Slashdot Mirror
Theaters Unhappy About Faster DVD Releases
dolphinlover writes "As movie studios such as Walt Disney Co. have pushed for more rapid DVD releases of movies to combat piracy on the Internet, executives of movie theater chains such as Regal Entertainment Group and National Amusements Inc. have countered, saying that seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience' and that the time window between movie and DVD releases should even be extended. Their views run counter to Disney's Chief Executive Rober Iger view that DVDs ought to come out simultaneously with the theater releases of movies. Both sides say their plans would benefit consumers. Is either correct, or are both approaching the situation from the wrong angle?"
Regal Entertainment Group and National Amusements Inc. have countered, saying that seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience'
If seeing a movie in the theater is so significantly better, then there should be no problem here, right? If it's so much "fuller" and "more entertaining," then it should be able to stand on its own without worrying about when DVDs get released.
That's just not the case, though. Many people only go to theaters because that's where movies go first, and people don't want to wait. When given the choice, many would rather have the DVD. It's cheaper (two movie tickets is often more than the DVD price, and you can watch the DVD whenever you like), the food isn't overpriced, you can sit in more comfortable seats, you don't have to deal with people yelling "WHERE YOU AT" into their cell phones, no commercials, no waiting for the movie to start, you can pause the movie if you need to go to the bathroom, the floors aren't sticky, you don't have to drive anywhere, you don't have to deal with other people asking each other "okay so who's that?" and conversely you can converse with your fellow movie-watchers without getting told to shut up, etc. Yes, you have a big screen and nice sound in the theater, but home theater systems are constantly getting better.
The theaters are threatened because a lot of people DO prefer watching movies at home, and they're losing their major advantage. If they don't like it, they should try to make their experience better, not bitch and moan about quick DVD releases.
How could consumers possibly benefit from fewer choices? If seeing the movie in the theater is better, then I'll do that regardless of whether the DVD is out.
Going to the cinema does make for a better movie experience, however smaller screens and more choice have (for me anyway) ironically removed the big premier movies, over here now my local cinema has closed and left only the megaplex type places which don't feel the same.
The cinemas are being pushed to show more and more films, with releases almost every weekend it feels very diluted with no build up.
I would goto the cinema here in England if opening night was worldwide instead of opening in America weeks or months ahead, the first time you hear about a movie makes your mind up - if thats months before the UK release you end up hearing about the next big American movie and forget about the one you wanted to see.
We live in a global village and the internet has allowed us to hear the hype about American releases much sooner than they are available, there was a time when tv/magazines etc would begin the push once it reached our shores, there might be a one liner about some premier or other, but the magazines focued on what was available over here, now within days of the American release theres a cam or a screener available (sometimes sooner) - no need to spend cash.
So global releases and hype when it is due will get me back, I couldn't care less about delay to DVD as long as the movie is available in the cinemas when I hear about it.
liqbase
if it didn't cost over 10 bucks in the north east, maybe i'd actually go see a movie in theaters
The side that gives consumers choice is right. So let's see who that is. Movie producer is saying: let's put the DVD's out at the same time. That will allow consumers to decide whether to buy or to see the movie in the theater. The theaters want to keep the movies out of consumers hands, forceing them to see the movie in the theater if they want to be able to talk about the movie in the watercooler relevance timeframe.
So the movie producer is right.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
So why don't the theaters step up to the plate? Besides fixing all the other things that they often need to (which will be brought up endlessly in this thread) why not sell the DVDs? Here is the theory:
You go to a movie and you when come out you are offered the chance to buy the DVD of the movie you just saw for... $10. Same with the soundtrack (for $6).
If you liked the movie, then you can buy the DVD right then and there. If you didn't, then you don't have to buy it. This would be an extra source of revenue for the theaters, and would probably boost DVD sales (since it would be much easier to sell to someone who just watched the movie than someone walking by a display in Wal*Mart or Best Buy). Those who don't go to movie theaters (like me) would still buy the DVD at a store as usual.
In fact, by selling that DVD for $10 and not the normal $20, I'm betting there are people who would go to the theater just to buy that DVD that way. The cost of that DVD ($10) plus the cost of the movie ($20?) would be more than the DVD alone at a store ($20), but they would also get to have the theater experience for what would be a discount ($10 difference) compared to normal price.
Theaters are still trying to be what they were in the 70s when you couldn't watch any movie you want any time. Heck, things have hardly changed from the 40s in the theaters, except for the lack of newsreels and the amazing number of ads they show.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
What is it that they could be pissed off about? If the delay between theater and DVD is at least 4 weeks, that's more than enough as most movies are in and out of the theater chain system by then anyway. The only theaters that might have a problem would be the dollar theaters, but they tend to show indie films anyway. What the theaters should really be pissed about is how movie studios are churning out complete and absolute shit that is not attracting much of an audience.
-=*(CC)*=-
The Public Movie Theater is dead. Long live the Home Theater.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Quite simply, they're both coming at it from the angle of their own revenue streams. There's no right and wrong, you just need to choose whose pile of money you're talking about.
+5 Insightful, really!
Maybe, if you can avoid 20+ minutes of annoying ads followed by 15 minutes of previews. And if you manage to get an audience where people don't spend the entire movie yakking on cell phones or narrating the action to their friends "Later in the movie you find out that 'Rosebud' is his sled. But this is the part where..."
A good trip to the movie theater is much better than just watching TV because it's a communal experience. It's the modern equivalent of sitting around a campfire listening spellbound to a good storyteller. When you interfere with that experience -- by playing obnoxious ads or by talking -- you make it worse than the solitary experience of the living room. People are less inclined to go to the effort to risk all that frustration.
What can theaters do?
And if rude audience members would just be a little more polite, and studios would make better movies, the rest of us would be more inclined to go in the first place.
Just out of curiosity, when Americans are spending billions of dollars a year on stuff called "Home Theater," what did theaters think was going to happen to revenue?
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
I love when people bitch about the price of cinema snacks, because you simply don't have to buy any! I mean, it's not hard, folks. I generally get a coffee or something that's very close to the price on the outside world, and save my money for another movie ticket or a beer afterwords. I figured out snacks were a rip off 25 years ago.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Having a cool home theater system is nice and all but sometimes I just want a reason to go do something. And local theater is really, really hit or miss, and rock shows are loud and it sucks to have to stand around for hours after you've been working all week. What's wrong with going out to a movie?
P.S. I know, I know ... I must be new here.
Breakfast served all day!
Your mention of IMAX brings up what I think is an important point. If theater owners want business from people who have $10,000 home theater setups, they need to do better in the visual quality department. That means forget about digital -- it simply cannot provide a superior experience. IMAX has a frame the size of a business card with ridiculous resolution and great brightness and stability.
Instead, many theaters are dimming bulbs, reducing projection staff, and ignoring problems with misbehaving members of the public. I think this is a short-sighted attempt to reduce costs which will ultimately lead to eliminatin of revenue.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
What benefits the consumer is what the consumer wants. What do they want? Do they want the theater experience or do they want the comfort of their own home entertainment center?
Frankly, Even at $25 for two tickets and popcorn, and seeing a movie approxamitely once every other week, if I decided to save that money, I'd still not have enough money for the minimum payment on a $5000 entertainment center, complete with surround sound and super sized TV.
I also find the experience of a theater very enjoyable. The screen is bigger than I can buy anywhere, the accoustics and sound system at a modern theater are very good in my experience, AND I get the experience of being in an audience. Laughing and cheering with a bunch of people in a theater has always made any more more enjoyable. Some of the star wars haters will always complain, but the feeling of the audience whooping and hollering when Yoda uses the force to whip out his lightsabre and get into a fighting stance... it's priceless emotion.
And nothing beats an action movie on a huge screen. Sense and sensibility doesn't lose anything being watched on your TV, but you had to see... and I mean SEE... episode 3 on a big screen at least once to get the beauty of the visuals... if you are into that sort of thing.
Now, you may prefer being at home and not want to deal with the muck on the floor, or stupid people with cell phones. You may not want to have to deal with schedules or times. These do not bother me as much. I'm selective of my movie theaters and some of those theaters do suck much more than others. I prefer comfortable seats and decent equipment and no weird smells. If you don't have a theater like this, I would not be surprised if you prefer home theaters. If your eyes aren't sharp like mine then pretty special effects might not impress you at a 50 foot viewing angle.
The point is, the market should go where ever the market says it wants. If people like movies in the theater, fine. If people want to see more movies sooner at home instead, fine. BOTH of these men are looking at the issue from a selfish perspective, regardless of who is right. I believe there will always be demand for movies in the theater, but how much is dependent on the people buying the tickets and DVDs, not the CEO pigs who want to take your money regardless of what you really want.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Theaters traditionally make more money per ticket the longer a film is out. The first hot weekend, much more of the ticket costs go to the distributors, later, the theater keeps more and more of the ticket price.
Studios are incented to pack everyone into the first weekend. Theaters want nothing more than the sleeper hit of the year -- where audience builds over time.
Faster dvd releases mean less opportunity for the most profitable time a movie is in the theaters.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
If you want the theater experience to be a 'more entertaining experience' then you need to do a few things.
1. Pay the workers more than min wage. That way they're be cheerful and friendly to me.
2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.
3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)
4. Show better films. (Talk to your friends in Hollywood, tell them to spend less of their budgets on marketing and more on the script.)
5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.
6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
"We need to be focused on bringing the wow factor back to the experience," she said. "Movies are meant to be seen in the theater."
n er seats at a theater (and while I'm slightly overweight I'm no fatty, only a size 12. Buying an elliptical to shed the fat, BTW)
seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience'
I prefer watching movies at home with friends. Here's why:
- I keep my floors clean.
- My chairs, sofa, futon, etc. are very comfortable - unlike backache-inducing, more-cramped-than-coach-seats-on-commercial-airli
- I can put my feet up, stretch, lie down, hop on one foot, or stand on my head while watching a movie at home
- No annoying people yelling "Oh no you di'nt" at the screen
- film's superior resolution is more than negated relative to DVD by perpetually-out-of-focus projectors. If my television ever goes out of focus I'll crack it open and adjust it, or replace it. Theaters never bother to pay a "projectionist" to maintain focus throughout a movie - or even adjust focus beforehand
- Even stadium seating sucks
- I can pause DVDs for pee breaks
- I can eat whatever I want during a movie at home, drink water without paying $3.00 for 16oz of tap water, make a milkshake, or whatever
- My sound system at home (mostly Pioneer Elite components) is far superior to typical movie theater systems
Now, if they were to keep the movies in focus, push seat rows slightly further apart so I can put my feet up (or let the seat lean back a little more), either clean up the floor or throw out punks who leave a mess (or preferably both), oh, and did I mention actually focusing the projector? Then, a theater experience might be better than a DVD. I've seen only ONE movie in the last few years that was very crisply focus, and it went out of focus just a few minutes into it.
I really would like to know why paying $11/person to watch an out-of-focus movie on a big screen is superior to OWNING the DVD for between $9.00 and $25.00 and watching it in very crisp focus on a 36" screen. Somebody please explain this to me. I've only bothered going to one movie in the last year (Chronicles of Narnia/The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe) and that's ONLY because I've been a fan of the Narnia books for 23 years. I usually wait for the movie to hit DVD before seeing it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If they make that experience too expensive for the consumer, of course people will stay away.
Economics dictated our decision long ago. Typical family of four (two adults, two kids), tickets @ $9/person = $36, snacks for four @ $5 per person = $20, travel costs to get to theater (not insignificant anymore, especially if you're 30 minutes from the theater like we are), and opportunity cost from time wasted waiting in lines, watching five or six trailers, travel time, etc. The total cost in hard dollars is more than $60 in many peoples case.
Or pick up the same video at the grocery store several months later plus snacks galore for $20 and not spend any wasted time.
So tell me, what's the "experience" that is worth the $40 premium per show? Great surround sound and a big screen? Let's really see what the cashflows the movie theaters are asking us to give them with some easy discounted cashflow analysis. In order to do this, we need the "net theater experience" amount, which is the theater experience cost less the do-it-yourself cost for the movie and snacks, which in my example is $40.
Four movie experiences per month at the theater: $40 x 4 = $160
Undiscounted total of monthly cashflows for three years: $160 x 36 = $5760
Discounted (Net Present Value) using 4.5% I/Y: $5419
This means that the value of a $160 per month outflow of your cash, over three years, is worth $5419 today This present value number is necessary for a fair comparison of what I'm about to do. Understand that you're choosing the stay at home model, and you already have the snacks and the movie. Using the NPV calculated, you also have $5760 to go out and buy your own home theater experience.
What kind of experience - surround sound, big-screen, etc - can you buy for about $6000? That's what you're paying the theater in the model over three years (and honestly, your system will probably last longer than three years, so this model is unusually fair to the theaters).
And worse yet, this model allows you to avoid all the lines, the driving, the excessive trailers, lets you pause the movie when nature calls, replay scenes, avoid the idiot with the hat in front of you and the excessive talkers, sniffers, and chatty children in the row behind you.
Sounds like the stay-at-home experience sure beats the theater one. Not a good time to buy stock in theater companies...
I don't know if anyone has done decibel checks on these newer theatres but when they are so loud your head hurts less than halfway through it's too damn loud.Being a bass player I already have some hearing loss do to being always stuck by the cymbals.I don't need the local multiplex to blow out what I have left.I'll just stick with DVD(no BR/HDVD)where my boys and I can watch without our ears ringing.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Besides all the rude people talking on phones, kicking my seat, kids crying through the R rated film, etc. DVD's make more sense on the wallet too.
Actually, DVDs make more sense for all the rude people too. They can pause the movie when the phone rings, stretch their legs when they feel the need, and quiet their crying kids without annoying shushes.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Granted, it's been a few years, but when I was in Norway, I was impressed at how much more courteous and polite everyone was. I don't think this problem is anything other than the decline of etiquette in the USA.
alright, after reading the same stuff about movie theatres for the two hundredth time in a row I have to say KNOCK IT OFF!!!
everyone knows how horrible the movie experience in movie theatres is...
it's expensive, the floor is sticky, rude employees, loud people, loud babys etc
it is simply not necessary that EACH AND EVERY ONE of you posts these same points
everyone in the world knows this
everyone except hollywood which is still thinking "uh, it's the piracys fault, that noone buys our movies ALTHOUGH the special effects get better and better all the time"
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I'm really curious why this is such a problem "over there". I've yet to go to a movie here in Oslo, Norway where there's anything like that (not counting movies for kids).
I'm surprised you have to ask this question. As most of the international community seems to know, there are a large amount of people in the United States who are pompous, arrogant assholes.
execu
The catch is, they're not just arrogant assholes when they come to visit your lovely communities; they're also arrogant assholes here at home. And the rest of us, who aren't assholes, have to put up with them because for some unknown reason laws allowing us to beat the shit out of them for being assholes have yet to be drafted.
Really, if it were legal to beat the shit out of an asshole, there'd be a lot less assholes around.
(2) Insane concessions prices
I agree ticket prices are insane, but I highly doubt it has much to do with actor's pay rates. While blockbusters with a lot of big-name actors may have cost a fortune to produce it's the movie studios that drive the ticket prices for the most part. Even if you go to a movie with no-name actors, you're still paying the same amount of money for the ticket. It's a lot like the RIAA in that ticket sales proceeds to the studio go to cover advertising costs for every movie, not just the ones that do well. Actor's salaries come from studio investors and some ticket revenues (depending on the contract the actor has to do the movie).
As for concession prices, I think these are directly related to the ticket sales and the miniscule proportion of revenue the theaters get from those sales (with most or all of it going to the studios). If theaters don't sell concessions at a rate that will not only pay their electric and A/C bills but turn a profit as well, then they'll go under. Does that mean you have to like it or even patronize it? Of course not, but I'm just saying there's a solid reason why these things are the way they are. 1. Studios are bloated and probably greedy, 2. Theaters need to survive off of something other than ticket sales and popcorn and soda are dirt cheap compared to their price with a profit margin of over 60% in most cases (not a real statistic).