The 2011 domestic summer box office earned a record $4.4 billion in the period between May 6 and Labor Day, improving by one percent on the $4.33 billion earned last year. Theoretically, this should be seen as a major victory for Hollywood — of course, they’re celebrating it as such — but savvy box office junkies know better than to simply believe the hype. The box office is not quite as healthy as that figure might suggest.
The summer box office record (which, for the record, has been broken every year since 2007, rendering it somewhat less prestigious) was driven by inflated ticket prices. Attendance was actually down over the course of the season. According to the New York Times, an estimated 543 million tickets were sold during the summer, down from the estimated 552 million sold in summer 2010. (UPDATE: The National Association of Theater Owners claims that Times got these figures wrong and that 2011′s admissions of 546 million marked a one percent gain over last summer, when 540 million tickets were sold.) That marks the lowest number of tickets sold since 1997, when just 540 million tickets were bought by moviegoers, and the fourth summer in a row in which box office attendance has dipped. For the year so far, attendance is lagging behind 2010 by about four percent.
So why did the overall revenue go up this summer? Two words: expensive tickets. Thanks to a whopping 18 movies released in 3-D (up from seven in 2010), and another 12 movies that played in IMAX theaters, audiences shelled out a lot more dough for fewer tickets this summer. The average price of a movie ticket in 2010 was $7.89, but in the second quarter of 2011, the average price of a movie ticket reached $8.06 — that’s some very fast price inflation. (Still, I would totally pay for some $8 tickets if I could find them!)
Ticket prices have been increasing for decades, but technological advancements in theaters are sending them skyrocketing. Prices for 3-D movies are typically at least $3.00 higher than the regular ticket price, but some theaters are charging as much as $4.50 extra for the 3-D illusion. These higher prices, when combined with the ever-increasing number of digital and 3-D-equipped screens in America (just over 50 percent of movie screens in the U.S. are now digital), gave grosses a solid bump. Additionally, an impressive 10 percent of opening weekend grosses this summer came from IMAX screens, and that figure is still on the rise. It appears that Americans have fully embraced the IMAX format as a worthy cinematic experience, and they don’t mind paying the steep ticket price to see true event films on the giant screen.
Plain old 3-D, however, has been much more of a mixed bag, as it seems that the novelty which originally attracted ticket buyers is quickly wearing off. While Thor and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, real visual-effects spectacles, both earned a solid 60 percent of their opening weekend grosses from 3-D screens (notably, both films were also exhibited in IMAX 3D), for other films, like Captain America: The First Avenger and Cars 2, 3-D only accounted for 40 percent of the opening weekend gross. Still, the simple ratio isn’t always the best gauge of success: Shark Night 3D earned a big 86 percent of its opening weekend gross from 3-D, but that gross was an anemic $8.4 million — not exactly impressive. Glee: The 3D Concert Movie played exclusively in 3-D theaters, yet it only grossed $6 million in its first three days. In short, 3-D box office results are still a substantial piece of the puzzle, but the business coming from 3-D is clearly waning. And despite the fact that more and more theaters are making the format available, traditional 2-D films like Fast Five prove that audiences don’t demand it. Paul Dergarabedian at Hollywood.com sums up the 3-D debate well: “3-D is not a panacea, but rather a technology that should be used judiciously and only with the right kind of movie and at a price point that makes sense to the consumer.”
All this is not to say that there weren’t major box office hits this summer — there absolutely were. Warner Bros.’ smash Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 earned $375.8 million, and Paramount’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon found $350.5 million. Other sequels, like The Hangover Part II ($254.4 million), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($240.8 million), Fast Five ($209.8 million), and Cars 2 ($189.3 million), also raked in money. R-rated comedies Bridesmaids ($168.5 million), Horrible Bosses ($115.1 million) and Bad Teacher ($98.9 million) joined The Hangover Part II as major successes (though, later summer R-rated comedies Friends With Benefits, The Change-Up, 30 Minutes or Less, and Our Idiot Brother proved much less viable). And a pair of August releases, Rise of the Planet of the Apes ($163.1 million) and The Help ($125.8 million), both earned impressive totals. Of course, there were more than a few bombs (Cowboys and Aliens, Green Lantern, Larry Crowne), but all told, the domestic box office provided a standard number of hits.
But it wasn’t exploding like the international box office! Fueled by emerging markets like China, Russia, and Brazil, movies took in $8.2 billion dollars internationally this summer, up a gargantuan 41 percent from summer 2010, when movies earned $5.8 billion abroad. Part of the success here is due to 3-D as well, as the format is proving hugely popular with international audiences, but the main factor is simply that moviegoing has become much more popular internationally in recent years. America is now just another market in the worldwide box office. That’s why Disney didn’t need to worry that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides only earned $240.8 million domestically — it earned $798.5 million overseas!
International receipts don’t pay the bills for American theater owners, though, and I have to wonder how they are faring in this consistently more-expensive but less-attended industry. You see, most of the upcharge on a 3-D ticket goes to the distributing studio and the 3-D projection company, and theaters have to spend exorbitant amounts to convert and maintain 3-D screens (it costs a theater about $75,000 to convert a single screen to 3-D). So even if more revenue is getting earned at the box office, much of that money isn’t going straight to the theater. Furthermore, if fewer people are actually attending the movies, that means that fewer people are buying concessions — a major piece of theater profit. I have to wonder, are theater owners really earning more profit with 3-D technology, or is it scaring away more potential spenders than it’s bringing in?
According to a study released earlier this year, an 11 percent segment of the population accounts for half of all tickets sold at the North American box office. My fear is that if tickets continue to become more expensive (as theaters remain dirty, loud, and dim), casual moviegoers will give up on the cinematic experience all together. Then Hollywood might really be in trouble.
