Is your office abuzz over the talk in Hollywood the last week or two? I've been reading that they are giving serious consideration to the possibility of offering movies on DVD the day they arrive in the theater.
Their thinking is that a large segment of the population doesn't go to the theater anymore, and they can cash in better on the advertising if the DVD is available immediately.
It's definitely crossed my desk. I think there's still a hesitation to this concept. I mean really, what's the point of a release in the theatre if you can just rent it the same day for 6 bucks less? Sure, you're missing out on the experience of the theatre, but then it's in the comfort of your own home.
I don't believe this is an idea that willl fly. Good concept, but not gonna happen. Sure, the ultimate purpose is to curb piracy, but really, I can't imagine it would curb it, AND it'll just cut in to business.
I know the theater owners stand the most to lose, I can't imagine they won't fight it tooth and nail.
But from what I've read the studios don't make most of their money from the theaters, they make it from the sales of the DVD, and they think they can substantially increase those sales with immediate releases.
Personally, I would love it if they would do it. I can't tell you how many movies I've wanted to watch that by the time they've hit DVD I forgot about and never wind up getting.
BUT, I do worry that the theaters wouldn't adapt and it would suck if it got to the point where the DVD was the only way to see a movie.
I see your point. I won't lie. If I had the option to see an opening day release while eating cheetos on my couch, I'm sold. I rarely attend films, which is sad, but it's more because of the options I have. Hollywood has provided me with bupkus (nada) in terms of quailty film. I have no desire to spend my few fleeting hours in the dark of a movie theater with a crappy film.
I guess we'll adapt to this concept if it should arise. Doubtful it will, but we'll make it through.
I dont know SC...there are an awful lot of Kettleheads who love talking or disrupting the experience in the theatre...If the theatres cant monitor things better...I may set up a home theatre and never attend another movie theatre showing agian....it has gotten that bad
Trust me, I know that disruptive audiences is a huge problem. Apparently everyone got the "I'm better than you complex" in the 10 + years 'I've been in this industry. It's really very sad . We're still working on ways to curb the issues. It's our mission.
Well, I'll tell ya, and I KNOW Dylan will back me up on this, the one thing movie theaters need to do is find a way to restore quiet to the theater.
I used to LOVE going to movies. I probably went to 30 a year for awhile. Then I started going to those mid-day matinees because they had fewer people and I wouldn't have to put up with all the talking, or the kids running around the theater, or the cell phones, etc.
Now, EVEN THE MATINEES are a pain. I bet atleast 50% of movie theaters have a disturbance of one kind or another during a show.
Finally I just got my huge projection screen at home and I don't know if I'll ever venture into a theater again.
Now, I know I'm the extreme, but I think this is starting to happen more and more with people, and I don't see the theaters taking much action to change things (although I must admit I haven't stepped foot in one since 2003).
Dylan and I were talking a few days ago and said it might work to just offer someone the opportunity to watch movies for free in exchange for being a pair of eyes in the theater. If they see trouble they can alert a manager.
No cost to the theater, they can announce before each film that there are monitors in each showing, and the manager wouldn't have to worry about not knowing a situation is developing.
Last movie I went and saw was War of the Worlds and Batman Begins
But honestly,It was crowded with teenagers trying to scare the girls so they could score. There was even one idiot standing on the stairs talking on his cell!. That just chaps my a@@
BIG BIG thank you to the penguin for illustrating my views on Hollywood ! the reason you forget about a picture is because theres nothing to remember ! If dvds were around 60 years ago , do you think you'd of forgot Gone with the wind ? or the Maltese Falcon ? or Citizen Kane ? and why not ? cause people all over would be talking about them , todays films are all the same ole TnA - blow it up - kill it- toilet humor crap. not much there to keep it in the public eye for very long .
The theaters don't get so bad here. Maybe because I live in a college town? The past few movies I've seen in the theater have had no disturbances. Of course, I always wait until the movie has been out for at least a week before I go see it.
No, the thing that gets me about movie theaters is the cost to get in. In the evening, it's $8 a person! The last time we went, I had $24 in my pocket, and we couldn't get in, get something to drink, and get a small popcorn with that.
My last 2 cents on this. I realize the convenience of staying at home to watch the latest blockbusters, especially with all of the great technology that's out there. But there really is nothing like seeing a movie like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings on the big screen. I think product sometimes makes a difference. When I saw Lord of the Rings, the theatre was dead silent. Not so much for a big budget action thriller or a dopey comedy. The content of the movie can often make the difference, at least I've noticed that.
Thanks for all of the input on this. I really appreciate it!
She's got a point there. The only movies I'll spend money on in the theater are ones that I *have* to see on the big screen. Like the latest Star Wars, we knew it would be a visual feast, so we had to see it larger than life. Some of our friends went out to see the 40 Year Old Virgin last weekend. That movie will be no different in the theater than on DVD, so why spend the money? We let them go and went out to supper instead.
My wife and I don't go to the movie houses around us very often because their sound systems are so outdated. They are just LOUD! The last five or six times we have gone, Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movies my wife came out with a splitting headache and I was on the verge. Thats no fun and not worth paying money for.
The discussion about putting movies out on DVD immediately while still having them in theaters also included the point that they beleive there will ALWAYS be a theater audience for films for the reasons you just stated.
It's like you said, some movies you want to be immersed in. The industry is just concerned that they can't stop the constant downward spiral of people that attend the films. There's really no reason to think it's going turn around.
People aren't going to get quieter or less intrusive, in fact it will only get worse, in large part thanks to technology. Prices aren't going to get lower, in fact they're only going to go up, as inflation continues and more importantly as fewer butts fill the seats (they'll need to make up that lost revenue by charging more to the ones that DO show up).
Most importantly, movies aren't going to get better. There of course will be the exception, but let's be fair. The movies that JstDave mentioned were all classics that were in the early years of the talking films! It's got to be next to impossible to have a truly original thought for a film anymore!
Then add to that the pressure that even though we bitch about the lack of ingenuity and quality, the only movies we seem to REALLY pack the theaters for are the crappy ones JstDave described. Like I said, there's always an exception or two, and this year it seems to be MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, which is no doubt enjoying it's incredible success because of the popularity of Freeze-Frame Radio
The articles I read regarding this simultaneous release idea seems to suggest the studio heads are simply saying "Look, it isn't going to turn around, and we have to be prepared with a plan to continue our financial growth". They can spend millions on an advertising campaign for a new movie, but when the DVD comes out they usually spend a tiny fraction of that. They think they could maximize their advertising value if they were advertising for both.
Theaters would definately have to think differently. Maybe they could get a good price on the DVD's from the studio and offer customers to turn in their stub for a good price on the DVD.
When movies first hit DVD they're usually at the higher rate, maybe 19.95 or $24.95. The studios could work out a deal with the theaters to allow THEM to sell them at the later sell-through price of $14.95.
Then the theaters could say "SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN, and if you like it you can buy it on your way out" The cost to the consumer would be no more, maybe even LESS than if they bought the DVD at a store.
The theater could also push the angle of DON'T WASTE YOUR $25 ON A DVD UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT AND KNOW IF YOU WANT TO OWN IT.
