Cannes Film Festival 2013

Is the video-on-demand business bad for Hollywood? An open letter says yes

Some of Hollywood's heavyweights take a stand against a changing landscape

<p>Sure, that's Brooklyn Decker, and sure, that's one tiny yellow bikini, but $30 for a pay-per-view movie you can only watch for two days?  That's not good for anybody.</p>

Sure, that's Brooklyn Decker, and sure, that's one tiny yellow bikini, but $30 for a pay-per-view movie you can only watch for two days?  That's not good for anybody.

Credit: Sony Pictures

We have reached a very strange moment for our industry, and moving forward, we have some very important decisions to make.

DirecTV, working with Sony, Universal, Warner Bros, and Fox, is getting ready to launch their new premium video-on-demand service this Thursday, and at first glance, it looks fairly awful to me.  The fact that they're launching it with Adam Sandler's miserable "Just Go With It" seems appropriate.  You'll be able to download a different film every two weeks for $29.99, and for that price, you can watch the film for 48 hours.  It'll be in 1080p HD, and available only to customers who have an HD DVR.  The films are going to be movies that are available before the home video window, but after the theatrical, collapsing the release schedule even further than it was already collapsed.

I don't really get this one.  I understand the debate that pops up from time to time regarding a day-and-date pay-per-view window, offering a premium price for a movie that's opening in theaters, and I can honestly say that there are films I'd consider doing that for.  If they offered a chance to see "Pirates Of The Caribbean 4" at home opening weekend for $50, it would make sense for my family to do that.  Two months after release for an Adam Sandler film I hated?  I can't image that.

But when I say I would pay for a day and date release, that's not the same as me saying that I think the industry should move in that direction.  And today, an open letter was published that focuses this debate a bit more.  Here's the full text of it, including the signatures, which I think you'll recognize:

AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY ON PROTECTING THE MOVIE-GOING EXPERIENCE

We are the artists and business professionals who help make the movie business great. We produce and direct movies. We work on the business deals that help get movies made. At the end of the day, we are also simply big movie fans.

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk by leaders at some major studios and cable companies about early-to-the-home “premium video-on-demand.” In this proposed distribution model, new movies can be shown in homes while these same films are still in their theatrical run.

In this scenario, those who own televisions with an HDMI input would be able to order a film through their cable system or an Internet provider as a digital rental. Terms and timing have yet to be made concrete, but there has been talk of windows of 60 days after theatrical release at a price of $30.

Currently, the average theatrical release window is over four months (132 days). The theatrical release window model has worked for years for everyone in the movie business. Current theatrical windows protect the exclusivity of new films showing in state-of-the-art theaters bolstered by the latest in digital projection, digital sound, and stadium seating.

As a crucial part of a business that last year grossed close to $32 billion in worldwide theatrical ticket sales, we in the creative community feel that now is the time for studios and cable companies to acknowledge that a release pattern for premium video-on-demand that invades the current theatrical window could irrevocably harm the financial model of our film industry.

Major studios are struggling to replace the revenue lost by the declining value of DVD transactions. Low-cost rentals and subscriptions are undermining higher priced DVD sales and rentals. But the problem of declining revenue in home video will not be solved by importing into the theatrical window a distribution model that cannibalizes theatrical ticket sales.

Make no mistake: History has shown that price points cannot be maintained in the home video window. What sells for $30-a-viewing today could be blown out for $9.99 within a few years. If wiser heads do not prevail, the cannibalization of theatrical revenue in favor of a faulty, premature home video window could lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue. Some theaters will close. The competition for those screens that remain will become that much more intense, foreclosing all but the most commercial movies from theatrical release. Specialty films whose success depends on platform releases that slowly build in awareness would be severely threatened under this new model. Careers that are built on the risks that can be taken with lower budget films may never have the chance to blossom under this cut-throat new model. Further, releasing a pristine, digital copy of new movies early to the home will only increase the piracy problem—not solve it.

As leaders in the creative community, we ask for a seat at the table. We want to hear the studios’ plans for how this new distribution model will affect the future of the industry that we love.

And until that happens, we ask that our studio partners do not rashly undermine the current – and successful – system of releasing films in a sequential distribution window that encourages movie lovers to see films in the optimum, and most profitable, exhibition arena: the movie theaters of America.

We encourage our colleagues in the creative community to join with us by calling or emailing NATO at 202-962-0054 or nato@natodc.com.

Sincerely,

Michael Bay
Kathryn Bigelow
James Cameron
Guillermo del Toro
Roland Emmerich
Antoine Fuqua
Todd Garner
Lawrence Gordon
Stephen Gyllenhaal
Gale Anne Hurd
Peter Jackson
Karyn Kusama
Jon Landauv
Shawn Levy
Michael Mannv
Bill Mechanic
Jamie Patricof
Todd Phillips
Brett Ratner
Robert Rodriguez
Adam Shankman
Gore Verbinski
Robert Zemeckis


The truth is, I wish the home video window was longer, and I remember when it was.  I also wish filmmakers and studios considered holding some films off of home video as long as possible, indefinitely even, with an eye on re-releasing some things theatrically.  I've watched the window get shorter and shorter over the years, and for me, the real turning point was with the 1989 "Batman," which seemed to me to be rushed onto video at a price low enough to become a home video phenomenon, hot on the heels of the triumphant theatrical release.

Before that, there was still a sense that some films were special enough that they were held back, and there was still room for films to play in theaters for a ridiculously long time.  For example, working at a movie theater, I saw two different examples of films that played for a year or more, and in both cases, the films kept drawing crowds.  I can't even explain why those films played as long as they did.  One was "The Karate Kid Part II," and the other was "Dirty Dancing."  WIth both of them, they continued to play to happy audiences the entire time we had them.  With "Dirty Dancing," we saw the same faces over and over, and when they announced the film for home video, we thought for sure that was the end of those ladies turning up at the theater.  Nope.  Even after the VHS was released, those women came back to see it a few more times, and it was because of the difference between watching something at home and watching something in a darkened theater.

For me, the difference is simple.  When I watch something at home, there is always the potential for interruption, the possibility that I can put the film on hold.  No matter how great the sound is, no matter how sharp the picture is, there's still the feeling that I am in control and I can watch the film any way I want.  In a theater, there is a feeling of surrender at the start of any movie.  I've got no control.  There's no way to shut things down.  Once the movie starts, I'm in for the whole ride.  There's no backing out.  There's no pause button.  It's an experience.

And that's how it should be.  The theatrical experience absolutely must remain the beating heart of this industry, and every single person who is working to push the business towards the home theater experience as the primary way we digest our movies is working counter to this industry's best interests.  This open letter is just one small part of a larger conversation going on behind the scenes, and my feeling is that when content providers really start to revolt, you'll see companies back off of this 60-day window.

And if they don't?  Well, l hope you enjoy a homogenized experience where only the twelve or fifteen biggest films at any given time get a theatrical release, because if we start losing screens, theater owners will take fewer and fewer risks, and the only things that are able to get booked will be big dumb hollow blockbusters, lowest common denominator films that look like sure things.  And outside of festivals, our days of seeing things like "Marwencol" or "Four Lions" or "Bellflower" in a theater will be finished.

We can't let that happen.  If you love movies, please… don't use this DirecTV service.  Then again, if you love movies, you're probably not in a rush to see "Just Go With It" any time soon.

We'll continue this conversation tonight in this week's Big Question, but from a  slightly different angle, and we'll absolutely keep talking about this as the industry continues to wrestle with the questions in the days and weeks and months ahead.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 48 Comments
  • Default-avatar

    Mike

    NATO, lol. But they're right - nothing pisses me off quite like my "I love movies, but I only watch them at home" friends.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:27PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chrico Yeah, that bothers me too...don't they realize that the films they love and crave were made to be shown IN THE BLOODY THEATER?

      How can one call oneself a "film geek" and yet have a distaste to going to the theater? I don't get it.

      April 20, 2011 at 4:30PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      somegirl @ Chrico
      I consider myself a film geek, and I hate going to the theater because I have no control over my "experience" at the theater (i.e. people talking non-stop behind me, uncomfortable seats, ridiculous ticket prices, crying babies, annoying teenagers, long lines, cell phones going off, someone kicking the back of your seat, etc.)

      The last time I went to the theater, there was a couple next to me who talked the entire time. I couldn't get up and move because the theater was packed.

      Why should it be surprising that some people prefer watching movies in the comfort of their home, where they have some control over their surroundings?

      April 20, 2011 at 4:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      McFish as much as i love going to the theater and still do once or twice a week, somegirl is right. i went to see YOUR HIGHNESS, which granted, is a movie that is destined to draw some irritating crowds of drunken, disorderly teens and talkative stoners.

      so, i went at an off peak hour and STILL had to deal with people talking and looking at their phones for an hour and a half.

      as much as i love most of the people on that list (they lost me at Ratner), i disagree with them that this is going to destroy moviegoing as we know it. it just means that different types of film fans can decide what experience they want to have. do they want to go to a midnight showing, spend thirty dollars and listen to people talk and text all night, or do they want to spend thirty dollars and have dinner at home, drink a bottle of wine and enjoy it in peace. i think they should have the choice to do both, or either.

