The box office has been on a roll lately (the last two months). Has it had something to do with the economy?

But we have been in the downturn for like six months already; so would you say a robust box office is a lagging indicator of a tumbling economy?

The negative economy certainly seems to be helping movies. I don't know about other entertainment items. At first I thought just the holiday movies were benefiting above normal. But it seems the only movies that really suffered as a group were the early December movies. Almost everything original since the economy collapsed has exceeded tracking.

Netflix has been doing huge business, so its certainly helping movies in more than than just at the box office.

^No doubt, just ask Blockbuster

Blockbuster apparently isnt doing so well.

But for years now the thought is that recessions help the movies as the movies are a cheaper alternative to more expensive leisure activities (holidays etc) or people want to forget their problems. I never fully believed it but the current box office seems to prove it.

When was the last dip in the economy? 2002 after 911? If so 2002 still holds the record for most tickets sold in a year (atleast since the 50s). Was it the dip in the economy? Did people want escapism after 911? Or was it the films in release that made people want to go to the movies? A case can be made for the latter point...

2002 was choc-abloc full of films people wanted to see...

1. Successful holiday 2001 holdovers/awards contenders - LOTR, O11, A Beautiful Mind, Black Hawk Down,
2. Star driven films - Minority Report (Cruise/S'Berg), Catch Me if You Can (Hanks/S'Berg), Signs, We Were Soldiers, 8 Mile, Bourne, Sweet Home Alabama, Scorpion King, Panic Room, Adam Sandler, Perdition, XXX etc
3. Franchise films - Spiderman, Harry Potter 2LOTR: TTT, MNS (Signs), Austin Powers, Star Wars, James Bond, Hannibal Lecter (Red Dragon), Jack Ryan (SoAF), MIBII, Jackass, Scooby Doo
4. Sleepers - 1 huge one - MBFGW and also The Ring

Just like now, early 2002 had a number of mid range and smaller films overperform - Snow Dogs, John Q, Changing Lanes, Barbershop, Insomnia, Panic Room

Maybe it was the films, maybe the recession. Lets see how the rest of 09 turns out BO wise and we'll get a clearer understanding.

Why is Blockbuster struggling when Netflix isn't? They offer the same service and Blockbuster actually probably offers the better deal with the in-store return program.

The Blockbuster stores is most likely what's bringing the business down. Netflix has little employee costs, building costs, etc. Plus Blockbuster is getting hit hard by Redbox which arguably provides a much better service and is usually closer to the consumer.

The ONLY advantage Blockbuster could possibly have is if you wanted to see a specific old movie one night, Blockbuster's got selection. And they can't even do that well, they never have the movie I'm in there looking for.

Blockbuster has leases and infrastructure. Therefore return on investment is nowhere near as good as netflix.

I just wanted to through this out there. I work for a video store chain that's
a competitor of Blockbusters (we have over 500 stores, in 18 states). I'm not
sure of the exact numbers, but Blockbuster was down something like 40%
year-to-year for the last quarter. That big of a drop isn't the result of
competition. They are doing something wrong business-wise to drop like that.
Despite Netflix, On Demand, Redbox, and us not having an online rental service,
our company was up over the same time period. My own store was up 4.5%
in January. That's not a huge amount, but in this economic situation, I feel
good where I work.

When I told my mom how well the Box Office did in January , she was shocked.
She, and most people I know, consider going to the theater a pretty
expensive form of entertainment. She thought rentals would be up, but theater
going would be down. I can't blame her, I don't fully understand the box office
surge myself. Not complaining though.

Blockbuster recently released earnings results for the third quarter ended October 5. The Texas-based video rental company posted a net loss of $17.8 million, or 11 cents per share, which is a significant improvement over the $34.4 million, or 20 cents per share loss that it reported for the same period last year. Thus, excluding items, its 8 cents per share loss is far better than the 15 cents per share loss the Street had been expecting. (Uncover the real story behind one-time charges at The One-Time Expense Warning.)

Blockbuster's domestic same-store sales rose a healthy 5.1% - an amazing feat in today's turbulent economic climate. In addition, the company reduced selling, general and administrative (SG&A) costs, but the percentage of overall revenue came down, too. During the third quarter, SG&A costs constituted 50.5% of sales, whereas these costs comprised 51% of sales for the same period last year. The Street and the average investor might interpret this information to mean that Blockbuster stock has some upside. However, several quarters could pass before the company meets or beats expectations or for Wall Street enthusiasm to return. Of course, the stock price would have to go up for this stock to be met with any real interest. Currently trading around $1 per share, some analysts or investors may be scared off. $5 or higher could be a different story, though. (To learn more about the retail sector, read Analyzing Retail Stocks.)

Estimates are currently at 17 cents for 2008 and 32 cents for 2009.

One interesting thing I just noticed, nearly nine films opened in low 2000'ish theaters or less since January. Usually we've had many films open to 3000 + theaters, even if they looked like they wouldn't make a dime, but there is a striking drop in the average theater counts for openers. Box office is doing really well, and yet its with fewer theaters for many films opening weekend...