Well, I see you being from California, I can understand why you wouldn't understand that sentiment. But for those of us who were sick and tired of hearing the same ol' Bruce Springsteen song over and over and over again, we tend to not forget. BTW, what's Michael Moore up to these days...haven't heard a peep out of him since the election.

Quite frankly, I think the single biggest reason for the drop in theater going is the DVD itself and the quick turn-arounds from the theatrical release and the DVD release. For many movies that I want to see are talked about for years...eg. Star Wars, and so after waiting years for a movie, I can wait a few more months for the DVD.

I haven't been to the theater since LOTR-TTT, and was thinking about going to see ROTS, but I'm beginning to feel that I'll just wait for the DVD in November.

Well then I think studios if they are hoping to make better profits at the box office on a regular basis. They should cap actor salaries and keep the budgest within a reasonable range as mentioned before.


Since one of the big problems is how they are all only thinking of first weekend box office,instead of the entire run.

They spend absurd amounts of money on the film production. Then add another million..or alot higher to the marketing.

So now the film must rake in alot more than needed to break even.

My film teacher discussed this in class last semester and used Spiderman 2 as an example. That to break even,the film would have to make roughly 400 million,once you add up the films budget and marketing costs. So while it may have made it's budget back..or close to it. It was not a 'hit' in terms of making a tidy profit instantly(until dvd sales maybe).

Basically they are making bigger gambles than they should be. When you look at big blockbuster classics like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark. You can see what is possible with reasonable budgets and filmmaking skills.

Even the original Star Wars was made for only 10 million dollars and look what they accomplished with what they had(including advancing FX)!

So instead of just throwing money into everything,thinking that will 'solve' any problems. They should definitely be more creative and less money careless. More quality films might be made then as well.

Of course even durring so called 'golden age' of cinema. Plenty of crap films have been made,and always well be. So this won't 'save' cinema,but it might improve it slightly.

:lol: The poster I originally responded to (RayChuang) is from California.

I hate generalizing based on my own personal experience, so I won't, but I will give my viewpoint nevertheless:

Right now, the cost of going to the theatre is close to the cost of a DVD. Two tickets are about $18, a DVD is between $15 and $25. Theatre costs explode if you add popcorn or soda.

If I'm not sure I will like a movie, and don't need to see it on a huge screen, I will usually wait until DVD. The only movie I see myself definitely going to the theatres for is War of the Worlds. All others are optional.

DVDs wouldn't be killing theaters if they weren't offering a superior product. That's why I think the title of the thread could be confusing. The advent of high quality, low cost presentation has given many films a new life that they never would have had with VHS or LD. And I don't just mean the director's cuts that people hear about before going to the theater that makes them wait for the DVD, I mean all the indie stuff and forgotten classics of days gone by.

I've seen Hitchhikers and Revenge of the Sith so far this year, I'd like to see WotW, but I'll probably just wait for the DVD. Can't really think of anything else coming this year that I can't wait for the DVD release.

I still go to the movies about the same as before. But I never went that often, probably 20-30 times a year.

The best home theater can't compare with the giant screen and sound system at a decent multi-plex, and I try to catch weekday matinees so crowds aren't a big issue. Though to be honest it has to be a very bad crowd to annoy me as I don't get distracted really easily.

One of the theaters I have been to, yes, you have to pay for parking in a ramp.

Of course, since we're all getting so fat from doing nothing but sitting around watching DVDs (and talking about them), pretty soon they'll have to double the size of the seats in the movie theaters. With half as many seats it will be twice as easy to fill them.

It's a problem that solves itself!

RichC

Here in New York, movie prices will be $11.00 by the end of year. Add that to the noisy crowds, cellphone abuse and one of the most irritating commercial/previews ever "The Twenty" makes me rarely go to the general movie theaters.

I don’t go to the “Megaplexes” because of the people, advertisements, etc. I can’t stand the little bastard teenagers that run rampant around my local MP. The little cocky S.O.B's do nothing but ruin what otherwise could have been a decent experience. Why would I pay $9 a person for me and my wife to have to sit in a theatre and hear the little bastards talk/cuss the whole time when I can wait a few months and enjoy the DVD in the peace and quiet of my own home.

The only theatre I regularly attend is the Historic Tampa Theatre, they have the ambiance, smell, look of what a theatre should be & have. There is only one big screen and seating for around 1400 ppl. They are now a registered landmark and owned by the city so it is open indefinitely. They tend to show more indie films, classics, etc. Like this week they are showing Layer cake. They also have a 1200 pipe Wurlitzer organ that they use to accompany many silent movies and for pre-show entertainment(No Ad's). This past Sunday me and my wife saw Keaton in Steamboat Bill Jr. with Rosa Rio accompanying it on the organ. $10 a person but man what an experience.

This was the first in a 18 week filmfest where they show a classic every Sunday at 3pm for $7 a person.

Some Like It Hot, On The Waterfront, Harvey, Citizen Kane, The Sting, The Wizard of Oz, Meet Me In St. Louis, A Streetcar Named Desire, E.T., Grease, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, Rebel Without a Cause, His Girl Friday, Stagecoach, Willy Wonka, The Birds & The Freshman.

All on the big screen in reel to reel in a classic theatre, now that is good stuff! No punk kids, only people interested in experiencing good movies in a classic theatre environment.

http://www.tampatheatre.org/index.php

Ticket sales are down in 2005 for one reason only: SHITTY MOVIES.

A few weeks ago (mid-April-ish), my wife and I wanted to "go to the movies". Not go to a specific movie, just go out of the house and catch a flick. We looked at what was playing at the local multiplex and there wasn't a single one of the dozen or so films that even looked remotely good. To either of us. Not one.

When you can look at a list of a dozen movies and not see a single good one, but yet see TWO that star Ashton Kutcher, it's really little wonder that sales are down. I'm sure that DVD, poor quality theaters, better quality *home* theaters, shrinking video release windows, and other factors all play in. But, ultimately, if they start making and releasing movies that people would actually want to see, the problem is solved.

:lol: You got a point there, bboisvert, about the Ashton Kutcher thing. I'd put Adam Sandler, Ben Stiler, and perhaps Chris Rock all in that same category as well. That said, where are all the David Spade movies? ;)

I like going to the movies. It's just different than watching at home (a night out rather than just hanging around the house). I'd go every weekend when I was home, even twice most weeks, but a lot of weeks I don't go because there's absolutely nothing I want to see.

Most amazing is that movie fans can buy most used DVDs for $5 or less.

$10 to see new movies in the theatres is not only overpriced but more
trouble than its worth.

This pretty much sums it all up. I absolutely have no desire to go to the movies for the very same reason...low-quality productions. On the other hand unless you live in a larger metropolitan area you absolutely have bo access to non-Hollywood films. And I don't mean (no offense) Chattanoogaville AL :)...I mean cities other than NY, LA, CHI.

Regards,
Pro-B

I think part of the problem is that the Hollywood media has started overexposing young actors to the point where the audience is tired of them before their movies even come out.

I'm 36 - when I was in my 20's, my favorite movie stars were Jodie Foster, Glenn Close, and Michelle Pfeiffer (sp?). Those three aren't around much anymore, and I just can't get interested in the younger batch of actors.

I love Julianne Moore and Cate Blanchett, but I don't rush out to see all their movies like I did for Foster and Close. I'm not sure if it is because I'm older, and not as in touch with popular culture, or because the media is just overexposing all the young stars (they built up Colin Farrell into a 'star' before he had a hit movie).

I don't even bother to try to catch most movies in the theaters - I'm fine with waiting for DVD's, and I think a lot of the reason for that is my lack of interest in today's 'stars'. I don't watch the Oscars anymore, either. (I probably sound like one of those crochety seventy year olds: '....Stars...HAH....Carole Lombard was a star....).

Hi guys... I don't know if anyone has said it yet in this thread but DVD's are NOT killing the movies. They are actually the one thing that has SAVED the movies. The average public does not know this nor do most dvd purchasers, but if a movie makes say 100 million at the box office, it could bring in 4 to 5 times that number in dvd sales. These numbers are a closely guarded secret by studios and in essense has kept big budget movies and smaller budgeted ones headed towards the cineplexes so that they can make there money there and afterwards in dvd sales. The theatre has become not only a venue to showcase movies, but in essense a way to advertise them too...kinda like a huge commercial. That is the reason why you see dvd's appearing so quickly after the initial release. Think about it for a second...How can a DVD of a film actually kill the theatrical presentation if they are both making tons of money? They are using the marketing dollars to benefit the intitial release AND the DVD because the DVD release comes so quickly. Another thing to think about...would the DVD of a given release be as big had there been no theatrical release?....So don't worry about anything, movies will be appearing in our theatres for many years to come...probably until we have GIANT theatre sized displays in our home.

Everyone has brought up some great points. There is a lot that goes on that doesn't always get reported. If a movie costs 100 million to make, they are going to spend a huge amount to promote it. This usually takes the movie in the hole even if it grosses 100 million at the box office. TV spots are really expensive and I'm sure the cost of printing billboards and large posters plus the space to display them is, too.

Also, with regards to piracy, I don't really believe everyone watched the bootleg they buy or download. There's something about just having it there. I don't think it is fair for studios to declare a loss on something the person wouldn't have bought legitimately in the first place. Also, with DVD sales so high, they do not take into consideration the amount of used dvd sales on ebay and in stores, especially here in Los Angeles. You can get something still sealed even, but it will not register as a sale as far as figures go. It helps those types of stores stay in business more than anything.

I would like to go to see movies at the theatre more often, but I've decided I won't pay even the $8 matinee price for most studio films. I will gladly pay more for lower budget movies at the arthouses here, especially Landmark theatres and Laemmle. I still prefer seeing the movies projected. There is no comparison to seeing a retro movie in 70mm on a large screen, either. Unfortunately, the commercials just make the whole thing a big turn off. 20 minutes of material before an unwatchable studio film becomes insulting, especially with the lack of entertaining LA Times commercials.

DVDs are just fun to buy and watch. Whether you really care about the bonus materials or not, you can turn watching the movie into a more interactive experience. Especially with netflix, you can have 3 or 4 at a time, watch them at your leisure and pay a small fraction of the cost of a cinema ticket. You're almost guaranteed a pristine source print and the choice not to hear the running audio commentary that some theatre goers provide you.

There are enough variables in the two to make both attractive. Decent multi-plex is a big variable in iteself. When I caught RotS two weeks ago the picture was dark, soft looking and I was watching the movie thinking how much BETTER this will look on DVD on a good big screen at home. Not all movie-plexes go out of their way to have great sound; I can't deny the allure of the giant screen, but I've definitely heard movies sound like crap at my local theatres.

That's only if you must buy your DVD's new. My own policy is not to pay more than $10 for any new release, and with various sales at Movie Gallery, Hollywood Video, and Hastings, I pick up new movies on DVD in the $7-$10 range (and a lot of these used DVD's are nearly pristine anyway, but I just buff out the scratches on those that aren't). That makes the cost of going to the movie by myself about the same as a DVD and the cost of going with my wife more than the cost of a DVD.

Since the DVD's I don't want to keep are readily resold, my actual total cost is far less than going to see a movie at the theater, without any of the aggravation. Still, if all I had was a TV to watch DVDs I'd still go to the theater, but for me, the tradeoff between my 8' wide screen at home (with 1.33 movies projected at 8' x 6') and the bigger screen at the local multiplex --which doesn't show most of the movies I want to watch anyway-- isn't even close to putting my butt into a seat at the theater.

Yup. Lots of people are dead against shopping around for used discs but if you're willing to do so, you can get some super prices on big releases if you're willing to wait a few months before buying. I'm definitely of the school that is willing to buy like new discs for $4-8 rather than new for $15-20. On the other hand the place not to skimp is the hardware you're watching on. If all I had to watch great movies on was a 27 inch or smaller standard TV I'd be much more inclined to go to the movies more often as well, but with a 57 inch widescreen and 6.1 DTS sound in my viewing room it's not hard to choose staying home for all but the releases I'm DYING to see as soon as they're released, of which there aren't many. The initial investment is pricey but it keeps paying for itself month after month once you've done so.

I don't like how screens are smaller as well. What I don't understand is, they have to build these giant multiplexes with 20 or more screens (and so the screens are smaller to fit more of them), yet it seems there is always a movie or two playing on two or more screens. Why couldn't they have just built fewer screens but make them larger and have the big movie in one large screen instead of two small ones? Then they wouldn't have to buy as many projectors and order as many prints. I guess the reason is that they want to offer different times, so that a certain movie can start every hour or so, but I still would prefer that they make the theaters larger. Or maybe they want to be prepared in case there comes a time when there are actually 20 different movies they will show at once (that'll be the day).

Another thing I don't like, and this is a bigger problem with smaller screens, is the big EXIT sign in the front. I know it's needed for fire codes and such, but does it have to be so bright, and close to the screen? Do I have to see a big red shadow on a third of the screen at all times?

Movie Gallery often pulls new releases for sale after three weeks, and just about everything after a month.

Lower the prices of tickets and have showings where kids under 18 are not allowed.