Slashdot Mirror
Consumers Prefer Movies At Home
Ubergrendle writes "A poll conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Associated Press and AOL confirmed that 73% of movie viewers prefer to watch movies at home rather than at a theater. This article comes on the heels of a consistently poor box office this year, even despite the presence of the new Star Wars film. Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
This is what I have been telling everyone for years!
Let's go over the pros and cons, shall we?
Theater: You lose. You have no control. Don't you go to the bathroom...cause I'm not gonna tell you what you missed.
Theater: You drive x number of miles to be squeezed into a packed, filthy theater with unidentifiable gunk coating the floors and other 'movie patrons' who smell like either really bad milk or really good cheese.
Theater: Public area, public standards of decency apply (barely), see above reason for why you should *never* take off your shoes in a movie theater.
Theater: You are forced to purchase the theater's overpriced, low-quality slop.
Theater: Public restroom. (ick)
Theater: Price of movie anywhere from $2.00 (no more dollar shows anymore, apparently
The choice seems clear.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
No surprise there.
I won't go into a theater anymore. I use Netflix and buy the movies I really want to watch. I've invested in a HD widescreen 52" television and a decent 6.1 surround sound system. Now when I watch a movie:
1. I can get up to go pee without missing any of it.
2. I don't have other people annoying me while I'm trying to watch it. (Well, other then the wife and kids, but what can you do?)
3. I can smoke, and have a glass of scotch.
4. I don't have to watch a half hour of commercials before the movie starts.
And I can do all this from the comfort of my sofa in my boxer shorts.
Oh, and I've never downloaded a feature movie off the net. I've seen them, the quality isn't what I want.
DVD's and home theater systems have made the theater more of a hassle then a special event. Unless you're going by yourself, you're going to spend as much if not more going to the theater then you will buying the DVD. Leave the theaters to the teenyboppers on dates. They're not there to watch the movie anyway.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWWhy is this a surprise? The surprise should be that people still line up for this tripe, long after the series lost its luster.
P.S. People prefer to have sex at home, shop at home, and do most things at home where possible.
When 2 tickets cost more than the DVD it becomes a no brainer. The only time I ever go to a theatre anymore is for a movie I *REALLY* don't want to wait for. An example of this would be the LOTR movies. 99% of everything else I have no problem waiting for the DVD release and watching them then.
- Toby
The main reason my wife and I don't go to the movies a lot are the kids, specifically the teens. They come in, talk the whole time, can't turn off their cell phones, and usually leave a big mess behind.
The price is the second reason, but it's mainly people who can't shut up or at least talk at a whisper. At home I can send my kids to bed if they get noisy.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I'm hearing impaired. Captions are required for me to be able to watch movies or TV. Yet theaters do not provide this vital service to their disabled patrons (the only one that does in my area is a science museum with rear-window captioning installed in its IMAX theater).
... stop whining that people bring in their own food when you're putting the screws to people. Oh, and maybe you should go into that Walgreens across the street someday, which is selling "theater size" boxes of candy for HALF what you are!)
This is why I will wait for the DVD unless it is a movie I really can't wait to see, and even then I have to know the basic story first (like LOTR and the Star Wars films). I have no choice but to wait for the DVD release.
Whatever happened to the class-action lawsuit that was planned to force this accomodation to be added under the ADA? This is, I feel, a valid reason to bring suit. If there's space for wheelchairs, they're accomodating the visibly physically handicapped -- but those of us with that invisible disability get stiffed.
(Oh, and the overpriced food is another thing
i am a soviet space shuttle
I believe that Mr. Cuban has proposed something like this, but imagine if the movie studios really took off with this idea. What if on the day a movie is released, it's:
1. Available in the theaters
2. Available on DVD
3. Available as a pay-for-download (say either pay-per-view, or an iTunes Video Store kind of idea (granted, that would mean Apple or someone would have to come up with a good home media Tivo like device that's not a whole fricken' computer - say around $300 or so. Tivo should be hopping over that.)
You can go to the movies and see it on the screen, and on your way out buy the DVD if you like. There - theaters and studios just got your money twice!
People (such as myself) with young children who don't attend many movies since small crying children in theaters are bad could either rent the new release (even at a premium of $10 for the rental of a "brand new!" movie release could be worth it), or pick it up in a store for $20 - $25 to own (maybe "new movie" DVD's are a little more, which would be acceptable, then go down in price after six months or so depending on the movies popularity), or tell the machine "I want to buy this movie - go download it" and, if the machine is set up smartly to auto-download certain movies in encrypted format for use (I believe DirectTV was thinking of an idea like this), I'm watching it.
Or use Pay-per-view. Whatever.
The movie industry could drive hugh amounts of revenue. Rather than hand-wringing with "Oh, nos! Teh bad hack0rs will steal our movies if we let them be downloaded", odds are they could see a doubling or tripling of sales the first 48 hours a movie is out. They could have re-releases of the DVD with the cool "Director's cut" (or even offer that the day the movie is released and get around the rating systems in the theaters) and get people to buy it twice.
It's so brain numbingly obvious, it's a mystery to me that nobody's at least tried it. At least maybe on a lesser known title that they don't expect to do well at the box office and see how it goes.
Anyway, this is all just my own opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Why do some people think that one has to eat during a movie? Don't some people eat a regular meal like dinner or something before going to see a movie?
Again? Is this Pee-Wee?
For me, there are theatre movies, and there are 'renters.' Most comedies, dramas, or any other movie that I'm only somewhat interested in get rented. But although I have a pretty good set up here (5.1 surround, Sony Wega HDTV) it still doesn't compare to the sound or screen in a good theatre. Star Wars, Batman Begins, and other huge movies like that demand a theatre. My home theatre just doesn't compare.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
I guess their definition of a 'slow year' is different from mine.. Here are the box office totals for the latest star wars flick,
Domestic: $336,736,523 49.5%
+ Overseas: $344,085,178 50.5%
= Worldwide: $680,821,701
Fuck, it'll hit a billion in a few months probably.
Why can't we be called "people"?
I for one am tired of the implication that my only purpose in life is to mindlessly devour everything marketed at me, and to take on as much debt as possible in doing so.
That's pretty much it for me. There are downsides involving ignorant cinema goers making too much noise, but not much else. If I'm taking my wife for a night out, very rare for us now as we have young kids to look after, it's likely we'll go for a film. Whilst I enjoy watching films at home, it simply doesn't feel anywhere near as special.
Cheers,
Ian
Hmmmmmmm, let's see... movie at the theatre:
Or, movie at home:
Yeah, I'm not sure I get it... why would anyone prefer the theater over watching movies at home?
Correlation != causation. The reason people are unwilling to leave their homes is that the movies are not compelling, too expensive, and not sufficiently better than the alternatives available at home.
Home Theater: Currently limited to crappy-ass TV-resolution
Theater: Experience the awesomeness of film.
But yeah, I agree. Movie theaters haven't really got all that stuff going for them these days.
Give me DVDs with full HD-resolution released in a somewhat sane timeframe, and you probably won't see me going to the theaters anytime soon.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
This is yet another press hit for the MPAA in support of their cry of declining revenues due to "internet freeloading scum".
I am pro-lifechoice.
I'd rather see movies in the theater much of the time. There are only a few I'm willing to pay $10 to see, and others I'll watch on DVD. But since all the threads so far have dissed movie theaters, I'll defend them.
The best reason to see a movie in the theater is the size of the screen and the corresponding resolution. Movies that are beautifully shot don't translate well even to a 30"+ screen. Partly that's because of the DVD format with its limited resolution. The beauty is often in the details. A gorgeous landscape is just a blur on a DVD; the best work of an actor comes out in tiny movements.
I saw Hero on the big screen and loved it; I can't help but think that part of the reason I liked House of Flying Daggers less is because I saw it on DVD. I'm sure it's at least as beautiful, but I just can't see it.
On DVD I'll often watch movies in pan&scan rather than widescreen because widescreen costs me even more of my limited scan lines. Often you can cut off part of the picture as less relevant; it ruins the composition but at least I can see what's going on. Sometimes that doesn't work, either. The only way to appreciate the movie is to watch it at the theater.
Maybe I'll change my mind when I start seeing high-definition DVDs. Even then it'll cost me $3,000 for a large TV and new DVD player; I can see a LOT of movies in the theater for that, even if I splurge and get the popcorn with simulated artificial butter-flavored grease.
Yeah, I don't like crying babies and overpriced popcorn and $20 for me and a date, either. But I go because there are things I do like that I just can't get at home.
