The end of movie theaters?

[third3ye]

Theaters will go distinct only when movie studios can find another way of charging premium prices at the start of their content value chain. The major difference between theaters and broadcast/streaming is the ability to charge per person. So unless you're willing to cough up say $50-$100 to watch first releases in some kind of broadcast/streaming format (which obviously only makes sense for families or get togethers like for boxing PPV), theaters will always be around. I would think that studios would prefer NOT having theaters, takes out the middle-man and prevents having to split the box office revenues, but as of right now there's no feasible format that can make movies profitable without their existence.

 

[Solo4114]

I don't think they'll ever go away completely, but the commercial model for them may have to change. You can still find record stores if you know where to look, but they usually specialize in something like Vinyl or as a secondary marketplace (Amoeba music in SF, Berkeley, and LA fits this model). Some theater owners are pushing for a different experience. I've mentioned the Sundance theaters in a few threads here. They offer reserved seating, a wine bar, a restaurant in the lobby, and 21+ shows in the evenings. While obviously this won't be a successful model everywhere and for everyone (like families), I definitely think that it can be in urban areas especially. The Parkway theater in Oakland just reopened and they have a full service cafe, and couch seating (like literally a room full of couches and what not). It's a little off the wall, but definitely can be fun.

I think people are mostly tired of spending $20 on popcorn and oversized sodas. I understand that theaters make most of their profits from concessions, but instead of offering awful junk food like nachos and hotdogs, how about some variety?

That's an excellent point. I'd be happy to pay premium dollars for a premium experience. As it stands, I feel like I'm paying pretty close to premium dollars for a garbage experience that I used to be able to get for a fraction of the price. I would bet (although I wouldn't swear) that if you did a quick inflation calculation of ticket prices in 1993 vs ticket prices in 2013, you'd see that there's been a marked increase in actual ticket cost over time, even adjusting for inflation. So, the effective price has gone up, but the experience remains exactly what it was twenty years ago, or has even declined due to a lack of any ushers or theater oversight. So what exactly am I getting for my money? "Not enough to make it worth the price increase," I say to myself, and so I just stay home.

However, I'd pay $20 a ticket once in a while, if I could also get DECENT food and something DECENT to drink, and if the theaters were actively managed so that texters, phone gabbers, and obnoxious teenagers are barred or ejected from the premises. And if they aren't, and my experience is sub-par, the theater will refund me my ticket cost and treat me like a valued customer.

Theaters will go distinct only when movie studios can find another way of charging premium prices at the start of their content value chain. The major difference between theaters and broadcast/streaming is the ability to charge per person. So unless you're willing to cough up say $50-$100 to watch first releases in some kind of broadcast/streaming format (which obviously only makes sense for families or get togethers like for boxing PPV), theaters will always be around. I would think that studios would prefer NOT having theaters, takes out the middle-man and prevents having to split the box office revenues, but as of right now there's no feasible format that can make movies profitable without their existence.

That may be, but there may also be a tipping point where even the big-big-big movies don't bring in the crowds like they did before. At what point can they no longer make the numbers work, ya know?

 

[niennumb1]

I'd pay a higher price to watch a theatrical release PPV from my home theater any day!

 

[rodneyfaile]

A few times I've paid $20 on Amazon or VUDU to purchase a movie and stream it either before it was in theaters or while it was still in theaters.

 

[Darth Lars]

People want to see the latest movie, and the movie theatre is the best place to see it when it comes out. I don't see DVD/Bluray being the distribution method for big movie premieres, ever.
I have worked with online video-on-demand streaming, so I know that movie content distributors are very conservative. Most of them are still very reluctant to distribute first-tier content online. They are very afraid of online piracy, so they require DRM schemes to be in place but there aren't any systems for that yet that are both industry-wide standards, future-proof and accepted by the consumers and movie companies.

Eventually, I think that online movie distribution is going to take over, but it will take decades.

 

[Jedi-72]

No way a home system can beat a good theatre

Actually, it can. I can't think of the last time that I was impressed by the image or sound quality of a movie theater. My home theater is far more pleasing an audio/visual experience than any I've had in a theater in longer than I can remember. I can live with ho-hum image and sound, which is usually what you get at most theaters. But as others have said, PEOPLE ruin the movie watching experience. I used to go to the movies constantly once upon a time. Now? A few times a year at best. Half of that is to do with nothing but crap on the screen and half has to do with the audience, or poorly trained apes occupying the seats. As my home theater came together, the need to even got to a theater gradually faded. I have better sound and picture and miss nothing in terms of "experience". The experience that I used to love, and that I grew up with, died long, long ago. So going to a "theater"/zoo today is kind of pointless for people like me.

 

[Master Valon]

See, I find the social experience of going to the theater (going out, being with other people, going with friends/family) is what the big draw for me is. I have a decent setup at home, it's not a home theater, but it's a 48" HDTV/Blu-Ray player, and I rarely watch movies on it, and if I do, never for the first time. I only buy Blu-Rays of movies I absolutely love, and want to rewatch over and over. But like I said, it's not only the huge screen and good sound that draws me to the theater. It's actually the people that seems to drive you guys away. I would be quick to say that maybe I just live in a good area with respectful patrons, but two of the main theaters I go to are infamous for being hangouts for 8th graders, and we also get our fair share of rude 20 somethings. Sure, there are always gonna be people who text during the movie, or are too loud during important parts, but I find it's usually a certain crowd that attracts that behavior (later showings or especially midnight showings with rowdy/excited people). I dunno, I guess it's kinda like what I was saying in the Episode VII thread; the "experience" surrounding a movie (whether news/info hype, or seeing it in a social setting) is a major part of the enjoyment of movies for me, not just the two hours the film is running.

 

[jlee562]

No home sound system can hold a candle to the new Dolby Atmos....

 

[Shadow345]

I go to the cinema on average once a week.

 

[Jedi-72]

No home sound system can hold a candle to the new Dolby Atmos....

They will in the not-so-distant future. But, speaking for myself, it takes more than audio gimmicks to get me into a theater. **** movies with cool sound effects are still **** movies. Whereas a great movie needs no such technical wizardry to draw you into the theater and it is still great.

I've actually come 180 degrees when it comes to surround sound. I used to think it was great, and still do enjoy it for music, especially concerts. But for movies, I find myself hardly ever using it anymore. Generally, I just watch in stereo or stereo plus center. Most surround sound is quite poorly done and just jack-hammers you with a cacophonous barrage of noise. Not really enjoyable for me and certainly doesn't improve my viewing experience.

 

[jlee562]

They will in the not-so-distant future. But, speaking for myself, it takes more than audio gimmicks to get me into a theater. **** movies with cool sound effects are still **** movies. Whereas a great movie needs no such technical wizardry to draw you into the theater and it is still great.

I've actually come 180 degrees when it comes to surround sound. I used to think it was great, and still do enjoy it for music, especially concerts. But for movies, I find myself hardly ever using it anymore. Generally, I just watch in stereo or stereo plus center. Most surround sound is quite poorly done and just jack-hammers you with a cacophonous barrage of noise. Not really enjoyable for me and certainly doesn't improve my viewing experience.

I doubt it. To get anything close to the Atmos system will have to be a custom installation. It's not something you can just pull out of a box. We're talking about a system with 128 audio tracks, up to 64 independent speaker feeds, and a totally immerse sound environment from ceiling to floor. If it ever makes it to the home theater level, it will probably still be more than most people are willing to install.

 

[darthgordon]

I don't think it will happen anytime soon with studios making movies. It honestly doesn't make sense for them from an economic standpoint.

