←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 4 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.012s | source
Show context
somenameforme ◴[15 Jul 25 04:23 UTC] 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 #
zamadatix ◴[15 Jul 25 14:38 UTC] No.44571608[source]▶
In 2002, watching a movie at home for most people meant flinging a low quality VHS or DVD onto a ~27" tube TV (with a resolution so worthless it might as well be labeled "new years") using a 4:3 aspect ratio pan & scan of the actual movie. Getting anything recent meant going out to the Blockbuster anyways. In 2022, watching a movie meant streaming something on your 50+" 16:9 4k smart TV by pressing a button from your couch.

Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often. Unless you specifically want "the movie theater experience" or you absolutely have to see a certain movie at launch you're not going to the theatre to watch a movie. The number of movie views per person may well be down (or up), but box office ticket sale counts don't really answer that question.

replies(11): >>44572352 #>>44572470 #>>44572546 #>>44572564 #>>44572738 #>>44572859 #>>44573434 #>>44573975 #>>44574881 #>>44575039 #>>44575905 #
freejazz ◴[15 Jul 25 21:16 UTC] No.44575905[source]▶
Okay, what happened in 2003 then?
replies(1): >>44578471 #
zamadatix ◴[16 Jul 25 03:41 UTC] No.44578471[source]▶
There was a ~3% delta in absolute ticket sales.

I take it you really mean "so why wasn't 2003 the peak year instead of 2002" to which I'd say "I'm not trying to explain one needs a 55" widescreen 4k TV before you'll ever consider going to the movie theater less often, rather that this kind of difference over time is why you can't say movie theatre ticket sales in 2002 were higher so people must therefore have watched more movies then."

replies(1): >>44578612 #
freejazz ◴[16 Jul 25 04:15 UTC] No.44578612[source]▶
No, my question is why did it start going down in 2003 for the reasons you cited, which seem to be contemporary
replies(2): >>44578649 #>>44579619 #
zamadatix ◴[16 Jul 25 04:23 UTC] No.44578649{3}[source]▶
Not sure I follow, why should there be a single year people started e.g. buying bigger TVs?
replies(1): >>44578705 #
1. freejazz ◴[16 Jul 25 04:36 UTC] No.44578705{4}[source]▶
I didn't say there was, but what do you think changed that year that they went down? It's your assertion, not mine...
replies(1): >>44578828 #
2. zamadatix ◴[16 Jul 25 05:02 UTC] No.44578828[source]▶
Now I'm doubly confused... where did I assert what about 2003? My comment is about why you can't look at movie theater ticket sales between 2022 and 2002 as evidence alone to say people have stopped watching movies as much. I don't think I ever said anything about why ticket sales peaked in 2002 specifically?

If I had to throw a guess at the largest contributors I'd say 2002-2003 is when people really started buying lots of DVDs for the first time as well as the start of the modernization of TV sets. Even though much better versions of these were common 20 years later I feel they very likely helped make the absolute peak of ticket sales be 2002. This is getting more into speculation of what did happen rather than saying ticket sale data is not enough to support the conclusion though, which is what my comment was focused on.

replies(1): >>44579136 #
3. freejazz ◴[16 Jul 25 05:54 UTC] No.44579136[source]▶
You didn't. You said the peak hit in 2002. Presumably something happened that caused the trend to start in 2003, which could obviously not be the fact that eventually in 2025 it would be more convenient to instead stream movies at home.

>In 2002, watching a movie at home for most people meant flinging a low quality VHS or DVD onto a ~27" tube TV (with a resolution so worthless it might as well be labeled "new years") using a 4:3 aspect ratio pan & scan of the actual movie. Getting anything recent meant going out to the Blockbuster anyways. In 2022, watching a movie meant streaming something on your 50+" 16:9 4k smart TV by pressing a button from your couch.

Is what I was responding to.

replies(1): >>44579314 #
4. zamadatix ◴[16 Jul 25 06:31 UTC] No.44579314{3}[source]▶
That quote doesn't talk about the peak at all though so why am I said to make such claims? The quote should have the same exact meaning even if you substitute in 2001 or 2003 when reading 2002 - if it doesn't then you're inserting claims not from the quote on my behalf and then asking me to explain these claims I never made.

The quoted section was in response to the claim movie watches are down on the basis ticket sales are down compared to the past:

> 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!

Hence the next line after the quote "Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often."