Movies Online?

Crowdpleazr1 asks: "I'm starting to wonder if someday I'll consider going out to a theater to be a quaint experience. I just finished downloading the online-only movie 405, created in the spare time of two visual effects guys, and I thought it was a lot funnier than most flicks I pay money for. On top of that, I've been having a blast watching the choose-your-own-adventure movie, It's Your Movie. With Titan A.E. recently being downloaded to a movie theater, I wonder if all movies will soon become online-only affairs. Is there a business model to support this?" An interesting thought. Do you all think that digital movies may eventually bypass the traditional cineplex and be delivered straight to your home? I would pay for something like that.

Comments

What about drive-ins?????

[Sleen]

It seems we are pretty worried about the theater venue waning?

What about drive-ins?

The closest thing we have in Chicago is the Vic theater. Its an older style theater and they play three movies in a night, two bars, popcorn and pizza.

The first time I went, I saw south park, Austin Powers2 and the matrix- all in a row - friggen great time. Beer and pizza whenever you want and it was packed full of rabid fans. Like going to see Rocky Horror picture show at a state school. This is a great movie experience, and it proved that I do actually like seeing movies with other people.

I mean, its not like philosophy club, but its a damn fine time.

If you are ever in Chicago- check out the Vic, they have good Music concerts too!

-Sleen

Re:What about drive-ins?????

[w3woody]

Drive-ins are going the way of the dodo for two reasons.

One, they're land-intensive. In the same acrage of a drive-in, you could build a mall with restaurants, shopping, video arcades and a movie theater all in one.

Two, they're a poor source of revenue. You drive into the theater, maybe you buy food at the consession stand, then you drive away. With the modern movie theaters used to anchor a shopping district or mall, you walk in, buy your ticket, perhaps shop at some of the adjacent stores, see the movie, and walk out to grab dinner at a local restaurant. Perhaps you kill some time at the local bookstore before the movie, and drop $20 on books. But unless you walk right in without looking left or right, and walk right out directly to your car without stopping, you will probably spend more money than at a drive-in.

On the other hand, movie theaters won't go the way of the drive-ins; in fact, they're being built as fast as developers can get plans approved in some parts of the country. That's because most shopping mall developers have figured out that having a movie theater in your mall draws traffic. And with a mall, the best thing you can do is draw traffic; that way, some of them may stay and continue to shop afterwards.

Room for one more

[Transition Cat]

I don't see why it has to replace anything. TV didn't kill movies. Video rentals didn't kill movies or TV. The closest analogy is the demise of the film porn industry after the rise of the video porn industry. I think it's unlikely that the movie-going experience is gonna to go anywhere no matter how good net-based movies get (even if we all have LCD projectors, etc). Hopefully, though, the addition of a viable alternative will lower video and theater prices.
Now, net porn industry v. video porn industry... that I'd like to, err, see! (Yes, I realize this context makes my .sig a little ironic.)

....

nope, not gonna happen

[cheezus]

the movie theater is the primary data venue for many people, especially those under 21 who can't go out to the clubs (a major market group, too). Besides, not every one has the bigscreen tv and surround sound system. Imagine how much more disappointing the phantom menace would have been if you'd seen it for the first time on a 25' tv.

Besides, everyone knows that the MPAA is all about controlling how when and where you see movies, and having the new movies released only in theaters (true, those of us with high speed connections *can* watch the blurry telesync version) gives them the upperhand in controling your entertainment.

---

The Joy of Film

[skeller]

Aside from the numerous responses regarding the theater being a social experience (very true -- I tend to see about a movie a week, and always with other people), there is the fact that digital technology is still not up to the par that actual projected film is. I'll grant that it's catching up, but even the very best DVD is only trying to mimic how the real thing looks.

Additionally, there are new technologies in film that supposedly increase the way it looks dramatically. Maxivision, a system that is projected at 48 frames per second as opposed to the standard 24 may be a major boon to traditional film. Not only do you maintain the richness of color and depth of film, but you get a much sharper picture (particularly of moving objects) as well. Roger Ebert has written pretty extensively about this technology -- you can find one of his articles (not credited) at http://www.cameraguild.co m/news/techno/film_v_digital.htm

Digital recording and projection will have their uses; digital is substantially cheaper than film, and is already becoming a huge boon to independant filmmakers. Movies that are essentially all digital anyway (Star Wars, any sort of big budget Sci-Fi / Action movie) will also see improvements from never having to touch celluloid.

The one other topic I'd like to touch on is the fact that so many people seem to be jumping at the idea of on demand movies from the internet as a great way to replace Blockbuster -- what happened to wanting to actually own movies? Did we learn nothing from the DIVX fiasco? Then again I'd love to have a whole archive of movies that I could watch when I wanted to... there are some obscure movies that are essentially impossible to track down without paying insanely high prices, and if the internet could get me a way to see them cheaply, I'd be all for it.

