Weekend Estimates by Klady – Potent Potter
Not too much more to look at here. Potter is where is was headed. Ice Age 3 rolls along, ahead of the first two films after two weekends and slightly ahead of Tranny2 for the weekend (as it probably really was last weekend), and Transformers: ROTFL is in line to break into the Top 10 all-time domestic with more than $400m, but likely not the worldwide all-time Top 15, which starts at $870.8m.
Bruno fell hard and is still probably looking at between $70m and $80m domestic… which is, ironically, where Fox felt its top on Borat would be. Not a cash machine, but still profitable for Universal.
It is not a direct defense of Bruno, but it is worth pointing out that these steep second weekend drops are becoming more and more standard. This is the ninth drop of more than 67% this year… the record for a year is ten. Five of the nine steep ones were opened on 2750 screens or more. None of them were opened on fewer than 1250 screens.
I understand the argument that “people just don’t like the film,” but I don’t see a natural Bottom 10 list in any of the years biggest drop lists. This year, it is (in order of the drop, worst to less worst): Friday the 13th, Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience, Bruno, Miss March, Notorious, Year One, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, and Watchmen.
Using another measure, there have only been 13 films that have opened over $50m and done less than 2.5x opening. Three have already happened this year. There were two last year and three in 2007. There were only 5 in cinema history before that. But even looking from last year to this year, the numbers are not pretty. Quantum of Solace (2.49x open) and The Incredible Hulk (2.43x) were rough, but Fast & Furious (2.19x), Wolverine (2.1) and Watchmen (1.9x… the big release record holder) are harsher.
Looking past those mega-openers, there have been 59 releases of over $20 million that have done less than 2.5x opening. 22 of them were in the last two years… 11 this year already, compared to 11 last year. 9, in 2006, was the ignoble record before that…7 is the next worst showing. See the trend? Bruno has a real chance of being the film that sets the new record for futility in the name of 2009.
In years past, this increase in front-loading was a problem, but less of an issue as DVD revenues rose. With DVD dropping off, the erosion in opening multiples continues… but now it represents actual lost revenue, not cannibalization by another revenue source.
The Hangover holds are, like Wedding Crashers before it, astounding. It might not have enough time to play out, but based on the current trajectory, it could actually pass Up to become the second highest grosser of this summer. Remarkable.
Speaking of Up, it looks pretty well ensconced in the #5 all-time animation slot, about $45m behind #4, Shrek The Third, and #2 amongst Pixar titles only to Finding Nemo. International numbers are just starting to come in, as the film hasn’t opened in many of the biggest markets.
(%00) Days Of Summer positioned as an indie play? Yeah. Kinda. Already discussed. Same with The Hurt Locker. Humpday at 5… well… bless us, every one… Magnolia just isn’t a theatrical-first-priority releasing company right now…
Transformers has to be considered a disappointment with a cume of just $163.7 million, no?
The funny thing is, I was aware that there had been a typo and got distracted while doing the cut and paste… fixed now… sorry… more to come…
My Sister’s Keeper is the quietest $45 million grosser in ages…
“The Proposal”, as Crazy Nikki points out, is inflated by sold out screenings of the Heigl’s new film.
“The Hangover” just passed “Wedding Crashers” to become the 4th biggest R-rated comedy in terms of attendance (counting True Lies). Something About Mary is well out of reach but it’s still a mega-hit.
That’s one of those legendary second week drops for Bruno.
Hurt Locker’s PTA held really well. Would 1000 screens next wknd be suicide? It really should go wide ahead of Funny People and GI Joe.
You really think HURT LOCKER has that much overlap with an Apatow/Sandler/Rogan dramedy and a CGI-heavy actioner based on a toy?
Yeah, kinda. As opposed to Ugly Truth and G Force next weekend. They’re all guy movies.
I’ve asked this before and never got a clear answer, but is it actual DVD sales that are declining, or is it merely the rate of sales growth that’s down?
Front-loading was always a problem, the studios just had a nice smokescreen to make sure that they didn’t have to be aware of it. But they’re trying harder than ever to kill their golden-egg-laying geese.
OK, once again, I will ask a naive question: How does front-loading hurt a movie’s gross? I mean, yeah, it’s always nice to have your movie hanging around in theaters for 10 weeks instead of 4, in hope that word of mouth will spread. But in most cases: Isn’t there a finite number of people really intersted in seeing an individual film? And don’t you get them whether you’re around for 10 weeks on 1,000 screens or 5 weeks on 2,000 screens? I’m not trying to be funny here: Would, say, Speed Racer or Observe and Report or Watchmen have made significantly more money on fewer screens for more weeks?
Front-loading actually HELPS a movie’s rentals while it hurts the exhibitors. To wit, most studios get a 90% cut of the gross the first week of the engagement, 80% the second week, eventually dwindling down to 50% a month or so into the run. This dirty little secret is the real reason why studios do it. Unfortunately, it’s also the reason why theatres are quick to bump an underperforming movie early in its run — the margins are too thin to allow them to do otherwise.
On the flip side, the amount of extra marketing $ required to do such a wide release eats into the extra rentals generated and any film that doesn’t fit into the 4000 screen/blitzkreig TV commercial saturation formula tends to fall through the cracks.
DP is, notably, one of the few journalists who actually understands and stresses the importance of the opening weekend multiple, which is like the Bill James OBP stat in determining a movie’s real success, after all the dust of hype has settled. Low multiples mean bad word-of-mouth and a movie that no one really wants to see more than once. To me, the real thing that’s killing DVD revenue is the fact that studios, now more than ever, are putting out movies that don’t merit a second viewing. Often, this is because of the scrambled rush to make the release date; paradoxically, the bigger and more “event” the movie is, the more likely the finished product tends to resemble a hastily-assembled answer print. Most of the stuff is excruciating to watch — who the fuck would want to actually OWN it?
For all the talk about studios taking hard-lines on salaries to ward against the changed economics of the business, the figures represent a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money wasted in post (do you have any idea what last-minute triple-overtime CGI costs?) and left on the table in release (when a potentially good movie becomes a merely mediocre one because there was no time to fix it) due to the whole rush-rush “release date is all” mentality. Allowing filmmakers more time for development, pre-production and editing would actually cut costs and make the quality of the finished product markedly better. But that would be too easy. Better to blame it all on the internet….
jeffmcm – I’ve been trying to get a real answer on that DVD question and it’s kind of hard to tell as this year has still had some big DVD hits, meaning that – if I’m interpreting this right – the people that always bought DVDs are still buying certain DVDs (“Taken,” “Gran Torino,” “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” – all over $40 million in DVD sales so far).
That said – and again, just from my nosing around – it seems that people no longer buy just fucking every movie that comes out like they used to. To get personal, here’s why I say that –
Take the movie “The Messengers” – PG-13 horror, came in #1 on the weekend it came out (Feb. ’07), made $35 million domestic, but let’s be honest – 11% Rotten Tomatoes rating. The thing ended up making $15.7 million on DVD (released on DVD in June of 2007), though it still sells a couple of copies here and there, likely to “Twilight” fans.
Then take the movie “Friday the 13th” – R-rated horror, which usually means bigger on home video due to unrated cuts, came in #1 on the weekend it came out (Feb. ’09) setting a record for highest three-day horror gross, made $65 million domestic and had a 26% Rotten Tomatoes rating. So far, “Friday the 13th” (released in June of 2009 on DVD) has made $6.8 million on DVD after three weeks (“Messengers” was at $8.3 million its third week).
“The Messengers” sold 241,466 DVDs in its first week. “Friday the 13th” sold 267,121 DVDs in its first week. The second week, the drop was 56.9% for “Messengers,” whereas it was 63.2% for “F13.”
It used to be that you could kind of keep the same ratio – how much something did at the box office in relation to how it was going to do on home video, something that was particularly consistent for that first weekend based on the video rental chain/big box buys.
Interestingly enough, of course and a big impact on those numbers, was that in June 2007 – right after “Messengers” came out on DVD – Blockbuster began closing U.S. stores, starting with 282 that were shuttered. Not that that’s HUGE, but my local Blockbuster on Sunset had about 60 copies of “Friday the 13th” on its wall, which – with only those first 282 closures – would be, if they all ordered the same amount, a loss of 16,920 potential “Friday the 13th” DVDs. Also, Blockbuster – when “Messengers” came out – put up 80-100 copies of that movie on the new release wall (I used to work at a Blockbuster, so I actually enjoy watching their “buy” patterns).
Of course, I’m comparing a PG-13 movie with an R-rated one meaning that a lot of 13 year-old’s who caught the movie might be making impulse buys for a film they had seen, but due to the R-rating, a lot of 13 year-olds might not have seen the film itself and, as it was financially successful, typically it would seem like a ripe plum for the home video market.
But, it’s not. Which, as the films are of similar quality, I would think might indicate that – yes – consumers aren’t buying as many DVDs as they used to and the rental shops aren’t either.
Oh, and if you can stand it, another “Messengers” vs. “Friday the 13th” comparison. Whoever designed the logo of the film on the poster used the exact same font – these red letters with black lines through the back, as if looking at slash marks through a red filter – for both posters. It’s the kind of thing only your nephew notices when you mail him a poster.
Could this in any way explain why there is a direct-to-video prequel — Messengers 2: The Scarecrow — set to hit theaters this week?
On a not-entirely related subject: I vaguely remember reading somewhere — here? — a year or two back that there would be a marked decrease in the number of direct-to-video releases, because people simply weren’t renting/buying them in great numbers anymore. But when I visited my frinedly neighborhood Blockbuster last week, I noticed literally dozens of relatively new DTV products. Including one, Night Train, showcasing a meat cleaver-wielding Leelee Sobieski. Which got me to thinking: The last movie I saw her in was a Uwe Boll epic. What happened to this poor woman’s career?
Joe, Sobieski has a small part in Public Enemies, so she hasn’t disappeared altogether.
Grady: Thanks. Seriously.
EthanG – Rather than just do the obvious and slam Nikki for hyperbole and hype for one of her O&Os, I decided to actually investigate the claim that Proposal’s drop was substantively helped by Ugly Truth sneaks.
Here are the facts:
1. There were fewer than 200 screens sneaking Ugly Truth on Friday. Around 50 were Proposal screens. The rest were Sony slots.
2. Yes, the gross for the slot filled by the sneak is accrued to the movie that was replaced.
3. Assuming 300 seats per screen, 100% sell outs, and $10 per ticket, the maximum gross for Ugly Truth on those screens was about $150,000.
4. At the start of an estimated $8.3 million weekend, the per-screen for The Proposal on Friday was an estimated $920 or with 5 shows, $184 per show. 50 of those shows would be $9200. The sneaks were in primetime, so let
Joe, on the frontloading thing, you are mixing apples and oranges a bit.
Certainly there are movies that have a motivated, narrow audience and will often get the vast majority into the theater in the first two weekends.
Each film has its own trajectory and all three films you mentioned, to my eye, have different reasons for their lousy multiples.
But it would be false to say that every movie just has its number of people who want to see it and that is that. Both infrequent moviegoers and weekly moviegoers have had the experience of finally getting around to seeing something and it being gone. And there are many variations on that.
Coraline took a box office hit this spring because it was sold so strongly as a 3D event and then lost a lot of 3D screens to The Jonas Bros.
Right now, My Sister’s Keeper is a film that lost about 20% of its screens this weekend, though it is holding pretty well. It will surely keep losing screens, so the difference may be between a $48m gross and a $65m gross in the end.
What we know will never happen with frontloading is another My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
But mostly, it has meant leaving millions, often tens of millions, on the table in theatrical, for the benefit of getting to DVD sooner. Now, the rush to DVD is a bit less intense and another $10 million at the box office means more. So a movie like Notorious, which lost more than a third of its launching screen count between weekends 2 and 3 and was down to a quarter of the initial count on weekend 4 has no chance, really. And it didn’t make up for that on DVD, which is what we used to assume.
Anyway, Joe, there are hundreds of variable and each movie is different. Front-loading does work for some movies. But it is bad for Movies. It makes the moviegoing experience more about marketing and less about the films and variety.
Joe, you gotta rent Walk All Over Me:
http://13thcolony.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/thwalk.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2112/2494781463_04140f17d4.jpg?v=0
@Rob: “The Hurt Locker” goes national on Friday yet is going only to ~200 theaters per Mojo.
Doug: I must say, those pix are at once undeniably provocative and profoundly depressing. Oddly enough, I was set to see a Leelee Sobieski movie — The Glass House — on the evening of 9/11/01. Not surprisingly, that screening was cancelled.
BTW: is that LexG in the cage in the first photo?
Geez, I just checked — Walk All Over Me was shown at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival. And NOT as part of the Midnight Madness sidebar.
David: There’s really no way to prove or disprove your theory, but I strongly suspect you’re correct regarding money left on the table when theatrical runs for some pictures — not many, but definitely some — are curtailed. But would you not agree the movies most likely to be hurt in this manner would be films aimed toward a 35+ demographic? That is, aimed at people who don’t feel the need to rush out on opening weekend? I’m thinking of something like The Soloist, which I know came and went before two friends of mine got to see it.
SJ Rubenstein, thanks for your example up above. I’m still puzzled by the basic question though. I mean, I’m sure that DVD sales would decline some degree given the recession, but there seemed to be some longer-term issue that I don’t quite grasp. If DVD sales themselves are declining (which is what it sounds like) then that’s cause for concern along the same lines as the ‘theatrical attendance is dropping’ scare. But if the rate of growth is merely levelled off, then so what – that just means that it’s become a mature product.
Also, to David Poland – thanks for writing “Front-loading does work for some movies. But it is bad for Movies. It makes the moviegoing experience more about marketing and less about the films and variety.”
You may have said it before and I missed it, but I feel like I’ve been waiting years for you to put that point down in black and white.
Could it be that some people — again, not many, but some — are holding off buying any new DVDs until they see whether they’ll absolutely have to switch over to Blu-Ray?
Joe, a technology consideration is certainly part of the equation. But a small part, IMO. I think the bigger issue is going from ugly old analog VHS to cleaned up digital DVD. Suddenly with DVD you had something that approximated the theatrical experience, and even beat it in some ways with all the amenities. From what I can tell, catalog DVD sales were HUGE for awhile there and really drove the business. But now most people have caught up on all those classic catalog movies on DVD and they’re comfortable with their collection. Anecdotally, that’s my impression as well as friends and family that were in on the DVD craze. I do not personally know anyone that is particularly interested or excited in repurchasing those classic titles in Blu-Ray. I do know some people that want to upgrade to blu-ray for new titles and to show off their home theater systems. But the huge catalog of movies on DVD, I think most people are happy with the quality of those titles as-is and do not feel compelled to buy them again in a higher-res DVD. Also, both cable systems in my area make HD on-demand very easy to use. As a tech geek, I’m not particularly satisfied with the quality of HD on-demand VS blu-ray, but for most others, the choice of HD on-demand or purchase on Blu-ray, it’s a tossup with the on-demand tending to be the easier choice.
I think a drop-off in DVD sales could be explained at least in part by the rise of Netflix. Why bother purchasing something when you have an unlimited library one day away?
Of course Blockbuster and such existed earlier but rarely on an all-you-can-eat basis. The size of the library and the convenience of Netflix makes a difference too.
On another note, I’m surprised amidst all of this discussion of front-loading that nobody has made the following point: Front-loading makes word-of-mouth less and less relevant to a movie’s bottom line. It makes it easier for terrible movies to make money.
How much did “The Room” make this weekend? I hear it’s still selling out in San Francisco. I was just watching some clips, I hope they with the additional Best Pic slots this smaller film will have a chance at the end of the year:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=123801CAA4C89BD7
Doug R,
Nobody should rent Walk All Over Me. It is the worst kind of Canuck flick. One that wants to pretend it is an edgy film about S & M in its adverts but is completely PG-13 in its execution.
I am a Sobieski fan (glad to see her in PE) and just taped Walk All Over Me two weeks ago on Canadian cable uncut. It is PG-13 at best and has no knowledge of the S & M lifestyle. If it played at TIFF it is only because it had Sobieski in it (is she half Canuck?) and the promise of kink. It has none of the latter.
Boooooring.
Eric has nailed it with Netflix and Redbox having a hand in what ever sales problems are happening with DVDs. Let’s face it: it’s more about seeing it these days with most people, then owning it. Which is a fucking problem, but there is not account for taste.
No accounting and this format sucks. 21st CENTURY! 21st CENTURY! 21st CENTURY… NOW!
Joe, there’s actually something really bizarre I’ve noticed in straight-to-DVD sequels, at least the handful that I was around. With “Messengers 2,” they used Todd Farmer’s original draft of “Totem” aka “Scarecrow” which became “Messengers.” Because it was so written and re-written, his first draft – which the studio already owned – provided the groundwork for the prequel.
This happened with the straight-to-video sequel to “Hollow Man” as well as they used an early draft of the first “Hollow Man,” written by Gary Scott Thompson, to provide the groundwork for the sequel.
And then on “Boogeyman II,” what became the story there was actually an unused idea that – at one time – was going to be the plot of the first “Boogeyman.”
As more and more and more drafts are commissioned only to be discarded, I’d imagine this could happen a lot!
Io, “Let’s face it: it’s more about seeing it these days with most people, then owning it. Which is a fucking problem, but there is not account for taste.”
How is – shockingly – wanting to know you like a movie before paying to purchase it “a fucking problem”.
TBH, I think the studios haven’t exactly helped their cause by releasing 23 different editions of each movie (even old fare), usually without even anything worth a second purchase, that people just wait until they’re in the bargain bin and don’t feel ripped off when a new version is released two months later.
Camel, if you want to respond to me like a douche, then could you at least get the point? It has more to do with people wanting to SAY they have SEEN a MOVIE, then their ACTUAL FUCKING NEED to OWN the movie. Did you get it that time?
You still insinuated that wanting to see a movie…oh sorry, wanting to say you’ve seen a movie (huh?) somehow means someone has bad taste, so buying a DVD of a movie that you’ve never seen and may hate is somehow good taste.
I mean, I know film nerds do this…buy lots of movies sight unseen. This is usually because they have nothing better to spend it on, like dates or going out.
IO, your clarification made less sense than your original point.
I think Netflix really is the answer. I am a huge movie geek, went to film school, watch just about everything. I only own a handful of DVDs. There’s only so many hours in a day, so I don’t feel the need to rewatch something I’ve already seen, especially when something new is one mail day away. How is $20 worth it to purchase a movie you’ll probably watch one or twice and then let it collect dust on your shelf?
Man makes a good point. I have gone from buying a couple of movies a month to a couple of favorites a year. My entertainment shelf is overfilled with Wii and DVDs to the point where the average person says “I have a DVR filled with great television and movies, a netflix account, and way too many DVDs….I simply do not want to put my entertainment dollars towards the clutter.” As someone who has 14 hours a week in television time, I would rather watch something new on the DVR(true blood) or netflix(when the hell will Gran Torino no longer be “very long wait”) than watch that copy of X2 which is collecting dust.
A comment about Blu-Ray. I have three DVD players(family room, bedroom, and office), I am not going to purchase a more expensive disc that may only be watched in one room. Granted companies like Disney are doing the Blu and DVD in one package, but when people are already slowing down there purchases of DVD are they really going to spend more for package. I would be more likely to spend five dollars more for a digital copy of the movie. I think that in this Ipod mobile world, a digital copy of the movie would be a better selling point
See – there’s the reason, right there. I used to buy DVDs, then I just saw them gathering dust. Now, I don’t buy them so much. When I worked at Blockbuster way-back-when, DVDs were already starting to come out – just, there was only one store in the North Houston area that stocked them. We were all VHS. So, at the beginning, as DVDs were consumer-priced early on (unlike VHS tapes – many of the more obscure titles were $100 for awhile), the idea was you bought them, not rented them as they had all those extras you’d want to watch.
Now it’s commonplace and who cares? I still love it as a format, but I sold off the bulk of my DVD collection awhile ago.
Bennett– it’s really, really easy to make your own digital file from a DVD. It’s far easier than punching in an authentication code on your computer and downloading a DRM-laden file from the studio’s servers. Save your $5! And please, please don’t encourage the studios to charge extra for something that is easy and free for a consumer to do within their fair use rights.
“I think a drop-off in DVD sales could be explained at least in part by the rise of Netflix. Why bother purchasing something when you have an unlimited library one day away?”
Exactly. And it isn’t so much the $19.99 new release at a Wal-Mart that I’m foregoing as much as it is the $39.99 Criterion Collection disc at a Borders. I don’t have the money to gamble forty bucks again and again on something that I’m more likely to only kind of like or kind of dislike than absolutely love. And on top of that, what I’m looking for isn’t even always at a place like Borders (much truer today than a year ago by the way); so if I’m going to go online and do Amazon, why not just scoot over to Netflix and put the same movie in my queue for a fraction of the price?
“Let’s face it: it’s more about seeing it these days with most people, then owning it. Which is a fucking problem, but there is not account for taste.”
IOIOIOI, by this logic all the people decades back who only saw movies in theaters because home video didn’t exist yet were tasteless because they didn’t go out and buy the full-sized movie theater reels. And then people who rented movies in the 80’s didn’t have taste because they weren’t ponying up $90 for a VHS copy of their favorite flicks. But sometime earlier in this decade, the nation discovered taste because it started stocking shelves at home with classics like “Joe Dirt”? I don’t understand your stance.
“It has more to do with people wanting to SAY they have SEEN a MOVIE, then their ACTUAL FUCKING NEED to OWN the movie.”
How many NEED TO OWN titles come out in any given year anyway? I consider myself lucky if I come across FOUR that I absolutely must have in my possession at all times because I will be watching the movie again and again and again. The ratio of watchables to dustables in my collection is already scary enough. There are just too many TV shows and new movies and older movies I haven’t seen for me to justify a massive collection anymore. Sorry if that sounds tasteless to you.
And I would also say that the vast majority of people who rent movies do so because they want to see the movies, period. Seriously, how many folks are really out there throwing ANY kind of money away on rentals just so they can say they saw something like “There Will Be Blood”? Who does that even begin to impress?
Well, it helps if you have a crafty accountant who finds a way to claim every DVD you buy is a legitimate business expense.
I used to think that I was bad film geek because I owned so few DVDs. Then I came to realize there were only so many I need to own.
Seriously, what are you doing watching a three-year-old summer blockbuster for the sixth time when you haven’t seen so many classics even once? There are also certain films I never need to have on DVD because they need to be seen on a giant screen and I know they’ll play at least once a year somewhere nearby. 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Leone westerns…(I do own Blade Runner, but mostly for the making-of doc.)
I’ll try to see some of these titles every single time they play at a local rep house. But if I have them at home and can watch them anytime I want, some of the excitement fades.
On that note, I know most film geeks are collectors and purists about things like aspect ratio and transfers…
But I’ve always found I never enjoy something more than when I happen upon it by accident on cable. With a DVD, you’re putting the disc in, you’re controlling the experience, you can stop and start it 800 times to check your email or use the bathroom. And for me, even though I love widescreen and always want that version of a movie, if you don’t have a GIANT-ASS tv, I’m either squinting from across the room to watch a Scope movie or I have to pull a chair up to the TV to not feel like I’m watching through the wrong end of binoculars.
Somehow I enjoy something more, really get sucked into it, if I flip across it on TV, even if it’s panned and scanned, edited, whatever. Like, just last week, “Stir Crazy” was on AMC. I haven’t seen that in 24 years easily, would NEVER rent it or buy the DVD, and if I did have the DVD, it would just sit collecting dust. But running across it in shitty color and badly edited, I still found myself glued to it and it bringing back all these childhood memories.
Just like how growing up, I saw all the ’70s greats for the first time either on HBO or on some local channel in crappy washed out colors and bad TV edits; Now I hear so many geeks say “I don’t need cable, I have my DVD collection,” but, really, when you program it yourself and have to force yourself to make a night of throwing in some selected DVD, it’s usually kind of a drag unless it’s just on for background noise and you can come in and out of it.
i can dig that, lex. unexpected delights
There’s something about the “passive” experience of stumbling onto a movie unplanned that has a spontaneity you can’t really replicate with the self-reflexive act of putting a DVD in the player and watching it yourself.
To make a weird comparison, with all of the erotica available on the net giving you the ability to find almost anybody doing almost anything you’ve ever fantasized about damn near instantaneously, lazily channel surfing and stumbling across a sexy woman in an amazing outfit on a show like “Dancing With The Stars” has a much greater impact on my libido than any of that stuff. Even with less skin, no explicit acts, etc, its just more evocative somehow.
I have so many great DVDs I haven’t watched that I could put together for the perfect A+ night of viewing, but like Lex, I’d still rather come across a really solid B film on cable without trying.
Studies have shown that the average consumer tends to max out their DVD collection around 120 units. DVD enthusiasts tend to be slightly higher, but not as much as people tend to think.
So the bottom line is that it’s not Netflix, it’s not the quality of the product, nor the price point. It’s simply the quantity. People collect up to a certain amount and then tend to stop.
I used to buy DVDs a lot – new, old, ex-rental, bargain bin – but in the last year have bought next to none. I’ve gotten some TV series because they’re better value and some movies I’ve found really cheap (Red Rock West for $3!), but other than that I’ve stopped. I don’t have the room, or the time or – especially – the money to do so.
“Camel, if you want to respond to me like a douche, then could you at least get the point? It has more to do with people wanting to SAY they have SEEN a MOVIE, then their ACTUAL FUCKING NEED to OWN the movie. Did you get it that time?”
IO, i THOUGHT i RESPONDED to your post not like a DOUCHE, but in a SIMPLE and TO-THE-POINT way. In fact my reply to you was ONE SENTENCE long. I don’t think i could GET to the POINT any QUICKER.
And, to answer your question: no, I did not get it that time. I got even less that time.
In an era of declining sales (as opposed to rentals), it’s ludicrous that the studios turn their backs on we who buy DVDs by the pound by releasing fewer films from the pre-STAR WARS era instead of adding more such titles to minimize the gap.
I have to ponder before I buy any movie. Life and shelf space are too short to horde disposable films left unwatched. But I love the Laser/VHS stock at Amoeba because you can find not-on-dvd gold for two dollars. I don’t mind the raw quality if it’s rare or cool. I know some people who say they can’t go back to watching DVD after blu-ray, but that’s silly.