orangerunner

How important is it that the films you choose to buy/rent have played in theaters and are not just straight-to-DVD?

I was surprised that the film "The Code" with Morgan Freeman was one of the top DVDs sold in its debut week as it never played in theaters.

I seem to gravitate to films that I recognize as having played in the theater.
Theaters tend to lend films a level of legitimacy and validate them to be of a certain quality above straight to DVD films.

Now of course many bad films come and go from the theater and often many good films get a very limited theatrical distribution or go straight to DVD.

Advertisement, movie reviews and word of mouth is much stronger for films released theatrically than straight to DVD as well.

As a whole, a theatrically released film is usually a baromter of how good a film is.

philip74

since i have a great home theater, i would actually welcome it, if
even major blockbuster titles were released on dvd the same day as the
theatrical release....
the studios are getting my money with the dvd purchase anyhow, only
theatres would suffer a loss.

outlander78

I don't go to theaters any more, and would also welcome immediate DVD releases.

gotrice487

Same here...I think the last movie I saw in the theaters was I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

EdTheRipper

I couldn't care less if a movie had a theatrical run or not. There are good DTV flicks and there are bad DTV flicks...same as movies with theatrical releases.

advdfreak

same here too! I would much rather wait cause after you buy your ticket and food and drinks it's almost as cheap as going out.

Dane

How Important is a Theatrical Release...

Very important!

The succes or failure of a theatrical release of a given film can make or break its business on other venues such as DVD, Blu-ray, Cable, Internet and Movies-On-Demand etc. In other words, a theatrical release is the foundation for everyting else.

Groucho

Direct-to-DVD is sometimes, but not always, a indicator of low quality.

Dane

However, sometimes as with case regarding "The Code", which didn´t get a theatrical release, they go direct to DVD/Blu-ray simply because the movie sucked, and would stand to loose more money if it did have had a theatrical release. Some studio head made a fatal error greenlighting "The Code", and probably got fired.

rw2516

I often find myself more interested in Direct to DVD titles that are 2:35 aspect ratio. I figure it must have been intended for theaters at one point and may be slightly better than average.

slop101

A theatrical release is just advertisement for the eventual dvd/blu-ray release.

philip74

i don`t agree at all. some movies flop completely at the box office but are extremely popular on dvd.
movies like scarface or the lost boys did not perform that great box office wise, but are dvd favorites for many generations.

Evil ASh

I don't know how important it is in general, but I tend to go to the theater every week and enjoy the theatrical experience that can not be replicated at home.

Doctor Zoidberg

It doesn't matter at all to me.

philip74

thank you for the constructive post

LickTheABCs

Theatrical releases mean nothing to me.

That's like only listening to music that gets played on the radio.

jjcool

This is exactly what I was going to say. For me, the only benefit of having a theatrical release, and by that i mean a wide release as I am not in a major market, is to get the word out. It is part of the advertising for a Films home video release now.

Ive seen plenty of stinkers at the multiplex, and seen plenty of gems go straight to video. So quality wise, it isnt cut and dry.

milo bloom

It's not important for me, and I would also welcome a sooner DVD release.

Reminds of stories I've heard of people that used to work in video stores and customers would come in asking to rent movies that weren't even in theatres, but had started advertising on TV. That right there tells me the theatrical isn't as important as people may think.

joltman

Especially considering the kind of movies I like (generally cheesy horror movies), not being released theatrical doesn't matter to me at all.

My Other Self

This.

I've seen some really well done DTV films. Of the about 50+ movies I've seen in theaters this year, I'd say maybe 10 were phenomenal. And one of those was the Dark Knight re-release back in January, so it wasn't even a new film.

Most movies nowadays don't need an elaborate budget or anything to be good. I could take a shitty set with great acting over an over-the-top theatrical film with all the bells and whistles that sucks. Most DTV films are that way because the studios don't believe it would profit from being shown in a cinema. I can see that - a lot of audiences nowadays just want movies like 2012 and nothing that's actually good.

steelpotato

First DTV I'm interested in years in will be Trick R Treat. I 99.9% of the time only watch films which got a theatrical release.

philip74

yeah, unfortunately smart films with good scrips like the usual suspects or
seven are rather rare these days....

orangerunner

It's an unfortunate sign of the times. Many good scripts simply don't fit a target audience or have a built-in audience so they do not get greenlit.

If the studios do take a chance on something quirky & offbeat they usually get burned with bad box office returns.

The result is we get a lot of "safe" bets like Transformers 2, GI Joe, CGI dominated sequels and remakes.

Twenty years ago the straight-to-video films were really bad horror films & Michael Dudikoff-wannabe kung-fu flicks. It was really bottom of the barrel stuff. Even Cannon produced action films had decent runs in the major cities.

Nowadays, it's a huge financial risk when a film is released theatrically that the studios and theater owners only want something that's going to be a guaranteed hit, no nasty surprises.

Lots of good films get a limited theatrical run or go straight to DVD because they don't fit the current Hollywood mold of what a "hit" should be.

Silverscreenvid

Movie distribution has changed greatly since the 30s and 40s when hundreds of theatrical releases came out every year (even big name stars often had a half dozen releases per year). Now, you get maybe three or four releases a week (in the summer you often have one big release some weeks). There are three types of direct to DVD films:

1) Low budget junk that was never intended to be released theatrically and is usually pretty low quality, mainly genre movies (Steven Seagal-type action, horror, or sex comedy).

2) Low budget independent releases that play the film festival circuit but don't get picked up for mainstream release (or get very minimal release in big city art houses). Production values may be skimpy, but you can find some surprisingly good acting (including name actors) and writing here. They tend not to be the top-notch indies, but some can be very good.

3) Studio films that fall through the cracks. Some of these tested disastrously and were shelved. Others ran into financial problems, not necessarily with the movie itself but with its distributor. Again, they aren't top notch, but they can be decent.

You can usually tell which type film you are dealing with by looking at the disc. While theatrical films run the gamut from A to F, direct-to-DVD films tend to run from B (or B+) to F- (some of these are so lacking in production values as to be a complete joke).

davidh777

Remember when this film made headlines by hitting theaters and DVD at the same time?



Also, traditionally movie studios are set up with separate departments handling theatrical and DVD. Theatrical group will have their budget to spend marketing the film during its theatrical run and will fight the DVD group to protect their territory.