(Also, it's creepy to invite your date over to your house for a first date. Movie theaters are a nice, neutral place.)
Granted, movies like Troy and The Day After Tomorrow are ONLY worth seeing in the theater - the only thing these movies have going for them are sweeping, large-scale visuals that don't translate to the smaller screen.
But that's not the only kind of movie that can (nay, *should*) benefit from the large screen treatment.
There are quite a few differences between watching a film in the theater and seeing at "at home on tv". Here are just a few:
1) Focus - when in the theater, there's only one thing to pay attention to: the movie on the screen. When you're watching a movie at home, you can multi-task, the phone can ring, the dog can hump your leg...all things that remove you from entering the world of the film completely. Suspension of disbelief is lower, and it's far less immersive.
2) Contagion - ever notice how some comedies are just a lot funnier in the theater? It's because there are other human beings in there with you, and the laughter is a feedback loop - the more each of you laugh, the more the rest laugh. I watch comedies at home by myself all the time, and rarely laugh out loud (even though they are hysterically funny). But in the theater, my laughing experience is always much higher, and so is my enjoyment.
3) Scale - one thing to remember: on the theater screen, things are larger than life. On your TV, they are *smaller*. A good director has created his work to be shown on the larger screen, not a TV. It's a different experience.
I have seen documentaries in a theater that will blow your mind. Often times the immersive nature of the darkened theater enhances the emotional experience, whereas just watching them on TV relegates them to just that - another thing on TV, like "Friends" or "Everyone Loves Raymond".
Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
That's because when you have the ability to control and afford a 50in + TV (I think I saw a 72 the other day. jesus) it's basically the same as the movie theater, plus you don't have to deal with people yakkin on cell phones, you don't have to sit next to someone that stinks.. and the popcorn is low-fat.
Movie theaters only have the sound and large screen. Everything else sucks:
1. Having to sit through 30 mins of advertising if you show up early.
2. Having to watch 20 mins of previews - that includes advertising. Listening to them bitch about music piracy makes me want to violate their copyright. PSA my ass.
3. Having ass-hats with cell phones use them during the movie.
4. Paying way too much for crap food if you want to eat junk. They use to let you bring in food until they realized they couldn't compete.
The reasons (especially the first post) stated above are very true, but one thing has been left out:
The vast majority of movies released now suck.
No longer do I try to catch a movie on its opening day. Instead, I read review after review, talk to a few friends who saw it, and only then will I consider seeing it in a theater.
But with the turnaround time from theater to DVD being 3-6 months, I usually end up waiting to watch it at home if it's worth watching at all. Instead, I'd rather rent tried and true movies that I haven't seen yet. After 50 years of great film-making, there are still plenty to choose from!
Those that I've seen a few times are those that I'll buy, pre-viewed, from Blockbuster or some place like that for a much reduced cost.
Don't get me wrong, I **love** going to the cinema, but as of late its becoming a horrible experience.
The prices have skyrocketed (where I live its now $10 / ticket). People are rude and inconsiderate (hell, just read a recent experience). Not to mention the crowds. I don't get how the Box Office is not increasingly making a profit, everytime I go (especially during peak hours), there are HORDES of people.....
Either way, thanks to options such as Video on Demand, DVR, and Netflix, I rarely goto the the cinemas now, unless its a movie I can't wait to see, but even to that, I have to wait a week or so, otherwise its ruined....
Perhaps because in relation to the topic at hand, a consumer is precisely what you are. The movie industry doesn't give a flying rat what else you do in your life, because your only relation to it is as one who *consumes* their product. Unless you're involved in the production or distribution, of course. See, using "people" would imply every last person on the planet, and a lot of people don't consume movies at all. "Consumers" makes it clear that we're only talking about those who consume the product in question.
And that's how it should be. Language is dependent on context. When a volunteer organization talks about its people, it will discuss "volunteers", even though surely your only purpose in life is not to be a volunteer. However, in relation to the org, a volunteer is exactly what you are. No more, no less.
Be afraid when you see stories like "49% of consumers voted for Bush in the last election".
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
They don't call theaters "The Big Screen" for nothing.
.
In my city we have the benefit of having a fully restored vaudevillian theater (and one that was considered the most luxurious in its day at that. The first time I saw I show on Broadway in NYC I was shocked at how pathetic the theater was) with plush seats, $2 tickets, snacks at the same price as you'd pay at CVS and biiiiiig fucking screen.
