|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: On Demand Video While Movie Is Still In Theatres Start Next Month
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-05-2011 06:33 AM
If Picnics are not entertainment, you aren't doing them right ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And, for me, both baseball and bowling ARE entertainment. To each their own, I guess. Note, in the case of baseball, I get closer to 3-hours, each game of LIVE entertainment. Now certainly baseball is not for everyone but there are other events that too will compete favorably with movies for a 2-hour (on average) time/cost. Heck, on a strictly cost/hour, even amusement parks compete favorably to going out to the movies (unless you only go to the park for 2-hours...if it is closer to 8-hours...then most are less than $10/hour).
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-05-2011 09:35 AM
When I read about this development, it wasn't surprising. It shouldn't be to anyone that is paying attention to the industry.
The studios are boiling the frog the right way; turning up the heat a few degrees at a time.
They know that audiences won't accept direct-to-home releases -- yet.
They know that they need movie theaters and can't do simultaneous releases -- yet.
So they continue to chip away at the release window. If they get too much resistance, they back off for a while, and then start in again.
Meanwhile, movie theaters have occupied themselves with making the entire experience of going to a movie more expensive, but not necessarily more enjoyable. VIP seating, at-your-seat waitstaff, etc. are great luxuries to be enjoyed once in a while, but who's going to pay $30 per person for that kind of experience? Gold Class tried that, with success of execution in my opinion, but iPic just bought them out and converted their auditoriums with more traditional seats (don't know if the service has gone down, though).
I've been to the iPic here in the Milwaukee area, and the Gold Class in South Barrington (before the iPic purchase), and the iPic had good food, but the projection wasn't perfect, the screen was too small and too high for the seating position, and it was pricey. That was for the last Indiana Jones movie, and I haven't been back since.
Some time in the near future, we're going to see an A-list director and/or a movie with some A-list staff, with a budget that approaches average numbers, released simulataneously to theaters and to the PPV/VoD market.
Do I think that's a good thing? No. Especially given that my business revolves around people going to movie theaters to see movies.
Do I understand it? Yes. The appeal of the home market is too great for the studios to resist. It may be a bad decision in the long run, but I think the climate is such that it's going to be attempted. If it is a bad decision, hopefully they'll know before the entire market has been killed off and all the movie theaters are gone, and reverse course.
However, what I didn't see in any of the news from CinemaCon, from any official statements from NATO, or anyone here, is:
What is going to happen now?
Assuming that this news leak wasn't a trial balloon that was only intended to gauge response from exhibitors and analysts, the new reality is that theaters are going to have a 60-day exclusivity window on some major releases. They'll probably have another additional 30 days before the Blu-ray/DVD release.
What are theaters going to do with the window of opportunity they still have?
What can a theater do to improve attendance in those 60-90 days that will make the home video release a non-issue for them?
If a movie studio exec in charge of deciding what to do were to go into a movie theater (pick your theater, or pick an average movie theater nearby) to see Source Code or Hop, and use that experience as a judge about the quality of the moviegoing experience for their customers, what would they say?
Would they say that "this is the way we think our customers want to see our movies" or would they say "now I see why so many people wait for the video release"?
Many theaters that I have attended have every right to be very afraid of having to compete with direct-to-home releases. That's because they aren't doing enough to deserve the money that's out there, but they get it anyway because of the exclusivity of product that the studios grant to them.
Netflix and Redbox killed Blockbuster and Hollywood Video because the video stores weren't offering enough value and the money they were getting flowed to the competition instead. Blockbuster had the chance to compete head-on with Redbox and chose not to. They had the chance to provide more value than Netflix but couldn't get their act together before they started to hemorrhage money so badly they couldn't mount a serious defense.
I'd like to see movie theaters rise to the challenge and be the best damn place to see a movie, period.
Absolutely perfect presentations, an enjoyable time for the customer from the sidewalk to the exit door, and a positive lasting impression on the customer no matter how bad the movie was.
Where's the call from NATO for theaters to rise up and meet this challenge?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-05-2011 09:58 AM
> Blockbuster and Hollywood Video because the video stores weren't offering enough value
I can't speak about Hollywood Video, but Blockbuster failed because they treated their customers like dirt. For example, a no late fee policy that consisted of renaming their late fees to "restocking" fees. NJ successfully sued them for false advertising on that one. Before that, they were in trouble for 1 day rentals that were actually less than 24 hours before late charges kicked in. I don't like being nickeled and dimed, and I will not do business with companies that do so. Personally, I used to rent from Blockbuster on a regular basis until I bought a BluRay player, and was told that I needed a charge card to rent BluRays. I left the store, went home and signed up at Netflix, and have not set foot in a Blockbuster since. The issue for me is not the charge card, as I needed one for Netflix, but rather I was offended that a local store that I did business with regularly would not let me rent a BlueRay with cash. Screw them. I guess they learned that once you lose a customer, it is very hard to get them back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-05-2011 12:17 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
occupied themselves with making the entire experience of going to a movie more expensive
I don't think any theatre operator has raised the prices on purpose. They do it because that's the cost of doing business. I lose sleep every time we have to raise prices. I hate raising them.
I would guess that about 90% or more of people I talk to who say they haven't been to a movie in a long time give "cost" as the reason. Yet they have no problem spending $2000 on a flat TV set to replace the old tube model that's still working, or $10,000 on a snowmobile they can only use four or five weekends a year, or going into hock taking the kids to Disney World for $5000 for five days, or dropping $300 on a pair of shoes they'll wear once and then put in the closet forever. If the movie theatre business has a problem, it's the public perception that movies are expensive. They're not, when you consider what you get for the price.
quote: Scott Jentsch
what I didn't see in any of the news from CinemaCon, from any official statements from NATO, or anyone here, is:
What is going to happen now?
It's impossible to answer that question because nobody knows what to do. If I didn't already have a digital projector sitting here, given the developments in the past couple of months, I probably wouldn't be investing in one right now.
Even if it was possible to create the "perfect" moviegoing experience for every patron, are there enough people who would prefer the "night out" experience when the same content is available to watch on their home TV? I hope so, but I have my doubts, because we all know that people are FAR less picky about quality in their own homes than they are when they go out. The number of TVs set to the wrong aspect ratio bears that out.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-05-2011 01:03 PM
If the electronics company executives were really aware of the repercussions of theaters being seriously harmed or eliminated those guys would be very alarmed.
Big hit movies have been the top thing that has driven sales of new, big screen HDTV sets, DVD & Blu-ray players, surround sound systems and other pieces of home theater related gear. If theaters are eliminated the stream of big budget Hollywood movie epics will vanish. And so will a lot of new TV and home theater hardware sales. That market can't survive on a supply of old, catalog movie release product. Gotta have movies that are big, cool and new.
People who only watch movies at home still depend on theatrical releases to know which movies were successful commercially and critically. They still recognize the difference between a movie that played in theaters versus yet another straight to DVD Cuba Gooding Jr. movie. The marketing blitz makes a big difference. So do the movie critics. Without the theatrical release they have no more road map on what and what not to rent. I don't think institutions like the Academy Awards could survive if the movie industry was an entirely made for TV venture. The Emmy Awards might get a little bigger, but probably not.
The folks at Redbox better wake up on this point. Their $1 DVD and $2 Blu-ray soda pop style video rental machines are stocked overwhelmingly with major studio release product and nearly all of it has played in movie theaters. There is little if any indie fare found in those kiosks. Who the hell is going to bother spending money in a Redbox machine if it is only stocked with made for TV movies?
Even streaming companies like Netflix and Vudu will be hurt seriously and long term if theaters are eliminated. Who is going to have any enthusiasm about streaming movies if there are no more big blockbuster releases to provide a halo effect for everything else? In the end Netflix, Hulu+, etc. would be fighting each other in an attempt to only survive as an alternative cable TV service.
And cable TV would get hammered too if Hollywood's product was only made for TV. How many people will continue to subscribe to premium TV networks like HBO & Showtime if the supply of big budget Hollywood hits runs dry? I'm not going to keep paying $14 per month for 8 channels of HBO just to see True Blood or Boardwalk Empire.
These big media companies think they have all their bases covered by virtue of their ownership of broadcast TV networks, cable TV networks and movie studios. But they really don't. The customers still have to come along to make the deal work. I don't think they will. Without the exclusive theatrical release platform the studios won't be able to finance and market major productions. Customers will see far less value and prestige in the made for TV product Hollywood will be trying to sell and certainly will not pay movie theater premiums just to watch the made for TV show at home.
In trying to force movies into home video release faster or instantaneously those global media companies will end up killing a big part of their business. Instead of making more money they will actually end up making a lot less.
The movie industry as a whole will not die. But the American part of it probably will without movie theaters. I think the business of feature film production and exhibition might continue to survive and even thrive in countries like China and India. In the long run those countries may end up dictating the terms of popular culture to the rest of the world rather than the United States. The US is losing its edge on selling entertainment to the rest of the world thanks to goofy corporate mistakes. Like so many other industries the United States has lost, those damned bean counters will just ruin the business model with stupid mistakes and then make a fast buck off of liquidating the business to foreign competitors.
Maybe this looming situation is one of the reasons why Steve Jobs won't put Blu-ray burners into Apple computers. Why fart with something like that when the movie industry is trying to kill itself?
One positive thing I see about this situation: people will be bored shitless sitting on their living room couches and be forced to go outside to be entertained. It might put a dent in this country's costly, complicated health care problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-05-2011 09:00 PM
quote: Tom Petrov
No studio, producer, director or whomever is going to release a movie on downloading or bluray after 60 days if they have a big hit on their hands.
Actually, I believe the studios have all of the relevant "dates" well in hand before the movie ever leaves the starting date. Theatrical, video, Netflix/Redbox, satellite, hotels/airlines, cable, network TV. We've canceled more than one booking over the years because the stupid video announcement came out while the movie still had plenty of theatrical legs left in it.
It is true that some of the directors and stars might have some pull in this issue. I hope some clearer thinking will prevail at some point, but that would be a first.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-05-2011 10:39 PM
quote: Tom Petrov
Most importantly, it will create some competition, theatre owners are going to have to make the experience better and better. Which is good for the moviegoer.
Tom, what you're describing simply will not work. Theaters and video stores are NOT meant to compete with each other. That crap will be destructive to both of those release platforms. I already explained why, but you obviously skipped past that.
The business model of the movie industry depends on separate release windows for first run movie theaters, second run, international release, sell through video release on DVD/Blu-ray, rental/VOD, uncensored release on premium cable networks and edited for commercial TV release on regular cable and broadcast channels. All of those different revenue streams will be severely reduced if theaters fail.
quote: Tom Petrov
I hope it does close some theatres, there are way to many screens and the market is oversaturated with product.
Some areas in North America are over-screened. But I disagree theaters are over-saturated with product. Theaters certainly are not over-saturated with quality movie product. Many movies released in theaters are badly derivative, but they're far better than big number of low budget, straight to DVD releases. Quality content is rare on cable and network TV. So many of those networks have a glut of unscripted, so-called "reality TV" shows.
quote: Tom Petrov
There are number of theatres that have been playing product even though it is out of dvd/bluray. Black Swan can be downloaded at Cineplex.com, picked up at Blockbuster or view at one of the theatres that in my area (part of the 70 screens)
There are two major fallacies in that argument.
1. Black Swan was not released to theaters and home video at the same time. It had an exclusive run in theaters and played in enough theaters to be considered a wide release. I saw it here in Lawton at the Carmike 8 in January. The movie had a lot of buzz surrounding it, much of it free buzz from the critical press.
2. The greater Toronto area is one of the most populated metro areas in North America. More than 5.5 million people live there. In a market that size, there's probably at least a few hundred people there who consider themselves film buffs, routinely watch independent movies and even insist on watching them on movie theater screens. That kind of customer is RARE. But there's enough of them in a giant-sized metro like Toronto that some art house theaters can survive and even get away with showing movies that have already arrived in video stores.
Here's an example of why the Black Swan example doesn't work in most other cities and towns. A decade ago the Carmike theater in Lawton played the religious movie Left Behind. Lawton has a lot of churches and church members so the sales potential was pretty big. Despite grass roots marketing at churches the movie played to a mostly empty house and left the theater after only one week. Other religious movies with large or small budgets have done very well at the Carmike. The difference with Left Behind: it was already available on DVD & VHS to buy or rent. Most church-goers just watched the movie at home at their own convenience (if they even watched it at all).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 04-06-2011 01:06 AM
Maybe we can just clone Selznick, DeMille, Chaplin, Mayer, and Warner to save the movies.
Agree or not, movies are an art form like music, theatre, or a painting.
It is interesting to consider though: when you want to see "great art" like a Davinci you need to go somewhere like the Louvre or if you want to hear Beethoven at his finest, visiting Berlin or Vienna may not be a bad idea. Scary to think that films may one day be that way. The beauty of cinema is that if there is a great film made, it may be playing very close by and you don't have to travel the world over to see it. Sure, we can view great films in the home better than ever before, but nothing can top a proper cinema for conveying the art form in the best way possible.
AJG
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic