The theatre owners won’t be part of the ‘negotiations’. Because there won’t be any. You can only have negotiations when each side has something to offer.
And what you refer to as ‘direct to video’ is the category commonly known as ‘this is a piece of crap and not worth sending to the cinemas’. That’s not what simultaneous releasing is about.
You’re stuck on cinematic release as being the standard. It’s going to lose its cachet when it’s not the only means of ‘opening day’ access. I know this is a tough concept to grasp, but we’re talking about cinematic release not being the benchmark. The only thing that’s gonna matter under these circumstances is sales. Ticket sales at the cinema, download sales online and and hard-copy sales in stores.
Uh, no.
No, no, no.
And unfortunately, I feel in re-opening this ‘discussion’, I’m somehow more aligned with ‘mr txt’ from the other thread, the 23 year old who claims to be more on top of how things have changed, not only in a technological sense, but where habits are concerned, too. I know this isn’t actually the case, it’s more that I’m -seemingly- a little more aware of how things are in fact changing in terms of peoples' entertainment profiles.
To wit, lately, time and again recently, I’ve been staggered by how different so many peoples' film viewing habits have changed. That is, what they regard to be the default, what’s normal for them. (Just to clarify, I’m a hard-core film-goer. I see between 150 and 200 films a year at the cinema. I don’t watch movies on a television, I’m not interested in doing that; I’m far too enamoured with the cinema-going experience, with watching movies in ‘cathedrals of film’…which is why I’m on this site in the first place.)
I spend a lot of time online having discussions on film sites, on technology sites, on screenwriting sites, and engaged in general Life discussions that quite often include movie-talk. As I say, I’m constantly amazed how vast numbers of people no longer regard going to a cinema to see a just-released film as being their default. I’m constantly having people tell me that no, they have no desire to put up with the expense, the bad viewing experiences, the hassles of actually getting out to see a movie in a cinema… Their ‘default’ then, is to wait for the DVD months after cinematic release and watch it in the comfort of their own home. And I guess I should say here that this is not just a ‘generational’ thing. I’m talking about people who fall within the 30-65 age bracket.
Now, each time I hear this, I think ‘How bizarre! These people are so different from me!’ But they’re not blips. They’re not anomolies. They’re everywhere. And the trend is growing. (Please, don’t quote BO numbers, because when they’re brought up, they’re not being compared with the rest of the revenue pie…and this is what you simply have to bring into the discussion to properly examine the trends. Take a look at these two sites to better acquaint yourself: Edward Jay Epstein’s site -check out the five separate pages he has here- as well as this one.)
I’ve read that the theatrical viewing portion of the film business is a very fragile thing. That as little as a 6% drop can be considered ‘calamitous’. (Apparently the last dip, within the past decade, was only of this size, but a large number of screens were lost in North America as a result. And of course, this is usually where the ‘We’re overscreened!’ argument gets injected…) The prospect of simultaneous release indicates a much larger drop than this. Why? Because there are a ton of people out there for whom the only reason to go to a cinema for their film viewing…is for the odd ‘new release’. Otherwise, they prefer to wait for the DVD. And up to now, the only place you’ve been able to see a ‘new release’ film is at a cinema.
This would change with simultaneous releases. It would be the first time ever that someone would have an option regarding a film that’s opening now.
So, if there’s a portion of the population that would, given the option, watch a new release in the comfort of their home (their usual means of film-watching anyway), this will affect the industry. And because this portion is so obviously greater than the 6% I’ve mentioned, it means that the effect would be… Well, let’s just say that things will never be the same again. (I’d love to actually discuss this issue, but as there’s no forum on this site and I’ve already hijacked this news item’s discussion, I’ll leave off there.)
Think about it: when it becomes possible for ‘Hollywood’ to make money in a way where there’s less overhead, where there’s less of a middle-man than there currently is, why wouldn’t they begin to migrate to this business model? What matters to them is revenue. How it’s generated… That’s not of a consideration at all.
But of course, this isn’t the case with the cinema owners/operators. If they lose their monopoly on ‘new releases’, then everything changes. But really, cinemas are mostly powerless in this predicament. They don’t control the product they ‘sell’. They don’t dictate the subject matter, the quality, the variety… They are, for the most part, at the mercy of ‘Hollywood’ to accept what’s given them. What’s the alternative, when studios begin simultaneously releasing new flicks? There is no ‘other’ supplier.
Will there always be cinemas? Of course! But without the monopoly of ‘new releases’, both the chains and indies are going to be fighting for a smaller and smaller piece of the revenue pie. And why should ‘Hollywood’ care about this? Sure, there’s tradition and history and nostalgia involved, but so what? ‘Hollywood’ isn’t about the heart. It’s about the ka-ching. (Obviously, if we still lived in a world where ‘Hollywood’ owned the cinemas, we’d be talking an entirely different set of circumstances. But that relationship changed decades ago with the divestiture of the studios' cinemas.)
