Who didn't see that coming? The way things played out this year was obvious from miles away. "Gigli" didn't even really need to come out, since everyone called it without seeing it. Back in January, I correctly guessed that "View From the Top" would be unwatchable. The only real surprise, box-officewise, this year, was "Kangaroo Jack."

In the past I have discussed movie themes, decent critics, box office success, and the sped-up marketing cycles of the movie industry, but this year I want to look at movie economics in a new way, as the tail that wags the dog. Right now I want to illustrate, in true dialectical materialist fashion, how material conditions determine the kinds of movies that Hollywood makes.

The number of movie screens has grown exponentially over the last twenty years. The first casualty of "screen glut" was the squeezing out of single-screen theaters, which are/were mostly independently owned or owned by small chains. But the second major shift has been the advent of a "flood the zone" approach to marketing big movies, the theory being that if you open big enough, you can make all your money on the first weekend, and then who cares? Word of mouth is for suckers.

What does this mean to the filmgoer? It means that the content of Hollywood movies matters less than ever. It means that seeing a movie becomes the equivalent of opening a present on Christmas morning, the focus being on the wrapping paper: the toy itself can be forgotten after a few hours.

"The Hulk," a good test case movie, was nearly brought down because someone leaked a rough cut over the Internet before opening day, a cut that basically reminded people that the movie itself was forgettable. (That wouldn't be news at all on the Monday after it opened! The movie's box office dropped off a cliff the very next weekend, though it was still playing on as many screens--3,674.)

Meanwhile, Hulk opened on 3,660 screens. In the Cleveland market, Hulk was showing at twenty-three theatres, most on multiple screens. Hulk was showing at 80% of all theatres! This is a movie that only Gene Shalit could find a kind word for. For a week leading up to the release, the image of Hulk could be found on every magazine cover, every newspaper entertainment insert cover, cookies, macaroni and cheese, even Hulk cereal with Hulk-shaped marshmallows.

For the past few years I have been printing the list of movies that grossed over $100 million dollars, as an example of what really mattered in film. By now the $100 million mark is no longer an accurate measure of ultimate success. Even movies like "Bruce Almighty" make over $200 million in their first month. On June 26, Reuters reported that what really matters now is whether a movie has a $50 million debut.

In that same Cleveland market, "Spellbound" was playing on just one screen, and "Winged Migration" was playing nowhere (nationwide, it was on 77 screens). There was hardly a screen to spare for it.