I would have to agree with many here. Ultimately, Hollywood has ruined itself. Without bothering to think ahead about the downside of their quest for an extra dollar, they seem to be systematically destroying the only reason they exist. When I heard the comments tonight, here's what went through my mind:

1) Quit collapsing your theatrical to DVD windows. With the time from some studio now approaching only 3 months from screen to TV, why wouldn't you wait?

2) You've destroyed the traditional theatrical model. Instead of a film playing in only a few (typically much larger screened) theaters, you've front loaded your films so that if people can't make it out to see something within the first week, they're relegated to smaller screens and more difficult showtimes for people to catch. Therefore, for any film that opens wide these days, there's no such thing as word of mouth anymore.

3) Additionally, the studio shift to greater opening week profits have put many reputable and respected theaters out of business. I'm lucky because I live in LA with access to great movie theaters, but wonderful theaters all over the country have been driven out of business because studio terms to play their films are unrealistic under the current business model. Instead, we've been inundated with poorly constructed, small-screen googleplexes. This was presented as a way to offer more variety, but the reality is they simply exist to increase opening week grosses. Think about it... does your local 18-screen theater play 18 different films, or 7 big films on 2 or 3 different screens?

16 Blocks was the highest grossing film released this weekend at $11.7 million. 24-years ago, Best Little Whorehouse in Texas opened on half as many screens. It's three-day gross... $11.8 million. BLWIT stayed in the top ten for 13 weeks on its way to grossing $70 million. 16 Blocks won't hit anywhere near $70 million, but studios don't really care about that as the film most assuredly already appears on an upcoming studio DVD release schedule for a likely July release. It's not that Best Little Whorehouse is a better movie, but it was given a better chance to survive theatrically than 16 Blocks, which, ultimately, is the teaser for the eventual DVD release. So when Hollywood gets really preachy about the decline of the theatrical experience, they should spend a minute to reflect on how they actually created that situation and stop chastising the movie-going public, who simply view films in the manner and time frame the studios have decreed.

I also don't feel that Hollywood has much faith in it's own films - they sneak way too many movies for free - when they should build word of mouth up and let the film actually make money (and not lose the profits from it's fanbase i.e, 'Serenity').

This argument AGAIN?

Yawn....

yeah we DVDTalkers like to complain and bicker alot.

I didnt' think the Academy offered an anti-DVD message at all! They said that DVD doesn't compare to seeing a film in a theatre. That's like saying jacking off doesn't compare to having sex with a hot person. It's not anti-jacking off. It's just common sense.
I'm sorry you guys live in towns full of assholes. I live in a big city and go to the movies all the time and rarely have loud obnoxious assholes or screaming babies in the theatre. Honestly, I think you guys haven't been to a theatre in a long time are are overblowing a couple bad memories.
Hollywood makes a ton of money off it's DVDs and the WERE NOT bashing DVD's. They were just encouraging people to see films the way they have always been created to be seen. As someone who aspires to be a filmmaker, I can't bear the thought that I might get into an industry that could turn into straight-to-video and cable-TV. Depressing as hell. Saying you prefer DVD to a theatrical screening is like saying you prefer listening to a C.D. and pumping your hands in the air in your living room instead of at a rock concert surrounded by tons of fans.

Dear Peep,

The argument wasn't brought up by any DVDTalkers, it was brought up by the President of the Academy, as well as one or two presenters at various times during tonight's Academy Award broadcast. The thread and most posts therein are a direct response to Hollywood's sentiments. Thanks for reconsidering your stance on the discussion of this topic.

Sincerely,
Me.

Yes, but can you imagine watching classic films on DVD? The very idea..

You see it on DVD if you have to, if there's no other choice. But I've seen classic films on both DVD and in the theatre, and when I see one in the theatre, it's like a totally new experience. I see the film in ways I never have before, having watched it on a television set. And, by the way, there is scientific evidence for this: studies have shown that watching a film projected by light onto a screen has the same effect on the brain as dreams do. A video image has a more narcotic than dreamlike effect. It's different. Do I watch DVD's? Yes, of course. But, there's no comparison.

It's too funny when one considers that over half of the Academy members, watched the films they voted on, via dvd screener copies. If they even bothered to see the movies before casting their ballots.

When the Academy and MPAA make an effort to eliminate the 20 minutes of Pepsi & Toyota commercials that we have to sit through after paying $10 a ticket, then maybe they can open their pieholes about not waiting for the dvd versions of movies.

People have projectors at home. People have 110" screens, or larger, at home. People have surround sound at home. People have popcorn at home. People have everything that's available at the theater except for strangers watching the movie with them.

I've never been one to say that theaters are bad, but they can be. Sometimes, in the right environment for the right screening (typically premieres and special screenings that I've attended; rarely regular trips to the megaplex) experiencing a film with an audience of strangers can be amazing. I saw premieres of King Kong, Ong Bak, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang this way (among many others), and all three screenings were absolutely amazing experiences that I'll never forget.

The opposite can be said as well, though. In most of my trips to the megaplex, the audience is either dead silent or just plain distracting. When there's electricity in the air, a theatrical screening is an amazing thing. When it's just a group of people sitting quietly in the dark together watching a movie, or even worse, when it's a group of people being disrespectful by laughing at inappropriate times, cracking jokes, chatting, constantly asking questions, and chatting on the phone (or even opening the glowing phone every 20 minutes to check the time), I'd much rather spend the evening by myself or with a small group of friends at home.

Theatrical screenings can be amazing experiences. However, that doesn't negate the fact that they can be equally frustrating. With basic megaplex screenings, it's much more likely to be a case of the latter. Pair that with the high prices of tickets and food and the advances in home theater set-ups, and it's no wonder that the masses are slowly turning to DVD as the preferred film-watching medium.

-JP

PS: My "can you imagine" comment was a direct quote from tonight's Oscar presentation, in an attempt to refute your comments that the program wasn't in any way anti-DVD.

Most studios are worried about pirating, especially since 4 of the 5 best picture nominees are still playing in some theaters. With that note, a limited amount of screeners get sent out (in hopes that the studios can get academy members who don't get the screeners to attend free screenings to see the nominated films instead).

Since Lionsgate already made most of what money they were to make off Crash, they obviously don't give a shit about piracy (especially since the DVD has been out for over four months now) and were able to send copies to every Academy member and then some.

Actually, rock concerts are awful as well. Drunken aholes bumping into you and spilling overpriced beer on you. Kids out looking to fight, disgusting bathrooms, and bands that sound a lot better in the studio than live. Give me a CD any day.

As for theaters, we made the horrible mistake of going to see Date Movie two weeks ago. Not only was that movie horrible but the theater lobby was packed with people waiting to see Madeas Family Reunion. They were standing around waiting an hour before the movie was scheduled to start seating. So it was a traffic nightmare having to weave through people just to get to the ticket guy. While doing this there were several rude comments like we were breaking in the non-existent line. People didn't want to let us move forward and we almost were late to the movie just because of the lobby. Thankfully there were 30 minutes of commercials and previews. It was like the other customers didn't realize there were other movies playing. And the theaters didn't know how to handle the crowd.

Well that was just the lobby, once we were in the theater it was the usual that has already been discussed. So give me a home theater any day. Sorry for my long rant.

The main thing that drives me crazy when I go to the movies?

The fact that people still laugh out loud at a joke that is played in every TV spot and trailer of said film. ;)

ok, one last analogy and then I have to get my ass to bed

looking at the Michaelangelo paintings on the Sistine Chapel in person,
or looking at a 4"x5" digital photo of it.

If you're looking at a film compressed down to DVD, you aint seeing the whole thing. And to the above poster, neither I nor anyone I know have a projector or a 110 inch screen. And even so, it's still a compressed digital image.

So?

In my opinion theaters still give great viewing experience (provided that the theater is good, comfortable, good sound system, good projector and operator, etc. etc) - yeah, I know disturbance like people talking children screaming, etc. but I watched the movies, not the audience. As long as they are not that annoying I never paid any attention.

My home theatre equipment is limited. I only use a 29 inch TV, a DVD player, and 5.1 speaker system which is supposed to be used on computer. No AV receiver, no fancey speaker system, wiring, or whatever. I watch in my 3 x 3m boarding house room. So I still can't afford to create theatrical experiece personally. And it's different. I enjoy DVD but yes, I still go to theater watching movies as well.

A decent projector costs under $2k now, a white wall will do nicely as a screen, and you and your friends should try it.

That statement is astonishing in its level of ignorance. Hey, here's a better idea - instead of denying yet another luxury purchase to the lower class, how about we push for the theater owners to DO THEIR F*CKING JOBS????? Someone's talking through the movie? Someone's kid is screaming? Someone's phone / pager keeps going off? Throw them out! What insanity leads you to say that theater employees shouldn't simply remove the offending parties, instead they should just throw all the poor folk out?

I'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned that this could be a slap at Mark Cuban and his idea of bringing movies to DVD at the same time that they're in the theater. I don't think the idea will ever work, but you know that theater owners are probably pretty scared right now.

AMEN! Add to the list the fact that I'd like to be able to take my family of 5 out to see a movie without having to take out a loan at the bank. I still go to the movies monthly, but geez I can buy the DVD and enjoy a great dinner with my family at the same time and STILL come out cheaper and get almost the same feeling as the big screen (I actually like my home theater better than my local theater). Be sure to add to the list the ability to kick out those jerks that like to talk and wiggle around in front of you during a movie.

I cordially invite the president to spent an evening in my basement.

LOL, when they were showing those epic clips that "need to be seen in the theater", I was drooling over their HD quality on my 73" DLP. Can't wait for Blu-Ray :D:up:

Your going out the world backwards guy! If someone is willing to pay twenty dollars to see a movie in the theater (which would be ludicrous), they might as well wait a couple of months later, and buy it to own at a cheaper price when available on DVD.

Did anyone else enjoy the irony of showing clips from "epic movies that should be seen on the big screen"... on a TV broadcast?

Nothing can replace the theatrical experience. Crying babies, ringing cell phones, and $10 popcorn!

= J

Amen! I'll sit at home and watch my $20 DVD on a 120" screen, beats the theater experience (read above comment) every time!!

You really can't comp[are the theatre release to a DVD release anyway... because in addition to having the theatre experience at home, I can also go back and watch documentaries, go back and listen to the director commentaries etc.

:lol::up:

That reminds me, what was the theater audience audio track on the extended re-release of Sin City like?

I was at the movies this weekend and didn't have any ringing cell phones, no babies, and the popcorn was only $5. It was a good experience. Of course it looked like most of trouble makers were busy seeing Dave Chappelle's Block Party and that new black guy dressed up as a woman movie.

I'm taking up the Academy on their offer. I won't be buying any DVDs in the next sixty days. I may extend that for a longer time if these greedy simpletons want to keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Not only was it Jake "Not Frodo or Spiderman" Gyllenhaal and the MPAA president but the camera shot to the audience who was nodding and applauding.

So, point taken. Movies aren't meant to be watched at home. I got it. Thanks.

If the Academy was smart they would go the other way and start adding some DVDs categories...

- Best overall DVD release
- Best DVD specific documentary
- Best sound transfer to DVD (kind of subjective based on the system played on though...)
- ???

I mean if these awards are really meant to recognize the people in the industry that do an outstanding job the DVD is becoming as important part of the process. Not to mention it's a great ad opportunity ;)

That would do way more harm than good. It would drive most people away from seeing a movie at those prices. I know I would see 0 movies in a theater at those prices. I don't think there has ever been a movie made that I would pay $20 to see. I'd just get the DVD then. People complain now at the prices of movies as a reason to stay home since they can buy the DVD for about the cost of two tickets. Raising it much higher will further convince people to do this.

DVD is my preference, over theatre, for all the usual reasons.

The industry needs to wake up and realize dvd/home format is definitely here to stay, and make efforts to benefit from that, rather than snide sniping and not improving their product. Of course, we've seen this before, with network tv versus cable, the RIAA and the music industry versus mp3, and FM radio versus satellite. They don't learn.
EVEN IF theatre is a 'superior' format, which I won't deny *if it's done right* [clear image, well-balanced sound, no distractions, etc], the odds of getting that 'done right' are very very low. And it seems like every change is purposefully selected to drive away the most customers/consumers. So Hollywood, before you continue bitching about the competitor, make sure your product is worth buying in the first place.

