|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Day and Date Update
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-16-2016 01:59 PM
quote: Manny Montes
I hate this system and I think the pricing is way off however the issue with this argument is that a lot of people aren't going to buy all of this equipment just for movies.
I get it and I understand what you are saying.
People don't buy 4-wheel drive trucks just because there might be a snowstorm one day out of the year. They might like to go off-roading. They might just want to carry tools and equipment to a work site. On the other hand, how many times do you see people driving big SUVs just to go to the grocery store? It's kind of a waste if you justify buying a truck for those reasons but all you end up doing is driving around town. I bet 90% of those 4-WDs never see anything more "off-road" than driving it on the lawn.
People don't buy guns just because they want to protect their house. They go hunting and target shooting. Some people study guns and gunsmithing. Some people just like to collect guns. At the same time, I'd bet that a majority of those guns collect dust in the back of a closet some place. It's a waste to buy guns for any of those justifications but never use them.
You can buy a 60" flat screen at Walmart in the $700-$1,000 range. Maybe a little more. Maybe a little less. Depends on what you get. You can get a nice big-screen TV at BestBuy for that range but some of their upscale models cost $2,000 and up.
A DVD/Blu-Ray costs $50 to $100 and up. A home theater stereo system costs a few hundred and up to $1,000 or more.
It all depends on what you buy, where you buy and whether you can get a deal.
My point isn't specifically the cost or whether TV systems get used only for movies. Of course, people are going to watch daily television programs or play games and stuff like that.
What I am saying is that people spend a lot of money to buy things and justify the purchase by saying that they'll watch movies in a home theater when, in reality, they have spent a lot more money than they needed and probably more than they can afford for something that is only going to be used for a fraction of its justified purpose.
Yes! People can buy nice things if they want to and they don't have to justify themselves. This is America! Right?
I am saying that, like the way people spend tens of thousands of dollars more than they need to on a big SUV that ends up only being a grocery getter or, like the way people justify owning a gun for home defense purposes then that gun ends up rusting away in a closet, people spend a lot more on home theater gear when they don't need to. Many of those people end up going to the movie theater, anyhow.
People buy home theater gear like they way they buy guns or buy SUVs or any other such stuff. They buy it on thin justifications. They spend a lot more money than they need to and they may only use stuff for a fraction of the reason they used to justify it.
It's like buying the latest iPhone... Marketing... Hype... Peer pressure... Herd mentality.
It's all empty marketing. It doesn't make sense.
People can buy TVs if they really want them but they should also think... They can watch movies in a theater for less money than they would spend on a TV system and, if they pick a good theater, they can have BETTER than their home theater.
So I stand by when I say that spending $100-plus dollars on another set-top box, plus $50 per movie and, likely, a monthly subscription fee just to watch movies at home is a waste of money and it doesn't make sense.
I think that movie theater owners need to do two things:
Get out the message that home theaters are a waste of money and don't make sense.
Step up their game so that when they say that movie theaters are better, it really IS better. By that, I mean the sterile, multiplex experience with stale popcorn, crappy screens and uncaring employees.
Movie theaters are better and they are cheaper in the long run.
We just need to overcome all that empty marketing hype that drives people to stay at home, thinking they are getting something better when they really aren't.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-16-2016 03:18 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
People can buy TVs if they really want them but they should also think... They can watch movies in a theater for less money than they would spend on a TV system and, if they pick a good theater, they can have BETTER than their home theater.
So I stand by when I say that spending $100-plus dollars on another set-top box, plus $50 per movie and, likely, a monthly subscription fee just to watch movies at home is a waste of money and it doesn't make sense.
I think that movie theater owners need to do two things:
Get out the message that home theaters are a waste of money and don't make sense.
Step up their game so that when they say that movie theaters are better, it really IS better. By that, I mean the sterile, multiplex experience with stale popcorn, crappy screens and uncaring employees.
Movie theaters are better and they are cheaper in the long run.
We just need to overcome all that empty marketing hype that drives people to stay at home, thinking they are getting something better when they really aren't.
I think you're marginalizing the audience with some of your viewpoints. Doing so risks treating them with contempt and missing the mark when you are trying to reach them.
> Get out the message that home theaters are a waste of money and don't make sense.
This would be a waste of energy and it would likely backfire on you anyway. Movie theaters enjoy the one thing those people can't get in their home theaters: exclusivity. That's what makes things like Screening Room dangerous for theaters.
> Step up their game so that when they say that movie theaters are better, it really IS better. By that, I mean the sterile, multiplex experience with stale popcorn, crappy screens and uncaring employees.
THIS is the most beneficial thing that theaters can do to be successful.
Doing this benefits a theater from every aspect. No matter what challenge of attracting audiences a theater is facing, delivering an excellent moviegoing experience from beginning to end is how to combat all of them.
People with home theaters enjoy movies. They don't stop going to movies in a movie theater just because they have a home theater (unless the movie theaters near them are so bad that they pale in comparison to their home theater, that is). If they just have a big TV and some speakers, they're still going to enjoy seeing a movie in a proper theater that does a good job. There are more entertainment choices than ever, so doing an excellent job makes a theater competitive with the other choices.
Things like Screening Room threaten the biggest advantage that theaters have, but even if Screening Room fails, another effort will be knocking at the door very soon thereafter.
If it or something like it succeeds, the best chance that a movie theater has to compete with it is in delivering the best possible experience.
Therefore, the only real option for theaters is to "step up their game" as you say.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-16-2016 04:48 PM
I'm sure that you'll all agree that, although individual people are often smart, people, in general, can be stupid. If you take one or two people, separately, you are likely to find some of the smartest people you might ever want to meet. If you take those very same people and put them in a crowd of dozens, they are likely to behave like cattle.
Mitchel and Mike, you guys are people who have trucks because you use them but I bet you also see many who don't and the most they ever use them off the normal roads is when they park them on the lawn.
I'm perfectly okay with people having trucks or home theaters or other things just because they like them. No beef, there. I still think that people in groups can and do fall prey to empty marketing far too often.
I think that this Screening Room concept is just another case of empty marketing and, unfortunately, I think that too many people will fall prey to it.
Scott, I take your criticism seriously. Yes, I see where my comments can make people feel like I am marginalizing them. I don't purposely intend to do that.
Still, in the end, I really do believe that Screening Room is little more than empty marketing that really won't live up to what people think it will be.
Sure, there will be some who will get something out of it in the same way Mitchell and Mike get use out of their trucks but I also believe that the majority won't.
I guess I'm asking how we can get that idea out without, as Scott warns, alienating people?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 05-19-2016 01:46 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
I guess I'm asking how we can get that idea out without, as Scott warns, alienating people?
There are ways to do that, but let's also remember that quality home theaters are the exception, not the rule. While the market is flooded with big-screen TVs, relatively few people actually have a decent sound system. The receiver market has been in the dumpster for years. At best, most people have a soundbar, if that.
I personally don't think that home theaters are the problem. If anything, it's Millennials (and others) who are willing to watch movies on a 4" screen who are the problem.
But if we did want to something to put more people in movie seats, there are a number of things that could be done:
- NATO (or the theater chains themselves) in conjunction with the studios should do a promotion. Remember in the early days of MTV, they had promos with famous rock acts saying, "I Want My MTV!"? They should do a promo where big directors and actors would say, "see it as it was intended to be seen...in a theater" and make the theater look really great.
- When you go to the ticket selling sites of the theater chains, they usually do tell you the format. But if you go to the third party sites, they don't. The theaters should insist that any third party site, such as Fandango, always list the film's format, especially when it's film, large screen, IMAX, D-Box, Atmos, ETX, whatever.
- Theaters should educate the public more. There should be a sign outside every screen listing the format:
Presented in: 70mm Ultra-Panavision 6-track DTS sound at an aspect ratio of 2.75:1 (for Hateful Eight) -or-
Presented in: Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos immersive sound on a 60-foot wide screen at an aspect ratio of 2.4:1.
Etc.
- They should run a snipe that shows a 65" TV actual size on the theater screen. They should also have a TV spot that does the same.
- Most big films aren't advertised in newspapers anymore (at least not the NY Times, which doesn't even have the Friday movie clock anymore). But when films are advertised in newspapers, the formats should be listed. I know theaters don't like to do this because they move films around or it's complex because the ad is actually placed by the studio, but it seems to me if they have a film that they're playing on a special format screen, they're going to keep it there for at least a week.
- You know those TV spots for horror movies where they show the audience going nuts? There should be more of those, but not just for horror movies. They should show such audiences for comedies or even dramas where there's lots of reaction, emphasizing the communal aspects of seeing a movie with other people. They should have spots with "beautiful people" on movie lines. They should show young good looking women snuggling with their boyfriends (or any other gender combo you wish). They need to make going to the movies seem special again and not just for the big popcorn films.
- Aside from the film itself, theaters are doing nothing to promote themselves. In spite of the amazing box-office of some of the superhero movies, overall movie attendance continues to decline (in the U.S.) The big theater chains need to do something to reverse that. I assume they would care after they've made their big investments.
If you look back to the 1950s, when theaters had to first fight the onslaught of TV, they did all kinds of things to promote attendance: personal appearances, "dish night", etc. (Although movie attendance actually declined substantially beginning in 1947, even before TV had a real penetration.) Aside from the films themselves, it seems like theaters have given up on marketing (Alamo maybe excepted).
There's no reason to promote the benefits of theaters by putting down home theater owners. That will sound like a ploy by a dying industry and won't come off as credible. Besides, as someone else posted, they're the most likely to be film lovers. You just have to get them out of their basements.
Elsewhere on here, someone recently posted about checking all the auditoriums in a given theater (it was a theater that was still playing films in 35mm). IIRC, no screen had more than 15 people in it. Theaters will not survive if that's the kind of business that they're doing. You can't run a business that only has customers 2 1/2 days a week, if that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 05-19-2016 02:41 PM
The public does not perceive that they are getting good value for there money by going out to a movie. Do to the cost structure of the industry, there is not much we can do about this. Various promotions, gimmicks and advertising will not work. It did not work in the 1950's, and will not work now. What did work then and would work now is giving the public something new and exciting, presentation wise, that they can't duplicate at home. 3D was almost it, until the up-charge and home availability killed it. ATMOS might have been it, except that most of the public does not know or care what it is, and those who do care can have it at home.
For most of the public, going out to a movie is an "event" activity as opposed to a day to day entertainment activity. I don't see this changing. As such, there are far too many screens out there. Inevitably, there will be a shakeout.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-19-2016 03:08 PM
Martin,
I like your ideas, they're good talking points that could actually lead to something constructive. A few thoughts:
quote: Martin Brooks
I personally don't think that home theaters are the problem. If anything, it's Millennials (and others) who are willing to watch movies on a 4" screen who are the problem.
I completely agree with this one. There is an entire generation of people growing up with a distribution system that is essentially free (all you can watch/hear, buried in a monthly subscription fee they probably don't pay themselves) and watched on a screen that fits in their hand/lap (phone, tablet, laptop).
However, when my kid has a bunch of friends over, the home theater makes an impression, so these kids can be influenced!
quote: Martin Brooks
When you go to the ticket selling sites of the theater chains, they usually do tell you the format. But if you go to the third party sites, they don't. The theaters should insist that any third party site, such as Fandango, always list the film's format, especially when it's film, large screen, IMAX, D-Box, Atmos, ETX, whatever.
Since I started The BigScreen Cinema Guide in 1995, I've been striving to deliver that kind of information and it's quite difficult to get it from theaters. We support THX and the various sound formats, as well as free-form comments that can include things like ETX, RPX, etc., but it's a challenge to get that information from the theaters. We usually get the ETX, RPX, UltraScreen indicators, but the sound formats and THX flags have always been difficult.
quote: Martin Brooks
They should run a snipe that shows a 65" TV actual size on the theater screen. They should also have a TV spot that does the same.
Marcus does this with their UltraScreen promos that run during the pre-show. A smartphone is crushed by a larger flatscreen, which is then crushed by the UltraScreen logo or something like that.
The comparison of a 65" TV would be effective, but only if the screen in the theater is wide enough to make an impression. I've been in some theaters where the viewing angle was probably the same compared to the 55" TV in my living room.
All that said, theaters are capable of delivering a much better presentation than anyone can do in their home. Even those of us with dedicated home theaters like to go to theaters, but I'm also much more selective about where I go. What's the sense in seeing a movie in a substandard environment when I can wait 100 days and see it in a better one (mine)? If I can't get to a new release while it's still in the premium screens, I might as well wait. That's a problem (for theaters).
It is surprising to me that NATO doesn't do more to market the idea of going to the movies. Are the dues really low that such things aren't feasible? I would think that NATO should be all over Screening Room with rebuttals and challenges because day-and-date proposals like that could be the death of its membership if they ever hit upon a formula that takes off.
I'm not a member of NATO, so maybe they're doing things that I'm not aware of, but I would hope that they would be raising points like yours and encouraging discussions on how theaters can rise to the challenges and work together to face them. If not, that's unfortunate, because the threat is real.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic