Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Television Entertainment

Slashdot Asks: Would You Like Early Access To Movies And Stop Going To Theatres? 341

It appears many major stakeholders in the movie industry want to bring new titles to you within days, if not hours, as they hit cinemas. Earlier this year, we learned that Sean Parker is working on a service called "Screening Room", an idea that was reportedly backed by Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams, to bring movies on the same day as they show up in theaters. Apple seems interested as well. It is reportedly in talks with Hollywood studios to get iTunes rentals of movies that are still playing on the big screen. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that several studios are exploring the idea of renting new movies for $25 to $50 just two weeks after they have hit cinemas.

None of such deals have materialized yet, of course, and also it needs to be pointed out that several movie companies have discarded these ideas before because they know that by offering you new titles so early they are going to lose on all the overpriced cold drinks, and snacks they sell you at the theatre. There's also piracy concerns. If a movie is available early, regardless of the DRM tech these companies deploy, good-enough footage of the movies will crop up on file-sharing websites almost immediately.

But leaving all those aspects aside, would you be interested in getting new titles just hours or a week or two after they hit the cinemas? Would you want to end the decades-long practice of going to a theater?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot Asks: Would You Like Early Access To Movies And Stop Going To Theatres?

Comments Filter:
  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:07PM (#53447201)
    early/late. wouldn't go anyway.
    • Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:12PM (#53447239) Homepage Journal

      early/late. wouldn't go anyway.

      The implication in TFS is that they are available later and making them available sooner may or may not cause people to watch them.

      They're not even available later. They're not available at all. Look at all the Netflix movies that are only on DVD. Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD. So it's not in the theater any more and not available streaming and I don't have a DVD player and the world has moved on from DVDs.

      So if they want me to watch, make it available sometime at least. I'm not watching it if it's not available at all.

      Pondering of the relative merits of early vs. late release timing when the current situation is there is no release at all is moot.

      • by msmash ( 4491995 ) Works for Slashdot
        You don't have a Blu-Ray player? An Xbox 360/One or PS3 or PS4? They could play the DVD. I don't have an optical drive on my work machine, but I have an Xbox One, so on rare occasions when I have the Blu-Ray movie, I have something I could play it on. I know optical discs are going away but a Blu-Ray player could still come handy in the years to come.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by anarcobra ( 1551067 )
          I don't have any of those things. I have a computer with no disk drive.
          99.99% of the time you don't need one. It's not worth it to me to get a disk drive that will then not work because it hasn't been used in years. Media gets on my PC and tv via internet, or USB.
          If they want me to watch their stuff, they have to make it available in a format I can use.
          I'm not going out of my way to accommodate them.
          • by Bigbutt ( 65939 )

            Then you don't get no movies... (at least for now)

            [John]

            • That's true and I have no problems with that.
              There is more than enough other content for me to spend my time on.
        • No blu-ray. There's a DVD player in a box in the garage somewhere, but it wouldn't work well since the TV is mounted on wall with sockets, roku and ethernet behind it and out of sight.

          We're not going to have a bunch of wires trailing across to wall to get to a DVD. We're not going to mess with mailing DVDs. Like I said, the world has moved on.

          There's a gaming PC upstairs with a DVD drive, but I'm not watching TV on that.

          • Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @02:07PM (#53447529) Homepage

            Your excuses are terribly lame. The mail is trivial to use. A disk player is trivial to use. Your whining about wires is also lame.

            If you aren't willing to plug something into your TV, then you have to be content with "smart TV" features that suck or broadcast TV.

            But if you insist on depriving yourself, that's your own problem.

            • Your excuses are terribly lame. The mail is trivial to use. A disk player is trivial to use. Your whining about wires is also lame.

              If you aren't willing to plug something into your TV, then you have to be content with "smart TV" features that suck or broadcast TV.

              But if you insist on depriving yourself, that's your own problem.

              I have no duty to live to your standards of media consumption. They aren't fucking excuses, they're facts. There's a difference.

            • by Holi ( 250190 )
              Your response is lame.

              He already said he has a Roku attached to it so your smart TV comment is wrong. I know of almost know one with a Bluray or DVD player anymore, because as he said, as a society we have moved on, why spend money on a tech that is on it's way out the door. If you don't believe me look at BlockBuster, or Hollywood Video, or Redbox who is going to have to shift to streaming if they want to survive.

              When the rental places cannot survive you know the format is doomed.
          • Buy the DVD and rip it. Or Buy the DVD and take it to WalMart and have them do it for you.

            Cry more.

      • Re:no (Score:4, Informative)

        by judoguy ( 534886 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @02:42PM (#53447789) Homepage

        They're not even available later. They're not available at all. Look at all the Netflix movies that are only on DVD. Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD.

        Stream it on Amazon Prime for free. https://www.amazon.com/Lobster... [amazon.com]

      • Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @04:21PM (#53448527) Homepage

        ...Last night I looked for The Lobster and found it was only on DVD...
        Pondering of the relative merits of early vs. late release timing when the current situation is there is no release at all is moot.

        Just because you've elected to move past DVDs doesn't mean there is "no release at all." It means you can't figure out how to take advantage of the release that is readily available. Just because the industry hasn't decided to adapt to your standard yet doesn't mean they're somehow trying to keep the movie from you.

      • Well according to Google.

        YouTube: From $4.99
        iTunes: From $4.99
        Amazon Video: From $4.99
        Vudu: From $4.99
        Google Play Movies & TV: From $4.99

        the world has moved on from DVDs.

        Everyone I know still has the means to play a DVDs even if they don't use them as often as they used to. In a world where some people have data caps and limited speeds, I don't think the world has moved on.

        Besides, I can't count on streaming options to reliably have the same offerings on a consistent basis. My physical copies work and if they stop, I can rip them to ma

  • Depends on price (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daninaustin ( 985354 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:08PM (#53447213)
    $25 is ok... $50 is way too much.
    • by David_Hart ( 1184661 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:21PM (#53447315)

      $25 is ok... $50 is way too much.

      If they included a copy of the Bluray or movie download when released for sale, it might be worth it. But not for a rental. For a rental I would be willing to pay no more than the movie theater price, about $10 to $15.

      • $25 is ok... $50 is way too much.

        If they included a copy of the Bluray or movie download when released for sale, it might be worth it. But not for a rental. For a rental I would be willing to pay no more than the movie theater price, about $10 to $15.

        I just realized they they are trying to make up revenue from the loss of at least 3 movie tickets (i.e. 2 adults and a child). So $25 to $35 wouldn't be that bad for a family. I do think that $50 would be too much, though.

        • I just realized they they are trying to make up revenue from the loss of at least 3 movie tickets (i.e. 2 adults and a child).

          My wife and I often enjoy different types of movie, so when we do go to a cinema, it is often with friends who enjoy the same types of movie that each of us does. But mostly we don't go to the cinema at all, because the experience at many of them is so much worse than home viewing (and don't even start on any showing involving kids). That revenue for "at least 3 movie tickets" was never there.

          I could imagine that early access at a reasonable price might cut piracy significantly for big name movies, and I co

          • or it will boost the quality of piracy significantly, having a digital release out there ready for the taking. most people i know who pirate movies that have just arrived in cinemas don't care about quality, though. also, they'd never pay for a home movie anyway.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The idea of the media people trying to make this "like X # of people going to the theater" is dumb. People don't want to spend a shit ton of money on AV equipment just to be told they are to pay the exact same price or more as movie theater visitors. Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.

          Seems like no one wins. Huge families of like 5+ benefit and the theaters and studios lose. Small families and single people lose / don't benefit because it just

        • Yeah, but I brought myself and three kids to see Dr. Strange in 3D for $30 (BYOG price). I'm not paying $25 to see the same thing on my 42" Vizio. $3, sure.

      • I actually saw something on this about a year or so ago, where a movie gave a DVD or Digital Download of the movie you were seeing as part of the ticket, and sold the tickets at a slight premium over normal. From what I recall, it worked very well, and ended up making the movie theater much better profits than Theater and expected DVD/Digital sales of similar movies.

        The whole point is that it was quickly shot down because it still wasn't "enough" money. They want Piracy. They need it to justify screwing the

      • well, they are expecting that you will have 2 - 4 people watching when you show it. In that light the price is consistent with the ticket price.

        As to me, *if* I'm going to see the movie in the theater I will (with or without this) otherwise I'll wait for it to come out in Netflix's DVD catalog.

    • Hell, $25 is too much for a single-time rental. Make it $25 and I get a permanent, high-quality copy of the movie and we have a deal.
    • Around here the cheapest movie tickets on weekends are $6.25 a person (including kids). Add in ~$20 for snacks and you're looking at near $50 for 4 people. If it's just the Mrs. and I, then we're looking at something more like $8 a person for a nicer theater, $30 in food/drink, plus a good $40+ for a babysitter.

      Yes, it's still good to get out of the house and do dinner and a movie... but with 2 kids it's just cheaper and easier to stay home.
    • We have $5 movies on Tuesdays, along with $2 (each) small drinks and small popcorn the same day. So yes, $50 is too much unless it's for some 4K and/or 3D version ($2 surcharge at the theater for 3D). Though in my case I'd be watching by myself so even $25 is a bit much. However, no way to charge per viewer at home so I can't expect them to cater to me there.
  • by msmash ( 4491995 ) Works for Slashdot <asteriskspace@outlook.com> on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:09PM (#53447217)
    Even if services that offer same-day movie screening as they hit cinemas arrive, I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:16PM (#53447283) Journal

      As would I. I actually prefer the theater experience, providing you don't have a theater full of assholes. When I went to The Force Awakens last year on its opening day, that old communal experience I remember from theaters when I was a kid came back. There was cheering and clapping when the Star Wars theme played and in general it really was a wonderful experience. My experience with Deadpool was even better, as people laughed at the jokes through the whole thing. And there's the big screen, which I really do love. Can't reproduce that at home.

      • by msmash ( 4491995 ) Works for Slashdot
        Precisely. People could be annoying at times, but when they resonate the same reaction as you, it's cool.
    • by pr0fessor ( 1940368 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:24PM (#53447337)

      I don't usually go to the theatre, I can skip the experience of waiting in line and paying outrageous concession prices only to be disappointed that I keep missing parts of the movie because groups of teenagers keep standing up in front of me, walking in and out, and horse playing.

    • Theaters would have to offer something *REALLY* special to get patrons to go there. You have overpriced snacks, obnoxious patrons who seem to think a movie is a 2-way communication medium, loud/crying children, annoying teenagers, atomic powered air conditioning, interrupting cell phones, only one armrest, and a lottery ticket for you to get shot.

      The "movie theater experience" is really losing its ability to outweigh all that.
      • by godrik ( 1287354 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:55PM (#53447491)

        I am always wondering when I read slashdot. It seems like every other slashdotter has the single worse cinema experience ever. I go the the movies fairly often (every other week or so), and I have trouble with "uncivil patrons" maybe once a year.
        What are we doing differently? I go there usually on friday or saturday either at 10pm or midnight. Usually at my local AMC. I almost never have any problem.
        Maybe timing or location makes the difference?

        • Timing and location makes all the difference. I've had terrible experiences, and nice ones. The nice ones were like when I saw "The Martian" last year: we went when the movie had already been out a while (it was probably just about done with its run at that theater, not sure), and we went I believe on a weekday night, so there was almost no one at all in the whole place. I think there were two other patrons watching The Martian with us in that theater. When you can catch a movie like that, it's a pretty

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      Unless they are showing the movie on their best screens, it's not too hard to replicate the experience at home. If you need a crowd around you, just recruit your own crowd. You can be as social as you want to be in your own home.

    • Even if services that offer same-day movie screening as they hit cinemas arrive, I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen.

      So would I. That's why I got a projector.

      The actual viewing field is not as big as a (real) iMAX screen, but it's bigger than many smaller theaters, especially when you try to sit back in the middle of the theater.

      The sounds system at home is arguably better even with cheap speakers because I can tailor it to hear more details instead of just going for OMG LOUD. As

    • This exactly. You don't go out to eat at a fancy restaurant because the food is worth $40 a plate. You do it because of its value as a shared social experience with your SO, a date, your family or friends. Likewise, a movie on its own is not worth the $10-$15 a theater charges for a seat. Most of its value comes afterwards, from your ability to talk about it with other people who've seen it. Same goes for broadcast TV shows and live sporting events - the synchronized mass consumption is what makes them
    • I would rather go to a theatre and watch it on the big screen. Watching a movie, in my opinion, isn't just about watching the movie. It's the experience, something I feel I wouldn't be able to replicate on my smartphone or TV at home.

      So you actually like having people kick the back of your seat, listen to them talk/text on the phone or talk to their companion, listen to kids talk and scream during an adult movie, and only have access to shitty drinks and snacks at absurd prices?

      That's an "experience" I can

  • But I sure as hell am not paying $25 just to rent it early, and 2 weeks after in Theatres is not that early anyways, that sounds about right for a perpetual purchase price.

    By the way, I don't go to theatres anyways, haven't gone in years. Usually by the time the movie's out on DVD, I've already forgotten about it and lost interest.

    On the other hand, if they released it earlier, and the price was reasonable instead of extortionate, they might have a chance at some of my business.

    • The price really is the sticking point... but there again, it already is. $25 is less than you pay for two at the cinema currently and you get to enjoy it in a more comfortable atmosphere rather than the hell hole that is the cinema.

      That said, I always wait for rentals to be $2 or $3 before watching them. I never go to the cinema, not because it's a hell hole (which it is) but mostly because it's too darn expensive. $25 is still too much.

      $25 for a new release maybe, if it's one the whole family can watch

  • If it cost up to $8 to rent, then yes. Otherwise, hell no. There is no movie in existence that is worth renting for the prices in the story. $25 to rent a movie is insane. $50 to rent a movie is insanely stupid.

    • $25 to $50 is way too much. Especially if it's a marginal quality movie.

      Some movies are better on a big screen. For others, I'll wait and watch it at home (the not so good ones).

      I tend to go to theaters on "off times" to avoid crowds and noisy patrons.

    • by judoguy ( 534886 )

      If it cost up to $8 to rent, then yes. Otherwise, hell no. There is no movie in existence that is worth renting for the prices in the story. $25 to rent a movie is insane. $50 to rent a movie is insanely stupid.

      My home theater seats 14 fairly comfortably. $25 for a large group of friends is trivial.

  • Almost never go... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:22PM (#53447327)

    I almost never go to the cinema. It's useful when you're a kid wanting to date as neutral ground (although from what I understand kids don't date anymore- just hook up).

    I'd much rather watch in the Living room than the cinema. No overly loud sound. No uncomfortable squished together seats. No popcorn stuck to the floor. The cinema isn't exactly a positive experience.

    • by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @02:32PM (#53447711)

      Same here. We've gone maybe once in the last year. I always end up feeling ripped off after going.

      Our kiddo prefers watching at home where he can watch a movie 2-4 times in a row. The first time he gets good/bad, and who some of the characters are. By time he has seen it 2-3 times he actually gets some of the story line and might watch it one more time before moving on tot he next. He asks a lot of questions along the way, which is problematic in a theater. He also likes if we can "skip the scary parts", also problematic in a theater.

      Alternatively we go to a grown up movie, requiring a babysitter, arranging his dinner, etc, etc. Ends up being a ~$100 evening full of stress and a late bedtime with next day stress spillover. Recently most of the movies have not lived up to the cost and hassle. Too many plot hole ridden CGI showcases. We wait till the dust has settled and just buy an occasional DVD. Many of those still only get watched once...

    • I almost never go to the cinema. It's useful when you're a kid wanting to date as neutral ground (although from what I understand kids don't date anymore- just hook up).

      I'd much rather watch in the Living room than the cinema. No overly loud sound. No uncomfortable squished together seats. No popcorn stuck to the floor. The cinema isn't exactly a positive experience.

      We must have much better theaters where I live than you do. Here it's all big, comfy stadium seating and they do a great job of keeping the floors clean. We tend to go to early shows (4-5PM usually), so we often have the theater to ourselves. At most there are few dozen others. And even when we do go to a later show where the house is closer to full, I can't remember the last time noise was a problem.

      Anyway, my answer to the question is: Absolutely not. My wife and go see a movie pretty much every week.

  • I'm not talking advertising tie-ins, but why not do additional story lines available for streaming purchase? Especially in those big ensemble superhero movies that are always so narratively cluttered because they have to give you a thin slice of so many characters.

  • If they're even entertaining talks with Apple, it's because box office numbers are trending down or flat.

    Big displays and projectors are cheap now. My house has booze in it and comfy chairs.

    I haven't been to a movie theatre in a long, long time.

    • ...and there is already simultaneous availability of small independent films at home. The recent Werner Herzog film "Lo and behold..." for example was available for download while in the theater.
      It could be a good economic thing to do to take advantage of the money being spent on advertising a film in its theater run to also make it available at home.
      Now the Studios are always trying to stick it to the theater owners so I can see that this is the way things are going.
      But the movie going experience is best d

  • Why should I spend $25-$50 to watch something on a small screen when I can watch it on a giant screen with luxury seating for $5 (Tuesday special)? You don't have to buy the food, it is possible to eat before you arrive.

  • by decipher_saint ( 72686 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @01:29PM (#53447381)

    I barely go to the theatre anymore because of a lot of reasons, if you let me pay to have Day 1 access to the digital copy to either stream or outright buy DRM free I'd never set foot in an overpriced auditorium ever again.

    The model would become more like digitally distributed video games, Launch day sees a big spike in sales (hell, pre-orders?) and then it kind of tapers off after a month or so, then you got a back catalogue you can keep old movies on. Things that normally wouldn't get distribution have a cheap option now... hell the more I think about it the better it sounds.

    I mean, do for movies with what Steam did for games and you're gonna win

  • I like the fake IMAX screen at the local theater, but parking is always bad, line to get in, line to get expensive food and soda, packed seatting, might not get a good seat, always some kids talking during the movie, a few people checking cell phones.

    Or I can wait, buy the blueray, watch on my theater, and pause it, make my own food,

    Older I get, less hassle I want to deal with.

    • by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      I guess it depends on the theater. There is one near me, I don't remember the chain (AMC, maybe?), the prices aren't completely insane, the seating is reserved, all the seats are leather recliners. With pre-paid tickets the line to get in is usually shorter. With the big reclining chairs there is less room for people in the theater, so less people in the parking lot, less people in line for popcorn, less people to drive you nuts. If I want to see a movie in the theater that's the only one I'll go to. My

      • I go to the drive-in (the only one left in the city...). It's $9/person for a double feature, I can sit on whatever chair I want, and I'm allowed to bring in my own food and drink (except alcohol).

  • .... then I probably wouldn't want to get the movie particularly early anyways.

    So, no.

    I have a home theatre setup at my place... large screen, an old-fashioned popcorn maker, comfortable seating and I *STILL* prefer going to the theatre for certain movies.

  • I wish they offered a Blu-Ray with that for that price. I can't tell if they do or not. In any case, for $50, I can go to the Alamo Drafthouse, buy a ticket, get a decent meal, and still be ahead.

    There is no movie I'd spend $50 for to see at home, not to mention the cost of a heavily DRM-ed box that is not mentioned.

  • I go to the move theater maybe once per year. For what it costs once I buy two tickets and some concessions, not to mention the time wasted getting there, I wouldn't mind paying the price of 2-3 tickets to stay at home and watch.
  • At home I watch on a 55" plasma screen from about 2.5 meters distance, or at my other home a 120" screen (DLP projection) from about 3-3.5m away and always with a decent 5.1 channel home theater system. This means that going to about 80% of cinemas out there is actually a downgrade, either in terms of screen angular size, or audio (it is harder to make good audio on a huge room, and especially when targeting many seating positions - at least if you want to keep costs in check). The rest might be similar or

  • My home theater consists of a mid-range 1080p projector giving me 110 inches and a mid-range 5.1 Bose, driven by a Mac Mini. By far and away not the most impressive home theater in the world... but certainly good enough for most viewing -- particularly when you consider that I also have seven kids, one of whom is autistic and prone to noisy behavior and to leaving his seat frequently, and on top of that, my best friend also has four kids. So even not taking into account extended family, I would absolutely

  • After all, when you consider how much attention people are paying to the "black levels" of their TV screens, and needing 4K resolution to keep their attention, that doesn't say much for the quality of the story telling in modern movie making.

  • I'll continue to stay home. If I go out to a movie now, it is at a venue like Alamo Drafthouse, exclusively, where they still demonstrate that they care about their customers once they've sold them the ticket.

    I understand if "Hollywood" can't fix the problem with dirty multiplex theaters filled with clueless boors. I really do. Just don't whine that your plummeting revenues are the fault of BitTorrent, m'kay? Let me put first run movies on my own screen and you'll get my money again.

  • "...several studios are exploring the idea of renting new movies for $25 to $50 just two weeks after they have hit cinemas."

    So, I could go on opening night and pay a fraction of that price to watch it on the YUGE screen, or I could wait two weeks and pay 2 - 4x the cost.

    Great idea morons. I'm sure that'll curb piracy.

    Perhaps if you wanted to sell consumers on the idea that this industry is somehow hurting, you could start by not bragging so much about how blockbusters are still breaking records, and how your A-list actors are paid obscene amounts of money per movie.

  • Last movie I saw in a theater was Return of the King. Now I just wait for the DVD. No, I won't pay extra to get it earlier.
  • What features do I get out of this? Can I pause or rewind the movie at my convenience? Do I have to buy/rent some bulky piece of equipment or can I use something existing in the home already? Does the price vary depending on how many people are present?

    I live by myself and am single. $25-50 is a non-starter for me. Being unable to pause or rewind the movie is a non-starter for me. Having to rent/buy a piece of equipment that is singularly purposed, is a non-starter for me. Something invasive that figures ou

  • Movie theaters are a disaster. Your shoes stick to the floor from spilled drinks, and who knows what was left in the seat by a previous customer before you arrived. Then there are the idiots who turn on their phones in front of you, blinding you, to make or receive a call or an SMS and talk their head off. And of course, most movies are made for 14 year old boys or 12 year old girls. If there is any dialog, which is unusual, it's normally filled with inappropriate language (every three words are the F word)
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Then there are the idiots who turn on their phones in front of you, blinding you, to make or receive a call or an SMS and talk their head off.

      It's a fast way to get kicked out of a theatre, actually... I've even seen it happen, thankfully only a couple of times, but I think when the attendees know that the theatre doesn't tolerate it, that tends to keep most everyone in line with regards to theatre etiquette. Usually, they will even have a commercial during the commercials before the film starts that addr

  • I really enjoy the ritual of going to the theater. Something about the process of going somewhere specifically to see a film, participating in a large group of people lining up and filing in, then the lights lower and the film is going. Nothing can stop it, no pausing for a pee break or for some douche to explain the backstory or argue some fine point. I think I will always enjoy the whole inconvenient procedure.

    There are also some special theaters, some of them are very elaborate architecturally. One thea
  • by Ann O'Nymous-Coward ( 460094 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @02:41PM (#53447785)
    I couldn't possibly be less interested in this early access crap. The only times I bother to go to the theater are for blockbusters, and for those I won't settle for anything less than the full on blockbuster experience. Always IMAX, preferably IMAX 3D. Go big or go home!
  • I'll wait for whenever it is the most convenient/cheap for me. I don't care if that means the content has to get old first.

  • I don't go to theaters and I don't really value early access. The movie will be just the same in a few months. If anything, it allows some time for things to shake out, and some sort of opinion on the movie to be established, so when the time comes - I can judge whether it is worth watching.

    I did notice that quite a few local theaters shut down in the last several years. The remaining ones lean heavily on 3D.

    The one theater that not only did not shut down, but renovated and expanded recently exists solely t

  • by Archfeld ( 6757 )

    I go and see a movie in the theater based on whether I think it will benefit from the big screen experience or whether I'd rather be at home watching in the comfort of my den on the 60 " with surround sound having a beer and a vaping a number or two. I've long since lost the urge to rush and see a movie the first night out or wait in line like I did when the empire struck back...

  • No. $25-$50? No. Yes, I have a good sound system & a large LED screen at home but it does not replace the movie theater experience. I generally pay $8 & smuggle my popcorn & beverage in, why would I ever pay $25 or more?
  • They are right, this would be a huge boost to revenue if done correctly. Unfortunately they will never do it correctly. First, this is a far cheaper distribution option so why are they charging more than the theater ticket price? Just cut out the theater middle man and keep his cut of the profits. The studios could even collaborate and build their own MPAA non-profit distribution service so studios pay only operating costs and all the profits pass through and then lay off all the obsolete middle men. Offer
  • by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Thursday December 08, 2016 @03:34PM (#53448193) Journal

    Watching in the cinema is a completely different experience. Going out of the house and making a journey somewhere builds up the sense of occasion, especially when it's combined with a nice meal somewhere beforehand. Watching a film as part of a large audience is also a better experience than watching at home. Sure there are certain audiences that are annoyingly chatty, but for the most part I have a good experience with fellow film-goers. Watching as part of an audience helps you to pick up on things that you wouldn't notice otherwise. Also, the inability to pause means that you have to put your phone away and give the film your undivided attention. Watching at home leaves you prone to more distractions.

  • Rather, I'd like for the people that make the theater going experience terrible to jump on methods like this and just stay home, instead of ruining things for other people. Bad, overly-entitled theater goers who do nothing but distract and annoy (and in some cases even through smell) are a huge part of the love loss with the theater (that and sub-par Hollywood movie writing standards). Sure, maybe the multiplexes would suffer from stuff like this, but they've had their good run, perhaps it is time to scal

  • On the up-side the theatre has a wider colour gamut and a light level that allows your eyes to appreciate that range. It also offers an immersive experience that is practically impossible at home.

    The downside is the popcorn, chatting, coughing and phone users.

  • There is no way that watching a movie on my Samsung 32" LCD TV (with in-built stereo speakers) or my even smaller Samsung PC monitor (and fairly generic Creative Labs 2.1 speakers) can come close to watching that movie on the big screen with full surround sound.

    And the experience at the movies is great. The cinema I go to only charged me $4.50 (I get concession prices) for my last ticket (although because Disney are so evil they make Darth Vader look like a saint, I will have to pay $6.50 for Star Wars and

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer

Working...