Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blue Ink

I’m not sure if the Great Depression would be a great measuring stick...seeing that ‘talkies’ may have been popular just because they were a novelty.

At no time in my life has my disposable income been so constricted...property taxes, energy costs, groceries are all outpacing inflationary raises. I am not alone - and frankly, there’s no money in the budget to go to a movie. And I’m employed. The spin is we are in recovery...the ugly truth is consumers are still not enthusiastic about the future.

No matter how ‘recession proof’ movies used to be, they no longer are - if for no other reason that they compete with themselves on price, and people just wait it out until the Red Box has it.


115 posted on 09/12/2014 2:33:17 PM PDT by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: lacrew
At no time in my life has my disposable income been so constricted...property taxes, energy costs, groceries are all outpacing inflationary raises. I am not alone - and frankly, there’s no money in the budget to go to a movie. And I’m employed. The spin is we are in recovery...the ugly truth is consumers are still not enthusiastic about the future.

If I do spend money on a movie, it's usually one on Blu-ray made before 1970. The last movie I watched was The Great Race from 1965 on Blu-ray. The only movie I've seen in a theater in the last 2 years was Captain America from this year.

118 posted on 09/12/2014 2:37:02 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: lacrew

The “bad economy, no discretionary income” argument works only if ALL movies tanked this summer. Every single one of them. But all movies didn’t tank — the ones that worked, such as “Guardians of the Galaxy,” won big.

The success of of “X-Men,” “Maleficent,” “Guardians,” and “Grand Budpest” absolutely fly in the face of every “box office is down because people have no money” argument. Because box office was most assuredly not down for those four films. So if people don’t have any money, and that’s why they’re not going to the movies, then how do you account for the success of any of those films?

Here’s what happened, contrary to studio/media spin: most movies this summer stunk up the joint. And Hollywood is blaming the economy instead of admitting that people declined to see bad films. What’s my evidence? That so many people paid to see good films.

Studio heads are pushing this “not the movies, it’s the economy!” spin in hopes of saving their jobs.


130 posted on 09/12/2014 5:26:39 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: lacrew

By the worst years of the Depression, around 1931-34, talkies no longer held their novelty status. I think people just craved that “escape” they offered, and tickets were really quite cheap.

It’s actually amazing how fast the transition from silents to talkies occurred. In 1928, virtually all film releases save a tiny handful were silent. In 1930, virtually all film releases, other than about three or four ultra low-budget b-westerns (from independent producers) were talkies. 1929 was the year of the transition. I’ve read that it was good it happened that particular year and not later, because the theaters were able to financially transition to the new projector/speaker equipment before the big crash.


138 posted on 09/12/2014 9:13:09 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson