JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
To be fair, Star Wars: A New Hope actually made $223 million on its first release and average ticket prices were $2.21, but I get your point 
ANH was released in 1977 with a subsequent release in 1978 (some people probably confuse this as not being a re-release because it was still hanging around several theaters, but it was in fact re-released to quite a few more), another in 1979, one more in 1981, another in 1982, and the newest in 1997. Box Office Mojo, the great site that it may be, is very lazy in listing three releases total. But then again I've written two non-fiction books on the Star Wars saga, so it's kind of my area of expertise
Your point is well taken, though, that no matter how popular the film, only so many people are going to see it. Where you are wrong, however, is in assuming that films don't compete with one another. They very much do. We all only have so much time, and some people only have so much money. Money is not a problem for me with entertainment. Entertainment is fairly cheap. $200 spent on DVDs per month is petty cash. But the point is, the average consumer only has X amount of dollars in their budget for entertainment. That may fluctuate somewhat, but it's not going to be $200 one month and $20,000 the next month, odds are. It's going to be $125 one month, maybe $375 the next, $225 the next, etc. It will vary in a reasonable range.
For me, if three movies that appeal to me open on the same weekend, and I don't see that many movies in theaters anymore, I might pick one of them and probably save the other two for DVD. But then when they get to DVD, they are not competing with all of the other entertainment options I have, including other DVDs. There's only so much the pie can expand. It's not like next year, if there are 75% more amazing movies than this year, the box office is going to grow 75%. It isn't. At best it might grow 7-8%, which would be a real watershed year. More likely it's going to inch forward 2-5% in a predictable fashion, which is mostly because of inflation since the box office ticket sales haven't really been increasing for some time now.
If your point was that not every movie competes with every other movie, that's 100% true. I mean, Sex and the City isn't competition for Indiana Jones any more than a pair of women's shoes is competition with a new pair of Air Jordans. Come on. Nobody is going to say, "Well, you know, I'm a guy and I love playing basketball, but those girls' shoes sure are sexy, boy, I think I'll get them instead!" It makes no sense. But if X-Files is out and The Dark Knight is out, and the casual moviegoer who sees one movie a month has interest in them both, they're probably going to say, "Hmm, well, I guess I can wait for DVD for X-Files." Maybe they do see both. But a lot of them won't. When I make a choice to see one movie in theaters, I'm usually making a choice not to see another. There are always too many movies out I want to see but I'm annoyed by how far I have to go to a movie theater, especially considering I live in downtown Los Angeles. The nearest theaters are in Hollywood and I won't deal with that mess, I hate going to Hollywood for any reason. I'd rather drive further and go to Pasadena or Burbank, about the same distance, and there are some cool theaters there but again, 25 miles round trip to see a movie in theaters, where the experience is not necessarily better than at home (massage chair, food, alcohol, etc.) yet it is more expensive.
Now in this case, when the Regal Cinemas Flagship Theater goes in two blocks from me near Staples, I will be seeing at least 3-4 times as many movies in theaters, because the appeal of just walking two blocks away whenever I feel like seeing a movie is really awesome. It makes it seem fun again. Instead of, oh god, get in my car, punch in the address in the GPS, make sure I don't leave during rush hour, figure out what show time is best, get to the theater area, try to find parking somewhere because theaters in L.A. don't seem to understand all businesses that big should have their own parking (something in Portland, OR theaters understand -- every theater has parking and plenty of it, too), and it shouldn't cost money either, because it's not reasonable to pay for a product and have to pay to park to buy said product. It's absurd and a total rip off. So when that whole hassle is no longer there, the movie revenue expands slightly, because I know a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. We're all stoked about a theater close to us, and that's a lot of condo towers with a lot of people. That's the best bet for market expansion. There is plenty of good product out there.
ANH was released in 1977 with a subsequent release in 1978 (some people probably confuse this as not being a re-release because it was still hanging around several theaters, but it was in fact re-released to quite a few more), another in 1979, one more in 1981, another in 1982, and the newest in 1997. Box Office Mojo, the great site that it may be, is very lazy in listing three releases total. But then again I've written two non-fiction books on the Star Wars saga, so it's kind of my area of expertise
Your point is well taken, though, that no matter how popular the film, only so many people are going to see it. Where you are wrong, however, is in assuming that films don't compete with one another. They very much do. We all only have so much time, and some people only have so much money. Money is not a problem for me with entertainment. Entertainment is fairly cheap. $200 spent on DVDs per month is petty cash. But the point is, the average consumer only has X amount of dollars in their budget for entertainment. That may fluctuate somewhat, but it's not going to be $200 one month and $20,000 the next month, odds are. It's going to be $125 one month, maybe $375 the next, $225 the next, etc. It will vary in a reasonable range.
For me, if three movies that appeal to me open on the same weekend, and I don't see that many movies in theaters anymore, I might pick one of them and probably save the other two for DVD. But then when they get to DVD, they are not competing with all of the other entertainment options I have, including other DVDs. There's only so much the pie can expand. It's not like next year, if there are 75% more amazing movies than this year, the box office is going to grow 75%. It isn't. At best it might grow 7-8%, which would be a real watershed year. More likely it's going to inch forward 2-5% in a predictable fashion, which is mostly because of inflation since the box office ticket sales haven't really been increasing for some time now.
If your point was that not every movie competes with every other movie, that's 100% true. I mean, Sex and the City isn't competition for Indiana Jones any more than a pair of women's shoes is competition with a new pair of Air Jordans. Come on. Nobody is going to say, "Well, you know, I'm a guy and I love playing basketball, but those girls' shoes sure are sexy, boy, I think I'll get them instead!" It makes no sense. But if X-Files is out and The Dark Knight is out, and the casual moviegoer who sees one movie a month has interest in them both, they're probably going to say, "Hmm, well, I guess I can wait for DVD for X-Files." Maybe they do see both. But a lot of them won't. When I make a choice to see one movie in theaters, I'm usually making a choice not to see another. There are always too many movies out I want to see but I'm annoyed by how far I have to go to a movie theater, especially considering I live in downtown Los Angeles. The nearest theaters are in Hollywood and I won't deal with that mess, I hate going to Hollywood for any reason. I'd rather drive further and go to Pasadena or Burbank, about the same distance, and there are some cool theaters there but again, 25 miles round trip to see a movie in theaters, where the experience is not necessarily better than at home (massage chair, food, alcohol, etc.) yet it is more expensive.
Now in this case, when the Regal Cinemas Flagship Theater goes in two blocks from me near Staples, I will be seeing at least 3-4 times as many movies in theaters, because the appeal of just walking two blocks away whenever I feel like seeing a movie is really awesome. It makes it seem fun again. Instead of, oh god, get in my car, punch in the address in the GPS, make sure I don't leave during rush hour, figure out what show time is best, get to the theater area, try to find parking somewhere because theaters in L.A. don't seem to understand all businesses that big should have their own parking (something in Portland, OR theaters understand -- every theater has parking and plenty of it, too), and it shouldn't cost money either, because it's not reasonable to pay for a product and have to pay to park to buy said product. It's absurd and a total rip off. So when that whole hassle is no longer there, the movie revenue expands slightly, because I know a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. We're all stoked about a theater close to us, and that's a lot of condo towers with a lot of people. That's the best bet for market expansion. There is plenty of good product out there.
