I live half an hour from the nearest theater and some of the movies I want to see never make it to the cineplex. Throw in higher gas prices, higher ticket prices and a shortage of pictures I want to see, and there is just not that much reason for me to go to the theater.

Definately. Then, you get into the whole digital experience versus analog experience. Blu-ray/HD-DVD may change things even more.

Honestly, we are moving toward everyone having an awesome home theater within the next 10-20 years.

The theater owners MUST adapt. Are they? No. If so, we would see more digital presentations and so on.

Theaters and Blockbuster Videos are soon going the way of the drive in.

The problem is that folks have some slightly different perceptions about what you might consider worthy of spending 20$ in the theater. In fact, some of the mentality behind your post is what is killing the industry (I hope I am reading your post correctly). You point out the films above as a good example of what would do well in the theater and that the studios should focus on such product so that you could have your family with you at the theater, correct? To be honest with you...the "family" mentality (or what in America is seen as the "mass effect") is by large what is killing the cinematic experience as I remember it (probably slightly older here). I would not pay 5$ for any of the X men films you have listed above. Yet, I would gladly pay 20$ (yes, twenty dollars for a ticket) to go see a new print of Sunset Boulevard as I did in Paris.

Pro-B

ITS NOT KILLING IT!!

Just because ticket sales are down doesnt mean that these movies are losing money. Hollywood is too focused on box office. In reality, these movies ARE making money. Its just now shifted where a larger percentage of the money comes from DVDs. Unlike, 10 years ago, home theaters ARE part of the cinematic experience (at least to many of us).

Just because I would rather watch "Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room" at home instead of at the theater doesnt diminish that. Mark Cuban actually understands this!!

Believe me, it really is that bad. I'm a big fan of seeing films in theatres and seeing "B" films at drive-ins. I long for the days when I saw The Godfather at the local Loew's Oriental during its first run. Or sat through a day long marathon of all 5 Planet of the Ape films on a Saturday.

I only go out to theatres 1-2 times a year nowadays. It's just not worth it. When I'm watching the first showing on opening day and the film is already scratched and nicked, there's just no sense to going. If any of the dozen other reasons already posted numerous times weren't enough of a deterent.

My experiences echo what others have repeatedly posted. Unfortunately, it is NOT hyperbole. :(

Yes, I will plan to see: Superman Returns, She's the Man (Date with my Duaghter), CARS, Da Vinci, 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest', and MI-3.

These are movies that I enjoy watching with others in a movie theater on a large screen.

I still hit the theatres for the social aspect. It remains a cheaper date than say... dinner, dancing (if ya buy over priced drinks and such), concerts, the stage, etc.

But I have slowed my movie going trips a great deal. Dialog driven films and such I reserve for the home.

Of all the distractions, my GF and I hate kicking the seats the most. We just get there early, sit in the last row (All Stadium seating so no obstructions), and have a consistently good experience.

DVDs should be viewed by Hollywood as a compliment to their craft, not an evil.

Lastly, saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm in a one screen venue. Just amazing. (Same place showed Star Wars, Alien(s), Indy, Kane, and many otehrs.) Sadly, it has been torn down. Still waiting for another to take it's place.

if film companies didn't pay someone like Reese Witherspoon $29 million to be in a movie, then they would be more profitable.

Tell me, are you capable of acting like an adult? Stop acting like a childish ass and maybe we'll continue this discussion.

In the last 3 years here in Chicago, prices have been going up almost exponentially. Ticket prices 3 years ago here were 8.25-8.50, they have gone up almost a full buck, sometimes more. Theaters here are also charging variable pricing for prime time movie times. Except there is no discount for crappy times. Its only going to get worse now that AMC and Loews are merging.

Sneaking food in? Yeah it can work, but its a pain in the ass. I also don't feel like having to act like a 13 year old in order to avoid paying $5 for a small bag of stale popcorn.

Entertainment books? Those things suck. You have to mail them in and they aren't good for new releases, which is the main reason I would go to the theater.

Costco now sells 2 movie tickets for $15...I haven't done it though because I don't feel like investing the money when I don't really know the next time I will be in the theater.

For the north side of Chicago, if you want to go the nice new AMC downtown, you have to pay $6 for parking. On weekends, $2-$3 parking for Webster Place came in about a year ago. Or you can head out to Western AMC, where your chances of meeting some gangsta speaking through the movie is about 1 in 2.

And with the way theaters book movies, it is nearly impossible to have a choice to see a movie. If you want to see Spiderman, they funneled you to Webster. If you wanted to see Star Wars, you had to go the AMC. You have no choice to really see a movie in the city.

i have an HD projector, a 9ft 16x9 screen, 7.1 sound, and bass shakers mounted into the couches. so when i threw an oscar party last night, and the president said movies were meant to be seen in a theater, on the big screen with sound all around, we all laughed.

I wonder if we will continue to get DVDs quickly after the release of movies, or if stuff like this might prompt a longer wait period?

not sure if this was mentioned as I really don't want to read 8 pages..but.. not that it's exactly relevant..but..I wonder if movies didn't cost 200 million to make...if there would be such a demand to get people in the theater to make so much, when they can just release it in some format for the home viewing or whatever cool technology we have in 2025...

from slashdot..

""Before the red carpet had cooled at last night's Academy Awards, George Lucas told the New York Daily News that big-budget movies will soon be history. From the article: "'The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie,' said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. 'Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong.'" Lucas' prediction: "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies ... I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million.""

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-336664c.html

<i>Mod note: If you have a problem w/ what people are writing either:
-report it
- ignore it
- respond in a civil fashion
Postings like the above are discouraged because they only cause things to sprial downward into personal attacks and flamewars.

thx
</I>

Pilot, I read that article too... very interesting.

I don't think the film people believe DVD is evil. What they find evil is that moguls like Mark Cuban and Rupert Murdoch are pushing the smaller window times and multi platform releases in order to strangle off the theatrical exhibition industry because they can't control it. These guys are truly trying to own everything, including how and from who's internet you get your movies from. The antitrust rulings earlier last century made the theatres independent of the studios, so now the studio's owners are trying to kill off the theatres. The film artists are not happy about this because once theatrical exhibition goes, so does film. Movies will become as irrelevant as the Opera and video games will be the new movies. People, like me, who are devoted to the art of cinema really lament that.

Sorry. I stick candy in my bag or in my pocket. Is this really a difficult concept to comprehend?

Actually, I got my tickets from the Entertainment book. I can go any time.

God, I wish they'd bring back drive-ins. That would get me back into the "theater" experience big-time. The drive-in gives you back some of the control you lose going to the local mega-plex, restores some of the comforts of home, and still leaves you with more of a larger-than-life experience that you don't get at home if you aren't fortunate enough to afford several thousand dollars worth of home theater equipment. Granted the sound isn't as good, but who cares- it's way more fun.

Another thing I wish these big megaplexes would do is show more classic movies on occassion. Why not throw Indiana Jones in one of those 20 theaters for a couple weeks? Do some event nights. Other than a few places in NY and LA and some University theaters and small arthouse places, nobody does this. I live in one of the 10 largest cities in the U.S. and the only old movies we get are when they do theatrical re-releases like Star Wars and the E.T. anniversary edition that get nationwide openings. Shit, I would gladly fork over some money to go see The Terminator or Doctor Zhivago at a good theater.

Certainly the reality you live in is quite different than the reality I see around me. For the last 2 years there have been exactly 3 theaters that closed in my ex-area (one of them an icon which the community supported for over 50 years).

Furthermore, just recently another major distributor went belly-up precisely because of the effects of the reality you don't seem to understand. The distrib in question: WELLSPRING (acquired by the Weinstein Bros...under a very clear, at least to me pretext). For the record what was bought by the two brothers is precisely the theatrical releases-branch of Wellpsring.

And furthermore, I do not know how well-versed you are when it comes to theatrical distribution but the DVD market has had such a huge effect on overseas acquisitions that a good 15-17% of the catalog releases that Miramax for example negotiated during last year will most probably be shelved as they are deemed "non-profitable" at this point. Quite the same is the situation with Palm Pictures which no longer are present on the market (what you see/saw last year was negotiated almost a year before that).

So, I suggest you do some research first before you claim that there has been no effect on the industry whatsoever.

Ciao,
Pro-B

I can remember before there was DVD, VHS, Pay-Per-View and cable. There was a sense of urgency to see a movie I don't feel now. It was like there was this one chance only to see a movie or wait 5 years to see it on network tv if ever again. There was no guarantee that a movie would still be playing next week. Especially the drive-in stuff, you had exactly 7 days to go see this movie or never in your life would you ever get a chance to see it again. We used to go to one drive-in on friday and watch 3 movies and another drive-in on saturday to see three more. More than once I froze my ass of at a drive-in, parked in snow and below freezing temperatures to see a movie i just had to see.
If WB announced that Superman Returns was not going to be released on dvd because they plan on making 5 movies in the series and will release them all in a box set for the first time in 2025 would you be more likely to go see the movies or wait for the DVDs?
As for myself, I just got lazy. I wouldn't rag on a studio for delaying a DVD release to trump up ticket sales either, because then I'd be lazy and spoiled .
The studios are most responsible though. They control the properties and embraced the technologies. We were just horses led to water.

I'm just going to say it like this - I'll take a slight downgrade in picture and sound quality (I've got a 57" screen at home with a decent surround sound) over having to go to the theater. Yes, a movie theater may have a better presentation, but the variables possible deter me (talking about loud people, people bringing crying babies to rated R movies, answering cell phones, and high prices).

I was with a friend and actually went and saw a matinee last Friday - 16 Blocks. I went to a smaller town nearby to see it and the crowd was respectful. However, I can't remember the last time it was that pleasant. Still, the bad experiences stick out in my mind. I'd much rather enjoy a DVD in my apartment than go to the theater. It's not my fault it's that way.

= J

His point is that "the industry" is more than just theatres. Pointing out 3 theatres closed near you is irrelevant to his argument, because it's only a small part of the industry.

His argument simplified (figures made up):

Old days: Theatre revenue $100, dvd revenue $0
Nowadays: Theatre revenue $70, dvd revenue $40

You see the theatre down -$30 and closing 3 in your neighbourhood, he sees $110 > $100.

I definitely lean towards RockStrongo here. I personally make the decision to see many movies at home, instead of the theatre, for numerous reasons, cost, convenience, small theatres. Not *every* movie needs the big screen, and only certain ones make the cut.

My movie spending is *not* decreased. My theatre attendance is.

...as it is irrelevant to point out 10-15 films that actually made well at the box office. The overall picture is quite different suggesting that DVD has had quite an impact on the industry as a whole (to what extent...that is something that people will certainly debate in the years to come).

Pro-B

...and the industry has done nearly nothing to acknowledge this fact or embrace this fact. Instead, they continue to churn out bad product and raise prices.

What'd they expect was going to happen?

= J

What a great statement for a sig!

Anytime that I am out of town I try to go to the movies, particularly when I am near the Rave in Peoria (which I haven't been in some time). But while in Springfield I simply do not go. Perhaps I am overblowing bad memories, but ask somebody who got food poisoning at a certain restaurant if they ever go back. Why should I gamble my $15? If I knew that I was going to get a quality show for my money, I wouldn't hesitate. Maybe I am more picky than the average theater goer, but that doesn't come from being a movie snob. It comes from running theaters for years. I know what a quality presentation is, and I know that if I had put on some of the piss-poor shows I have seen I would have been very embarassed.

Your last statement is kind of ironic and more accurate than you think, since many of us are complaining that the average theater going crowd seems to think that they are at a rock concert with screaming fans. Somebody who tells you that seeing a movie on the big screen in a crowded theater is a "social" experience is wrong. It is a communal experience, and the created atmosphere that whole auditorium full of tense, frightened people provides can add immeasurably to the movie going experience. But that aura is not provided by jabbering teenagers, ringing cellphones, and crying babies. Plus commentary tracks don't belong in the theater.

I saw a lot of quotable comments in this thread to add my two cents to, but I like this one, especially the last line. As is mentioned in the Politics forum quite often, the economy is not a zero sum game. Before DVD I saw the Star Treks, the occasional family outing, and that's about it. The rest was rental, and we rented quite a bit. I realize the studios had a piece of that, but not what they have today. Now, take a look at my DVD collection in (link in one of the lines in my sig), I would never have seen this many movies in the few years I've been collecting DVDs. The thinking that DVDs are killing movies is just shortsighted.

In theory, I can agree that a film print will be better than a DVD, but it just never lives up to that potential to my eyes. I've seen prints only a day or two old that looked like garbage. I've got DVDs with problem transfers sure, but at a much lower ratio than my theater experiences.

As for the theater experience? One of my fondest memories I"ll hold onto forever is going to a revival theater a few years back and seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark with my father. (No he's not dead, but still...). We had always both been big fans of the franchise, and it was just me and him, and a respectful crowd that was really into the movie. Of course it still wasn't flawless, there was a line down the middle of the screen from where the print had been scratched for a good chunk of the movie.

So what's the tradeoff? There are problems and advantages to both, but DVD has been kicking butt and taking names, and instead of rising to the challenge, the theatre folks are whining to the umpires about technicalities. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for them.