The Hot Blog

2004 was a really big year. 2005 has a lot to live up to.

They don't care about inconsequential things like tickets sold. They only care about the bottom line and the total $.

With the slate of movies coming out do you think this slump talk will keep up? Because the new movies don't look like world beaters.

u mean dukes of hazzard isn't gonna end the slump chatter and talk???

Harry Potter 4 is at least a $250 mill plus movie, that'll help the cause some this winter. Other than that, yeah, I guess the domestic total will be down from last year. whoop de doo.

Tough to go up with the slam dunk yr last yr was.

Potter looks to be the next huge hit. Easy to state that though. It is a great book. They only get better from here on in.

Very hard to adapt 800 page books for the big screen. You lose a lot from it. I hope they keep the whole cast together for all 7 movies. Would be a shame if they didn't.

Each potter movie has made less money than the last, there's no reason to think that this film will be a bigger hit unless the marketplace is empty at the time.

The opportunity is there for better movies. Not just more money. A mix of substance and style.

Harry 1. 317mill
Harry 2. 261mill
Harry 3. 249mill

American BOx Office. I think they'll be happy with numbers around there. This thing is a gold mine that keeps on keepin on.

That's just it Martin, the marketplace IS empty when Potter comes out. The other kids movie, Zathura, moved from the week after Potter (Turkey Weekend at that!) to the weekend before. Real Zorro & British Suicide Zorro, along with Chicken Little (which could go either way), will have been out for two weeks. What does Potter go up against? A Cheaper By The Dozen rip-off and Ray II (Go Cash Go!). That's it. For THREE WHOLE WEEKS, until Narnia (which could go either way) is released, followed by King Kong a week later.

Expect Goblet of Fire to equal Chamber of Secrets' gross in most markets.

Considering how a well-received franchise movie like "Batman Begins" has had to inch forward to hit $200 million domestically this summer, I'm not entirely confident that the new "Harry Potter" will live up to some of the predictions here. Sure, it will be a hit. But, as noted above, receipts for this movie series have been declining, so I think Joe E's prediction of at least $250 million is probably way off.

The big question mark may be the choice of Mike Newell as director. He's done some great work, but his resume is definitely spotty and he's never done a big EFX picture like this before. A "Harry Potter" movie ain't "Four Weddings and a Funeral" or "Donnie Brasco," so I'm not sure what the producers saw in him to entrust this most valuable franchise in his care.

WB isn't trying gimmicks with each succcessive Potter, which is why audiences are becoming disinterested. You'll still get the core crowd for awhile, but general audiences typically lose interest in a series as it gets to the third and 4th films. A gimmick, like a major actor in the film, or a major character dies.. or the last film in the series, etc. These sorts of things can rejuvenate a franchise. But simply doing a Potter book adaptation every other year will slowly burn out the audience. It's inevitable.

There are many points of improved box office, such as how the world cinema is stronger during the winter season, how this Potter has gobs less competition, how the recent book has brought the movie into a heavy public awareness, how loads of promotions are even now being released, how Batman & Potter are clearly different, how the source material relates to a hit film...

However, the skeptical approach is fine. The Potter movies have slowed their traction for a variety of reasons, and this one will just give us another way to guage the past.

Potter is going to clean up when it comes out. There is nothing within striking distance of it when it does come out.

$250 mill for Potter 4 is a safe bet. Every Potter book fan I've spoken to says its their favorite book of the series. Potter 3 was dubbed "too adult" for some of the kids, and was competing with other summer movies. Potter 4 might be the second highest movie of the year. Might.

250 is a very safe number. And I think the studio would take that to the bank right now.

Considering a mammoth event film like "War of the Worlds" is going to top out at about $230 million domestically, $250 million for round 4 of the diminishing Harry Potter series seems patently unrealistic, especially this year.

STOP THE PRESSES!

I just took a less hurried look at Dave Poland's original post at the top of this page, and I can't believe my eyes. Did he say what I think he said? Am I crazy or did Dave write, "So it is fair to say that ticket sales are at a low for the last 10 years. But it is also fair to realize that DVD sales in the last 5 years have increased income per title by more than 30% from 10 years ago as well."

If ticket sales are at a 10-year low, doesn't that sound like a theatrical slump??? In what friggin' industry is a 10-year low not a slump???

And if the movie industry has been able to compensate for that theatrical slump via DVD sales, doesn't that give some credibility to a popular belief that Dave has repeatedly ridiculed: that DVDs might be supplanting theatrical exhibition for a lot of moviegoers?

