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?"
But... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there are plenty of movies that I end up never seeing because of the lag time between theater release and DVD release. I don't want to spend $20 for tickets (3 in my family) plus $20 for snacks just to put up with all the theater distractions me
Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Interesting)
What they need to do is organize as a group and put pressure back on the studies to 1) create better movies and 2) lower the cost of the theater to license the movie. Perhaps instead of a flat rate to the theater to show a film, the studios should get a reasonable percentage of the box office.
Then again, theaters are slowly becoming irrelevant. With the techonlogy we have now, why not go straight to the consumer and cut out the middleman?
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
Re:the economics of it (Score:3, Interesting)
A movie is still a standard date- it is so easy, dinner and a movie, and it is
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
For us, sneaking snacks into the movie theaters is part of the "experience". It's fun to see how much you can bring in, even if you don't eat it all.
"Last time I was at the movies, I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was the concession stand prices were outrageous. Besides I hadn't had a barbeque in a long time." - Steven Wright
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
With all the plusses, what's the minus? I don't get the movie theatre experience? Big deal. I can live with that, given all the other bonuses I get.
Still, I'll probably go see X-Men 3 this year, and Spider-Man 3 next year because they are still worth going out for.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
I see your purse, and raise you a wheelchair! (Score:5, Funny)
For one showing, we were able to fit a 6 pack of Cokes, several bags of chips, boxes of various candies, etc. under the seat of a friend of mine's wheelchair (he is actually paralyzed). The only camouflage necessary was a coat thrown over the back and, if someone does see you, the odds of a theater flunky stopping a guy in a wheelchair are slim to none! It's foolproof!
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:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, many theaters are dimming bulbs, reducing projection staff, and ignoring problems with misbehaving members of the public. I think this is a short-sighted attempt to reduce costs which will ultimately lead to eliminatin of revenue.
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think theater owners are getting this, because I've seen several new IMAXes open around me, in regular multiplex-type locations (as opposed to being in science museums, which used to be the only place you'd find them), and a lot of movies being
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I don't think that this is entirely the movie theater's fault. I know that they charge the prices they do for the food and drinks because they make very little off of the movies themselves. IIRC, they only make about $.50/ticket (anyone got a link?). The problem the studios and theaters are facing is the evolving movie model. They are stuck in the 1950's distribution system in an age of information. We know that the studios are charging exorborant amounts for the privilege of showing their movie. We know that piracy does not affect them as much as they let on. And we know that the DVD's are out quick enough to where we can wait (I've seen a few come out before PPV). Actors are arguably paid too much(not all actors, just movie stars), there are too many overhead costs, etc.
The theaters have every right to be mad at the studios- they followed them into the price model, and now the studios are changing their tune. And who is blamed for the high prices of movies? Theaters. One thing I think they can do to save themselves is make things more flexible. I'd pay right now to be able to see a movie at a different time than advertised. Right now, matinee prices are good up until 6pm. However, no movies start between 4:30pm and 6pm. I, like many of my friends, do not get off until 5pm. It isn't worth it for me to go home, eat, lay around and go to the theater at a higher price later on. I'd like to go right after work (say, a 5:15pm showing) and then eat dinner afterward. I don't want to pay $3 more for viewing at an inconvienient time. Why not put a voting mechanism on the site that lets me and friends vote to see the movie at the time we want, but get credit back to our accounts (or get credit for a ticket later) if the time we want to go doesn't get chosen?
Granted, these aren't the greatest ideas in the world. But if the theaters are interested in being saved, they will make some changes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
-FRIKKEN SOUND VOLUMES IN THEATERS ARE DEAFENING
-sound leakage from the other movies
-bad overpriced food, and if you bring your own treats you have to smuggle them in
-just try to get a person in a wheelchair into a movie theater. Regal are the biggest buttheads of all, they're getting sued all over the place and they still refuse to make any kind of accessibility
So scroomall. When they make it a good experience, I'll go. Until then
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a DVD anyday.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Hmm, I think I saw that movie [imdb.com].
There you have it: Go to the theater, risk your town getting firebombed.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
When I get done watching a DVD, I can view alternate endings, outtakes, play a board game based on the movie, etc...
Abou
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I have to go with the OP and say they are looking at it from the wrong angle. The time between theater and DVD release doesn't really harm the theaters. The true culprit is all the crap content the studios are producing these days. That and the fact that there simply are too many theaters, at least in L.A. that is the case. The only time I remember going to a full theater in the past 10 years was for Munich on a Saturday Night.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The time between theater and DVD release doesn't really harm the theaters."
I think you contradicted yourself. Will you really still go see a movie in the theater if it's simultaneously released to DVD?
Then again, I agree with everyone who says that theaters need to just make their quality of service better and people would be more i
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Movie theaters are going away. There are trade offs watching a movie at home but at this point I far prefer it. My sound is good, my screen is big and sharp. My equ
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie (and media) industry will do all it can to attribute all the evils they face to piracy, whether or not piracy has anything to do with the problem. The more the movie (and media) industry drills the word "piracy" into the general public's perception, the
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Funny)
Speak for yourself.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, the whole movie theater experience is pure crap. In my town movie tickets goes for about 10 dollars. If I pay for a date it's 20. Why the hell would I pay 20 bucks to watch previews and advertisements before I even get to watch the movie. And what the h
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes clan/guild meetings and practices tend to interrupt dates. We understand. It happens to the best of us.
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 television
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
WOW what reality to do you live in? Most people DO NOT have Monstrous high quality TVs. The problem is that the people that don't have those TV are also the people that can not afford to go to the movie theatr
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Funny)
A dinosaur that rails against its own inevitable extinction merely is fossilized as an angry dinosaur. It's no less dead.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I want to like going to a movie theater. I really do. I like the experience; there's something sort of uselessly traditional about it. And not owning a home theater with a projector and a few kilowatts of sound amplification, it is a big step above watching a movie at home.
However, as much as I like going, it's as if the theaters have been doing everything they can to cheapen that experience, to the point where I barely go anymore. And I ought to be their target market -- I have the disposable income and I don't have a home theater, or even a regular TV (their only competition is my 19" computer monitor). But the increased ticket costs, coupled with the outrageous price of refreshments, advertising -- I'm not talking about previews here, but actual bald-faced ads run before them, and the chance of getting stuck in a theater with some asshole who won't shut up; these things all make the value proposition a lot worse than it might otherwise be.
I think the thing that might save theaters is if they made themselves even smaller. Although I like watching actual film movies, it doesn't seem like this is going to keep them in business. I'm thinking of basically 'extreme home theaters' that could be rented out for an evening for under $100. Get 8 friends together, and grab a theater for a night. Big comfy seats, and you pick a movie out of a catalog and they play it for you. Particularly if they allowed you to bring your own food/drink, I think there could really be a market for such a thing. You pick the start time, and you don't have to worry about being stuck with some obnoxious people (other than the ones you choose to bring, of course). All the equipment would be pretty much standard, off-the-shelf stuff. Maybe they could even get HD versions of movies and show them, since it's going to be a while before most people have that kind of gear at home. And rather than picking from just a few movies, as a viewer you'd have a large catalog. Maybe equivalent to the 'new releases' section of Blockbuster, if you wanted to get the theater the same night, but if you wanted to book in advance, I see no reason why a Netflix-like variety of stuff ought not be available. After all, for the theater it's just a different disc they have to plug in. A well-engineered system might even deliver them by wire, from some giant datacenter somewhere.
The theaters are clinging to a business model that worked well before people had other choices. Now people have those choices, and they're going elsewhere. If movie theaters want to be around for another generation, they need to put some hard and creative thought into what it is that they offer, and what consumers want and are willing to pay for. Getting a six-week monopoly on a new film is a shoddy way to stay in business, and I think in the long run, consumers will find other ways to spend their time while they're waiting for the DVD to come out.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
(snip)
The theaters are clinging to a business model that worked well before people had other choices. Now people have those choices, and they're going elsewhere. If movie theaters want to be around for another generation, they need to put some hard and creative thought into what it is that they
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
union? (Score:4, Funny)
O RLY (Score:2, Funny)
Did I click on The Onion by accident? No shit they are unhappy about it. What did you expect?
Right... (Score:2)
So despite the fact that distributors have disrupted the free market in order to slant movie watching towards being in theatres by staggering the release of the movie on DVD until 6 months after it is released in the threatres, this supposedly "fuller, more entertaining experience" needs further help to survive in a free market?
Personally I like going to the movies with friends, but if it was "better" then surely people would choose that over a DVD with both are availab
UK releases (Score:3, Insightful)
The cinemas are being pushed to show more and more films, with releases almost every weekend it feels very diluted with no build up.
I would goto the cinema here in England if opening night was worldwide instead of opening in America weeks or months ahead, the first time you hear about a movie makes your mind up - if thats months before the UK release you end up hearing about the next big American movie and forget about the one you wanted to see.
We live in a global village and the internet has allowed us to hear the hype about American releases much sooner than they are available, there was a time when tv/magazines etc would begin the push once it reached our shores, there might be a one liner about some premier or other, but the magazines focued on what was available over here, now within days of the American release theres a cam or a screener available (sometimes sooner) - no need to spend cash.
So global releases and hype when it is due will get me back, I couldn't care less about delay to DVD as long as the movie is available in the cinemas when I hear about it.
obvious answer (Score:4, Insightful)
So the movie producer is right.
The answer is clear (Score:2)
That ain't the question, however. The real question is how do film producers and distributors maximize their profit - and the theater chains are simply the tail getting wagged by the dog on this one. If they want to thrive, they need to emphasize the "experience" that they purport to offer, which for starters, would mean:
1) Rationalize the
Re:The answer is clear (Score:2)
Sorry, not my choice, if it says it starts at 7:00, start it at 7. I get my trailers on iTunes and the net, I'd rather not waste another 20 minutes watching some disney knockoff trailer for something not funny, or worse, hear others laugh at it.
If the feature starts at 7:15, tell me on the ticket, put trailers at 7! or
Why....there is zero reason for them to be unhappy (Score:2)
Because, most films are in and out of the theatre in a mere 2 weeks unless they're big hits (Harry Potter, LotR, etc.) or Hollywood agenda films (Brokenback Mountain) which Hollywood will keep in theatres for months and months even without ticket sales.
But how long was Serenity in theatres? how long was Night Watch? or Joe Avg film. Not long. I try to see my out-of-state fiance at least once a month. often there
Re:Why....there is zero reason for them to be unha (Score:2)
Bring back ushers (Score:2)
Re:Bring back ushers (Score:2)
Really, the last few time
This is kind of cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about the theaters? They've had us over a barrel for years, charging insane prices for tickets and for food from the concession stand. This isn't going to be a lot of fun for them, because now their audience is going to be solely people who actually like to go to movie theaters. And this is certainly smaller than the audience of people who either like to go to movie theaters or don't like to wait for movies to hit video.
The theater owners are in denial about this - they're not planning for it - and that's going to hurt them, unfortunately. If they were to jump on board and start planning for the inevitable, I think it'd work out pretty well. In the long run, it'll work out anyway - some people really do like to see a movie in a theater. I certainly do. Target that audience, and give that audience the experience they want, and you've got a solid business. Unfortunately, it's probably a smaller business than the one you have now. Sad for theater operators, but really not fixable.
Re:This is kind of cool! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm not sure you can totally blame the theaters for this behavior. I believe it starts with the studios, and what they demand from the theaters for the privilege of showing their movies. This is not just the fees to get a copy of the film, but stuff like refusing to release movies to theaters that aren't fitted with the latest Dolby Digital 12-speaker sound
View from the east (Score:5, Interesting)
Greetings from piracy ground zero (southeast Asia). The day a movie comes out in the cinema anywhere, I can find it at any of dozens of shops within a 10-minute walk of my home on DVD for US$2. The quality is bad for the first few weeks, but the shopkeepers are honest about it, and customers can decide whether it's worth waiting for a better version.
Hollywood studios used to release films months later here than in the US. Absolutely everyone watched the pirated ones, and cinemas were empty, closing down left and right.
Now they do simultaneous release (US and Asia), there is a new breed of cinemas with reclining seats and über-THX Dolby what-have-you, tickets are US$2.50, and films don't stay in the cinema longer than 2 or 3 weeks (this is easier than in the west because there is a far wider range of films to show - in addition to all the American movies they show Hong Kong, Korean, Indian, Japanese stuff, subtitled into 2 or 3 languages depending on the source).
It seems to be working. The cinemas are crowded - last show at the big ones in town is after midnight and even then there are a lot of sold-out screens. The first week a popular movie is out, the only way you're going to see it in the evening is if you make a reservation online or via mobile. People go to the movies for the experience, because the experience is genuinely different from watching at home. And then when the supply of people who want that experience is tapped out, they leave it to the pirates.
So I really don't think the availability of DVDs is cannibalising the cinemas' market. Or if it is, they have successfully adapted to it.
Granted, I've never seen a legit DVD for sale here and I couldn't imagine where to go to find one, but I guess not everyone can be a winner.
For $10/ticket you can hire someone (Score:2)
Theaters live in a happy-crappy-monopoly. Yeah, they're not a true monopoly, but they have a crappy level of quality they can hit and people still come!
When they can provide something worth doing, I'll go. Right now I only go when I want to see something badly enough, I probably saw 4 movies last year in theaters.
So counter it! (Score:5, Insightful)
So why don't the theaters step up to the plate? Besides fixing all the other things that they often need to (which will be brought up endlessly in this thread) why not sell the DVDs? Here is the theory:
You go to a movie and you when come out you are offered the chance to buy the DVD of the movie you just saw for... $10. Same with the soundtrack (for $6).
If you liked the movie, then you can buy the DVD right then and there. If you didn't, then you don't have to buy it. This would be an extra source of revenue for the theaters, and would probably boost DVD sales (since it would be much easier to sell to someone who just watched the movie than someone walking by a display in Wal*Mart or Best Buy). Those who don't go to movie theaters (like me) would still buy the DVD at a store as usual.
In fact, by selling that DVD for $10 and not the normal $20, I'm betting there are people who would go to the theater just to buy that DVD that way. The cost of that DVD ($10) plus the cost of the movie ($20?) would be more than the DVD alone at a store ($20), but they would also get to have the theater experience for what would be a discount ($10 difference) compared to normal price.
Theaters are still trying to be what they were in the 70s when you couldn't watch any movie you want any time. Heck, things have hardly changed from the 40s in the theaters, except for the lack of newsreels and the amazing number of ads they show.
Pissed about what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let the consumer decide... (Score:5, Interesting)
There will always be those who will want to see a movie in the commercial theaters. These are most likely folks who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to invest in home theater setups. There's no problem with that at all.
There will also be those who couldn't be paid to set foot into a commercial theater. These are folks who have chosen to go the home-theater route, however much they chose to spend, and who are tired of screaming kids, sticky floors, and inconsiderate boobs who don't seem to know where the 'Off' switch is on their cellphone or pager. There's no problem with this mindset either.
So, with that in mind: Go ahead and do simultaneous release of DVD and in-theater. Let the paying consumer choose what format they want to see the movie in. Even better, get the rental outlets to pick up on it when the DVD hits. That way, if it looks too good to be true (as 'Robots' did to me... Lord, what a dud!), it'll be low-risk to the buying public to find out.
Heck, simultaneous release might even provide motivation for the studios to put out better movies. If they do such a release, and it bombs, the loss will be much greater than if they just did a theatrical release, so the motivation will be "Do a better job!"
Keep the peace(es).
"Obvious Conclusion" hammer coming down... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Public Movie Theater is dead. Long live the Home Theater.
simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite simply, they're both coming at it from the angle of their own revenue streams. There's no right and wrong, you just need to choose whose pile of money you're talking about.
Testing (Score:2)
Well, why don't they just try them both out, then we know who's right?
Fuller experience? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, if you can avoid 20+ minutes of annoying ads followed by 15 minutes of previews. And if you manage to get an audience where people don't spend the entire movie yakking on cell phones or narrating the action to their friends "Later in the movie you find out that 'Rosebud' is his sled. But this is the part where..."
A good trip to the movie theater is much better than just watching TV because it's a communal experience [hyperborea.org]. It's the modern equivalent of sitting around a campfire listening spellbound to a good storyteller. When you interfere with that experience -- by playing obnoxious ads or by talking -- you make it worse than the solitary experience of the living room. People are less inclined to go to the effort to risk all that frustration.
What can theaters do?
And if rude audience members would just be a little more polite, and studios would make better movies, the rest of us would be more inclined to go in the first place.
Re:Fuller experience? (Score:4, Insightful)
A significant fraction of our local theatres have equipment so lousy/dirty/scratchy/unfocused that I'm confident watching a DVD at home has better picture quality. When the HD formats take hold, there will be no contest.
He bitches and moans about how "cheap" movie tickets are compared to things like symphonies-- but honestly, a live performance by hundreds of musicians is worth a tad more than some kid hitting "start" on the projector.
I like your list, but would add a bit:
1. Boot phone/noise offenders. Ban repeat offenders.
2. Pay a professional to maintain your equipment.
3. Eliminate ads, run previews *prior* to published start time only.
Cuts both ways. (Score:2)
That's OK, theater owners. (In Soviet America...) DVD users are unhappy about Theater Releases.
For the one or two movies a year when you're willing to put up with cell phone ringtones and screaming babies in order to see/hear/feel the explosions (and the jiggling body parts) louder/bigger/better than your home theather can provides, the theaters provide a useful service.
And in probably the one or two times a year when I'll sympathize with MPAA: Faste
Direct to DVD = Death of the theator (Score:2)
There are some flicks I'll head out for, block buster action flicks usually (HP 4, Lion Witch and the Wardrobe, and Underworld 2 where the last 3 movies I saw in the theator). But for most movies my home entertainment system is plenty good enough.
But why would I spend over $30 ($6+ in gas, $18 in tickets, $8 in refreshments) to take my wife to a movie in
Re:Direct to DVD = Death of the theator (Score:2)
Wow, I thought I lived a long way from a movie theater.
Or are you driving an RV to the movie theater?
Don't any of you go on dates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a cool home theater system is nice and all but sometimes I just want a reason to go do something. And local theater is really, really hit or miss, and rock shows are loud and it sucks to have to stand around for hours after you've been working all week. What's wrong with going out to a movie?
P.S. I know, I know ... I must be new here.
The writing is on the wall (Score:2)
I'd suggest that timescales will shorten even more, then quickly disappear altogether - first for second string movies, then the blockbuster
Multi-dipping consumers, that's their complaint (Score:2)
Currently:
Proposed (and future potential slippery slope outcome):
I'm not
So basically... (Score:2)
New flash:
Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, when Americans are spending billions of dollars a year on stuff called "Home Theater," what did theaters think was going to happen to revenue?
Whining theater execs.... (Score:2)
Hollywood has been turning crap movie after crap movie out every year. What they don't realize is we can sometimes get equivalent stuff that may even be better. Examples are the very well done Star Wars and Star Trek fan flics we've been able to download for free. Hllywood wants to make easy movies and they are not challenging themselves or the screenwriters any more. Considering that of all the summer block busters in the last few years we have seen a
Let 'em suffer (Score:3, Informative)
Oh boo hoo (Score:2)
I wonder why the theaters don't focus instead on:
* Provide better services
* Wiping the floor filled with dried sodas
* Having better restrooms cleaned more often
* Having better rules like getting someone out when his cellphone rings
* Asking less for the popcorn ($3.00 for the big one, and $2.99 for the small one which has 50% less)
Oh, I forgot it, they still think we're money-spending idiots who want to fill their pockets. Too bad.
Of course the theaters are saying that (Score:2)
Of course, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Disney on this. Those people are soulless.