The full extent of what I’m talking about here has already been initiated. Apple’s imminent iTV unit, a bridge between your computer and your HD-TV set, their iTunes store selling DVDs, Amazon.com’s new ‘Unbox’ DVD service, the whispered-about synergistic arrangement between Apple and Wal-Mart, the fact that Microsoft has long wanted to be the one to bring cohesion to home entertainment systems… All of these developments are merely the tip of the iceberg. Many, many people want to watch their films in their home. They do not want to go out to the cinema. They have no desire to go out to the cinema. These are consumers with money to spend that do not want to spend it in a cinema, they want to take this money and ‘invest’ it in a ‘new release’ movie download/purchase/rental that they can enjoy in the comfort of their own home.
I concede that what I’ve proposed here is speculation. But it’s informed speculation that can be confirmed by a little time spent investigating online. The cinema chains/owners don’t want to talk about any of this; it’s all bad news to them. ‘Hollywood’ doesn’t want to talk about it, because there are simply too many bugs to iron out yet, in terms of transport, delivery, copyright protection, yadda, yadda, yadda. But to think that it’s not coming, to resist the very consideration of this wholesale shift in ‘movie-viewing default’ is…well, put kindly and in as genteel a way as I can, ‘ill-advised’.
Think about this: How do you think the idea of people carrying around minuscule music players that store 10,000 songs, or kids as young as six or seven having their own cell phones, or cars having GPS navigation and video players as standard equipment would have been regarded a decade, fifteen years ago?
Further, how do you think the prospect of someone being able to watch a movie anywhere other than at a cinema would have been regarded fifty, sixty, seventy years ago?
All of what I’ve proposed is coming. It merely needs to be revealed as to how…and when. And because money’s involved, don’t be surprised when it happens sooner than predicted.
P.S. I do want to clarify that ‘simultaneous release’ doesn’t mean ‘skipping a theatrical release’. That’s another possibility entirely.
I shared this article with a friend and his reaction was to sniff that- Well, I’ll cut-and-paste some of his thoughts, because they’re very much those of a non-CT member and I found them intriguing:
“I guess what irks me is exactly the "it’s my ball, so i’m going home” kind of feeling here, coupled with the effect of paternalism — the “it’s not good enough for me, so therefore, it’s not good enough for you” sensation. what makes me angry is the way that this totally subjective judgement is cloaked in OBJECTIVE-ly loaded language. The implication here is not just that “I” don’t think these films are good enough to show, but that, objectively-speaking, they are trash & unworthy of viewing. I’m not sure i’m quite explaining that fully, but it’s the purely subjective judgment masquerading as objective “truth” — the recording should really have said “because we don’t think these films deserve viewing” rather than “because of such poor film choices,” which is a small but significantly different statement — that makes me cry foul. it also seems to me to be a over-simplified & childish way to operate in what is, essentially, a populist & consumer-driven business. too harsh, maybe — but the one thing guaranteed to drive me to premature harshness is condescension, the whiff of which is unmistakable here."
As for me, I do admire his ‘My way or the highway’, but I hardly think he exhausted his options, so in a way, it comes off as a smidgen ‘spiteful’.
To end this, I am compelled to respond to longislandmovies' first suggestion: simultaneous release is coming, the set-pieces are being moved about as we speak (Amazon.com, Apple, Wal-Mart; check out Mark Cuban’s blog that often deals with this arena: http://www.blogmaverick.com/)) and when it’s implemented, then we’ll see wholesale changes in the industry. It may yet be some time off, years perhaps, but ‘boycotting’ films or studios for this practice will, at best, be a Pyrrhic victory: Hollywood hasn’t ever, doesn’t currently, and never will care where its revenues come from. They may squeal a bit about the associative non-theatrical issues along the way, but in the end, if they can get a large portion of their opening-day $$$ receipts via downloads and hard-copy sales as opposed cinemas, then so be it. The money is all that matters to them.
regarding TxtMsgOhNoooooesss… and his incredibly insightful contributions that lead off with:
“After reading everyone’s responses it sounds like you guys are living in the past. I’m 23 years old and guess what… it’s going to the movies. There is no "magical cinema experience in cinema land.” The “talkies” are long since past. If you actually believe that, then I guess I should break it to you now that Santa Clause isn’t real either. Cry more please. QQ"
I know we have recently had a moratorium on combative exchanges, but I’ll tell ya… This ‘person’ sure makes me want to- Well, I’ll try to restrain myself in my response.
TxtMsg, you may be 23, you may be on your way to having a well-paid career, but the maturity you display in your comments… Well, I know that if you and I’d had a conversation as 23 year olds, I’m sure I would have thought something like ‘Grow the hell up.’
I found it hilarious that someone would jump onto a comments board and basically prove everything that’s been pointed out regarding what’s lacking in today’s cinema-goers. You may not actually behave like a twit in cinemas, but clearly, as you feel the need to declare the power of your generation, you’re cut from the same cloth.
