Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Skipping the movie theater altogether?

This is topic Skipping the movie theater altogether? 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=002441

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 11:22 PM:

Wasn't sure if this was Ground Level or Afterlife as it really is in the middle. I don't see it ever getting off the ground.

Skipping the movie theater altogether?

The movie theater experience is not for everyone, but people who want to see a new film when is released generally have to make the trek to see it on the big screen.

Now, though, Time Warner may be coming out with a service that will give premium video-on-demand to consumers, offering them the chance to see movies while they are in theaters in their very own home, according to Yahoo News.

The catch? Although Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes did not discuss price points, industry reports indicate access to these "premium" films might run anywhere from $30 to $50 each.

Studios have been trying to find ways to increase profits during a time when more people are getting their movies via services like Netflix. Giving moviegoers the opportunity to skip the theater and see the film in their own home may be just the trick.

Studios' rationale is that the cost of premium video-on-demand films for home viewing will appeal to home movie watchers looking for family entertainment: although the cost might be prohibitive for a movie fan who wants to watch an art-house picture in the middle of the night, a family of four enjoying some rated-G or rated-PG fare in the comfort of their own living room might be getting off cheap. Movie theater tickets are now routinely $10 apiece: after parking and oh-so-expensive theater snacks, a high-prices video-on-demand version of a movie still in theaters might have a strong appeal.

The service could launch by summer 2011.

Link

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 11:32 PM:

I usually skip the theater altogether by waiting for the Blu-ray release. I don't have (and hopefully will never have) cable TV, so video on demand isn't a good solution for me. Maybe if non-subscription services would offer it on demand it would be.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 11:37 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I usually skip the theater altogether by waiting for the Blu-ray release. I don't have (and hopefully will never have) cable TV

Really? I alway see movies in theatres. I almost see everything there is. 85% of the movies I will see. No kids movies and no stupid sequeled horror.

I don't have cable tv. No need for it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 11:42 PM:

Unless I have direct control over the presentation quality of a theater I find myself getting annoyed at things like dirt, scratches (when watching film) and also something that is prevalent at the majority of theaters around here: Piss-poor EQ. There is one lazy-ass theater around here which puts their lights down cue at the BEGINNING of the attached trailer. This shouldn't annoy me, but it does. It's just crappy presentation in my book.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 11-09-2010, 06:25 AM:

I'm with Joe on this. I'd pay $30-$35 in a heart beat for a BD delivered to my house on a new movie that I really want to see. All I need is a couple of neighbors to chip in and the ticket price really comes down. And by the time I sell them popcorn and a can drink the movie has cost me nothing!!! Yeah...I'm loving this idea. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2010, 11:11 AM:

Some clarification is necessary:

- The $30 would not be for a BD; it would be for video-on-demand, therefore you need a cable or satellite connection (and hope you don't get any dropouts or interruptions).

- The availability would be about 30 to 45 days after the theatrical release, not day and date.

- Because it's VOD, as I understand it you'll just be able to watch it once. For the kids to be able to watch that Disney movie 300 times, you'll still need to wait for the DVD or BR. (Am I wrong on this? )

I think it will be a rocky road, because the big reason they're doing this is to recapture all the dollars people used to spend on DVDs. In reality, the studios will make even less money than they do now because the majority of people will still wait for the DVD/BR to come out so they can get it for a dollar at Redbox; and people like Don will invite 8 friends over to watch the movie on VOD, dropping the studio "take" per viewer dramatically.

And, exhibitors will either demand a much-lower film rental or refuse outright to play a movie that's going to VOD in 30 days.

"Marginal" movies will suffer, but hyped-up blockbusters will make a lot of money on weekend 1 and then drop like a hot rock.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2010, 01:34 PM:

I don't think this premium VOD thing is a good idea at all. It's not going to create any new revenue stream; it's just going to dilute the existing ones. It may hurt theatrical ticket sales and could even hurt video sales too. The only business I see gaining anything at all with premium VOD is home improvement/decorating businesses. You don't want your house looking like a pig sty to guests if you're going to have them over to chip in and watch a premium PPV show.

I think any self-professed movie fan should see at least a few movies every year in commercial theaters to help support that side of the industry. Without the movie theaters most of the movie industry would implode on itself through a series sad yet fairly predictable events. With every movie made for TV the consequences for the industry could be really serious and spread to a lot more than just the movie industry itself.

Think of how much broadcast and cable TV networks rely on showing Hollywood movies, typically major releases with big budgets and/or big stars, movies that played in movie theaters. They would have a hell of a programming void to fill. It would be particularly tricky to fill if every movie is "direct to DVD" (provided packaged media formats like DVD and Blu-ray even survived such a paradigm shift). TV networks are already in some considerable trouble as it is. DVR use is ruining some of the value of commercials to advertisers. Faster Internet connections and improved streaming could seriously harm the ad business for a lot of local TV stations. It takes a lot more than the ads sold during a local newscast to keep a small TV station financially afloat.

Hollywood studio produced movies represent a big part of the United States' pop cultural identity to the rest of the world. It's part of how the United States and "the west" in general influences much of the rest of the world. If America's movie industry were reduced to a shadow of its former self then countries like China and India would have a big opportunity to exploit.

With all of that being said, I don't go to the theater as often as I did several years ago. There's a variety of reasons for that. Disruptive audience members present the biggest problem. In the 1990s I drove to Dallas and Oklahoma City somewhat often to see movies at good theaters. It costs a lot more to do that now thanks to gasoline prices. Some of those good theaters in DFW were demolished. Finally, so many more of Hollywood's movies are sequels, re-makes and send-ups of TV shows. I have a hard time making the decision to drive across town to see that kind of fare, much less drive 100 or 200 miles.

IMHO, Hollywood studios need to concentrate on two things:
1. Make better, more original movies,
2. Improve the movie-going experience in theaters.

If studios would do more to concentrate on those two things they would improve their revenue on every release platform. A great movie going environment will make even a mediocre movie a little less mediocre and improve its chances for sale, rental or repeat viewing on TV.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-09-2010, 05:21 PM:

Stuff like most documentaries and small setting dramas will benefit from VOD when their name is still fresh. I see a lot of documentaries which I am thinking of watching but have no wish to trek to some small indie theater to watch. By the time it shows up on cable, I have forgotten about it. I subscribe to a lot of pay channels and they do such a crappy job of showing documentaries and small indie movies. And that includes IFC. Is there a reason it takes a year for a documentary to show up on tv? Stuff like comedy standup films and non-nature documentaries were good for the theater at one time. But now, they can benefit from being viewed at home as soon as they have gthe buzz.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-09-2010, 06:34 PM:

It will not be successful at that price point. Further, it is going to be bootleggers heaven.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 11-09-2010, 06:41 PM:

"...generally have to make the trek to see it on the big screen."

I love the use of the word "trek" so as to imply that a simple drive to the movie theatre is a long arduos journey!

Mike

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 11-09-2010, 08:37 PM:

VOD is an interesting animal. Will it replace going to the theatre? For some yes? In the arthouse world we've been dealing with simultaneous release of films to theatres and via VOD from Magnolia, IFC, Strand and others for a couple of years now. Interestingly, it hasn't hurt the box office on these films and has in fact, in my opinion, enhanced the awareness of the films. Flawless with Demi Moore and Michael Caine enjoyed a highly successful theatrical run while on VOD as have other titles. But the arthouse world and its niche pictures are a totally different animal than the usual 2,000 to 3,500 screen saturation release from a Hollywood major. And price point matters. I believe, but again, I may be wrong, that the price point for the Magnolia, IFC and Strand titles is in the $12 to $15 range varying by cable system, etc. I still believe in seeing movies in movie theatres. There is something about sharing the common experience of watching a film in the dark with a group of strangers that cannot be duplicated in the home environment. Yes there are distractions in the theatre sometimes. Can we ever truly eliminate all of them? No. But the distractions in the home environment and the conveniences of stopping the flick for bathrooms, snacks, phone calls or whatever, change the experience. I believe this change is fundamental in its nature, but others will have differing opinions. As all forms of filmed entertainment (movies, tv, etc) become more cross platform and mobile, everyone in this industry must work to ensure that the movie going experience remains excellent for those who wish to consume movies that way.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-09-2010, 09:14 PM:

Does anyone really think the studios care if THEATRES stop making money? As long as THEY get THEIRS everything's cool.

I'm generalizing here but I don't think today's movies are worth seeing in a theatre -- maybe I'd be more inclined if ticket prices weren't so damn high, and if presentations were better, and if audiences were better-behaved than they are today.

So, nowadays...I watch TV at home. Or I watch an old movie at home. I'd go to the movies if I could see the movies I grew up watching.

Now, about this $$$ VOD scheme -- I don't think so -- I'm not gonna pay $100+ per month for cable so I can then pay a ton of money (on top of that) to watch one stupid movie at home -- if I wanted to be overcharged, I'd just go to the movies...

...and where's all the concern about PIRACY!?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2010, 11:39 PM:

I think art house theaters are a different animal. If they're not being seriously hurt by simultaneous VOD release there's a few possible reasons why.

Some art house theaters capture the loyalty of a niche customer group. Certain indie film fans think they're doing some kind of small service to society by actively supporting movie theaters who show independent film. There's a certain overlap with people who like seeing revivals of classic movies in theaters. It's not going to matter so much to these people if the same movie is available to rent (at a possibly high price) on VOD.

There's also the matter that many independent films don't have big marketing budgets. Chances are reasonably good many customers don't know the same movie is playing on VOD. They just know they went to the art house theater and this one show they never heard of looks interesting enough to see.

I'd like to know how well some of the movies featured on HD Net Movies are doing in art house theaters. HD Net Movies often has "sneak preview" one-time showings of certain shows before they're made available to theaters. And they make the same movie available on VOD before the theaters get the show. The one time only thing is pretty funny. If I'm interested in watching the movie I just record it on my DVR and then watch it when I get around to it. That reminds me, I still haven't watched that movie Surveillance and I recorded that "sneak preview" off HD Net Movies several months ago!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2010, 01:20 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I'd go to the movies if I could see the movies I grew up watching.

But that's one point of owning a movie on video. So you can watch an old favorite whenever you want.

The movie theatre is the place to see NEW stuff.

I will grant you that there are a lot of movies that aren't worth seeing. But this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. For proof, just go to our website and look at the show calendars (in the Pictures section). Pick a decade. Doesn't really matter what time frame you choose, in most months there's one, maybe two good ones, and the rest are pure crap. Just like today.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-10-2010, 12:21 PM:

Manny,

Movie theatres haven't gotten more expensive. Since 1967, they've pretty much kept pace with inflation.

In 1967, an average movie ticket was $1.20. Adjusted for inflation, this is a $7.63 ticket in 2009. In 2009, the average price for a movie ticket was $7.50.

Seems pretty reasonable to me...

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-10-2010, 02:55 PM:

My 28 year old daughter saw Avatar. . . . on her cell phone. She is happy with that. No need for a cinema.

Changing times; younger people with different sensibilities. Glad I'm married to an "old woman." Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2010, 08:41 PM:

Hmmm, there must be something wrong with your daughter Louis! [Big Grin]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-14-2010, 11:15 PM:

Sadly, with the dreck coming out of Hollywood, the anti-piracy campaign that made the PAYING CUSTOMERS out to be the criminals and the downgrading of image quality on both film prints and DLP, the industry continues its self-destruction with no signs of it stopping.

Honestly I have never seen a business model so bent on killing off its customer base.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-14-2010, 11:33 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Sadly, with the dreck coming out of Hollywood, the anti-piracy campaign that made the PAYING CUSTOMERS out to be the criminals and the downgrading of image quality on both film prints and DLP, the industry continues its self-destruction with no signs of it stopping.

Tony.

That is probably the most astute observation on this industry I have seen in a long time.

It is extremely unfortunate that all the suits consider is the bottom line- and not even think about sustainability. The current autophagy that is the going situation in the cinema industry will continue until the digital golden egg beats a path to uncontrollable piracy.

This is incredibly sad and they have only themselves to blame.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 11-15-2010, 07:32 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
My 28 year old daughter saw Avatar. . . . on her cell phone. She is happy with that. No need for a cinema.

"I AM big. It's the pictures that got small." - Norma Desmond

Miss Desmond had no idea what was coming. [uhoh]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-15-2010, 08:04 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The movie theatre is the place to see NEW stuff.

That's YOUR opinion. Not mine.

quote: Mike Spaeth
In 2009, the average price for a movie ticket was $7.50.

Maybe so. But this wasn't MY experience. In Los Angeles, it cost $14 plus $2 parking (and that's with validation).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2010, 11:11 AM:

He said the AVERAGE price. Isn't just about everything more expensive in L.A.? I have a friend living there who routinely calls me to ship him auto parts so he doesn't have the pay the exhorbitant L.A. prices.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-15-2010, 01:06 PM:

so basically what i'm saying is "from where i sit" it's usually not worth the trouble.

let's face it -- did i *really* need to see "social network" at the movies? (did i need to see it at all?)

years ago i would've said "go see it as the director intended" but today, you might be able to do that at home depending on your setup -- and, nowadays, most of these directors don't really have much to say and i don't hold them in the same high regard as directors from the bygone era.

now, this isn't to say that i don't honor the director's intention when i'm showing a movie (as a projectionist)... but as a consumer, i have a right to my own opinion...and (most of) today's movies/directors just don't do it for me anymore.

those of you who still "feel the magic" -- more power to you. wish i was feelin' it too.

L.A. prices may not be "average" but when you live there (or N.Y.) who cares what the "average" ticket price is? if anything, it should only make them angrier that they're paying about double the "average" price for the same movie. (and let's not even talk about 3D surcharges.)

given those prices, can't you see my point? would you honestly pay $16 (plus surcharges and/or concession) to go to the movies? or would you suddenly be a little more discriminating? and what if i told you it might take an hour each way, door-to-door? would it still be worth it?

rhetorical questions -- i'm confident you'll answer whichever way helps you prove YOUR point.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2010, 05:37 PM:

I get what you're saying. This same friend of mine in L.A. told me they almost never go to the movies, not because of the expense but because of the time it takes.

Remember in the by-gone days when people didn't feel compelled that they HAD TO see a movie on opening weekend? When a movie would play for a year or more?

It's a shame -- the cities have gotten too big, and people too impatient, to preserve the classic moviegoing experience.

But that doesn't mean it's not still fun to go to the movies. My wife and I usually go to at least one movie anytime we're out of town for more than a day or two.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2010, 06:43 PM:

There are numerous differences between the movie industry of 30 years ago and the movie industry today. The differences already make it difficult or impossible to bring back the classic single screen movie palace experience. I worry those differences may eventually do widespread harm to American's entertainment industry.

30 years ago movie theaters had much of the market to themselves. Back then it could take years for a movie to go from theatrical release to debuting on premium cable and even longer to show up on broadcast TV (cut to ribbons of course). Depending on the theaters in your city or town you might have had to wait weeks or months before a certain movie arrived.

Obviously we don't have to wait anywhere near as long for a movie to show up on home video today. The DVD and Blu-ray formats have far better image and sound quality. Due to Redbox and similar services those movies can be rented at very cheap rates. Download/VOD services from Netflix, AppleTV, Sony's Playstation store and others make it possible to rent without moving that big butt off the couch. The theater still has its exclusive "window," but that window is as little as 3 or 4 months now.

Americans also have only so much time they can devote to leisure activities. Yet we have so many more choices now than we did 30 years ago.

The movie industry and movie theaters in particular have more competition. One of the things concerning me most is the business philosophy running underneath Hollywood studios and the giant media companies who own them. Entertainment "content" is being treated more and more like a commodity such as oil or wheat where it's all just the same. Instead of each movie or TV show being its own individual creation it's all turning into, uh, corn.

Customers have a legitimate gripe about all the sequels, remakes, remakes of TV shows and all the other derivative content being pushed into movie theaters. This season it seems the top two event titles (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I and Tron: Legacy) are sequels. I think one reason Avatar did so well at the box office is because it wasn't a sequel or remake (but sequels will be derived from it). I also wonder if the same "holy crap, this is a new movie" factor played a part in critics falling all over themselves to praise The Social Network. I liked The Social Network, but it wasn't the greatest movie I've seen in years -the way some critics put it.

Broadcast and cable TV is suffering from the same problem. How many damned installments of CSI and Law & Order do we need? Producers and various business people LOVE unscripted "reality TV" since such shows don't require many professional actors and writers to make. Maybe they took the Seinfeld idea of "shows about nothing" a little too literally. I don't like any of that crap.

All in all, the current boring nature of the entertainment industry (TV, movies, music, etc.) is making it so much easier for me to spend more times doing other things like working out and doing other activities away from the couch.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-16-2010, 02:00 AM:

Well put, Bobby.

And, as for the corn analogy, I would like to add...

It ain't the tasty kinda corn you think about -- it's not the delicious corn you have with BBQ -- it's the yucky commodity kind of corn that *looks* like delicious corn but you can't eat raw -- it has to be processed -- and it ain't all that good for you either!

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-16-2010, 06:43 PM:

Bobby, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. The old argument about theatrical presentation being a "night out" and a chance to get out of the house doesn't cut it anymore. Witness the decline in movie attendance over the past decade. That's the real number, not "grosses". It's all about fannies in the seats, and there are less and less of them all the time.

I believe that people are finding out that the best (and most economical) way to view entertainment is to stay home. I used to be a season ticket holder for pro football games. Got tired of the travel, the rude people who went there, and the ever escalating ticket prices. Found out that the best seat in the house is now at home in front of my HDTV.

Sadly, I think the same thing is happening in our industry, and the suits on the west coast are too damned dumb to admit to it, so they will get their pound of flesh by shortening the video window. I fear exhibitors are in for a rough ride, and a number of them will not survive. Meanwhile, NATO, just like Nero, keeps playing that fiddle.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2010, 10:49 PM:

Dammit. When I think I have proof-read and edited my posts properly I still find stupid grammatical errors in them anyway. Check out the doosy at the end of the 3rd sentence of my last post in this thread. Horrible!

I digress.

Yes, I agree, exhibitors may be in for a tough ride (as if they're not already dealing with enough crap now: in/out of bankruptcy, converting to "digital," dealing with shrinking windows with video release, unruly customers, cellular phones, crying babies, fluids of some sort left behind on the seats, etc.).

Fundamentally, I still believe there can be no movie industry without movie theaters to show the shows. It's a frame of reference not lost on the public. A movie that doesn't play in theaters is only and only ever will be a made for TV movie. It isn't a real movie. Plain and simple. Most people don't care about made for TV movies. The movie has to have been booked in real movie theaters to qualify as a real movie. That separates it from all the dozens upon dozens of straight to video/cable shit titles that seem to be released every week.

Movies made for TV have to be repackaged into something bigger (like a mini-series with uncut action on premium cable) to make audiences take any kind of notice at all. Spartacus: Blood & Sand on Showtime is damned near porn, and even it doesn't upstage most Hollywood fare on Blu-ray product shelves in stores.

I have talked about this subject casually with co-workers and certain friends here in Lawton, OK. Nearly all have zero clue what they will be losing in an all home video based entertainment paradigm. It will be SHIT. Production budgets will collapse and the quality of "content" will plummet from the levels the industry is already struggling to maintain.

Between what the movie industry is doing to ruin itself and how Internet download video streaming could totally ruin the business models of 90% of all local broadcast TV stations we all probably ought to bone up on our video game playing skills. The way things are going those damned XBoxes or Playstations could end up being the only ways people get their news, weather and entertainment. It's a scary scenario. But possible.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-16-2010, 11:01 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Fundamentally, I still believe there can be no movie industry without movie theaters to show the shows. It's a frame of reference not lost on the public. A movie that doesn't play in theaters is only and only ever will be a made for TV movie. It isn't a real movie. Plain and simple. Most people don't care about made for TV movies. The movie has to have been booked in real movie theaters to qualify as a real movie. That separates it from all the dozens upon dozens of straight to video/cable shit titles that seem to be released every week.

All this means is that it benefits the distributors by "legitimizing" the product. The customers are getting a snow-job so it doesn't really benefit them. And the exhibitors are getting shafted by the narrow release window and the glut of competing prints.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2010, 11:23 PM:

Ultimately, if the movie distributors undermine the movie theaters then they will completely undermine the business model that makes it possible for them to produce major, big budget movies.

No movie studio anywhere is going to spend $100 million, $200 million or more on a 2 hour movie made to show only on TV. The big "tent pole" titles so much of the public loves in the summer and holiday season will be no more in a model where all movies debut on home video.

Sure, the "artsy fartsy" indie loving crowd might like this. At first. Unfortunately the big spectacle titles are the thing which draws people into the theaters and provides the industry the opportunity to sell them on all the ancillary, lesser titles (which includes some level of indie fare).

Without movie theaters, TV networks and their limited number of available time slots would represent the next best outlet for new "content." I've already gone over why TV is dealing with its own business model problems. DVR time shifting and Internet download streaming are negating the ad revenue business models to allow networks to save the movie industry and preserve the big budget release model.

If the theaters go, so much more of it will go. The losses will bleed into video store shelves, cable/TV networks and more. It's really scary that it sounds so overly simplistic, but the situation seems pretty damned clear. It's a sort of domino theory. Yet the movie distributors are doing zero to prevent the catastrophe from happening.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-17-2010, 12:33 PM:

I say: Let it fail.

Then let the backlash begin.

This is what happened when Hollywood underestimated the impact of Television, suburbia and the "teenage" revolution. They went down in flames and then...change occurred...

...and that's how we got JAWS...and blockbusters...

...and that's how we got greedy interest from the corporate sector...

...and THAT'S how we got HERE!

Maybe it's just time to reboot!

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-03-2010, 01:36 PM:

Right on Manny. Now we need to just sit back and enjoy the carnage.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2010, 12:23 AM:

The problem is now that we live in this so called "global economy" the movies and TV shows we may end up seeing are whatever China and India can invent. America could screw itself out of its most high profile creative businesses.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-04-2010, 06:04 AM:

Greedy corporate interest? Ha ha ... yeah ... back in the glory days, they didn't make movies for profit. It was all about the "art".