No I don't videogames have had that big of an impact on the film industry. I'm inclined to agree with you, high admission prices, annoying crowds, the advent of HDTV and blu-ray making the home experience more enjoyable (and cheaper after the initial investment of equipment), added to the fact that movie theathers are ALWAYS in areas that are a pain in the ass to park, it killing the box office.

What h3lios said.

It's like Hollywood doesn't get it or something. If they "made entertaining movies" again instead of lowering their standards and producing 2 hour long advertisements (I'm sorry, 3 hour) I'm not going to the theater.

And 11 bucks to see one in the theaters? Please. Lower it to 5 and I'll go back to seeing 3 movies a week. This is just ridiculous. Either that or start using one of those things called "budgets" when you're filming. You can do a lot with very little, it just takes some... I dunno, IMAGINATION!

If a movie is good people are going to want to go see it. Hollywood just uses games as an excuse when crappy movies (like Shrek the Third) don't live up to expectations.

I think for the audience that GTAIV is geared towards (18 year olds and up) they'll buy the game AND go see Iron Man if they have any interest because they make their own money

The thing is, you know there are tons of young kids out there (like 13-15 year olds) who's parents are buying GTAIV for them. It's very possible those kids who may have gone to see Iron Man won't be because their parents just shelled out $60 for GTAIV for them.

Personally, I have no problem paying $10 to see Iron Man but will be getting GTAIV from GameFly because I think it's stupid to spend $60 on ANY game. I own the three previous GTA's and haven't touched any of them since a couple weeks after they launched. I expect most people could say the same thing. Why pay $60 for GTAIV when I'll finish it within a couple weeks and never play it again?

i believe the word is scape goat here. i remember hearing that halo caused low movie attendance but i'm just not buying the theory. what i do know is that is has been a while since i have seen a "good movie". its also been a while since i have been able to watch a movie without dealing with little blue text messaging screens popping up here and there throughout the movie, on top of all the talking and phone conversations that are the norm in memphis.

if iron man does not do well, then it will be due to the movie sucking - not the release of a video game.

Don't need much more to say beyond what h3lios said.

'Summer blockbusters' are crap anyway. Maybe if contemporary movie-makers would take a lesson from what used to make films great (e.g., watch some Hitchcock or Kurosawa) and focus on the strengths of film - instead of trying to make movies that emulate videogames (poorly), then they wouldn't have to worry about competition from this other medium.

I'd curious as to whether they can come up with more than a correlation between the rise of video game sales and the fall in box office sales. I don't think it's possible to prove that one is having an effect on the other.

Riccitiello is a shitbag.

I know it's beside the point, but I wish people would stop complaining about movie-food prices. I never buy food at the theatre. No one should. Do we really need to eat during a movie? If people are that hard up for munchies during a film, they can bring something from a corner store in their pocket or whatever.

As for complaining about crowds, people could just, you know, not go to see a movie on opening night or on the weekend. If you wait a few weeks and go on a Tuesday or other week-day night, theatres are always comfortably sparse, I find.

All that being said, I still think video games are better, overall and in terms of money-to-enjoyment-time ratio.

(Oh, and people are actually considerate around here and turn off their phones. So that's nice.)

Well, what does Hollywood expect? Games are a better deal.

Few people are going to rationalise spending an average of twenty dollars per movie, for ticket and food, plus whatever ridiculous amount we're being raped for gas to get there, when one can either a) wait for the dvd or b) find someone who can torrent it. Sure, if it's a real big blockbuster, must be seen on the big screen (think Lord of the Rings), maybe, but for some piece of crap flick with men who wax their chests and woman with more pancake on their face than IHOP serves in a week? No thanks. Hell, I know I can't stand watching most of the crap that comes out for free on the television. I'm pretty sure I've logged more time on Oblivion since I started playing it last August than I have watching movies for the last decade. If it sucks, it sucks.

Maybe if Hollywood stopped cashing in on sensationalist 'hot piece of ass of the moment' actors and went back to the days when actors actually earned their keep by acting and not flashing their crotch for the world to see, we'd start going? But video games offer more entertainment, more time, and more personal satisfaction.

But seriously though, if I want to see a movie bad enough, I'll go and see it at the theater. I won't die from video game withdrawal for the two to four hours it would take me to go to see a movie. I'll be smuggling in a bucket of chicken or something under my jacket to avoid paying for overpriced shitty concession food though, of course.

Oh boo hoo, Hollywood. The reason why video games are "beating" you is that your ticket prices are scaring people away, regardless of other factors.