Back to IndieWire

Hey! How Come You Kids Aren’t Going to The Movies?

Hey! How Come You Kids Aren't Going to The Movies?

According to Variety, movie studios are getting very worried because their target audience, film-goers under the age of 25, aren’t going to the movies like they used to.

There has been a signifcant drop in movie attendence among under 25 year olds in the past year, according to recent surveys, and the studios are at a loss to explain it.

Even worse, the drop in box office numbers for films that do open well have dropped by larger amounts for every week that a film stays in theaters, than before. This is really puzzling, since the avenues for positive word-of-mouth with social network forums such as Twitter and Facebook have grown in popularity and use. (Except by me being the old fogey that I am. I still do my networking the old fashioned way, like Daniel Craig said recently, in bar with a couple of drinks.)

Studio excecutives are quick to blame the drop in attendance on the economy, saying that people just don’t have the kind of disposable income that they used to. Of course this ignores the fact that, in other similar ecomonic downturns, film attendance stayed steady or even increased.

And the great savior of the film industry, that is 3D, is more and more looking like the goose that laid the lead, rather than the golden egg.

Execs have admitted the “lack of interest in 3D”, and of course the lack of enthusiam for paying those higher prices that go along with watching the latest Harold and Kumar film in glorious 3D.

 But with their usual tact, execs. according to the same article, are blaming the filmmgoers for their woes.

One exec, Vincent Bruzzese of the Worldwide Motion Picture Group, said: “Moviegoers have to take some responsibilty too. They claim to want more orginal content, but the’re not going to see it.” That’s rich. What original content?

Outside of sequels, remakes, reboots and retreads with their bloated cartoon CGI’d-to-death special effects, if you see an original film please let me know. That is if one actually gets a solid release with a major marketing campaign behind it before the late fall, when the Oscar crush is on.

I think the answer is quite simple actually. What if the studios stop making – pardon my French – shitty movies and concentrated on making good films? Nothing fancy, nothing overblown. Just good solid movies with interesting three dimensional characters and storylines, and I think their problem just might be solved.

What do you say?

This Article is related to: News


Miles Ellison

Real Steel is original?

Movie Maven

Whomever wrote this article (Sergio?) should be ashamed of themselves.

It is 100% correct that moviegoers need to take some responsibility here. If one thing is true about movie executives, it is this: They want to make money. If new/original content was as appealing as the franchise/sequel business than studio dollars would be backing them just as much as they do the tent poles.

What I really take issue with is the insult this writer gives to those filmmakers who ARE making original content. Whether it is movies like Drive or Hannah or to 50/50 or Real Steel….the issue is: Moviegoers just aren't going to see those movies in the same numbers as they are Transformers or Fast Five.

So your "good solid" movies are out there. But when people like you say, "What original content?" you will sadly find less and less of them.

(and the examples given are just that, examples of many original films. And like anything, some are good, some are bad, some are just ok, but the quality of the "original" film doesn't seem to matter….what matters is – they aren't making money. Maybe we need better advocates for the movie industry than the author of this article?)

Just Thinking Out Loud

I love how everyone manages to push their own agenda in these posts. Exactly what every studio exec does when pitching a film idea to their boss. People aren't going to movies nor do they suck for lack of diversity…there're great films from the 40's, 50's and on that don't have a single black person yet are spectacular classics. Shitty films are shitty whether no blacks are in it or 20. Why is the 1959 version of Imitation of Life better than the 1934 one even though both have the same number of blacks and whites? And it's a remake! Because there're a load of factors that go into making a great film.

Red Tails doesn't look any better than Captain America…I'll wait for both on DVD.


Er….think it has more to do with the cramp you keep shoving in our faces. Only one studio film, out of all that I saw this year, was any good. The rest = a waste of fucking money. Keep thinking we, your audience, are racist, sexist, shallow minds and we'll keep reading books, or texting or twitting.

Ronald Mexico

3D is too expensive for families. So we have to budget and decide which movies we want to see. Too many remakes, redo, re-imaginings, and sequels. It's amazing to me that the people that make movies have no clue why people aren't going to see the movies studios makes. I would love to have a job where I had no clue what was going on yet still get paid millions. Diversity is still a big issue. How many times can you see a kid from Europe find some device or is the "chosen one" which takes him on a magical journey with the help of a the girl of his dreams and a funny sidekick?


Most movies released are garbage. Who wants to pay astronomical prices for a terrible movie that they can see for free? INCEPTION was original piece of work and it made stacks of cash but guess what Hollywhite thought it was just a flash in the pan so they just continued down the crappy movie road. Another reason is Hollywhite has figured out that we're in the years of 2000 and not 1970. I remember when the first Fast and Furious came out and it had a huge opening. HW couldn't figure out why until someone broke it down for them. It was a diverse cast that reflected the world we live in. My white friends have even mentioned that they're are tired of all the lily white movies and tv shows. HW still didn't get the message after the last Fast and Furious banked a half billion dollars. 3D is ridiculous in this economic climate but yet they keep churning out lackluster movies that pale into comparison to AVATAR. Remake crazy, i mean did FOOTLOOSE really deserve a remake?


1) Most movies released are garbage, not worth paying 13.50 for. I know this because I average two free screenings a week. Not lately, however, because I'm sick to death of the crap Hollywood's churning out.

2) I can find basically every movie/television show ever online for free. It says something that even though I could watch all the movies released this past month for free, I won't even bother to watch one.

