In a year where we have a new all time #2 and #3, admissions have only beat 2011 and 2014 in the last 21 years.

An $11B year and not enough to do anything.

What I said before stands, propped up only by megahits.

Good if you're a fanboy, bad for everyone else.

Well it still is 2015bitch in terms of the highs reached - basically unprecedented levels - a $650m+ and a $1.0b+ film in the same year, third place film with over $450m, the OW record broken twice, the Jan/Feb/April/June/Dec records obliterated etc

However, its the mid range and smaller films suffering due to competition from VOD, cable, golden age TV, piracy etc. So for that very reason ticket sales are encouraging.

Though yes id also like to see more original films and more original hits too

Couple of things that I would say is lack of originality at uber-blockbuster levels for a year that is mostly top-heavy (I mean ONLY 10 movies above $200m is just too less) and ofcourse people talk about high's but forget about the low's we have had VF and SO MANY movies that audience completely rejected.

Its a hit-or-miss year.

That alone is enough to warrant the tag #2015bitch.

As people that track box office, there are some relevant points that BK has been making for weeks that people are kinda glazing over. There's a lot of systemic issues when only two studios actually do well. The nearly 43% share of Disney/Universal really is unprecedented. Even in Titanic's run it was nowhere near this close. Basic economics is that competition is good for the industry as a whole, and so some of the indicators out of 2015 raise flags.

Just to be blunt, we mostly missed the mark on JW breaking the OW record and most were 50% + off JW's total, while SW total wise most of us will be way off as well. I feel like people should actually consider the merit on a lot of his arguments because he's raising points which will probably be a better barometer for week to week box office tracking instead of the once in a generation type events like SW Ep. 7.

This is what a real "big outstanding year" looks like:

1989 $5,033.4 +12.9% 1,262.8 +16.4% 502 23,132 $3.97 $23.5 Batman

Broke the OW three times balanced by strong industry as a whole that saw massive spikes in admissions and revenue. 2015 was definitely not a 1989 type year unless your name is Taylor Swift.

Lol, nah.

It's not like Universal set out to dominate 2015, like, for instance, Disney. It got as far as it did through a great combination of marketing and releasing the right titles at the right moment. Their share will go down considerably this year and other studios will re-appear.

With 13 Hours, Star Trek Beyond, Zoolander 2 and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows Paramount should significantly improve upon 2015 and 20th Century Fox has a GIGANTIC year ahead with Deadpool, X-Men: Apocalypse, Independence Day: Resurgence, Kung Fu Panda 3, Ice Age 5 and Assassin's Creed. These films alone should easily give it $1+ billion, while it still has eight other 2016-releases.

Universal, on the other hand...damn, it is gonna go down hard. The studio's biggest foilms scheduled for 2016 are Neighbors 2, Warcraft, The Secret Life of Pets and Bourne 5, it seems. I doubt they will have more than one $300+ million grosser, maybe not even that.

It all evens out. Only Disney will continue its domination and should reach at least $2.5 billion, I suppose.

I am not really talking about 2004 or before. You can take an example of last few years and see that we had a lot more $100m, $150m and $200m. I am actually judging this year alone and there have been far TOO many downs. I don't buy the argument that uber-blockbusters are balancing the flops just because we were able to get a great total in the end. The next year might be different altogether and might not be this top-heavy but this year was.

It still is #2015bitch just for the shock factor from ups and down together and not just the high's.

I just feel like there's a lot of retroactive adjusting of what "success" looks like for 2015. Let's remember this was supposed to be a slamdunk for $11.5 B + and the year to beat all years by some pre 2015. Yes there were big highs but I feel like people are drinking the "records, records, records" hype that studios want people to focus on less than overarching industry issues.

I feel like there still hasn't been much acknowledgement of some of 2015's big failures. There were some big ones that are worrisome. I'm all for staying optimistic but I'm also a realist if the numbers are giving insightful indicators for box office analysis.

I'm not arguing that 2015 is a disappointment. I'm arguing that it's mixed. I just feel we're in the brunt of the SW mania now so its hard to evaluate 2015 objectively now as a movie is doing a run for $1 B.

A good comparison is 1997. I'd imagine it'd be like evaluating the year 1997's box office as Titanic was doing its run. Let's be honest, when we look at that year, the top thing I think about is Titanic's release.

But look deeper. JP2 underwhelming, Batman and Robin, Speed 2, Anastasia, Flubber, Hercules, a lot of big misses as well. These were early signs of a slowdown in comic book movies for a few years (until X-men), and the continuing decline of Disney's traditionally animated movies. Taking a look at those indicators gave us an idea of how 1998/1999 would do.

I just feel like we are giving lip service to the non record breaking trends of this past year which are somewhat worrisome for the industry as a whole. What's different between 1997 and 2015 is that the economic model is changing dramatically of what films are successful. Just feel we're not really evaluating the full spectrum of what 2015 was, it was a mixed year cloaked to look like it was an all time high for Hollywood...

I think you're missing my point on why I brought up 1997. It's not an argument on if it contributed more to 98 or 97, it's that its hard to fairly evaluate a movie year when a giant film is looming all around of that magnitude.

I think people are not fairly evaluating 2015 as a mixed box office year here or in year end summaries, which don't sound very convincing as a film in theaters now is doing $1 B +.

Well I can clearly see that people here in general tend to ignore my point of view.....

Jack I was listening to you. Sorry for not acknowledging too.

Magnus, "it's not convincing because it isn't?" 2015 is a mixed year. I think you're indirectly sticking away from this argument so hard on this point because you stuck with #2015 hashtags though you barely used them for 1/3 of the year. That tells you something if you didn't feel the need to use it for that long...it was a mixed year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubd-spHN-0

2015 is not a mixed year

I hope the next year is better not only for other studios but also more towards the mid-tier movies. I really don't understand how having more and more uber-blockbusters only will help the industry or admissions in future. 2014 for example wasn't a GREAT year in its own because we didn't have ANY uber-blockbuster movie but apparently 2015 is because we had 3 this year.

Ok well we're not going to come to an agreement but at least I have the numbers on my side.

Also DL, you can't say "it all evens out in the end" and "its not a mixed year." Aren't those two inconsistent with each other? Saying it all evens out is acknowledging that it WAS a mixed year.

Also, Jack brought up a great point. So a good year it seems is one that studios can boast about records breaking for PR/buzz rather than concrete financial performance it seems! 2014 in retrospect I guess was also not a mixed year either.

2005 also wasn't a mixed year either. Yes, admissions went down 9% but SW Ep. 3 had a $158 m 4-day opening tally so it was definitely not a mixed year!

It depends on your definition for mixed. By "evens out" I just meant the studio shares. But as for all movies, regardless of their studios, it was not a mixed year. For instance we had 11 movies in the $150-200 million range, more than in any year before.

11 in the $150 m - 200 m range. Good!

3 in the $200 m - $325 m range. Down from 10 the previous year, 9 in 2013, 8 in 2012.

Those are mixed results! Mixed results often mean a "mixed year." That's just my perspective though.

Yeah more movies in $150m-$200m means the year has been more top-heavy and not the other way around.

I'm NOT arguing this year was down. I'm arguing that it is a mixed year. Original point was just more acknowledgment of what made it a mixed result year that was worrisome for the industry. I'm not taking BK's stance all the way, just halfway. 2015 is a mixed year. Not much more to add so I'll just end here.

But then again you cannot just measure the year by the number of records broken or yearly total or how high a few movies did. I am also mentioning the same that 2015 was a GREAT year for records and uber-blockbusters which did a GREAT total but there were lot of flops and it was VERY top-heavy which is not good for the industry in the long-run.