5 Reasons Summer Blockbuster Movies Are Failing at the Box Office

Published 1 year ago by , Updated August 9th, 2013 at 12:13 pm, This is a list post.

5 Reasons Summer Blockbuster Movies Are Failing at the Box Office

Battleship Box Office Lately, it's becoming increasingly difficult for summer blockbusters to make a splash at the box office. What used to be three months of memorable blockbuster moviegoing, the modern summer film season hasn't just become longer (starting in late April and running through August), we're also seeing an increased number of high profile releases vying for box office dollars week to week. Therefore, it's more important than ever that any individual film makes a big splash in its opening weekend - or be doomed to obscurity as the next round of contenders come into the multiplex. 2013 has been especially rough - with several tentpole blockbusters failing to gain traction with critics, and worse yet, audiences. Films on the list include Disney's The Lone Ranger, Columbia Pictures' After Earth, and Universal Pictures' R.I.P.D. which will be lucky to make back half of its $100 million+ budget. Considering blockbusters help provide revenue for smaller art-house films and mid-level studio productions, costly box office bombs can have a serious impact on the upcoming film slate. In order to prevent further costly studio misfires, we've put together a list of 5 Reasons Summer Blockbuster Movies Are Failing at the Box Office. Of course the list is not all-inclusive, so once you've had a chance to read our reasons, share your thoughts in the comments.

Too Many Summer Releases

Summer 2013 Box Office Number 1s The summer film slate, which used to be bookended within the actual summer season (when kids were out of school), has become bloated and over-stuffed. Beginning in late spring and tapering off throughout August, at least one major release punctuates every single box office week - with many weeks now seeing multiple films battling for box office revenue. As a result, plenty of quality (along with a fair share of not-so-great) films are falling through the cracks, and there's less incentive for viewers to return for repeat viewings. Opening weekend has always been a strong indicator of which films are going to turn a profit and which ones are going to have trouble earning back their budgets. However, in a lot of cases, a major factor in box office success is a film's staying power - fueled by casual moviegoers responding to word of mouth along with second (and third) viewings by established fans. In order to secure over a $1 billion total haul ($500 million domestically), The Dark Knight was number 1 at the box office for four consecutive weeks back in 2008. Iron Man 3 only managed to hold the number 1 crown for two weeks, before another major tentpole film, Star Trek Into Darkness, took the top spot. Fun fact: the following week, Star Trek Into Darkness came in at number 3, bested by both Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover, Part 3 (Iron Man 3 was number 5 at that point - four weeks after release). As a result, studios would benefit from spacing out releases - or outright bumping major films that aren't summer season worthy into the fall, winter, or even spring. As it is, the release slate is cannibalizing - stifling potential longterm successes and outright killing-off films that are more difficult to market.

Too Much CGI Not Enough Substance

RIPD Box Office For many years, summer blockbusters have been synonymous with epic, over-the-top, CGI spectacle - driving films like The Avengers on to over $1.5 billion at the global box office. However, as CGI effects have become increasingly less expensive to produce, many studios have fallen into the habit of relying heavily on eye-popping visuals rather than engaging stories and characters to get people in the seats. There's no doubt that memorable action set-pieces and larger-than-life creatures can be a major draw for moviegoers (sometimes it's just fun to be wowed), but with many competing CGI-heavy films in theaters, epic visual effects aren't always enough anymore. Much of the marketing for R.I.P.D. attempted to sell the film on its whacky odd couple setup (with a paranormal twist) along with a host of digital monsters. In spite of a $130 million budget, audiences mostly ignored the film, dismissing the premise and the CGI action as a less-inspired version of Men in Black - one that wasn't worth dishing out money at the box office. Taking the previous page into account, R.I.P.D.'s heavy reliance on special effects were never going to be enough to compete with RED 2 and The Conjuring, not to mention holdovers like Pacific Rim and Despicable Me 2, in a summer movie spot. Even after solid reviews, the muddled ticket sales and subsequent second week falloff for Pacific Rim shows that casual audiences are more discerning about which CGI blockbusters they'll support in theaters - meaning that even giant robots and monsters are not enough to guarantee solid studio profits.

Inflated Film Budgets

After Earth Box Office Part of the box office bomb dilemma occurs long before a film is released - when overly anxious executives green light a movie and provide directors with a ridiculously high budget. Admittedly, you've got to spend money to make money, so it's understandable that producers invest outrageous bucks in big name stars and expensive CGI effects to help give their project the best chance at success. Sometimes it works: last year's risky Snow White and the Huntsman made almost $400 million globally on a reported $170 million budget; but other times it doesn't, like with After Earth, which only made $60 million domestically on a $130 million budget. After Earth ultimately earned back its production costs through international ticket sales (bringing in a total of $235 million) but it's still hard to determine where that original $130 million was even spent in the first place. In spite of a few slick CGI sequences, After Earth wasn't particularly grand in scale - meaning that, with careful planning, the studio and director M. Night Shyamalan could have probably reined in the spending without negatively impacting the production (since the final film was still panned by critics and most moviegoers). Many filmmakers and executives put the cart before the horse - assuming that bigger is better. While big-budgeted movies, fueled by an expensive lead and over-the-top visuals set pieces, might make for good pre-release marketing. Once the movie is out, it has to be able stand in the court of public opinion (as mentioned, high production values and recognizable stars aren't a guaranteed formula for box office success). Taking a more modest approach to pre-production - i.e. not trying to turn every script into a tentpole blockbuster - could lower the cost of certain film budgets and deliver more balanced (and better quality) movie experiences overall.

Not With the Times

Lone Ranger Box Office Brand recognition helps drive viewers to movies: thirteen out of the top fifteen worldwide grossing films of all time (unadjusted for inflation) are either adaptations or sequels. Only two entries are entirely original (Avatar and Titanic), indicating that casual viewers are eager to support new installments in established franchises or big screen adaptations of popular book series, among other familiar properties. In fact, despite strong critical support and positive word of mouth, Inception only comes in at number thirty-six on that list - suggesting that many moviegoers respond to branding and name recognition over original (and as a result unknown) movie experiences. It's no wonder that studios are always on the prowl for a new comic book to adapt, a new toy line to resurrect, or a new young adult readership to exploit. That said, for every Iron Man, Transformers, or Twilight, there's a franchise bomb waiting to happen (Green Hornet, Battleship, or Beautiful Creatures). For that reason, not every established IP is going to mean big box office dollars. In the last two years, Disney produced two highly publicized bombs based on known characters (John Carter and The Lone Ranger) - both of which cost over $200 million to produce. On paper, adaptations of either property might have sounded like a good idea (John Carter even secured decent reviews) but their flat box office returns indicate that neither brand was as strong as studio heads assumed. Instead of committing a nine-figure budget to a proposed movie, based predominantly on branding and merchandising potential, Hollywood needs to adjust (especially considering that overstuffed summer movie slate) and show a little more restraint. Executives would benefit from becoming more selective (and a little less naive) regarding which properties will compete at the modern movie theater - or, at the very least, which ones can actually make good on a $100 million+ budget.

3D Burnout

The Wolverine 3D Box Office Ever since Avatar showed how much extra money can be made through added 3D ticket pricing, studios have been pushing unnecessary 3D upgrades onto films that would have been just as good (or even better) in 2D. Previously, we've addressed the biggest misconceptions about 3D, and while the quality of 3D post-conversion has improved (The Avengers) along with a filmmaker's ability to do something interesting with the premium format (Life of Pi), plenty of 3D films do not deliver on the additional investment by consumers. For years, studios have been able to mitigate expected losses on a potential box office underperformer by adding post-conversion 3D - under the assumption that they'll make more money in 3D surcharges than they will be paying to have the film post-converted (increasing their overall net revenue). However, duped by a number of underwhelming 3D experiences, coupled with the already high cost of movie tickets (and concessions), moviegoers are becoming more selective about which films are worth the cost of 3D pricing and which ones will be just fine in 2D. As a result, certain movies are actually losing money on 3D production costs (whether post conversion or native 3D filmmaking), making a potential box office bomb even more costly - should moviegoers overwhelmingly opt for 2D viewings of a film that's already struggling to find an audience (and box office dollars). It's unlikely that 3D filmmaking is going anywhere but there's no doubt that certain moviegoers are beginning to experience 3D fatigue - meaning that, moving forward, there's a greater burden on studios to make sincere decisions about which movies will deliver worthwhile return on 3D investment for both the studio and the consumer.

Conclusion: Be Pro-Moviegoer

Pacific Rim Box Office Of course, the biggest box office challenge facing movie studios is getting potential viewers to leave the comfort of their home theater in favor of seeing a film on the big screen. As mentioned, a trip to the multiplex is more costly than ever - and most industry insiders expect prices to rise (not fall) in the coming years. Certain theater chains have been able to incentivize audiences with in-theater food service, premium seating (such as D-Box), as well as premiere formats (RPX and IMAX, among others). However, as HD consumer electronics, syncing with at-home services like Netflix and RedBox, are now able to provide a reasonable substitute for certain theater experiences, it's easy to understand why many film lovers are holding-off on an expensive trip to the theater - and becoming more choosey about which films they will spring to see on the big screen. Needless to say, with an increasing number of box office bombs over the last few years, studios cannot afford to have fewer and fewer people attending films in theaters. Of course, the primary way that studios can combat the stay-at-home trend is to become more consumer-friendly. Instead of raising ticket prices, slapping on unneeded 3D conversions, or wasting money on nine-figure franchise tentpole flicks (that no one asked for), producers and distributors need to up their game and deliver films that audiences are willing to invest in - and can't wait to see. Again, our list is not all-inclusive, so be sure to share your thoughts in the comments. ___ Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews and editorials, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.
TAGS: box office

160 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. interstellar releasing in November of 2014 should provide a good breather. in addition actors like denzel and liam do well in the winter months. a spread out schedule doesn’t doom everyone.

  2. What about charging less too go watch some mindless entertainment? Just a thought.

  3. The problem is, nobody pays for movies anymore. Remember when people had huge collections of CD’s and movies? Now it’s all digital, and more importantly, it’s all free. I’m not saying that I personally, engage in these activities. But to not mention it, and act as if it doesn’t exist, would be silly.

    So take out the youth, and the tech-savvy, what you are basically left with are suckers. But it’s like they say, “there’s a sucker born every minute,” so you will have more than enough people who will be willing to spend hard earned money to see a movie in theaters.

    • Thats a great point. Also add in thats it easier. It is so simple to get a movie online. You don’t have to jump through hoops, wait in line, or even open your wallet. You can just sit right at your computer, and tada, you have a free blu-ray. You didn’t have to drive out to best buy or walmart, wait in line, and pay for it. You just have it.

      And now here you have a movie forever, for free. Instead of going out and supporting it. Its really a shame, bc its not the studios or producers who are getting hurt, its the people who work 10X as hard as them and only make 60K a year.

      • @Balzack

        Spot on. The catch 22 here is that studios itnroduced 3D as a way of getting people to go to the cinema, but there are so many formats (blu-ay, download, 60 inch LED tvs with state of the art surround sound systems) that are trying to bring that cinematic experience to home.

        Only ’60k’ a year? I can’t really show as much empathy for people that earn that much, epspecially when there are those working 10x as hard and earning 70% less.

  4. I agree with most all. the not with times does not matter if it is done well. The thing is if people hate a film they can almost instantly tell hundreds of friends threw face book (etc) that the films sucks or bad parts of films and that gets spread threw them even faster. they need to focus on story, characters, continuity, sticking with source material instead of completely changing a character, and using locations, and practical effects as much as possible. If they really use these things instead of worrying about 3D, explosions, too much action, and did I mention completely changing characters, then they would almost always work. If you make a period movie it should feel real and authentic, when you make it feel silly and do not use detail then people do not connect.

