Correlation never equals causality.
Maybe that one line sums up “logic 101” and/or “statistics 101.”
The example I used to hear was that there was a positive correlation between ice cream sales and drowning. As ice cream sales increase so does the number of deaths by drowning.
BUT eating ice cream does not CAUSE drowning deaths — i.e. when is more ice cream sold? in the summer. When do more people go swimming? in the summer.
There is also data out there connecting “eating cheese” and “strangulation” — but again, eating cheese does NOT cause strangulation.
This concept is important – just in general – but also when talking about the rise of “streaming” and “movie theater” attendance.
Movies
When going to the “movies” first became a cultural event 100ish years ago it was a much different experience. Back in that “golden era” of movie theaters folks would go as a WEEKLY “family night out” — there might have been a news reel, a cartoon, and then a feature presentation.
Other “family entertainment” options might have been staying home and listening to the radio. “Live theater”, and musical concerts might have been an option IF they happened to be in town. Back at that time the “Circus” coming to town would have been a much bigger deal.
The primary source of “news” would have still been print newspapers – and “sports” like boxing, horse racing, baseball, college football were popular – again either on the radio or attending live events.
BUT “the movies” were the bread and butter of family entertainment.
Television
The “golden age of radio” was relatively short – from the late 1920s to the 1950’s. Radio and movies might have been in the same general “entertainment” markets but they are much different “experiences.”
“Visuals AND sound” tends to beat “just sound” — BUT “going to the movies” would have been an EVENT, while turning on the radio an everyday experience.
When Television became popular in the 1950s it ended the “golden age” of radio – and also forced the “movie industry” to adapt.
e.g. hunt up some old “B” Westerns and you’ll discover that they tend to be about an hour long – and the “weekly serial” adventure/cliff hanger shorts tend to be 20 to 45 minutes. Which sounds a LOT like “television” program lengths to the “modern audience.”
A lot of those “B” Western stars also had radio shows – and the popular show made the jump from radio to television. There was still a sizable market for both television and radio in the early days. The popular shows probably had a comic book and/or daily newspaper comic strip as well.
The “point” being that folks wanted “entertainment” NOT a specific TYPE of entertainment.
Television ended the “weekly ritual” of going to the movies.
The “movie industry” responded by increasing the “production value” of movies. Movies were “bigger” and “better” than television programming.
The “movie” advantage was still the bigger screen and the EVENT status. The product required to attract the audience into the theaters obviously changed – gimmicks like 3D, “Technicolor”, CinemaScope came and went.
Now, the one 20th Century invention that can rival television for “cultural impact” is the automobile. I would tend to argue that the increased “mobility” automobiles allowed makes them the most influential and/or culturally transformational. BUT the point is arguable.
This “automobile” changed “dating and mating” rituals. PART of that change involved “going to the movies.” At the height there were 4,000 “drive in” movie theaters spread across the U.S. (in the 1950s).
All of those Baby-boomers doing there thing would have found the “drive in” the more economical option. The post war economic boom created “teenagers” would have had “going to the movies” as an option to “get away from parents” and be, well, “teenagers.”
The “movie theater business” was disrupted by a Supreme Court ruling in 1948. United States v. Paramount on May 4, 1948 effectively ended the “studio system” – “studio” would no longer be allowed to own “theaters.”
An unintended consequence of ending the “studio system” was that a lot of “talent” was released from contracts, studios opened up their film libraries and/or sold them to television stations. The number of “regular moviegoers” decreased from 90 million in 1948 to 46 million in 1958. Television ownership went from 8,000 in 1946 to 46 million in 1960
SO if you REALLY want to put a date on the START of the death of the “movie theater business” – May 4, 1948
Cable, VCRs, DVDs …
Of course “movie theaters” have had a long slow decline. To coin a phrase: The reports of “movie theater’s death” has been greatly exaggerated …
Cable TV rolled across the U.S. starting in the 1970’s. HBO came along in 1972.
“You want romance? In Ridgemont? We can’t even get cable TV here, Stacy, and you want romance!”
Fast Times at Ridgemont High 1982
Drive in theaters continued to close – but they haven’t disappeared yet.
By the 1970’s television had replaced “the movies” in terms of “cultural impact” – BUT the “birth of the blockbuster” illustrated that “the movies” weren’t dead yet.
Of course the typical “movie theater” has not made a large % of their profits from SHOWING movies for a long time – i.e. theaters tend to make money at the concession stand NOT from ticket sales.
The fact that “going to the movies” was still a distinct experience from “watching at home”
Movie studios were gifted a new revenue stream in the 1980s when “VCR” ownership created the “VHS/Video Rental Store.”
Again, “seeing it in the theater” with a crowd on the big screen with “theater quality sound” is still a distinct experience.
DVD’s provided superior picture AND sound than VHS – and the DVD quickly replaced the VCR. The “Rental Store” just shifted from VHS tapes to DVD’s.
BUT the BIG impact of DVD’s was their durability and lightweight. DVDs could be played multiple times with out lose of quality (VHS tapes degraded a little each viewing), AND they could even be safely (cheaply) mailed.
Netflix started in 1997. The “Reed Hastings/Netflix story” is interesting – but not important at the moment.
From a “movie theater” point of view – “The Phantom Menace” being released as a “digital” film in 1999 was a “transitional moment.”
The music industry as a whole bungled their “digital” transition to the point that a couple generations of folks have grown up expecting “music” to be “free.” THAT is a different subject —
I’ll point out that a “digital product” can easily be reproduced without lose of quality. If I have a “digital” copy of “media” I can easily reproduce exact duplicates. No need for a “manufacturing” and a “shipping” process – just “copy” from 1 location to the new location. Exact copy. Done.
For the “movie industry” in the short term the transition to “digital” helped lower distribution costs. Copies of films didn’t need to be created and shipped from theater to theater in “cans of film” – just copy the new movie to the digital projector’s hard drive and you are all set.
The combination of the “home computer” and “internet access” also deserve the “cultural shift” label – but it was really “more of the same” done “faster and cheaper.”
Streaming
It is trendy to blame “streaming” movies of the death of “theaters” — but hopefully by this point I’ve made the point that “streaming” is not the CAUSE of the decline of theaters. At best the “rise of streaming” and the “decline of theaters” are correlated – BUT (all together now)
Correlation never equals causality.
“Streaming” deserves credit for killing “Movie rental stores” — but the “theater experience” is still the “theater experience”
MY issue with “going to the theater” is that ticket prices have pretty much kept up with inflation. Which kinda means a generic “family of four” has to take out a small loan to “go to the movies.”
I’m placing the recent decline in theater attendance on “inflation” and “bad product.”
Yes, the “movie industry” has been churning out self-righteous garbage NOT “entertainment.”
BUT there is still a demand for “family friendly entertainment” — “Inside Out 2” setting box office records illustrates my point
Old Theaters …
I like not having to wait in line – but also kinda miss the “old theater” feel. That 20 screen “mega plex” is nice but there is still room for renovated “old theaters” if they can be updated without losing their “charm.”
To be clear the “charm” of old theaters does NOT include “uncomfortable seats” and feet sticking to the floor. If someone tries to “rehab” a theater I’d spend most of the money on the bathrooms and comfortable seating
Folks need to feel “safe” AND “comfortable” then if the popcorn is a little stale it doesn’t matter …
Leave a Reply