:49
Relax. Not every film can be high-minded art like Caddyshack or Animal House. {nm} May 07, 09:32
Seems to me that you are like Judge Smails looking down on lowbrow entertainment like The Avengers. May 07, 10:37
Stripes, Caddyshack, and Animal House were great lowbrow entertainments, which is in some ways the best entertainment. {nm} May 07, 11:22
The gist of your argument (such that it is) when all is said and done comes to an internet meme. May 07, 11:47
