The declining box office and why it's hurting me inside

Dear readers: I am very pleased. I know, I know – you’re used to “Grumpy Elitist” Matt, not “Content Enthusiast” Matt, right? So why am I so cheerful?

Is it the fact that my girlfriend is now an employee at Regal Cinemas, Longston Place and I’ve lately been enjoying movies free of charge? How about because The Grand Cinema will be screening Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times” this Sunday? Could it be because I’ve recently learned that Roger Waters, the former bassist/vocalist of Pink Floyd, will be playing KeyArena this fall? Is it because George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford finally approved the story for “Indiana Jones 4?” Or maybe it’s the approaching release of the “Dark City” director’s cut, or the new “Blade Runner” DVD?

Definitely, they’re all contributors to my happiness. But this time of year – the months of May, June, July and August – is an especially exhilarating time for me. It’s the summer movie season, people! And I’m psyched. Seeing phenomenal trailers for films like “Superman Returns” (which is gradually becoming my most anticipated summer flick), “X Men: The Last Stand,” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” makes me all anxious for the sunshine.

It’s like Christmas for me – if Christmas was four months long … and a little warmer.

But this summer, I can’t shake an issue that’s been irking me. My excitement for the coming of the blockbusters is tainted by a few mounting concerns: The decline in box office earnings, the lack of interest in film and the waning dedication to the cinema experience.

People just aren’t seeing movies with the frequency and numbers they used to, and it’s hurting the industry.

Just two weeks ago, for instance, “Mission: Impossible III” opened. It’s an action-thriller, brimming with guns, explosions and plenty of car chases. It’s also starring Tom Cruise, who is almost a lock with any box office – couch-jumping and placenta-eating aside.

So why did it flounder so badly?

“Mission: Impossible III” brought in a measly $48 million in its opening weekend. That may sound like a lot – and believe me, for some films it is. But this flick is the summer movie season header. It’s the first in a long line of “blockbusters” due out in the next few months. This movie should have been making twice that in its opening weekend. It’s ridiculous. If “M:I:3” couldn’t break $100 million, whose to say “The Da Vinci Code” or “The Omen” will fair any better?

This seems to be a disturbing trend. Take 2005’s “King Kong.” It cost over $300 million to produce Peter Jackson’s spectacular epic, and it opened to a lukewarm reception of $50 million. It took a successful overseas release to push it over $150 million. And what got it over $200 million? DVD sales – “King Kong” made almost $30 million in DVD rentals and purchases.

That’s the main excuse I get from people. “I’ll just catch it on DVD,” they say. Don’t get me wrong, I love DVD – it’s such a fantastic technology, and we’ve only scratched the glossy surface of its potential (see the upcoming Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats). But the accessibility it offers – the ease with which people can buy, rent and trade them – is a hindrance to the box office.

For movie fans that don’t necessarily need a giant screen to enjoy their films, DVD is excellent. With HD televisions, surround-sound systems and discs with picture quality that rivals the cinema, the home is becoming the ideal film-viewing environment. Skip the lines, the tickets, the ridiculously overpriced concessions, the crowds (or lack thereof, I suppose) and watch movies in the comfort of your home. And with the inception of NetFlix, you don’t even need to leave the house to rent them.

Movies are just a mailbox trek away. DVD is getting more and more convenient, and the theater is becoming more and more of a hassle.

In some ways, this accessibility is incredible. Never before in the history of film have movies been so readily available to anyone – you can even walk around with movies in your pocket, thanks to portable media players like Zen and iPod. It’s a great time to be a film fan. But should we be substituting the experience of seeing a film in the theater with the ease of watching a movie at home?

The two mediums have actually begun to compete with one another, believe it or not. Why should this be the case? Is it the four discs worth of commentaries, behind-the-scenes footage and deleted scenes? Is it the obligatory “unrated” version, with five minutes of additional boob footage and penis jokes? It’s absolutely insane to think that a future DVD release of a movie is actually competing with the present theater release, but it’s happening. It’s happening all too often, and the film industry is paying for it.

There’s a simple solution – it’s almost too easy. It’s called supply and demand, and theaters aren’t adhering to it very well at all. It’s pretty straightforward: lower ticket prices and the crowds will come – whatever funds you lose by dropping the prices, you’ll more than make up for in sheer numbers. I’m not too keen on paying $8.50 for a movie, and judging by the waning box office earnings I’ve been yapping about, the general public isn’t either. The Grand Cinema charges $7.50, and I’d definitely spend a bit more time at the theater if Regal followed suite and dropped the price of admission by a dollar or two.

But that would just make too much sense, right?