This is topic The End Is Near - Go to the movies while you still can (Article) in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=007502
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-05-2017, 10:57 PM:
Well this is depressing but well written. I don't know why the studios can't see the less-money-in-the-future handwriting on the wall.
The end is near for cinema. Go to the movies while there's still time
by Josh Dickey (4/3/17)
It's been a great run for cinema, a business that began with the Lumiθre brothers' early creations flickering in Paris playhouses in 1895, then generated untold billions in ticket sales over its 120-plus years since. Sadly, it's about to suffer a mortal wound, right there in your living room.
The movie theater as we know it is poised to die a slow, mostly peaceful death. But it is certain.
The cause: Premium VOD, digital on-demand delivery of films to your TV and devices on a much shorter schedule than the traditional 90 days. The latest proposals bring movies to homes 10 or 45 days after they hit theaters; others have aspired to deliver them day-of.
But these particulars are immaterial. They are coming, and they will prove fatal to the movie-theater business.
Why? Because Hollywood is selling out the one thing that's always put butts in seats. It's not giant screens, or booming sound, or "the communal experience of a darkened movie theater," all things that movie people love to romanticize.
The magic of the movies has been, is, and always will be exclusive content. Something you can't see anywhere else at the moment. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
The major studios (minus Disney, which has its own path) are on the brink of deals that will make new releases available to stream for $30 to $50, with pricing depending on how soon they're available, according to multiple reports out of Cinemacon, the annual gathering of movie-theater owners and the media conglomerates who supply their product.
Once that deal is sealed, the doomsday clock starts ticking down. It may take a year or two to finalize, but it's inevitable.
While theaters and premium VOD will co-exist for a little while, make no mistake: once that deal is sealed, the doomsday clock starts ticking down. I give it 10, maybe 15 years. And I'm feeling generous.
Since the mid-1970s, the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) has held its annual springtime gathering in Las Vegas, where Hollywood studios present their upcoming slates. It was nothing if not a mutual love-fest we are making so much money together! until 2011, when the trade press reported that certain studios were looking at renting films for $30 on a shortened window.
Theater owners were livid. Studios, caught with their hands in the cookie jar, were embarrassed. And that conflict spilled out all over the Cinemacon stage.
For the next five years, Cinemacon was peppered with fiery language, blustery speeches and robust applause every time someone implied that the 90-day window a sacred pact that stood since the advent of VHS was here to stay. Even last year, when Sean Parker floated his $50 same-day Screening Room streaming venture at Cinemacon, it was mostly met with ridicule and scorn.
But something was different about Cinemacon 2017 (tagline: "Celebrating the Moviegoing Experience"). Former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, acting chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America and once-vigorous advocate of preserving the theatrical experience, skipped his annual address for the first time since taking the job. (A rep for Dodd tells Mashable that he was unable to attend because of a family obligation.)
The fire was gone from the speeches; a conciliatory tone took root. In place of a "not on my watch" hard-line on the exclusive 90-day window, speakers extolled the virtues of laser projectors, improved seating, fancy concessions and the "shared experience." Applause was tempered, polite ... and knowing.
While mom-and-pop exhibitors were privately telling reporters that PVOD would be "horrible" for their business, it was clear that they were feeling their power slipping away. Time to take the deal.
For its part, Hollywood has offered to cut exhibitors in on a percentage of PVOD revenues, but that arrangement will only stand as long as those theaters can carry their own water. That won't be long not when families can choose to watch a new release on their giant flatscreen at home for $50 over spending twice that at a cineplex, with all its inherent hassles and associated costs.
Once that genie is out of the bottle, the price will fall. Over the coming years, $50 will turn into $39.99, then $29.99, then $19.99. The smallest first-run theaters will shutter soonest, followed by mid-sized chains. Megaliths like AMC and Regal, with their outsized amenities and global market penetration, can probably hold out longest, but only by showing only the biggest blockbusters on a tight turnaround. In that mode less like cinema and more like an amusement park some may survive indefinitely.
"It's what consumers want," goes the new mantra, repeated many times last week at Cinemacon. But it comes at the expense of another, more time-tested one: "Leave them wanting more."
If you can get it too easily, you don't want it nearly as much.
PVOD takes the effort out of movie-watching, and that effort, annoying though it may be, is a critical part of the transaction. "If you want to see it, you have to come to us" makes the movie itself feel special. It turns on a fundamental truth of human nature: Anything worth having is worth some effort. If you can get it too easily, you don't want it nearly as much.
It wasn't all that long ago when if you wanted to hear new music releases, you had to drive to a record store, or listen to the radio for countless hours. Both took work, and some form of payment. How is the music industry doing these days? For that matter, radio?
Give the movie studios credit. At least they're smart enough to carefully rappel down the cliff rather than be shoved into freefall, like what Napster and streaming did to music. On Tuesday, industry leader Spotify took a small step to put that toothpaste back in the tube, announcing that only paid subscribers would get new albums on their release date. But whatever new subscriptions that generates will be a drop in the bucket.
It's important to note that in this analogy, the movie studios are the record companies; they'll have to downscale and experiment, but they'll survive. By being cautious and incremental, they can make PVOD lucrative maybe even moreso than theatrical in the long run. Movie theaters, after all, keep half of their revenues. PVOD cash is mainlined right into the studios' coffers.
Movie theaters, on the other hand, are the record stores. They are doomed.
"But the box office keeps breaking records! People love going to the movies!" ... say people who love going to the movies. And it's true. They do. I do! But the reasons we love it won't hold up to instant availability, affordability, the comforts of home and the eroding "specialness" of a commodity that's no longer scarce.
(On a small scale, this was borne out in downright pathetic box-office results for two major Hollywood releases that got day-and-date VOD releases in the past few years: Beasts of No Nation, which Netflix released that way on purpose, then never tried it again; and The Interview, which Sony was forced into trying because of its catastrophic hacking scandal.)
A generation enamored of the "movie theater experience" will keep cinema on life-support for a time, much like a generation enamored of going to Blockbuster to rent VHS tapes delayed its inevitable demise. A generation accustomed to PVOD will, in time, pull out the rug.
So go to the movies, folks. Go while there are still theaters near you.
Mashable.com Article
Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 04-06-2017, 09:02 AM:
Better yet why don't the large circuits see that their luxury seating full service restaurants and bars mean nothing with out patrons. No one seems to be doing anything but drinking the kool aid and going along with this. I know theres little that can be done but when the CEO of the circuits put their stamp of approval on this it gives the studios the green light to proceed. If it is going to happen instead of counting on profit sharing from VOD perhaps much lower film terms would help offset the lost of attendance and there will be a decline in attendance.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-06-2017, 09:24 AM:
It's well written and reasoned. I also comprehend why studios, having exhausted every type of financing and leverage scheme figure they need to "grow revenue". This story, however, has been told a thousand times in regards to anything anybody ever paid money to sit in a seat for. TV was going to kill everything, sports, live performances. Personally, much as I like movies, I'll never pay $30-50 to NOT get to go out and eat popcorn. And by the time it does get cheaper? Probably not then either. I'll move on (as I suspect many will) to things that still do offer me a seat and a night out with company.
As for cinemas themselves? Many billions of dollars have and continue to be spent on the physical plant to accommodate people sitting in chairs in the dark in front of screens. There is no reason to believe that those buildings can't show content that hasn't been distributed by Warners, Paramount or Fox (etc). Will the tiniest of the tiny (ie: me) get their hands on this content? I guess that depends on whether anyone except the AMC's and Cineplex's of the world decide to fill the need.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-06-2017, 10:53 AM:
I still believe if America's movie theater business dies so will American movie studios. Without theaters to showcase their products the studios are nothing more than production companies for TV networks.
It won't take 10-15 years for theaters to die. That death will happen much faster. I give it less than 5 years once the premium VOD concepts become widely available. Day and date PVOD availability will speed up the death process. Just look how little time it took for streaming services like Netflix and Spotify to lay waste to video rental stores and retail music stores.
quote: Josh Dickey, Mashable Article
For the next five years, Cinemacon was peppered with fiery language, blustery speeches and robust applause every time someone implied that the 90-day window a sacred pact that stood since the advent of VHS was here to stay. Even last year, when Sean Parker floated his $50 same-day Screening Room streaming venture at Cinemacon, it was mostly met with ridicule and scorn.
90 days is sort of the current window between a movie's theatrical release date and the date when its DVDs and Blu-ray discs arrive on retail store shelves. Take another 2-4 weeks out of that window for the "HD Digital" download version.
The theatrical and home video release window was much longer when VHS tape and deck sales were booming in the 1980's. A six to eight month window was common. An epic movie that was a big summer release wouldn't debut on home video until the dead of winter or dawn of spring. Some movies would take a year or longer after theatrical release to arrive on video.
Movie studios started playing around with the window for holiday sales. They figured it would be better if some of their big summer theatrical releases were arriving on retail store shelves by Thanksgiving. I think that release model became standardized with DVD sales. The Matrix was a huge seller on DVD, the first movie on the format to sell more than 1 million copies. It was released theatrically March 31, 1999. The DVD hit store shelves September 21, 1999. Many stores were selling it for well under $20. Back then that 5 month window felt really short.
The 90 day window is a relatively new standard, if it can be called that.
quote: Josh Dickey, Mashable Article
If you can get it too easily, you don't want it nearly as much.
That is so true. When it's easy to watch a certain movie or hear a certain song immediately on demand you take it for granted.
30 years ago I can remember listening to the radio, suffering through lots of songs I didn't like just to hear the one tune I wanted to hear. When the song finally played I was a lot more excited about it. The same thing went for watching music videos on MTV. Yeah, MTV used to show hours and hours of music videos. Now I don't give two shits about MTV because they no longer show music videos. If I want to see a particular music video I'll bring it up on YouTube or Vimeo and watch it immediately. I bought a lot more music on vinyl LP and CD in the past because I needed a physical recording of the songs if I wanted to hear them on demand. Now there's little need to do that, other than perhaps the audiophile angle, but modern music is so badly afflicted with harsh dynamic compression tricks it sounds barely any better than a stream from Amazon music.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-06-2017, 11:15 AM:
quote: Article
Why? Because Hollywood is selling out the one thing that's always put butts in seats. It's not giant screens, or booming sound, or "the communal experience of a darkened movie theater," all things that movie people love to romanticize.
I think he's dismissing that aspect a little too hastily. There is certainly a price and inconvenience threshold beyond which someone who isn't a committed movie buff won't go to the theater. But the price threshold can potentially be lowered and the business model tweaked if market forces push theater operators into doing so. Improving home viewing technology is certainly putting pressure on the theaters, just as VHS and the DVD did, but the theaters are responding with technology upgrades of their own.
I wouldn't be surprised the end of the 90-day window causes significant change in the theater business, but I would be surprised if it kills it outright. If that was going to happen, the introduction of earlier home viewing innovations would have done it.
Anecdote alert: we took some relatives to see Hillary's America last summer, which was literally the first time they'd set foot in one since the 1960s (I suspect that a lot of the theatrical audience for that particular film was doing likewise). Just as the article's author noted, it was because they wanted to see that specific movie, and not wait for it to be available for them to see in their home. But they commented that the experience was "quite fun," and were talking about taking grandkids to see Disney stuff in the future.
He also doesn't cover the alternative content angle. Again, it's nothing new. In 1950s Britain, Rank/Odeon experimented with big screen live events of football (soccer) matches using Eidophors. The screenings were very popular, and the only reason they were short-lived was that licensing fee negotiations between Rank and the BBC broke down, and opposition from film producers.
Televised opera and live theater (either actually live, or recorded and DCP-ized) is now starting to make an appearance in arthouse venues, and I suspect that in the US, the slow decline of the "cable monster" (Clark Howard claimed on his show last week that IPTV services such as Roku were causing a now significant increase in households "cutting the cable," and in particular consumer resistance against the package/bundle business model) could create opportunities for movie theater sports events.
So if the 90-day window does go away permanently, it'll be a challenge to the theater industry, but I'm skeptical of the author's claim that it'll be a fatal blow.
Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 04-06-2017, 11:48 AM:
This article like so many others before do not take the reality of the exhibition industry into account. Regardless of the release window - two weeks is all that any film ever has. Watch rentrak and the pattern is 40% to 60% drop on week two.
Straight to VOD or on a short window release was never going to make any money. It is nothing but a desperate ploy to find money on the floor for dogs.
Ultimately the crux of the problem is the lack of content - especially studio content. The more movies the better - whether they go to VOD or straight to the dvd dump bin at the supermarket (yes those are still around: dump bins)it does not matter.
Think about it - how many nitwits are actually going to sit at home and pay $30.00 to watch whatever. If they can figure that out they will pile in all their frat brothers into one room - better yet they will torrent the latest release with the Korean subs and watch it for FREE.
Netflix and cable companies are filled with on demand garbage - and yes it is all garbage at that point regardless of the film. The fact that it is on your tv makes it garbage because the experience has been devalued so who cares what the release date is - none of the rubes care at that point.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 04-06-2017, 01:34 PM:
On my way into work each morning, I drive past three multiplexes under construction: the AMC Riverside Square, the Landmark 57th Street and the iPic Hudson Yard. Guess the word that they are all doomed hasn't yet made it down to these long-time theater operators. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-06-2017, 02:45 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
I think he's dismissing that aspect a little too hastily. There is certainly a price and inconvenience threshold beyond which someone who isn't a committed movie buff won't go to the theater. But the price threshold can potentially be lowered and the business model tweaked if market forces push theater operators into doing so.
What are the current profit margins for commercial movie theaters? Just going by how many major chains went into bankruptcy or went bust over the past 20 years it doesn't appear to me they're rolling in lots of loose cash. If theaters are forced to lower their prices how far can they go without going into the red?
quote: Leo Enticknap
Improving home viewing technology is certainly putting pressure on the theaters, just as VHS and the DVD did, but the theaters are responding with technology upgrades of their own.
Commercial theaters are trying all sorts of things to attract customers. Upgrading sound and projection technology works only so well when the content they're playing is being rendered for the ordinary 1080p HDTV screen at home. The consumer Ultra HD Blu-ray format is suffering for all the phony 2K to 4K blow-up discs that make up nearly all the titles available. A theater operator can sink $100,000 into a well-appointed Atmos surround sound system, but that investment will be worthless if nearly all the Atmos tracks sound barely any different than an ordinary 5.1 mix one can easily play at home.
On the technology end I think theater operators are caught in a terrible bind since Hollywood studios are going through the motions generating the "software" that plays on that new high tech hardware. The studios are also not helping with all the groan-inducing remakes. I just heard Dirty Dancing is getting a remake. Ugh.
Installing recliners, going crazy with lush decor, serving real food and alcohol are all ideas worth trying. But all of those ideas are going to be eating into what doesn't seem like a very big profit margin.
quote: Leo Enticknap
I wouldn't be surprised the end of the 90-day window causes significant change in the theater business, but I would be surprised if it kills it outright. If that was going to happen, the introduction of earlier home viewing innovations would have done it.
The key thing for theaters is being able to maintain a balanced equation. What is the minimum number of paying customers a movie theater needs in order to survive? Only a small minority of Americans visit commercial movie theaters on a regular basis. An even smaller number are "movie buffs" who feel loyal to movie theaters and value the theatrical movie going experience. Most people don't care.
The math is pretty simple to me. The earlier a theatrical movie release is made available to watch at home translates into fewer and fewer people watching the movie at the theater. At some point the theaters will fall below the level in ticket sales needed to stay in business. Day and date release would be an immediate disaster. A mere 10 day window could easily cannibalize enough ticket sales to prove fatal to theaters.
quote: Leo Enticknap
He also doesn't cover the alternative content angle. Again, it's nothing new. In 1950s Britain, Rank/Odeon experimented with big screen live events of football (soccer) matches using Eidophors. The screenings were very popular, and the only reason they were short-lived was that licensing fee negotiations between Rank and the BBC broke down, and opposition from film producers.
I think alternate content has limited appeal. Shows like live/taped music concerts, plays and operas don't do well in markets like mine here in Oklahoma. They might do better in large cities. Sports events also struggle. When people are watching an event like a football game or UFC pay per view event together in a group like they to eat, drink, party and socialize while the event is underway. Movie theaters aren't really set up for that. Bars and restaurants do a better job drawing those kinds of crowds.
quote: Alexandre Pereira
This article like so many others before do not take the reality of the exhibition industry into account. Regardless of the release window - two weeks is all that any film ever has. Watch rentrak and the pattern is 40% to 60% drop on week two.
It is true very few movie releases have "legs." They get most of the ticket sales they're going to get opening weekend and then drop off preciptiously. Still, the average person has the understanding that if he wants to save money and wait for the home video release he is going to wait 3 or 4 months in order to rent a disc and considerably longer for it show up on Netflix.
If a movie is availble to watch at home in a much earlier time frame it will change customer psychology and habits regarding seeing the movie in the theater. I don't expect many people to fork over $50 for a premium VOD rental. I certainly wouldn't do that, not when I can buy a Blu-ray of the movie $30 cheaper if I'm willing to wait a few weeks. Like Josh Dickey said in the article, once the genie is out of the bottle the price will fall. It will turn into $39.99, then $29.99 and then $19.99. And that PVOD rental will be available earlier and earlier.
Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 04-06-2017, 03:54 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Like Josh Dickey said in the article, once the genie is out of the bottle the price will fall. It will turn into $39.99, then $29.99 and then $19.99. And that PVOD rental will be available earlier and earlier.
This is exactly what will happen. I remember when I was a kid in the 80's and renting VHS videos on a Friday evening was a routine thing for our family. Most of the "new release" videos were of films that were in cinemas 6 months ago or more, and none of them were available to purchase in department stores for another 6 months or more. The only people who could purchase a "new release" were the video rental stores and they were not cheap. I remember asking an employee one time how much it cost the store to buy a copy of a new movie, and it was $50-80 for each copy the store purchased.
Not many years later, by the time I was a teenager, the "new release" videos started appearing on the shelves of our K-Mart and Wal-Mart on the same day that the rental stores got them, and they were only about $20 to buy. From that point on, the release window shrunk a little every year until they hit the magic 3-month window that happened (from my memory) about the time that DvD started taking off in the late 90's.
There is no doubt in my mind that once the Pandora's Box for VOD is opened, it will only be a matter of time before the rental prices start to fall and the window gets shorter and shorter.
I'm reluctantly happy to join the pessimist club on this and say that the beginning of VOD for theatrical releases will be the beginning of the end for first-run movie theatres.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-06-2017, 05:04 PM:
quote: Mike Schulz
There is no doubt in my mind that once the Pandora's Box for VOD is opened, it will only be a matter of time before the rental prices start to fall and the window gets shorter and shorter.
Just to be clear, the Pandora's Box of Day and Date VOD was opened years ago by the small indy distributors. It is hard to say if it has hurt our business as the target audience tends to be old and not tech savvy. But it probably will do a job on the big boys once their target audience figures it out and decides they have better things to do on a weekend than go to a movie theatre.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-06-2017, 06:16 PM:
There are flaws, in my opinion with the record industry comparison. While good studio time can indeed create a much better product on audio, what it takes for people to create their own music became very cheap, relatively speaking and the avenues to release a single were quite great. The RIAA had very little to bring to the table besides promotion.
In the movie industry, while yes it has never been cheaper to make a movie with the likes of DSLRs and such, the difference between that sort of production and a $100M studio movie, or even a $10M studio movie is VERY apparent because there is more to making a movie than holding a camera at people acting (and there is more to acting than memorizing lines).
The record store/theatre comparison is also wrong. The record store, while some had listen areas and many had knowledgeable people selling the records was really in the distribution of the product, not the end user. For movies, the cinema is the end user. The patron doesn't take the movie home with them to view later.
The continual flaw with D-A-D video releases is that it turns two markets into one, which cuts revenue. It turns profit-per-viewer into profit-per-household and an indeterminate amount of viewers. In short, you will sell your product even less. And if the studios think that having movies in theatres need security, once it is in the home, you really have no idea how many copies it could have. You are giving them digital perfect picture and sound.
What a studio should be ballsy enough to try on an A-list movie, like Star Wars, is announce that it will have zero home market release for AT LEAST one year. See how THAT affects the cinema ticket sales and then in a 1-2 year time, see how the home release goes (either streaming or physical media). I claim that they will increase sales of the cinema market, for sure (exclusivity) and due to its time out of the market, it will create an entirely second "buzz" for the home release and gen up those sales too. Regardless, the studio will no make less money by the double release but it will delay the back end money.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-07-2017, 10:54 AM:
My guess is that the studios would be worried about having to suppress pirate distribution for that long; but still, it might be worth trying.
Something like it is already done with recorded classical music, whereby the main labels operate their premium brand, on which a new recording of a symphony or opera will be issued, and a budget brand, which will typically be used for reissues of recordings that are 10 years old or more (same thing in book publishing for reprints of best-selling classics). However, that world operates on much longer product lifecycles, and the productions are budgeted and marketed with the expectation of a recording recouping its costs and turning a profit in decades, not the opening weekend.
I'm not sure how well this approach would work with mainstream movies, though, unless you're looking at reviving the roadshow format. And even that was restricted to a small number of prestige venues.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-07-2017, 11:22 AM:
Does anyone besides me think that the abundance of high quality TV shows has anything to do with this shift? Personally I'm going to fewer movies because there's so much good TV available. A movie has ~2 hours to tell a complete and compelling story. TV shows like Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc have the luxury of creating more complex characters and storylines. Characters and stories are more important to me these days than flashy movies that are basically empty vessels. Not saying that applies to all movies. But a lot. I can buy an entire season of Better Call Saul for what, $30? That's a lot of entertainment vs. $50 for a single VOD movie.
EDIT: The entire Season 3 of BCS is $25 on iTunes.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2017, 12:24 PM:
quote: Mike Schulz
This is exactly what will happen. I remember when I was a kid in the 80's and renting VHS videos on a Friday evening was a routine thing for our family. Most of the "new release" videos were of films that were in cinemas 6 months ago or more, and none of them were available to purchase in department stores for another 6 months or more. The only people who could purchase a "new release" were the video rental stores and they were not cheap. I remember asking an employee one time how much it cost the store to buy a copy of a new movie, and it was $50-80 for each copy the store purchased.
The concept of "sell through" pricing of movies on VHS didn't become standardized until the early 1990's. Prior to that it was common for a new release on VHS to cost $89. That's probably more like $150 or more in today's dollars. Meanwhile Laserdiscs weren't nearly as expensive, but they weren't widely available either. Countless thousands of video rental stores had their own window of sorts for renting tapes (and even laserdiscs in some cases). The outrageously high rental pricing on VHS tapes was one of the ways Hollywood got its cut of the rental store business. When rental activity died down for a certain title then it would maybe fall to sell through pricing. That would happen about the time the same movie would start showing up on premium cable channels. Video rental stores were at their peak during the late 1980's. Once movie studios did away with rental pricing of VHS tapes that began the long, steady decline of video stores.
When I first moved to Lawton in the early 1990's this small city had a lot of video stores. Many of them were locally owned. A couple of the local players like Super Video had multiple locations. All the mom and pop operations disappeared by the end of the 1990's. Super Video went under in the early 2000's, leaving Blockbuster, Hastings and Hollywood Video as the only rental stores left in town. Then Redbox and Netflix arrived to lay waste to those survivors. Family Video opened in the late 2000's and is now the last video rental store in town. I don't think that store will be around much longer either.
quote: Steve Guttag
There are flaws, in my opinion with the record industry comparison. While good studio time can indeed create a much better product on audio, what it takes for people to create their own music became very cheap, relatively speaking and the avenues to release a single were quite great. The RIAA had very little to bring to the table besides promotion.
I agree that technology has greatly "democratized" music production. Some of the latest audio editing packages, like Maschine Studio or Cakewalk's Sonar Professional will allow you to build up music beds with very realistic sounding virtual instruments. These packages aren't insanely expensive and don't require top of the line computing hardware to run.
On the other hand, it is an absolute bitch for a budding artist or band to get their music heard. Traditional outlets like radio and streaming services are monopolized by the handful of global media companies who also own all the major record labels. These companies have iron-fisted control over what styles of music are to be played. They absolutely hate any music that is fresh and different. They love trying to sell the same old shit. They're not going to market anything that will make huge swaths of their existing music catalog suddenly sound dated.
The music industry was far better prior to 1990. Giant changes in style could happen. The music scene was far more interesting then. It wasn't nearly as much fun for the business people though. One year you're making money hand over fist selling disco. Next year your label is going out of business because you didn't see New Wave and Punk coming. Media companies don't allow any more of that upheaval to happen. But then they're selling far less music now too.
Movie studios should look at that example and see what they're risking by feeding customers more and more sequels, re-makes and other derivative crap. They're falling into the same trap as the music industry.
quote: Steve Guttag
What a studio should be ballsy enough to try on an A-list movie, like Star Wars, is announce that it will have zero home market release for AT LEAST one year. See how THAT affects the cinema ticket sales and then in a 1-2 year time, see how the home release goes (either streaming or physical media). I claim that they will increase sales of the cinema market, for sure (exclusivity) and due to its time out of the market, it will create an entirely second "buzz" for the home release and gen up those sales too. Regardless, the studio will no make less money by the double release but it will delay the back end money.
There are prior, historical examples of this. Look at what Steven Spielberg did with some of his movie releases. He waited for years before releasing E.T.: The Extraterrestrial on VHS. He was catching all kinds of heat from both the public and entertainment press for the embargo. He waited over a year before allowing Saving Private Ryan to be released on DVD, although some of the delay had to do with him being friends with backers of the DiVX shit disc format. Remember that whole ordeal with DiVX? Damn. Anyway, both those releases on VHS and DVD sold lots and lots of copies. Saving Private Ryan was one of the must-have discs for home theater demo material.
quote: Leo Enticknap
My guess is that the studios would be worried about having to suppress pirate distribution for that long; but still, it might be worth trying.
I'm all but certain pirates will be cracking whatever PVOD system the movie studios try to deploy. They're not going to be able to use something nearly as complicated as the encryption system in d-cinema. I can tell you right now consumers aren't going to spend hundreds of dollars on some specialty movie player that only plays $50 PVOD movie rentals. They're going to demand an app that can be loaded on the smart TV, iPad, computer or Roku box they already own. The PVOD stream will have to go over regular HDMI. And the pirates are going to crack it.
quote:
Does anyone besides me think that the abundance of high quality TV shows has anything to do with this shift? Personally I'm going to fewer movies because there's so much good TV available. A movie has ~2 hours to tell a complete and compelling story. TV shows like Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, etc have the luxury of creating more complex characters and story lines. Characters and stories are more important to me these days than flashy movies that are basically empty vessels. Not saying that applies to all movies. But a lot. I can buy an entire season of Better Call Saul for what, $30? That's a lot of entertainment vs. $50 for a single VOD movie.
I think this new "golden age" of TV is definitely having an adverse effect on the movie industry. People have only so much free time to spend on entertainment. They're blowing a lot of the time binge-watching TV series. A 10-14 part season of a TV show on HBO, Netflix, etc. can take a lot more chances with its story and characters than a conventional 2 hour Hollywood movie. The shows are often more unpredictable and edgy than most movies. They can even get away with more regarding sexual and violent content. There is no worry about the dreaded NC-17 on premium cable or streaming services.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2017, 01:09 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
What a studio should be ballsy enough to try on an A-list movie, like Star Wars, is announce that it will have zero home market release for AT LEAST one year. See how THAT affects the cinema ticket sales and then in a 1-2 year time, see how the home release goes (either streaming or physical media). I claim that they will increase sales of the cinema market, for sure (exclusivity) and due to its time out of the market, it will create an entirely second "buzz" for the home release and gen up those sales too. Regardless, the studio will no make less money by the double release but it will delay the back end money.
I would love to see them try that. The only "flaw" would be, what if the movie underperformed? I guess they could create a threshold - if it's a sub-$150-million movie, it comes out on video sooner, but if it's a blockbuster, theaters get to keep it longer.
But I can see their point, they feel like their "valuable property" would be sitting in a vault for months while people were out there wanting it...and therefore (they think), pirating it.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-07-2017, 02:13 PM:
The difference between music and movies is that music has been something that the vast majority has consumed in their home (or car or portable device) either by purchasing the recording or "free" over the airwaves.
Movies are much closer to sporting events. At one time, buying a ticket was the only way to see them. Radio and television changed that, at first for free, but now it's a paid service mostly. Attendance is higher than ever, despite the fact that you can listen or watch any game anywhere you are. It's much cheaper to watch at home, but people still go. I think movies will remain "something to do" just as spectator sport or "legitimate" theatre has.
You all raise a good many valid points though that will certainly put pressure on exhibition. I'm of a similar view as I was with Digital: Exhibitors ought to demand simply a lower "ceiling" on percentage rent (or even flat rent) in exchange for any compliance on this rather than any sort of "profit sharing mystery formula" (which kind of parallels the whole "virtual print fee" scheme to me).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2017, 02:16 PM:
Yeah, good point - if a movie is available for 20 bucks on a PVOD scheme, I certainly wouldn't want to be paying 64% for it.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-07-2017, 04:25 PM:
But Mike, you make the case for the delayed home release. If customer's want it, the value of it goes up. Again, trying it on an "A-List" movie would prove (or disprove) the point. An A-List movie is going to make its money back on the initial theatrical release. Heck, this could revive the subrun theatre market a bit too.
The bottom line is the bottom line. I say it will be larger if the releases are staggered. All that the VOD strategy gets you is a faster means of getting some amount of money without regard as to how much you get.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2017, 05:18 PM:
What happens if a movie under-performs though? If they've already stated it'll be a year to home video, and it burns out in 2 weeks, they'd be hard pressed to follow through with the year wait.
I guess the only way such an experiment would work is if they did it on a guaranteed blockbuster, such as you mentioned with "Star Wars."
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-07-2017, 05:50 PM:
Hollywood has been proclaimed dead like a million times... and every now and then, some big studio actually goes belly up.
I'm predicting it will not happen to just a single studio this time. And to be honest, they deserve it.
Look at the crapload of shit they've been churning out lately and still have in their collective sewer pipes, just waiting to be spewed all over their distribution network.
Just recently I read Warner Brothers is seriously considering rebooting the Matrix franchise. Not simply a sequel or another movie in the same universe, no, a reboot.
There are so many stories left unfilmed out there. So many stories left untold, yet, they seem to be completely out of ideas. Also, just because someone dangled them a juicy "VOD carrot" in front of their faces, they're ready to slaughter the goose with the golden egg.
Really, they deserve to semi-collectively burn to the ground.
On the bright side, from the ashes could rise something new. Something that could eventually save the exhibition industry. Let's hope some investors with some real kahunas pick up what's left and what's worth saving from the ashes. There's so much talent with money in Hollywood. Shouldn't some of them be able to unite and save this train wreck unfolding in slow motion?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2017, 06:31 PM:
Lots of people, particularly all the ones who support Premium VOD and the simultaneous Day and Date theatrical/home video release model, roll out the tired anecdotes how TV was supposed to kill the movie industry, then video, video games, etc. They use these past examples as a rationale or fake proof that their scheme would not harm the movie theater industry.
The big thing they're missing with all the previous examples: there was still a very substantial theatrical release window. The movie theaters have been the exclusive place where customers see brand new movie releases. Take away that exclusivity or shorten the length of the window enough and it will put the theaters out of business. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-07-2017, 08:32 PM:
Well yeah...it would need to be an A-List movie to prove the point. In fact, the year-wait could be a sign of strength in the product. Then again, a "should be A-List" title may not get the buzz if it doesn't come with the year+ wait.
What could be done is a floating home release too. A-List, year +, the rest, based on boxoffice attendance, determines the home release. That would also discourage people from just waiting their 6-weeks-3-months because it will be on home video thing. They would have no idea when it would be on home video.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2017, 02:36 AM:
I'm not sure if a year+ is realistic in the current market. After about 10 to 12 weeks, it will have almost completely disappeared from the first-run market. The sub-run market might pick it up from there, but in many countries around the globe, there is close to zero sub-run market. So, for large parts of the world, there will be no (legal) way to see this movie for many months to come.
You're giving the bootleggers a large chance to proliferate this way. Besides some crappy camcorder bootleg versions, we all know how good Hollywood is at leaking out high quality copies. Once they start circulating, your home video release will probably just fizzle.
I'm all for keeping the release window intact, but I'm afraid going back to year-long release cycles won't fly anymore.
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 04-08-2017, 10:29 AM:
People will still want to go out to see a movie an a large screen. You can't have a 80 foot screen in your home. When the sun in space has problems coming up soon and all the little cell phone screens go dark that the movie internet gang seems to watch on with a tiny screen in 2 ch sound they will have no choice but to get back into a cinema. The cell phone/internet satellite panic could last many years and It will change how the film studios get their movies out. What will the public do without their portable cell phones? Keep your land line you will need It and may even mail a letter at the post office or pay a bill by mail when the shut off of all satellites hit. It won't be just movies to download you will miss. The sun will play a big trick on all of us one day soon.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-08-2017, 12:23 PM:
What about using a variable window based on box office revenues. A formula like "when the box office take falls below 5% of the first week of wide release, plus 3 weeks".
Week 1: $60M
Week 2: $20M
Week 3: $10M
Week 4: $4M
Week 5: $2M
Week 5 falls below the 5% threshold, triggering the 3-week video release at no earlier than 8 weeks from initial wide release.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-08-2017, 05:24 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not sure if a year+ is realistic in the current market. After about 10 to 12 weeks
That is a circular argument, and likely why we are in our current situation. If movies were not so fast to hit the home, they'd likely last longer in the cinema. As the release approaches home release, there is less incentive to go to the cinema. Which is why VOD reduces the incentive to go the cinema to most.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You're giving the bootleggers a large chance to proliferate this way.
An argument the studios that are super paranoid would likely thrust out. However, the bootlegs exist before the movie opens and definitely by the time the movie opens. If you aren't going to pay for the movie, you aren't going to pay for the movie. Is the theory that people are inherently thieves? Those are sales you weren't going to get anyway and putting it in the home sooner gets cleaner/better copies of the content for thieves to use. Your argument doesn't hold.
The problem, David, with that sort of strategy is that you "train your public" to again, wait for the home release because the B/C list movies will hit your formula and be out on release 4-6 weeks after the "break" (most horror movies get 1-2 weekends). Then people realize that if they wait a month or 2, they get the movie at home and again skip the theatre. I think your formula idea will work for the B/C list type movies but with adjustments. But on the A-List movies, just announce from the onset , that movie is a year plus on the home release. Again, you train people to come to the theatre (again).
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-09-2017, 05:26 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
An argument the studios that are super paranoid would likely thrust out. However, the bootlegs exist before the movie opens and definitely by the time the movie opens. If you aren't going to pay for the movie, you aren't going to pay for the movie. Is the theory that people are inherently thieves? Those are sales you weren't going to get anyway and putting it in the home sooner gets cleaner/better copies of the content for thieves to use. Your argument doesn't hold.
The longer a release gets postponed, the more people will have watched a bootlegged version, especially if there is a high quality version in circulation. You'll see that people that watched the illegally acquired version will talk about it to the people who usually just pay for their content. Eventually, some of those people will also end up with this bootlegged version.
Keeping people honest is also important. Keeping them honest is also giving them, at least to some extent, what they want. You don't need to cater to all their wishes right away, but if you keep ignoring them, they'll just bypass you, even if you've got the law on your side.
So, if the pirates can have it all and for (almost) nothing, having the people that are willing to pay wait indefinitely, will create a dangerous situation. It's the ground on which new pirates might breed.
quote: Steve Guttag
That is a circular argument, and likely why we are in our current situation. If movies were not so fast to hit the home, they'd likely last longer in the cinema. As the release approaches home release, there is less incentive to go to the cinema. Which is why VOD reduces the incentive to go the cinema to most.
We all seem to agree about that. An early VOD release will hurt the incentive to go to a proper cinema to see it. The question is, what is an acceptable release window?
I think it really differs from movie to movie, so I think I like David's idea of creating a more dynamic release window. Where a highly successful movie could have their VOD/home video release beyond the conventional 90-day window, but a turd could hit VOD/home rental within just a week or four.
I don't see any reason to hold on to exclusivity for the exhibition industry, when the movie is essentially out of circulation already.
Once this pattern gets hold, people know they'll have to wait longer for a highly anticipated movie, but they still have the opportunity to watch it on the big screen.
quote: Steve Guttag
The problem, David, with that sort of strategy is that you "train your public" to again, wait for the home release because the B/C list movies will hit your formula and be out on release 4-6 weeks after the "break" (most horror movies get 1-2 weekends). Then people realize that if they wait a month or 2, they get the movie at home and again skip the theatre. I think your formula idea will work for the B/C list type movies but with adjustments. But on the A-List movies, just announce from the onset , that movie is a year plus on the home release. Again, you train people to come to the theatre (again).
There are two factors that are important for this to work, then again, I think they're generally the "key to success":
- There should be more incentives for people to go to a proper movie theater than just exclusivity. They should be able to experience the movie, like they would not be able to at home.
- The movies should actually be worth it.
I know quite a few people that would visit a theater more often, but simply skip over, because they consider the movie sub-par and not worth going to the theater for it.
Would they actually go to the theater if they knew they would have to wait a year to go see it? I do have my doubts.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-09-2017, 06:49 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The longer a release gets postponed, the more people will have watched a bootlegged version, especially if there is a high quality version in circulation. You'll see that people that watched the illegally acquired version will talk about it to the people who usually just pay for their content. Eventually, some of those people will also end up with this bootlegged version.
The most obivous solution to this problem is getting rid of the screener discs. For all the extremes over security the studios use with DCPs it really doesn't make any sense at all for them to distribute screener discs to VIP types. If piracy was really affecting the bottom line of studio balance sheets as bad as they say then they would put an end to the screener disc crap. Obviously they consider the convenience of VIP types more important than thwarting piracy. So the whole thing seems like a bunch of hypocrisy.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We all seem to agree about that. An early VOD release will hurt the incentive to go to a proper cinema to see it. The question is, what is an acceptable release window?
I think it really differs from movie to movie, so I think I like David's idea of creating a more dynamic release window. Where a highly successful movie could have their VOD/home video release beyond the conventional 90-day window, but a turd could hit VOD/home rental within just a week or four.
I don't see any reason to hold on to exclusivity for the exhibition industry, when the movie is essentially out of circulation already.
The big flaw in having a variable release window is that it totally rewards potential customers for staying away from the theater. If they avoid watching the theatrical release they are rewarded by getting the far cheaper home video version so much faster.
We have already clearly seen this is a slippery slope. The heads of media companies and movie studios are notoriously impatient and short sighted. It seems like they are more in the business of selling stock to investors than selling a product (movies) to customers. It's not enough to just make a profit. They have to make a greater level profit from one quarter to the next and are constantly trying to alter the business model to squeak out a little more money. If the plan works they're rewarded with huge bonuses. If it doesn't work they're fired. I think if every movie studio and movie theater company was privately held the movie industry would be far different. Release windows would certainly be respected far more.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Would they actually go to the theater if they knew they would have to wait a year to go see it? I do have my doubts.
I don't. Right now customers suffer very little in the way of a wait penalty by not seeing a movie during its theatrical release. A 3 month wait is inconsequential. And we want to make the wait time even less? Home video sales are in the toilet. Personally I haven't bought any movie discs since our local Hastings store was liquidating its inventory several months ago.
The movie studios have turned movies into a big pile of glop commodity. Making movies worth it to see in the theater also translates into making movies good enough to buy on home video. The vast majority are not worth it. The rise of "all you can eat" movie & TV streaming services and vast improvement in broadband Internet quality lately has made it possible for people to stop building up video libraries. They just pull up Netflix, see what's on that new and press play. In most cases these days they're binge watching TV shows and not Hollywood movies. Netflix has trained customers to be even more impatient by releasing entire seasons of TV shows at once rather than incrementally releasing new episodes each week.
I can go by my own past experiences decades ago of missing a movie during its theatrical run and knowing the wait for the video release could be 9 months or more. If I was on the fence about whether or not to see a movie that had just been released I had to make up my mind quickly about it. That's not the case today. If I miss the theatrical 2K d-cinema release I only have to wait a short time to rent a Blu-ray version that looks good enough to be almost indistinguishable from the theatrical version.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-10-2017, 01:54 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The big flaw in having a variable release window is that it totally rewards potential customers for staying away from the theater. If they avoid watching the theatrical release they are rewarded by getting the far cheaper home video version so much faster.
While there might be people thinking this way, I believe it will be hard getting people organized this way. Organizing a general boycott against a movie or maybe a studio for some other reason might be simpler than organizing a boycott against a theatrical release, just because some people don't want to watch it in the theater.
I think history has shown us, people will show up for a movie they actually want to see.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't. Right now customers suffer very little in the way of a wait penalty by not seeing a movie during its theatrical release. A 3 month wait is inconsequential. And we want to make the wait time even less?
It could be shorter but also far longer. I'm convinced movies can still have pretty long legs, if it's actually a movie worth watching. If you base it on global box office performance, most customers don't even know when it will hit the streets.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The movie studios have turned movies into a big pile of glop commodity. Making movies worth it to see in the theater also translates into making movies good enough to buy on home video. The vast majority are not worth it.
That's probably the real problem right there, don't you think?
I think the main reason for the seemingly vicious circle we're in is because the movies being released by the big studios really have become a pile of reheated crap. There are obviously other factors around us not really improving the situation, like the advent of those flat-rate services like Netflix or Amazon Prime. And, yes, Hollywood has always made a lot of bad movies throughout their history. Still, the root cause is simple: the movies being churned out are just generally crap, a decent movie, not just a good one, is becoming an exception. In contrast to that, some of the series currently being produced are pretty decent, some of them I'd even consider excellently written and executed.
Most people I know are pretty done with all the reboots, reheats and franchise milking until the cow turns to dust. Fortune favors the bold, so instead of putting anything north of $50M into special effects and A-list salaries, spend some of that money on an original story and premise to start with.
Given the choice between seeing just another turd in the cinema and pay premium for the privilege or binge watching some pretty decent stuff on TV, I think it's really a no-brainer for a lot of people.
So, in order to compensate for a bad theatrical release, the studio executives want to prematurely dump their stuff into the VOD market. Maybe they can get a huge one-off deal with a few of the providers and they managed to keep their shareholders happy for another quarter. It will only help to further the vicious circle. In order to break out of it, I really think at least some of them need to go belly up first. Let's call it the "human factor", we generally only start to act once it's practically too late already.
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 04-10-2017, 04:51 AM:
Or short: It's a matter of greed. Take the money and run by letting all medias to the table in very short time from movie release.
I once said, that in ten years, there would be no more cinemas - at least, not outside the very biggest cities. Trouble now is, that I can't remember, how far back I said it.
I'm afraid, future investments in new seating, an extra sound channel or so, will be difficult to pay out before closing time.. Very sad ! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-10-2017, 10:51 AM:
Another problem with testing this with A-List actors/directors/etc is that these days, they would all be profit participants. It will be hard to get them to go along if they feel the home viewing window is impacting their bottom line.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2017, 11:09 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
While there might be people thinking this way, I believe it will be hard getting people organized this way. Organizing a general boycott against a movie or maybe a studio for some other reason might be simpler than organizing a boycott against a theatrical release, just because some people don't want to watch it in the theater.
Boycott isn't the right term to use. Saving a lot of money is the correct term. It's very easy for public behavior to gravitate in that direction when that is the prime motivation. And we've seen it play out before.
Traditional video stores got badly wounded by Redbox kiosks renting movies for far less. Then Netflix finished the job with the even cheaper "all you can eat" model. Retail stores specializing in sales of movies, books and music have been pummeled. Music streaming services have definitely played a role in retail record stores disappearing. They've also put radio broadcast stations into a bad struggle of declining ratings and ad sales. Amazingly our nation's out of touch "lawmakers" are re-introducing the "Fair Play, Fair Pay" act, which is designed to get more royalty money from over the air radio stations. They're selling this legislation as means giving artists proper compensation for their work. But we all know how music labels routinely screw their talent and that most bands can only make a living via touring and merchandise sales. If passed the legislation might be enough to make radio stations in smaller towns go bust.
A couple can spend $40, $50 or more to watch a new movie at a theater. Or if they wait what seems to be an ever shorter amount of time they can rent the same movie for under $5. And their viewing experience will be just about as good as that 2K image in the cinema. 20-30 years ago viewers paid a steep penalty when choosing to wait for the video. The wait time was long. When the wait was over the home video version that was viewed was a low resolution, panned and scanned experience, typically viewed on a far more modest sized CRT TV screen.
The way I see it the movie studios are embarking on a path completely oblivious to the very strong possibility the path could be suicidal. They know they could kill the movie theater business, but seem ignorant their business could sink with the dying theaters. The death of movie theaters would be harmful to the larger retail business sector, which is also suffering badly. Movie theaters are a key anchor business for many shopping centers. They give people a reason to go to the shopping center rather than stay at home and order stuff off Amazon.
If there is anything that deserves a boycott it's online merchants like Amazon and Netflix. But people love saving money. So we'll see where this path of "race to the bottom economics" takes us.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think the main reason for the seemingly vicious circle we're in is because the movies being released by the big studios really have become a pile of reheated crap.
This one of the essential reasons why home video sales are declining so badly. Very few new movies released these days are worth viewing more than once. And even when you watch it for the first time you feel like you've seen the movie before numerous times. Like I said, the studios and their bosses have turned movies into a commodity of glop. Too many movies reek of joyless unoriginality. It's just chewing gum for the eyes and ears. These stock investor types calling the shots do not like taking chances on any new ideas. They prefer running their industry into the ground by trying to sell us the same old shit in a different wrapper, or a wrapper with a different sequel number on it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-10-2017, 11:47 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
if they wait what seems to be an ever shorter amount of time they can rent the same movie for under $5. And their viewing experience will be just about as good as that 2K image in the cinema.
No it won't. They're getting the picture and sound, sure, but beyond that, watching a movie in a good theater is NOTHING AT ALL like watching it in your same four walls. I don't think I need to list the reasons why again.
Now, if you want to trot out the same list of "annoyances" you experience in a theatre (talking patrons, cell phones being the biggest), I would submit that in any group of 5 or 10 people watching a movie, you're going to experience those same annoyances, with maybe a few more added on, in your house, unless you happen to have a very dedicated group of movie watchers. People are always touting the home experience as "more good" than the theater experience but it's not always that great. (In my own house, I can be more comfortable than I can in the theater, but since I have a cushy recliner I'm likely to fall asleep!)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Very few new movies released these days are worth viewing more than once. And even when you watch it for the first time you feel like you've seen the movie before numerous times.
That's not only because the ideas are retreads, but the trailers have already sketched out the entire story, including the ending, far too often.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2017, 02:25 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
No it won't. They're getting the picture and sound, sure, but beyond that, watching a movie in a good theater is NOTHING AT ALL like watching it in your same four walls. I don't think I need to list the reasons why again.
Yes, watching a movie in a theater has its own pros and cons. But you have to admit the quality level of watching movies in the home is gigatic leaps and bounds above what it was 20 or 30 years ago when the theatrical release window was far more substantial.
Back then viewers got a serious audio/visual downgrade by skipping the theatrical release. If you rented a movie like Die Hard on VHS you saw only half the movie, thanks to the image being cropped by heavy panning and scanning. The 480i imagery that was preserved had a terrible color signal. VHS HiFi stereo was nothing like magnetic 6-track Dolby Stereo, if you were lucky enough to visit a theater showing a 70mm print. I almost forgot about the fines some video stores would levy if you forgot to rewind the tape. If home viewers thought the movie was good they likely had the passing thought, I should have watched that in the theater. They regret skipping the theatrical run.
That isn't the case today. If I skip seeing a movie in the theater and rent it a couple or so months later I don't feel like I've missed anything at all. The picture is not panned and scanned. And it has damned near the same pixel count at the theatrical version. The disc has lossless surround sound. My 65" TV screen doesn't have the scale of a movie theater screen, but it is pretty big for my living room and displays a far better looking image than an old CRT TV set. The 'scope image on my HDTV screen might be letter-boxed, but it's letter-boxed on the theater's un-masked common width screen too.
That window of exclusivity is the only thing keeping theaters afloat. If the window is made narrow enough or eliminated the theaters will go bust. Not enough people value the experience of watching movies together in a group, audience setting. They certainly don't value it enough to choose it over watching at home if both choices are made available at the same time or timed closely together.
quote: Mike Blakesley
That's not only because the ideas are retreads, but the trailers have already sketched out the entire story, including the ending, far too often.
I rarely even watch the movie trailers anymore unless they're trailers running before I movie I'm watching in a theater. I used to watch a lot of movie trailers on movie discs and web sites in addition to the theater. These days movie trailers not only spoil big parts of the movie, but they are slapped together in a repetitive fashion even more painfully derivative than the retreaded movies. Today's trailers have the same boom, whoosh sounds. They use the same pieces of editing clip art style, like all the rapid fade-in, fade-out, fade-in, fade-out strobe image ploys. They have become a parody of themselves. They're like disco or hair band metal after passing the point of being lame.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-14-2017, 05:37 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Boycott isn't the right term to use. Saving a lot of money is the correct term. It's very easy for public behavior to gravitate in that direction when that is the prime motivation. And we've seen it play out before.
quote: Bobby Henderson
This one of the essential reasons why home video sales are declining so badly. Very few new movies released these days are worth viewing more than once. And even when you watch it for the first time you feel like you've seen the movie before numerous times. Like I said, the studios and their bosses have turned movies into a commodity of glop. Too many movies reek of joyless unoriginality. It's just chewing gum for the eyes and ears. These stock investor types calling the shots do not like taking chances on any new ideas. They prefer running their industry into the ground by trying to sell us the same old shit in a different wrapper, or a wrapper with a different sequel number on it.
If it's not good enough for "premium home video", can we really blame the public they'll stay home and wait until it appears on some all-you-can-watch subscription they happen to have anyway?
There obviously is a link between release window and theater performance, but I think the primary problem here is that movies have become just a bland and tasteless form of entertainment. The often uninviting entourage of the average multiplex surely doesn't help to improve that image.
I'd say from my experience, people are a bunch of impulsive creatures. So if it's marketed correctly and people really want to see it, they will still go to the theater, especially if the theater still delivers good value.
No matter what release strategy you choose, there will always be trade-offs. I think we can all agree on the fact that generic same-day releases will hurt both the exhibition industry and the studios, probably even to a breaking point for both of them. Why anybody would want to embark on such a suicide mission is beyond me.
Personally, I think a generic year+ window will dramatically hurt the "after theater" market for bad performing movies. If they performed bad at the theater, chances are, people really don't want to see it. An early release to the "after theater" market will probably allow them to recoup some of their losses, especially because they could save on marketing costs. If still nobody wants to see it, it was a write-off anyway.
Therefore I think a "rolling release window", with pre-set conditions of what happens when, would be the best compromise for both the studios and the exhibition industry. If executed correctly, I think it would also yield the biggest margins for both. Obviously, it's just theory, but why not try this with a few select releases?
quote: Bobby Henderson
That isn't the case today. If I skip seeing a movie in the theater and rent it a couple or so months later I don't feel like I've missed anything at all. The picture is not panned and scanned. And it has damned near the same pixel count at the theatrical version. The disc has lossless surround sound. My 65" TV screen doesn't have the scale of a movie theater screen, but it is pretty big for my living room and displays a far better looking image than an old CRT TV set. The 'scope image on my HDTV screen might be letter-boxed, but it's letter-boxed on the theater's un-masked common width screen too.
Nowadays, I do have a proper screening room at my disposal. And yes, it's even DCI compliant. Both sound, image and general level of immersion will outperform most run-of-the-mill proper theater auditoria out there. The seats are more comfortable than the most expensive VIP seats out there. You can pause the movie any time you want, you can drink or eat anything you want. Do I use it for friends sometimes? Yes, but primarily for "old" movies that cannot be easily seen at a theater anymore.
So, even though I have all the aspects of the general theater at my disposal, I still like to go out to the movies, together with friends. It's hard to describe in words, but there's still something special, something you cannot recreate in a home theater or screening room that fits at most 6 or so persons.
Exclusivity is probably part of that feeling, but also the feeling of enjoying something together. While watching a movie isn't exactly like watching a baseball game in a ballpark, there's still something in common here.
quote: Mike Blakesley
That's not only because the ideas are retreads, but the trailers have already sketched out the entire story, including the ending, far too often.
They should be called Movie Summaries and not Movie Trailers... I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to create a trailer capable of building anticipation without showing too much plot details, twists and even endings. Maybe the premises of many of those movies are already so weak, they literally don't have sufficient material to put in there otherwise.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2017, 11:28 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If I skip seeing a movie in the theater and rent it a couple or so months later I don't feel like I've missed anything at all. The picture is not panned and scanned. And it has damned near the same pixel count at the theatrical version.
That's not the point...as Marcel pointed out so eloquently in the post above, there's a lot more to the theatrical experience than JUST the picture and sound. Especially if all goes properly.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 04-27-2017, 11:28 AM:
I attended a revival screening of David Lynch's LOST HIGHWAY on 35mm film at the Texas Theatre. This is the only way to get me back to movie theaters now. To give me something unique and nostalgic I can't get at home.
However, this ass hat sits a few rows in front of us, and begins pulling out his phone and playing with Facebook and other apps. He was also a wiggle worm and wouldn't sit still and was sick and blowing his nose loudly.
This ruined the so called communal experience we were supposed to have...
And now I'm fully done.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-28-2017, 04:18 AM:
I want to add with this after coming in late and mention that this scare reminds a lot of us when, in the audio industry, vinyl was the way to listen to music.
Then, out came the tape methods of reel, 8trk and cassette.
8 track died first, reel slowly faded into the sunset, but not completely for a good number of hobbyists, and cassette followed suit with the reel.
Then, here comes the "Knight in Shining Armour" being the CD that pushed these analog products almost out the window overnight, with the LP taking the first thrust from the sword to the heart where it all began.
Now, a generation have passed and the LP is on the return, tape is making a comeback, et.al. The love for the analog sound is attracting many and the CD is fading away to be exchanged with personal devices along with compressed sound.
Yes, now we swing to the visual side of the spectrum and "yes," it seems that Home Cinema is now the new "Knight in Shining Armour" when it comes to screen presentation entertainment.
But once again, the sword is trying to thrust toward the heart being the cinema themselves, yet one simple thing that is saving the cinema industry, as the 'shield:' people still want to get out of the house to be entertained and witness the magic that began with the magic lantern shows in storefront locations a good hundred plus years ago.
Even the interest of the Drive-In is returning with potential new builds with multiscreen locations and huge concession stands.
No, I do believe as long as there is a movie to go see, it will be attended by someone.
-Monte
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-28-2017, 07:51 AM:
I've been told for 27 years that the theatre business is a dying business, yet, here I am.
I know a guy that has a chain of theatres in which most of the locations are second run. These *BRAND NEW* locations still turn a profit in the digital age. When's the last time you've been to a second run theatre? In Maryland, there are a handful of these theatres now.
As far as comparing what's happened to the music industry: The bands making music HAVE TO GO ON TOUR to turn any type of profit. What happens when a band goes on tour? A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE PAY MONEY TO GO SEE THE BAND IN A PLACE WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?
The motion picture industry will never die.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2017, 12:19 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
I've been told for 27 years that the theatre business is a dying business, yet, here I am.
Same here, except for me it's been 38 years.
Before my time, the advent of TV was going to kill the business. It didn't, but then COLOR TV was for SURE going to kill it.
When I got into the biz, the biggest worry was that a movie would get to network TV before we'd have a chance to play it. Then Cable TV came along, and that was going to kill the business. Then videotapes were going to kill it, but you had to rewind them, take them back to the store, etc.
Arcade games...they were FOR SURE going to kill the biz, because teenagers were spending all their quarters on games instead of going to the movies.
Then HOME video games were definitely going to kill the arcades, and the theaters along with them, because kids would save their money and stay home playing games. (The arcades indeed died, because the home experience was exactly the same as in an arcade. And for some reason, these death-predicting pundits always seem to think that kids are the only people who go to the movies.)
Then DVD came along, also failing to kill the theaters. Then flat-screen TVs....since they're shaped more like a theater screen, OH YEAH that was going to definitely kill the movie business. The "home theater" trend would for sure, with its big sound systems being the-same-yet-not-the-same as the theatrical experience. For sure that would kill the theaters, except...it didn't.
Now streaming is seen as the next thing that's going to kill the business. Considering how accurate all the previous death notices have been, I guess I won't start writing my theater's obituary just yet.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2017, 02:41 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
The motion picture industry will never die.
I believe the motion picture industry can indeed die. It is a very real, mathematic possibility.
A bunch of business people are holding onto this belief "the movie industry will never die" to rationalize self destructive schemes, like day and date release of movies in theaters and home video simultaneously. They are taking the perceived resilience of movie theaters totally for granted. Even if movie theaters have been around in some form for over a century they can still become a thing of the past.
Every movie theater has overhead and requires a certain minimum amount of money coming into the cash registers in order to continue operating. If a theater falls below its break-even point for too long a period it will go out of business.
All these business people on the movie distribution side and home viewing platforms just think they can keep pushing their luck with these accounting ploys designed to speed up the cash flow cycle and not suffer any consequences. Obviously these clowns have not been looking at the recent struggles of retail stores and restaurants. They must have missed out on the fact that retail video sales and rental stores have vanished across most of the country.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Now, a generation have passed and the LP is on the return, tape is making a comeback, et.al. The love for the analog sound is attracting many and the CD is fading away to be exchanged with personal devices along with compressed sound.
The resurgence of analog is a niche, specialty phenomenon and not something the general public is embracing.
I don't know the retail situation in Idaho, but there are no longer any retail music stores that sell things like vinyl LPs in my region. Hastings Books, Music & Video was the last actual music store in my town. Others, like Sam Goody, disappeared years before. Vinyl LPs aren't the best thing to buy via mail order from places like Amazon. I had my own bad experiences ordering Vinyl LPs from Columbia House back when I was in high school. Vinyl LPs usually do a better job selling themselves when you can actually pick up the large product in a real retail store.
The Vinyl LP resurgence analogy doesn't really apply to the fate of the movie industry. Music listeners shifting from Vinyl LPs to 8-track tapes, Cassette Tapes and Music CD were supporting the music industry all along. They were buying the same product but in a different package and recording platform. This is a little like movies going from silent films to talkies then in color and then digital. People were still watching the movie in a theater even if the equipment in the booth and type of movie print used changed.
The Vinyl LP resurgence isn't much of a resurgence either. The music industry has been suffering with its own sales cannibalism. Whether it was legal or illegal downloads, iTunes or Napster, a huge amount of the music buying public shifted from buying entire albums of music to buying only one song at a time for far less money. Far fewer albums are being sold now than 30 years ago when the music industry was at its contemporary peak.
In recent years an even worse thing has happened for the music industry: music streaming. In 2016 streaming services made up more than 50% of all US music industry revenue for the first time, 51% for a total of $3.9 billion. In 2015 streaming made up 34% of the industry's revenue. Most of that is via paid subscriptions to services like Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Prime. At the same time digital download purchases dropped 22% in 2016 (to $1.8 billion) and physical CD sales dropped 16% (to $1.7 billion). The RIAA is up in arms about this, complaining ad-supported streaming services aren't contributing enough.
So while some audiophiles may be embracing vinyl and even getting power amps using vacuum tubes the overall business trend for the music industry going rapidly in the opposite, lower quality direction.
quote: Dennis Benjamin
As far as comparing what's happened to the music industry: The bands making music HAVE TO GO ON TOUR to turn any type of profit. What happens when a band goes on tour? A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE PAY MONEY TO GO SEE THE BAND IN A PLACE WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?
Concerts have been turning into their own shit show lately.
A couple of my coworkers returned from a trip to Las Vegas a few days ago. While they were there they paid $80 per ticket to see The Chainsmokers in concert. The show was supposed to start around 9:00pm or 10:00pm. Well after midnight the duo still hand't taken the stage. About 1:00am my coworkers gave up on waiting hours to see these DJ douchebags and left the place. Amazingly, the fucking venue gave no refunds! This kind of thing is not new. All sorts of pop and rock stars have had pissy fits backstage that led to show cancellations. Or they come on hours later than the start time of the show. Never mind that a good number of people in the audience hired babysitters to be there, have to be at work early in the morning or other things that afflict us commoners. Never mind the crazy insane prices the fans had to pay for the tickets (often to scalping companies whose online bots buy up nearly all the tickets the instant they go on sale).
The same tardiness syndrome affects smaller music venues. Sometimes they'll load the bill with multiple opening acts so that even when all the bands are doing their jobs properly the headliner still doesn't take the stage until a ridiculously late hour. When they take the stage there's a chance they might be lip syncing or reading from a teleprompter karaoke-style.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Before my time, the advent of TV was going to kill the business. It didn't, but then COLOR TV was for SURE going to kill it.
Again, back then it could literally take years after a movie's theatrical debut for it to appear on TV.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Arcade games...they were FOR SURE going to kill the biz, because teenagers were spending all their quarters on games instead of going to the movies.
I seem to remember the music industry being more up in arms about coin-operated video games and video game consoles. They didn't want teens sinking dollars in video games when they could be spending that money on music albums.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Now streaming is seen as the next thing that's going to kill the business. Considering how accurate all the previous death notices have been, I guess I won't start writing my theater's obituary just yet.
Streaming alone won't kill the movie theater industry. But streaming is doing a pretty good job cannibalizing the home video industry's sales. Shrink that theatrical release window down short enough and it will indeed kill the industry.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2017, 03:15 PM:
So when Paramount, WB, Universal, Fox and the rest (except Disney) do the day-and-date thing and wind up losing their shirts on it, which, if all the trends with previous experience are true, they will.... maybe some enterprising studio (probably Disney) will come up with "EXCLUSIVELY IN THEATERS!" as a marketing tool. Maybe even announcing a video date, say 6 months after the theatrical release. No reason why that couldn't happen, I guess.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2017, 03:38 PM:
I already see the "only in theaters" tag line on some TV commercials for new movie releases. The exclusive window is key to the survival of movie theaters. But the exclusive window has to be long enough and solid enough. The latest trends in piracy are worrisome, but I really don't think shrinking the window to little or nothing is any way to battle the problem. That's like someone taking cyanide to kill his cancer.
These damned modded Fire Sticks loaded with piracy apps are a really serious problem for the entire movie industry, especially theaters. I can't believe how many people have those things. Last night I was having a few beers with one of my friends at a local bar. Two ladies near us started talking about pay TV services. One of them said she was a cord-cutter, just using an outdoor antenna for local channels, Netflix & Hulu for TV shows and her Fire Stick for movies. She was so happy about all the money she was saving. Then they started talking about the different people or places selling the devices, "Oh, I have to get one of those."
Net Neutrality in the US looks like it will die a fast death soon. Once the laws are changed I can imagine the movie industry weighing heavily on ISPs to block the IP addresses where these Fire Sticks, Kodi boxes, etc. are connecting. It will probably create a nice inconvenient mess, blocking out legit domains in the process. I wouldn't put it past the ISPs to start charging premium rates to access sites like Netflix or even YouTube at high speed. Our state government wants to make Internet users in Oklahoma pay a $20 tax in order to access known porn web sites.
Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 04-28-2017, 04:10 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Net Neutrality in the US looks like it will die a fast death soon.
I know it's wrong to be a single-issue voter on anything but if there was one thing that would cause me to do so it would be to protect net neutrality. It terrifies me to know that millions of Americans are going to effectively vote against it without ever doing any research to even know what it is and how it will affect them if we lose it.
As to the VOD issue that will ultimately lead to day-and-date once they inevitably start doing it, they have a long way to go if they want to prevent piracy. Right now, it's next to impossible to steal audio/video from an encrypted DCP package but literally every single VOD release has an active torrent of the steaming rip within hours. They are going to dig their own graves with that one.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-28-2017, 05:58 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I wouldn't put it past the ISPs to start charging premium rates to access sites like Netflix or even YouTube at high speed.
What I suspect is more likely is that the IPTV monsters such as YT and Netflix will pay the ISP monsters to provide enhanced access to their content, and will recover that money either through ads, bundling the cost into monthly subscriptions, and/or pay-per-view. Consumers are notoriously reluctant to pay for things up-front, so the cost increases will be done by stealth.
Net neutrality is basically the only thing that prevents the ISP and IPTV monsters from joining forces and playing the cable TV monsters at their own game (i.e. adopting the content bundle business model).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2017, 06:05 PM:
quote: Mike Schulz
As to the VOD issue that will ultimately lead to day-and-date once they inevitably start doing it, they have a long way to go if they want to prevent piracy. Right now, it's next to impossible to steal audio/video from an encrypted DCP package but literally every single VOD release has an active torrent of the steaming rip within hours. They are going to dig their own graves with that one.
People supposedly like getting out of the house, but with all the headlines I've been seeing lately I really have to question that often repeated claim. An alarming number of retailers going bust. 100+ year old Sears may be among the causalities this year. Restaurant chains have been struggling. Attendance at art museums and arts-related shows is down. Ultimately, people really love saving money. And saving money is clearly trumping the getting out of the house activity.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Concerts have been turning into their own shit show lately.
I wrote this earlier today. And then I saw national news coverage about the Fyre Festival in the Bahamas. This is the epitome of what's wrong with concert going today. Excess douche-baggery on the part of promoters and sheer exploitation of the customers. On the other hand it's kind of difficult to feel sorry for concert-goers who were actually willing to drop anywhere from $5000 to $250,000 per ticket on what has turned out to be a monumental clusterfuck and possible fraud.
Reading about what attendees at the Fyre Festival were having to put up with makes the hardships suffered at Rocklahoma seem pretty minor by comparison.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Net neutrality is basically the only thing that prevents the ISP and IPTV monsters from joining forces and playing the cable TV monsters at their own game (i.e. adopting the content bundle business model).
Between the IPTV monsters and content producers (TV networks, movie studios, production companies) it's easy to imagine them ratcheting up the currently cheap prices to levels just as expensive as regular cable TV.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2017, 06:20 PM:
You can say what you want about nobody wanting to leave the house, but concerts are routinely sold out in 10 minutes or less, and lots of movie theaters are packed to the rafters on opening weekends, so clearly SOME people are leaving the house.
Retailers don't belong in the same group with movie theaters on this question, I don't think. Whether you shop from home or in person at a store, the end result is the same: you get a product you wanted to buy. Going to a theater gives you something you can in no way get at home, i.e. a trip out of the house.
One thing that never gets mentioned around here much is people's shifting habits as they age. There was a time when I would go to just about any concert there was, because I loved (and still love) going to concerts. As I've gotten older, I'm not as willing to put up with the usual concert crap as I once was. Plus the music has gotten crappier (according to my personal tastes). I'd say the same goes for a lot of older, less-frequent moviegoers, for both of those reasons.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-28-2017, 06:45 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You can say what you want about nobody wanting to leave the house, but concerts are routinely sold out in 10 minutes or less, and lots of movie theaters are packed to the rafters on opening weekends, so clearly SOME people are leaving the house.
The love of the entertainment world. Only business that made the money during the depression, was the cinema business.
People got out to get away from a depressing sad world and to enter one where one can forget about these attributes for the moment.
Can't do this at home.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 04-28-2017, 07:02 PM:
A very well written article with lots of truths . Sad but true.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2017, 09:07 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You can say what you want about nobody wanting to leave the house, but concerts are routinely sold out in 10 minutes or less, and lots of movie theaters are packed to the rafters on opening weekends, so clearly SOME people are leaving the house.
I never said "nobody" wants to leave the house. Out of the group of people who do leave the house, particularly the minority of people in the general public who visit movie theaters on a regular or semi-regular basis, the numbers are being whittled downward. The schemes the bean counters are plotting threaten to whittle down that customer segment even worse.