3)No diversity. Most movies don't reflect my interests or my reality. I'm not invisible nor am I a token, a sidekick, or some magical negro sent to make a white person's life that much more meaningful and/or easy. If Hollywood won't make an effort showcase Asian/black/Latino/Indigenous/GLBT Americans as more than just set dressing, then there's no way in hell I'm going to support their movies financially. I don't care if they do claim the story is universal. Universal =/= straight and white. Until they understand that, I'm going to keep watching the fruits of their labor for free. Most of my generation doesn't need an excuse, though.


I think alot of youth are drawn to fairly paired down visuals and great storytelling. ALOT more of my peers then I expected loved Juno, Where The Wild Things Are, Superbad and movies with that grainy earthy look to it. Twilight is hardly a mark for what most teenagers like as alot of people over 24 and under 14 LOVE it while I've found more teenagers beginning to abhor it.
So I completely agree with Jenny young people want something great to look at as well. There have been slim pickings lately.


I concur. Solid stories without all the embellishment will get 'some' movie-goers back to movie-going.

Back in September, my favorite author (Dan Simmons) wrote a newsletter on his website outlying a series of calls and meetings in which he was 'hired' to write a treatment for a new sci-fi feature 'adapted' or loosely based on an old episode of "The Twilight Zone". That old episode was written by a then (1960s/70s) sci-fi author who had written many other works—greater works.

Long story short, Dan talked about the experience. He mentioned many times the folk he dealt with, one being "The Biggest Known Producer in the Universe" who clearly stated to him Our goal, you understand, is to put butts in the theater seats and to be a success most of those butts are teenagers and pre-teens. That’s why we won’t have any “F*cks” or bare breasts in the movie. We need those pre-teen butts.”

Hmmm. Well if that's what they're (still) after (those pre-teen butts) then what good will that do if what you posit is truth? That under-25 years olds AREN'T seeing movies like they used to? "They" (Hollywood) will obviously, hopefully are and will be changing they're strategy in regards to getting those under 25, "pre-teen butts" back in the theater.

I have a couple guess as to who "The Biggest Known Producer in the Universe" is…though Simmons never states the man's name; nor the would-be director of the film's name. I gather he's big time too.

I thought the entire write-up quite interesting. The author still got paid for attempting to formulate at least a theory of a film for these people. They kept wanting him to go one way while he suggested they take it back… But perhaps the overall problem lies in the fact that the would-be feature is a film based on an episode of television show that pulled the episode from a book/short story. That's like three reconstructions there. That's putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again and again and again. After awhile the form just doesn't hold and the appeal is reduced to zilch, nil and nothing. The under-25 crowd isn't the same fangirl/fanboy crowd of 'my' day—see all the remakes and sequels. These kids can't really identify, so they don't care. Besides, they'd rather be home playing the new Call of Duty on XBOX. At least there they can make the 'action hero' go right, when he really wants to go left.


@Jenny, you take your silly comment back: movies these days don't suck!
Apparently, you haven't seen "Real Steel," "30 Minutes or Less," "The Smurfs" or "Midnight in Paris" — just a few of the fine cinematic treasures now showing at the local multiplex in my area! I'd pay my $11.50 all over again to see any one of those entertaining gems, my friend!
(Palin in 2016!)

Miles Ellison

Hollywood alienated almost everyone who actually appreciates good film making in favor of trying to brainwash young people into watching their cinematic solid waste. Apparently they're wising up.


Regardless of the excellent, studio quality bootleg dvds and downloads, they still came out for Twilight, Harry Potter, and Paranormal flicks.

What does that mean: Dump 3D, stop overusing CGI, write real original stories someone would be excited to see in a theater atmosphere that doesn't completely rehash the same stereotypes and plot devices. 3D, CGI, and genre aren't the real reasons why these movies (including Harold and Kumar) are successful.

Duncan Manutz

@Jenny…AMEN !!!


Agree with the above commentators. Many movies these days are just bad. Not just storywise but visually–The same rectangular fixed camera lens, overbright + color corrected crisp digital visuals, the high gloss finish, the sweeping panoramas etc. Film is a visual medium and part of the experience of going to see a film in a threatre is for the visual experience of a projection, a larger then life screen, and a darkened theatre. However in the interest of creating "marketable" content a new visual uniformity has become the norm–no audience will ever like something 100% of the time, there is $ at stake etc. All perfectly valid amd not something to oppose. However between the glut of overpriced Hollywood films with static camera anglesand the glut of boring indies composed of golden sepia glows, static or hand held shaky cameras, and the "traditional" indieworld tropes about sad hipsters, sad events, or self discovery there simply isnt that much to see in theatres these days compared to the past. Put a film in theatres where the camera is upsidedown, or swung from an angle, or in hypercloseup–in short a new way of looking with a story that truly is a new way of seeing and the audience will return. Maybe not 100% but more then before–The audience is smarter then Hollywood or Indieworld often give credit for and if you offer a viable quality product people will choose it.


Just turned 25 last week. I went to go see The Rum Diary on friday, there were two grayhairs and me in the theatre. $10.75 for a 7pm showing plus $5.50 for a large cherry coke equals $16.25 that I wasted on a film I should waited to rent for a dollar at a redbox.


@Jenny Exactly freaking so.


Because you can watch it for free on the internet. Most under 25ers are net savy, and there are tons of sites where you can download or watching streaming copies of movies that are still in theatres.


People aren't going to the movies anymore… because the movies suck. No one wants to pay money to see garbage, even people under 25.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *