←back to thread

231 points frogulis | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.749s | source | bottom
Show context
somenameforme ◴[] No.44567805[source]
Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size.

And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them!

Even for individual movies. For all the men-in-spandex movies, the best selling movie (by tickets sold) in modern times is Titanic, 27 years ago.

[1] - https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

replies(25): >>44567864 #>>44567968 #>>44568136 #>>44568154 #>>44570905 #>>44570997 #>>44571105 #>>44571251 #>>44571355 #>>44571403 #>>44571486 #>>44571608 #>>44571759 #>>44571905 #>>44572267 #>>44572485 #>>44572904 #>>44573167 #>>44573177 #>>44573253 #>>44573502 #>>44573585 #>>44574449 #>>44576708 #>>44580563 #
1. isk517 ◴[] No.44571905[source]
A major contributor to Titanic being the best selling movie by tickets sold is the amount of people that went to watch it multiple times, and going to see a movie multiple times in 1997, while not common, was not unusual because it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?
replies(3): >>44572161 #>>44572289 #>>44573224 #
2. snozolli ◴[] No.44572161[source]
1997 was an absolutely phenomenal year for movies. Life Is Beautiful, Boogie Nights, Jackie Brown, Titanic, Donnie Brasco, The Fifth Element, Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, Austin Powers International Man of Mystery, Gattaca, LA Confidential, Men in Black, Liar Liar, Amistad, The Game, Con Air, Contact.

There was a lot to do in 1997, just not as much to do without leaving home. We went to movies because they were affordable and great movies were being released.

Also, that was the era where new multiplex theaters were being built with great sound systems, so it was worth going to a theater for the high-quality experience. While quality consumer electronics are more readily available today than ever before, I feel like the vast majority today only watch media with headphones, TV speakers, or maybe a 2.1 stereo+sub setup.

replies(1): >>44575911 #
3. kgwgk ◴[] No.44572289[source]
> it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?

Right, there are only so many walls to paint in a cave…

4. ks2048 ◴[] No.44573224[source]
> because it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

replies(1): >>44585501 #
5. asdff ◴[] No.44575911[source]
IMO actual quality components are still just as remote as 20 years ago. A proper setup is more or less the same technology as it has been for decades: good speakers, good amplifier, placed appropriately, and none of this has really seen any democratization. People buy sound bars and such but these are a far cry to what an actual sound system is like that you probably need to spend in the 4 figures to achieve. Buy enough sound bars that fall apart in a couple years for a couple hundred dollars and you could have bought a proper amplifier, speakers, in a setup that is actually modular, expandable, upgradeable, and serviceable.
replies(1): >>44578800 #
6. ndiddy ◴[] No.44578800{3}[source]
I have never heard of sound bars falling apart after a couple years, is that common? Every piece of sound equipment I've ever bought has lasted at least 15 years, my sound bar is 5 years old.

In general I think the sound bar audience is different from the hi-fi audio audience. I was fine with using the TV's built-in speakers until LCD TVs took over from CRTs and the built-in speakers became much tinnier and quieter because they couldn't fit quality speakers in a flatscreen TV case. I suspect most people who buy sound bars are in a similar situation.

replies(1): >>44618342 #
7. isk517 ◴[] No.44585501[source]
Half sarcasm and half serious. Obviously there were a lot of things to do back then, but also this was a time before everyone was carrying around a device that let you contact everyone else and access information about what is going on around you. Movies were a very heavily advertised things to do, the movie theater provided both a place as well as a time to meet your friends, and watching a movie at home meant gambling that the rental place would even have what you were looking for and provided a experience that was a very noticeable step down from going to the theater.
replies(1): >>44585798 #
8. isk517 ◴[] No.44585798{3}[source]
Also, depending on where you lived, going to the movie may well have been one of the only things to do.
9. asdff ◴[] No.44618342{4}[source]
Kind of reminds me of the beats headphones phenomenon. People had these earbuds that lacked any bass response, so they went with headphones that overdid it just to feel it. Sound bars indeed have features like better separation than tinier TV speakers but still crumble apart in comparison to even very modest bookshelf speakers you can run actual speaker wire into. Let alone a sub or a proper surround setup. Likewise with Beats and other headphones, they crumble put against the humble studio monitors like mdrv6/mdr7506 that have great separation and more faithful response to the intents of the record producer (who might very well have been using those exact headphones themselves).