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
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?
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
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
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.