|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Entertainment Weekly article - "Why Isn't Anyone Going to the Movies This Year?"
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 05-19-2005 04:02 PM
Published in today's Oregon Daily Emerald (student newspaper of the University of Oregon in Eugene)
The end of the American movie theater era is near
Ryan Nyburg
Pulse Editor
May 19, 2005
Why do people still go to movie theaters? They are noisy, expensive, inconvenient and increasingly a breeding ground for intrusive advertising. The worst thing about going to the average American movie theater, of course, is having to spend an hour and a half with other average Americans. We must admit that we are not the most pleasant group of people to be around and most of us don't like each other, so why bother at all?
More and more, I find myself at home watching DVDs instead of shelling out the cash for a ticket at the local multiplex or art house. Does this make me a bad person? Does the fact that I'm beginning to have trouble with the community experience of viewing films in a theater make me some kind of bizarre, postmodern, fragmented individual completely disconnected from his fellow human beings?
Bullshit. Watching a movie in a theater is a community experience like staring at a car wreck from a moving vehicle is a community experience. I get no sense of interaction from this. A hundred people sitting in the dark watching flashing lights and hearing loud noises is more akin to a psychological experiment than it is to human togetherness. At least at a concert you can talk, move around and be vomited on, activities that connect to the rest of humanity better than sitting around like a pack of hypnotized herd animals does.
So let me make a radical suggestion: Let's burn down the multiplexes. Hell with them. They rarely show independent works; studios only use them as launching pads for films, and even that practice is proving less profitable. Studios make all of their money from other media, i.e. television broadcast rights and video sales. Theaters are hardly worth the trouble anymore. They exist to give a false sense of legitimacy to a film, make it seem like more than a direct to video fare. But production values are all that distinguish high-class Hollywood films from the non-theater-screened drivel. Why not just cut out the middleman?
I'll make an exception for certain cases: revival houses, some art theaters. These serve a purpose for the community, giving a mode of expression for upcoming filmmakers. And I actually like seeing old movies with an audience of respectful film snobs. It carries that community experience the big theaters lack. Also, there are some things that just need to be seen on the big screen.
So maybe we can reach a compromise between what we have now and arson. First, eliminate the ads before movies. I have never heard a positive response to these, though I know advertisers are banking on the fact that the next generation will just accept them because they won't remember a time without them. For now, I actively do not buy products I see advertised before a movie (as for ones that are advertised in the movie itself, keeping track of those is a little more difficult).
Second, theaters should start offering movie passes. For, say, $20 people could see as many movies as they want. This would get people in the theaters more often, which means more concession sales, which is where theaters make real profit. But studios might not like the idea because it would cut into their slice of the pie (though that slice getting progressively slimmer anyway).
I'm not going to make a grand prediction about the decline of theaters over the next few years or for direct-to-video/on-demand rental being the wave of the future for movies. I make no claims to clairvoyance. But if you want a definite trend toward home viewership rather than theater going, look at the horror film genre. A good chunk of the most interesting horror films are released direct to video or with such a limited theater run they might as well have been. "Dagon," "May," "Ginger Snaps," "Bruiser," "King of the Ants," "Dog Soldiers" etc. Each one better than the last Wes Craven film and each one more intelligent than the remake of "The Amityville Horror."
How's that for a wave of the future?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-19-2005 04:18 PM
Well that guy is clearly either an idiot, a totally self-absorbed geek, a complete nerd, or a disgruntled indie film-maker, or some combination of the above. When (or if) he ever gets a girlfriend who wants to be taken out for a date, his view will change.
There's a point in that article that always bugs me -- he complains about other moviegoers being noisy. That is true and I don't know what to do about it, but to all the people who want a more "quality experience," I say: AVOID THE OPENING WEEKEND, YOU DOLTS! A good share of the first-weekend crowd could give less than a shit about the movie...they're there to see their friends and share an "event." You could have a nearly-perfect evening with a few other like-minded moviegoers at a late show on Tuesday and still see the same movie and probably enjoy it 10X as much. (That's assuming the theatre hasn't wrecked the print by that time, of course.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-25-2005 05:08 PM
I can dig it.
I think too many of us are overly sensitive and defensive of our industry. I try not to be. In this case, I agree: I think we are in trouble.
The combination of bad movies and quick-to-DVD release scheduling has had an appreciable negative impact on theatre attendance. The relatively recent trend toward the super-wide release pattern (one movie on five screens in every major multiplex) has also affected how much money a theatre can earn from the box office revenue it generates. This explains why a lot of theatre operators place a greater emphasis on concession and advertising revenue and, in their defense, they are somewhat justified in that this is an area that is totally within their control and, from their vantage point, the concession stand keeps the theatre open and makes it possible to keep the movies on-screen. There is some truth to this but the trouble is that, in practice, the budget is too far off-balance and the feature presentation is reduced to the status of "necessary evil" and this is why mediocrity rules when it comes to showmanship.
Part of me can empathise with the straightforward "it's a business" viewpoint but, let's face it, there's an element of greed involved. A bottle of water does not need to cost $3.50! It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense (to me) to admit, on the one hand, that the movie is the "attraction" and then allow it to be anything less than it ought to be.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem with our industry is, we are marketing the MOVIES and not the EXPERIENCE.
It has been my observation that WE aren't marketing anything! Instead, we're allowing the DISTRIBUTORS to take care of the marketing. So it should come as no surprise that the marketing is all about the movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hooper
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 532
From: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-26-2005 11:27 AM
A well run and caring theatre chain, could do it at a national level, but the problem is that none exist.
Many independent local cinemas (at least here in Oakland) do promote themselves and promote *their* cinema experience. Renaissance Rialto Theaters, a chain of three theatres actually, promote themselves as "Dedicated to the preservation of the historic movie going experience." And they do a GREAT job of it! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) And the Parkway Theatre is a funky cool place selling beer, pizza, and a full menu, with couches and lounge chairs and tables, instead of regular movie seats. Although they show second run movies, they're always packed.
It is inventive and creative ideas like this that is what movie theatres will need to do in the future to remain open and survive. Sorry, the shoebox just doesn't cut it anymore.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I guess it's a slow time for news, let's beat up on the movie theatres again. ![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic