I hate going to movie theatres...the screens are usually smudged and dirty, the people are generally not enjoyable to be around, the seating is uncomfortable, the snacks/food are disgusting and extortionist....it already costs me at least $40-50 to take my wife and son to that miserable experience. I'd gladly pay the same to NOT have to go there.
Obviously you're going to the wrong theater. I go to one that has plush real leather seat that recline, they serve amazing for such as a porterhouse steak with good drinks. Only adults allowed in after 6pm. Super upscale. The screens and sound are fantastic as well.
I don't go to the movies anymore. Inevitably someone will sit near or next to me and won't shut the **ck up. Every. Single. Time.
I don't ever recall having a good experience at a movie theater. They are dirty, the floors are sticky, the snacks are expensive and the employees attitudes suck. Except for maybe Studio Movie Grill.
Theaters are on their way out anyway like department stores. Why pay a ton of money when you can do whatever you want at home?
This is only personal opinion, but I feel people suggesting movie theaters are obsolete tend to forget that many, many people have sub-50" TVs, weak sound, and/or low bandwidth, never mind the costs of buying or renting a movie as soon as it's available. Any major city should have at least one decent theater.
Even people who can afford a luxury home theater may enjoy the ritual of the theater experience - a Star Wars premiere isn't quite the same without a hundred other people clapping and laughing.
It is good idea only if it comes with pop-corn, drinks. I am not paying for "ability", but for watching. I can agree for 20-15% more than theater but nothing else.
Can't imagine ever paying so much for a rental, but choice never hurt anyone I suppose.
How does $30 compare to the cost of going to the cinema in the U.S.? Obv it's slightly different as the rental could be seen by many people, but it seems to be terrible value for money for one or two people, especially if they enjoy going into a proper theatre.
Tickets are $12-$15 Plus you gotta drive there $4 Popcorn, soda $30
So for 2 people you are looking at $60 easy.
Then time costs. To get good seats will take a hour. Plus another hour for travel.
I'd rather just pay $$$ and watch it at home on my 120 inch projector
Not that much as they ask for. pop corn, drive cost, parking and time are not things that make money for bifg movie labels - tickets are. So let's focus on theater ticket vs. home rental. We are not going to compensate here for infrastructure and logistics required to run theater - that solution is outdated and I have stopped visiting theaters long time ago. Some people have better pictuure and sound at home than offered in theaters - no need to use seats next to strangers. It is time to get new releases home rather than waiting for them many months. Some people may still need theaters, but that is another story.
I am willing to pay $30 for it if the dropped the release window. But if I can wait a month to watch a newly released movie then I can wait more to get it on Blu-Ray, iTunes or even Netflix. For this to work they should made it concurrent with the theater release specially if they are giving a cut to the theater.
Theaters in my area are now providing reserved/reclining seats, and one in particular in the Mission (Alamo) provides full-service bar and restaurant-quality food served right to your seat. In addition, they are smaller theaters and they enforce the rules about disruptions. They will boot people out that are being jerks. I actually enjoy going out to the theater now, where in the past I dreaded it. I can have a nice dinner and movie in one spot... date night covered.
I still watch iTunes movies at home from time-to-time, but I do enjoy the theater experience again. Both can co-exist with the right business model.
Maybe I'm an outlier (although I think I'm pretty typical in this regard), but the "movie theater experience" is very different (and better) than watching a movie at home, When I'm in a theater, I'm 98% absorbed by the movie. When I'm at home, there are just too many distractions. I went to see Doctor Strange in the theaters twice. I'll watch it on Blu-Ray at some point, but it won't be the same experience. If I'm going to be watching at home, I don't care whether it's in the theaters or year later, but it had better be cheap.
You are probably right but I think most people either don't believe they are being distracted or want to be distracted and not shushed or told to turn off their phones. That is why they prefer home viewing. But you can make the experience more theater-like in your own home. A home theater room is expensive but the easiest way. Or just turn the lights down and watch a movie on a 70" TV and tell the kids to get lost if you have any.
I hate going to movie theatres...the screens are usually smudged and dirty, the people are generally not enjoyable to be around, the seating is uncomfortable, the snacks/food are disgusting and extortionist....it already costs me at least $40-50 to take my wife and son to that miserable experience. I'd gladly pay the same to NOT have to go there.
Obviously you're going to the wrong theater. I go to one that has plush real leather seat that recline, they serve amazing for such as a porterhouse steak with good drinks. Only adults allowed in after 6pm. Super upscale. The screens and sound are fantastic as well.
where are these magical places? And how much do they cost?
The ones I saw have very small screens
Sounds like you are going to the multiplex. They cram in 18 theaters to run every movie released simultaneously so the screen size will always suffer. Look for theaters only running 1 or 2 shows and you'll find the big screens.
Can't imagine ever paying so much for a rental, but choice never hurt anyone I suppose.
How does $30 compare to the cost of going to the cinema in the U.S.? Obv it's slightly different as the rental could be seen by many people, but it seems to be terrible value for money for one or two people, especially if they enjoy going into a proper theatre.
Tickets are $12-$15 Plus you gotta drive there $4 Popcorn, soda $30
So for 2 people you are looking at $60 easy.
Then time costs. To get good seats will take a hour. Plus another hour for travel.
I'd rather just pay $$$ and watch it at home on my 120 inch projector
Not that much as they ask for. pop corn, drive cost, parking and time are not things that make money for bifg movie labels - tickets are. So let's focus on theater ticket vs. home rental. We are not going to compensate here for infrastructure and logistics required to run theater - that solution is outdated and I have stopped visiting theaters long time ago. Some people have better pictuure and sound at home than offered in theaters - no need to use seats next to strangers. It is time to get new releases home rather than waiting for them many months. Some people may still need theaters, but that is another story.
You cannot have this discussion without including all of those extras because that is roughly half of any theater's revenue stream. The movie studios don't worry about that but they cannot piss off the theaters or they will not carry their films. So the studios don't want to rock the boat but that's mostly because they're lazy, greedy and unimaginative. They could easily start a home distribution service to completely bypass all theaters and they would make even more revenue but they are worried about piracy and too stupid to agree on one solution - kind of like the music industry before iTunes.
This never would have happened if Steve Jobs was alive.
I maintain that the only reason we don’t yet have a cable/satellite GENOCIDER (not even “killer”) through the Apple TV is that Steve died before a deal could be made. Now we’re stuck with this madness until the industry suffers a collapse a la the video game industry in 1983.
sog35 said:
Popcorn, soda $30
Just sneak in some Dots or Combos, for heaven’s sake. Who needs to eat three times a day?
Then time costs. To get good seats will take a hour. Plus another hour for travel.
Just arrive so you’re in the theater 15 minutes early.
The problem is the cultivated “culture” of “seeing it on release day” or “seeing it early.” Who gives a fuck? Go a week later and get whatever seat you want in a theater that isn’t crowded. How sick and disturbed do you have to be to define your culture–or your person/social standing/ability to converse with friends and coworkers–by the number and timing of the Hollywood productions you’ve seen?
Paying ownership price to rent a film? Are these people fucking nuts?
It is not the least bit nuts. I don't want to go to the theatre, period. For reasons cited. Beyond that, I generally don't have time to go to a theatre either. Beyond that, I have below zero interest in going to a movie by myself, if it is something my wife/kids have no interest in seeing.
And yes, there is value in being able to see a movie now, instead of 5 months from now when I can rent it on iTunes. That value costs money. I'm willing to pay for it. I suspect, a LOT of other people have similar situations that would lead to similar decisions.
Obviously I wouldn't drop $30 casually on any old movie. It would have to be something I'm really interested in seeing. But, it might be something I'm interested in seeing, just not so interested as to go to the theatre. Hence, where there is money to be made, that the studios wouldn't get otherwise.
You don't think they are looking at The Force Awakens bringing in 2 BILLION dollars from its theatre run and other films barely recouping the millions it cost to make them and thinking, "There is probably room for improvement here." ???
I would totally rent a movie for $30. I've got a great home theatre so I'd have a bunch of friends over and it'd only cost us $5 each to see a new release.
This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
That's why this will never happen. Studios will be putting the final nail in their coffin if they allow home viewing of movies that are in theaters.
Once a digital file is out there it will be everywhere. People will be watching the movie for free on Kodi & no one will be going to the movies anymore.
$50 for a movie couple of weeks after the release? LMAO
$30 for a movie couple of weeks after the release? Hell to the no
$20??! I would consider since movie ticket costs $12 to $15 in metropolitan regions.
I don't want to go to the theatre, period. For reasons cited. Beyond that, I generally don't have time to go to a theatre either. Beyond that, I have below zero interest in going to a movie by myself, if it is something my wife/kids have no interest in seeing.
Then why desire to pay so much for something about which you care so little?
And yes, there is value in being able to see a movie now, instead of 5 months from now when I can rent it on iTunes. That value costs money.
I just don’t see it. A documentary? Perhaps. But those are generally online these days.
You don't think they are looking at The Force Awakens bringing in 2 BILLION dollars from its theatre run and other films barely recouping the millions it cost to make them and thinking, "There is probably room for improvement here." ???
This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
That's why this will never happen. Studios will be putting the final nail in their coffin if they allow home viewing of movies that are in theaters.
Once a digital file is out there it will be everywhere. People will be watching the movie for free on Kodi & no one will be going to the movies anymore.
That would hardly be the case. Sure, lots of people download movies illegally, but the majority of people don't. I'm sure the average person doesn't even know what Kodi is.
This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
I never subscribed to the predictions Apple was going to make an actual TV screen (and not a set top box). However, if they DID make a TV then they could cut a deal to make this work. With an external set top box (Apple TV) you have a signal that can be intercepted and recorded. With an all-in-one Apple TV/monitor everything is internal making duplication extremely difficult.
Or they could add data (digital watermark) to the stream that's unique for every single person who streams the movie. If a digital copy ends up on the Internet then they'd be able to trace the device it went to.
Comments
I don't ever recall having a good experience at a movie theater. They are dirty, the floors are sticky, the snacks are expensive and the employees attitudes suck. Except for maybe Studio Movie Grill.
Theaters are on their way out anyway like department stores. Why pay a ton of money when you can do whatever you want at home?
Even people who can afford a luxury home theater may enjoy the ritual of the theater experience - a Star Wars premiere isn't quite the same without a hundred other people clapping and laughing.
Sounds like you are going to the multiplex. They cram in 18 theaters to run every movie released simultaneously so the screen size will always suffer. Look for theaters only running 1 or 2 shows and you'll find the big screens.
You cannot have this discussion without including all of those extras because that is roughly half of any theater's revenue stream. The movie studios don't worry about that but they cannot piss off the theaters or they will not carry their films. So the studios don't want to rock the boat but that's mostly because they're lazy, greedy and unimaginative. They could easily start a home distribution service to completely bypass all theaters and they would make even more revenue but they are worried about piracy and too stupid to agree on one solution - kind of like the music industry before iTunes.
And yes, there is value in being able to see a movie now, instead of 5 months from now when I can rent it on iTunes. That value costs money. I'm willing to pay for it. I suspect, a LOT of other people have similar situations that would lead to similar decisions.
Obviously I wouldn't drop $30 casually on any old movie. It would have to be something I'm really interested in seeing. But, it might be something I'm interested in seeing, just not so interested as to go to the theatre. Hence, where there is money to be made, that the studios wouldn't get otherwise.
You don't think they are looking at The Force Awakens bringing in 2 BILLION dollars from its theatre run and other films barely recouping the millions it cost to make them and thinking, "There is probably room for improvement here." ???
Once a digital file is out there it will be everywhere. People will be watching the movie for free on Kodi & no one will be going to the movies anymore.
I just don’t see it. A documentary? Perhaps. But those are generally online these days.
Maybe they could fix the ENDLESS TRASH.
now if i had a 12ft diagonal 4k screen ... it would be a different story .
I never subscribed to the predictions Apple was going to make an actual TV screen (and not a set top box). However, if they DID make a TV then they could cut a deal to make this work. With an external set top box (Apple TV) you have a signal that can be intercepted and recorded. With an all-in-one Apple TV/monitor everything is internal making duplication extremely difficult.
Or they could add data (digital watermark) to the stream that's unique for every single person who streams the movie. If a digital copy ends up on the Internet then they'd be able to trace the device it went to.