I'd argue that quality television, and the abundance of television programming, and hi-def LCD screens are having the greatest effect on movie attendance. People program their DVRs and find they have 60 hours of shows to catch up on. They can watch at their leisure, press the pause button, and enjoy an amazing image. The only reason to see a movie is to get out of the house.

Big-screen home theaters have a lot to do with it. Seeing a movie in a theater is somewhere between 7 and 30 times more expensive than renting a movie from Redbox, and for most movies the theater experience simply isn’t worth it. Compare the cost and hassle of a few different ways to watch a movie: Theater Driving & parking & buying a ticket = 30 minutes. Previews & ads = 20 minutes. (That’s 50 minutes of crap in order to watch 90-100 minutes of movie.) Ticket price = $11 . Cost for 2 people = $22. Cost for 4 people = $44. Redbox Driving, parking, selecting a movie, + same for returning a movie = 20 minutes (usually less, because I usually pick up a Redbox movie when I’m at the store for other reasons, and I usually get more than one movie, so divide the time by 2 or 3). Previews & ads & queueing up the movie in player = 5 minutes. Price = ~$1.50 Cost for 2, 3, 4, or 10 people = ~$1.50 Video on Demand Selecting a movie = 3-5 minutes Price = $4.95 Cost for 2, 3, 4, or 10 people = $4.95 Netflix/Amazon Streaming Selecting a movie = 3-5 minutes Price = $7.99 a month for unlimited movies Cost for 2, 3, 4, or 10 people = zero pennies more. I almost never pay to see a comedy or straight drama at the theater, because for most of those movies the experience of watching them on a large theater screen is not significantly better than a 60-inch plasma. There is something special about the experience of watching a comedy in a packed theater of people laughing and having a good time, but to get that experience you have to go opening night, which entails dealing with a phenomenal number of assholes. Otherwise, you’re watching a movie in a theater with 5 other people and 250 empty seats — an experience that’s actually less fun than watching it at home. To me, the only movies that make sense to see in theaters are giant spectacles (Avengers, Dark Knight, et al), movies that promise to be epic, visually arresting artistic achievements (e.g., Lincoln, The Master), and perhaps movies I want to be able to discuss with others, which means I need to see it when it comes out rather than wait for video. That said, I have gone to the theater to see at least a dozen films so far this year that I might just as well have watched at home — small comedies, indie dramas, etc. — but I realize it’s an economically stupid decision on my part to do so, and if money was tight I definitely wouldn't squander it on cinema tickets. There's really nothing that can be done to make theater attendance compelling enough to justify the MUCH higher cost. Seeing movies in theaters will continue to become less and less appealing to everyone except people with an excess of disposable income and free time (e.g., teenagers and well-off retirees).

and apparently an phenomenal number of assholes.

On the creative end, I feel that middle-aged and senior citizens are extremely under-served at the cinema. My father could care less about super heroes or alien attacks and my mother doesn't want to watch blood thirsty murders ripping people open in torture chambers. People in their 40's and over grew up pre-internet with the movie theater clearly as their premium source of entertainment. They have no problem keeping it that way because that is what they are most familiar with. Every movie doesn't have to cost either $5 million or $250 million. The mature box office hits of 2010 are all low to mid budget by the way, and they brought out the older generations in droves and helped make 2010 the 2nd highest domestic box office total in history. "Black Swan" Budget: $13 million, Box Office: $329 million "The King's Speech Budget: $15 million, Box Office: $414 million "The Fighter" Budget: $25 million, Box Office: $129 million "True Grit" Budget: $38 million, Box Office: $251 million "The Social Network" Budget: $40 million, Box Office: $224 million And aside from striking gold in the financial department, all of these were Oscar nominated. Look at the variety of genres within these adult dramas: Sports, Horror, Western, Modern Bio Pic, Historical Bio Pic. The year 2010 even had the action comedy "Red" with older assassins and the action adventure "The Expendables" with older action heroes. Older people not only need movies they can relate to, but lets not forget that they generally have more disposable income. They have moved up to higher income brackets in their careers, have money saved and invested and are either on the tail end of raising children or have graduated to empty nest grand parent status. And once again - they love movies because they grew up with them. We shouldn't be shocked when films like 2011's "Midnight in Paris" and 2012's "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" become critical and financial hits. They speak to an under-served audience. Now I loved "The Avengers" just like I loved "Moonrise Kingdom", but with that in mind, we need more balance. The lucrative and age-balanced year of 2010 was not too long ago. How did all of those box office lessons go virtually unnoticed so quickly? Humans come in all ages, not just 18-35.

