The Mystery of the Missing Moviegoers: Jack Valenti presided over film industry's decline

Wall Street Journal ^ | 4/6/04 | Michael Medved

[The G Man]

Yeah, but isn't a big part of the reason the widespread ownership of televisions, VCRs, and DVD players?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
23	Michigan	440.00	16	27.50	406	1.08	100.00	10

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[LS]

The "code" is some of it. But the need for actors to keep working also broke down the barriers between TV and movies---it once was taboo to see any "big screen" star on TV except for a variety show appearance. But today, you routinely see fairly big stars in either "mini-series" or even TV appearances. This tore down the wall between the two mediums.

And, absolutely as another posted mentioned, the presence of DVD and videotape has made going to the movies less appealing. Who wants to sit in a theater with rude, noisy people whose cell phones are going off. Many times, the movie is gone before we can get time to see it in a theater, and the rule of thumb is (as I'm sure it is with most people), "when in doubt, wait til it comes out on video."

[angkor]

I agree. It's simply the decline of civility in movie theatres.

[backhoe]

Just my 2 cents?

Their "product" is garbage. I haven't been to a movie in nearly 20 years, and if the titles and trailers I currently see are any indication of the future, I won't ever be going back. And the tickets cost too much.

[MainFrame65]

Not really. Most people who like movies like to see them on a big screen instead of a box - even a flat, skinny box - and with the kind of audio presence that only a theater can provide.

Before the year that the gsrbage collection called "American Beauty" beat "Sixth Sense" for the Oscar, my family and I attended about 50 movies a year. Since then, fewer than 10. And by the way, I have a 55-inch high-definition TV, with surround sound.

I own about a dozen movies on tape and DVD, but I NEVER rent movies. I enjoy the continuity of the show, but my wife can't seem to just sit still and SHUT UP at home. She wants to pause for the bathroom, fixing tea, fetching snacks, backing up to watch bits and pieces over, and every other kind of bother that she can't do at the theater. Believe me, even network commercials are less of an interruption.

[TXBSAFH]

You are absolutely right. My and I do no go to the movies that often. We do have over 300 dvd's and 200 vhs cassettes. For what it cost to go see one movie we can buy the blasted thing and watch it whenever we want.

[The G Man]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[wideminded]

Over the past 30 years, "G" and "PG" material has consistently drawn larger audiences than releases rated "R." A serious examination of the decline in the movie audience indicates that the long-term emphasis on "adult" content represents an even more serious problem than bad morals: The numbers show that it also counts as bad business.

If this were true, all movies would be G or PG. Hollywood always overcopies any success and the whole thing is run by beancounters anyway.

The way to get more people back in movie theaters is to lower the prices of tickets and refreshments. These have been rising exponentially.

[100%FEDUP]

"Their "product" is garbage. I haven't been to a movie in nearly 20 years, and if the titles and trailers I currently see are any indication of the future, I won't ever be going back. And the tickets cost too much."

You mean you won't go see the remake of Rocky Starring Vin Diesel or the remake of Saturday Night Fever starring Colin Farrell?

[Sweet Land]

isn't a big part of the reason the widespread ownership of televisions, VCRs, and DVD players?

"during the fateful 10 years of the primary TV invasion (1950-60) the audience actually declined 34%, compared with a 60% decline in those nightmarish four years of the late '60s. In later decades, the arrival of the VCR, cable TV and DVD actually corresponded to modest increases in the motion-picture audience"

[backhoe]

You mean you won't go see the remake of Rocky Starring Vin Diesel or the remake of Saturday Night Fever starring Colin Farrell?

OK, OK... I'll admit to being human- I'll go to see them if

1- they have lots of near-nekked wymin
2- zombies
3- guns
4- and it's in 3-D...

[mtbopfuyn]

Hmm, lemme see. Could it be that tickets are too expensive? Or maybe movies today are garbage? Or that people are disgusted with Hollywierdos who think they're politicians?

[samtheman]

I suspect it's more complicated than this. If the answer is "people don't want to watch obscene movies but do want to watch 'clean' movies" why wouldn't there be an increase in 'clean' movies to fill the market vacuum. What? Movie makers don't want to make money, and are sticking to X-rated standards as a matter of "principle"? Somehow I doubt that.

The ratings system may play some part in decreased movie audience numbers. And it may not have. But either way, I bet there are a whole host of other factors (even non-technological factors) that aren't discussed in this article.

I'll make a guess at just one: the quality of TV shows (at least as perceived by the viewer) increased in the 1960s, and kept increasing.

Just a guess. I'm sure there are other possible good guesses.

[MainFrame65]

Would that be about the absolute quality of either film, or about their relative quality as entertainment? Or about some other part of my previous entry?

[The G Man]

Heh, sorry about that. About the impact that TV and videos have in declining movie attendance.

[MainFrame65]

** "I suspect it's more complicated than this. If the answer is "people don't want to watch obscene movies but do want to watch 'clean' movies" why wouldn't there be an increase in 'clean' movies to fill the market vacuum. What? Movie makers don't want to make money, and are sticking to X-rated standards as a matter of "principle"? Somehow I doubt that." **

Actually, I DO believe that to an incredibly large extent, it really IS that simple. But it isn't principle, it is a serious misunderstanding of their role - and their importance - in society. I grew up in the middle of that, although not part of it. I had friends whose parents were part of Hollywood, I even had a paper route in Beverly Hills with a few minor starlets as customers. But these people are in the illusion business, and they have come to believe in the absolute power of their own illusions over truth.

That is why Mel Gibson is so painful to them - he has reminded them that they are NOT, after all, leaders and creators of social consciousness, but followers, and more recently, panderers to the small minority of the worst of us. Watching them squirm and scuttle away from the light amuses me....

[elli1]

As a percentage of the nation's population, however, the numbers on movie attendance remain only slightly improved from the devastating trough of 1970 (10.3% vs. 8.6%) and still vastly lower than the robust box-office years of 1965 (44%) or 1960 (45%).

Lots of things--Bonanza (1959-1973) killed Sunday night for movie theatres. By 1970, lots of folks had color television. Cable TV had 3.6 million customers by 1969. The Boomer generation had moved on to other things. Kids were getting ''wheels''. The way movies were distributed was another thing--if you lived in a small town, it was months & months before a new hit movie showed at your local Bijou, meaning that the people really motivated to see the film drove to the nearest large town to see it & a lot of folks less motivated lost interest in the flick by the time their local theatre displayed the movie. Thousands of small hometown theatres shut their doors so the still-loyal movie customers had less access to the product.

[MainFrame65]

When (1) and (4) are combined, you never know what will come flying your way....