It's God Almight theater.
Makes a big difference in the willingness to leave home to attend.
The only downside is you have to wait for second run, but second run these days is fairly quick, DVD release being the true second run now.
They'll be showing the latest Harry Potter for the first time next month, but they're going to show all three in succession, and the first one they are showing for free! So that's all three Potter movies, in style and luxury, on an old fashioned really big screen, for less than the cost of a box of popcorn at the icky, cramped Hoyts two car garage they call a "theater."
In the first few decades TV did not significantly hurt the movies, despite the dire predictions, because going to the movies was still a God honest event that surpassed the home experience. Since that time the home event has gotten gobs better, although the price of high end home equipment is high, for the real movie buff it comes out to cheaper than footing the rising price of movies viewed in the theater and the theater experience itself, in the quest of squeezing every dime out of the customers for the least possible capital expenditure to do it, has significantly degraded.
When what they really need to do to make sure they keep asses (interpret that word any way you like) is to make sure the theater experience stays ahead of the home experience.
In other words, it needs to be worth your time, trouble and money.
I think the key to doing this is much what another poster suggests. The studios should start to realize (more than they do now, that is) that the theater movie is really just an advertisment for the DVD sales. That's where the real money for the studios is in the long run.
So, show the movie in a pleasant luxurious surrounding, but lower the prices by lowering the cut taken by the studios and release the DVD cuncurrently. .
and sell it in the lobby after the movie, the big cut of that going to the studio, with the theater owner getting enough of a cut to make it worth his trouble to participate. Icing on the cake for him, the real profit for the studios.
Everyone, including the customer, should end up happy.
KFG
When you say 'admitted' you make it sound like way more than 5% of those polled downloaded a movie from the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was low. My parents, for example, still use dial-up. They have no idea what the heck a bittorrent is or how one would even go about getting a movie on the Internet. And once they have it they have no idea how they'd watch it on their TV. I would wager most movie-watching folks fall into this camp...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I recently took a trip to Canada and saw two films there. I was absolutely SHOCKED by the level of silence in the theaters. No cell phones ringing, nobody talking full voice on a cell phone, no crying children, no teenagers running in and out of the theater, no one throwing anything, no couples having irrelevant conversations.... Just pure silence. The difference is totally staggering.
I'm really waiting for someone to make a members only theater that has strict rules about behaviour. I'd gladly pay a membership fee AND a viewing fee to have an enjoyable movie experience again. Bring back the ushers!
An explanation of my choices for friends
Why do some people think that one has to eat during a movie? Don't some people eat a regular meal like dinner or something before going to see a movie?
I haven't figured that one out either. Like they can't go two hours without eating. Plus, the general ambience of masticating jaws really doesn't lend itself well to the movie experience in my opinion. Not to mention, even the smallest drinks are bladder-buster sized and I just fail to comprehend why anyone would stock up on cola when the last thing you want is to have to use those less-than-lovely public urinals. Unless they're the types that look forward to peeing on the urinal cakes, and building up those wonderful kidney stones.
I've seen several tons of people lamenting the $40 tickets (family of 4) plus $20 snacks ($5/per) for a movie out. Granted $60 is no small number. But the cost of home theater viewing can get very, very large too.
My HT, which I do love and prefer to going out, cost a relatively economical $4400 for the TV, DVD player, VCR, 7.1 receiver, speakers, cables, and in-wall wiring in new construction. Add another $900 for 60 or so DVDs. That's the one-time charges. I could take the whole family out to 88.3 movies for that same money. That's one movie a week for 1.5 years
My "HT" is also my family room, so I didn't go all out on gear. When I build a dedicated room in my unfinished basement, I'm estimating $25,000-$28,000 for equipment and furniture, plus $10,000 construction for a 14x20x9 room. (And then there's the other basement rooms...)
For recurring charges, add another $30+ (beyond basic charges) per month, or ~$400/year, for HD cable, DVR, and 2 movie channel groupings. And maybe $4/month for the rare DVD rental. That's ~$450/year, or another 7 1/2 movies/year I could go out for.
Finally, food and drink at home is, of course, much cheaper than at a theater, but it isn't free. I won't bother estimating how much gets consumed during movies in my house, but it would be considerable.
So, yes, theaters gouge, but HT costs aren't trivial.