“Make better big movies.” That’s the advice to film studios from Lowell Singer, an entertainment analyst at SG Cowen & Company.

In a recent report, Mr. Singer challenges the view that declining box-office revenues are the result of shifting viewing habits, and that the downtrend is irreversible. Instead, he argues that the fall-off is the result of Hollywood turning out too many junk movies (though he uses more polite language) that are released on too many screens.

Supporting the consensus, a recent AP-AOL survey showed that 73% of adults polled would rather watch movies in the comfort of their own homes. The rising barrage of commercials in movie houses is one noxious deterrent, evidently. Also a factor is the increased number of alternative viewing choices, such as satellite TV, digital cable, and improved rental options.

Film producers are worried because box-office revenues are down 6.8% year over year, and at their lowest level since 2001. This trend is damaging enough, but even more significant may be the resulting deflation of follow-on DVD sales and rentals. Sales of DVDs have soared in recent years, but the recent disappointing sales of highly touted “Shrek 2” and “The Incredibles” shook the industry badly.

Mr. Singer is more sanguine about the industry’s long-term prospects. In his view, the real issue is that the quality of so-called “event movies” has been declining for years. In support of his claim that quality counts, Mr. Singer has analyzed the scope of movie releases, box-office receipts, and quality data.

How does he measure film quality? While most of us would be content to canvass our cronies around the water cooler, Mr. Singer relies on ratings from Rotten Tomatoes, a Web site that evaluates each film’s reviews. Simply put, a bigger percentage of positive write-ups leads to a higher score.

Rotten Tomatoes scores all films produced so far this year about the same as those of past years. However, ratings for the 10 widest releases are way below past peaks. Though Mr. Singer only examined a few years’ data, it appears that a drop in the quality of the top films can explain a good deal of today’s box-office malaise.

People went to the movies in record numbers in 2002, drawn by films such as “Spider-Man” ($115 million opening weekend; RT rating of 89) and “The Lord of the Rings” ($102 million; RT rating of 98). By contrast, the only big picture so far this year has been “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” ($158 million; score of 83.)

Mr. Singer also notes that the studios are granting an increased number of pictures wide distribution, thus diluting “event film” status. The number of movies issued to more than 3,000 theaters ranged from seven to 11 between 2000 and 2003; in 2005 the figure for a comparable number of weeks is 28.

Event films are those that Mr. Singer expects to bring in the “casual filmgoer.” As the quality of widely released films slips, so, perhaps, does the inclination for this marginal moviegoer to make the effort. This ennui is compounded, according to longtime film industry guru David Londoner, when so many of the big pictures are sequels. “Spider-Man 2,” “Star Wars: Episode III,” and so on, are unlikely to generate the buzz of the originals.

Why are films getting worse? According to some observers, part of the blame lies in how film projects are developed. For some time now, the creative process been taken over by agents who dream up projects, buy the script, line up the talent, and then sell the whole package to a studio. The old days of a studio enlisting its own in-house directors, writers, and stars in jointly creating a film are long gone.

Pixar is an exception. For that consistently highly rated house, the team works together. Their interests, and those of the company, are aligned.

Because of his focus on film quality, Mr. Singer is intrigued by Pixar (NASDAQ: PIXR, $42). The recent announcement that second-quarter earnings would be hurt by a shortfall in DVD sales knocked the stock for a 14% one week loss. Mr. Singer thinks $55 is a reasonable target for the shares.