Studios have never cared for any media to deliver movies that they don't have direct control over (video, DVD, Blu-ray, streaming). They release these things reluctantly and if they had a choice wouldn't. First, they're easier to rip once they're out of the studios hands. No matter how many security controls they put in place, if it’s out of their hands, people can find a way to rip it. Second, they make very little money off them in the grand scheme of things. When it comes to the box office, studios collect most of the money from ticket sales and the theaters make most of their money off of concessions. With rentals, the studios typically either sell the blu-ray to the renters at an inflated price or have a flat rate contract with them for a package of certain movies. The number of times the movie is viewed doesn't matter.

With the theater, they can charge per head and per repeat viewing. With a rental, or if I buy a movie, I can have ten people watch it as many times as I want and the studio only makes that flat rate.

Then there's the success of a movie. The buzz generated by packed theaters and lines to get in make more people want to go see this movie. And all of that looks very good to investors.

Studios have always measured the success of a movie on box office sales. That's much more difficult to do with the other media formats. As I said, ten people can watch one blu-ray at once; I can lend my movie to other people; I can pirate it; I can view streaming on several different devices. Box office sales not only measure the success of a movie or studio, but of those that worked on it... it tells studios whom and what to back in the future.

As for the audience… I don’t think movie theaters are just about watching movies. They can be about sharing the experience, or even just looking for someplace to go get out of the house on a Friday night. They can be a way to entertain the kids for two hours or place a couple can get out for date night.

As for recreating the theater experience at home with surround sound and giant TVs… while many people have houses (which is wonderful and all for you), many more live in apartments. They’re not as customizable, not as big and your neighbors tend to get angry if you have a surround sound system they can hear 3 floors down.

Will they disappear? Absolutely! Will it happen anytime soon? I doubt it.

 

[Solo4114]

There's also a question of whether such razzle dazzle gear is really worth the price, given the space in which people watch these films. I mean, if you designed a theater room itself, that'd be one thing. But just a repurposed room in a 100-year-old house or whathaveyou? That's probably overkill. Hell, I have a 9.2 Onkyo receiver and it's TOTALLY overkill in the space I have for my media room. I only run it in 5.1, due to the size of the room and the layout (no room for rear wall channels -- windows are there, albeit with blackout curtains).

So, I suppose the theater experience might be better in that respect, but is it better to a degree that makes me want to put up with everything else? No. I don't feel that I get sufficiently more value from that experience that I want to pay $12-15 for a single viewing in most cases. I'd go if I wanted to go see something and it had been out for a while (less chance of people in the theater) but otherwise, meh. I'll just wait til I can Netflix it.

--EDIT--

What I see as the shift is (A) a decline in theater attendance to the point where it's no longer profitable for the theater owners to operate (rather than for the studios to want them to exist), and (B) the studios gradually shifting to streaming content that they have direct control over, or which they have licensed to a content delivery service like Netflix or Amazon. What I'd expect to see happen is for Netflix (and its ilk) to either roll this content into its existing package and raise the rates, or offer a separate service for "First Run" films. The price would pay for Netflix's license, the studios would get paid, and the investment model would shift. It'd all be trackable, too, thanks to datamining, and those costs would be passed on to the content delivery companies (e.g. "Look, XYZ film was incredibly successful for you. We have the data. If you want XYZ:2 to run on your service, pay up.") who will eventually pass that on to the consumers, and the price, overall, will increase over time.


The key to this happening, however, is the theaters themselves closing up shop gradually. I see this happening at a faster pace than many might predict. Or rather, at an exponentially increasing speed. It'll start slow but then escalate dramatically as the theater experience becomes less and less pleasant. Eventually, that experience will reach some tipping point or critical mass, and that'll be the point at which theaters start closing a LOT faster. It might take a long time to hit that point, but I think when it comes, it will be swift and abrupt.

 

[Jedi-72]

I doubt it. To get anything close to the Atmos system will have to be a custom installation. It's not something you can just pull out of a box. We're talking about a system with 128 audio tracks, up to 64 independent speaker feeds, and a totally immerse sound environment from ceiling to floor. If it ever makes it to the home theater level, it will probably still be more than most people are willing to install.

Whenever any new tech comes along somebody always says "Never" and then, "voila", a few years down the road you're seeing it creep into people's homes. It can always be done, especially as the technology evolves. The word "never" doesn't really apply much anymore.

But, you're right in that for most people, not only is it more than they're willing to install, but most just probably wouldn't care. But, you're also on a board where people turn basements and offices into spaceships and build life-sized millennium falcons at enormous expense. More people might be willing to do it than we realize. Hmmm. Who knows? But, the larger point is that one reason systems like Atmos exist is that quite a few people have a home theater of one form or another that is "good enough" for them and it is keeping them home. Gimmicks like this are intended to pull people away from their home theaters. Give them a reason to pay to go a theater, if they can find one with a system like this. It just isn't reason enough for me, and quite a few people I know would likely say the same.

I keep saying it, but gimmicks don't work for long. Great movies will bring people into theaters over a sustained period of time. Focus on THAT. The other factors killing the business are the absolutely insane costs of production and marketing a movie. They're out of control. There was a recent discussion about that on here somewhere. You can't get enough people into theaters to pay for some of these movies. Bad business models and poor product are what are hurting movies and theaters. Theater technology isn't going to save it.

 

[jlee562]

Whenever any new tech comes along somebody always says "Never" and then, "voila", a few years down the road you're seeing it creep into people's homes. It can always be done, especially as the technology evolves. The word "never" doesn't really apply much anymore.

But, you're right in that for most people, not only is it more than they're willing to install, but most just probably wouldn't care. But, you're also on a board where people turn basements and offices into spaceships and build life-sized millennium falcons at enormous expense. More people might be willing to do it than we realize. Hmmm. Who knows? But, the larger point is that one reason systems like Atmos exist is that quite a few people have a home theater of one form or another that is "good enough" for them and it is keeping them home. Gimmicks like this are intended to pull people away from their home theaters. Give them a reason to pay to go a theater, if they can find one with a system like this. It just isn't reason enough for me, and quite a few people I know would likely say the same.

I keep saying it, but gimmicks don't work for long. Great movies will bring people into theaters over a sustained period of time. Focus on THAT. The other factors killing the business are the absolutely insane costs of production and marketing a movie. They're out of control. There was a recent discussion about that on here somewhere. You can't get enough people into theaters to pay for some of these movies. Bad business models and poor product are what are hurting movies and theaters. Theater technology isn't going to save it.

I'm not going to disagree about bad business models and poor product (see my previous post in this thread about theaters needing to evolve).

But I will disagree that Dolby Atmos and similar systems are "gimmicks." 3D is a gimmick. It's a gimmick because it doesn't really enhance the realism. It's a gimmick because you're actually getting poorer picture quality than a standard 2d projection.

I hate to sound like a marketing pamphlet, but the difference between a regular surround sound system and the Dolby Atmos system is like the difference between SD and HD. It allows filmmakers to create much more immersive audio environments. This technology is still relatively new and many filmmakers haven't explored it to its full potential. I did see Star Trek Into Darkness in a Dolby Atmos theater and I was blown away. I didn't think that the difference would be that obvious but it was.

I'm not saying it's going to save the theater business, but it's one way that theaters can provide an experience that home theaters simply cannot do at this point in time, and that will still be out of reach for most people if it ever makes it to the consumer level.

 

[Solo4114]

Right, but that's the other part -- relying on technology to save theaters, while changing nothing else in the equation. More expensive toys and weaponry isn't the solution, but it's a quick and obvious thing that businesses can change and then point to to say "See? We'er doing stuff differently. That's why you should pay more for a ticket."

That, however, won't put butts in seats. Not that alone, anyway. You need solid product alongside it, and not merely visual extravaganzas, but good stories. AND you need to freakin' police your theaters and make sure that people can actually hear and enjoy the razzle-dazzle technology you've installed, instead of being distracted by OTHER people's technology.