      April 20, 2011 at 5:22PM EST
    • Same here, Mike. You know, guys, instead of whining about obnoxious people around you, you could actually do something about it. I'm not saying we should start getting physical, but you'd be surprised how effective a vicious glare shuts up the guy behind you. Or behind him. Don't be afraid to say something. Maybe the audiences I deal with in Detroit aren't as unruly as yours, but when I see a movie the jerks usually get shut up this way by the time the opening credits are over. This happens individually, since it's not like you're all going to have a pow-wow... Almost assuredly the number of people in the audience who want to enjoy the film outnumber the S.O.B.s -- have some solidarity and make THEM feel unwelcome. But for the love of cinema, try standing up to the couple of inconsiderate bullies instead of crying into your plasma screens.

      Are we not men? ARE WE NOT MEN*?

      *OR WOMEN?

      April 21, 2011 at 1:07PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chirico

    I'm with you on that, Drew. Great article--you summed up the fears and problems I've had in regards to VOD perfectly.

    But this cuts to the heart of the matter:

    "The theatrical experience absolutely must remain the beating heart of this industry, and every single person who is working to push the business towards the home theater experience as the primary way we digest our movies is working counter to this industry's best interests."

    And this:

    "Well, l hope you enjoy a homogenized experience where only the twelve or fifteen biggest films at any given time get a theatrical release, because if we start losing screens, theater owners will take fewer and fewer risks, and the only things that are able to get booked will be big dumb hollow blockbusters, lowest common denominator films that look like sure things. And outside of festivals, our days of seeing things like "Marwencol" or "Four Lions" or "Bellflower" in a theater will be finished."

    I do not go to the theaters as much, but I try to make the effort for a film I like. Home theaters--sure, they're nice, but NOTHING beats the theatrical experience. And the bull***t excuse of "Duh, all Hollywood has to do is make good films!" doesn't cut the butter.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:28PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    renton

    I love the VOD option for IFC and other indie films that may never reach my art house. But I can't imagine any scenario where I'd pay $30 for something that's just a month or so away from standard home video release.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:29PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sean

    They might be working against the industry's best interests in shortening the release window, but I think they are working in the consumer's best interest. I like being in control of my entertainment. I like being able to pause to use the bathroom, or grab another soda. I like that I am not crowded into a room with a bunch of smelly people making weird noises. $30, 60 days after theaters will fail as the price is too high and the window too long. $30 on release day though would get me to switch to DirecTV; and I would end up watching a lot of movies that way. Movies I would not see in a theater and end up watching on Netflix for the extra $2 a month it costs for the DVD.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:32PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      somegirl "I like that I am not crowded into a room with a bunch of smelly people making weird noises."

      EXACTLY.

      April 20, 2011 at 4:42PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Nate Couldn't agree more. It pisses me off that just like the NFL owners and players, the last concern for these people is the consumer. The sources of entertainment that will survive the final transition into the digital age will be the ones that realize they need US.

      April 20, 2011 at 4:59PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew No... the consumer's best interest won't be served at all when they can't afford to make anything aside from giant empty spectacle.

      If we lose the theatrical side of this business, we're going to lose a wide range of what sort of films even make sense to produce.

      April 20, 2011 at 5:11PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Sean That is just fear mongering. Some films would have to change. They could no longer just toss $50 million worth of CGI or 3D conversion onto a film. Or they might no longer be able to pay A list celebrities $15 million, but they can find good people who will work for less. The movies will still get made; they won't be made the same way they are now, and compensation will change, but they will get made.

      April 20, 2011 at 6:58PM EST


  • I can't be the only one who was severely distracted from concentrating on this article by that Brooklyn Decker picture.

    Anyway, great article Drew... and one the thesis of which I completely agree with. Anything that endangers the theatrical experience can't be good news for movie-lovers.

    I especially endorse the point about how nothing can equal the theatrical experience. No matter if you have a bonkers TV and a chest-thumping home theatre... but it's still not as good as watching a movie on THE big screen.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Nate

    I could give a crap about these overpaid "artists" and their sob stories. Thank God online distribution will finally force the movie industry into pricing their product for what it's worth, just as it did the music industry. I've never seen a movie that's worth the $30-40 it costs a family to see one in a theater. Even if it drives down production costs, maybe that will motivate filmmakers to be creative and inventive instead of the seeming current formula of fat-headed celeb + special fx = good movie.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:55PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      somegirl "Thank God online distribution will finally force the movie industry into pricing their product for what it's worth, just as it did the music industry."

      Precisely. It's too bad that it took the music industry so long to realize that they were fighting a losing battle. Seems like the same thing is going to happen here. It's happening with the book industry too with regard to ebook pricing.

      April 20, 2011 at 5:06PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew You've never seen a movie that was worth $10 a ticket each for a family of four?

      Really?

      Are you sure you like movies?

      April 20, 2011 at 5:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Josh +1

      And maybe this will start to put an end to the 3D craze, which is really just a scam to help studios inflate their box office receipts.

      April 20, 2011 at 5:15PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Anon

    i agree that watching a movie in the theaters IS an experience. given the economy, however, i've found it harder to justify the movie ticket prices when the quality of the screen is poor (still lots of outdated theaters out there that charge premium) compared to what you might get at home with the right system. sadly, many times i opt to wait for the rental and reserve the theater experience for a select few movies. if they aim to fight for the theater ticket sales, they need to give audiences more for their money. they're certainly not getting mine these days. that said, $30 for a movie? heck no.

    April 20, 2011 at 4:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Vincent Bernard

    Sorry Drew, but I love watching films at home on my monster screen, in surround sound sitting comfortably without having to deal with loud and obnoxious theater-goers.

    Would I pay $30 for a two day window--no--but as the open letter itself says, a "$30-a-viewing today could be blown out for $9.99 within a few years." and THAT I would gladly pony up for.

    Does that mean I'm not a "movie geek?" So be it. I'd rather be a "watching-a-movie-from-the-comfort-of-my-fucking-couch geek" any day of the week.

    Opera is still around and so is Broadway. Movie theaters will survive--overpriced food, sticky floors and all.

    April 20, 2011 at 5:05PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      FilmCritHulk What if I argued the obnoxious theater-goers were part of it?

      April 20, 2011 at 9:19PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Vincent Bernard I don't know what you mean.

      April 21, 2011 at 10:57AM EST
  • Gerberdaisyjpg_talkback_profile

    chutneylix

    From the consumer side I can see the appeal of this as movies get more expensive. $30 for a whole family to watch one movie is a great deal. Also almost 70% of movies I am happy watching in my current home setup with the quality I get. But the idea laid out above of ending up with only the lowest common denominator films in theaters scares me like nothing else. In full support of this letter in light of that eventuality if this model becomes successful.

    April 20, 2011 at 5:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rowan729

    Oh, Drew, I totally agree, especially in regards to the difference between watching at home and in a theater.
    I also want to add that no one should actually count on Directv to make these movies really available for 48 hours. They have been having major problems with their 24 hour ticket movies, with them often expiring just a few hours after purchase instead of 24 hours later. In fact, I haven't gotten an actual 24 hours out of a 24hr ticket purchase in nearly a year. Frustrating, especially when I rent something late at night that I know the folks will watch early the next evening on their tv and its no longer available. I've made several inquiries, and received some coupons for free movies, and the lamest explanation I've ever heard. Problem is supposedly fixed by now, but I wouldn't count on this feature being bug-free for another several months.
    How can they get this thing set up so fast and yet still not offer AMC in HD?????

    April 20, 2011 at 5:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    To my mind, they'd be much better off premiering this service with a film like "Attack the Block" or a well-hyped Sundance hit. Indie movies often take a long time -- sometimes years -- to go from festival to wide release, and most of them never screen outside of NY and LA. Putting that kind of film on VOD would be a benefit to movie fans as well as the filmmakers; it could well build a bigger audience for the eventual theatrical release.

    But paying $30 for the benefit of seeing an already-released movie at home slightly earlier than you otherwise could? Not the brightest idea I've heard.

    April 20, 2011 at 5:31PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Brendan

    See, I've lucked out. I'm attending college in a really small town with a non-chain theater. The crowds are always manageable, the lines are never to long, the tickets are cheap, and best of all when a movie comes a long and really really hits, like, say, THE DARK KNIGHT they'll just keep playing it and playing it. Not quite on the scale that Drew describes, but much better than the "You have a two week window to see this movie because we have more by-the-numbers crap to churn out this summer" pace of the big guys. The only real trade off is that it can take the theater a couple extra weeks to get medium sized movies, but you know what? Totally worth it. I LOVE seeing movies in a theater. Growing up, going to see a movie in the theater was always a big deal, and it always occupied a sort of hallowed ground, like when my parents took us to the zoo or the aquarium or stuff like that. I have hundreds of movies at my finger tips thanks to Netflix and DVD, btu there's really nothing to compare to grabbing some good friends or a family member and strapping in for the big screen ride.

    One of my most cherished memories of the last couple years was taking my 11 year old geek-in-training brother to go see AVATAR in 3D, watching his mouth drop as Pandora opened up to him. You can't touch that, I don't care how 'convienent' the service is.

    April 20, 2011 at 5:57PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Roy

    What studios and theater owners should be working on is making the theatergoing experience better. And I don't mean 3D.

    I mean better picture and sound, bouncers acting as ushers to escort unruly patrons out, 18/21 and over screenings, etc. They'll lose some obnoxious patrons but they'll win back audiences they lost.

    I honestly believe this needs to happen if theaters are going to survive.

    April 20, 2011 at 7:09PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    co

    i love going to the theatre and while i dislike the prices i will gladly pay more to see a movie in a high quality theatre. cinetopia in the Portland, ore metro area is one of the nicest ive ever been to with a wonderful restaurant and wine bar. it also uses the best screens out there with half the theatre dedicated to 21 and over shows in "living room" theatres. Im sure many of you have been to similar high end theatres. These are the ones most in danger. It would be truly sad to lose such a great way to watch a movie. BTW ive never once had a complaint about the audience in a 21 and over show.

    April 20, 2011 at 7:28PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Absolutely freakin' agree about Cinetopia and its 21+ offerings. Comfortable seats, quality wine, adult audience, digital projection-- one of the best things for cinegeeks in the NW States.

      LA has similar offerings, but I think it's a dying breed of quality theater.

      April 22, 2011 at 4:29PM EST


  • I love movie theaters, but I hate going to them, because I will inevitably be disappointed by an aspect of the experience that has nothing to do with the film. On average, I go to the movies once or twice a week. Recently I've seen movies in theaters under the ownership of four different companies -- Regal, AMC, Landmark, and a local nonprofit -- and each of those experiences gave me something to be upset about that distracted from what I was there to do: see a movie I was excited about on the big screen.

    Pretty much all the films I see at the local Landmark, including a recent advance screening of HANNA, have focus and/or gate problems, as well as lackluster sound quality, sticky and smelly floors and seats. It's a shame, because the film selection is more diverse and inclusive than any other theater in Atlanta.

    I saw WIN WIN in 35mm at a Regal-operated theater, and when I walked into the auditorium during the trailers, I knew immediately that the framing was wrong, because a 'Scope trailer was playing, and the bottom of the 'Scope image was resting against the bottom of the screen. As a former projectionist, I knew there was too much headroom in the frame -- this was a 1.85:1 picture and the film was framed improperly by the projectionist. I turned around and alerted theater management (who were talking with each other and ignoring me for a good two or three minutes before acknowledging that I was standing beside them; 'course who knows how little they make, so it's possible you can't *really* blame them ... more on this in a minute). As I reentered the theater, I saw the image being adjusted, but it was still slightly off, with too much headroom. During the movie, we saw booms enter the frame at least twice.

    At home, whether through VOD or on Blu-ray, I know the film will be framed properly. I suppose continuing investments by theaters to upgrade to digital projection also solve this problem, but in the meantime if a movie I'm really anticipating that's shot flat, like THE TREE OF LIFE, opens exclusively at that theater, I'm going to be reluctant to go see a movie that I otherwise cannot wait to pay money to see.

    Talking and texting are the bane of any regular moviegoer's experience. The last two movies I saw, an advance screening of BRIDESMAIDS and the midnight show of SCRE4M, both at a Regal, were rampant with both. Of course nothing was done. I was particularly shocked that nothing was done at the advance screening of BRIDESMAIDS, where security was present to ensure that there was no piracy, but not that everyone could actually try to enjoy the film. Perhaps talking and cell phone use were actually encouraged so as to make any pirated copies unwatchable. (Just kidding.)

    Of course, this actually happens all the time, at most theaters I go to. THIS, as far as I'm concerned, are what's discouraging theatrical attendance. NATO puts emphasisis on technology -- upgraded 4K digital projection, 3D, louder-than-God sound systems -- without investing in people (properly trained projectionists; ushers; people who might give a shit) and policies to monitor the audience and ensure an optimal viewing experience.

    At the worst times, I've often considered swearing off going to any movie theater other than an Alamo Drafthouse location. Because I live in Atlanta and not Austin, this is less practical (but no less tempting) than it might at first seem. The major chains should take some tips from them. Or the Drafthouse needs to continue its remarkable expansion. Or I need to move to Austin.

    April 20, 2011 at 7:30PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JIM

    Wah Wah, they're taking all our stuff!
    Every single name on that list is a multi millionaire.
    And everyone in the movie industry is a greedy sod.
    Star Wars cost $10 million in '77, here we are with The Hobbit production in full swing costing a shocking half a Billion to make,are they building some fancy new Submarine or shooting a flippin film?

    April 20, 2011 at 7:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Chris

    Sorry Drew I'ma big fan of your writing but I don't agree with you on this one. The industry has to evolve sooner or later. Of course people always hate change but it is simply inevitable.

    April 20, 2011 at 7:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Spectreavatar-lrg_talkback_profile

    Banshee

    The theater is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.

    And cost is the least of it. People will pay money as long as they feel they're getting something from it. Even when people come out of a crappy movie, they don't automatically start complaining about how much they spent.

    No. The #1 reason movie theaters are dead is also the #1 reason they can be so much fun...people.

    Read the comments here or the talkback over at AICN. The vast majority of complaints are about other people in the theater being jack-asses.

    This will not change. It will only get worse. Each generation since the selfish, worthless baby-boomers has gotten more narcissistic than the last.

    So unless theaters get serious and hire bouncers, it's never going to get any better.

    And it's a shame. Because when you do get that rare audience, the one where everyone in the theater is on the same wavelength, where everyone laughs and cries and screams at the same time...it's magical.

    Sadly, those are few and far between.

    April 20, 2011 at 8:11PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    BigAl6ft6

    There was never any way in hell I was going to get to see Four Lions in a theater ever. not that I wouldn't want to, Four Lions totally rocked, but where I live it simply does not get released. Ever. If VOD moves smaller movies to a format where people can actually see it, I'm all for it. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me that there's a great movie in L.A., New York and maybe Toronto if I'm really, really lucky. I can't see it. I would have to wait for the home video release anyway. Move it to those small hotspots and put it on VOD for the rest of the world at the same time. That, I'm all for.

    April 20, 2011 at 8:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Trama

    "No... the consumer's best interest won't be served at all when they can't afford to make anything aside from giant empty spectacle."

    I agree and disagree with this at the same time. True, theatrical distribution drives home viewing awareness. But I'm not entirely sure that just because you collapse a certain segment out of theaters, the industry will suffer for variety. It's about how you monetize it. There have been plenty of great films that bombed in the theater and only found life in living rooms. Shawshank is a great example.

    Another example is Austin Powers. The whole reason it was a franchise was because of its popularity on DVD and VHS.

    The point is, movie going has become extremely expensive and often the experience isn't worth the money. It forced the public to really decide which experiences they want to have in the theater.

    If the theaters and studios are serious about the consumer, they should be experimenting with pricing models and making the experience audience-friendly again.

    April 20, 2011 at 9:35PM EST Reply to Comment


  • After reading some of the comments here (which is sad given that this is a site for geeks) I think part of the problem is the America public just generally views movies as disposable entertainment. I think that's one of the reasons why movie theater etiquette has gotten so terrible -- the audience doesn't really respect or value what they're watching. I grew up in Kansas City (home to AMC Theaters world headquarters) and moved to LA about 4 years ago. It got so bad back home that I wouldn't go to a large theater chain on a weekend. The cinemas were teeming with hundreds of obnoxious teens and pre-teens, many of them not even there to see a movie. Theater management did nothing at all to try and fix the problem, which would lead me to think that they theater chains don't really respect movies much either. Since moving to LA I have been very happy to find several cinemas like the Arclight in Hollywood that offer a noticeably better environment. Assigned seating is great and it's worth it to me to pay a couple dollars extra for a ticket if it means seeing a film with an audience that respects film as a form of entertainment but also as an art form as well.

    April 20, 2011 at 9:59PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chirico Chris, good points.

      And frankly, I also think that some of the folks who bray that they're "film geeks" really don't respect films at all. How can they, when all they ever do is complain that a movie will suck...before they even see it?

      I still go to theater, and you know what? Yeah, there are unruly jerks there. But I put up with it, because I'm focused on what's going on the screen.

      The belief that sitting at home watching a movie is a better experience is, well, not one I share.

      April 21, 2011 at 2:56AM EST
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    Haven't bothered to read any of the other responses, as I'm sure they are just as predictable as mine. What keeps me from going to the theater? Well, the biggest factor is the audience...they are just terrible these days (maybe they always were, but I notice it more now). Then there's the theaters that just don't care....with dim bulbs and out of focus projections. The cost is honestly the least of my concerns...I don't go to a movie to eat, the thought that people feel they need to stuff their faces kind of sickens me (admittedly, I'm a bit of a health freak). So people like me tend to avoid opening weekends, unless it's something I MUST SEE (so far this year, Harry Potter is the biggest must see), because opening weekends tend to be filled with the kind of people who just ruin movies by being disruptive. If a theater opened nearby that had ushers that would kick people out for being disruptive, I would GLADLY pay more to get in...but as of now, that's not an option...so I don't go to the movies quite as much. Why pay 20 bucks for me and my wife when I can wait a few months and rent or buy the BluRay for far less?

    April 20, 2011 at 10:04PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    GuanoLad

    I don't like the Theatrical Experience. Never have, and never will. It's a huge hassle with very little payoff that makes it worth it.

    But I grew up in a country where movies weren't an important part of the culture. Instead they were just distractions to while away a couple of hours. No effort was made to make the experience of visiting the cinema anything more than a cold, dull, obtrusive, and unnecessarily expensive misery.

    Since my childhood, it has only marginally improved, but it's still not a big enough part of our antipodean culture to have the kind of impact that Americans seem to get excited about.

    I really can't relate to how the cinema-goers of America have lived and breathed movies all their lives. And I probably never will, unless I visited or moved to the US, which will likely never happen.

    Anyway, what that boils down to is, I would kind of like an opportunity to watch a current cinema release in my home environment, to avoid the irritating hassle, but it's not something I demand. I am okay with waiting an extra six months for the DVD.

    April 20, 2011 at 10:15PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Everyone here is making a good point. I grew up feeling like the theater was a special experience. I rarely got to go, usually just for the occassional Disney film (which in the early 80s really was rare.) I remember seeing Robin Hood at a drive-in (the animated one) and being upset because my newly-born little brother was crying through the whole thing. (I was about four.) But it was a drive-in.

    Fast-forward to a couple of years ago... I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on opening night, waiting until the late showing to try to avoid the kids. Wrong move. No less than four moms showed up with infants. Not toddlers. INFANTS. Of course they were crying, fussing and making noise through the entire film. When someone is so oblivious to everyone else that paid good money to see a film that all they care about is their own need to see it opening night and not smart enough get a goddamn baby sitter... I was livid. It was almost as bad as my midnight showing of Attack of the Clones in which I had to sit next to an obnoxious drunk commenting through the whole thing.

    I used to love seeing movies in the theater. Seeing Scream 2 on opening night is still something I remember with such fondness because the crowd was so into it. But when I can spend $20 to watch the film on Blu Ray at my home as many times as I want on my 60" screen... it starts to become a cunundrom of whether I should fork over $10 to the crappy theater. Even harder to justify when they artificially inflate the price $3 for a $.10 pair of 3D glasses.

    April 20, 2011 at 10:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Barry Convex

    Janine Melnitz: You're very handy, I can tell. I bet you like to read a lot, too.
    Dr. Egon Spengler: Print is dead.

    April 20, 2011 at 10:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    I. S.

    Of the names on that list, less than 15% make movies that I would routinely consider watching. Many of the others make movies that I would pay to avoid. The debate about how to show movies is almost beside the point when so little is worth watching. Fix the blatant disconnect between filmmaking ability and the films that get made now and there will always be plenty of demand for the theatrical experience.

    April 20, 2011 at 11:41PM EST Reply to Comment


  • I agree that this isn't a solution, but I also don't think keeping everything the way it is okay either. I've lived in Austin for a couple of years now and one of the reasons I moved here was for the Drafthouse; quality food, quality seating, quality sound, quality projection, quality programming, and ushers who do their job.

    They are the exception though, not the rule. The vast majority of movie theaters have subpar gear, horrendous food that's shockingly overpriced, endless commercials, and no audience discipline to speak of. If the theater going experience was a more worthwhile time out, people wouldn't be under the delusion that seeing things at home is the best movies can be. For a lot of people that's true, but it isn't their fault. It's time for a revolution in the theater chains.

    Conversely, it's also time for the studios to wise up and drop the prices. I said one of the reasons I moved to Austin was for the Drafthouse. Well, I haven't been to the movies once this year. There's a variety of reasons for that (all of them painful), but one of the main reasons is, I'm poor. The studio can't control what happens in the theater, but they can sure as hell wise up and stop putting a premium price on digital and 3-D presentations. It's greedy and everyone knows it. When you're the mercy of entertaining the average joe, and the country is in a state of economic turmoil, you can't afford to be greedy.

    I know attendance is down, but the solution isn't forsaking theaters and playing to a company, as cool as I think they are for the most part, that would just as soon see movie theaters die. It's going to take a change in the way studios and theater chains do business. Execs, don't be like the music industry. That way lies nothing but a black hole.

    April 21, 2011 at 2:25AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Mehmm_talkback_profile

    Scudman

    Time and time again, virtually everyone on here say the same thing. Look at the quotes. Perhaps you can forward an open letter to all the cinema chains, Drew, with these complaints. Every cinema must have two ushers to protect the experience for those who actually respect film, and at least one trained projectionist must be on site at all times. AND stop ripping the customer off with 500% mark-ups on food and drink.

    ‘I consider myself a film geek, and I hate going to the theater because I have no control over my "experience" at the theater (i.e. people talking non-stop behind me, uncomfortable seats, ridiculous ticket prices, crying babies, annoying teenagers, long lines, cell phones going off, someone kicking the back of your seat, etc.)’

    ‘i went at an off peak hour and STILL had to deal with people talking and looking at their phones for an hour and a half.’

    ‘the quality of the screen is poor (still lots of outdated theaters out there that charge premium) compared to what you might get at home with the right system.’

    ‘What studios and theater owners should be working on is making the theatergoing experience better. And I don't mean 3D. I mean better picture and sound, bouncers acting as ushers to escort unruly patrons out, 18/21 and over screenings, etc. They'll lose some obnoxious patrons but they'll win back audiences they lost.’

    ‘I love movie theaters, but I hate going to them, because I will inevitably be disappointed by an aspect of the experience that has nothing to do with the film. focus and/or gate problems, as well as lackluster sound quality, sticky and smelly floors and seats. Talking and texting are the bane of any regular moviegoer's experience. security was present to ensure that there was no piracy, but not that everyone could actually try to enjoy the film.’

    ‘The #1 reason movie theaters are dead is also the #1 reason they can be so much fun...people.’

    ‘Read the comments here or the talkback over at AICN. The vast majority of complaints are about other people in the theater being jack-asses.’

    ‘If the theaters and studios are serious about the consumer, they should be experimenting with pricing models and making the experience audience-friendly again.’

    ‘I think part of the problem is the America public just generally views movies as disposable entertainment. I think that's one of the reasons why movie theater etiquette has gotten so terrible -- the audience doesn't really respect or value what they're watching. I grew up in Kansas City (home to AMC Theaters world headquarters) and moved to LA about 4 years ago. It got so bad back home that I wouldn't go to a large theater chain on a weekend. The cinemas were teeming with hundreds of obnoxious teens and pre-teens, many of them not even there to see a movie. Theater management did nothing at all to try and fix the problem, which would lead me to think that they theater chains don't really respect movies much either.’

    ‘I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on opening night, waiting until the late showing to try to avoid the kids. Wrong move. No less than four moms showed up with infants. Not toddlers. INFANTS. Of course they were crying, fussing and making noise through the entire film.’

    April 21, 2011 at 2:26AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I know I'm a movie snob but yeah the biggest problem is the complete lack of civility in public performance space. I would love to see much harsher policy trailers and some enforcement by theatre staff to get things moving in the right direction. Some theatres offer age restricted ticket sales and reserved seating and my limited experience with that was frankly amazing.

    Talkers, cell phone/PDA/texting and general obnoxiousness rip me out of a movie before any presentation issues, which are uneven even at theatres that more than half the time do a decent job.

    The preshow stuff is also absurd at some chains. Sitting in a premium performance venue and being pummeled with TV commercials is contemptuous of the audience, as are longform featurettes about the movie you just bought a ticket to see, effectively giving away 100% of the movie before it starts.

    I don't only indict young patrons here either. Older people are just as bad when it comes to PDA use that shines a flashlight in the face of every person sitting behind them.

    I love theatres and will never stop going to them but denying VOD presence in the new product landscape is simply not realistic anymore, even though the iteration discussed here is a tepid nonstarter. Anyone willing to wait 60 days is probably not going to have a problem waiting a few more months for a $1 Red Box rental or a BD purchase if they really want the movie. That price point is only going to make sense to people that schlep families to theatres at a higher collective price when the movie is in current release.

    Frankly I think our home video options (we've never had a better standard than BluRay) are under more threat than the in-theatre experience.

    April 21, 2011 at 9:29AM EST Reply to Comment


  • You know, guys, instead of whining about obnoxious people around you, you could actually do something about it. I'm not saying we should start getting physical, but you'd be surprised how effective a vicious glare shuts up the guy behind you. Maybe the audiences I deal with in Detroit aren't as unruly as yours, but when I see a movie the jerks usually get shut up this way by the time the opening credits are over. Or behind him. This happens individually, since it's not like you're all going to have a pow-wow... Almost assuredly the number of people in the audience who want to enjoy the film outnumber the S.O.B.s -- have some solidarity and make THEM feel unwelcome. But for the love of cinema, try standing up to the couple of inconsiderate bullies instead of crying into your plasma screens.

    Are we not men? ARE WE NOT MEN*?

    *OR WOMEN?

    April 21, 2011 at 1:03PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JoeK About 10 years ago I would have and did agree with you but the unpredictability and outrageous volatility of people today forces me to disagree. Very few people can be publicly shamed into socially acceptable behavior anymore and I've personally witnessed the most innocent protests (not my own) met with near violence, if not prolonged intimidation.

      I say this as someone that used to routinely run and police screenings and had no problem enforcing decorum. Putting this responsibility on the audience is an automatic failure. Think about it do you really want to go out for a night, drop the money it takes and then have to spoil for a confrontation virtually every time out?

      The personal tech issue is particularly thorny since sea of flashlights in rows in front of you kind of limits your response options as a patron - not to mention the fact that if you are compelled to quiet or shame someone your own ability to enjoy things has been irrevocably diminished.

      I love the theatre and will never give up going but the boorishness IS epidemic right now.

      April 21, 2011 at 7:13PM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 48 Comments

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web