Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Would You Like Early Access To Movies And Stop Going To Theatres?
It appears many major stakeholders in the movie industry want to bring new titles to you within days, if not hours, as they hit cinemas. Earlier this year, we learned that Sean Parker is working on a service called "Screening Room", an idea that was reportedly backed by Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams, to bring movies on the same day as they show up in theaters. Apple seems interested as well. It is reportedly in talks with Hollywood studios to get iTunes rentals of movies that are still playing on the big screen. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that several studios are exploring the idea of renting new movies for $25 to $50 just two weeks after they have hit cinemas.
None of such deals have materialized yet, of course, and also it needs to be pointed out that several movie companies have discarded these ideas before because they know that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre. There's also piracy concerns. If a movie is available early, regardless of the DRM tech these companies deploy, good-enough footage of the movies will crop up on file-sharing websites almost immediately.
But leaving all those aspects aside, would you be interested in getting new titles just hours or a week or two after they hit the cinemas? Would you want to end the decades-long practice of going to a theater?
None of such deals have materialized yet, of course, and also it needs to be pointed out that several movie companies have discarded these ideas before because they know that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre. There's also piracy concerns. If a movie is available early, regardless of the DRM tech these companies deploy, good-enough footage of the movies will crop up on file-sharing websites almost immediately.
But leaving all those aspects aside, would you be interested in getting new titles just hours or a week or two after they hit the cinemas? Would you want to end the decades-long practice of going to a theater?
early/late. wouldn't go anyway.
$25 is ok... $50 is way too much.
Even if services that offer same-day movie screening as they hit cinemas arrive, I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.
But I sure as hell am not paying $25 just to rent it early, and 2 weeks after in Theatres is not that early anyways, that sounds about right for a perpetual purchase price.
By the way, I don't go to theatres anyways, haven't gone in years. Usually by the time the movie's out on DVD, I've already forgotten about it and lost interest.
On the other hand, if they released it earlier, and the price was reasonable instead of extortionate, they might have a chance at some of my business.
If it cost up to $8 to rent, then yes. Otherwise, hell no. There is no movie in existence that is worth renting for the prices in the story. $25 to rent a movie is insane. $50 to rent a movie is insanely stupid.
I hate going to the theater. It's overpriced, crowded, messy, etc. Given how good TVs/projectors and audio systems are, it's quite possible to have a movie experience that's just as good at home plus you don't have to pay a fortune for popcorn, can pause it whenever you want, and get to use a clean bathroom. I'd gladly pay to watch a new movie at home provided it was priced right. I'd say $20 is a fair price but it's just me and my wife. $50 is way too much but then again, I don't have kids. $50 would be a fair price for families of 4 or more considering they're probably also buying soda/popcorn/etc when they go to the theater.
Doing this, however, would basically put movie theaters out of business.
I almost never go to the cinema. It's useful when you're a kid wanting to date as neutral ground (although from what I understand kids don't date anymore- just hook up).
I'd much rather watch in the Living room than the cinema. No overly loud sound. No uncomfortable squished together seats. No popcorn stuck to the floor. The cinema isn't exactly a positive experience.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'm not talking advertising tie-ins, but why not do additional story lines available for streaming purchase? Especially in those big ensemble superhero movies that are always so narratively cluttered because they have to give you a thin slice of so many characters.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If they're even entertaining talks with Apple, it's because box office numbers are trending down or flat.
Big displays and projectors are cheap now. My house has booze in it and comfy chairs.
I haven't been to a movie theatre in a long, long time.
..don't panic
Sorry your wife won't let you install iTunes :(
Why should I spend $25-$50 to watch something on a small screen when I can watch it on a giant screen with luxury seating for $5 (Tuesday special)? You don't have to buy the food, it is possible to eat before you arrive.
This space intentionally left blank
http://www.primacinema.com/what-is-prima-cinema/
It appears it's just a question of cost to the consumer.
I barely go to the theatre anymore because of a lot of reasons, if you let me pay to have Day 1 access to the digital copy to either stream or outright buy DRM free I'd never set foot in an overpriced auditorium ever again.
The model would become more like digitally distributed video games, Launch day sees a big spike in sales (hell, pre-orders?) and then it kind of tapers off after a month or so, then you got a back catalogue you can keep old movies on. Things that normally wouldn't get distribution have a cheap option now... hell the more I think about it the better it sounds.
I mean, do for movies with what Steam did for games and you're gonna win
crazy dynamite monkey
I like the fake IMAX screen at the local theater, but parking is always bad, line to get in, line to get expensive food and soda, packed seatting, might not get a good seat, always some kids talking during the movie, a few people checking cell phones.
Or I can wait, buy the blueray, watch on my theater, and pause it, make my own food,
Older I get, less hassle I want to deal with.
I would certainly want the option, at least after the movie dropped off of the the "top 3 grossing movies of the past 72 hours" list.
I can't figure out a fair pricing model: They will have to charge the same to show it to 1 person on his big-screen TV as to show it to an entire family on their big-screen TV. That will either be too expensive for single people or it will so cheap that families will abandon theaters.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So, no.
I have a home theatre setup at my place... large screen, an old-fashioned popcorn maker, comfortable seating and I *STILL* prefer going to the theatre for certain movies.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You would watch a movie while at work? Do you work in a tollbooth?
Thanks!
...and there is already simultaneous availability of small independent films at home. The recent Werner Herzog film "Lo and behold..." for example was available for download while in the theater.
It could be a good economic thing to do to take advantage of the money being spent on advertising a film in its theater run to also make it available at home.
Now the Studios are always trying to stick it to the theater owners so I can see that this is the way things are going.
But the movie going experience is best done in a dark theater where, unlike at home, you can immerse yourself.
I wish they offered a Blu-Ray with that for that price. I can't tell if they do or not. In any case, for $50, I can go to the Alamo Drafthouse, buy a ticket, get a decent meal, and still be ahead.
There is no movie I'd spend $50 for to see at home, not to mention the cost of a heavily DRM-ed box that is not mentioned.
I go to the move theater maybe once per year. For what it costs once I buy two tickets and some concessions, not to mention the time wasted getting there, I wouldn't mind paying the price of 2-3 tickets to stay at home and watch.
"I don't like things, so I attribute that as a measure of quality!"
The early Bond movies? Really? I enjoyed those 20 years ago, but they're kind of hard to watch now. Bit too rapey for my tastes at times.
Sound of Music and Jesus Christ Superstar? And then you complain about action movies...I think the thing here is that you just don't like action movies and prefer musicals. So don't bother watching those "continuous violance(sic)" movies? There are plenty of others out there.
It's easy to pick out good examples in the past and bad ones of the present, but the fact is that there have been both great and awful movies at any point in film history. Trying to indicate otherwise just makes you sound like an angry old man. And I'm 41.
I go to the movies at most twice a year. I wait for almost everything to come out on blu-ray or netflix before I watch it because most stuff is shit anyways and not worth the money to see in the theaters.
For the things that are worth going to see in theaters, I'd rather do that with the big screen and the good sound than watch it at the house the first time.
At home I watch on a 55" plasma screen from about 2.5 meters distance, or at my other home a 120" screen (DLP projection) from about 3-3.5m away and always with a decent 5.1 channel home theater system. This means that going to about 80% of cinemas out there is actually a downgrade, either in terms of screen angular size, or audio (it is harder to make good audio on a huge room, and especially when targeting many seating positions - at least if you want to keep costs in check). The rest might be similar or a little better than the home setup, but I'd not really pay a premium for them, so I guess if I had the option of a similar price to watch it at home, I'd probably take it - I don't particularly prefer the movie theater as an experience, especially when it is crowded, there are other things I could do with a night out. However, $25-$50 seems a bit of a stretch since I'd go to the theater just with the wife, i.e. spending $15-$25 on tickets. I would not spend extra for that either, I'd probably wait and get it for either free with my streaming plan or at a low price.
Now, there is a cinema to which I still go, usually once or twice a month. That's the giant IMAX (not the "liemax" smallish screens popping out). The 26m wide screen experience (with amphitheatric seating) and great sound cannot be emulated at home. For example Dr. Strange was amazing watching there. So, I only go to the Imax regularly and for a movie that has a strong "visual" component I would not consider watching at home instead.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
News flash. You are part of the unwashed masses.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
My home theater consists of a mid-range 1080p projector giving me 110 inches and a mid-range 5.1 Bose, driven by a Mac Mini. By far and away not the most impressive home theater in the world... but certainly good enough for most viewing -- particularly when you consider that I also have seven kids, one of whom is autistic and prone to noisy behavior and to leaving his seat frequently, and on top of that, my best friend also has four kids. So even not taking into account extended family, I would absolutely go for early release to home in a heartbeat. The number of viewers in my core group alone would make such a system pay for itself after only a few kids' movies, and occasional adult movies with friends would be a not-terribly-difficult splurge, particularly considering how expensive theaters have gotten. So even with a moderate upfront cost, as some of the options have suggested, this would still be a complete no-brainer for me.
That said... I would still go to the theater with my wife, on occasional date nights. You have to get away from the kids entirely for a little while every now and then, or you'll go stir crazy!
After all, when you consider how much attention people are paying to the "black levels" of their TV screens, and needing 4K resolution to keep their attention, that doesn't say much for the quality of the story telling in modern movie making.
I'll continue to stay home. If I go out to a movie now, it is at a venue like Alamo Drafthouse, exclusively, where they still demonstrate that they care about their customers once they've sold them the ticket.
I understand if "Hollywood" can't fix the problem with dirty multiplex theaters filled with clueless boors. I really do. Just don't whine that your plummeting revenues are the fault of BitTorrent, m'kay? Let me put first run movies on my own screen and you'll get my money again.
"...several studios are exploring the idea of renting new movies for $25 to $50 just two weeks after they have hit cinemas."
So, I could go on opening night and pay a fraction of that price to watch it on the YUGE screen, or I could wait two weeks and pay 2 - 4x the cost.
Great idea morons. I'm sure that'll curb piracy.
Perhaps if you wanted to sell consumers on the idea that this industry is somehow hurting, you could start by not bragging so much about how blockbusters are still breaking records, and how your A-list actors are paid obscene amounts of money per movie.
But you people who talk during movies can do that and stay home, that's fine by me
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No. Going to a movie theater is an experience thing as much as it is seeing the latest movie. I couldn't care less if I wait a month - or a year - to see a title I'm only moderately interested in. If I'm dying to see it, or I want an experience other than sitting on the living room couch, I go to the theater. I would rather that NOT change, and it wouldn't change for me regardless of when the movie is available.
Last movie I saw in a theater was Return of the King. Now I just wait for the DVD. No, I won't pay extra to get it earlier.
What features do I get out of this? Can I pause or rewind the movie at my convenience? Do I have to buy/rent some bulky piece of equipment or can I use something existing in the home already? Does the price vary depending on how many people are present?
I live by myself and am single. $25-50 is a non-starter for me. Being unable to pause or rewind the movie is a non-starter for me. Having to rent/buy a piece of equipment that is singularly purposed, is a non-starter for me. Something invasive that figures out how many people are in the room is a non-starter for me. If I really want to see a movie, I can go see it in theater instead without those restrictions. The problem is that I'm not that gungho about much in theaters these days...
Movie theaters are a disaster. Your shoes stick to the floor from spilled drinks, and who knows what was left in the seat by a previous customer before you arrived. Then there are the idiots who turn on their phones in front of you, blinding you, to make or receive a call or an SMS and talk their head off. And of course, most movies are made for 14 year old boys or 12 year old girls. If there is any dialog, which is unusual, it's normally filled with inappropriate language (every three words are the F word), simulated (or real?) sex acts, lots of booze and cigarette smoke.
I'm sure there's more I can complain about, but Gunsmoke is on over the air TV in a few minutes and I want to watch it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
I really enjoy the ritual of going to the theater. Something about the process of going somewhere specifically to see a film, participating in a large group of people lining up and filing in, then the lights lower and the film is going. Nothing can stop it, no pausing for a pee break or for some douche to explain the backstory or argue some fine point. I think I will always enjoy the whole inconvenient procedure.
There are also some special theaters, some of them are very elaborate architecturally. One theater plays an old wurlitzer before major screenings. The Alamo drafthouse shows fascinating footage before films and does a spectacular job curating special films and events.
There are times I just want to put on a low grade movie and not pay much attention to it, but if I'm in the mood for a special experience going out to the movies can really fit the bill.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Who needs Day 1 access to a movie?
It's a movie for chrissake, not something important!
I couldn't possibly be less interested in this early access crap. The only times I bother to go to the theater are for blockbusters, and for those I won't settle for anything less than the full on blockbuster experience. Always IMAX, preferably IMAX 3D. Go big or go home!
Yup! Not quite...
I don't respond to AC's.
I'll wait for whenever it is the most convenient/cheap for me. I don't care if that means the content has to get old first.
Twinstiq, game news
Even if services that offer same-day movie screening as they hit cinemas arrive, I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen.
So would I. That's why I got a projector.
The actual viewing field is not as big as a (real) iMAX screen, but it's bigger than many smaller theaters, especially when you try to sit back in the middle of the theater.
The sounds system at home is arguably better even with cheap speakers because I can tailor it to hear more details instead of just going for OMG LOUD. As long as you have a subwoofer, close enough.
The only aspect of the theater experience I can't really replicate at the moment is 3D, which is only because something between the PS4, projector, receiver, and the 3D glasses I bought simply does not work and the 3D flickers on and off. But I'm sure if you put more thought to all the components of the system before you bought you could have a home 3D experience that worked quite well.
I do have tickets for RogueOne in a real theater on opening day, but that's really because I don't want to have to avoid spoilers after that day. If I could pay to watch it at home on release day (which I'm pretty sure would cost less or at least about the same than the $19 I paid for my own ticket) I'm pretty sure I would do that - especially since I'd probably be able to watch it a few times.
Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.
Well you could always put up flyers around downtown and nurseries inviting homeless and children in your area to come to your house for the evening. You could also go to Target, buy some candy then leave your wallet in the parking lot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't go to theaters and I don't really value early access. The movie will be just the same in a few months. If anything, it allows some time for things to shake out, and some sort of opinion on the movie to be established, so when the time comes - I can judge whether it is worth watching.
I did notice that quite a few local theaters shut down in the last several years. The remaining ones lean heavily on 3D.
The one theater that not only did not shut down, but renovated and expanded recently exists solely to screen older movies (those that are out of major theaters recently or, sometimes, much older but popular films) and has really cheap ticket prices ($10 standard price and discounts for some movies/times).
I think ultimately going to the movie *is* about the experience. That experience is more about sitting in a large darkened room in a cushy chair (eating popcorn if that's your thing), than seeing the latest release.
I go and see a movie in the theater based on whether I think it will benefit from the big screen experience or whether I'd rather be at home watching in the comfort of my den on the 60 " with surround sound having a beer and a vaping a number or two. I've long since lost the urge to rush and see a movie the first night out or wait in line like I did when the empire struck back...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
No. $25-$50? No. Yes, I have a good sound system & a large LED screen at home but it does not replace the movie theater experience. I generally pay $8 & smuggle my popcorn & beverage in, why would I ever pay $25 or more?
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
They are right, this would be a huge boost to revenue if done correctly. Unfortunately they will never do it correctly. First, this is a far cheaper distribution option so why are they charging more than the theater ticket price? Just cut out the theater middle man and keep his cut of the profits. The studios could even collaborate and build their own MPAA non-profit distribution service so studios pay only operating costs and all the profits pass through and then lay off all the obsolete middle men. Offer direct to consumer ultra high quality streams and site direct blu-ray sales from the get go, use an algorithm that accounts for the film budget and gradually lowers price inversely to purchase rate and time and at some point shifts to a bucket that is available for on demand streaming with a fixed monthly fee Netflix style that after expenses simply gets divided out according to proportion of views. All playstation vue style with 5 simultaneous devices.
If existing boxes of this sort are any indication they will lock down playback controls and not allow you to pause or replay the movie. This obsession with reducing the quality of experience for the consumer in order to keep third party services alive is what is hurting. Instead of fully embrace the kind of enhanced experience you could provide as well as the cost reduction of optimized distribution. The better the legal avenues the less it will be worth the hassle and risk of piracy. Forget legal risks, you have to find content, risk fakes, risk bad quality, and pay for equipment to store content. If someone is doing it as a cost saving measure they either couldn't have afforded much content in the first place or couldn't afford the volume of content they consume.
Watching in the cinema is a completely different experience. Going out of the house and making a journey somewhere builds up the sense of occasion, especially when it's combined with a nice meal somewhere beforehand. Watching a film as part of a large audience is also a better experience than watching at home. Sure there are certain audiences that are annoyingly chatty, but for the most part I have a good experience with fellow film-goers. Watching as part of an audience helps you to pick up on things that you wouldn't notice otherwise. Also, the inability to pause means that you have to put your phone away and give the film your undivided attention. Watching at home leaves you prone to more distractions.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Rather, I'd like for the people that make the theater going experience terrible to jump on methods like this and just stay home, instead of ruining things for other people. Bad, overly-entitled theater goers who do nothing but distract and annoy (and in some cases even through smell) are a huge part of the love loss with the theater (that and sub-par Hollywood movie writing standards). Sure, maybe the multiplexes would suffer from stuff like this, but they've had their good run, perhaps it is time to scale them back and make a concerted effort to focus on true classic theater experiences rather than attracting and awing the fickle masses (whom will never be pleased anyway and always demand more useless gimmicks to keep coming).
At the same time, I'm still surprised AMC's texting-friendly screenings got shot down as soundly as it did... Perhaps not all hope is yet lost for humanity... though all that supported it should definitely stay home and stream movies, so they can text about their superiority to their hearts content, at a safe distance from the rest of us.
...that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre.
This is incorrect. Movie theaters make ZERO money on ticket sales for the first few weeks, then a small portion of the ticket sale, and then eventually a good portion. Pretty much ALL ticket money goes to the makers of the movie.
THE REASON why you have those overpriced drinks and such, is because it's the only source of income for the movie theater itself.
The downside is the popcorn, chatting, coughing and phone users.
There is no way that watching a movie on my Samsung 32" LCD TV (with in-built stereo speakers) or my even smaller Samsung PC monitor (and fairly generic Creative Labs 2.1 speakers) can come close to watching that movie on the big screen with full surround sound.
And the experience at the movies is great. The cinema I go to only charged me $4.50 (I get concession prices) for my last ticket (although because Disney are so evil they make Darth Vader look like a saint, I will have to pay $6.50 for Star Wars and any other big Disney films going forward). The munchies aren't overpriced either. And I have never experienced any of the negatives of people talking through the movie or using their phones in a way that's annoying or anything else that ruins the experience.
or listen to sports on the radio instead of going there? it's probably a different eyperience. so it's 8-14â per movie ticket (i bring my own snacks & beverages) on a big screen with a nice sound system in a nice sounding room, focused on the movie and not distracted by a tablet, my kid, the availability of a pause button, vs. 25-50â (those prices usually translate literally from usd) plus several thousands every few years to have an adequate (cinema like) playback setup (those huge 4k screens with p3 color gamut are not cheap, so are the 7.1 sound systems with large speakers) just for the same picture/sound-quality. thanks, but no thanks. it might depend on your local culture, availability of good cinemas (if there were only loveless multiplexes, i'd rather sit at home as well), and the size of your family if such an offer would make sense to you, but in my book it's pretty square to sit at home in your filter bubble the whole time, just because it might make sense from a pure financial point.
a typical movie in a dcp package has about 100gb, i doubt, they'd distribute those movies at that level of quality.
I have an 120" screen in my living room. My HTPC is connected to the 5.1 receiver and the projector. I have control over the sound, picture and play/pause.
If I wanted to see a movie in a theatre it would be more inconvenient than seeing it at home in my pyjamas or buck naked(Butt naked for the younger ones amongst you.).
But it's not $25, never mind $50, more inconvenient. At the most, I would be willing to pay double the movie theatre price, which around here is $8.
>"Slashdot Asks: Would You Like Early Access To Movies And Stop Going To Theatres?"
No, not really. Doesn't matter all that much to me. I rarely go to see movies in a theater, but there are also few movies I want to see sooner than I already can at home. Yeah, it might be nice if things got to DVD/BluRay/Streaming sooner, but they already are now. But I won't pay a premium for getting it sooner either.... and I am guessing the vast majority of people out there won't, either.
Depends on the movie and the theater.
There have been a handful of "luxury cinemas" popping up in my area. Leather recliner seats, with two complete arm rests for everyone (no sharing), and the seats are even assigned. You can buy tickets online in advance and pick your seats, or when you buy tickets in the lobby, they have a screen for you to choose. No more trying to find space, or people asking you to shift down one... They also have a genuine kitchen making actual food, fresh baked cookies, and beer/wine available.
There are a few movies every year that I really do want to experience on opening night in this fashion. But for the other 95% of the pablum that Hollywood produces, just release it straight to video on demand. I'll probably pay $5-10 on opening weekend, but not much more.
This signature is false.
25$ I need at least me and a friend watching it to make up the price.
50$ We need to be 4 persons.
And I live in Europe. So there would be some extra VAT and whatever. So if I'm lucky then we have to be between 3 and 6 people to make up for the price. .... If I already had the set up at home. Then I might have a movie night with some friends from time to time.
And then one of us have to invest in a good screen and sound system.
But at that price they wont loss many customers in the theatres here in Denmark.
But I can see if you live somewhere with bad movie theatres, or a long way the the nearest good one. Then it's a good alternative.
But then again. It's not a loss to the theatres. Because the changes was you would not had gone there anyway.
The movie theater nearest to me is a little over 1.5 hours away, none of it highway driving. When all is said and done, a trip to the cinema is going to cost me ~$50 anyway to cover the ticket, soda/snacks, and gas. That's not counting the 3 hours of my life lost to drive time to/from it. I'd gladly pay that $50 to watch a new movie from the comfort of my couch.
Sorry your wife won't let you install iTunes :(
If he was using Windows, I wouldn't recommend installing iTunes either. Apple's Windows ports are horrible resource-hogging systems killers.
I'd pay $20 to be able to watch it at home on day of release. It would be worth it just to now have to deal with assholes on their cell phones. As it stands now, I go to the theater maybe once per year. The rest of the time, I will just wait for it to come out on Amazon or Vudu or whatever, and then they get nothing special from me. So...yeah, figure it out studios.
Back when I lived at the Marshmallow Peanut Circus near downtown Santa Cruz, CA, yes I would have paid that — or rather, my share of it. With six of us in the house and a fairly decent television (and pretty nice stereo), $25 would have been a shoo-in and even $50 would probably have been feasible for some pictures. But there would have been some conditions. Wave a wand and ignore the technical restrictions of doing this in the early 2000s; it would have had to have been as good quality as rental, and it would have had to have been downloaded ahead because you still can't trust streaming now and we didn't actually have the bandwidth to do it back then.
If I'm not trying to see the movie with other people, then I can wait. I don't need to see it when it comes out if I'm going to see it at home anyway.
As others have suggested, I would pay a premium to get to stream the movie early, provided I had a physical disc coming to me when it was released. But I wouldn't pay so much only to watch the movie. For $25 I might even accept a DVD, if it were an anamorphic transfer and came with DTS audio. For $50 I expect a Blu-Ray.
Perhaps my expectations are high. So be it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heck, I would even pay more than the current ticket price. But unless they get rid of ALL advertisements for anything other than new movies, (as well as getting rid of those craptacular trivia quizzes), then I'll continue going only to movies that I really want to see on a BIG screen - which is probably about 10 percent of what I would watch in the cinema if it wasn't for the adverts. I really hate paying for the 'privilege' of being advertised to.
As for being able to watch a movie at home as soon as it's released, it's rare for me to want to see a flick that urgently. The delay between theatrical release and Blu-Ray doesn't usually bother me - I have lots of other movies to watch, and lots of other stuff to do.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
We are a demanding lot, eh? Instant gratification. As a child I was as enthused as anyone to see the World Series (that would be baseball for you foreigners) live. It had to be live! Classes would grind to a halt during the Big Games so that teachers, staff and students could watch in glorious black and white.
Movies, comics and music much the same. Gotta have it NOW!
I imagine that many of the /. crowd are mature enough to be able to deal with such things on their own time. We take control and don't let the commercial pressures of mass media push us into a panic for quick (and expensive) access to the hot item of the moment ... don't we?
...omphaloskepsis often...
Because of the strong lobbying for Internet censorship that comes from the MPAA, I fell that it is immoral to give money to them (and stupid too).
That made me stop going to the movies, cancel cable and even netflix.
Before people decide to ignore my point and make up claims about my motives/reality, I will inform that it is not about saving money and "stealing". I miss some food channels like TLC and other time wasters that you can't/won't download to watch. Sports are way more exciting on live tv. Netflix's price is irrelevant. I do miss going to the movies and almost made an exception because of Snowden.
Lets go with no. I'm not paying 1.5-3x the price of a theater ticket in order to watch a movie on my tiny TV with my improperly-aligned sound system.
I'm sure people who have better setups than mine, and would be wanting to screen movies for friends and family (which I'm sure would be against the ToS, not that that would stop them) but for your average moviegoer with a standard TV, that's a hell of a price to impose to save 20-30min on the road.
I mean that's the price of buying the movie on Blu-ray.. maybe even more at the high end.. and you only get to watch it once (or well maybe you'd get a short period of time to watch it or something but regardless.. its not permanent is the point.)
Oh and 2 weeks after release no less. If you're going to wait that long you may as well just wait another couple months until it comes out on a more reasonably priced service. Or download it for free a few hours after release if you're not super worried about copyright law or image quality. (Or a few days/weeks before release if you can find a screener version.)
Of course, its not like offering this service takes away from anything else really so I guess the people who want to watch things this way and are willing to pay such an insane premium are getting the benefit of a new service, but I have some strong doubts as to whether it will pay for itself..
Most likely this is another "lets make an intentionally unprofitable service and then bitch about piracy being the cause of all our woes" scheme.
Start making intelligent movies that aren't the third version of an older one, and we can talk. Otherwise I'll keep my money.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I don't care about early access but would gladly pay for the chance to enjoy now running movies in the comfort of my home.
Sound is more important than screen resolution anyhow, I learned this back in '98 or so when DVD was new and the price of Dolby Digital amps started to come down because it was no longer limited to laserdisc setups. Even just a good 5.1 setup is great improvement over TV speakers. Since broadcast TV went digital, most prime time shows now have 5.1 audio. And by 5.1 I mean actual speakers placed around the room, including a sub-woofer, not the TV's built-in sound bar speakers. (although the sound from those sound bars can sometimes be quite good)
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The main reason left to go to a cinema is that the screen is bigger and the sound system is fantastic. Everything else you can have at home.
With a good home cinema setup, you can come close, and you have none of the expensive popcorn, queues, guy next to you getting on your nerves, obnoxious advertisement and other bullshit. Plus you can pause the movie to get a drink from the kitchen and cuddle your cats while watching.
Cinema is on the way out. Once Hollywood understood the lesson that the music industry had to understand, things will get better.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I can drink my beer, eat my food and I don't have to watch loud ads for which I have paid, what? Also I have to spend time getting to cinema which I could use for other purposes.
"Would you want to end the decades-long practice of going to a theater? "
We stopped going to a theater years ago, when torrents became available.
If we want to go to a movie, we have to get a babysitter. That's not a priority for us. Instead, we just watch movies on Netflix or rent or buy them on iTunes. It makes no difference if the movie is six months old (or even older) or if it was just released; it's still new to us.
For some movies, I want to see them in the cinema. I want the dark room, the big screen, the good sound, the lack of distractions. While I have a good home cinema setup, I find when watching a movie at home that I'll start fiddling with my phone, or I'll pause it go get a snack, etc. In the cinema, I don't. And I find I enjoy the movie more because of it.
There are some movies that I'd like to see that I really don't care about seeing them in the cinema or not. Whether I'd be willing to pay that amount for them, though, is the main question - my local cinema has €5 tickets on a Wednesday, every Wednesday, every film, so I do most of my cinema watching on a Wednesday as a result. I don't buy popcorn or drinks or any other treats/snacks. So it would cost me a lot more to watch the movie at home.
But for some movies, where I don't want the distraction of the people behind me talking, I may be interesting in paying out to watch it at home. I would have done that with Star Wars, most likely, had I had the opportunity.
It comes out when it comes out. There's no such thing as "early." Happy to watch, whenever.
But $50? Ha! Even $25 is an awful lot.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
OK first, "the movie companies" is hilariously vague - are you talking about the studios that make movies or are you talking about the theaters? They're not the same companies, pretty much ever.
Second, assuming you mean the studios - they see none of the revenue from the sales of concessions. None. They take the majority of the ticket price in most cases, usually on a sliding scale downwards from the week of release. A theater playing The Force Awakens on day one actually makes very little money on people seeing the movie. Maybe a dollar a person. They barely make enough to cover the costs of the janitors at the end of the night. This is also why they hate long movies - you can't have as many showings which cuts down the take further.
The theaters make their money on the concessions. That's why they're so expensive. That's why you can't bring your own. That's why the "dinner and a movie" chains like Alamo Drafthouse or Studio Movie Grill are thriving. That's just how the business works.
It's also why ideas like this generally fail because the major theater chains will usually refuse to carry movies that undercut them like this. There was a movie years ago called Bubble which released day one on PPV and DVD. You've never heard of it because theaters refused to carry it.
This is also why ideas like The Screening Room will include the cost of a ticket to your favorite theater in your rental price - so that the theater chains won't get mad.
Schnapple
We go to the movies at least once a week. It is great to sit in a theater, eat popcorn, and watch the movie.
An analogue guy in a digital world..... The input is saturated and the output.. STUCK AT ZERO..
The piracy argument is a red herring. Good enough copies of movies quickly appear online already. It's true that it would enable somewhat better pirate copies. No amount of streaming software DRM will help because HDCP 2.2 crackers are already available, so the pirates can re-encode from the bits that are sent to your television.
In pure revenue terms the studios have nothing to lose. They don't get any money from those expensive snacks at the movie theater. (Conversely, the theater makes almost nothing from admissions for the first couple of weeks; nearly all the money goes to the studio, and the theater's entire profit comes from those snacks.) And the proposed pricing for home viewing is high enough that they'll do fine there; they'll lose money when people hold big home viewing parties, but they will gain when individuals or couples watch.
The fly in the ointment is channel conflict. (That's the principle that says that it's often a good idea to avoid competing directly with companies that resell your product. But some companies do it successfully; for example, the Apple Store manages to coexist with Apple resellers.) If the studios aggressively promote a home viewing option they will alienate the theater owners, which might retaliate by refusing to show the films in question or at least giving them less favorable placement and less promotion.
If this does happen, theaters are likely to become even more dominated by teens and young adults than they already are. They're the audience that most wants to get out of the house.
I don't think people will stop going to the cinema, and theatre also because theatres show stuff you can't see anywhere else. You know, my wife and I we go to the cinema when there's an exceptionally good film that we want to watch, and we'd rather see it in a cinema than at home. Unfortunately that happens very rarely because films at the cinema generally suck donkey bollocks. That's one reason why people don't go to the cinema as much as they used to. The other being - they've become too lazy and like the comfort of home. You can drink and eat and talk as much as you like when you watch a film at home. Anyway, I don't think much would change, but maybe slightly more people would decide to watch the film at home, I guess. However, what I tried to say is: films have become much worse quality, stupid, unchallenging for the viewer, and that's the problem with any industry that got "murricanised". When art is solely being made for profit and pandering for "everybody" [meaning the lowest common denominator of 80 IQ] then art suffers. People generally recognise that and therefore companies make less profit. There are really great films being released only on DVD, though. You have to look really hard to find them, though. That's a shame. Have a nice day.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Book your kitchen at admin@blissbathandkitchen.com or call at 1-855-366-1001.