i love seeing movies at the cinema. I'd go out of my way to see most movies on the big screen rather than at home (but as a single person who hates popcorn and can walk to two nearby cinemas, I have some advantages over many other customers!) But - Do we eventually have to face the fact that the movie business is now a small-screen business (in the same way that the recorded music business is now a download business)? I hope not. But maybe the day will come: and I'm interested in when and how we face that challenge - and in how it changes movies. Delivery methods change, but people always need stories.

Years ago I predicted that future movie exhibition will divide into giant screen IMAX type experiences with big, effects driven event pictures; and small, boutique cinemas with great food, elegance and intimacy. They will cater to two different types of audiences (both paying a premium for the enhanced experience). I'm seeing that exact scenario happening in Kansas City. They have been opening 3D IMAX theaters and boutique cinemas left and right, and I don't hear about any plans for more mall multiplexes (although the multiplexes are trying to cater to both tastes).

Mention of the music industry made me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to add a bit of "live concert" to theater exhibition. E.g., with everything going digital, perhaps instead of subjecting us to 20 minutes of advertising/previews before the movie, they could show short films, the way they used to show cartoons before the feature. Would work especially well for comedies (although it's likely the short bits before the feature would be funnier than the actual feature). Or maybe instead of a slew of 2-minute previews, they could show a solid 10-minute sneak of an upcoming film. Maybe show that after the feature -- in lieu of showing 10 minutes of credits (credits are a completely useless tradition that serves no purpose whatsoever). Maybe premiere a music video from some artist on the soundtrack, something we can't see anywhere else (yet). On opening weekend, the filmmakers/actors could do live simulcast Q&A sessions before/after showings. Or live simulcast death cage matches. Give us something we can't get at home for 20x less cost. Other ideas?

Truth be told, a major reason people aren't going to the movies is that films no longer employ dialogue. Think of your favorite films. One of the top two things you think of are great lines.

Yeah, like that line in The Gold Rush where Charlie Chaplin says... well, he didn't say anything. But I remember in The General when Buster Keaton... oh, that was a silent movie. Well there's this movie called The Artist that won best picture, and it's filled with memorable dialogue. Actually, dialogue doesn't make movies great. Great stories make movies great.

I think Walter Purvis made the best point and is exactly right - it's the economics of an individual's time that is driving the movie going experience down. It's too time consuming and too much of a hassle to go to the theatre - especially when it's all for a remake or sequel. He then adds that it's only worth going to the cinema for the spectacle movie. The problem is that the spectacle movie costs so much money to make, yet the studio knows it's the only way to get folks into seats. This makes the studio's business operations extremely volatile since they must literally bet the house each time. Add to that the advertising budget and you have an industry that is hamstrung by it's own largesse. (Gross participation, out of control star salaries, perks, DGA demands, etc.) I read somewhere where an executive said that if a studio did not have a library they would be insolvent within a matter of months. The vast library of entertainment is really all that's keeping the business alive at any given time. And nothing can damage a library more than a restocking of the shelves with junk and that is what the studios are doing. The indie world where most movies are made with private equity and then sold to a major for distribution is the lynchpin. After a decade of digital distribution goes by I bet that we will see that libraries of licensable entertainment will be held by new companies that have nothing to do with the major studios and will therefore start to really ratchet down the relevance of those major brands.