Dave, you've got some 'splaining to do...

Potter is more a mammoth event than war od the Worlds was. Potter is loved by millions upon millions. Scary Tom isn't.

I'm looking forward to Potter 4. I wasn't looking forward to War.

As a non-reader of the Potter books, I am distinctly less excited by #4 than by #3. A big piece of that is that Cuaron has a better track record than Newell. The marketing people should get rolling.

jeff, astutely put, but Newell has a lot more story to tell. So, technically, he's the right director for this film.

Ticket sales are not a new piece of info, Chet.

But they are not really relevant. Revenues are up in a huge way. Cost increases are a much bigger issue than numbers of tickets sold.

Let me simplify... if you sell 100 boxes of your candy for $1 last week, but today, you sell the same box for $3, but you sell 10% fewer, you are still up $170.

Now... if your costs are twice as much (from 50 cents to a buck now) for the 90 boxes of candy you're now selling, you're now earning only $180, which is still a lot better than the $50 you were making.

But if you are paying three times as much, plus paying 10% off the top after the first 10 boxes, your earnings are down to $108.

Now... if your sales suddenly dip to twice the original because people get bored of stocking up on your candy, which they have too much of to consume, if you don't reduce your costs, you're making only $18 for the same effort. And you are going to have to reduce the price of your ingrediants or convince your 10% participant to take less.

Film biz... in a candy wrapper.

P.S. The DVD business didn't fill a hole... it created a hole, however minor. Without DVD sell thru revenues, there would be a longer window nd the whole business would be different.

It's not the chicken and the egg. DVD greed first... changes to the theatrical window second... slightly fewer movie theater goers paying more for movies follows.

And you should know, I have been writing - against the tide - about the window since 1989. My position hasn't changed. But lame slump reporting is still lame if it is too simplistic... and it has been that and a bag of rocks. And now, every mook in town is trying to blame "The Slump" for their bad decisions. Tell the studios that are up.

Dave ... um, that's how you simplify?

Allow me: Lowest ticket sales in 10 years = THEATRICAL SLUMP.

Yep, that's how simple it is. The underlying reasons, net profits, and/or other compensating spreadsheet variables don't matter from a definitional point of view. Ticket sales are way down, so it's officially a slump at the box office. End of story.

By your logic, a sports team that is having its worst season in 10 years is not in a slump if revenues somehow haven't suffered much. Sorry, Dave, but that is just plain ridiculous.

Now, I suppose you would argue that "slump" is only defined by performance, and that performance in the theatrical business is defined solely by overall revenues. But I (and apparently most everyone else in the industry) disagree. Here's another simple example that boils our conflict down to its essence:

Suppose a studio released an entire slate of movies but nobody came. NOBODY. However, the studio still somehow managed to net the same theatrical profit as the year before because of amazing new ancillary deals. In other words, the studio maintained its same theatrical revenues even though ticket sales were down 100 percent. Now, who's going to get up on their soapbox and argue that such a devastating erosion in theatrical attendance does not qualify as a box-office slump?

Apparently only you, Dave, and maybe a few of your homeboys on this site.

Chester, I've never read such a flawed business logic. Terrible baseball seasons don't equal terrible movie seasons, as in movies your a winner for just meeting you costs. The ticket stat is ESTIMATED. Repeat, ESTIMATED. Revenues are up $800 million since 2000 & 2001. Everyone else in the industry isn't crying Chicken Little, just misinformed journalists, the same that misrepresent ANY form of entertainment (reading any article about videogames from a major publication is a hoot). Trying to dismiss commenters here as "homeboys" is desperate and weak.

"You lose! Good day, sir!"

While 2005 is still in "third place" as far as overall box office, I don't see it staying ahead of 2003 for very long, since there are really no movies coming up that might do as well as S.W.A.T., Freaky Friday and Freddy vs. Jason. If Dukes doesn't make $30 million then the month of August is sunk...and September doesn't look very much better either until Corpse Bride/Serenity. It's really going to be up to the November and December movies like Harry Potter, King Kong and Narnia to save the day at this point or else 2005 is going to be forever known as the "worst year at the movies since 2001". :)

the amount of tickets sold is meaningless. it only matters how much money the film makes. if they can charge 20 bucks a ticket and make 200mill than that works. this isn't 1937 and gone with the wind where it costs 5 cents for a ticket.

