This is a GREAT topic for discussion.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/03/02/will-the-movie-experience-die-the-on-demand-world/
Will the Movie Experience Die in the On Demand World?
- Thread starter jst5150
- Start date
Ruining? I don't think so. TV didn't kill the movies; on demand won't, either. The problem with movie theaters are many: high prices are one, the endless commercials then trailers before the movies and the shorter running of movies. Plus we seem to be an ADD culture; we see the movie in the first couple of weeks then we're waiting for the next film.
johnnysannie
Banned
I don't think on demand will kill the movie experience. I still love the experience of first seeing a film in a large theater with a tub of buttered popcorn and the sound echoing from the speakers. That said, though, if anything kills the movie experience it will be the ever increasing price of going to the movies. It has become expensive to take a family - mine has five members - to a movie so if we all go, it has to be something we really want to see!
Some other talking points ...
These are just some talking points, on the risk/reward curve, so bear with me:
Pros, Home theater (for you, the consumer)
-- You pay one cost to sit in your living room, say, $5.95 and watch a feature film.
-- You can watch that feature film on a 16 x 9 flat screen or a 27-inch TV
-- You can pop your own popcorn, buy your own candy, and get your own drinks
-- You can dim the lights as low as you like
-- You can pay a babysitter, but don't have to.
-- You can do this alone or with friends
-- No futzing for parking spaces or getting out of the parking lot
-- No constant barrage of adverts coming
-- You can talk as much as you like
-- With the right equipment, you can pause and rewind
Pros, home theater (for distributors/filmmakers)
-- No shipping films to theater; piped directly from Hollywood (or wherever)
-- Less hassle negotiating with cable/Sat holders vice theater owners
Cons, home theater (for you, the consumer)
-- Large screen experience lost
-- No social component (i.e., the movie experience with others)
-- Slims date night choices
-- Eventually, movies become "pay-per-view" events and you get charged boxing ticket prices (e.g., $49.95, or 20 Canadian at the current rate
)
Cons, home theater (for theaters/moviemakers)
-- Revenues lost, movie making costs stay the same (or grow)
-- Diminishes Hollywood's "movie making magic" persona. Embellished, there are few people whose movies make it on to the "big screen" but thousands, if not millions, get seen on smaller screens. That puts the likes of Speilberg, Ridley Scott and others on the same level as those with access to a 24p camera and Adobe Premiere.
-- Star power lost; celebrity commodity devalued
Miscellaneous
-- You can't make theater screens any bigger. Imax does no more or less business and is a novelty
-- Three-dimensional films are also kitsch. This is a also a filmmaking process rather than a destination. If you want to throw in a future technology, like, say, holographic filmmaking, then that, too, gets lumped here.
-- Video games out earned Hollywood films in 2007. Another stay-at-home entertainment opportunity. Plus, the experience last longer and is interactive.
TV didn't kill movies because TV became a separate medium; not just a box to show Hollywood films in. However, TV is trending toward lower-cost TV shows, and more reality TV. The separate home theater is affordable and the experience, with the right components, is comparable.
These are just some talking points, on the risk/reward curve, so bear with me:
Pros, Home theater (for you, the consumer)
-- You pay one cost to sit in your living room, say, $5.95 and watch a feature film.
-- You can watch that feature film on a 16 x 9 flat screen or a 27-inch TV
-- You can pop your own popcorn, buy your own candy, and get your own drinks
-- You can dim the lights as low as you like
-- You can pay a babysitter, but don't have to.
-- You can do this alone or with friends
-- No futzing for parking spaces or getting out of the parking lot
-- No constant barrage of adverts coming
-- You can talk as much as you like
-- With the right equipment, you can pause and rewind
Pros, home theater (for distributors/filmmakers)
-- No shipping films to theater; piped directly from Hollywood (or wherever)
-- Less hassle negotiating with cable/Sat holders vice theater owners
Cons, home theater (for you, the consumer)
-- Large screen experience lost
-- No social component (i.e., the movie experience with others)
-- Slims date night choices
-- Eventually, movies become "pay-per-view" events and you get charged boxing ticket prices (e.g., $49.95, or 20 Canadian at the current rate
)Cons, home theater (for theaters/moviemakers)
-- Revenues lost, movie making costs stay the same (or grow)
-- Diminishes Hollywood's "movie making magic" persona. Embellished, there are few people whose movies make it on to the "big screen" but thousands, if not millions, get seen on smaller screens. That puts the likes of Speilberg, Ridley Scott and others on the same level as those with access to a 24p camera and Adobe Premiere.
-- Star power lost; celebrity commodity devalued
Miscellaneous
-- You can't make theater screens any bigger. Imax does no more or less business and is a novelty
-- Three-dimensional films are also kitsch. This is a also a filmmaking process rather than a destination. If you want to throw in a future technology, like, say, holographic filmmaking, then that, too, gets lumped here.
-- Video games out earned Hollywood films in 2007. Another stay-at-home entertainment opportunity. Plus, the experience last longer and is interactive.
TV didn't kill movies because TV became a separate medium; not just a box to show Hollywood films in. However, TV is trending toward lower-cost TV shows, and more reality TV. The separate home theater is affordable and the experience, with the right components, is comparable.
Last edited:
It's not On Demand that is ruining the movie experience for me.
It's screaming kids, women wearing too much perfume and jackasses in all shapes and sizes who think that just because the movie hasn't "technically" started yet that it's okay to shout into their damn cell phone when they're sitting three feet from me.
It's screaming kids, women wearing too much perfume and jackasses in all shapes and sizes who think that just because the movie hasn't "technically" started yet that it's okay to shout into their damn cell phone when they're sitting three feet from me.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,764
- Reaction score
- 120
If the films were better you wouldn't feel you were wasting your money at the theater. The last film I saw that I felt was totally worth paying for came out last year, and I'm only really satisfied with a couple of films a year at the very most.
High prices and screaming kids don't help either, yeah.
High prices and screaming kids don't help either, yeah.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
People were afraid that TV was going to kill films. It didn't happen. Films not only survived, they thrived. I think people will always want to "go" to the movies. Those who don't won't anyway. They would wait for the DVD (or on-demand). But there will always be those who will go to opening weekend of Indiana Jones 4, and then see it again 16 times in theater before seeing it 125 more times on DVD. That's the core business of movies, not the occasional viewers who rent a DVD for $2 every week.
What may happen is that bigger, louder, more spectacular big-budget blockbusters such as Indiana Jones or Transformers, or sweeping dramas with ultra-wide-screen will become the staple of cinema. Those are the films that need to be seen on a 50-ft screen with 20,000-watt surround sound system. I think on-demand, iTune, or DVDs will enable smaller and independent films to thrive -- films not many people know about but they can discover on their own...
Also, even in 2008, not many people can afford a $10,000 home-theater set up. Something will be lost if you watch Indiana Jones on a 27" LCD with a cheap sound system. Not to mention the social aspect of it (some, however, would prefer to NOT having that social aspect).
I also think on-demand could be a threat if they release the same movie while they're still in theater. Then the audiences might seriously consider it: why wait in line for a 12:50 show if you could just point and click and watch it on your own time? However, you think the distributors and studios are ever going to do that? There's something about mass media and anticipation. I mean, let's see how many people go out and see Indiana Jones on opening weekend, shall we?
What may happen is that bigger, louder, more spectacular big-budget blockbusters such as Indiana Jones or Transformers, or sweeping dramas with ultra-wide-screen will become the staple of cinema. Those are the films that need to be seen on a 50-ft screen with 20,000-watt surround sound system. I think on-demand, iTune, or DVDs will enable smaller and independent films to thrive -- films not many people know about but they can discover on their own...
Also, even in 2008, not many people can afford a $10,000 home-theater set up. Something will be lost if you watch Indiana Jones on a 27" LCD with a cheap sound system. Not to mention the social aspect of it (some, however, would prefer to NOT having that social aspect).
I also think on-demand could be a threat if they release the same movie while they're still in theater. Then the audiences might seriously consider it: why wait in line for a 12:50 show if you could just point and click and watch it on your own time? However, you think the distributors and studios are ever going to do that? There's something about mass media and anticipation. I mean, let's see how many people go out and see Indiana Jones on opening weekend, shall we?
Last edited:
If a movie is a worth it, people will see it, but it is $$$. I have to pick and choose. Now more than ever I pay attention to movie reviews so I can decide what to go see in the theater and what to wait for on DVD.
Cloverfield and Beowulf were great on the big screen. Semi-Pro, not so much.
Cloverfield and Beowulf were great on the big screen. Semi-Pro, not so much.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,745
- Reaction score
- 3,097
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Website
- www.adriennekress.com
I think on demand in a way is ruining the cinema experience but not because it is stealing business. Rather people now go to movies like they are sitting at home in their own living rooms. They have no sense of how to behave in a movie theatre with other people sitting around them. Decency has gone right out the window. That's the problem in general with this instant gratification me centric universe we are living in. If we are in any way put out (by having, to say, not only turn off the ringer of our cellphone, but, gasp, not text message so that the glow from the phone doesn't disturb everyone around us) well what's the point then?
The thing is, I go to the movie theatre all the time, and still to me it is the best experience. It's great seeing film with a large group of people who are all excited about the movie, and respectful of each other. But I live in an excellent area of indy cinemas, and less rowdy audiences.
Such a pity people are so me centric, they are missing out on a really good time.
The thing is, I go to the movie theatre all the time, and still to me it is the best experience. It's great seeing film with a large group of people who are all excited about the movie, and respectful of each other. But I live in an excellent area of indy cinemas, and less rowdy audiences.
Such a pity people are so me centric, they are missing out on a really good time.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
That's a good point. The other day there were a couple of guys who acted like they were watch MST3000. Really, STFU already.
Another thing I think is ruining the experience for those who prefer on-demand (watching movies on their TV) than going to theaters: They will lose the real appreciation of what movies are really about. The fine art of movie making, cinematography, sound, etc. because you do lose details watching it on a 27" screen. The color adjustments on your TV may not be right, the sound maybe crappy, and, God forbid, fullscreen/pan-and-scan vs. wide screen. I think that's what Brad Bird was referring to. Some movies really are meant to be seen on the big screen with big sounds.
I mean, Ratatouille is still lovely on my TV or iPod, but it's nothing like seeing it at the theater. My brother doesn't go to the theater much -- he watches all his movies on his computer screen, and he could turn the thing off anytime he wants. I was like, "Dude, you're really missing out on the real cinematic experience." So what would the iPod generation think about the art of cinema if their experiences are limited to that 4"x3" screen?
Last edited:
I can't even comprehend watching a movie on an iPod. I'd have to use a jeweller's loupe to be able to see anything.
We had a discussion like this a short time ago, can't remember where the thread is now. Anyway ... I think the movie theatres will still do decent business as long as they can keep offering something you can't get at home. Right now, more than anything else, that's a honkin' huge screen. It's changing somewhat with more and more people buying big flat panels, but you can't sit close enough to an LCD tv to get the edges of the screen out as far on the periphery of your vision as you can in a theatre, so visually the home theatre isn't quite as immersive unless you have a good projector that can throw a 100" image on your wall while you sit less than ten feet away.
As for sound, a home audio system suitably powerful for the room in which it is set up can sound just as good as in the theatre. As I've mentioned before, in my town's theatre there are two screens that still only have a stereo audio system, my surround sound system at home is better. With that said, you run the risk of having neighbours complain if you crank your system up to theatre levels, especially if you live in an apartment.
Bottom line for me is; inconsiderate patrons do far more to make me want to stay away from the theatre than on-demand content ever will.
We had a discussion like this a short time ago, can't remember where the thread is now. Anyway ... I think the movie theatres will still do decent business as long as they can keep offering something you can't get at home. Right now, more than anything else, that's a honkin' huge screen. It's changing somewhat with more and more people buying big flat panels, but you can't sit close enough to an LCD tv to get the edges of the screen out as far on the periphery of your vision as you can in a theatre, so visually the home theatre isn't quite as immersive unless you have a good projector that can throw a 100" image on your wall while you sit less than ten feet away.
As for sound, a home audio system suitably powerful for the room in which it is set up can sound just as good as in the theatre. As I've mentioned before, in my town's theatre there are two screens that still only have a stereo audio system, my surround sound system at home is better. With that said, you run the risk of having neighbours complain if you crank your system up to theatre levels, especially if you live in an apartment.
Bottom line for me is; inconsiderate patrons do far more to make me want to stay away from the theatre than on-demand content ever will.
Last edited:
That's for sure. There was a story in the local news several months back about a moviegoer who asked another man to hang up his cell phone. The man found this request so outrageous that he took out a knife and stabbed man#1 in the finger.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Ray, you have described my movie-viewing habits exactly, and I think this is where it's going. I love all sorts of movies, but the only movies I will now go to watch in the theatre are big-budget action movies-- Indiana Jones and Transformers, exactly. Anything with SPECTACLE. If it's big, noisy, exciting, I will go see it in the theatre. If it's, say, a period drama, why spend twenty bucks (hubby + me) to go sit in a theatre and listen to people talk during all the quiet, tense moments? If it looks interesting, I'll pop it on my Netflix waiting queue and watch it 8 months from now.
I experienced something the other day that I think will be the true death of the movie theatre, however. I went to a friend's house and experienced her giant flat screen TV. I don't know how many inches it was, but it was wide screen and if you flipped it on its side it would probably be about as big as a door. She popped in that, uh, Planet Earth DVD (or whatever the series is called) and I felt like I was sitting in a theatre.
Needless to say, Mr. Nightshade's new goal is to "Get us one of THOSE."
I will never stop going to cinema! you can even seen people realeasing modern music on vynil records! if the cinema dissappear by the modern techonology (something I don't believe, specially since seems now protected by the megacorps) will remain because of the nostalgia and habit of the people.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 14,945
- Reaction score
- 8,145
I hear you. My DH and I shelled out for a 52 inch widescreen TV. It's digital, but not a flat screen. Still, it is awesome! DH and I don't get a chance to go to the theaters much (or anywhere, really), so this is perfect for us. Last movie we saw together was a couple years ago, and I went last summer to see the Order of the Phoenix at the theater -that was an experience! I loved seeing it in the theater, but seeing it at home was good too. I can go use the ladies room without missing anything.
We're the folks that would absolutely buy an in demand movie the same day it was released in the theater, and stay home to watch instead.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Yup, as a friend of mine says whenever I mention a movie that is smaller/indie/drama/etc.: "It's an HBO movie." Meaning he can just wait for it come on TV/pay-per-view/Tivo/Netflix, etc. He wouldn't even buy the DVD. Some movies such as Beowulf 3D-IMAX is definitely worth it to see on a big screen. Last I checked, I don't have 3D IMAX at home.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Not sure. I have a big screen flat panel, too, and it's great. But I still prefer theater. There's just something grander about a theater experience than sitting home in my underpants. But yes, big screen HD would be really nice, but they don't come cheap. How many people can afford that?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Also, CDs and TV have not killed live performances either -- concerts, symphonies, and Broadway shows are still very popular. Sure, they're not as popular as they were in their haydays when LPs were never as good as hearing it live. Still, there's just something that draws people to the auditoriums and theaters. Movies will continue to do so -- their formats and contents may have to change, however.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 4,672
- Reaction score
- 3,570
- Location
- Spurs Country
- Website
- www.jayyoungweb.com
Movies are all about getting out of the house for me, whether it's on a date with my wife or a special event with my kids or just getting out with some buddies. Dinner and a movie baby. I could have a 5 star resturaunt and an IMAX in my basement and I'd still go out.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Another good point. Damn, I hate it when I agree with III (and why haven't you called lately? The popcorn is getting stale).
If movie threatres start enforcing serious courtesy laws then there's hope. I had an annoying couple discussing every pathetic plot point to National Treasure 2 (yeah, really) behind me last week and it was about the most infuriating experience I've had.
As a technology issue, I think once the argument over who is going to pay for digital projectors in cinemas is settled (*cough* the studios should *cough, cough*) then theatres may enter into an interesting new era whereby many different and varied films can be shown over the course of a month that do not require the cost-prohibitive prints and time-intensive set-up to show.
But as a broader, aesthetic issue, I don't think movie theatres will ever disappear. Hollywood is the most glamorous, coveted, golden and magical industry that ever was and having a film make it to "the big screen" is (filmmaking aside) as much a status symbol as anything else for the countless power players in Hollywood. That association with A-list stars, award ceremonies, movie premieres and big screens is not something that any producer, executive, chairmen or studio mogul is going to give up without a fight.
As a technology issue, I think once the argument over who is going to pay for digital projectors in cinemas is settled (*cough* the studios should *cough, cough*) then theatres may enter into an interesting new era whereby many different and varied films can be shown over the course of a month that do not require the cost-prohibitive prints and time-intensive set-up to show.
But as a broader, aesthetic issue, I don't think movie theatres will ever disappear. Hollywood is the most glamorous, coveted, golden and magical industry that ever was and having a film make it to "the big screen" is (filmmaking aside) as much a status symbol as anything else for the countless power players in Hollywood. That association with A-list stars, award ceremonies, movie premieres and big screens is not something that any producer, executive, chairmen or studio mogul is going to give up without a fight.