  5. Too Much CGI Not Enough Substance – BINGO!

    How many of this year’s summer movies will even be remembered in 6 months? In a year? In 10 years? My bet is very few.

    Movies can fake many things but they cannot fake writing and they cannot fake well developed characters.

  6. I have been thinking about the X-men films well because I am a huge X-Men fan, and how they do not use any other characters besides Wolverine except in First Class. Well I know many people want to use Wolverine in there films but just as a side character which I agree 100% he ha been used too much and if they keep using him all there films will start to fail, also Cyclops and others need to be the main focus of the films for awhile like Archangel, and Gambit being the second main characters like Night crawler was in X2 and Cyclops was in X1.We need to really see the Humans as a menace and I think we will get that in DOFP, but we also need a new Mutant Villain like Sinister, and Apocalypse. Magneto is being way over used like The way they keep using Wolverine. I cannot stand the way they completely change characters or do not use characters like Dead pool, Juggernaught, Silver Samurai, I mean the guy that was originally was Silver Samurai did not even use a sword threw the whole film? Do not get me started on Continuity in these films. These things need to be fixed as the films carry on or a Remake needs to happen not a reboot. OK just had to get that off my chest, I am a huge X-men Film Fan and I just am getting tired of these Movies, because i really want great stories from them like X1, and 2. I think what really made me lose a lot of anticipation is that Wolverine is the main character yet again when these are X-men stories not Wolverine, and Cyclops will not be blasting any Sentinels so yeah this might just be the last one I watch depending on the trailer. Rant over lol.

    • The only X-Men film I enjoyed was First Class. Ironically, I love Wolverine

  7. I completely agree with the points in this post, especially the one concerned with two many movies in the summer reason.

    Years ago, the reason a film was considered a “blockbuster” was because there were ticket lines that spanned several city or town blocks in length combined with the excellence of the production and the subsequent staying power of the film.

    The first great “blockbuster” movie appeared in and around 1958 titled the “7th Voyage of Sinbad”. No movie actually cam,e to parity with such success until 1977 with the release of “Star Wars” and then the following hit, “Raiders of The Lost Ark”.

    All of these films had something to say to the audiences including the lesser ones such as “Lawrence of Arabia”.

    However, today with the sociological changes in society as a result of junk smart-devices, which have been clinically proven to re-wire people’s brains to disallow long term concentration, such films, no matter how well they may be developed, will have a very difficult time in attracting the same kind of interest that earlier films did; all of this being a result of people’s inability maintain interest in subject matter long enough to build ground swells of support for returning to see a film multiple times.

    And business organizations being what they are, are going to continue to emulate Wall Street pernicious behavior, which demands a quick buck over anything else.

    This is the price we pay for allowing a society to become dominated by inconsequential concerns over more substantive ones. Like everything else, Hollywood has lost its shine and its ability to produce quality work consistently…

    • Although I would agree somewhat with your statement, I would say people’s ability to maintain interest in a movie, even when done well, isn’t that issue. I think the quality of movies have gone down over the years whereas the quality of TV series have gone up. It’s rather interesting and I see this trend continuing which is why I can see ideas that would have been a movie all of a sudden be developed into a TV series, i.e. The Flash, Agents Of Shield, GOT, Spartacus

      • Th quality of tv has gone down. There was jersey shore, real housewives, or teen mom 20 years ago. “But Balzac, I’m talking about those shows.” oh well then how about not saying that the quality of movies have gone down. There have always been great shows on, to the honeymooners, to seinfeld, scrubs, and beyond.

        • I would agree with that but also I would say that normally shows like GOT or a Spartacus would have usually been made into a movie format but because we live in a “TV series” age now you see those ideas being constructed into a series based show with higher than usual budgets. I do agree that there are more dumb reality type shows now than ever but considering my list has grown from having maybe a few shows I’ve followed maybe 15/20 years ago to more than 10-15 shows I follow now is in an improvement to me. With movies in the 80’s-90’s there was maybe 10 movies each year I would go see and come out feeling like it did what it was supposed to do with the likes of The Breakfast Club, The Untouchables, Back To the Future, Wrath Of Khan, ET, Platoon, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator, Poltergeist, among others. They just felt more detailed in their storylines whereas today it seems like they focus on the CGI/Action scenes more so than the actual storytelling

  8. This year I have a made a point of it to see less movies. This year so far I’ve only seen Django, Iron Man 3, Star Trek and Man of Steel in cinemas. Django was great. Iron Man 3 was the worst movie of the year and I think it owes some success to riding in The Avengers’ wake. Star Trek was average and Man of Steel a little above average. Anyway, what I wanted more than anything when I watched Star Trek was some danger. Not for a second during that movie did I actually believe that something was at stake. The same goes for Iron Man (even more so, in fact) and Man of Steel.

    ***SPOILERS***
    If Kirk actually died in Star Trek that would’ve been great. Would’ve certainly made the next one more interesting, because they’re obviously gonna make more.
    Iron Man, don’t even get me started. The acting talent they had in that movie that was wasted! Also nothing was at stake. Oh, Pepper is now Extremis and fiery, don’t worry we’ll just fix her… Ridiculous!

  9. Money is my reason.

  10. I am probably going to get destroyed suggesting this, but as a father of a 10 year old, I know another reason these movies are not succeeding. They’re making superhero movies that can’t be watched by children – at least not children of responsible parents. Am i saying the movies should be PG-fied for the sake of kids? Not exactly. How about the 3D trend goes away, and instead we get a standard version and a family-friendly version? When I saw the trailer for Man of Steel, I thought, “Finally, a movie I can bring my son to” – I couldn’t wait – I was 10 when Superman 2 came out. Once the reviews started coming out (dark, violent, no fun, etc.) I checked it out myself. And sadly, no, I wouldn’t be taking my kid. The swearing and dick jokes, the heavy violence, the threesomes (Iron man and Star Trek Into Darkneess) – these studios would make a fortune offering up a family-friendly version of tentpole superhero flicks. You’d have a lot of people watching both versions, too.

    • We don’t want your son at movies. Unless he can behave himself. But at 10, I doubt it. Most people in thier teens, even aell into their 20s cant behave themself’s in theaters. And besides children, its always (100% of the time) couples. I want to strangle them. There’s honestly no respect in theaters anymore. We all piaf a rediculous amout of money to be here, at least be respectful of the other people who paid top dollar.

      • Well you wouldn’t have to worry about annoying kids in your movies if they made a family version, would you? My most recent theater nuisances were all adults, by the way. Sitting together doing running commentaries at volume. Small kids can get loud in animated movies, but the ones I see in the PG-13s are pretty quiet.

    • Wow, there was a reason you thought you’d get reemed for posting this. Listen to your inner voice and stop sheltering your child.

      • That’s what responsible parents are supposed to do, since when is protecting your child i.e. sheltering, a negative thing? Sheltering a child is showing love, as is balanced discipline.

        Allowing a young impressionable mind to be exposed to the debauched and debased filth of this world’s entertainment industry, is downright idiotic and shows a lack of mature reason on the parent’s behalf.

        I’m not surprised to hear such foolish reasoning though, our family courts are chock full of selfish parents that make poor life decisions, not thinking twice of the permanent emotional baggage they cause their children when they divorce etc…

  11. For me, its plain and simple, cost. Its too expensive for me to go to the movie theater. I love movies. When I was a kid and even into young adulthood, I would go to the movies all the time. It was my favorite thing to do. I would go several times a month.

    I would love to continue that practice but its just too expensive. If it was cheaper to attend, I wouldn’t care nearly as much about the quality of the film. I’d gladly spend $5 to see Lone Ranger in theater or even R.I.P.D.. That money would simply be for the experience of the theater. However, at $12-15, no thanks. I’ll wait for Netflix to send it to me. Its a shame. It seems like a simple question of supply and demand. Now they plan to continue to raise prices? My 20 visits a year have now become about 6 and soon they may become none. How will Hollywood deal with people like me?

  12. To say that it’s because we now live in a digital age is a lazy explanation. I had Netflix for awhile,and true it was the Canadian version, but Internet quality will never match up to its blu ray counterpart. Bottom line, movies are too
    expensive for their own good. Actors, while a precious few may deserve that big payout, in general aren’t
    putting people in the theatre anymore. And the special effects don’t seem to be adding anything, either. What movies
    need…wait for it…are writers. We need screenplays. And while I don’t have proof, I fear that Hollywood recycles
    the same six screenplays every five years or so. I for one got tired of reboot after reboot after sequel. That’s
    my nickel’s worth, anyway.

  13. Very insightful. I work in the industry and I am a 3-D lover!! Post-converted movies look terrible on the big screen, but they actually look fantastic on 3D-tv!! But the re-releases of the Disney films in theaters is a rip off. The 3D looks terrible on-screen and that’s likely why movie-goers are so jaded by 3D. They may be able to cash in and get a few extra bucks off an old title, but they are losing money by turning customers off by basically conning them into going to see Lion King “3D” on the big screen. Most people don’t know what’s post-converted and what’s not. Honestly though, the Avengers, I couldn’t tell it was post, didn’t know until I read this article. Post-converted movies should be few and far between, and they should really stop completely until the 3D numbers improve. They are ruining it with poor planning and poor marketing. They should sell 3D tvs with like five free 3D movies and get more “average Joes” into watching it at home and show them it can be amazing. Back to the article…very well conceived and accurate. If Adam Sandler can make money putting our garbage like Grown Ups 2, they should be able to find a way to market the good movies effectively. With John Carter, they could have done so much better. It really wasn’t bad, but they made it look like Star Wars Episode 2 generic style in the trailers. I watched the movie and saw some of the scenery shots and just thought, they could have gotten way more people to watch this if they had shown it in a different light. Some movies are just terrible, and they look terrible. The Lone Ranger probably sounded like a good idea when they proposed it, but 2 and a half hours of a Lone Ranger Movie!!!???? LOL!! RIPD looks like the worst movie ever!! Who saw that trailer and thought…”Wow, that looks awesome!!”

  14. An issue I haven’t seen listed is the message issue. I seriously don’t want hollywoods pc crap messages in my movies. I’m not paying all that money to be forced to listen to those messages either.

  15. I also agree with this article said. I’ll also add – Cost: going to the movies is expensive and most people have too many bills to pay. Remakes: This has been beat to death but the majority of the time you can’t improve on the original. The inexplicable: Sometimes a bad movie makes ALOT of cash (Grown ups 2). This DOES NOT mean the movies going against it are bad. Hollywood needs to expect this truth.

  16. 1) Cost. $10-$15 bucks just to get through the door and another $10+ for some popcorn and a soda. And that’s just for me – imagine the hurt those costs put on families.

    2) Rude moviegoers. Remember when ushers actually walked the theater isles and tossed jerks out? Now, if you complain about someone that won’t shut up, or can’t stop texting, you’ll be offered your a refund without anything happening to the jerk.

    3) Cheaper than ever to set up a nice home theater. You can find 55″ 1080p LED based sets starting at $499.00. Toss in another $499.00 for a nice Dolby Digital/DTS audio system along with speakers and a subwoofer, and you’ve got one pretty nice setup.

    4) Movies hit on-demand, Redbox, and Netflix faster than ever. Why rush out to a theater when I can just wait a few months for the Bluray release and watch at home with my nice 60″ plasma and a DTS setup punctuated by a 3,000W subwoofer?

    5) Fewer films that really pique my interests. Sure, I’ll watch something like The Avengers or Man of Steel. Just not at theater prices, Redbox prices – sure.

  17. So what do you think Disney are going to do with Star Wars Episode VII?
    Will they release it in 2015?
    All the previous Star Wars movies were released in May…

    The Avengers sequel is released on May 1, 2015, when will they release Star Wars Ep VII?

    As mentioned in the first reason of this article, are Disney going to risk cannibalizing their 2 major franchises and release them in the same month.

    Remember the first Avengers destroyed all competition for weeks when it was released last summer.

    The Avengers is probably now Disney’s biggest cash cow & Star Wars Episode VII will be one of the biggest movie events of all time……

    What will they do? Surely they would keep them apart to try and hit their top box office potential….

  18. Well… after a quick look at worldwide box office returns, I find that After Earth has not only earned back its $130,000,000 production budget, it has nearly doubled its production budget at $245,000,000 worldwide.

    After Earth is not a blockbuster, but its certainly a world apart from R.I.P.D.’s worldwide box office total of $31,000,000 on a $130,000,000 production budget.

    A little numerical research instead of mindless repeating goes a long way.

    White House Down, R.I.P.D., The Lone Ranger, Turbo have not yet overcome their production budgets yet.

    • Just wanted to point out that the theater owners take 40 to 50% of the boxoffice as their share — so when a film boxoffice is 245 million, only about 120 to 140 million of that goes to cover the distribution, production AND promotion budgets. “After Earth” will probably cover its costs, but will not have much profit.

  19. In addition to these five reasons (and the very good #6 suggested by Rob247, I have an additional two. To read them, see my blog post at:http://aknextphase.com/?p=715 Will anything change? Unlikely–unless the audiences dry up for bad blockbuster movies that are all CGI and no story. Remember, every time we buy a movie ticket, we are voting for what movies we’ll see in 2 to 3 years. Watch Dumb and Dumber and in two years you’ll see Dumber and Dumberer. The same rule applies to action and comic book movies. A good story and a good screenplay are irrelevant.

  20. did anyone notice that iron man 3 just plane suck or that tom cruse movie was a special effect demonstration w/no dialog. why would people pay money for these so called movies. the crap that Hollywood is putting out reflect the quality. BEST IRON MAN YET…………..

  21. One more reason to add . . . movies ARE TOO LONG! If I sit through another 2 hour movie with a mediocre plot I am going to shoot myself. If you have that much to say in a movie make a series or a sequel!!!!

    Have all the editors in Hollywood been on strike with the writers?? Perhaps editors are on the take by the animation and effects companies … because telling a CONCISE easy-to-follow STORYLINE doesn’t seem to be important anymore. From here on out anything over an hour and 45 minutes will be viewed in my pajammas, with feet elevated on a couch or easy chair. . . and did I mention it better cost under 5 bucks?!

  22. Internet has become a necessity of everyone for
    emails, messaging, news, buying as well as selling products.
    With TVU one has to have the windows XP or vista to watch online football games.
    A (Free-To-Air) news channels like FOX, CNN, CBS; ESPN-USA sports, Euro Sports and others that can be watched
    from the computer.

  23. In now of recession, people with available efforts are discarded from other offices, so obtaining a job falls in impossibility zone not fake the interesting thing about these students is most spent several years settling those
    low-interest government loans.

  24. Everything is very open with a very clear clarification of the challenges.
    It was really informative. Your site is very helpful.
    Many thanks for sharing!

  25. Your method of explaining everything in this post is actually pleasant, all be able to effortlessly be
    aware of it, Thanks a lot.

  26. This post provides clear idea for the new people of
    blogging, that genuinely how to do blogging.

  27. Remarkable! Its truly awesome post, I hafe got much cldar idea about from this post.

  28. Venture capitalists invest huge sums of money into new online stores,
    while the larger, established “bricks and mortar” stores (such
    as Staples, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble) are trying to capture as much of the online shopping audience
    as possible. You can set up your own e – Bay store, featuring the types of products that your
    visitors would like. Let members pay to join and
    offer them premium knowledge, products and networking.

  29. An Inspiron 14z laptop is actually $299.99. Get
    rebates and discounts on movie tickets and concession items with current promotions and special
    deals. It saves you’ great deal of and also money as well.