Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Theaters Unhappy About Faster DVD Releases

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the just-get-to-the-downloading-already dept.

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?"

19 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a second... by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wait a second... by dsanfte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Theaters are also a magnet for disease. Having that many people in an enclosed room is an awesome way to spread colds and flus. I can't count how many times I've gone to a movie theater and there's been someone sneezing or coughing during the whole damn thing, and not a few times I've caught a cold/flu the next day.

      Give me a DVD anyday.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    2. Re:Wait a second... by Casca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but not all movies are equal. The target market for a particular movie will likely have a significant effect on piracy, theatre sales, and DVD sales...

      --
      Casca
    3. Re:Wait a second... by coolgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't exactly agree. Yes, if I actually want to see a particular movie I will go to the theater because I get to see it sooner, and before anyone can spoil it for me around the water cooler. So that much I agree with. But the real issue is the cases where I say to myself "I'll wait for the disc". In those cases it is pretty much because the movie looks like it might be another predictable watered-down non-story and I really don't want to risk paying the theater premium to check it out. It wouldn't matter to me if it were 4 days, 4 weeks or 40 weeks before it came to disc, I still wouldn't shell out for the theater in these cases.

      So I have to go with the OP and say they are looking at it from the wrong angle. The time between theater and DVD release doesn't really harm the theaters. The true culprit is all the crap content the studios are producing these days. That and the fact that there simply are too many theaters, at least in L.A. that is the case. The only time I remember going to a full theater in the past 10 years was for Munich on a Saturday Night.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
  2. Really? by davidstrauss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. UK releases by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 :: faster than paper
  4. obvious answer by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  5. So counter it! by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We are getting close and closer to simultaneous releases (one movie has already done it).

    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.
  6. Don't any of you go on dates? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I mean honestly, with the dropping cost of home entertainment systems is there really that much of a drive to spend the money to goto the theator any more?

    There are some flicks I'll head out for, block buster action flicks usually (HP 4, Lion Witch and the Wardrobe, and Underworld 2 where the last 3 movies I saw in the theator). But for most movies my home entertainment system is plenty good enough.

    I hear this argument a lot, and I see where you're coming from. But the way I grew up, people went out to the movies because it was an excuse to, you know... leave the house! It works like this: You find a nice girl, you go to a movie, you get dinner at a restaurant down the road from the theater, you chat about the film ... et cetera.

    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!
  7. Re:But... by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. They are both right by hellfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"

  9. Theaters make money on a sliding scale by time by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Here's my idea by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Here's my idea by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Pay the workers more than min wage. That way they're be cheerful and friendly to me.

      Despite the popular misconception, theaters are not cash cows flush with funds. Paying people more is a good way to drastically increase overhead, which means you need higher ticket prices, higher concession prices, more ads before the movie, or some combination of all three.

      Furthermore, paying someone more does not automatically mean they'll be better employees. If you doubt that, just compare a union worker with his or her non-union counterpart. The union workers usually have comfy union-negotiated salaries or hourly rates with generous benefits, shorter hours, longer breaks, and more vacation time. They also are generally less productive and more surly than non-union employees. I understand there are exceptions to every rule, but as a general rule, union employees make more and do less than non-union.

      2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.

      And why do you think things are so expensive? Because the theater owner has to pay for his fleet of Ferrari's in his garage? See comment #1, specifically the part about theaters not being big moneymakers to begin with. The theater essentially makes all its money off concessions. Ticket prices barely cover costs. No profit == theater closes down. Theaters cannot be run on welfare.

      3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)

      Have you priced any of these things? Digital projectors for theaters can cost well into the six figures. Who's going to pay for all that? The theater owner who's barely covering costs already (and doing that by charging high prices for concessions, remember)? Not hardly. He's doing all he can not to go under ever time he shows a flop. The big chains are hurt quite a bit by this, but the little chains are being absolutely murdered by studio requirements for sound and picture upgrades that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per theater room. For a 24 screen megaplex you could be talking a few million dollars to upgrade the whole theater. Do you have any idea how many $5 cokes and $8 bags of popcorn you'd have to sell to recoup such a cost?

      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.)

      No argument there, but that's hardly something controllable by the theater owners.

      5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.

      So you can fit fewer people into a theater, which means less revenue per showing, which means losses increase, which means either (a) higher ticket prices, (b) higher concession prices, (c) a combination of A and B, or (d) the theater goes out of business. There isn't some magical money tree growing in the theater manager's office, you know.

      6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)

      Which, again, reduces revenue. Are you willing to pay higher prices to get fewer ads? I'd bet not.

      Look, I have a monster home theater setup. I rarely go to theaters anymore precisely because of the issues you cite above. However, I'm not naive enough to think all this is the fault of the theater owner. The majority of the issue sits with the studios requiring amazingly high fees for showing the movie, forcing the theater chains to charge what they do and show as many ads as they do just to cover costs and eek out a meager profit. The studios do this because they have to finance the next US$200 million Hollywood flop and pay the lead actor's US$100 million salary (see Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, etc.)

      Blaming the theater for your above items is about as stupid as blaming the gas station for high gas prices. Or did you not know the average gas station makes about a 2-3 cent profit per gallon, nothing more? Like gas stations, theaters are at the end of a long chain of costs, trying to sell a product to you at a reasonable cost that allows them to stay in business and make a small amount of profit. Judge them a little less harshly in light of this if you don't mind.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  11. Re:Fuller experience? by raygundan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No kidding! How the hell can anyone keep a straight face while claiming that 20 minutes of previews and commercials, unmaintaned projection equipment, uncomfortable seats, the occasional mobile ringing, people talking, and lousy (but extremely loud) sound is better than popping in a DVD at home?

    A significant fraction of our local theatres have equipment so lousy/dirty/scratchy/unfocused that I'm confident watching a DVD at home has better picture quality. When the HD formats take hold, there will be no contest.

    He bitches and moans about how "cheap" movie tickets are compared to things like symphonies-- but honestly, a live performance by hundreds of musicians is worth a tad more than some kid hitting "start" on the projector.

    I like your list, but would add a bit:

    1. Boot phone/noise offenders. Ban repeat offenders.
    2. Pay a professional to maintain your equipment.
    3. Eliminate ads, run previews *prior* to published start time only.

  12. Re:Yawn by sremick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'Except for may people, eating the snacks is part of the "Movie Going Experience."'

    For us, sneaking snacks into the movie theaters is part of the "experience". It's fun to see how much you can bring in, even if you don't eat it all.

    "Last time I was at the movies, I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was the concession stand prices were outrageous. Besides I hadn't had a barbeque in a long time." - Steven Wright

  13. Re:But... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Your post reminded me of why I don't go to the movies anymore-The sound.Last time I took the nephews to the movies(the God awful Hitchhikers guide)We had to leave about halfway through because the sound was so damn loud it hurt.These newer theatres keep the sound cranked so high that the everyone around me was automatically sticking their fingers in their ears when they thought an explosion or other loud sound was coming.

    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.
  14. Re:Yawn by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Honestly, I have a 51" big screen tv with ac3 surround sound at home. My movie experience is better for a number of reasons:

    1. No chatty teenagers around me
    2. Can drink beer
    3. Way more leg room
    4. Popcorn: 50 cents a bag instead of $5, and I already have real butter
    5. Pause and playback
    6. Don't have to wear shoes - not afraid of what's on floor
    7. Movie Rental: $5, me and wife and friends can all watch for same price.
    8. Can fast forward over 25 minutes of movie trailers.


    With all the plusses, what's the minus? I don't get the movie theatre experience? Big deal. I can live with that, given all the other bonuses I get.

    Still, I'll probably go see X-Men 3 this year, and Spider-Man 3 next year because they are still worth going out for.
    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  15. Re:I haven't been to a movie theater in 4+ years by fatcatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.