Hmmm. Time for an innovation, I think. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, a lot of the neighborhood ones are gone. But there are still plenty of bookstores going strong. They either are huge box stores that offer espresso, a wide variety of magazines and books for browsing, and comfy chairs; or -- they are specialist stores with knowledgeable staff and also have a nice browsing environment and a variety of related goods (e.g. sci fi books and gaming). Either way, these stores are not just means of distributing books; they're destinations you go to in their own right.
I think if the theaters truly believed that the experience they offer is so much better than the home theater experience, they could survive even if movies were simultaneously released for DVD, download and theater. They'd be happier and make more money if the other media didn't exist of course. But, I think, the experience they offer is not so superior that most people would bother. They are not, in other words, places you'd go to for their own sake.
Which is odd in a way. The old neighborhood movie houses were. Sometimes you went down to the movies to see a movie you had to see. Othertimes you just went to see whatever they were showing you, or more likley a double feature, with a cartoon reel and maybe a news reel. What's interesting is that the neighborhood movies houses that haven't been abandoned or carved into little bits still are destinations in their own right, if not to the same degree they were once. The sterile suburban cineplexes are possibly an idea whose time has come and is going.
fuller... (Score:2)
The new smaller theaters allow you to hear the movie that is in the theater next to you, and in the end the experience sucks. I'd rather enjoy snuggling up on a sofa with my other half and watch a movie in the comfort of my o
Consumers unhappy about theater experience! (Score:3, Interesting)
Going to see a movie is about more than just the movie, it's about the experience and as it stands now in most theaters, the experience sucks. There's an awesome theater about a half hour away with huge seats spaced far enough apart where you can order good food (not just pop corn and candy) and alcoholic beverages. If I'm going to spend a small fortune to go see a show it'll be in a place like that. Otherwise I'm hitting the second run theater a month after the show comes out or catching it on DVD 6 months later.
It boils down to prices versus experience. If I'm going to be in a crowded theater with seats close together and have to put up with all of the other crap I mentioned above, then it better be for a reasonable price. I don't mind paying more, but it better be in a theater that provides an experience that justifies the price.
It's a shame too because I used to love going to the movies but now I reserve it for the big budget, special effects laded summer popcorn flicks. Those spectacles were made to be enjoyed on the big screen and I'm willing to tolerate the crap some of the time.
It *is* fuller and more entertaining! (Score:2)
They are both right (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, Even at $25 for two tickets and popcorn, and seeing a movie approxamitely once every other week, if I decided to save that money, I'd still not have enough money for the minimum payment on a $5000 entertainment center, complete with surround sound and super sized TV.
I also find the experience of a theater very enjoyable. The screen is bigger than I can buy anywhere, the accoustics and sound system at a modern theater are very good in my experience, AND I get the experience of being in an audience. Laughing and cheering with a bunch of people in a theater has always made any more more enjoyable. Some of the star wars haters will always complain, but the feeling of the audience whooping and hollering when Yoda uses the force to whip out his lightsabre and get into a fighting stance... it's priceless emotion.
And nothing beats an action movie on a huge screen. Sense and sensibility doesn't lose anything being watched on your TV, but you had to see... and I mean SEE... episode 3 on a big screen at least once to get the beauty of the visuals... if you are into that sort of thing.
Now, you may prefer being at home and not want to deal with the muck on the floor, or stupid people with cell phones. You may not want to have to deal with schedules or times. These do not bother me as much. I'm selective of my movie theaters and some of those theaters do suck much more than others. I prefer comfortable seats and decent equipment and no weird smells. If you don't have a theater like this, I would not be surprised if you prefer home theaters. If your eyes aren't sharp like mine then pretty special effects might not impress you at a 50 foot viewing angle.
The point is, the market should go where ever the market says it wants. If people like movies in the theater, fine. If people want to see more movies sooner at home instead, fine. BOTH of these men are looking at the issue from a selfish perspective, regardless of who is right. I believe there will always be demand for movies in the theater, but how much is dependent on the people buying the tickets and DVDs, not the CEO pigs who want to take your money regardless of what you really want.
Theaters make money on a sliding scale by time (Score:5, Insightful)
Studios are incented to pack everyone into the first weekend. Theaters want nothing more than the sleeper hit of the year -- where audience builds over time.
Faster dvd releases mean less opportunity for the most profitable time a movie is in the theaters.
Here's my idea (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Pay the workers more than min wage. That way they're be cheerful and friendly to me.
2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.
3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)
4. Show better films. (Talk to your friends in Hollywood, tell them to spend less of their budgets on marketing and more on the script.)
5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.
6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)
Re:Here's my idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite the popular misconception, theaters are not cash cows flush with funds. Paying people more is a good way to drastically increase overhead, which means you need higher ticket prices, higher concession prices, more ads before the movie, or some combination of all three.
Furthermore, paying someone more does not automatically mean they'll be better employees. If you doubt that, just compare a union worker with his or her non-union counterpart. The union workers usually have comfy union-negotiated salaries or hourly rates with generous benefits, shorter hours, longer breaks, and more vacation time. They also are generally less productive and more surly than non-union employees. I understand there are exceptions to every rule, but as a general rule, union employees make more and do less than non-union.
2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.
And why do you think things are so expensive? Because the theater owner has to pay for his fleet of Ferrari's in his garage? See comment #1, specifically the part about theaters not being big moneymakers to begin with. The theater essentially makes all its money off concessions. Ticket prices barely cover costs. No profit == theater closes down. Theaters cannot be run on welfare.
3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)
Have you priced any of these things? Digital projectors for theaters can cost well into the six figures. Who's going to pay for all that? The theater owner who's barely covering costs already (and doing that by charging high prices for concessions, remember)? Not hardly. He's doing all he can not to go under ever time he shows a flop. The big chains are hurt quite a bit by this, but the little chains are being absolutely murdered by studio requirements for sound and picture upgrades that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per theater room. For a 24 screen megaplex you could be talking a few million dollars to upgrade the whole theater. Do you have any idea how many $5 cokes and $8 bags of popcorn you'd have to sell to recoup such a cost?
4. Show better films. (Talk to your friends in Hollywood, tell them to spend less of their budgets on marketing and more on the script.)
No argument there, but that's hardly something controllable by the theater owners.
5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.
So you can fit fewer people into a theater, which means less revenue per showing, which means losses increase, which means either (a) higher ticket prices, (b) higher concession prices, (c) a combination of A and B, or (d) the theater goes out of business. There isn't some magical money tree growing in the theater manager's office, you know.
6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)
Which, again, reduces revenue. Are you willing to pay higher prices to get fewer ads? I'd bet not.
Look, I have a monster home theater setup. I rarely go to theaters anymore precisely because of the issues you cite above. However, I'm not naive enough to think all this is the fault of the theater owner. The majority of the issue sits with the studios requiring amazingly high fees for showing the movie, forcing the theater chains to charge what they do and show as many ads as they do just to cover costs and eek out a meager profit. The studios do this because they have to finance the next US$200 million Hollywood flop and pay the lead actor's US$100 million salary (see Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, etc.)
Blaming the theater for your above items is about as stupid as blaming the gas station for high gas prices. Or did you not know the average gas station makes about a 2-3 cent profit per gallon, nothing more? Like gas stations, theaters are at the end of a long chain of costs, trying to sell a product to you at a reasonable cost that allows them to stay in business and make a small amount of profit. Judge them a little less harshly in light of this if you don't mind.
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
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
A "fuller, more entertaining experience", huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet they wonder why I rank them with telemarketers and spammers...
Here's an idea (Score:3, Interesting)
How are theaters better? (Score:3, Insightful)
seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience'
I prefer watching movies at home with friends. Here's why:
- I keep my floors clean.
