Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Not To Blame In Decline of Moviegoers
lucyfersam writes "In a somewhat surprisingly earnest assessment, the NYTimes has an article about the massive decline in movie-going that does not once try to blame piracy and file-sharing programs. It sounds like studios are beginning to understand that they have only themselves to blame." From the article: "Multiples theories for the decline abound: a failure of studio marketing, the rising price of gas, the lure of alternate entertainment, even the prevalence of commercials and pesky cellphones inside once-sacrosanct theaters. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough."
Let me see, which would I rather do: spend $30+ on a movie ticket, popcorn, and a drink just so I can watch the latest subpar selection of movies at a time set by the theater and have popcorn thrown at me by 13 year old cell phone wielding children, OR pick up whatever movie from the redbox for $0.99 (or DVD rentals through the mail) and a drink and popcorn from the local store all for less than $5 and watch it on my widescreen in the comfort of my own home. Tough call.
Movie Studios Curb Internet Piracy
Hollywood studios have come up with an effective method of deterring Internet file-sharing of movies: Make movies that no one wants to pirate.
In a somewhat surprisingly earnest assessment, the NYTimes has an article about the massive decline in movie-going that does not once try to blame piracy and file-sharing programs. It sounds like studios are beginning to understand that they have only themselves to blame.
But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough.
Obviously this article was conceived, written, and posted by a BitTorrent using hacker who wants to see the continued demise of Hollywood be blamed on the wrong parties. There is no way that Hollywood is putting out bad movies. Look at how much they cost to produce, direct, edit, and market!
Even Robert Shaye, the studio leader behind "The Wedding Crashers," one of the summer's runaway hits, shares the worry about the industry's ability to connect with audiences. "I believe it's a cumulative thing, a seismic evolution of people's habits," said Mr. Shaye, chairman of New Line Cinema.
Yeah, people are annoyed with the fact that they have to pay $9.00+ to see something that cost 100+ million to make and it fucking blows. "Wait for DVD" is an all to common quote, especially with the MPAA pushing them out to the stores as fast as they can in order to attempt to curb piracy in the theatre.
It's really funny that they quoted Shaye. His movie, one of the few that did anything this summer (I haven't seen it yet), was done on a 40 million dollar budget and grossed nearly all of that back in its first weekend alone...
In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house. You had a little bit of backstop."
Yup, and honestly, it really seemed that it was more worth your while to spend quite a few dollars less, find a more enjoyable movie, and be able to relax for two hours. I can do that at home just as effectively for MUCH LESS money if I only wait for two months ($3.00 opposed to $18.50) and watch the DVD.
The box office numbers have led to intense, broad-ranging conversations across Hollywood about the implications. Many studios have commissioned market research to investigate the causes of moviegoing behavior - or the lack thereof.
Pay me, I guarantee you'll find out more and it will cost you less. I'll start you off here: pay the actors less money - they aren't worth 20+ million a movie. Don't use so many pointless special effects - they aren't working in most instances. Charge less for the movie so my ticket prices aren't $9+ -- you'll be able to better compete with DVD and people will be more likely to go to see the show. Ban cell phones, talking, and make adult only showings - it'll make adults more likely to see a movie w/o having to listen to a bunch of underaged kids, take calls, have their ringtones going, and spend the entire movie talking instead of watching the movie and/or making out. Finally, ask people what they think about it instead of whoever you have been paying to figure it out for you. In the article, Michael Lynton said:
Audiences have gotten smart to the marketing, and they can smell the good ones from the bad ones at a distance.
If we can why can't you? Seems like an open and shut case to me.
Quick, someone check for the 4 Horsemen. Repent, sinners! While you still can!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Perhaps because most Hollywood movies are targeted at 13-year-old American girls? Like, Oh My God, how could they, like, not get it?
Now, I think that some of those theories are completely valid. Commercials in the theaters absolutely piss me off. If I'm going to spend 9 bucks to watch a movie, they better not force me to watch commercials before it. Next thing they'll do is start commercial breaks in the middle of the movies. The cell phones are annoying and I like doing other things more than I like watching movies, but in the end, it comes down to what they are finally realizing. The movies suck. If there weren't any cell phones or commercials and I didn't have anything to do, I still wouldn't go.
FTA: In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house. You had a little bit of backstop."
That's amazing, because that's what I always figured they were thinking. And that's the attitude that keeps me away.
Now, I love good special effects as much as the next geek, but, call me old fashioned here, I actually like my movies to have this thing called a plot.
I used to say that I'd just wait for it to come out on video but I won't even waste my time with that anymore. Inevitably, I find myself at the end saying, "Well, there's two hours of my life I'll never get back."
I'll actually deal with the commercials and other annoyances if it means that I can be completely entertained.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
Remember when we used to hate all the damn previews? Now we look forward to them, thankful the commercials are over!
I'd pay extra for reserved seating in a theatre with class and no commercials and previews.
-Z
Nothing to see here. Please move along
Oh No!! The MPAA has taken over Slashdot.
I have noticed with the theaters in my area, that the previews are getting close to 30 min. long. With previews that long, I don't bother to show up to the theater till the time posted the movie should start. It is getting ridiculous.
I know most of the yuppies here will say they don't go because they don't release anything worth seeing anymore. Yeah, whatever. I know I personally don't go much anymore because of the cost (and I'm not talking about gasoline). It's $7/person to get into the theater, and putting aside the guilt trip to buy concessions, I want to have a soda when I'm watching the movie. I have a soda drinking problem, and going the whole movie without a major drink sucks. I do not, however, wish to buy a large soda for $4-$5 (depending on the theater). But I usually do anyway, which contributes to the high cost.
Movie distributors need to charge less, theaters need to lower the price of their concessions, and the industry needs to introduce variable-priced tickets depending on the production costs and perceived popularity of the movie. I'm not willing to pay the same price to see "Bewitched" that I am willing to pay to see Star Wars Ep III. I might be willing to see the earlier if it were a few bucks cheaper just for something to do. But that still leaves the problem with the price of a damn soda.
Whine all you want about recouping costs, but that doesn't change the fact that I choose not to go. Too expensive.
it must be nice for these executives to have finally dislodged their heads from their asses.
COMING SOON: "I Know What You Did Last Friday The 13th During That Cultist Teenage Chainsaw Massacre Thingy Part VIII"
Would you pay to see this shit?
Will there be boobs?
On one hand, I agree that a whole lot of movies today are horrible. On the other hand, people today know nothing of movies or what a good movie is. Take for instance Charlie Chaplin. The man was a romantic genius, pouring his emotions on the screen with "Modern Times" and "Limelight" and tens of other wonderful productions. He wrote, directed, acted in, and even composed the music for most of his work. But people today don't get him at all, and they don't even rent copies of Modern Times at Blockbusters any more.
Or Kurosawa. Seven Samurai is a brilliant film and yet most people can't sit through it. Or Jean Luc Goddard, there's not one movie of his at Blockbuster's. So why make good movies? So that the experts can say they're good? Movies are out to make money and the bigger problem at hand is, how do you make people go to a movie, not how do you make a good movie. I think there is no way, theatres are doomed. People will more and more sit on their lazy asses and pay the 3.99 on demand price whenever the movie is available. So what? Museums used to be hopping places too and now they're just tourist attractions.
But I think there might be hope for capitalism in the US afterall! Hollywood is old school and very traditional; they like things done how they've always been done and in the past have been completely unwilling to acknowledge the need for change. Luckily, the dollar is a very powerful persuader. That being said, I still really enjoy the move going experience but let's save it for movies that are actually entertaining. Let them keep making the crap but send most of it straight to DVD. Might piss the theatre chains off but business is a changing.
i went from watching atleast a movie a week to about 1 every month or so. its just that movies suck. i got tired of wasting my money on something that they just dumped all their money into special effects and forgot about scripts. im hoping that soon the 'eye candy' era will fade out and will go back to just writing good movies instead of relying on good effects. movies like Stealth and what not are definitely not relying on a good script. its scary because at some point, someone said 'HOLY SHIT! I GOT A GREAT IDEA! A PLANE... THAT THINKS ON ITS OWN AND BLOWS THINGS UP! and its fighting only a funny/witty black man, some duffus white guy and a hot chick'
1) Ticket prices have become ridiculous. I like going to the theater in general, but the prices are only warranted on very rare occasions that a film deserves to be seen on the big screen. There was a good discussion in the Tipping Point (I think) about how ticket pricing doesn't reflect supply and demand. The same price for Spider-Man and XXX: State of the Union? A lower price for films not that much in demand would increase the amount of overall tickets sold in gross revenue.
2) Two Towers had about 45 minutes worth of commercials that preceded it. By the time they were over and the film started, I wanted Frodo to get captured and tortured by some orcs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A lot of the movie theatres are just in a disgusting state. They're just not appealing environments for me.
You go there and half the ticket booths are not staffed and the automated ticket machines are all malfunctioning, so you can't pick up tickets bought in advance without having to wait in line.
You get inside the theatre and half the concession stands are unstaffed.
The ones that are staffed have lines longer than the bathrooms, have sticky goo all over the counter and are staffed by people who have no concept of customer service whatsoever.
Once you get your $3 coke, that costs $1 outside the theatre, and start walking to take a seat, you have to struggle to not get your feet stuck to whatever sticky shit is covering the floor.
Whenever you arrive at your seat, you're hoping that you don't sit down on one of the many seats that have been broken for more than 2 months. Once you're reasonably happy with the seat, that still creaks and is uncomfortable, you have to clear your immediate surroundings from droppings left by people attending the previous screening. Anything from gum on the seats and/or armrests, empty soda cups in the cupholders, nachos boxes with old, smelly cheese under the seat, etc.
Then when the movie starts, it actually doesn't start until 20 minutes of commercials.
Why would I go enjoy all that voluntarily?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Do not forget about the rising price of movie prices themselves. Look for yourself at how much prices have gone up here. I can tell you inflation was not that high.
Look at other emerging markets. Tivo: It used to be that you would go and watch a movie when there was nothing on television. Now you can watch the shows you want to see on TV (and there are a lot more channels to choose from), when you have time. Going to the movie theater is now far more inconvenient than it used to be.
Another emerging market: Video games... With a limited amount of entertainment, dollars available and those funds are currently shrinking... Something had to give way to pay for the emerging video game market. Simplest answer: Movies are no longer having their competitive edge that they once did.
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
In just about any creative enterprise, there is tension between the creators, who are often motivated by love of what they do; and the bean-counters whose only goal is to cut cost. The bean-counters have been winning. They've squeezed so much life out of their products for short-term gain that they've ignored the long term consequences, which we are now experiencing, at least in the USA:
- Crappy movies nobody wants to see, (hello Hollywood)
- Crappy music noboby wants to buy, (hello top 40)
- Crappy cars nobody wants to drive, (hello GM)
- Crappy software that is barely tolerated, (hello Microsoft)
There are people who will pay time and money for quality, but it isn't clear they can support businesses large enough to displace the mediocre behemoths.
No, not the price of labor, although the payscale for some high talent actors is amazing. But let's face it; most of those actors aren't just selling their talent, they're selling their name and history of past successes in roles.
But here's an ugly truth: The next time you go to a movie theatre to see the next big summer blockbuster sci-fi blam-kapow film, you'll probably pay, say, $10.00 for the film ticket.
It costs the theatre $14.00 for the rights to show you that movie, per person. So right off the bat, they've lost $4.00. Hence the insane prices at the concession: They *have* to make that money back at the concession, or else they have to raise the ticket prices by %40 or so.
The cost for special effects and high budgets is passed on in this way. The rights for a theatre to screen a movie made on a budget of 20 million dollars is much cheaper. The rights for a theatre to screen a movie that cost 200 million dollars is much more expensive.
Theatres frequently lose money per ticket sold, on the more expensive films.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
Shark Boy and Lavagirl! I mean, come on - 3D! IT'S A 3D MOVIE FOR GOD'S SAKE! That means you get special glasses which YOU GET TO KEEP!! How can you complain about the price when you are getting special glasses FOR FREE?! Check her out: LAVA GIRL
Allow me to recap:
- 3 dimensions (4 if you count the time it takes to watch the movie, upwards of 10 if you factor in certain physics theories)
- SPECIAL GLASSES
- Hot lava girl
"Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough."
They got really close here, but the honest truth is that many people who would have gone to movies simply aren't quite as bored as they once were. While not all information is free, the internet makes it much easier to access information and people... There's plenty of people learning, socializing, or just getting a load of visual kicks off the net that movies just can't compete with.
To be quite honest, why _should_ people have cared about Cotton coming to Harlem in the first place, what the Matrix is, or if the funky looking chick from that unfunny Bill Murray movie can escape an island? Arguably, they didn't. Most people just want to avoid boredom or spend time with their mates without actually having to converse. There will always be a market for movies, but probably not quite as big a share of the market ever again.
That, and the modern theater experience sucks. $3.50 for popcorn is a huge markup, 10 minutes of previews is about 10 minutes too many.
Whispering every so often is one thing, but my girlfriend and I have had some bad experiences with going out to see a movie. We had a couple sit down next to us and the woman was some frumpy, dumpy middle age woman and she kept glaring at my girlfriend (who was just resting her head on my shoulder) and even coughed up and sprayed a bunch of spit on my girlfriend's leg. Then there are the cell phones, the kids that aren't forced to sit down and watch the movie or leave and things like that.
We really need the theatres to say to people, "look if it's an emergency, take the call, but otherwise if you take the call we'll throw you out." I leave my cell phone off anyway. The real problem is that so many Americans are just selfish bastards and don't bother to think about others. They don't care about others' rights because it's all about them, them and only them.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I like going to the cinema. I'm predisposed to enjoy a night out watching a film and going for a drink afterwards and discussing it. However, even I'm sick of it these days.
Why?
1. Too expensive.
2. Cinemas are run by idiots. I regularly have to get up and complain to get the picture shown correctly (and on one occasion, with sound).
3. Idiots who eat/talk or generally make nuisances of themselves, and the cinema staff do nothing.
4. Formulaic drivel. The large Hollywood studios have driven out of mainstream cinemas anything remotely interesting in favour of their relentlessly formulaic shite. Well, ok, not entirely, but unless you have a big studio behind it, it just doesn't ger exposure.
5. Adverts/patronising lies/lectures about copyright instead of starting the film. I don't mind trailers (in fact, I quite enjoy a good "coming soon" section)... but I'm sick of being patronised and treated like a mark rather than a paying customer.
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
pay the actors less money - they aren't worth 20+ million a movie.
While I don't disagree with you, can we start with cutting the salaries of the executives first? Those are the real salaries I want nixed and they are paid far more than the actors.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I disagree with most of the FP lot.
Most movie theaters are located in very high rent areas. Of course tickets will also be pricy. I don't think there's a quality drop, it seems pretty status quo.
I truly believe that our beloved Internet is to blame. You're seeing the same death knell in brick and mortar retail, restaurants, and even car buying. In a capitalist view, time preference is making new markets. The idea behind time preference is that markets flow towards the faster and cheaper sources. Price is rarely the reason.
Car dealers are selling cars at cost -- with no change in the market slow down. Cars are bought with future earnings often (financing). A lot of people fear their future earnings. Movie theaters prosper when people have money and time right now. Job security has declined, debt has gone way up, savings are nil.
My retail stores are down 50% since 2004. I have less cash to pay my employees. They have less cash to go to the movies. The movie theater employees have less cash to buy my goods, so they buy online -- money that is 'outsourced' to another state, unlikely to return to my local economy. Rinse, repeat.
Our dollar loses more value every day as the Fed inflates our currency. That is a fact. My local economy suffers, and in my experience the money that is made online by big warehouses tends to end up in Mexico and Asia. Not enough is recycled back to theaters, car dealers and local retailers.
Eventually time preference always wins. As our standard
of living declines, the standard of living in Mexico and Asia increases. The Internet is allowing the free market to balance itself out. Wage
internationally want to equalize no matter what government or big business wants to do. Its the law of a supply/demand reality.
Who here went to movies & restaurants often in the 90s? How many new cars at 8% interest did you buy then? How many new cars at 0% and employee price will you buy this decade? How much has your debt gone up in that time?
I don't know why people feel the need to eat during movies anyway. I think they do it mainly out of tradition.
I avoid having drinks because the last thing I want is to have to run to the bathroom in the middle of the movie. I hate having to do the old "Is this scene going to be important to the plot?" check before I can run off.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Last year's number are an abberration, mainly due to one film. The Passion of the Christ brought in people that typically do not go into movie theatres, it also brought in more repeat sales as some people felt compelled to watch it over and over again. This same phenomenon happened with the movie Titanic, with many people boasting they had seen it 5 times or more. If sales stay constant until years end the film industry is looking at one of it's highest grossing years of all time. The dirty little secret is that all those terrible movies we complain about (Stealth, Duece Bigalow) will make a substantial profit. Yes it is lower than last year but in the movie industry all it takes is one monster hit to change that. Not making that grand slam every year does not make it an decline.
1. Stop releasing sequels.
2. Stop remaking classics.
3. Stop turning books/comics into films.
4. Stop relying on special effects.
5. Write a good story, dammit.
If copying movies over the net was technically impossible, movie piracy wouldn't be as bad as today. But it is. On the other hand, they offer NO alternative (aside from suing) to the people who are willing to download movies instead of going to an overcrowded theatre where popcorn price are insane, babies are crying and teens are making more noise than the THX sound system.
:), just 10 years ago, i'd never seen that many people getting up and going to get a refill or taking a leak during a movie. This is really disturbing when you are trying to concentrate, and if I go to a theatre, last thing I am looking for is the "living room" feel where everyone talks or comments while the tv is on.
:) but if there would be a download service that would cost me 10$ a movie, I'd pay it, I'd split it with people watching me, and we'd have a superb experience, they'd get new money from people that wouldn't have gone to the theatres in the first place, but I admit; I don't know how this could affect their current audience. Still, there's a HUGE market for internet downloads, and iTunes didn't make artists go starving.
It's been what... about over 5 years now that most people can get fast net connection. How come there's only a handfull of online video "renting" services? This is because some dinosaurs didn't want to change, they even had the chance to see their audio cousins getting smacked by piracy and had YEARS to prepare to counterattack by offering a better experience. They didn't. Today, they are way behind.
One of the reasons I went from going every week to the theatre, down to about 3 times a year (aside from the obvious "i'm not going to pay 20$ to see this much crap" is also that the overall experience seems to get worse or I am getting older
This brings me to the living room feel. Actually I think more and more people like having projection screens or large displays, it's more affordable than it used to, and best of all, movies are out to DVD just a few months after showing in theatre, cheaper, so you can basically have almost the same experience, "free" popcorn, talk without disturbing, or watch without being disturbed, and best of all, you can rewatch or rewind if you missed something, at your convinience, and when you feel like it. You don'e need to drive to a specific time, you don't need to wonder if it's going to be filled at a premiere before you show up, etc..
I own a projector and sound system, and I must admit that it's not a THX experience, but it sure as he** better than the last 5 times I went to a theatre.
Of course, if there would be more SWIII or shrecks being put to the screen, I wouldn't want to wait and they would probably get me back in the theatres
People are willing to pay overquota bandwidth, or HS internet ONLY for that purpose, I don't think the argument that they get it for free thus they wouldn't pay holds for everyone. If you get them on a faster pipe at let's say 5$ (or less) a download, at a high quality, many would pay.... I would.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I pay ~$100 a month for a full-on Dish Networks setup - already had 500 watt 5.1 in the living room. Got a dual channel DVR from Dish and a dual receiver in the home office wired to the two PCs in there. If I'm still bored there's always Netflix.
The reason I say this is that after going to the movies once or twice a month or so I finally got sick of it. Two movie tickets, one shared soda and a bucket of popcorn run about $25 and the spousal unit believes that Movies Always Include Dinner Out.
So - if I get out of the deal for less than $60 I'm doing pretty well and it made the whole satellite thing extremely attractive.
These days we go to the movies a couple times a year instead of a couple times a month - and that's only when we think some film's special effects must be seen on a big screen - like LOTR, Star Wars, War of the Worlds and so on.
She's got about four gazillion channels of TV to watch, enough sound system to make the neighbors complain and in the end it's one hell of a lot cheaper than going to the movies.
Oh - and the full-on Dish setup is only about ten bucks a month more than digital cable was; and we wired up two more sets and got two more premium packages plus a DVR in the deal. Cable companies, maybe you should pay attention too.
And for the rest of you folks who think you have monopolies, I also bought two cell phones recently and ported the home wireline to my wife's cell. It's time consumers started voting with their feet (and with their wallet).
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Okay! We all know that the MPAA ( The group of people hired by the Mafia who represent their wholly owned industry of Hollywood) whines that online piracy is causing them huge loses, but as Newsday stated so well, Shed no tears for the motion picture industry
The facts are that no matter how many press releases they shove down the throats of their news subsidiaries they are not losing money on any measurable scale because of people downloading video camera captures of movies online. If they ever cleared the system of book keeping they use so that stars, writers, producers etc did not have to sue to collect actual profits Excerpt from How the Movie Wars Were Won by John W. Cones and even going so far as to try to tell Stan Lee that the movie "Spiderman" made no money forcing him to sue for revenue, then MAYBE I might have some sympathy for them. Were you aware that based on Hollywood bookkeeping four of the top ten movies of all time...LOST MONEY!!! So they have no idea what their actual revenues are versus costs, so at this point no one can say if they are losing money. I think the entire problem is that the massive amounts of money generated by this industry have resulted in one overwhelming problem. Greed.
So, lets talk about why there is a decline in movie attendance, based on the assumption of it NOT being piracy. Well, first lets examine the fact that,
"In 2004, domestic box office sales were $9.2 billion (with three-quarters going to the major distributors, who must share the box office gross with the theaters), up slightly from 2003. DVD sales and rentals came in at $21.2 billion, up almost a third from the previous year." -Newsday
Hmm so they made MORE money in 2004 than 2003, okay well what about the current 2005 movie year?
"Blase adds that 2005's gross reflects that 10 fewer films have been released by the studios so far this year. And, she says, if you eliminate 2004 anomalies like "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" - the highest-grossing religious and documentary films ever - 2005's box office is actually up by 2 percent" -Newsday
So in 2005 the box office is lagging and they have released fewer films, and have not produced any automatic sellouts like those based on a religion held by a majority of the nation or those based on propaganda that would make Leni Riefenstahl happy. It is easy to see the real truth is that the evil online pirates sharing second rate views of movies are the problem here, isn't it? The problem is the MPAA and their watchword. Greed.
So aside from those numbers, let's talk about a trip to the movies. I have a rather 50'sesque Nuclear Family with a Y2K twist, my wife and I have two children half the week and they spend the other half with their father, but we have them weekends. So for the sake of argument I will assume a Saturday evening viewing of a movie and at regular price. Before someone asks why not go to a matinee and save money, locally the regular versus matinee pricing is not really that different, $9.50 evening, and $7.00 matinee. But in the interest of fairness, when I hit my totals cost for the evening subtract 10 bucks if you want matinee pricing. Why have mostly empty daytime showings and not reduce the price to attract more customers? Greed.
So lets go step by step through what it runs my family to see a movie, and I will pick something harmless that we all attended as a base. Charlie and the Shreking Nemo is about as white bread as they come in the movie field, we look it up to find out times, and we pack up the car. Now nearest Gigantagoogplex of screens is in the suburbs because Showcase/AMC etc fear urban areas so much that Magic Johnson is making a mint setting up theatres in cities. My city has 105k people and not a single screen in the city limits but immediately outside of them we have 30 plus screens.
Its the damn food prices! That are absolutely insane! I remember when they first put in fast food chains at the local movie theatre... I was looking at the Burger King menu and thought, jeez, these prices are almost the same as their regular chain stores... After I bought it, I asked where my drink was, he said it wasn't included and it woulds cost me another 4 bucks!!! I don't mind paying 9$ for a ticket but another 10 bucks for a softdrink and popcorn is insane. Personally, I bought a widescreen TV and it costs me 50$ a month. Thats less than 2 theatre movies for me and my wife.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
What you reall want is to see a film WORTHY of watching in such an environment, whether on your deluxe Home Entertainment Center or the local Bijou -- That's what's really at issue this year, a bunch of duds. Probably one of the most popular films, not necessarily in cattle herding terms, but enjoyment, is March of the Penguins. That speaks volumes. You also expect the theater management to do something to block cell phones. Have to asked to see the manager and complained, or do you just grumble a lot then make postings on /. and hope the theater managers of the world happen by it and repent?
Digital theaters are on the way and the bar for getting a "film" on the local screen will be less an issue, except where those are in collusion with Hollywood and MPAA to keep the bar up there against independent film.
Theaters offer an environment I could only manage if I won the lottery, which I've so far failed to do. So for my $ it's still a good deal, as long as there is something WORTHY of my time and money. Hollywood is part of your problem, not just the tired remakes, but the fact you have very little variation in performers. We've gotten away from ugly, but talented people who made the great movies of the golden age, to a bunch of look alikes who don't vary from one film to the next, Tom Cruise as an example. Hollywood likes "safe bets" and has therefore cut out a lot of the real character that made films so interesting in the past, because the found the public was just fine with vanilla. Problem is, too much vanilla acting has made it all dull.
Support independent cinema. Most of the best films I've seen in the past 5 years were at the Nickelodeon or Del Mar theaters in my city. Find and give your custom to those where you live.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The reason for decline in theater attendance is that it is just too damn expensive. I have a family of 6. The cost for us to go to the theater is about $70 even at matinee pricing. That's about $35 for admission and another $35 for popcorn and drinks. It's just too much money for 90 minutes of entertainment. It's really the snack prices that put me over the edge. $35 for popcorn and soda is absurd. We *like* going to movies but at these prices I choose to invest in my own home theater and wait a few months for the DVD release.
Theatre attendance declining because U.S. studios don't make good movies? What other shocking revelations await?
Next, they'll be saying that U.S. auto manufacturers are declining because they don't make good cars.
Thanks heavens there's at least one area in which the U.S. still leads. Thanks heavens Microsoft still makes the world's best software.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Lately I've only been going to movies at the Classic Cinemas theatre near my home. It doesn't show all of the movies that have been out, and it doesn't show the movies when they are brand new, but it sure is a great experience to go there. The movie only costs $3, there's only one GIANT theatre to worry about, on Friday and Saturday evenings they have a real-live organist playing before each show, and they have free popcorn refills. Definitely the way movie watching should be.
Posted from the wireless couch.
The internet and rise of computers have turned too many people into hermits, and not to sound like a "player hater", but today it seems like more and more relationships are mainly bedroom oriented. This of course also results in many people being reluctant to start relationships to begin with. The whole drug thing has also really kept going strong despite the "war on drugs" which generally keeps people either on the couch or in the fridge. I think it is safe to say that one contributing factor to the decline in movie theatre revenues is that there are fewer dates being brought to them, and that much of the general population is degenerating to the point where movies do not provide their stimulation as much as drugs, alcohol, sex, internet, video games.
There are also home movies. I have opted out of going to the movies several times, because it was a long movie and I didn't want to have to go that long without smoking. What ever happened to intermissions!!! I understand that it would be rude of me to want to smoke in doors, but at least have a heart and give the smokers a little break.
I agree with the theory that DVDs should be released simultaneously with the theatrical release.
I have two young kids, so I can't go and see movies in the theaters as much as I'd like. (Actually, I never get to see movies in the theater.) However, I keep being inundated with movie marketing in such away that I really want to see certain movies. But by the time they come out on DVD so I can rent them, I no longer care to do so. The marketing fog surrounding me has long since cleared.
A good example is the movie "40 Year Old Virgin." It sounds hilarious and I really want to see it. Will I want to see it four months from now when the DVD is release? Almost certainly not.
All the money the studios spend on marketing is wasted on people who cannot, for whatever reason, not go to theaters. If DVDs were immediately available, the marketing would not go to waste.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Another factor might be this: Over the last 5 years or so, Hollywood's marketing machine has become increasingly effective at hyping every single movie, making the opening of a movie seem like an event you have to participate in or be forever mitigated to a lowly social rung. This has made movie openings much larger than they were 10 years ago, even for utterly crappy movies. It might take them a while, but eventually people become numb to the hype and these new marketing techniques, and movie attendance drops accordingly.
Around me, the price of a movie is 9 dollars so to go out with my wife to the movies cost $18.00 (not including junk food). My view is that if it only costs 12 bucks for my wife and I, I would probably see twice as many movies a year. The theatres and Hollywood have overshot the "sweet spot" of movie prices and even though twenty dollars is not a lot of money, there are too many alternative forms of entertainment one can do for less or with better value than a movie when going out. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movies because movies have been on par with previous quality of entertainment in previous years- just the price has changed. It is cheaper for me to buy a dvd of the movie than to go to the theartre and watch it. Go figure.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Starting with the one I haven't seen posted yet...
Action movies today are too fast for 24fps film. With all the fast motion and cuts, it becomes a blur. Those few extra fps on DVD with a clear TV completely blow away a projector. It is a whole different movie at home.
TV's got bigger while movie screens got smaller.
Home audio is better and you have a freaking volume control.
People get imposed upon while the MPAA looks for cameras.
The quality of movies has declined. What happened to many great movies per year? As it is, even Stealth will win awards this year just because it was released.
If you muct run commercials, run them BEFORE the movie is scheduled to start, while people are comming in. We paid for a MOVIE, not a commercial.
People are RUDE in theaters. STFU! Theaters should enforce this and remove people who ruin it for others instead of looking for cameras.
The pricing for food and drinks is crazy. It is a long time well known joke.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Movies are a prime example of my theory.
How much money is spent on advertising a movie? What percentage is that of the total cost? How much do the theatres themselves advertise? How much of that is the total cost? In short, how much money is used (I'd love to say wasted) telling me to go see a movie that I already know that I want to see because of the natural free advertising that takes place every day? (Look up movie listings through the movie theatre's website, see articles on CNN / imdb, hear from friends, hear countless plugs on TV [not ads]). All of those communications costs the film crew zero dollars. Those affect me. Then you buy an ad on TV or in a magazine. Trust me, I'll almost never see it. Even if I did, why would I go to a movie that I didn't learn about from a more trusted and objective source? Why would I even by aware of your commercial?
That's just movies. It gets far, far worse than that. Company A buys products from Company B which buys from Company C which buys from Company A. 'A' gets investor pressure (or anything, really) and starts a marketing campaign to get more customers, thus increasing the price to 'B'. Now 'B' needs to market and/or raise prices to break even with the change, costing more to 'C', and now 'C' must do the same, causing 'A' to choke. These 3 companies are now in a little inflation loop which will hurt not only these companies, but every other customer to 'A' 'B' and 'C'. My little theory says that our complete and stupid over-exposure to advertising is now responsible for a significant portion of the change in cost of every product, thus wages, thus inflation. Now of course currently oil is slated to bring the price of every product up by a decent amount too, but I mean aside from that.
In short, not only do I find advertising annoying and insulting, I find it threatening.
- An interesting plot...simple enough, one would think. "Rob Schnieder goes to Amsterdam and poses as a gigolo to foil a murder mystery" doesn't count.
- Dialog that sounds more like it was written by Quintin Tarantino than George Lucas.
- Character development. This does not include a guy who thinks fat chicks are worthless until Tony Robbins hypnotizes him and when it wears off he finally realizes he's in love with one and it's what's on the inside that really matters.
- Quality acting, as opposed to anything ever done by Keanu Reeves.
- Jennifer Connelly
Actually, that last one is enough on its own.UK Prices:
£7.50+ per adult in a standard seat eg no leg room.
£3.00+ for a popcorn.
£2.00+ for a drink.
So thats £22 for a couple translates at current rates at about 39USD
Now think that the typicl UK cinema is designed to cram people in, and not that comfortable. Some are pretty filthy too lots of popcorn stuck to the floor.
Then you have the films.
After a short time on release the sound (especially SDDS has degraded because some idiot decided it was a good idea to put it on the edge of the film) goes funny. Many of the films I see have a few sound drop outs which are annoying.
The arthouse and some flicks are good, but I would say at least 85% of what comes out is crap or not worth paying that much for.
Films get rated as a watch, DVD rental or can't be bothered for me.
--
And a random useless piece of info:
If you want to never be able to watch a film in peace again look out for the change over dots at the top right corner of the film. One at the start and end of every real. I can't Ignore the things now I noticed them:(
Played a good cop who was chasing things in "The Fugitive."
Unfortunately, when an actor does such a good job in a role, and enough money is made from it, that actor HAS to produce ten to twenty more films of increasingly bad quality. Tommy Lee Jones, as a tracker cop who chases bad guys through snow covered Oregon, just seems rehashed and boring now.
Hollywood takes the masses for idiots, and seem to think that "new" is bad. Lucas, at least, wasn't too scared of producing something new and off-the-wall. It is a pity that he fell into that trap recently, as well.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Movie ticket sales have been declining since the invention of television. According to Edward Jay Epstein, "In 1948, 90 million Americans--65 percent of the population--went to a movie house in an average week; in 2004, 30 million Americans--roughly 10 percent of the population--went to see a movie in an average week."
Epstein has been writing a number of quality articles for NPR & Slate about the Hollywood profit shift from movie theatres to home theatres. Here are a few of the recent ones.
The Vanishing Box Office
Hollywood's Death Spiral
Hollywood's Death Spiral, Part 2
Hollywood's Profits, Demystified
Lately, however, I've discovered that there is a vast wealth of good indie films, with decent acting, excellent stories, and the cost of admission is just a dvd rental. "Primer" is an excellent example. It was made on $7000 US, and it is the best movie I have seen in several years. I see no reason to go see a crappy big-budget film when there are better options.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I wouldn't say the products aren't good, just not good enough.
I'll pay $5 + 2 hours of my time to watch a not great movie, I'm just not willing to put up with $40+ the rappy theater environment to watch it.
Music CD's aren't worth $20, so I don't buy them. I'll just turn on the radio. Sometimes I'll see a decent CD on clearance for $5, I might grab it.
It use to take almost two years for a movie to get to rental and even longer to own, now it takes about 3 months and everyone has dvd player. Has anyone ever considered that this might be a huge competition? It is cheaper, where I live at least, to buy a movie than pay for two tickets to see it. Only a small percentage of movie goers are set on seeing the movie when it first comes out, and that is only for a small subset of movies. Besides, with all the dvd purchases, and now television shows going for absurd prices does anyone really feel sorry for the studios?
Now first, let me admit, I'm a Lifetime Member of Cinema Seattle, so I get to see 40 or more free films every year until I'm dead, and take a guest. Which is a total bargain.
But, as someone who's been a cineaste for decades, it is very true that the film industry has been going for the cheap easy films, which bore the pants off of us, compared with prior years, and are more hung up on stars than content.
Now, there are exceptions: The Constant Gardener, which has both a cool story and great actors; the upcoming Tim Burton film The Corpse Bride; and more.
But in general, it's not film piracy that is killing film audiences - most of the pirates in fact seem to be going for Japanese and Chinese and Indian films that the studios won't show over here, so you can't blame people for that.
It's not having better content than cable TV. There are some fine shows on cable TV nowadays, and if you have a large-screen TV, you don't have to shlep to the theater and sit next to someone who talks thru the movie.
Personally, I rank films in two groups: films that must be seen on the big screen - and films that would be just as fine seen on TV at home on some cool channel like Sundance or IFC or BBC or CBC where they don't edit it to make it saccharine barf city like the lower bands do.
And there's been a bunch of films that were so predictable, for quite a while, that I didn't even bother going to, even though they were free.
Recently that's been changing, so I have hope for a resurgance of film, but the last few years have been dreadful.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I live in Tucson, we aren't podunk rural, but sure as hell not NY, call it maybe a million people including surrounding areas. Housing is very cheap, wages tend to be on the low side. Ticket price? $8.50.
Screw that. I'd rather spend the money on making my home theatre better. These days, it's quite accessable. You can get a good sound system for like $1000-$1500, and a widescreen HDTV for $1000-$2000. Ya, buys a lot of nights at the movies, but there's something to be said for watching in your own living room. You watch them on your own schedule, you can pause and go to the bathroom, you can have a beer, there are no screaming kids, etc.
Basically the only thing theatres really have going for them is timeleness of release, you get to see it there first. Other than that, I'd much rather just have some friends over to my place, or go over to theirs, and watch movies on a good home theatre.
You go to the counter, and want some popcorn. They scoop it out of a giant tub of popcorn that looks like it's been there for a few weeks. The heat lamps are nonexistent, or turned off.
What the hell? I mean, it's not cuisine, but, would you accept a 6-hour old hamburger that's room temp?
This must be a some strange artifact of multiplexes that I don't quite understand. When I managed a small theater years ago, the concession folks were very adept at making just enough popcorn so it was always fresh and hot. Heat lamps always on, turn it over quickly, toss it when it's nasty, and freshen it by mixing in a fresh batch.
I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a popper actually running in a theater. We'd always running the popper right before the movie, because the smell of it running was enough to get people to buy.
How hard of a concept is this? Of all places, a movie theather should make good popcorn, dammit!
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
My bigest hang up with the movie theaters is the fact that you pay close to $10 a ticket and then have to sit through 30 minutes of commercials before previews start. Around here it seems the average time before the movie starts is about 30-45 minutes. If you are going to show so many commercials lower the freak'n ticket prices. We have some great theaters here in Birmingham yet no one seems to get that we go to the movies and are willing to pay the money to see the movie, not the commercials. Matter of fact I make it a point to go out of my way not to buy anything from Companies that advertise in movie theaters.
I figure if I boycott them enough and enough of us get together to do that we can just rub out the ads by making them lose money. I think we should start writting letters to these advertisers to make this point
After I picked up am Infocus projector for $1200 from Costco that was it for theater going for me. 92" picture, quality is as good or better than film.
The last movie I saw in the theater was LOTR ROTK, the audio cut out three times, people were talking and there were ENDLESS commercials before the movie. After that no more. It really has nothing to do with the movies (although many are bad), it's the theater experience, it just sucks. I can even walk/streetcar to 2 multiplexes from my house and I won't do it.
Now, $2 movie with a beer and a burger at McMenamins theater pub is another matter.
While I completely agree with points 1, 2, 4, and 5, I disagree completely with #3.
The primary concern is not if a book or comic is transferred to a theatrical release but rather whether or not it's done well and faithfully based on the original material.
I am thrilled that Peter Jackson did Lord of the Rings. Even with all of the (often unnecessary) literary licenses that he took in The Two Towers, the trilogy as a whole was very, very well done and did not rely on special effects but instead focused on the characters. I would have done certain scenes differently (like eliminating the warg rider attack, which never occurred in the books), but his movies were IMO the best adaptation of the books that Hollywood has made.
I've heard that Sin City is exceptionally close to the comics. It's a bit too violent for me, so I doubt that I'll see it, but everyone that I've spoken to who is a fan of the comics says that it was very well made.
The Spider-Man movies were also very well done.
Sadly, for every good adaptation of a book there are a number of bad adaptations of that book or others, such as The Hulk. We just have to pan those as the badly done movies that they are, but no more or less than any other movie.
I agree that there is a point of saturation. If too many movies of a certain type come out in a short span, movie-goers are going to be turned off, just like when a song gets far too much radio air play, but the saturation is more often because what's gettng repeated either sucks or just isn't good for multiple viewings/hearings.
If a book adaptation can be written well, presented well, and yet remain faithful to the original matieral, then there is no reason why it should not be made just because another book adaptation was recently released.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
They defend themselves buy saying theyare just giving the consumer what they want, yet it's clear consumers like new stuff. Look at Sin City. Hollywood hated that movie because it broke all kinds of rules, some offical, some just defacto.
Like the DGA says you can't have more than one director. A director can have ADs, but only one director. Rodriguez quit the DGA over that so he and Frank Miller could co direct. Studios say you can't do black and white films, barring something epic like Schindler's List. Also, you can't cast big name-good guy actors in bad guy roles, espically non-sepaking roles, because they claim the actors won't take it. Elija Wood said it was a blast playing Kevin in the movie. And so on.
Well, for all that, the movie was a massive success, and made Rodriguez a shitload of money. Audiences clearly responsed, even though it wasn't done "correctly" according to Hollywood knowledge.
We also use our old student ID's go get a student discount. When you include food, that comes out for a cheap $15 date!
Oh, and we go to the theaters late at night at around 11, avoid the insipid movies if we can, and often go on the weekdays. Makes it a whole lot better that way.
Have to tried going to an art theater? They're usually closer downtown than megaplexes, have cheaper tickets, better food, much better movies, and nicer audiences.
"Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The Queen is their slave."
I think you could have stopped after the first 6 words.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Is pay people a percentage of profits. So you get a saliry for your work, something that even if the film bombs you aren't out on the street, but the real money for you is in the success at the box office. Film nets huge dollars, you make huge dollars, film never makes back it's production cost, you get nothing.
Problem is, anyone who's ever worked in Hollywood before will enver accept that. Why? Because the studios are lying fuckers. They have a tricky, BS accounting setup so that none of their films ever make money on paper. Matrix? Lost money according to the studios. Interesting they thend made two more, isn't it? It is, of course, to get out of paying taxes, but also to sucker people.
Often they'll offer you net points to work on a movie, meaning percentage of net profits. Sounds like a good idea right? If you make 1% of a big movie's profits, you make a lot. Well no, you'll never get a check for anything because the studio will tell you the movie lost money.
So of course all vetrans won't accept the situation, it's cash up front, or gross points (a percentage of the gross sales) which studios won't give out usually.
All that "crappy stuff nobody wants" you list is making humongous amounts of money which comes out of an amazing number of pockets ... and the "quality" audience doesn't pay nearly as much (as in: not even close to the same order of magnitude).
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
You don't walk into a restaurant, sit down at a dirty table and think "My God, the previous people to eat here were complete slobs!"
No, but a lot of people sure do give me dirty looks when I don't do McDonalds employees' jobs for them. And by people I mean fellow patrons, not the employees.
It's one thing to not throw human feces around in a restaurant, but if I wanted to clean up after myself I would have eaten at home, for a lot cheaper. Unfortunately, McDonalds et al have convinced the populace that it is OUR responsibility to clean up our tables, because they have oh-so convenient garbage cans on the way out. This attitude spills over into many other venues, I find.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I can't help noticing that no one has brought up the possibility that people might be finding better things to do with their time. Are we so indoctrinated as to think that people will always consume passive media? For me, in most instances, I have better things to do with my time than to sit there and absorb what Hollywood tells me. I'm not saying everyone has to be the same way, but I find it more fulfilling most of the time to work on a personal project or hang out with friends than to watch a movie or TV show. I do still watch movies sometimes, but it's an out-of-the-ordinary thing for me.
So I put forth this suggestion: perhaps people are finding better things to do with their time?
(Kind of ironic, since I'm an animator, helping provide passive media for other people to consume)
Unfortunately....it is also the same chick there all the time...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Too bad. Seems you're missing out on the Masterpiece that is Batman Begins. If you plan to see one other movie this year, make it Batman Begins! You will not be disappointed!
"Charlie and the chocolate factory" is also good.
And it has way more midgets.
You can't take the sky from me...
I found these few sections from the article (towards the end of the article) very interesting. It is in regards to making movies available to home consumers immediately at release.
Last week, John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, accused Robert A. Iger , the incoming chief executive of Walt Disney, of leveling a "death threat" at theater owners for having suggested that the lesson to be drawn from the slump is that moviegoers want films to be accessible in theaters and on DVD simultaneously.
Mr. Iger had observed that studios ignored consumers at their peril. "We can't allow tradition to stand in the way of where the consumer can go, or wants to go," he told analysts this month, warning that "the music industry learned this the hard way."
Mr. Iger's conclusion - that consumers want the choice of seeing movies in their homes at the same time as in the theater - is being reached by others in the industry as well. But it remains contentious, resisted not only by the owners of theater chains. Mr. Lynton of Sony was adamant that the theatrical experience should be protected, while Mr. Shaye said he was still "on the fence" on the subject.
Warren Lieberfarb, a former Warner Brothers executive who was a main advocate of the DVD in the early 90's, warned that going to the movies had become too expensive over all, given the excellent quality of home theater. "It's not just the DVD. It's not just the DVD window," he said. "It's the flat-panel television and the sound system, with the DVD option, that has radically changed the quality of the in-home experience. The home theater has arrived." As a result, he said, "you have to change the business model of the movie business."
I personally find this extremely exciting. When you think about it, the movie theaters have a stranglehold on consumers in terms of being able to access new releases. If you want to see a new release, you only have one place to go: the local cineplex. Now, the cineplexes do have to compete with each other, but in the end all of their business model's are about reducing costs. So, what you end up with is the crap that we are offered today: sticky floors, bad seating, bad sound, dirty screens, noisy people, 400 seat theaters where only 150 seats really have a good view, etc. They are providing the bare minimum: a chance to see the movie. Sure, there exists the high quality theaters that take an interest in their patron's experience (small theaters, properly calibrated sound systems, comfortable seating, gourmet food service, ambiance, etc). But they are few are far between because the cost is much higher to run such a theater and the number of patrons is lower.
If the releases were available to the consumer, I think we would experience a renaissance in theater opportunities. People all over would be running custom theaters to cater the movie experience for their friends and family. Think movie houses now: at 7:00 pm 20 people show up, drink and eat for 30 minutes, socialize, etc. Then everyone moves into the theater for a 7:45 pm showing of the featured movie.
The theaters would still exist for the masses, but more people would get into the customized experience for the quality of it all.
In the 1970s movies took risks. Girls were possessed (I mean the Exorcist, get your minds out of the gutter), taxi drivers shot pimps through the head, the Godfather made an offer you couldn't refuse.
Nowadays the best the studios can offer is either to try and show how much money they spent on computer effects, or to retread EXACTLY the same tread as before (I want a GUARANTEED hit - so do Basic Instinct, but call it something else and change up the faces and names) or to mine the culture for something that they feel will guarantee a hit (e.g. Dukes of Hazzard).
There are people out there with novel ideas and creative voices, but the theatres would rather NOT take some risks and have a mega hit and two modest flops - they want three movies that make OK money that they can try and HYPE into hits.
Same as music - "what category can we put this in?" - can we have another Kanye West please. For Christ's sake, nothing that doesn't sound like everything else we've ever done.
The first thing the studios need to do is diversify rather than amalgamate. They then need to go back to finding interesting new stories, and hiring new and inventive people to tell them. However, the chances of that happening are about the same as the chances of Rush Limbaugh admitting he's wrong.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Hollywood's current business plan:
1. Make crap movies
2. Charge excessively high prices for tickets
3. Charge excessively high prices for concessions
4. Fail to remove customers who ruin the experience for others
5. Call your prospective patrons criminals by blaming online piracy for the decline in sales
6. ????
7. Profit?
Hollywood needs to remember one thing about customers - if you piss them off, they will stop being your customers.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
It's wierd how clubs never seemed to forget the "class" thing even as cinemas went completely grunge-egalitarian. Especially, they never forgot that policing the customers gets you a better kind of customer, and you can charge a premium for that. Nobody would be surprised to see a nightclub that charged big money and required formal evening dress. Your jaw would likely drop if the cinema did that - but why?
Supposedly, the primary value proposition of modern cinema above home DVD is the "atmosphere".
Surely one of these idiots must have thought, if we're selling atmosphere, better go out of our way to be sure we have some? Industrial boxy buildings and bright-casual uniforms on gum-chewing slouched staff make for a poor attempt at sophisticated glamour.
I remember when I was a kid, folks used to dress up for the cinema, and the staff used to be smart, and the theater itself was as glitzy as could be done with gilt paint, coloured foil and cheap velvet.
When did they forget?
Who needs a 'partner'?
Women do, that's who. They are programmed to trap someone who will stay with them and help raise their kids. Men, on the other hand, are programmed to disseminate their genes in the widest possible manner. Both strategies support human survival in their own way.
