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?
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?
no (Score:3)
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you don't get no movies... (at least for now)
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
There is more than enough other content for me to spend my time on.
Re: (Score:3)
I find, all too often, that all I need to watch is the trailer. As you noted, the massive levels of complete bullshit in movie marketing: amazing trailer, actual movie is "meh" at best.
And, of course, overpriced snacks, screaming kids, jerks talking on their phone.
Hell, people talking during movies: if I want to see that, I'll watch Mystery Science Theater, where at least the comments are funny. . . .
I honestly have not set foot in a theater for nearly a decade, and I don't miss it.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
You sound like a complete asshole. WhyTF should anyone hang onto ancient and obsolete technologies just to accommodate the media companies?
The BluRay is superior to streaming in every way other than "I want it this minute." Now, I want it this minute is pretty compelling, I'll certainly grant that. I've definitely had my movie-watching desires foiled by lack of access.
But with a BluRay rental, I get better sound and picture, the download doesn't max out my Internet connection nor does it count towards my ISP data cap (which most ISPs have even if they refuse to tell you about it), I don't get "buffering" whenever I try to seek, I usually get some decent extras, I don't have to subscribe to five online services to get a decent library, and I have a far better chance of finding niche, less popular, or foreign offerings.
Some of those are technical limitations, some are business limitations imposed by an ISP, and some are limitations imposed by the content owners. That last one in particular is a reason to dislike streaming; streaming sucks because all the power is back in the hands of the big content companies, and their practices are anti-customer.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not "ancient and obsolete", since they provide BETTER picture and more usable controls (far less latency fast forward/rewind) than the streaming video.. Plus movie extras (I realize many don't care about those, but I like them a lot, even though admittedly most rental DVDs/Blurays have only a tiny portion of it if any).
Even though tons of "video stores" have gone away, if a company can put up tons of vending machines to rent movies and games, it seems to me yet another sign physical media is not dead.
Re: (Score:3)
There was nothing whiny about his "excuses". It's his money and time, and his prerogative how to spend them. If the movie companies want his business, they'll make their product available in a format he prefers (and which many people these days prefer, considering how popular streaming video is these days, as evidenced by Netflix's instant play offerings, Hulu, Amazon video, etc.). If they can't be bothered to do that, then he was every right to call them morons and spend his time and money elsewhere.
It'
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no (Score:4, Informative)
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)
...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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You don't design shit. You probably live in your parent's basement.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anybody watch movies anymore? They ran out of stories 20 years ago.
Why would anyone stop watching movies? There's tons of great movies from 20+ years ago that you can still watch!
Depends on price (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Depends on price (Score:5, Insightful)
$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.
Re: (Score:2)
$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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Depends on price (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: Depends on price (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They don't need to make up all the revenue per ticket, as they should get additional viewers who would not come to the theater. Plush they could theoretically eliminate some overhead like less theater cleaning, etc.
Theater costs are the theaters' problem, not the studio. And the reason the snacks and drinks are so expensive is that most of the ticket cost goes to the studio and the distributors -- the "extras" are basically the main source of income for the theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMAX tickets aren't cheap. But then again, I am not going to recreate the IMAX experience in my home theater. My own setup is more on par with smaller conventional screens in theaters.
Without a decent home theatre setup. I don't see the point of paying extra for early releases.
Re: (Score:2)
I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when the blue glow of Luke's saber lit up Rey's face in the nighttime woods after she snagged it, you just lose something on the small screen. It is not the same, even allowing for the communal experience.
I prefer to sit in the 4th thru 6th row, where the screen is huge but not so close it is hard to focus, or where you must crane your neck. I just don't get people who rush right up the stairs so the screen is little more than a large TV.
Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The "movie theater experience" is really losing its ability to outweigh all that.
Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why not have your cake and eat it too? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats why they're doing this. The internet has destroyed the movie industry but its not because of piracy.
A few decades ago it took a week or two for most of the public to find out if a movie was bad.
These days people can tweet and rate movies on IMDB & Rotten Tomatoes within minutes of leaving the cinema.
No amount of bought reviews and media hype will work once enough people know its a turd.
They just want more people to see movies before finding out how bad they are.
Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score:5, Informative)
Revenue at the 2015 global box office crossed $38 billion for the first time in history, surpassing last year's record $36.7 billion.
That includes an unprecedented $11 billion-plus in North America, up 6.3 percent from last year's dismal $10.35 billion
By the end of 2017, China is expected to surpass North America and become the largest movie market in the world. http://www.hollywoodreporter.c... [hollywoodreporter.com]
So no the movie industry has not been destroyed by the internet. No even close. Time to take you head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow a slight increase even though cinema prices have skyrocketed years. None of which changes anything I said.
The industry is spending more on marketing in a pathetic attempt to compensate.
They could try to make better movies but they seem to think spending more polishing a turd is better.
Maybe get your head out the movie industry's ass before commenting next time.
http://entertainment.howstuffw... [howstuffworks.com]
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c... [hollywoodreporter.com]
https://variety.com/2016/film/... [variety.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1: 36.7 to 38 is nothing. It's shit when you account for the ever-increasing ticket prices and incessant inflation. You're also getting a huge boost from Asia, which adds a lot to the global revenue numbers but not much to Hollywood's pockets.
You need to look at ticket sales, which peaked in 2002 and have been in steady decline ever since. This is despite a massive increase in production budgets and advertising, and an 11.5% increase in US population, US ticket sales in 2015 were 16.3% lower than in 200
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was because nothing worth seeing has come out in years.
You know how Hollywood could increase ticket sales? They could try making films that don't suck.
I agree with this statement 1000%
I'd love early access (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Price Difference (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
$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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Almost never go... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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 kind of surprised they don't do more tie-ins. (Score:2)
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.
Nobody is going anyway (Score:2)
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.
The best home display worse than the worst Theater (Score:2)
...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
I spent $5 at the theater (Score:2)
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.
I'm the wrong person to ask... but since you did (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Going to the theater is a pain. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
If a movie isn't worth going to the theatre for... (Score:2)
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.
Alamo Drafthouse... (Score:2)
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.
Probably (Score:2)
It depends on the theater, and the price (Score:2)
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
Big family = no-brainer (Score:2)
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
Would not affect me (Score:2)
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.
Until the theaters improve the experience... (Score:2)
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.
The answer to an industry "hurting" (Score:2)
"...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.
Haven't been to a theater in years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends (Score:2)
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
I haven't been to a movie theater in years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 like the theater (Score:2)
There are also some special theaters, some of them are very elaborate architecturally. One thea
IMAX or bust, baby! (Score:4)
Neither, thanks (Score:2)
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.
Neither? (Score:2)
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
No (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Doomed to fail (Score:2)
Why I watch in the cinema (Score:4)
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.
A very different "rather" (Score:2)
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
The experiences are incomparable (Score:2)
The downside is the popcorn, chatting, coughing and phone users.
I wouldn't use this if it existed (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
News flash. You are part of the unwashed masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing this, however, would basically put movie theaters out of business.
I fail to see the problem here.