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
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?
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?
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.
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