What constitutes a "homeboy"? If you disagree with Chester?

Then sign me up for the homeboy list.

All the candy talk makes me want some sugar.

Why can't they just say that 2004 was a record breaker? That its a gold standard right now?

If Michael Jordan averaged 35 points a game one year then avg 30 a game the next season would they say he was in a slump? If he went down to 20, then yeah, maybe.

Slump or no slump. Give me some good movies. After last week I'm disillusioned. This week doesn't look much better. Nothing until the 40 yr Old Virgin opens up.

I can't wait for the 40 year Old Virgin to open up. The trailer had me rolling. Steve Carrel is a star waiting to happen.

it does look really funny. hopefully he can carry a movie and step up from being a good second banana. different ballgame when u have to be the lead.

More Slump Fun! Blockbuster CEO says the 2nd Quarter wasn't up to snuff. Movies are dying, oh noooeeeessss!! Click on name for link to the always trustworthy (heh) imdb link.

the industry is now folding up shop. its over.

The latest Potter book coming out this year will help Goblet of Fire pass $250M.

Kong should be huge, too, and I expect Narnia to be at least a minor hit.

I don't recall too many huge box office winners in November/December 2004.

The one two punch of Kong and Potter should be a nice jolt in the coming months.

I just can't see this Narnia catching on with the public. What am I missing?

Big hit last year was "Meet the Fockers" and "Ocean's Twelve". and Ray doing $70 mill was pretty impressive too. I'm sure if you asked any studio exec which prospect project would make more money "Stealth" or a "Ray" biopic, they'd pic Stealth. funny.

Bio Pics can do really well. Depends on the leads performance though. Jamie hit it out of the park.

I hope he fired someone for making him do Stealth.

Arc, you probably shouldn't make statements like "Chester, I've never read such a flawed business logic" when you clearly haven't read what I wrote. Your main counterargument is that revenues are up $800 million since 2000 & 2001, but you completely ignore the fact that that's almost entirely because of the explosion of DVD sales, not tickets sold at the box office. All of the slump talk is about theatrical exhibition, not about the entire industry in general. When Dave himself says ticket sales are at a 10-year low, that on its face is a box-office slump. Case closed.

It's kind of like a situation where inflation is way up but the overall national economy remains stable. Is the inflation meaningless? Do you deride people who express concern over the effects of such a leading economic indicator as "Chicken Littles"? Like I said, only you and the homeboys do.

Who closed the case? You?

If revenues are up 800 $ million since 2001, and you agree with this, how can you keep defending this so called slump? Wouldn't that be TOTALLY against the slump talk?

A better argument for you would be the cannibalization of profits from dvd sales.

While the Narnia books never reached Harry Potter mania levels, they are certainly classics that have been read by millions of people across generations. Stylistically, they're sort of a cross between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, though I wouldn't expect the movies to approach either of those.

I really disliked the trailer for Narnia. Didn't really make me want to see it.

Josh, I have talked about the cannibalization of profits from DVD sales. Read what I wrote at 4:07 AM. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before you guys bother to actually read it: THE SLUMP IS IN TICKET SALES, NOT NECESSARILY IN OTHER AREAS OF THE BUSINESS. That's why it's being called a box-office slump, not a film industry slump.

You know using caps in the middle of your posts doesn't mean you are screaming it. Or does it?

It's the only way to visually indicate emphasis since we don't have the option of bold, italic or underscored type on this blog.

It means he really means it. And he has to shout it from the rafters.

So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, THE SLUMP IS IN TICKET SALES, NOT NECESSARILY IN OTHER AREAS OF THE BUSINESS!

Glad we clarified that. The non-effacing "My way or the highway" style of writing might work in an English 101 essay, but not here. Sorry I'm not losing sleep over a theoretical ticket slump.

the shouting and the caps really made me think his point was right and we should all follow it.

Arc, what "theoretical ticket slump"? Dave Poland said very flatly, "ticket sales are at a low for the last 10 years." That is a statement of fact, not a theory. If you're too obstinate to admit that such an astonishing fact would be equated by most intelligent people as a slump at the box office, then you're right about one thing: Capital letters ain't gonna make the slightest bit of difference - certainly not when you're too blind to see what's right before your nose.

No caps=I don't believe it

Hey, Arc, do my eyes deceive me but didn't you type a phrase in all capital letters in your comments posted above on August 3, 11:51 PM? ("For THREE WHOLE WEEKS...") Or your posting today at 1:47 PM where you uppercased the word "estimated" twice in the same paragraph? Don't you know that style of writing might work in an English 101 essay, but not here?

What an asshole.

Watch the language. No need for throwing cuss words around, Chester.

Of course, I was talking about the "I'm right because I say so" style of comments. Not Caps Lock.

Oh, and by the way... ESTIMATED.

don't u know joe that cursing makes the point. if ur 9.

Again... simplification is the enemy of truth. Of course, unnecessary complexity can be too.

Ticket sales are down from 1940... not the point.

There is nothing shocking about a minor erosion in ticket sales in the last decade given the massive dollars that have added to - not stolen from, for the vast majority, added to - revenues for filmed entertainment.

If this year was "up," my positions would be the same. "The Slump" is an absurd simplification that is being used by people to both explain their bad decisions and to act as soapboxes for many ideas that are, in fact, irrelevant to the health of the industry.

Again... we are, essentially, one or two movies away from the slump being a surplus. Would that change anyone's position? Because if it would, then the positions were false to start with.

Hollywood has neglected the theatrical experience in favor of chasing home entertainment revenue for almost 30 years now. The last "slump," was when we had The Lion King and Forrest Gump do $300 million domestic in the same year... then had no $300 million movies for five years.

12 of the 21 (corrected by DP) movies ever to gross $300 million have been in the DVD sell-thru era... since 2001.

The business is changing in many ways... to make it all about this slump shit is just not truth. The big problem this year, regardless of The Passion, is that the indie/dependent world has hit a wall in a massive way. Hustle & Flow is not really a Napoleon Dynamite. March of the Penguins is not really analogous to Bowling for Columbine. The Weinsteins can't find funding. WIP is on the verge of being gone.

What is an independent film? What is a studio film?

If Stealth and The Island and Kingdom of Heaven all stall out in the same summer, what do you read into that? These are not movies that have a real relationship to one another. In the meanwhile, Batman Begins is the second highest grossing Batman film ever... Madagascar will pass Toy Story... Crash is lionized for doing less business than Cinderella Man, which was pilloried.

People believe in The Slump because they want to believe in the slump. It allows them to believe, foolishly, that the great unwashed are wising up to Hollywood's 3 Card Monte game. But it's a false hope.

Foreign box office increases matter... DVD sales matter... there are still box office hits that underperform on DVD and flops that do great.

Tom Cruise is still Tom Cruise because he hasn't done a movie since Jerry Maguire that didn't make more overseas than here. He is a worldwide star. That is the nature of this business. War of the Worlds is Steven Spielberg’s biggest hit since Jurassic Park II.

Ticket sales are just one minor stat… the only reason it’s been brought up lately is because it allows the Slump Lovers to keep pushing it and not to admit how over the top the story got… dangerously, damagingly over the top. If ticket prices were cut in half, you wouldn’t double ticket sales. So what? They are not a firm number. Moreover, they are badly reported.

If you want to live with your definition, Chester, please, be my guest. But why are you so committed to something that has all the meaning of how many people are super sizing or not at Wendy’s? No one goes into meetings asking how many burgers the company sold and how many meals were “Biggie-d,” but whether the business is making a profit and is it more than last year. Paramount has tripled revenues… are they in a slump? DreamWorks’ numbers are less than half of last year… is that because of the slump or is it because Shrek 2 was a stunning success? Etc, etc, etc…

There are no easy answers… and I don’t claim to have any myself. That is the real bottom line.

Has there really been 289 films to gross $300 million? What numbers are you taking into account to get that figure?

"The last "slump," was when we had The Lion King and Forrest Gump do $300 million domestic in the same year... then had no $300 million movies for five years."

Not quite following you on this one David. What of Titanic and ID4? However, if your going by having TWO $300 million movies in the same year, 1999 came close with Star Wars & The Sixth Sense, but it wasn't until 2001, seven years later, that Harry Potter & LotR matched that record.

2002, 2003, & 2004 have all had THREE $300+ million flicks each. 2005 has Star Wars, and with Potter & Kong for the long shot. Oh well, domestic shamestic I say.

That would be a Krazy typo, Eyes...

And my point about the $300 million thing is... how do you define a slump? The industry was all atwitter back then about having lost the ability to generate $300 million a movie just after doing 2 in one year. And as always, the final answer is... it's the movie, stupid.

Keep piling it on, Dave. Keep throwing the kitchen sink at the wall, hoping against hope that something will stick. Your chest-beating, anti-box-office-slump arguments are consistently heaped with a lot of seriously distracting facts that, upon inspection, have absolutely no rational cohesiveness. You keep building an ever-expanding flow chart with many branches, yet fail to disprove that all that is needed is a short straight line:

Fewest Box-Office Tickets Sold in 10 years Box-Office Slump

OK, Dave, let's try it again:

Suppose that, as carb-consciousness increases, popcorn purchases at movie theatres take a noticeable drop. Reasonably sounds like a slump in popcorn purchases, no?

Now, suppose this drop occurred just as exhibitors had scored historic deals with every major distribution company. These deals enabled theatres to keep an additional 2 percent of the first week's box-office grosses.

Finally, suppose these two simultaneous events - the drop in popcorn purchases and the boost in the box-office net - resulted in something of a wash. In fact, there is a looming possibility that exhibitor net revenues may actually go up slightly.

Under the Dave Poland analysis, there is no slump in popcorn purchases. And that's just plain ludicrous.

To say in virtually the same breath that "ticket sales are at a low for the last 10 years" and then continue to deride as idiotic everyone who would describe that as a box-office slump is a lot more than just disrespectful. It is truly mind-boggling and beneath the dignity of anyone who knows anything about common English usage, let alone someone who tries to position himself as a reliably objective critic of the media.

You can keep talking all you want about alternative revenue streams and other bottom-line data, but ultimately all of that completely misses the point of the entire industry-wide discussion. What is on everyone's mind is the progressive decline of the traditional moviegoing experience. Take a look at all the recent articles that have been written about this topic. The repeated central theme is that fewer people are choosing to go out to the movies. That fact is supported by the reduced number of tickets sold - the lowest number in 10 years, according to you. And that numerical fact alone supports the notion of an overall box-office slump.

"Ticket sales are at a low for the last 10 years." That stipulated fact doesn't change by determining its root cause. It doesn't change if it's due to the quality of the movies that have been released. Or if it's because of the decline of a segment of the industry. Or if gross revenues remain unaffected by it. Or if it's because of the weather. The stipulated fact remains unchanged that fewer tickets are being sold to the movies. And the fact remains unchanged that, in common everyday parlance, that is known as a box-office slump.

The second paragraph above was supposed to read:

Fewest Box-Office Tickets Sold in 10 years-------Box-Office Slump

I hope it prints correctly this time.

Chet -

You pretty much make my point.

If soda sales are down because of health concerns, the next issue is not whether there is a Soda Slump, but whether the water being sold generates as much profit as the soda did... or more.

Your insistance on "numberical facts alone" also tends to isolate the facts you want to believe in.

"slump" is not a literal term. It is a subjective one.

The theatrical dynamic has changed many times. But it has also outlasted all other delivery systems.

Only journalists and anal analysts think about somehow "fixing the problem." This is not an industry where the overall figures mean much. Each product launch has its own life. Stealth and The Island do not reflect a loss of interest in action movies. They represent a failure of marketing... marketing where the norm has now been set at an extraordinarily high level.

finally, I kep saying it but it's still true... it ain't a slump - if you take "slimp" to mean a shift in habits - if one or two movies can turn it on its head. Was going to the movies last summer really any different than this summer? Come on!

The problem with the slump talk is everyone is using different standards. David Poland uses dollars, and others use number of tickets sold.

I think each are a valid way of looking at things, although if the number of tickets sold gkeeps dropping yet prices go up, eventually a hit movie will be the one that had ten people see it for a ten million dollar ticket. And I'm sure studios will be fine with that because a hit's a hit. And that's some pretty great niche marketing opportunities.

I kind of prefer looking at ticket sales personally, because...and I know Mr. Poland is not a big fan of this...I do account for inflation when looking at the overall trend of how something is doing, if not profits. Is that confusing?

Otherwise you're comparing a ten dollar ticket to a ten cent ticket. Of course more money is being made now. If three people go to see a current movie at prime time, it's already made more money than all of the movies from the 1920s combined.

At matinee prices, you have to adjust that figure.

But how are the 1920s relevant to anything?

Neither is valid by itself.

And in this argument this summer, the ticket sales talked only as "The Slump" was challenged... suddenly everyone shifted to ticket sales.

Could it be finding a stat to fit the position already staked out?

Dave,

A) If soda sales are down, there is a soda slump. The fact that water sales may be up offsets but does not change the fact that soda sales are in a slump. Likewise, when ticket purchases are down, there is a box-office slump. The fact that the industry might be recouping its money elsewhere does not alter that baseline fact - especially not when the discussion is about the decline of theatrical exhibition and not about the overall health of the industry.

B) When did I ever insist on "numberical [sic] facts alone"? I have only insisted that you focus on the most simple language and logic. You're the one who keeps piling on the extraneous numbers, not me.

C) You said, "'slump' is not a literal term. It is a subjective one." That depends on where you stand. (It's kind of like when religious fundamentalists say evolution is a subjective theory.) So getting into semantic issues like that at this point is just more shamelessly self-serving, pointless, distorting spin. This whole argument is ultimately about objective truths and conclusions. If not, then where do you get off endlessly berating everyone in and around the industry who subjectively concludes that there is a slump? If there was no rationally objective way to accept the slump argument, then all of your bitter tirades might be supportable. But, at least as far as the number of tickets sold is concerned, it can certainly be argued rationally and objectively that there is a slump (see "A" above).

D) "The theatrical dynamic has changed many times. But it has also outlasted all other delivery systems." Exactly. That's why this progressive downturn has at long last gotten to the point where everyone is so concerned now. As we've learned in Southern California, enough erosion over time will cause even the strongest foundations to plummet down the hillside like a scrap heap.

E) "Was going to the movies last summer really any different than this summer?" I'd say so. Here in Los Angeles, the number of pre-show commercials seems to have at least doubled at most theatres. For many of us, that means we either suffer or begin to tune out as soon as the lights go down, rather than immerse ourselves in the traditional on-screen experience. It used to be that the only place you could watch a commercial-free film was at a movie theatre. The only way to do that now is via home entertainment (e.g., DVDs, subscription cable, video-on-demand, Internet downloads) or pricey venues like The Arclight. Furthermore, and I admit I could be wrong about this, but I think prices in L.A. have gone up more than the two percent you stated at the top of this thread.

Chester... I look forward to hearing from you when the box office turns back up.

People are worried because tehy want to be worried. There are real reasons to be worried. This is not one of them.

The idea that you want to talk about a "slump" based on what concessions are selling this month makes it clear that you are not prepared for any discussion that does not end up with the answer you chose before you started.

Happy to have you here... we'll catch up with this when the world offers perspective, making your arguments seem as silly as some of them are.

You can call this a slump all you want. But what are slumps? It only means that eventually the swing will be back the other way. Usually sooner rather than later.

You know you've entered Bizarro World when Sanchez shows a legit perspective on the issues while Dave Poland continues to shoot blanks.

"The idea that you want to talk about a 'slump' based on what concessions are selling THIS MONTH makes it clear that you are not prepared for any discussion that does not end up with the answer you chose before you started." (capitalization added for emphasis) - Meaningless unfounded bullshit posted by: David Poland at August 9, 2005 03:37 AM

"It is fair to say that TICKET SALES ARE AT A LOW FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS." (capitalization added for emphasis) - The real defining issue, trivialized by: David Poland at August 3, 2005 04:39 PM

"I have dug a deep hole for myself that I can't get out of, so instead of dealing with the issues he raised, I'd better just direct some authoritative-sounding trash at Chester. That'll impress the homeboys, and then I can get back to the teenage porn." - Thought balloon hanging over the head of: David Poland at August 8, 2005 all day long

Don't like having words or thoughts falsely attributed to you, Dave? Neither do I. I have NEVER based anything here on a single month's worth of concession or any other type of sales, not even for hypothetical purposes, and you damn well know it. How many times above did I zero in on the 10-year low as a basis for the slump call???

It's all too typical on this site for jerks to conveniently invent/misattribute statements in that way. But it's quite disturbing coming from you, someone who has implicitly annointed himself as a most reliable, principled, vocal media critic and conscience for the entire entertainment industry. In reality, as others here have pointed out recently, you might want to take a good, hard look in the mirror. To some of us, it seems you are progressively devolving into just another thin-skinned dork with a chip on his shoulder and a cheap website.

Still, "happy to have you here... we'll catch up with this when the world offers perspective, making your arguments seem as silly as some of them are."

Seems pretty obvious to me that there's a theatrical slump based on ticket sales. Regardless of all other peripheral debates and number-crossing, couldn't everyone agree on some certain simple facts?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)