Re:Er, it's called "television"

[Webmonger]

The movie theatre isn't where big movies make most of their money these days. Video's where it's at. So what's the advantage of a theatrical release?

Strangely, it seems that "credibility" is what comes with a theatrical release. Made-for-tv movies are always "made-for-tv movies", and direct to video movies are always "direct-to-video" movies. But theatrical releases, those are "real movies".

They get major ad campaigns. They get reviewed by the film critics. They're even "group culture". People will talk about current theatrical releases the same way they'll talk about recent events in the world of sports. They'll go see them on dates.

Video has already come up as a contender for movie distribution, and it sure hasn't replaced any of those things. Downloads may replace VHS (oh happy day!) but they won't replace movie theatres. Ever.

My prediction for the future: a "wonder box"

[IntelliTubbie]

Imagine -- using an electronic device to download real-time programming directly to your home! We may not have the technology for such a magical box anytime soon, but here's what (I think) you might expect:

1. high-quality streaming audio and video through an already-existing connection in your home!

2. multiple "channels" showing many different programs at the same time -- including movies, comedy, drama, sports, and news!

3. ABSOLUTELY FREE -- thanks to occasional "commercials" during programming!

What an exciting future we have ahead of us!

(Warning: Do not attempt to adjust the sarcasm knob on your computer!)

the Onion agrees.

[Paul Crowley]

I believe the revolutionary technology you're describing has already been heralded by the Onion.
--

Depends on the format of the film...

[Shoeboy]

disclaimer: I work for AtomFilms.com , but the views express are my own and my employer isn't happy about all the time I spend on /. so I'm unlikely to run this post by them.

I don't believe that the theater will be obsolete. It's too much fun. My house doesn't have
1) a concession stand
2) rowdy kids yelling "focus"
3) sticky floors
4) complete darkness
Some of these seem like nuisances, but I think they're critical to the movie going experience. It's fun. It's not something that you can duplicate in your living room, and not something you'd want to.

That being said, there are a lot of formats that don't work well in the big theater setting. A 7 screen theater is expensive and really only hollywood features have the financing to support the theater distribution model. Online is a lower cost medium that's very friendly to short films, expirimental formats and interactive technology. But there's a limit to how interactive you can get, you can't reproduce the Rocky Horror experience in your living room, and again, you wouldn't want to.

Online movies are going to revolutionize the way content is created, marketed and viewed, but it won't kill theaters. There's always going to be a demand to GO OUTSIDE and see a film. I suspect the people saying 'I can do everything in my living room and don't need to leave the house' don't date much.

Anyway, what online films can and will do is increase the market and exposure for innovative and expirimental films, showcase new technologies, improve audience interaction and empower (I can't believe I just used that word) consumers.

--Shoeboy

Er, it's called "television"

[Reality Master 101]

Some made-for-TV movies don't suck, but they just don't bring in the same sort of money that a major movie theatre feature brings in. It's going to be awhile until you see $100 million productions made for TV. On the plus side, the miniseries is a medium that TV can offer that theatres cannot.

But beyond that, the big screen offers benefits that sitting in your house just doesn't offer. Maybe someday we'll all have 40-100 foot screens in our house, but until then I'll stick to the theatre if I want an immersive experience.

--

Exactly!

[b0r1s]

The appeal of traditional movies isn't always just sitting and watching. For a vast majority of viewers, its a social activity. Watching commedies with a group of friends in a crowded theatre can not be recreated online. Watching horror/suspense movies in dark theatres can be slightly recreated by a home viewer by turning off the lights, closing the windows, etc., but try telling your girlfriend its the same thing and I think you'll find she either laughs at you or breaks up with you.

Going to movie theatres isn't always about watching movies... its an experience that involved environmental factors as well. Until you can pack your house/dorm room/etc with 100 of your closest friends who make rude comments and laugh at unappropriate times, you can not recreate the movie going experience by downloading them online. Besides...some of us still use modems, and it would take me years to download it anyway...I'd rather spend the $8.


================================================ =
If ignorance is bliss, wipe the smile off my face

It will replace going to Blockbuster, though.

[IvyMike]

As numerous people have already pointed out, the experience of watching a movie on even a 24" wide-screen monitor is still a poor substitute for even the worst movie screen. People do go to see movies on the big screen that are available on video (did you see the re-release of Star Wars?), because the theater experience is something far beyond the home experience.

On the other hand, I do think that within the very near future, somebody's going to figure out how to kill the trip to the local video store. TiVo and ReplayTV are the first baby step towards this, demonstrating a digital recording and playback system.

The only thing that will stand in the way of this will be the movie industry itself. But I think that despite their best efforts, a sytem will come out that lets me download movies, and the movie industry will be better off in the end.