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?"
What we're really seeing here is the invisible hand of the market correcting an imbalance that's existed for a long time. The stick is piracy: studios don't like it, obviously. The carrot is, if you release the film on DVD immediately, people will buy that instead of the pirated version. A win for everyone except the pirates and the theaters.
And what about the theaters? They've had us over a barrel for years, charging insane prices for tickets and for food from the concession stand. This isn't going to be a lot of fun for them, because now their audience is going to be solely people who actually like to go to movie theaters. And this is certainly smaller than the audience of people who either like to go to movie theaters or don't like to wait for movies to hit video.
The theater owners are in denial about this - they're not planning for it - and that's going to hurt them, unfortunately. If they were to jump on board and start planning for the inevitable, I think it'd work out pretty well. In the long run, it'll work out anyway - some people really do like to see a movie in a theater. I certainly do. Target that audience, and give that audience the experience they want, and you've got a solid business. Unfortunately, it's probably a smaller business than the one you have now. Sad for theater operators, but really not fixable.
I'm for simultaneous release.
There will always be those who will want to see a movie in the commercial theaters. These are most likely folks who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to invest in home theater setups. There's no problem with that at all.
There will also be those who couldn't be paid to set foot into a commercial theater. These are folks who have chosen to go the home-theater route, however much they chose to spend, and who are tired of screaming kids, sticky floors, and inconsiderate boobs who don't seem to know where the 'Off' switch is on their cellphone or pager. There's no problem with this mindset either.
So, with that in mind: Go ahead and do simultaneous release of DVD and in-theater. Let the paying consumer choose what format they want to see the movie in. Even better, get the rental outlets to pick up on it when the DVD hits. That way, if it looks too good to be true (as 'Robots' did to me... Lord, what a dud!), it'll be low-risk to the buying public to find out.
Heck, simultaneous release might even provide motivation for the studios to put out better movies. If they do such a release, and it bombs, the loss will be much greater than if they just did a theatrical release, so the motivation will be "Do a better job!"
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Remember when book stores were supposedly going away?
Well, a lot of the neighborhood ones are gone. But there are still plenty of bookstores going strong. They either are huge box stores that offer espresso, a wide variety of magazines and books for browsing, and comfy chairs; or -- they are specialist stores with knowledgeable staff and also have a nice browsing environment and a variety of related goods (e.g. sci fi books and gaming). Either way, these stores are not just means of distributing books; they're destinations you go to in their own right.
I think if the theaters truly believed that the experience they offer is so much better than the home theater experience, they could survive even if movies were simultaneously released for DVD, download and theater. They'd be happier and make more money if the other media didn't exist of course. But, I think, the experience they offer is not so superior that most people would bother. They are not, in other words, places you'd go to for their own sake.
Which is odd in a way. The old neighborhood movie houses were. Sometimes you went down to the movies to see a movie you had to see. Othertimes you just went to see whatever they were showing you, or more likley a double feature, with a cartoon reel and maybe a news reel. What's interesting is that the neighborhood movies houses that haven't been abandoned or carved into little bits still are destinations in their own right, if not to the same degree they were once. The sterile suburban cineplexes are possibly an idea whose time has come and is going.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hello, McFly, anybody home? At $8.00+ a pop per person for a ticket and about another $15 to $20 for food and drinks only to have to sit in a crowded room with idiots on their cell phones, large groups of annoying teenagers, retards who bring their crying infants and old women explaining things scene by scene to their deaf husbands, do you wonder why consumers are increasingly staying home?
Going to see a movie is about more than just the movie, it's about the experience and as it stands now in most theaters, the experience sucks. There's an awesome theater about a half hour away with huge seats spaced far enough apart where you can order good food (not just pop corn and candy) and alcoholic beverages. If I'm going to spend a small fortune to go see a show it'll be in a place like that. Otherwise I'm hitting the second run theater a month after the show comes out or catching it on DVD 6 months later.
It boils down to prices versus experience. If I'm going to be in a crowded theater with seats close together and have to put up with all of the other crap I mentioned above, then it better be for a reasonable price. I don't mind paying more, but it better be in a theater that provides an experience that justifies the price.
It's a shame too because I used to love going to the movies but now I reserve it for the big budget, special effects laded summer popcorn flicks. Those spectacles were made to be enjoyed on the big screen and I'm willing to tolerate the crap some of the time.
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.
Honestly, the whole movie theater experience is pure crap. In my town movie tickets goes for about 10 dollars. If I pay for a date it's 20. Why the hell would I pay 20 bucks to watch previews and advertisements before I even get to watch the movie. And what the hell is it with advertisements now? Back in the day (like 5 years ago), there would be 5-10 minutes of previews which I didn't mind. Now there are 5-10 minutes of ads and another 10-20 minutes of previews. I'd rather pay 5 bucks to rent a dvd and take my date back home...and if we miss part of the movie for certain reasons (*WINK *WINK), I can rewind it.
The movie industry can kiss my ass. I swear to god if I have to watch another "Stay Alive" preview or another "Scary Movie", I'm going postal. Or at least continue to pirate or rent DVD's.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Yep, I think you pretty much summed it up. Theaters are claiming they offer a better experience, but at the same time they're desperately begging for a temporary 'monopoly' on showing films, before they go out on DVD.
Personally, I want to like going to a movie theater. I really do. I like the experience; there's something sort of uselessly traditional about it. And not owning a home theater with a projector and a few kilowatts of sound amplification, it is a big step above watching a movie at home.
However, as much as I like going, it's as if the theaters have been doing everything they can to cheapen that experience, to the point where I barely go anymore. And I ought to be their target market -- I have the disposable income and I don't have a home theater, or even a regular TV (their only competition is my 19" computer monitor). But the increased ticket costs, coupled with the outrageous price of refreshments, advertising -- I'm not talking about previews here, but actual bald-faced ads run before them, and the chance of getting stuck in a theater with some asshole who won't shut up; these things all make the value proposition a lot worse than it might otherwise be.
I think the thing that might save theaters is if they made themselves even smaller. Although I like watching actual film movies, it doesn't seem like this is going to keep them in business. I'm thinking of basically 'extreme home theaters' that could be rented out for an evening for under $100. Get 8 friends together, and grab a theater for a night. Big comfy seats, and you pick a movie out of a catalog and they play it for you. Particularly if they allowed you to bring your own food/drink, I think there could really be a market for such a thing. You pick the start time, and you don't have to worry about being stuck with some obnoxious people (other than the ones you choose to bring, of course). All the equipment would be pretty much standard, off-the-shelf stuff. Maybe they could even get HD versions of movies and show them, since it's going to be a while before most people have that kind of gear at home. And rather than picking from just a few movies, as a viewer you'd have a large catalog. Maybe equivalent to the 'new releases' section of Blockbuster, if you wanted to get the theater the same night, but if you wanted to book in advance, I see no reason why a Netflix-like variety of stuff ought not be available. After all, for the theater it's just a different disc they have to plug in. A well-engineered system might even deliver them by wire, from some giant datacenter somewhere.
The theaters are clinging to a business model that worked well before people had other choices. Now people have those choices, and they're going elsewhere. If movie theaters want to be around for another generation, they need to put some hard and creative thought into what it is that they offer, and what consumers want and are willing to pay for. Getting a six-week monopoly on a new film is a shoddy way to stay in business, and I think in the long run, consumers will find other ways to spend their time while they're waiting for the DVD to come out.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What they need to do is organize as a group and put pressure back on the studies to 1) create better movies and 2) lower the cost of the theater to license the movie. Perhaps instead of a flat rate to the theater to show a film, the studios should get a reasonable percentage of the box office.
Then again, theaters are slowly becoming irrelevant. With the techonlogy we have now, why not go straight to the consumer and cut out the middleman?
I don't want to watch a crappy compressed version of a film in ANY case. Pirated downloads don't come close to the quality of a DVD. I won't watch the little blurry thing with lousy sound. The entertainment value isn't worth the time it takes to watch it.
I think there are plenty of movies that I end up never seeing because of the lag time between theater release and DVD release. I don't want to spend $20 for tickets (3 in my family) plus $20 for snacks just to put up with all the theater distractions mentioned previously for a movie that I'm not DYING to see. Once three months have gone by before the DVD is out and the buzz is gone I generally find my interest in the film has waned as well. However, if I could get it around the same time as it opens in the theater for $15 or $20 you bet I'd buy it!
Very few people would switch to pirated downloads who were previously paying hand over fist to see the film in the theater. The huge majority would just start buying the DVD instead, and would likely spend more on movies than they did previously.
Life is short: void the warranty.
Greetings from piracy ground zero (southeast Asia). The day a movie comes out in the cinema anywhere, I can find it at any of dozens of shops within a 10-minute walk of my home on DVD for US$2. The quality is bad for the first few weeks, but the shopkeepers are honest about it, and customers can decide whether it's worth waiting for a better version.
Hollywood studios used to release films months later here than in the US. Absolutely everyone watched the pirated ones, and cinemas were empty, closing down left and right.
Now they do simultaneous release (US and Asia), there is a new breed of cinemas with reclining seats and über-THX Dolby what-have-you, tickets are US$2.50, and films don't stay in the cinema longer than 2 or 3 weeks (this is easier than in the west because there is a far wider range of films to show - in addition to all the American movies they show Hong Kong, Korean, Indian, Japanese stuff, subtitled into 2 or 3 languages depending on the source).
It seems to be working. The cinemas are crowded - last show at the big ones in town is after midnight and even then there are a lot of sold-out screens. The first week a popular movie is out, the only way you're going to see it in the evening is if you make a reservation online or via mobile. People go to the movies for the experience, because the experience is genuinely different from watching at home. And then when the supply of people who want that experience is tapped out, they leave it to the pirates.
So I really don't think the availability of DVDs is cannibalising the cinemas' market. Or if it is, they have successfully adapted to it.
Granted, I've never seen a legit DVD for sale here and I couldn't imagine where to go to find one, but I guess not everyone can be a winner.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
This is true. In another comment of mine I suggested that theaters need to get smaller, down to the size where an average person could rent one for an evening with a group of friends. However I think the alternative, or perhaps complementary option, is to go large.
I think theater owners are getting this, because I've seen several new IMAXes open around me, in regular multiplex-type locations (as opposed to being in science museums, which used to be the only place you'd find them), and a lot of movies being shown in them as special features. Harry Potter, for instance, was shown in an IMAX theater around here.
I think theaters can go one way or the other: small digital cinemas that people can rent out, bring their own refreshments to, and see any DVD movie they want in, or they can get bigger to the point where there's no way to replicate it at home. Just watching the film itself is the experience, and it doesn't matter if the refreshments are god-awful expensive, and you blast the sound so loud that nobody can talk over it anyway.
I'm not sure how sustainable this second path is though. The consumer is fickle, and right now IMAX movies have a certain novelty aspect to them. I wonder whether people would continue to go, if every corner had an IMAX cinema, and every movie came out in that format.
There are obviously a lot of technical gimmicks that could be added to the big-screen features that are hard to replicate at home (3-D effects seem to be an old standby), but I'm not sure if they're enough to save theaters as an industry.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How about I get a copy of the DVD for going to the theater? Or make the DVD an optional part of the ticket price? Or you can decide if you want to buy the DVD when you leave?
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Do these people live in a bubble? Have they never even been to a theater? For me and date to see a movie, it costs close to $20 now, before popcorn, drinks, and the other "experiences".
Then when you finally get to a seat, a sticky seat, you have to mess with cell phone users, talkers, smokers, babies, etc. The volume is either ear-drum blowingly loud, or whisper quiet. Plus, movies lately have sucked. Does any of this seem fuller and more enteraining? Any of it sound worth $20?
For $20, I can get 2 or 3 movies, see them as many times as I want within a WEEK, with as many people that can cram into the living room. I can control volume and I can even pause the movie to run to the R/R. I know my seat won't be sticky, and if anyone has to use the phone or smoke, they go out on the porch.
Now what sounds more like a more enteraining experience?
Alot of readers here have already pointed out the physical theater disadvantages, commercials, exorbitant ticket & food prices, cell phones, and voice-overs, so I won't bother expanding upon those point.
Hollywood is just trying to figure out the fastest way to sell us crap and DVD is cheaper than sending out 2400, 88-min long, film reels.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Amen.
We're living in the age of disrupted entrenched businesses who still remain clueless. They've forgotten what an enjoyable movie theatre experience is like.
I would like to add:
1) I would rush to the theatre as a kid to see the previews because previews were interesting and tantalizing. Now previews smack of focused marketing and breakfast cereal advertising.
2) If you are going to charge me insane prices for tickets and insane prices for food then you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to make sure I have a damn good time.
I'm sorry, I just had an epiphany while writings this. The movie theaters aren't the bad guys here. It's the movie studios that turn out crap sequels and generic romantic comedies.
So, of course! The studios are going to want to push for faster DVD distribution because it means consumers will swallow more of their crap quicker. This also means that it is inevitable that the studios will fully support digital distribution. Not because it's a good idea, but because high volume cheap crap = $$$.
OMG, Hollywood is destined to turn into Wal*Mart!
My understanding was that the percentage that goes to the theater changes as time passes, i.e for the first week the movie is out the theater gets 0-1%, the second week the theater gets 10%, the third week the theater gets 20% and so on... (I know these aren't exact %s, but are used to demonstrate the concept). I have always been led to believe that theaters make the majority of their profits (vast majority) from concessions...)
A movie is still a standard date- it is so easy, dinner and a movie, and it is still cheaper than dinner and a theater show...
And if people want a theater experience, then they can go to the theater. There are theaters that show 4,5, and 6 month old movies. They are great when you want to see something like the Wedding Crashers on the big screen. We all have our own reasons for not going to the theater. Mine include (I am only listing things that the theater/movie is involved in, because obviosly my not having much free time isn't the fault of the theater)the price of tickets (especially when movie stars I can't stand are making $20 million a movie), people talking in theaters, cell phone use in theaters and fewer "must see" movies. I also am turned off (I live in Ohio) by actors that come to my state and tell me how to vote, not just in national politics, but also on state issues.
There is also indirect competition (For those who never had to suffer through marketing classes, indirect competition are things that are not direct competition, but people may use them instead of your product, e.g. kite flying is indirect competition to TV).
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
WOW what reality to do you live in? Most people DO NOT have Monstrous high quality TVs. The problem is that the people that don't have those TV are also the people that can not afford to go to the movie theatre either. So the DVD they will probably rent to play in there $35 APEX DVD player hooked up to there $99 goldstar TV. So I agree with your point to some extent but most people do not have kick ass electronics. It is those people that will more likely wait for the DVD.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
What you've just listed are things that will make the Theater Industry most definitely go out of business.
>> 1. Pay the workers more than min wage. That way they're be cheerful and friendly to me.
While Henry Ford did this with his employees, movie ushers have a really laid back job. I was an usher for over 2 years, and a good portion of that time was spent sitting back watching movies and chatting with the other employees, or even the manager. What would I do if I had made more money there? I'd ask for more hours, and screw around even more.
>> 2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.
This is how theaters make their money to pay for their employees. They make absolutely nothing on the ticket prices so, unless you want the ticket prices to go up [which would lower demand, and ultimately cause corporate HQ to shut you down], the price of concessions will stay the same.
>> 3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)
Film buffs prefer the look of film. It's much more natural unless of course you're watching something that is made entirely of CGI [Ice Age, Matrix, Star Wars, etc], the best look is from film. Anyways, the price of digital projectors is ASTRONOMICAL. Go own your own digital projector and ask a distributor if you could rent a copy of a digital movie. They will say no, hands down. Too much of a risk letting an individual get ahold of a superb digital quality picture.
>> 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.)
Show better films you say? Vote with your dollars. If you don't like the movie, don't see it. If you do like it, go see it. There's a bathtub graph comparing the Stupidness of the Movie and the Success of the Movie.
>> 5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.
If you're a hefty fellow, I can understand. We had lotsa hefty fellows at our theater, but they survived. Look at the majority of theaters throughout the world. Look at the ones in the past. Movie theaters have survived with the spacing of the seats. If you're afraid your best friend is gonna put your arm around you well, you should talk to him about it.
>> 6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)
This is the only part that I agree on. The theater that I most frequent has a live organist playing music before the main show. It's terrific and its fun.
When my wife and I went to England in '01, we went to an IMAX theater that was playing several movies (6+ I think). It was setup just like a regular movie theater - popcorn, pop, etc - and business was booming. These weren't regular movies migrated to IMAX, but the selection was still great and the movies we saw were awesome.
I think you're right for the most part. The only comment I found off from my POV was about the pricing (refreshment costs being god-awful expensive). When I go to the theater, I believe it is reasonable to expect a certain level of value for my money. In other words, I want that $7 movie to be worth $7. When I go buy a soda, I know that the soda costs them about $.50. And I am used to paying $1.50 for the same size soda at a burger joint. But since the soda is $5, and I value it at $1.50, the movie (for me) has to make up the difference of $3.50. And the same goes for popcorn. So now the movie experience, to me, should be worth at least $14. And very few movies live up to this expectation. If I don't feel that these movies live up to the expectation (and many don't live up to the original $7), I don't feel the need to go. LOTR lived up to this, along with the Matrix & a few others.
Now, I don't think that this is entirely the movie theater's fault. I know that they charge the prices they do for the food and drinks because they make very little off of the movies themselves. IIRC, they only make about $.50/ticket (anyone got a link?). The problem the studios and theaters are facing is the evolving movie model. They are stuck in the 1950's distribution system in an age of information. We know that the studios are charging exorborant amounts for the privilege of showing their movie. We know that piracy does not affect them as much as they let on. And we know that the DVD's are out quick enough to where we can wait (I've seen a few come out before PPV). Actors are arguably paid too much(not all actors, just movie stars), there are too many overhead costs, etc.
The theaters have every right to be mad at the studios- they followed them into the price model, and now the studios are changing their tune. And who is blamed for the high prices of movies? Theaters. One thing I think they can do to save themselves is make things more flexible. I'd pay right now to be able to see a movie at a different time than advertised. Right now, matinee prices are good up until 6pm. However, no movies start between 4:30pm and 6pm. I, like many of my friends, do not get off until 5pm. It isn't worth it for me to go home, eat, lay around and go to the theater at a higher price later on. I'd like to go right after work (say, a 5:15pm showing) and then eat dinner afterward. I don't want to pay $3 more for viewing at an inconvienient time. Why not put a voting mechanism on the site that lets me and friends vote to see the movie at the time we want, but get credit back to our accounts (or get credit for a ticket later) if the time we want to go doesn't get chosen?
Granted, these aren't the greatest ideas in the world. But if the theaters are interested in being saved, they will make some changes.
In fact, just after television came on the scene, the film industry was forced to introduce "novelties" like Cinerama, CinemaScope ("Movies Are Better Than Ever!" went 20th Century Fox's ad slogan) and Panavision to counter the "let's just stay home and watch TV!" attitude that was beginning to arise in the early 50s.
Lately, we've seen the advent of stadium seating and of course IMAX. While technically impressive, these latter-day improvements to the motion picture theater experience are really just a continuation of the battle for entertainment consumers' hearts and minds.
Now, with the very-affordable home theater systems available today, and high-density DVD formats about to make their entry, I think it's only a matter of time before theaters begin to die. The cost of transportation, tickets and concessions, not to mention the use of precious time, aren't worth it already to a great many people.
Within ten years, I predict that "new release" will mean a film is now available via subscription service to download to your home theater system, and indoor movie theaters will seem as quaint then as drive-in theaters do now.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Hello all:
I agree with lowrydr310 there. Let's ask ourselves a hypothetical question, "If the concept of going to the movie theatre to see a movie has just been discovered today and that movies have been readily available to everyone at home already, would the concept of move theatre take off?"
I think the answer to that question is not likely. Sure, in this hypothetical situation, some people would still go to the movie theatre to see a movie because of the "fuller experience", but at the end, majority would probably stay home and watch their movies comfortably, and less expensively.
This hypothetical question reveals something else: that going to the theatre to watch a movie is obsoleted. That used to be the only way to watch a movie (before VHS)... As time progresses and home entertainment technologies advance, the trend is that entertainment is moving toward the homes. (Similar analogy could be made about the video arcades and home console systems. Arcade has been in decline ever since.) Whatever arguments made against this trend just slow down the inevitable...
I think Disney is heading in the right direction. Make DVDs come out asap, and not artificially delay their release. Figure out a way to charge people to get their movies at home, and make the billing painlessly easy. I would stop short of abandoning the movie threatre market all together. Most movies that produce only DVD are of low quality, and the public is not yet ready to receive a high-quality DVD only release.
Though Disney is heading in the right direction, it is using the wrong arguments. The main issue isn't pirvacy at all. If people can get movies legitimately with a small fee as easily as stealing off the net, I think most people would rather obey the law. The online music industry is successful example here.
In short, embrace the technology and make it work for you, not argue against it artificially.
Cheers
B. Pascal
I don't want trailers(which are ads).
I don't mind ads that are that well targetted to their demographic. Personally, as someone who likes movies, I feel I benefit from being told what movies are coming. And the actual trailers are usually quite enjoyable in their own right. It's not a zero sum game. They benefit. I benefit.