- My chairs, sofa, futon, etc. are very comfortable - unlike backache-inducing, more-cramped-than-coach-seats-on-commercial-airli
- I can put my feet up, stretch, lie down, hop on one foot, or stand on my head while watching a movie at home
- No annoying people yelling "Oh no you di'nt" at the screen
- film's superior resolution is more than negated relative to DVD by perpetually-out-of-focus projectors. If my television ever goes out of focus I'll crack it open and adjust it, or replace it. Theaters never bother to pay a "projectionist" to maintain focus throughout a movie - or even adjust focus beforehand
- Even stadium seating sucks
- I can pause DVDs for pee breaks
- I can eat whatever I want during a movie at home, drink water without paying $3.00 for 16oz of tap water, make a milkshake, or whatever
- My sound system at home (mostly Pioneer Elite components) is far superior to typical movie theater systems
Now, if they were to keep the movies in focus, push seat rows slightly further apart so I can put my feet up (or let the seat lean back a little more), either clean up the floor or throw out punks who leave a mess (or preferably both), oh, and did I mention actually focusing the projector? Then, a theater experience might be better than a DVD. I've seen only ONE movie in the last few years that was very crisply focus, and it went out of focus just a few minutes into it.
I really would like to know why paying $11/person to watch an out-of-focus movie on a big screen is superior to OWNING the DVD for between $9.00 and $25.00 and watching it in very crisp focus on a 36" screen. Somebody please explain this to me. I've only bothered going to one movie in the last year (Chronicles of Narnia/The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe) and that's ONLY because I've been a fan of the Narnia books for 23 years. I usually wait for the movie to hit DVD before seeing it.
What about movie quality? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alot of readers here have already pointed out the physical theater disadvantages, commercials, exorbitant ticket & food prices, cell phones, and voice-overs, so I won't bother expanding upon those point.
Hollywood is just trying to figure out the fastest way to sell us crap and DVD is cheaper than sending out 2400, 88-min long, film reels.
It's a miracle (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, just after television came on the scene, the film industry was forced to introduce "novelties" like Cinerama [wikipedia.org], CinemaScope [wikipedia.org] ("Movies Are Better Than Ever!" went 20th Century Fox's ad slogan) and Panavision [wikipedia.org] to counter the "let's just stay home and watch TV!" attitude that was beginning to arise in the early 50s.
Lately, we've seen the advent of stadium seating [wikipedia.org] and of course IMAX [wikipedia.org]. While technically impressive, these latter-day improvements to the motion picture theater experience are really just a continuation of the battle for entertainment consumers' hearts and minds.
Now, with the very-affordable home theater systems available today, and high-density DVD formats about to make their entry, I think it's only a matter of time before theaters begin to die. The cost of transportation, tickets and concessions, not to mention the use of precious time, aren't worth it already to a great many people.
Within ten years, I predict that "new release" will mean a film is now available via subscription service to download to your home theater system, and indoor movie theaters will seem as quaint then as drive-in theaters do now.
Re:Don't... (Score:2)
Good.
Most movie theatres I've been to have crap seats, sticky floors, overpriced food, poor picture quality, too many ads, and irritating people sitting around me. Much better to pay the same, or crucially less the cost of a movie ticket, and rent a DVD with the same (to me and my Dolby Digital/DTS rig) quality of audio, better quality of picture and comfier seats.
And if I like the movie, I can buy it to repeat the same quality of viewing over and over again. That way I don't have to risk projectionists
Re:Don't... (Score:3, Funny)
It's funny because it's true.
Re:Ahh yes... good times... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't let your girlfriend catch you saying that.
Re:Ahh yes... good times... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean his mother.
Re:Yeah right... (Score:2)
Re:I haven't been to a movie theater in 4+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides all the rude people talking on phones, kicking my seat, kids crying through the R rated film, etc. DVD's make more sense on the wallet too.
Actually, DVDs make more sense for all the rude people too. They can pause the movie when the phone rings, stretch their legs when they feel the need, and quiet their crying kids without annoying shushes.
Re:I haven't been to a movie theater in 4+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised you have to ask this question. As most of the international community seems to know, there are a large amount of people in the United States who are pompous, arrogant assholes.
execu
The catch is, they're not just arrogant assholes when they come to visit your lovely communities; they're also arrogant assholes here at home. And the rest of us, who aren't assholes, have to put up with them because for some unknown reason laws allowing us to beat the shit out of them for being assholes have yet to be drafted.
Really, if it were legal to beat the shit out of an asshole, there'd be a lot less assholes around.