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
Sex is better at home during a movie than in a theater too :)
We all saw what happened to Pee-Wee. Aint't no way that's happening to me again.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Well wonder why?
Movie Theater
Ticket: $9.25 x 2 = $18.50
Popcorn: $3.75 (would you like a large for $2.00 more?)
Beverage: $4.25 (would you like a xxl with free refills for $2.00 more?)
Candy: $3.00
Going home and getting laid: Priceless.
Home Theater
Rental: $4.00
Popcorn: $1.00
12 Pack of Coors Ligh: $9.99 + deposit
Candy: $1.24
Turning Gili off, and getting laid: Priceless.
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
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.
If you think the numbers are high now, just imagine how high they will be when large flatscreens get cheap...
They don't call theaters "The Big Screen" for nothing.
And besides, in all the rush to have more choices for moviegoers at theaters, the Big Screens you get at theaters are getting smaller while the ones you get at home are getting larger. As theaters make more and more small rooms to watch in that aren't that dissimilar to home, what's the difference other than sharing the room with a lot of noisy strangers.
Eventually, to survive, I predict that theaters will have to go back to the really big screen. Or start featuring other things, like food, just as air conditioning was once a big draw (and might be again if the poor in the US keep getting poorer and return to the days where they can't afford "basic needs" like dvd players and air conditioners).
There may also be a few kinds of specialty movies, like comedies, where a critical mass of people who are smart enough to get the jokes and make others realize it's time to laugh doesn't hurt either...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
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?
Many people here are complaining about theater food prices. For many theaters, concessions are their only opportunity to earn real money. In my local area, out of an $8 ticket, the theater keeps about $1. ONE DOLLAR. Concessions *require* a huge markup to bring in enough revenue to make the theater profitable enough to exist.
:)
So, the real culprit for high concession prices is Hollywood, for requiring theaters to pay them so much.
This is, however, an excellent reason to eat dinner *before* the movie.
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.
actually most theaters do have captioning, you just have to ask for the mirror thing that goes in your armrest.
article w/diagrams here
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
If you have bought a copy of the DVD, you can legally download another copy where the annoying faetures are removed, under fair use. Well you can in Europe anyway, not sure about other countries.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I think that the best thing I've read on this issue lately is an article in the New Yorker by Louis Menand. It is about the historical perspective (TV robbing movies of their dominance, the rise of the blockbuster, etc.).
r at_atlarge
Here's the url:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050207c
My favorite quote:
And what is the main cinematic experience? The tickets, including the surcharge for ordering online, cost about the same as the monthly cable bill. A medium popcorn is five dollars; the smallest bottled water is three. The show begins with twenty minutes of commercials, spots promoting the theatre chain, and previews for movies coming out next Memorial Day, sometimes a year from next Memorial Day. The feature includes any combination of the following: wizards; slinky women of few words; men of few words who can expertly drive anything, spectacularly wreck anything, and leap safely from the top of anything; characters from comic books, sixth-grade world-history textbooks, or "Bulfinch's Mythology"; explosions; phenomena unknown to science; a computer whiz with attitude; a brand-name soft drink, running shoe, or candy bar; an incarnation of pure evil; more explosions; and the voice of Robin Williams. The movie feels about twenty minutes too long; the reviews are mixed; nobody really loves it; and it grosses several hundred million dollars.
From my blog entry this morning... saves me retyping it all in.
So the CBC has this story, about a recent poll of Americans which found that 73 per cent of them prefer watching movies at home, whether through DVD, VHS or pay-per-view, rather than in the theatre.
I'm sure Hollywood will get in a panic about this, and the MPAA will claim that piracy is to blame, even though only 5 per cent of those polled said they had downloaded a film.
My response to Hollywood is: can you blame people?
You're paying about $10 to go to the movies these days, just for admission (and even that's likely to get worse in Canada, when you read this about Cineplex Odeon buying Famous Players) to watch the latest crapstravaganza featuring the current flavour of the month actor who can't act their way out of a paper bag. The main character has some token development, and is surrounded by wooden characters brought to dubious life by bit actors. When will Hollywood realise the importance of casting for the small roles? Most of the Hollywood movies I've really enjoyed are the ones that people all of the roles, large or small, with quality character actors. Look at Shawshank Redemption, or even Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, which didn't win any actors any awards, but were riddled with people who know how to act. And that makes it so much more convincing versus say, garbage like The Fast and the Furious.
So people end up staying home--why get the car out, haul the family down to the theatre, spend $40 on admission and $30 on popcorn and drinks for a feature you're pretty sure, based on track record, is going to be disappointing? Much easier to stay at home and spend a few bucks renting the DVD or watching the pay-per-view.
But appallingly bad films are not the only reason people are staying at home. Look at the difference in the viewing experience.
At the theatre, I'm stuck in a seat that allows limited shifting of body position, the floor is sticky, people beside me talk to each other about other things throughout the movie, the guy behind me is busy explaining the film to his girlfriend (or worse yet, summarising the plot of Episodes I, II, IV, V and VI of Star Wars at the same time as watching and trying to explain RotS), I'm nowhere near the center of the screen because I no longer have the inclination or energy to line up first or barge past everyone else when they open the doors to get a good seat, the picture is grainy, often out of focus, and the sound is turned up so high and the sound system so poor that high-frequency noises like R2D2's beeps, are actively painful...
Contrast that with, say, watching a DVD at home. I get the seat I want (though I can move during the film if I want, as well). I can put my feet up. My seat is right in the center of the screen. I can have the amount of ambient light I want. I can get up and go to the bathroom without missing the only meaningful line of dialogue in the film, the popcorn is cheaper and tastes better, the picture looks great. And as for the sound system (audiophile geekout coming up, you have been warned)...
I have extreme control over the volume. I can boost the center channel volume so as to hear dialogue perfectly, while keeping the rest of the speakers lower. I've got an Arcam AVR100 amp driving the rear speakers, center channel and subwoofer, and a Musical Fidelity A300 dual mono amplifier driving some Monitor Audio Silver 8 speakers on the front, and the whole experience is way better than what you get
Michael Coyne
http://turthalion.blogspot.com
I agree with you, the social aspect is kind of important. But theatre beats movies for that hands down.
* You and your friends not only have an event to talk about, you have an event that only you saw (every live theatre performance is a little different)
* One word: Intermission (bathroom AND discussion about what's coming next!)
* You know exactly where your money is going because you can SEE actual people and stuff in like 3D or something (OH! THAT'S what reality is!)
* You support LOCAL arts and often even get a voice in what those will be (surveys about upcoming shows, comment cards for the one you just saw, etc.)
* When there are special effects, they are especially interesting because they are decidedly NOT computer generated!
* A movie has to shred your ears and eyes with "CRASH BANG!" and vibrate your seat with 8Hz explosion bass to "immerse" you in the experience. Theatre just uses people which automatically piques your interest and you focus on the event more closely. YOU create your own immersion out of inrigue and desire. You aren't pummeled with "immersion" tactics.
I have seen 3 movies in the theatre in the last 5 years -- LOTR*. The story was important to me because I'd read, nay worshipped, the books for years and years. It's gotta be that big for me to spend my money that way versus supporting a local live show.
I actually remember MORE fondly the experience of watching the LOTR director's cuts at a friend's house with a small gathering of people with whom I usually frequent the live theatre scene!
* I did see one other movie in the theatre during that time frame, but I was on a date with the person who soon became my wife. The movie wasn't really the point.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.