Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film releases to DVD during the release engagement

This is topic Film releases to DVD during the release engagement in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001496

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-28-2005, 06:00 PM:

Saw this in this mornings paper and wonder if anyone in any of the circuits, indie or national, have heard any more buzz about this issue here. I've heard of this before, but it seems like this could be the going trend for the film industry.

Also, this could easily knock out the existance of the sub-run and discount theatre.

thx - Monte

Aug 28, 2:11 PM EDT

Newspaper link

Studios Mull Changes to Movie 'Windows'
By GARY GENTILE
AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Someday the phrase "Coming soon to a theater near you" could be replaced with "Coming soon to a Wal-Mart near you." The tradition of major films debuting first in theaters, then across staggered release "windows," including pay-per-view, home video, cable and, finally, broadcast TV, is being openly questioned.

Robert Iger, CEO-elect of The Walt Disney Co., recently suggested the day could come when a DVD is released while the movie is still in theaters. The millions of dollars that studios spend marketing first-run movies would serve double duty promoting the more profitable DVDs, making for a faster and more efficient return on investment.

"Consumers have a lot more authority these days and they know that by using technology they can gain access to content and they want to use the power that they have..." Iger told financial analysts earlier this month. "We can't stand in the way and we can't allow tradition to stand in the way of where the consumer can go or wants to go."

Iger's remarks are heresy to theater owners who fear people with flat screen, high-definition, surround sound systems in their living rooms will abandon the megaplex.

"Mr. Iger knows better than to tell consumers - or Wall Street analysts - that they can have it all, everywhere, at the same time," said John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners. "He knows there would be no viable movie theater industry in that new world - at least not a theater industry devoted to the entertainment products of Hollywood."

Theaters have already seen profits shrink as movies move more quickly to home video. Studios and theaters split profits in the early weeks of a movie's run, with the theater making most of its money from concessions. The theater's split gets larger the longer the movie plays, giving studios an incentive to release films on DVD even earlier.

Studios make the majority of their profits from home video sales, with theatrical runs serving largely as marketing for the DVD.

That has led some to question business models that have not kept pace with technology or consumer demands.

"Why do we make the assumption that five months later people are still interested in your product?" said Todd Wagner, co-owner with Mark Cuban of 2929 Entertainment.

"If I hear a song on the radio, they don't say, `Five months from now you can buy the CD.'"

The gap between a movie's opening weekend in theaters and its debut on home video has been narrowing from about six months in 1994 to about four months in 2004.

Some studios release their DVDs even sooner. The action sequel "XXX: State of the Union," which fizzled at the box office, hit video shelves 11 weeks after its theatrical debut.

Many studios announce the release date of a movie on home video while the film is still in theaters - a practice that infuriates theater owners.

"This is something that drives us nuts," Fithian said. "When Wal-Mart starts putting up signs a month and a half or two months into the movie's run, that just kind of tells the consumer: 'Wait - it's coming.'"

Before Iger's remarks, studio executives spoke of releasing DVDs simultaneous with a theatrical run only in the context of fighting piracy. Many studios are already premiering films around the world on the same date to undercut pirates who distribute illegal copies of films in China, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

In the United States, studios are pressured by a box office slump and a DVD glut that has led to a sharp decline in sales for new releases that compete for shelf space with old TV show box sets and older hits.

New technology is adding to the competition as cable operators promote video-on-demand services and phone companies, such as SBC and Verizon, are creating high-speed Internet networks that will make on-demand viewing even easier.

Advances in wireless are also challenging old business models. In Europe, Sony Pictures has released a full-length version of "Spider-Man II" for viewing on a cell phone.

For some industry players, simultaneously releasing a movie in theaters and on DVD makes perfect sense.

"Most packaged entertainment - books, CDs, games - most all of these make their debut at retail," said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer of Netflix Inc., which rents DVDs by mail. "It isn't that radical a proposition that movies could follow that same path."

In April, 2929 Entertainment, which owns two television networks, a chain of movie theaters and film and television distribution companies, announced a partnership with Oscar-winning film director Steven Soderbergh to direct six films and release them simultaneously in theaters, on TV and on DVD.

Wagner, the company's co-owner, said under his model, theater owners share in the revenue made from distributing films on DVD and other media.

"We want the exhibitors to be a part of this because they should be and from my perspective, they always should have been," Wagner said.

Wagner also disputes the notion that people would stay away from theaters if they could watch the same movie at home.

Wagner and Cuban own the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, which still draws a crowd when games are broadcast on radio and TV.

"It didn't kill professional sports when it was available simultaneously on different mediums," he said. "They cross promote each other and they're all doing just fine."

[ 08-31-2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-28-2005, 07:15 PM:

Quote from the article:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Wagner also disputes the notion that people would stay away from theaters if they could watch the same movie at home. Wagner and Cuban own the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, which still draws a crowd when games are broadcast on radio and TV. "It didn't kill professional sports when it was available simultaneously on different mediums," he said. "They cross promote each other and they're all doing just fine."

I think Wagner is missing a very gigantic difference on his sporting event analogy (or he knows this and is just being a biased jerk): people pay a premium to watch a sports event like a Dallas Mavericks game to SEE IT IN PERSON! Duh!
[uhoh]

The folks arguing for simulataneous theatrical and DVD release are only doing so out of ignorance of market realities or looking out for their own selfish interests. If there is no exclusive release window for movie theaters to show product first there will be no movie theaters. And without movie theaters, I'm just not going to give all that much of a damn about a bunch of made for TV product.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 08-28-2005, 08:01 PM:

Hate to say it, but with my home theater system, I'd just rent the movie rather than go out and spend the gas money among other expenses if there was a simul-release system like that.

You pretty much are playing with fire if you take away the exclusive release to theaters before home video.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-28-2005, 08:41 PM:

(thx to whoever change that dumb long link since I don't know how to edit such stuff to make it simpler. Maybe a little help on how to do this in the future).

Being in a discount house, it's kinda making us wonder on our future in the theatre business, or is this just anothe "scare tactic" to drive up business (like the dumb "New Coke" as in 1985).

thx-Monte

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-28-2005, 08:54 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
...I don't know how to edit such stuff to make it simpler. Maybe a little help on how to do this in the future

Gosh Monte, when you post, below the text entry window, there is a "radio button" labled "URL" that will painlessly step you thru the process... It's so easy even a Caveman can do it. [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-28-2005, 09:05 PM:

John Fithian gave an excellent speech at the Great States convention last week about digital cinema, the "slump," the release window saga, and all the rest.

Some studio will try it with one of their major movies, but when no theatres will play the film, it will lose all of its "magic" and become just like another "made for video" release and then maybe they'll wake up.

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 08-28-2005, 10:02 PM:

Hearing that kind of crap makes you glad you didn't run out and buy a bunch of digital projectors! Or, is that what this is about? The studios didn't get to save money on release prints with digital projection so they are going to try to do so with eliminating theatres altogether.

Well, that's it for me! I've had it! I'm going back in time to when theatres ruled the Earth and projectionists had job security. Who's with me?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-29-2005, 12:51 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Robert Iger, CEO-elect of The Walt Disney Co., recently suggested the day could come when a DVD is released while the movie is still in theaters.

The day could come? I know we've run at least four films this year from day of release well into the DVD release, while still doing excellent business (until about a week or two into the DVD release). Hitch was one of them.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 08-29-2005, 01:35 AM:

Thats kind of shooting themselves in the foot. For example, we all know how much Star Wars Episode III made in the theaters, and we all have a pretty good idea that most of the people who went to go see it, will buy it on DVD. Why release the DVD ANY earlier? or at the same time? OR instead of a theatrical release? They only stand to lose money. I do agree that 2nd run theaters have something to worry about here, but first run theaters will always have a place. Not only would it be financial suicide for the film companies, but I think people actually getting out of the house occasioally. Just because you can make a pizza at home, doesnt mean you wont go out to a resataurant and sit down amd order one does it?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-29-2005, 03:47 AM:

quote: Phil Hill
It's so easy even a Caveman can do it.

