PS -- I realize that the theaters that Academy members attend are presenting films in the manner that they were meant to be seen. I openly invite the Academy to attend a movie with me here in Springfield, IL.

You see, we only have one theater company here, and they have no RESPECT for the movies or the audience. You see, here in Springfield I sat through X-Men 2 being presented in glorious MONO sound due to the incompetence of the manager on duty. Here in Springfield I was subjected to a ruined print of Alien Vs. Predator (no comments as to the quality of the film itself, please) on just it's fourth run through a projector.

Here in Springfield the auditorium is indeed a daycare for pre-pubescent teens and drunkards that the operators refuse to properly deal with. This is such a problem that shortly after I moved here the local media was tantalized with the story of a theater patron who turned vigilante. After repeatedly asking the children to be quiet and multiple trips to the lobby to complain to the management produced no satisfactory resolution, the movie lover grabbed the fire extinguisher and sprayed the children.

It isn't the prices that keep me away. I would gladly pay MORE for a quality luxury theater experience. I would love to attend every movie in its full and intended glory. But as long as theaters continue to give piss poor presentations and refuse to enforce common sense etiquette, I will continue to forgo the theater experience in lieu of the comfort of my living room.

Thank you for your disregard,


Abob Teff
Self Proclaimed Movie and Guest Service Guru

Just as video games and pinball machines were meant to be played in an arcade. Home is better.

It's sad sometimes that things change with time. Atmosphere changes. Sure, there are a few good theaters around. It's just not worth the time, energy and $ to actually make the effort to "go out". To slide past asshole after asshole and put up with all the dis-respect is just silly. Screaming teens, smelling a strangers fart that hangs in the air, beeping....buzzing....vibrating....kick to the back of the chair...and all the other distractions have ruined it for me.

If they want me to see their films, they had better make sure that it gets to the Gut-O-Plex downstairs. At least there it will be respected and the bottom line....it will be properly enjoyed.

Hollywood does put out good movies. I think all of this year's nominees were deserving, but unless you live in NY or LA they were a bit more difficult to see. My opinion: start funding the good movies and people will go. I actually don't mind paying 6-10 bucks for the experience as long as I don't come out disappointed.

Also, we have the internet. It is full of wonderful information (much like this forum) where people say, "that sucked" or "that was amazing." The treatments go beyond that also into the realm of "if you liked this, then you will like this..." This makes us all more informed consumers and if they want to sell more product then they should figure their own crap out. That's their job, not ours.

As far as DVD's are concerned, sometimes it's better to know that I will get to hear the entire movie, not have the back of my chair kicked and be able to get up and pee after downing a large drink. I had this experience with "Good Night, and Good Luck." Only about 10 people in the theater. Then, six or seven high school kids come in and start making fun of the film in the back. People tell them to shut the hell up; yelling ensues, at that point you are just looking over your shoulder. Under optimal conditions; yes, I'd love to see a film I love on the big screen, but usually I end up next to the guy eating a 12 inch sub he snuck in from Subway.

amen brother. 'The New World' should have been filmed in it's entirety and released in 70mm... for shame.

Why not, with a projector system and quality surround, there is no difference in home vs theater, well except a bunch of assholes aren't talking, the popcorn is not nasty and you can pause to take a piss. Yeah its bigger at the theater, but the damn room is bigger, the sound at my home is always better since at the theater it is too damn loud. I still go to the theater on occassion, but if I had to pick between theaters or DVDs - DVDs hands down.

Oh, and it would not matter if movies were $1, I would still pick DVD. I also think a large segment of society would as well. Prices are not the main thing killing the theaters - as I said, rude people, poor service and clueless theater operators are killing the theater. Combine that with top of the line home theaters and why waste time going out.

The dvd is the reason why Crash won.

Yeah, I heard Lion Gate carpet-bombed the academy members with Crash DVDs, by a large margin over the other candidates who had to send out screeners.

you could have fooled me, I thought the editing was atrocious

and now they actually have to buy the expanded director's cut in the near future - Lion's Gate will be laughing all it's way to bank now.

Going to the movies is fun, but as a student it can get to be pretty expensive.

If I take my girlfriend out for a movie, it's 6 bucks for each ticket, and invariably she'll want some sort of candy (3-4 bucks), and I might get a soda (another 3-4 bucks). In relation to some of you in different areas, these prices might seem cheap, but that's 20 bucks to see a movie right there. That isn't taking into account the inept workers at the theatre, or the 13 year old kids who've yet to learn that being loud doesn't equal being funny.

Conversely, I could go to a local place and rent the DVD for 3 bucks, go get some candy for a buck, and some soda for another dollar. I've just spent 15 less dollars for the same thing.

I personally enjoy going to the theatre more, especially if I am confident in the film being good, or at the very least entertaining, but at the rate that Hollywood puts out crap, I'm getting to the point where I wait for DVD on the majority of movies I want to see.

Just my opinion.

I respectfully disagree. I think they should RAISE ticket prices. That way if you are paying $20 to see a movie, you are going to make damn sure that you are going to SEE that damn movie and not talk throughout it. No one's going to pay $20 to sit there and talk throughout the movie. They obviously pay $9 to talk throughout a movie, but maybe if the ticket prices were $20, they wouldn't be so nonattentive.

Nothing beats seeing a movie on a large screen in a theater. Nothing. But the cons of going to a theater completely outweigh the pros.

Higher prices would weed out all the riff raff. (well, in theory). I used to love going to theaters, but with all the screaming infants (I've been in PG-13 movies where there were not one, not two, but THREE screaming babies in the audience and the damn parents wouldn't do anything drastic like take the infant to the lobby), cell phones, & talking, I refuse to go.

And there's absolutely no movies on the horizon that I would want to see that would make me endure the distractions.

"sound coming from all around"? the only sound ive had coming from all around in the past 10 years of theater going is noisy kids and noisy adults. it totally takes me out of the theater experience. sorry, i dont want that theater experience anymore if i dont need to. besides, these big wigs are watching these films in their own private theaters as well. theyre not at the cinema cineplex.

#2- you want me to watch your films, give me the WHOLE film. film now is a watered down edited version of the DVD because the MPAA sucks, and along with chain cinemas, dont think we can handle it. if you care about film, let the whole vision be seen, not just what you can sell to the pg-13 audience.

Since their movie came out in May, what where they supposed to do? Send out notes asking them to remember the movie? Every studio sends out screeners.

that's why I am not seeing 'The Hills Have Eyes' remake in the theatre - cause it's alreadly been promised the full NC-17 version will get released as such on video.

I'd pay more if more theatres barred clueless parents from bringing in their kids under the age of 5

I'm debating this very thing myself. I like to go see scary movies in theatres, because I think it adds to the atmosphere and whatnot, however from the things I've heard from this film's director, I'm wondering if waiting for DVD would be my best option. I loved High Tension, but I saw that unrated. I can't imagine what the R version must've looked like.

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.