What do you think? Are the movies destined to get more expensive, as fewer people attend? Will we ever see a decrease in ticket price? Will 3-D’s pervasiveness diminish in 2012? Sound off in the comments.
Follow Grady on Twitter: @BoxOfficeJunkie
Why spend $20 for two people to watch a movie once (not including snacks) when you can pay that same $20 three months later and OWN the movie? (or pay $1 and rent from RedBox?)
Every time I go to the theater on weekends, it’s always a few people in the seats.
The only time I’ve seen more than 20+ people was at “Captain America: The First Avenger” and once I attended “Fright Night”….there was only one other person in the room !
How can the theaters survive with so little attendance ?
I guess it will take something like Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit. filmed at 48/60 frames per second, (versus 24 frames per second which has been the standard fps since 1920) to bring more people back to the theater. On the other hand. considering what a pain it is to see a movie at the theater compared to watching a Blu-ray on a HDTV at home, going to the walk-in theater in the future might be as outdated as going to the drive-in theater is today. There are still some people who go to drive-ins, but, not like they used to. IMAX is not enough to bring people to the theater; 48/60 fps might not do it either.
I think theaters should be looking to improve their existing experience, rather than find new technological gimmicks. All the frame rates, 3D glasses, and fancy projectors in the world won’t be worth anything if theater floors are still sticky, audiences are allowed to text, and movies are preceded by 30 minutes of ads. You know?
Look at the list of movies and that will tell you why attendance was down this summer. Most of them are sequels. The fact that fewer people were in the seats should tell the film makers that people don’t want to see the same stories/characters rehashed over and over again. Then there’s the ticket prices, absolutely absurd. Yes, yes, inflation is everywhere, but it is beyond ridiculous how much they charge to sit in a seat for a couple hours. Another issue affecting the industry is the 3-D craze. Please. Many people that I talk to are over it, we don’t want to put on special glasses that have been worn by God knows how many other people and are scratched beyond belief to watch a movie. Just show the damn movie. Finally, the biggest reason why I and others who I know avoid going to the movie theater is the other movie goers. People are rude, selfish jerks. They talk, text, chomp popcorn in your ear, kick your seat, you name it. Yeah, that’s fun. I think I’ll pass. Bottom line, it isn’t just one thing, it’s many things that are causing the lower attendance at the theater. The powers that be would be wise to consider everything and do something about it before they find their livelihood in the tank.
“Cars 2″‘s performance is not that great. It’s the lowest-grossing Pixar film since “A Bug’s Life” and it will also become the first film byt the comapny to not make $200 million in the U.S.A since 1998.
That film that was rleased released in 1998 was also “A Bug’ Life.”
ra ra oh la la flop u la
bitchhhh
I live in Las Vegas where one of the biggest movie theaters in town (Brendan Theaters at The Palms) has done away with the 3-D surcharge! I, for one, commend Brendan Theaters for being smart enough to realize WHY attendance is down and for actually doing something about it! I thought Transformers looked great in 3-D and wanted to see it again in the format but didn’t feel like paying $17 for a ticket again… Thanks to Brendan Theaters, I can experience it again and still eat for the week!
Here’s hoping more theater chains follow suit!!
Used to go to movies, but don’t anymore. I work for a university, so I can see all the car crashes, explosions and listen to all the moronic dialogue I need during my normal work day.
Where’s the LIKE button for this comment?
My ttheater has $8 matinee showings, and $5 dollar early bird showings (everyone goes to those, the theaters are almost empty in the afternoons and evenings). So those ticket prices exist.
it costs my husband and I 24 dollars to see a movie in theaters, not including snacks or drinks, we both agreed to only see movies which were worth seeing in the theaters like the last HP movie and just wait to netflix everything else. I remember when I was a kid a movie ticket was 3.50 and before you all jump down my throat I am only 26.
Amc Theaters in Jersey is 11.00 and 14.00 for 3D and Regal is 10.50 & 14.00 for 3D but Costco does 7.50$ tickets for Regal (thank god) And Amc has 6$ matinee and attendance is down because summer was boring and Fall might get us to rebound
great article, grady! i remember watching your box office review videos on youtube. looks like you’ve hit the big leagues now. as for the price debate: where i am, AMC theater: $11 2d, $15 3d. I tend to go to matinees or early showings during the week. I also have a ‘Stubs’ card, and for every $100 accumulated I earn a $10 credit, which definitely helps. I do agree they should work on making the theater itself better, and spend less $ on this whole 3D fad which just seems to be not as plentiful with revenue as people would have thought. All you hear these days is “it wasn’t worth it…” and that kind of mentality of buying a ticket for something more expensive and finding out it wasn’t necessary, will turn people off to going out and seeing movies, when OnDemand viewing is becoming quite the rage these days.
Using money to track movies is insane, stupid and incorrect.
When are they going to start tracking TICKETS sold?
That way we know how Gone with the Wind stacks up against Transformers 3.
ET vs Pirates.
Films that seniors see at the matinee, kids tickets, late night films will all count the same as the latest overpriced 3D movie.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Use an accounting system that is standard, fair and accurate.
I agree. 3D needs to be released when directors actually TRY! Like maybe 4 or 5 3D movies a year instead of 30!
And just the cost of a regular ticket is really high. You can rent easily a few months later for 1 dollar at Redbox….
Speaking to the last couple of paragraphs in the article, for me, I’d rather pay a surcharge to have an attentive usher stationed in every theater to eject people who talk and use their phones. I haven’t seen a movie in years that both of these problems didn’t occur and a VIP 3-D movie at our Chicago theater costs $18.50 per person. I’ve given up being the sheriff of every movie I’m in because you can only stop one person at a time and it starts all over in the next movie I see.