Of course, it's quite likely that it's only some of the "big names" who are doing this complaining. The little guys, the indies, the creative forces, they probably love DVD, it's the way to get their work into the hands of millions of people, rather than competing for one screen out of 20 at ten randomly chosen theatres. Much like the mainstream media doesn't like things like podcasts or blogs, because it's an alternate source to get more/different information, and not be dependent on the 'mainstream'.

And, of course, since theatres generally only show a film at most a few months, if you don't catch it then, it's gone. Apart from a few arthouse/indie theatres or university theatres that may play revival type things, what are the chances of my seeing Citizen Kane in a theatre, or my boy's seeing it? Thanks to DVD, when he's old enough to watch and understand film, he can see that classic film and focus and appreciate it. Or, the other way around--the "classic" Cannibal! the Musical--did it ever play in a theatre? I daresay my local Rialto won't be showing it anytime soon.

And that's not even mentioning the other points people have made--the quality of home theatre, the convenience, the value [a 20-buck dvd with hours of bonus content, rather than just a 2-hour movie that you can't hear because the sound is crappy or the kid next to you is giggling with his friends]. Or for the deaf--most DVd's have subtitles or captions. I know some theatres have those headphones, but is there any other method of assisting the deaf in enjoying films?

Of course, ultimately, it's about content. Looking at this year's Oscar noms and winners, there are only 9 films I have either seen or have even the slightest interest in seeing--2 are animated, 2 are documentaries, one is based on a comic book, and one is a 'children's' film.

If Hollywood wants to get people to go to theaters more instead of just watching DVDs, they need to get the incentive to go to the theater higher.

Two things they can do (DVD fans will hate):

1. Lengthen the time between the theatrical release and the DVD release. Most movies are released 3-4 months after they come out in the theaters. Many people just decide to wait. Since Hollywood can control when their own movies go to DVD, wait about a year before putting it out. This way, people who hear things about a movie will more likely go see it to find out what the talk is.

2. Raise the cost of DVDs. People will avoid an $8 ticket since they can buy the DVD for $16 soon after. People can't seem to go 2 hours without stuffing their faces so they say that going to a theater costs as much as the DVD so they wait. Jacking the prices of a DVD to close to $30 will have many people deciding that the theater is the cheaper option. (I can hear people freaking out over this)

Let's see...

"giant screen"? I've got that- Check.
"sound coming from all around"? I've got that- Check.

What the hell does the MPAA know? My home setup beats the shit out of any movie theater I've ever been to.

Even Best Buy is selling projectors and widescreen pulldown screens now. See this weeks printed ads.

What I don't have:

• cellphones randomly going off (and people actually answering them)
• babies crying, loud talking
• dickhead teenie boppers
• insanely prices food/drinks
• crazy ticket prices
• forced ads before the show

:lol: Yeah, huh?

As I've stated elsewhere... I do.

Even with a half way decent projector and a progressive scan DVD player I can get results that blow away what you see at a "real theater". Never mind upscaled DVD or the future HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray).

Yeah right...and 9 inches is the average. :rolleyes:

I love you guys and your claims. I know I live in NYC and we're a bit spoiled in that respect but I don't care WHAT you have in your living room (or in your pants), that can never compare to seeing a movie on the big screen with a good sound system.

You have a problem with the presentation, complain to the managers or go to a decent theater. Hell, even in my hometown in CT there are 4-5 GREAT theaters that I could drive to within 20 minutes. A compressed DVD or even HD will NEVER EVER compare to what you can see on a screen.

Or maybe the studios should charge the exhibitors a smaller percentage to show/rent their films, so the exhibitors could rely on not jacking up the prices at the box office and in the concession stands...

Have to agree with him. As long as you can go at a time that the theaters are mostly empty or mostly adults, then you just can't beat that experience even with the best hometheater DVD set ups.

Don't get me wrong, I love DVD. But it can't replace the theater experience IMO.

Other than YOUR house, i'd be curious to know where the other 3-4 GREAT theaters are...