Thx, Phil. Even the "cavemen" have to be taught a new trick or two to be up to speed with the "new world".

I knew it probably a simple thing to do, but didn't know at the time. Thx anywho.

-Monte

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 08-29-2005, 04:01 AM:

Oh, that's a great idea.
Let's make it even easier for high quality dvd rips of every movie more easily available on the internet during the time when everyone's interested in it because of the marketing hype.
This is a very bad idea.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-29-2005, 07:36 AM:

It's been tried before and would be an interesting experiment to try it again, but I suspect that Mike is right--theatres wouldn't book it and distributors would learn how important a theatrical release is for marketing purposes.

It might actually work for the type of film which is very visual and must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated ("Lord of the Rings," etc.), but it would just kill the theatrical grosses for something like a dialogue-driven drama. The second-run theatres are already being squeezed on both ends--large gigaplexes which hold films on small screens for months and ever-shorter theatrical release windows are hurting them. That's too bad, as I believe that there is a large potential market for films which are shown a few weeks after opening for lower prices than what the first-run houses are charging.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 08-29-2005, 01:33 PM:

Any studio that does a simultaneous release is stupid. Right now, they get to double dip - they get money from the consumer both from the tickets and then the dvd 6 months later. They release at the same time - they won't get that.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-29-2005, 04:15 PM:

Well Monte, apparently you have not seen the Geico Insurance Company "Caveman" commercials that have been running nation-wide for the last 6 months else you would have got the joke. [uhoh]

(OBTW: I really don't care if you watch TV or not...But you can see one of the series here HERE.)

Also, FYI: How to use the many great features of Film-Tech is documented in the FAQ section listed at the top of the page...try it, you might like it. [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-30-2005, 02:29 AM:

quote: Phil Hill
Geico Insurance Company "Caveman" commercials that have been running nation-wide for the last 6 months else you would have got the joke.

True. Don't watch that much TV, but when I do, I've seen these commercials, just don't pay attention to this variety from Geico, for there has been better ones issued out by that insurance company.

thx-Monte

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-30-2005, 01:29 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Just because you can make a pizza at home, doesnt mean you wont go out to a resataurant and sit down amd order one does it?

Well, I can't make a pizza as good as the ones I can go out and buy. I CAN however put on a better presentation in my living room than what most theaters around here do though- not as good as what they're capable of putting on, but with the people they have running things my living room beats it. No focus or framing problems, cue tape showing up onscreen ruining the ending, or print damage, and sound at just the right volume.

If simultaneous releases will make theater chains finally wake up and put more priority on presentation quality (and stop building small screens!) then I'm all for it.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 08-30-2005, 01:56 PM:

1. I second Jesse's statement about theaters in this area.

2. NATO Prez John Fithian in the New York Times (taken from 2929's website, no less):

quote:
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, agrees that the business is changing - several chains are investing in digital projectors - but said he did not think that 2929 would ever alter the calculus of when a film and DVD were released.

Their plan, he said, "does not establish any serious precedent for the rest of the industry because the pictures are small artistic projects with minimal commercial potential."

But when a big studio takes the same approach, we get a NATO press release.

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 08-30-2005, 02:00 PM:

One of the big Indian distributors, Eros, does this more or less. The DVDs come out about a week after the theatrical release, which leads to Eros charging incredibly high rates for their films since the prints are basically worthless after one week's use. It's a terrible business plan, both stupid and short-sighted.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-30-2005, 04:10 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
cue tape showing up onscreen ruining the ending

Isn't that a bit melodramatic? Do you feel your evening ruined because you see a piece of cue tape at the beginning of the credits?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-30-2005, 04:27 PM:

quote: Mike Spaeth
Isn't that a bit melodramatic? Do you feel your evening ruined because you see a piece of cue tape at the beginning of the credits?

He didn't say it would ruin his evening, just that it would take away from the ending of the movie, which it absolutely does. It's a distraction and theaters should not be supporting any automations that have visible cues. Even the generic "3 cue" readers could be wired such that it wasn't a distraction. For example the center cue (the obnoxious one) could be used at the beginning of the feature to dim the lights, then the picture edge cue to bring the lights up for the credits and finally the soundtrack edge cue to perform the shutdown (in case it blips the sound).

Oh wait silly me, that would actually require the installation tech to give a flip about the theater's presentation! Nevermind.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 08-30-2005, 04:55 PM:

I saw an article yesterday regarding a study done on falling attendance... The study found (big surprise here) that the #1 reason for the drop was product quality. The full article can be found
here

The two most telling parts of this study are:

"In one of its findings, the study said that when a movie's DVD release closely follows its theatrical debut, consumers often consider it the sign of a bad movie."

and

"Many Internet chatters also expressed dismay about what they see as Hollywood's incessant focus on piracy and said they'd gladly wait longer for DVD releases if the trade-off were better theatrical releases."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-30-2005, 05:16 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
If simultaneous releases will make theater chains finally wake up and put more priority on presentation quality (and stop building small screens!) then I'm all for it.

If simultaneous theatrical and DVD releases happen box office business will drop off so badly the theater chains won't have the income to improve the few multiplexes they can afford to keep in operation.

The exhibition industry can survive odd-ball experiments, like those from 2929. That's a lot of low budget art-house oriented product most people will only encouter by accident once it plays on the Sundance Channel or IFC.

Here's what will hurt: if major movie studios choose all at once to release all of their product to DVD at the same time it debuts theatrically. Exhibitors will be powerless to boycott any particular release. They'll be stuck playing movies people can buy at Wal-Mart, or even worse, rent at Blockbuster. And just about all those movie theaters will go out of business regardless of whether their presentation quality was great or terrible.

Posted by Chase Hanson (Member # 2779) on 08-30-2005, 06:18 PM:

It just doesn't make much sense from a practical application standpoint.

The movie studios shouldnt be making financial decisions based on cost variables that are generally incalcuable. And they certainly shouldnt being decisions in a cost vs. nominal cost enviornment.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-30-2005, 06:50 PM:

This has been tried before...The Dolly Parton movie "9 to 5" was moved to tape after less than 10 days in Washington D.C. first run theatres. Theatres pulled ALL prints from their screens in one day. As far as I can tell that film never played another D.C. theatre even as a second run. A rare example of the kind of solidarity that is possible when real trouble occurs. Louis

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-30-2005, 07:08 PM:

Yous don't get it. The studio's plans are to use theatres as the "teaser" for the public to run out and buy the DVD...that's where the BIG $$$ are.

It's just like going to Disneyland. You buy a souvenir just so you can re-live a great time...same with a great movie. Get that DVD while it's hhot!

Theatres, especially with the widespread use of TV (i.e. digital cinema), will become advertisement venues for the DVD sales. One will be able to buy the DVD at the concession counter along with the popcorn.

AND! You can quote me on that! HA! [Razz]

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 08-30-2005, 07:52 PM:

Buy the DVD of the movie you just saw?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-30-2005, 09:45 PM:

quote: Phil Hill
Theatres, especially with the widespread use of TV (i.e. digital cinema), will become advertisement venues for the DVD sales. One will be able to buy the DVD at the concession counter along with the popcorn.

The only way that would work at all is if the movie studios owned all the movie theaters. They would be able to write off the loss they would be taking in that venue. Movie theater companies would not. But we have that Paramount Consent Decrees thing getting in the way.

And this also bears repeating. Why should a family pay around $50 to see a movie in a theater -and then drop another $20-$30 (you know they'll charge full MSRP) at the counter for the DVD when they can just go to Wal-Mart and spend only $15 to $20 instead of upwards of $70?

Honestly, if the theatrical release is going to be a "commercial for the DVD release" then I should get to watch that "commercial" for FREE. If I can't then I guess I should just go to Wal-Mart for the DVD -or just go to Blockbuster to rent the thing. And that's even assuming I'll be interested in the show at all.

Frankly I think the whole dynamic of movies is getting harmed by this nonsense. It's already bad enough that the theatrical release is often not the "definitive release" for a lot of films. Just check the LOTR trilogy for a very obvious example. There's enough of that stuff going on that makes a lot of folks just stay away from the movie theater and wait for the DVD when the "real release" will happen.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-31-2005, 02:28 AM:

I like Phil's response on the "teaser" concept. The "teaser" trailers have this effect on the masses in the past and present, so why not do it with the features?

Have shorter release periods to the theatres, then out on DVD. Course, this'll put some pressure on the studios to get more product out to replenish the reservoir of future film releases - to meet the "supply and demand" of the public.

Also, if there is this pressue to "replenish the stock", so to say, I hope that the studios will make movies that can be more appealing to all ages than make movies with the young adult in mind. For children and families would love to see a bunch of films released for them - to see on the big screen and at home as a family.
Why this might work is that the moviegoing public STILL want to get out of the house and to be entertained with a dinner and a movie-even if they know it'll be out on DVD later down the road, and possibility around the corner much sooner.

The public STILL wants to hear the dynamic sound, see the huge screen presenations and mingle with the rest of the excited crowd. So, why not kill two birds with one stone - get the thrill of seeing it when it first comes out, then a few weeks later, rexperience all of this excitement at home in front of your HiDef plasma screens (or digital projection equipment), effective digital sound and your own homemade snaks to munch on?

(but..."Ka-boom!" for the sub-run and discount houses with this concept. For their business will falter some, but not completely due to some of the public that doesn't have such privilages of home entertainment, and they have tight pocketbooks with home budgets to maintain..)

-Monte

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-31-2005, 07:45 AM:

quote: Chase Hanson
It just doesn't make much sense from a practical application standpoint.

The movie studios shouldnt be making financial decisions based on cost variables that are generally incalcuable. And they certainly shouldnt being decisions in a cost vs. nominal cost enviornment.

Who ever said costs couldn't be calculated? [Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2005, 12:48 PM:

Also, nobody ever takes into account that MOST people don't have big, fancy home theatre setups in their houses.

I would wager that at least 90% of DVD-viewing is done in conditions that are far worse than a movie theatre -- excess lighting in the room, noisy background from kids, household noises, HVAC, poor (inadequate) sound, maladjusted picture, or a viewing position off to the side that makes the picture lose half its brightness.

I would further wager that at least 90% of people watching a DVD at home get interrupted in some fashion -- by a phone call, a screaming kid, or just "something coming up."

The movie theatre is still the best place to see a movie without distractions...if the management is on its toes and provides the right environment. That means making the audience behave itself, but it can be done.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 08-31-2005, 01:26 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I would wager that at least 90% of DVD-viewing is done in conditions that are far worse than a movie theatre -- excess lighting in the room, noisy background from kids, household noises, HVAC, poor (inadequate) sound, maladjusted picture, or a viewing position off to the side that makes the picture lose half its brightness.

But the sad part of that is, LOTS of people don't see anything wrong with viewing a movie (DVD) in that setting.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2005, 03:59 PM:

Very true. All the more reason the movie industry needs to promote the experience itself, in addition to just promoting the movies.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-31-2005, 08:18 PM:

Screaming kids, phones ringing, 30 minutes of screen ads, surly help....a lack of a quality experience...the theatres that fit this description will perish. If correctly managed and staffed a theatre should have no fears. Quality people will always give a quality experience. Even the roughest of the public notices. Recipe for success? or disaster? Is the cup half empty or half full? Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-31-2005, 10:03 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
... a lack of a quality experience...the theatres that fit this description will perish.

..and unfortunately, most of them that do fit this description, don't realize what's going on, too cheap of corporate thinking and expect their managers to be slaves to the company where the managers haven't the hoot to care which trickles down to the staff, or they simply don't have any clue on professionalism - simple organized operations.

If this DVD concept takes into effect and runs amok with success for the film distributors, it will be a war for the survival of the fittest for the cinemas to stay in business - if these cinemas that are faltering don't get their act together while there is time.

Saw in the paper today. "Napoleon Dynamite" grossed $45Mil in the boxoffice. DVD sales grossed $104Mil. .... from a $400,000 budgeted movie. Definitely a sleeper hit.

Potiental's there for sure and FOX proved this one.

-Monte

[ 09-01-2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

Posted by Adam Heath (Member # 2910) on 09-01-2005, 09:05 PM:

I think you'll start seeing more and more people (who have the money) buying Home theater systems, HDTV's, plasma screens. So alot more people will be seeing an adequate replacement. Now those who can't afford it can simply rent the movies at the same time for a much lower price. I think this will really affect the industry if these jerkoffs get their way. Hopefully NATO will send them a big [fu]

and we keep things the way they are. It is definately something to be concerned about.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-01-2005, 09:29 PM:

quote: Adam Heath
I think you'll start seeing more and more people (who have the money) buying Home theater systems, HDTV's, plasma screens.

Yeah but nobody's got any money, remember? The economy's in the dumpster, isn't it? People can't even afford to fill the gas tanks on their Lincoln Navigators!

(Actually it always boils down to, most people will find the money -- or the credit -- to afford what they REALLY want.)

Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 09-02-2005, 03:33 PM:

Also, it does not help when the movie companies put "special" scenes not seen in theatres on the DVD.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 09-02-2005, 05:17 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
excess lighting in the room, noisy background from kids, household noises, HVAC, poor (inadequate) sound, maladjusted picture, or a viewing position off to the side that makes the picture lose half its brightness.

Sounds like some of the UA theatres...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-02-2005, 06:43 PM:

quote: Ramin Hashemi
Also, it does not help when the movie companies put "special" scenes not seen in theatres on the DVD

Do people really buy the DVDs to see this stuff? Personally I've never seen any "additional" scenes that actually added to the story or improved the movie. In a couple of cases I've seen, the extra stuff (inserted into the movie) actually degrades from the film.

(The Lord of the Rings disks may be an exception, I've never seen them on DVD.)

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-02-2005, 09:21 PM:

quote:
quote: Phil Hill
Theatres, especially with the widespread use of TV (i.e. digital cinema), will become advertisement venues for the DVD sales. One will be able to buy the DVD at the concession counter along with the popcorn.

What do you mean "will"? Theatrical release is ALREADY a marketing exercise for the DVD. That's why the emphasis is on wide distribution and the first weekend.

While I agree that most people do not have quality presentation in their home (most people these days buy their systems from Wal-Mart and the like), that doesn't really matter - it's perception that counts. Teens and 20-somethings who live at home will still go to the theaters because they want to get out of the house, but if there is simultaneous release, it's going to kill a LOT of theaters.

Theater owners must stick together on this: they must completely boycott any movie with an excessively short window. If they ignore this, it's a suicide pact.

And the quality of the product must improve -- DVD sales have been dropping as well as theatrical admissions....people are beginning to lose interest in film. It's going to take some good films to bring it back. Also, with the advent of all these entertainment "news" shows and the obsession with the personal lives of stars, rather than a publicity machine that generates interest, it's overkill that makes us sick of these stars. They need to restore some mystery to the film business instead of treating it like the porn industry.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-03-2005, 12:55 AM:

I think I was pretty clear in my post...you come across as someone that is trying to save something that is doomed to fail...

[ 09-03-2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]