And kids who don’t know the difference between 10 bucks or 20 bucks for a movie ticket will still beg their parents to take them to the latest kids movie, and the parents who want nothing more than to get out of the house and go somewhere where the kiddies can have fun and be calm will be happy to do it.

So all things considered John Carter and Battleship were money loosers, and when you add marketing budgets (which I don’t think are included in boxofficemojo budgets) I doubt they will ever turn profit.

Also, can it be said Hollywood has imploded before, like in the 1960s and 70s? I suppose now more than ever there’s TV to take its place, but people still want to get out of the house. Going somewhere else to watch films is part of why people do it, I think.

Personally, I hope not. That would obviously make it even more difficult for talented directors to get their more inspired “big” movies made, like Inception. I guess maybe it wouldn’t hurt if the elite actors took a bit of a salary hit. Most movies probably don’t need to cost upwards toward 200 million dollars though.

http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1714

My knee-jerk reaction is that I want it to survive, but the more I think about it I realize that filmmaking as an artform will never go away. If the death of Hollywood means we don’t get any more movies with $200+ million budgets, I think we would all be fine. There are plenty of excellent, exciting movies that are made for much less than that. Filmmakers would have to rely on fewer (or cheaper) computer-generated effects. Bare in mind that Aliens was made for $18.5 million ($38 adjusted for inflation, though granted it didn’t have a ton of huge stars).

That said, I’m sure studio executives are aware of this. I don’t think they cram money into any project that isn’t a sure thing for them these days. Also factor in that foreign audiences will pay to see practically anything (John Carter and Battleship both recouped their budgets and then some). Studios are aware of this as well, and are thus doing as much pandering (to borrow a term from the KoC) to the Chinese market as possible. They’ll be fine.

Also to think that you will pay 100 to 150 for a night a the movie per person is a absolute no go, esp. when a huge part of the moviegoer are Teenager who want to have a good time, and as a side effect a good movie. They will NOT pay that for any movie.

But I would pay 150 Bucks to see Howard, in 3-D with Aroma Vision and Sensoround Sound in Mega Imax, just to scare anyone who sees me entering the theater. And because the Movie is awesome, in many many ways. Dito for 1941.