But now we live longer and healthier than we were meant to. Women are bearing children, on average, much later in life. And men can keep siring into their 70's and beyond. The counteracting agendas of the genders used to balance out, but this recent development of longer lifespans results in couples whose needs diverge as they get older.
Thus, as a 41-year-old husband and father, I am currently separated and dating a much younger girl. And I'm pretty happy about that.
Problem number three: A movie is not the best place for a first date. You need to interact, not stare at a screen on your first date. Dinner good, movie bad.
I would actually say dinner is NOT a good idea for a first date. Lunch is better.
It's a short affiar: friendly and light. No heavy pretense that comes with Dinner. If you don't hit it off, you're only wasted an hour or so of each other's time. If you do, you can always make additional plans that evening if you wish.
Some friends and I were complaining about some of the same things I hear in this thread, about poor audiences, high prices, etc., and we thought we'd buy a theater and start a "Theater Club". Imagine my surprise when I found out that a 6-theater complex had a $75 - $80,0000/mo. air conditioning bill. (Houston, Texas yearly average). Basically, when we figured it all out, it would take about $300,000/mo. just to operate the thing, if we could even find a ditributer for films. (Highest expense: Movies distributed cost based on the number of seats in the theater.) I'm not surprised that theater prices are high, and I'm not surprised that theater managers will take money from anyone coming in the door.
Given that these problems will not go away by themselves, what are the solutions? (I agree with William McDonough (http://www.mcdonough.com/) that regulation is a result of poor design.) There is a huge fortune to be made by the designer who resolves these problems and makes theater-going a pleasant experience again. (I usually see 3 or 4 movies a week, but I usually go in the afternoon early when there aren't any kids or crowds. Summer is a bummer for movie goers like me.) I know there are places in Japan that have counter-frequency generators that kill cell and pager transmission. That would be a good start. perhaps if each seat was provided with individual noise-cancelling headphones, that would also help (and, yes, I know that brings up other problems of hygiene, etc, but that's where solving those problems brings in the fortune. Legitimately patentable solutions.)
Of course, maybe we could change society? I have a friend who is a cameraman for Fox Sports, and he described a goodwill game between the Astros and a Japanese team a few years ago. All the players were applauded when they came on the field. All the players were applauded for good plays. Players bowed to the crowd to acknowledge the applause. When the game was over, all the spectators stood up and applauded the teams. Then they sat back down, and rose one row at a time to file out of the stadium in an orderly fashion. And they took their trash with them!
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
You can get a real nice XGA DLP for around a thousand bucks and it'll throw an AWESOME 80-100 inch diagonal picture on most any decent wall (without even the need for a screen)
I'm with you 100% on the relative worthlessness of $3000 40 and 50 inch plasmas though.
Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Besides the obvious that have aready been mentioned multiple times, there is no end to the list of "what's wrong" with movie theaters...
Number one on my list, is they have not kept up with the increase in the DIVERSITY of TASTE of the viewing public. They target a couple of relatively narrow categories, those which they appear to believe cover significant market segments (and probably do, but there's a lot more of them now than there used to be), to the exclusion of all others. I look up what's playing in my neighborhood, and find at lest 150 screens to go sit in front of within a reasonable distance, but find that all 150 screens are showing the same 12 movies, virtually none of which I'm interested in seeing. So while in fact I do have 150 screens to choose from, I only have 12 movies to choose from. It wouldn't matter to me if I see "Skeleton Key" in theater A or theater B or theater C or theater D, all within close distance, if I wanted to see "Skeleton Key" at all! But they're trying to amortize their ad budgets, preferring "blockbusters" to diversity. Get a clue guys, the "blockbuster" concept is a complete anachronism in an extremely diverse marketplace. The music industry could stand to figure that out as well and get over the "good old days" of the supergroup.
Frankly, I prefer OLD movies, and actually WOULD like to see them on a big screen. There's one theater near me that will do that, a neat REALLY OLD classic theater but that has one of the worst sound systems I've ever heard-- the reverberations in the theater make the experience awful. Plus, whoever picks their selection of old movies needs their head examined-- they really suck. It needs someone who knows the old films well enough to actually seek out those known to be particularly enhanced by the large screen projection and be able to get them! Unfortunately, it's probably getting harder and harder if not impossible to get good prints of old films on demand, they have to find some restoration society or something because they aren't likely to get much help with that from the studios...
Last time I saw an ad on TV for a movie I actually wanted to see, I looked for it in my neighborhood. Come to find out it was only playing one place anywhere in a radius of about 150 miles, and that was 50 miles away-- yet they spent big bucks advertising the movie to get me there. I'm sorry, those big ad bucks weren't enough to get me to drive 50 miles to see it, despite the fact that I was willing to go somewhat out of my way for that particular movie-- they just made it TOO HARD (the movie was Howl's Moving Castle, BTW). Consequently, it's obvious that the movie index sites are only useful for people who want to go to the theater to see ANY movie, not to see a particular movie. They have to face it, there's just fewer and fewer people willing to do that. And if they can't find a way to fix it, film theaters may just go the way of the drive-ins. At least in drive-ins you had SOME privacy, and wouldn't have to listen to cell phones and the like if drive-ins still exited. The big problem with drive-ins was they couldn't keep you from bringing in your own snacks (oh, that's not a problem for ME, it's only a problem for THEM. That's customer-centric for you).
So let me get this straight:
You're frustrated that DVDs come out so much later after the hype because the hype is your only reason for wanting to see the movie in the first place... and your ideal solution to this is for them to release the DVD immediately, in the middle of the "marketing fog", so that you will be compelled to go out and spend money on something that you would admitedly NOT have bought of your own free (unmarketed) will.
Wow. Just wow.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but the PRIMARY reason why buy or go to see a movie is because I think that it may be good, not because the man in the magic glowing box tells me to go watch them. The fact that you actually desire the man in the glowy box to tell you what to do because you can't do it without him is nothing short of terrifying.
If a little cell phone light sets you off, man, lay off the caffeine, eh?
BZZT. Wrong. How about you take your phone into the lobby and check it there. If the call you are waiting for is that important, you can walk 30 goddam feet into the lobby to check it. Its called common courtesy. Theaters are dark for a reason, and light can be just as distracting as noise.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Everyone who mentioned the cost of popcorn or drinks when saying why they dont go to movies can go fuck themselves.
I dont play video games because cheetos cost so much.
Try not eating for five minutes and maybe the fat wont press against your brain so much.
This is not a troll. This is an OPINION.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Generally many movies don't make it big because they basically suck. Uninspired makeovers, no plots etc. And I guess it will get worse each additional year. Same with music, there's just so much good stuff out there already that at some point it will be hard come out with something new and fresh, because all has been done before.
I've read some people also complain about the previews and ads shown, but I actually enjoy seeing previews as I'm not always aware of movies coming out, ads on the other hand are stupid. I can imagine if you go see movies frequently you can get annoyed with seeing the same previews over and over.
Things I like:- I'm out of the house - going to a theater is a nice change of environment for me and my wife
- Bigger is better - well, not always but some movies are just more fun to watch on a big screen with loud audio
Things I don't like:Sample this!