Are you suggesting movie theaters will survive day and date release or theatrical windows of only a couple of weeks just fine? You don't think theaters would see their attendance numbers take a hit?
quote: Mike Blakesley
Retailers don't belong in the same group with movie theaters on this question, I don't think. Whether you shop from home or in person at a store, the end result is the same: you get a product you wanted to buy. Going to a theater gives you something you can in no way get at home, i.e. a trip out of the house.
Shopping is a "get out of the house" activity. So is eating out while taking that shopping trip. And visiting a movie theater while out of the house falls in the same category. Many shopping centers, be it obsolete indoor malls or trendy "town centers," tend to feature retail stores, restaurants and movie theaters all on the same property. Since 2010 more than 2 dozen indoor malls in the US have closed. More than 75 others are on the brink of failure. The slump in brick and mortar retail has a contagion that is affecting restaurant business. The same contagion can spread to movie theaters.
Getting out of the house has its ups and downs. And watching a movie in a commercial theater is no longer necessarily any better than watching at home. That is absolutely true on the technical end. The two experiences are different, both with their distinct pros and cons.
quote: Mike Blakesley
One thing that never gets mentioned around here much is people's shifting habits as they age. There was a time when I would go to just about any concert there was, because I loved (and still love) going to concerts. As I've gotten older, I'm not as willing to put up with the usual concert crap as I once was. Plus the music has gotten crappier (according to my personal tastes). I'd say the same goes for a lot of older, less-frequent moviegoers, for both of those reasons.
I went to a lot of rock concerts when I was in high school and college. I still go to some these days. I miss how things were in the 1980's and early 1990's. The bands had bigger, more elaborate sets (Iron Maiden, Yes, Rush and Ronnie James Dio were among the bands awesome at this). Today the bands just set up their gear in front of a LED board and call it a day. The price gouging for tickets, memorabilia and even things like beer wasn't so extreme in the past. Back then there were scalping companies that bought out big sections of seats, but not at the nefarious extremes we see today. I think the performers and promoters seemed a little more ethical in how they treated the fans (playing on time, good venue conditions, etc.). I mentioned Rocklahoma earlier. It's one of the biggest rock festivals in the world. But it's also an insufferable pain in the ass to attend. It seems like some of these festival organizers are trying to repeat the goof-ups made at Woodstock on purpose. If I want to see an outdoor concert I want to enjoy it, not go through a survival ordeal while witnessing the show.
Some bands try to do their fans a favor with making it easier to buy concert tickets and have a better time at the show. I remember Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails making advance ticket sales available only through his web site during one tour. Customers had to register at his web site and then go through some CAPTCHA stuff to get to the ticket ordering pages. This helped defeat some of the "bot" programs scalping companies use to buy huge quantities of seats the very instant they go on sale. And it defeats human scaplers wanting to buy up a whole section of floor seats in one purchase.
Most bands don't seem to give a shit about mass ticket scalping operations. They operate on the same level as professional sports teams. The face value of the ticket means nothing. It kind of makes me wonder if the bands are getting a "taste" of the scalpers' operations.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2017, 11:07 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Shopping is a "get out of the house" activity. So is eating out while taking that shopping trip.
Your point is well taken, but I never never heard a man say the words, "Just for fun, let's go shopping!" Women go shopping for fun - men go shopping because there's something they need to buy. Not 100% of either gender of course...my wife and mom both hate to shop.
It's true that concerts are using more LED panels these days. The early days of LEDs saw them just replaying what was happening on stage, but more recent shows feature spectacular displays of animation and graphics. Some of the setups are truly spectacular. We went and saw the Chicago/Earth, Wind & Fire tour last winter and it was downright amazing visually. We also saw Trans Siberian Orchestra and KISS last year too -- all the shows started right on time and featured extraordinary sound, staging and all. I realize these are all veteran acts with a reputation for quality...acts that abuse their fans the way you say deserve a quick trip to the "where are they now?" file.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2017, 11:21 PM:
LED jumbotron displays are getting better and better. I still remember the early days where it cost a fortune for a crude outdoor display with a coarse 35mm pitch between pixel centers. The outdoor units now have pixel densities as tight as 4mm and the indoor displays go as tight as 1.2mm. That's tight enough to do 4K or even 8K if the cost could be brought down out of the stratosphere.
I like really tricked out motion graphics. It's fun to play around in Adobe After Effects. But an LED board erected behind the band isn't the same as a set that had to be physically built. Some bands had multiple sets that had to be moved in and out between songs when the lights were dark. There was more stage craft back then. Nowadays a band could have ILM put together a great motion graphics sequence for an LED wall behind them. But in the end it's still just a video file. And all they have is their amplifers set up in front or below it. It just doesn't seem like as much effort is going into the show. But yet the ticket prices, "convenience fees" and all sorts of other shit have made concerts far more expensive.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Your point is well taken, but I never never heard a man say the words, "Just for fun, let's go shopping!" Women go shopping for fun - men go shopping because there's something they need to buy. Not 100% of either gender of course...my wife and mom both hate to shop.
And how many of us in relationships and marriages get dragged to the mall or town center to shop, eat out and catch a movie with our significant other? Pretty high percentage. I'm firmly in the camp of shopping only to get what I need and then get the hell out of the place. But I have to keep a girlfriend happy.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-30-2017, 01:41 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Ultimately, people really love saving money. And saving money is clearly trumping the getting out of the house activity.
I think it may be more like "people HAVE to save money" I think people's level of spending money is on an ever downward spiral.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2017, 01:59 PM:
The average person's capacity for "discretionary spending" (blowing money on fun stuff like eating out and trips to the movies) is definitely getting squeezed. The health care, housing and automobile industries are greedily price gouging, taking up ever greater percentages of the average American's paycheck.
The health care industry currently eats 17.8% ($3.2 trillion) of America's GDP and it's on a pace to pass 20% before the year 2020. This is by far the highest percentage of GDP any nation in the world spends on health care. France is a distant 2nd at 12%.
Student loan debt is a worsening problem. The debt bubble has doubled over the past 10 years to $1.3 trillion, spread out among 44 million borrowers, $49,905 average per household. The average class of 2016 graduate has $37,000 in debt. Loan delinquency (more than 90 days behind in payments) has grown to 11.2% in the last quarter of 2016. Despite this problem college tuition costs continue to rise at very high inflation levels.
In 2016 Americans owed $779 billion in credit card debt ($16,748 avg per household), $8.48 trillion on mortgages ($176,222 avg per household), $1.16 trillion on auto loans ($28,948 per household).
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-30-2017, 07:39 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
And all they have is their amplifers set up in front or below it. It just doesn't seem like as much effort is going into the show.
(3/5 reunited) Guns n' Roses takes it a step further. The stage for the "Not in this Lifetime" tour features LED boards where the amplifiers normally would be. They show graphics of Marshall amps on there most of the time.
They also have LED board fronts on the steps that lead to the sides of the drum riser.
Behind them is a giant 4 panel LED board and the panels move during the show. Sometimes they combine into one huge panel and sometimes they have gaps with lighting rigs in between.
There is also an LED board on both sides of the stage that shows performer close-ups during the show.
As for the scalper issue, ticketmaster has started doing "platinum seats." Basically, they hold back some of the best seats and the price varies by market conditions. It seems they try to undercut the scalpers slightly to try and get people not to buy similar seats from scalpers. Of course, ticketmaster has their own set of ridiculous add on fees.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2017, 09:58 PM:
I think the biggest scam nowadays in concert tickets is the "presale." If you join the fan club for X dollars, or have a certain kind of credit card, you get access to the "presale" during which they would probably sell all the seats if they could, or maybe they hold a few back for the real on-sale date.
Lately I've seen concerts with TWO pre-sales...there's the one for the fan club as mentioned, and then another one (usually the next day) for people who agree to receive email spam from the promoter. Then after two days of pre-sales, the "real" on sale date arrives for the "general public" where there's probably about two dozen nosebleed seats left, if that.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2017, 12:51 AM:
The fan club thing for pre-sale concert tickets is definitely a scam if they're going to charge money for the membership. When Nine Inch Nails was doing this type of thing it didn't cost anything to register. The effort was done to try to defeat the bots that auto-buy all but the nosebleed seats.
I wish rock bands were most pro-active across the board on this front. After all they're getting paid little to nothing for actual album sales (thanks to record industry accounting practices even more shady than those of the movie industry). Most bands only make money via touring. It would actually serve them best if they took steps to make sure actual fans were filling the floor seats and front rows at their shows rather than a bunch of well-connected douche bags only casually familiar with the performers. The energy at the shows will be better. I suspect companies like Ticketmaster are giving these bands a cut of the convenience fee pie. I suspect large ticket scalping companies are doing the same thing.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2017, 02:14 AM:
There are some bands who give you access to the presales if you just join their free mailing list, but almost all of them have a fan club where they tout "great concert seats before they're available to the general public!!!"
We went to a Trans Siberian Orchestra show in Minneapolis last winter...it was such a refreshing experience. There were no silly presales, the tickets were priced way reasonable for a band of their stature, there was no sky-high "facility fee" (it was built in to the tickets if it was there at all). Postage costs were the cheapest I've ever seen too. Buying those tickets was so pleasant that I found myself wishing there was a way to leave a tip.
By contrast, our local arena (Metrapark in Billings) charges $16.50 PER TICKET for "convenience fees," plus they tack on an "internet fee" of $2 per order, plus (my favorite gouge of all time) if you want to print your tickets at home, they CHARGE YOU $2 EXTRA TO DO THAT. And, their seats are old (1975 vintage), worn and cramped.
People should quit bellyaching about movie ticket prices (because you actually are getting more for your ticket money these days) and go to war against the concert industry instead - that's where the real ripoffs are going on these days.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2