Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Got Movies?" (New MPAA Advertising Campaign)

This is topic "Got Movies?" (New MPAA Advertising Campaign) in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001652

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-16-2006, 01:35 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060315/en_usatoday/hollywoodconsidersadcampaigntoboostattendance

Hollywood considers ad campaign to boost attendance

LAS VEGAS — Got movies?
Hoping to stem a three-year decline in moviegoing, the film industry soon may launch ads similar to the ubiquitous milk commercials, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America said.
Speaking at the ShoWest convention of theater owners this week, MPAA chief Dan Glickman said his group is considering an advertising campaign to get "people excited about getting out of their homes to go to the movies."
Hollywood spends "hundreds of millions of dollars promoting individual movies but very little promoting ... movies in general," he said. "Why not?"
As former head of the Department of Agriculture, Glickman said he saw the pork, beef and milk industries improve sales with generic ads. "Not to suggest that the movies are like pork chops. But those campaigns were done because ... individual consumer brands were falling, and this reversed the trend."
And the film industry could use a reversal of fortunes. According to new statistics from the movie association, about 1.4 billion tickets were sold in the United States last year, a 9 percent drop from 2004 and the lowest total since 1997.
At the same time, Hollywood is churning out more movies than ever. Last year, the industry released an all-time high of 563 movies, the association said.
Few films struck gold, however. Last year, the average Hollywood movie cost $60 million to make and $36.2 million to market. The films took in an average of $37.3 million.
Worldwide figures weren't much better. Box-office numbers overseas dipped to $23.2 billion last year, an 8 percent drop from the previous year.
Glickman and the National Association of Theatre Owners plan to attack a particular irritant for moviegoers: cell phones.
Theater chief John Fithian says his group is in discussion with the Federal Communications Commission for permission to block cell phone signals in theaters.
"I don't know what's going on with people's addiction to talking on their phones," Fithian says. "But we consider it a serious problem, and we're going to aggressively attack the issue of rude patrons."
Industry surveys find that about 80 percent of people favor limits on cell phones in theaters, he said.
"But we would still want emergency calls to come in, from parents, doctors. We've got to be sensitive to that."
And Fithian cautioned against sounding the death knell of moviegoing. According to his statistics, roughly 1 billion movie tickets were sold each year in the 1970s, 1.1 billion in the 1980s and 1.3 billion in the 1990s. Over the first five years of this decade, about 1.5 billion people attend theaters annually.
"We have to keep this in historical perspective," Glickman said. "Obviously, we want to do better. But the movie business is still pretty healthy."

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-16-2006, 02:11 PM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
We have to keep this in historical perspective," Glickman said. "Obviously, we want to do better. But the movie business is still pretty healthy."

Finally, someone goes out & prints it; thank you! [Smile]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-17-2006, 03:51 AM:

but,

quote: Michael Gonzalez
Last year, the average Hollywood movie cost $60 million to make and $36.2 million to market. The films took in an average of $37.3 million.

how is that healthy?

and what exactly is a hollywood movie?

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-17-2006, 11:05 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
and what exactly is a hollywood movie?

I would imagine that any movie that is made by a studio that is based in Hollywood even if said movie was shot on foreign soil would be considered a "Hollywood Movie".

You also may keep in mind that the 96 million avg cost to make and market with the avg take of 36 million only takes into account Box Office sales. Once you factor in other revenue (DVD, PPV sales, etc), the picture looks a little better.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-19-2006, 06:25 AM:

Lately, any movie that costs too much, overdoes the special effects and is derivitive is a "Hollywood movie." Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-19-2006, 07:42 AM:

Perhaps Clint Eastwood could teach Follywood how to make films again.... His are always lower Budget than most, done on schedule, and they draw large crowds and make lots of money.

Mark

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-19-2006, 02:08 PM:

But Clint would be considered an old fart by todays young punks running Bollywood. What would an old fart like him know. [Big Grin]

He would probably enjoy using his Magnum at some of the Bollywood "board meetings".

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-20-2006, 10:36 PM:

Stop releasing garbage. (i.e. Undiscovered, Ultraviolet, etc.)

Hey Hollywood, how about some quality films? Hmm?

And stop with the DVD releases 2 months after the theatrical release date and while the movie is still in the theatres!

And how about some QUALITY movie palaces, not these AMC-50 things.

I know, blah blah blah we've heard it all before.