Theaters Unhappy About Faster DVD Releases 664
dolphinlover writes "As movie studios such as Walt Disney Co. have pushed for more rapid DVD releases of movies to combat piracy on the Internet, executives of movie theater chains such as Regal Entertainment Group and National Amusements Inc. have countered, saying that seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience' and that the time window between movie and DVD releases should even be extended. Their views run counter to Disney's Chief Executive Rober Iger view that DVDs ought to come out simultaneously with the theater releases of movies. Both sides say their plans would benefit consumers. Is either correct, or are both approaching the situation from the wrong angle?"
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Informative)
While seing the movie in the theater is a more fufilling experience, the costs involved are simply too much.
The movies where I'm at are $9.00 per ticket (IIRC the theater gets none of that), the concessions are also sky high.
I simply can not afford to go to the movies, so I don't. For the cost of my wife and I going to two movies a month I can rent 6 movies at a time from Netflix and have a couple bucks left over to buy a bag of popping corn that I can flavor however I want.
That's why movie attendance is declining.
-nB
Re:Wait a second... (Score:1, Informative)
Bad arguement. Also remember wash your hands!
Let 'em suffer (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Informative)
Back in the day, theaters were great ways to see movies and provided a unique experience. They had good sound systems and big screens that were much better than the average television sets in peoples homes (remember those bubbly looking 'big screen' TVs enclosed in the wood cabinets?)
Today, everyone has monstrous high quality televisions and sound systems that are in most cases better than many movie theatres. Why should someone pay $80 for a family of four to see a movie if they can buy/rent a cheap DVD to play on their home theatre system that they have so much invested in?
Even if you don't have a fancy home theatre system, a standard definition projection TV with it's built-in speakers often provides and adequate movie viewing experience.
The big theater chains should first blame Hollywood for making a ton of garbage, then they should go after Best Buy and Circuit City who give credit to people so they can buy large TVs and home theater systems.
$6 gas isn't as much as it used to be. (Score:2, Informative)
2.4X20=48 Miles round trip.
24 Miles one way.
I live 30 miles from the nearest Theater.. But only 2 miles from Blockbuster/walmart.
-Jason
the economics of it (Score:5, Informative)
Some movies, such as Star Trek, attact crowds that eat so much junk food that theaters pay 100% over nut--*no* profits other than snack bar.
hawk
Wrong. Incubation period is 1-3 days (Score:5, Informative)
Source: http://www.yale.edu/yhp/departments/health_ed/Col
The incubation period for the Common Cold is from 2 to 3 days.
Source: http://medplant.nmsu.edu/Diseases/cold/cold.htm [nmsu.edu]
Mod parent down as Wrong.
Actually, since 9/11... (Score:1, Informative)
The next best thing is a trenchcoat with big pockets. While you wouldn't want to be stuffing soft food items in there, they are handy for items in hard containers. I myself will sneak in a couple of Sauza Diablos and Cornuts for snackage.
Re:Here's my idea (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no. Not unless you want the quality to be worse. The contrast and resolution still aren't there. The quality of a good, properly projected film print far exceeds that of any currently available video projector. In the future there might be something that can compete, but not today.
Instead, studios should just spend the extra 5% or so it would cost to print on Kodak 2393 stock. That would vastly improve quality. A few movies each year are printed this way, but really, all of them should be. And don't get me started on 5 perf 70mm, wet-gate, and other well known technologies that have been worked in the past and would make the film expreience as good as it could and should be. Installing video projectors in theaters is not the answer. "Digital" is not a magic bullet.
Open Food Policy at our AMC (Score:3, Informative)
We abuse the policy all the time, bringing in large meals (especially chinese takeout).
One day, we will roast a pig in there.
Re:Here's my idea (Score:3, Informative)
Not interested. Film looks quite good. Personally, I somewhat expect digital projection to give worse quality, such as all kinds of digital compression artifacts, and CRT/LCD/DLP artifacts.
I hate trailers just slightly less than I hate commercials...
Why not have a cheap digital projector displaying cartoons on the screen, up until the film starts? Or, perhaps old public-domain short films. Keeps people entertained (instead of annoyed) while they're waiting. Also, you can keep the lights on until the film starts (big plus).
Just showing blockbusters is a very new phenomenon in the theatre industry. It wasn't long ago that you could go watch cheap midnight matinees, and much more varied films. With cheap digital projectors, this could be done for almost no cost. With lots of public-domain movies (such as Night of the Living Dead) it's even cheaper to do.
There is a lot theatres could do to draw crowds. In fact, it doesn't even have to relate to films at all... Air conditioning was a big draw for theatres, before that was common in homes.