Of course, the most amusing comment had to be “Why do you think so many young people laugh/mock at older crowds?”, because it’s not going to be very long before ‘young people’ are laughing at you, my friend. You may feel that you have more in common right now with teenagers, but seriously; you’re gonna be ancient before you know it.
Your opinions are your own, but really, you should learn some manners. Obviously, being of a ‘younger’ generation, one that spends an undue portion of its time ‘reaching out and touching people’ via the keyboard, your tactics and your mindset online tend to be more aggressive, less conciliatory, and certainly have less to do with thought than with emotion. But really, take a look at the profile of this site. It’s not IMDb. It’s not designed to be a venue for verbal slugfests. It’s a repository for cinema histories and fairly genteel exchanges about cinema-going. The tone here is not the same as it might be elsewhere…and this isn’t a generational thing; it’s a question of appropriate behaviour.
And seriously, don’t get me started on your proprietary attitude about cinemas, your ‘It’s OUR world now, so you’d best just get your Adult Depends untwisted and settle in for the way WE want things.’ Hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t work that way…until you start owning the facilities in question. And judging by the way you conduct yourself in the simplest of exchanges, that ain’t gonna be anytime soon.
To my fellow CT regulars, my apologies for letting doltish intrusions get the better of me. My only defence is that my response in-person is much worse.
Times have changed. And most change happens by degree. In this discussion we’re really talking about how people are more concerned about getting what they want and not being considerate of others…and what I call ‘disassociation’, the habit of not really being where you actually are through the use of a cell phone or an MP3 player.
-the use of Walkmans and MP3 players mean that ambient sound is being battered by spillage from headphones in buses, subways, trains, in elevators and restaurants
-the fact that cell phone conversations take place where previously, they simply weren’t possible. (Did you see the recent video of the professor grabbing the cell phone of a student during a lecture and throwing it to the floor? He didn’t miss a beat, continued on with the lecture…)
-I suspect people have generally lost touch with how to behave in certain situations, and that by default, they’re bringing in their ‘home’ behaviour or their default social habits. (I’m not a church-goer, but I’d be curious to know if it’s been affected by this trend. Probably not, because God makes a pretty imposing hall monitor…) Maybe stadium sports have survived unscathed…but I also know that golf has been affected by a shift in ‘rules of decorum’. (Naturally, it depends where you stand in this particular debate: with the traditionalists, or with those who see the Tiger Woods of the sport as being due enthusiasm on the links commensurate with boxing champs.)
I think that when cinemas began losing their monopoly on being the source for movie entertainment (I’d only just recently been reminded of the impact of the ‘Movie of the Week’ on tv some 30+ years ago), the ‘specialness’ of the movie-going experience began to decay. When movie palaces and nabes were replaced by multiplexes, this situation just got worse. How ‘special’ can a film be to a younger generation when they can watch it on their home system in a couple of months, or when most of their viewing takes place not in a cinema, but in front of their tvs via DVD players? (You’d think that this would make going to a cinema once in a while a special thing, and they’d be on their ‘best behaviour’. It apparently doesn’t. This too is part of the short-attention spanned, transient, ever-changing, constantly shifting instant-gratification generation’s profile.)
To me the end result is not only a generation who holds the viewing of films in a cinema in an entirely different light, but because of the uncouthness of these people, others are increasingly saying ‘I’ve had enough! The high price involved with going to a film is bad enough! The hit-and-miss quality of the entertainment adds to the downside! But these idiots who don’t care about anyone else’s viewing pleasure… That’s it! I’m staying home! Never again!’ You can’t make people be polite in general. But you can insist that a ticket-holder respect others within the cinema. And this is why I’m glad this issue is getting some attention. Because it’s only going to get worse…unless the cinemas do something about it. So Hurrah! to this particular cinema and I hope that others get the message.
Actually, longislandmovies, you’re right…but it’s even more different than that: there is not only no sense of ‘respect’ or ‘reverence’ for the setting (the cinema), but hardly any for the film being watched, either. These ‘kids’ don’t really care about what they’re watching…or they have an entirely different frame of reference. But what do you expect: they’ve grown up mainly getting their movie experiences at home, where they can talk on the phone, gab with each other… Movies are disposable to them. They certainly do not have the same place in their lives that they did when we were growing up…
jwr, this is exactly my point. Cinemas have essentially allowed these circumstances to unfold because, to be truthful, they exist in a very passive customer service universe. To me, they simply took their eye off the ball a few years ago and it’s only gotten worse ever since. They’ve done little to actually protect the cinema-going experience…and as a result, more and more people are bound to feel the way you do at the conclusion of your post. And you know what? I don’t blame you at all.
What’s missing is a sense of decorum on the part of some cinema-goers and a sense responsibility on the part of the cinemas. The cinema people may not control the product they show, but they sure as heck control the overall experience more than they’d like to admit.
Thing is, it’s not just cell phones. It’s the fact that ‘these people’ (put them under what ever demographic banner you feel comfortable with) see going to a film in an entirely different way.
Many people often remark about ‘the good old days’, when going to a cinema and seeing a film meant something entirely different, when cinemas were palaces. Treasures, if you will. : )
That’s not the case with ‘these people’; they’re just as happy to watch films at home. Which is why using a cell phone is no big dilemma for them. Or taking a call. Or MAKING a call. Ot talking through the film. There’s nothing ‘special’ to them about seeing a film in a cinema.
Turning the ship around at this point (as far as viewing habits go) is a tough quest. But I’m glad to hear that someone has shown some initiative. Maybe there’s hope yet.
I don’t think most cinemas/chains realize how much they’ve contributed to more and more people being fed up with what they have to contend with. I don’t think they’ve ever grasped the importance of them ensuring a proper viewing experience for those who want to watch a movie in silence, because they’ve never been forced to recognize when people just stop coming. They tend to blame drop-offs in attendance to the menu Hollywood is providing at the time.
Good to see that someone’s aware of the potential cost of these boors in the audience. Hurray!
If cinemas want to ensure their patrons keep coming, they have to take more responsibility regarding the ne'er-do-wells. Lord knows these miscreants aren’t getting more considerate as the years march on. (The audience members, not the cinema owners.)
OK, I’ll bite. ‘The chain cinemas are doomed by their greed’, and the indies will ‘die as the mega-buck chains slowly starve them to death’. What’s gonna be left? Granted nobody’s actually yet commented on what the article shows to be efforts on the parts of cinemas to survive, but I’ll ask this question anyway: how do you see things unfolding over the next two decades?
Note to longislandmovies: Do I get any points at all for showing my -clearly ardent- faithfulness to cinema-going?
OK, maybe I’m being stubborn…but I cannot understand the enmity towards what’s put up on the screen before the trailers and the movie. Who cares?!? Are you protesting against advertising? Sorry, but as a die-hard tv-disdainer, I find this attitude (quite common amongst cinema-goers who, by-and-large, are also those who make tv a part of their day-to-day lives) to be hypocritical. After all, when you break it down, tv is nothing more than an advertising medium that just happens to have entertainment between the commercial breaks. Having spent years away from tv, it amazes me that our society seems to accept the fact that a piece of drama or a comedic effort is hacked-up by commercial breaks. At least at the cinema, once the ads are done, they’re done. (Granted, product placement notwithstanding.)
So you’re saying that you’d prefer that cinemas either revert to previous habits…or, instead of adapting to changing times and audience preferences in order to survive, simply close their doors and go away?
What I found most intriguing about what he has to say…and there’s more on the rest of his site devoted to the film industry…is Point #3, ‘How Studios Make Money’.
People read and hear certain truths as provided by Hollywood by way of the Internet, newspapers, the television entertainment shows, but the entire picture is hardly ever provided. This chart speaks volumes; I’d bet most people would be shocked as to how Hollywood actually earns its $$$ these days.
This thread has been…well, both fascinating…and embarrassing. (And all the more ironic, because I don’t think that the main proponent in it was the impetus behind the reminder from the CT powers-that-be.)
Fascinating because here, right in front of us, is Human Nature at its unseemliest. It’s like…well, it’s been like watching drunk gals catfight. (Maybe only one of them, to be precise.)
Embarrassing because really, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE ISSUE BEING ‘DISCUSSED’!
And, if I may be so bold, it’s been incredibly rude of sctheaters to go on and on and on and on about this, constantly edging out of the room while ducking back in yelling ‘And another thing! I don’t care what you think about me, but here’s what I think, anyway!!!’
Thank goodness that this (and the aforementioned Big Four pages) are blips on this site and for the most part, people act like adults and don’t essentally, pass gas in an enclosed space.
Can we please see an end to this approaching…sometime soon…?
And this end should start with an apology. Not even so much to the site owners, but to those of us who have been passively part of what’s unfolded. Yes, we’re all free to ignore this crap. But that’s ignoring the bigger issues of civility and consideration. It really does remind me of an unruly schoolyard.
Good Lord; I sure hope kids haven’t been raised by some of the perpetrators…
Family dinners.
Neighbourhoods.
Respect for elders and authority.
LIfe-long job security.
Church-going, God-fearing.
Marriages forever.
Dad at work, Mom at home.
Those were the days.
But as we all unknowingly sign up for our free-market, capitalist, democratic system, we don’t quite understand/accept that the bottom-line…
…is the almighty dollar.
That this angers some people, because the drive for ‘filthy lucre’ brings on change, change that some don’t want to see, bemuses me.
As much as the loss of each and every cinema treasure saddens me.
But then I also let go heavy sighs when I see a delapidated motel. Or a bowling alley demolished. Or a local bar abandoned. And let’s not even bring up the subject of ‘ghost towns’.
If you really want to stop so much change from happening…change the value system.
But that’s a quest that’s far beyond this commentator’s abilities, in either poetry or prose.
Remember though, that if you’re not part of the ‘solution’, you’re part of the problem.
Well, if we’re admitting tongue-in-cheekedness, then I’ll ‘fess-up to mine, about being willing to pay to have a more expanded arena for discussion.
I don’t pay for the opportunity to discuss online, anywhere. I only pay for access to sites where I’m getting something I can’t get anywhere else…and even then, it’s gotta be something really exclusive.
I don’t think that the benefits of an attached ‘message board’ setup to Cinema Treasures will ever happen, because I sense it’s outside the scope of what the owners here believe to be important.
But the problem here isn’t one of information. Let’s keep the issues straight. The one is of accuracy, the other of civility. The posts I’ve read that are contentious, the inflammatory ones, the ones that brought about this present situation are, admittedly rare. But they’re so out of place on this site. Think about it; we’re not talking about a site where we’re discussing sports. Or religion. Or politics. Ostensibly, each of the CT listings should really only contain substantive information on that cinema. However…
Here’s my take on ‘When good listings turn bad’: people like being here. They like being somewhere there’s commonality. There’s a certain comfort. And somewhere along the line, the comfort starts becoming something expansive…you want to talk about more than just the precise history of the cinema. You want to talk about things connected to the listing…but maybe not quite. But these are not forums. They’re historical descriptions. And most of what turns into contentious situations should never have started in the wrong place…but there’s nowhere else for the rambunctious ones to play. So windows get broken. Cats get kicked. Slurs get tossed around. Mayhem ensues.
Bad behaviour is bad behaviour. But I do believe there should be a place on this site for more animated, less ‘listings-driven’ discussion. To say ‘go elsewhere’ is not a reasonable option. There’s a clear need here; this need should be considered, not dismissed out of hand because it’s no in line with the site owners' original intent.
I think my $10/month for my subscription to IMDb.com for unfettered, wide-ranging discussions about all-things-flimic is worth it, as is the money I spend at sports forums and screenwriting discussion group sites, etc. I mean, good exchanges are worth these subscription fees, right? ‘Put your money where your mouth is’ and all that.
Who says the Internet should be free, anyway? If you’re sitting at a cafe or in a bar exchanging views, you’ve got to effectively pay to be there, so I’m up for shelling out some dough to be able to freely discuss stuff about cinema treasures.
The theatre owners won’t be part of the ‘negotiations’. Because there won’t be any. You can only have negotiations when each side has something to offer.
And what you refer to as ‘direct to video’ is the category commonly known as ‘this is a piece of crap and not worth sending to the cinemas’. That’s not what simultaneous releasing is about.
You’re stuck on cinematic release as being the standard. It’s going to lose its cachet when it’s not the only means of ‘opening day’ access. I know this is a tough concept to grasp, but we’re talking about cinematic release not being the benchmark. The only thing that’s gonna matter under these circumstances is sales. Ticket sales at the cinema, download sales online and and hard-copy sales in stores.
re: longislandmovies' response:
Uh, no.
No, no, no.
And unfortunately, I feel in re-opening this ‘discussion’, I’m somehow more aligned with ‘mr txt’ from the other thread, the 23 year old who claims to be more on top of how things have changed, not only in a technological sense, but where habits are concerned, too. I know this isn’t actually the case, it’s more that I’m -seemingly- a little more aware of how things are in fact changing in terms of peoples' entertainment profiles.
To wit, lately, time and again recently, I’ve been staggered by how different so many peoples' film viewing habits have changed. That is, what they regard to be the default, what’s normal for them. (Just to clarify, I’m a hard-core film-goer. I see between 150 and 200 films a year at the cinema. I don’t watch movies on a television, I’m not interested in doing that; I’m far too enamoured with the cinema-going experience, with watching movies in ‘cathedrals of film’…which is why I’m on this site in the first place.)
I spend a lot of time online having discussions on film sites, on technology sites, on screenwriting sites, and engaged in general Life discussions that quite often include movie-talk. As I say, I’m constantly amazed how vast numbers of people no longer regard going to a cinema to see a just-released film as being their default. I’m constantly having people tell me that no, they have no desire to put up with the expense, the bad viewing experiences, the hassles of actually getting out to see a movie in a cinema… Their ‘default’ then, is to wait for the DVD months after cinematic release and watch it in the comfort of their own home. And I guess I should say here that this is not just a ‘generational’ thing. I’m talking about people who fall within the 30-65 age bracket.
Now, each time I hear this, I think ‘How bizarre! These people are so different from me!’ But they’re not blips. They’re not anomolies. They’re everywhere. And the trend is growing. (Please, don’t quote BO numbers, because when they’re brought up, they’re not being compared with the rest of the revenue pie…and this is what you simply have to bring into the discussion to properly examine the trends. Take a look at these two sites to better acquaint yourself: Edward Jay Epstein’s site -check out the five separate pages he has here- as well as this one.)
I’ve read that the theatrical viewing portion of the film business is a very fragile thing. That as little as a 6% drop can be considered ‘calamitous’. (Apparently the last dip, within the past decade, was only of this size, but a large number of screens were lost in North America as a result. And of course, this is usually where the ‘We’re overscreened!’ argument gets injected…) The prospect of simultaneous release indicates a much larger drop than this. Why? Because there are a ton of people out there for whom the only reason to go to a cinema for their film viewing…is for the odd ‘new release’. Otherwise, they prefer to wait for the DVD. And up to now, the only place you’ve been able to see a ‘new release’ film is at a cinema.
This would change with simultaneous releases. It would be the first time ever that someone would have an option regarding a film that’s opening now.
So, if there’s a portion of the population that would, given the option, watch a new release in the comfort of their home (their usual means of film-watching anyway), this will affect the industry. And because this portion is so obviously greater than the 6% I’ve mentioned, it means that the effect would be… Well, let’s just say that things will never be the same again. (I’d love to actually discuss this issue, but as there’s no forum on this site and I’ve already hijacked this news item’s discussion, I’ll leave off there.)
Think about it: when it becomes possible for ‘Hollywood’ to make money in a way where there’s less overhead, where there’s less of a middle-man than there currently is, why wouldn’t they begin to migrate to this business model? What matters to them is revenue. How it’s generated… That’s not of a consideration at all.
But of course, this isn’t the case with the cinema owners/operators. If they lose their monopoly on ‘new releases’, then everything changes. But really, cinemas are mostly powerless in this predicament. They don’t control the product they ‘sell’. They don’t dictate the subject matter, the quality, the variety… They are, for the most part, at the mercy of ‘Hollywood’ to accept what’s given them. What’s the alternative, when studios begin simultaneously releasing new flicks? There is no ‘other’ supplier.
Will there always be cinemas? Of course! But without the monopoly of ‘new releases’, both the chains and indies are going to be fighting for a smaller and smaller piece of the revenue pie. And why should ‘Hollywood’ care about this? Sure, there’s tradition and history and nostalgia involved, but so what? ‘Hollywood’ isn’t about the heart. It’s about the ka-ching. (Obviously, if we still lived in a world where ‘Hollywood’ owned the cinemas, we’d be talking an entirely different set of circumstances. But that relationship changed decades ago with the divestiture of the studios' cinemas.)
The full extent of what I’m talking about here has already been initiated. Apple’s imminent iTV unit, a bridge between your computer and your HD-TV set, their iTunes store selling DVDs, Amazon.com’s new ‘Unbox’ DVD service, the whispered-about synergistic arrangement between Apple and Wal-Mart, the fact that Microsoft has long wanted to be the one to bring cohesion to home entertainment systems… All of these developments are merely the tip of the iceberg. Many, many people want to watch their films in their home. They do not want to go out to the cinema. They have no desire to go out to the cinema. These are consumers with money to spend that do not want to spend it in a cinema, they want to take this money and ‘invest’ it in a ‘new release’ movie download/purchase/rental that they can enjoy in the comfort of their own home.
I concede that what I’ve proposed here is speculation. But it’s informed speculation that can be confirmed by a little time spent investigating online. The cinema chains/owners don’t want to talk about any of this; it’s all bad news to them. ‘Hollywood’ doesn’t want to talk about it, because there are simply too many bugs to iron out yet, in terms of transport, delivery, copyright protection, yadda, yadda, yadda. But to think that it’s not coming, to resist the very consideration of this wholesale shift in ‘movie-viewing default’ is…well, put kindly and in as genteel a way as I can, ‘ill-advised’.
Think about this: How do you think the idea of people carrying around minuscule music players that store 10,000 songs, or kids as young as six or seven having their own cell phones, or cars having GPS navigation and video players as standard equipment would have been regarded a decade, fifteen years ago?
Further, how do you think the prospect of someone being able to watch a movie anywhere other than at a cinema would have been regarded fifty, sixty, seventy years ago?
All of what I’ve proposed is coming. It merely needs to be revealed as to how…and when. And because money’s involved, don’t be surprised when it happens sooner than predicted.
P.S. I do want to clarify that ‘simultaneous release’ doesn’t mean ‘skipping a theatrical release’. That’s another possibility entirely.
I shared this article with a friend and his reaction was to sniff that- Well, I’ll cut-and-paste some of his thoughts, because they’re very much those of a non-CT member and I found them intriguing:
“I guess what irks me is exactly the "it’s my ball, so i’m going home” kind of feeling here, coupled with the effect of paternalism — the “it’s not good enough for me, so therefore, it’s not good enough for you” sensation. what makes me angry is the way that this totally subjective judgement is cloaked in OBJECTIVE-ly loaded language. The implication here is not just that “I” don’t think these films are good enough to show, but that, objectively-speaking, they are trash & unworthy of viewing. I’m not sure i’m quite explaining that fully, but it’s the purely subjective judgment masquerading as objective “truth” — the recording should really have said “because we don’t think these films deserve viewing” rather than “because of such poor film choices,” which is a small but significantly different statement — that makes me cry foul. it also seems to me to be a over-simplified & childish way to operate in what is, essentially, a populist & consumer-driven business. too harsh, maybe — but the one thing guaranteed to drive me to premature harshness is condescension, the whiff of which is unmistakable here."
As for me, I do admire his ‘My way or the highway’, but I hardly think he exhausted his options, so in a way, it comes off as a smidgen ‘spiteful’.
To end this, I am compelled to respond to longislandmovies' first suggestion: simultaneous release is coming, the set-pieces are being moved about as we speak (Amazon.com, Apple, Wal-Mart; check out Mark Cuban’s blog that often deals with this arena: http://www.blogmaverick.com/)) and when it’s implemented, then we’ll see wholesale changes in the industry. It may yet be some time off, years perhaps, but ‘boycotting’ films or studios for this practice will, at best, be a Pyrrhic victory: Hollywood hasn’t ever, doesn’t currently, and never will care where its revenues come from. They may squeal a bit about the associative non-theatrical issues along the way, but in the end, if they can get a large portion of their opening-day $$$ receipts via downloads and hard-copy sales as opposed cinemas, then so be it. The money is all that matters to them.
regarding TxtMsgOhNoooooesss… and his incredibly insightful contributions that lead off with:
“After reading everyone’s responses it sounds like you guys are living in the past. I’m 23 years old and guess what… it’s going to the movies. There is no "magical cinema experience in cinema land.” The “talkies” are long since past. If you actually believe that, then I guess I should break it to you now that Santa Clause isn’t real either. Cry more please. QQ"
I know we have recently had a moratorium on combative exchanges, but I’ll tell ya… This ‘person’ sure makes me want to- Well, I’ll try to restrain myself in my response.
TxtMsg, you may be 23, you may be on your way to having a well-paid career, but the maturity you display in your comments… Well, I know that if you and I’d had a conversation as 23 year olds, I’m sure I would have thought something like ‘Grow the hell up.’
I found it hilarious that someone would jump onto a comments board and basically prove everything that’s been pointed out regarding what’s lacking in today’s cinema-goers. You may not actually behave like a twit in cinemas, but clearly, as you feel the need to declare the power of your generation, you’re cut from the same cloth.
Of course, the most amusing comment had to be “Why do you think so many young people laugh/mock at older crowds?”, because it’s not going to be very long before ‘young people’ are laughing at you, my friend. You may feel that you have more in common right now with teenagers, but seriously; you’re gonna be ancient before you know it.
Your opinions are your own, but really, you should learn some manners. Obviously, being of a ‘younger’ generation, one that spends an undue portion of its time ‘reaching out and touching people’ via the keyboard, your tactics and your mindset online tend to be more aggressive, less conciliatory, and certainly have less to do with thought than with emotion. But really, take a look at the profile of this site. It’s not IMDb. It’s not designed to be a venue for verbal slugfests. It’s a repository for cinema histories and fairly genteel exchanges about cinema-going. The tone here is not the same as it might be elsewhere…and this isn’t a generational thing; it’s a question of appropriate behaviour.
And seriously, don’t get me started on your proprietary attitude about cinemas, your ‘It’s OUR world now, so you’d best just get your Adult Depends untwisted and settle in for the way WE want things.’ Hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t work that way…until you start owning the facilities in question. And judging by the way you conduct yourself in the simplest of exchanges, that ain’t gonna be anytime soon.
To my fellow CT regulars, my apologies for letting doltish intrusions get the better of me. My only defence is that my response in-person is much worse.
Times have changed. And most change happens by degree. In this discussion we’re really talking about how people are more concerned about getting what they want and not being considerate of others…and what I call ‘disassociation’, the habit of not really being where you actually are through the use of a cell phone or an MP3 player.
-the use of Walkmans and MP3 players mean that ambient sound is being battered by spillage from headphones in buses, subways, trains, in elevators and restaurants
-the fact that cell phone conversations take place where previously, they simply weren’t possible. (Did you see the recent video of the professor grabbing the cell phone of a student during a lecture and throwing it to the floor? He didn’t miss a beat, continued on with the lecture…)
-I suspect people have generally lost touch with how to behave in certain situations, and that by default, they’re bringing in their ‘home’ behaviour or their default social habits. (I’m not a church-goer, but I’d be curious to know if it’s been affected by this trend. Probably not, because God makes a pretty imposing hall monitor…) Maybe stadium sports have survived unscathed…but I also know that golf has been affected by a shift in ‘rules of decorum’. (Naturally, it depends where you stand in this particular debate: with the traditionalists, or with those who see the Tiger Woods of the sport as being due enthusiasm on the links commensurate with boxing champs.)
I think that when cinemas began losing their monopoly on being the source for movie entertainment (I’d only just recently been reminded of the impact of the ‘Movie of the Week’ on tv some 30+ years ago), the ‘specialness’ of the movie-going experience began to decay. When movie palaces and nabes were replaced by multiplexes, this situation just got worse. How ‘special’ can a film be to a younger generation when they can watch it on their home system in a couple of months, or when most of their viewing takes place not in a cinema, but in front of their tvs via DVD players? (You’d think that this would make going to a cinema once in a while a special thing, and they’d be on their ‘best behaviour’. It apparently doesn’t. This too is part of the short-attention spanned, transient, ever-changing, constantly shifting instant-gratification generation’s profile.)
To me the end result is not only a generation who holds the viewing of films in a cinema in an entirely different light, but because of the uncouthness of these people, others are increasingly saying ‘I’ve had enough! The high price involved with going to a film is bad enough! The hit-and-miss quality of the entertainment adds to the downside! But these idiots who don’t care about anyone else’s viewing pleasure… That’s it! I’m staying home! Never again!’ You can’t make people be polite in general. But you can insist that a ticket-holder respect others within the cinema. And this is why I’m glad this issue is getting some attention. Because it’s only going to get worse…unless the cinemas do something about it. So Hurrah! to this particular cinema and I hope that others get the message.
<steps off soapbox>
Actually, longislandmovies, you’re right…but it’s even more different than that: there is not only no sense of ‘respect’ or ‘reverence’ for the setting (the cinema), but hardly any for the film being watched, either. These ‘kids’ don’t really care about what they’re watching…or they have an entirely different frame of reference. But what do you expect: they’ve grown up mainly getting their movie experiences at home, where they can talk on the phone, gab with each other… Movies are disposable to them. They certainly do not have the same place in their lives that they did when we were growing up…
jwr, this is exactly my point. Cinemas have essentially allowed these circumstances to unfold because, to be truthful, they exist in a very passive customer service universe. To me, they simply took their eye off the ball a few years ago and it’s only gotten worse ever since. They’ve done little to actually protect the cinema-going experience…and as a result, more and more people are bound to feel the way you do at the conclusion of your post. And you know what? I don’t blame you at all.
What’s missing is a sense of decorum on the part of some cinema-goers and a sense responsibility on the part of the cinemas. The cinema people may not control the product they show, but they sure as heck control the overall experience more than they’d like to admit.
Thing is, it’s not just cell phones. It’s the fact that ‘these people’ (put them under what ever demographic banner you feel comfortable with) see going to a film in an entirely different way.
Many people often remark about ‘the good old days’, when going to a cinema and seeing a film meant something entirely different, when cinemas were palaces. Treasures, if you will. : )
That’s not the case with ‘these people’; they’re just as happy to watch films at home. Which is why using a cell phone is no big dilemma for them. Or taking a call. Or MAKING a call. Ot talking through the film. There’s nothing ‘special’ to them about seeing a film in a cinema.
Turning the ship around at this point (as far as viewing habits go) is a tough quest. But I’m glad to hear that someone has shown some initiative. Maybe there’s hope yet.
Ah, Mr Subtle, but it starts with incidents like this. The thin edge of the wedge, as they say.
(Did we have one too many bowls of CrankyFlakes this morning? (Maybe with some WiseAcre sprinkles on top for good measure?)
I don’t think most cinemas/chains realize how much they’ve contributed to more and more people being fed up with what they have to contend with. I don’t think they’ve ever grasped the importance of them ensuring a proper viewing experience for those who want to watch a movie in silence, because they’ve never been forced to recognize when people just stop coming. They tend to blame drop-offs in attendance to the menu Hollywood is providing at the time.
Good to see that someone’s aware of the potential cost of these boors in the audience. Hurray!
I second that.
If cinemas want to ensure their patrons keep coming, they have to take more responsibility regarding the ne'er-do-wells. Lord knows these miscreants aren’t getting more considerate as the years march on. (The audience members, not the cinema owners.)
Gosh, how old are you two?!? (Jim and Ken)
: )
OK, I’ll bite. ‘The chain cinemas are doomed by their greed’, and the indies will ‘die as the mega-buck chains slowly starve them to death’. What’s gonna be left? Granted nobody’s actually yet commented on what the article shows to be efforts on the parts of cinemas to survive, but I’ll ask this question anyway: how do you see things unfolding over the next two decades?
Note to longislandmovies: Do I get any points at all for showing my -clearly ardent- faithfulness to cinema-going?
OK, maybe I’m being stubborn…but I cannot understand the enmity towards what’s put up on the screen before the trailers and the movie. Who cares?!? Are you protesting against advertising? Sorry, but as a die-hard tv-disdainer, I find this attitude (quite common amongst cinema-goers who, by-and-large, are also those who make tv a part of their day-to-day lives) to be hypocritical. After all, when you break it down, tv is nothing more than an advertising medium that just happens to have entertainment between the commercial breaks. Having spent years away from tv, it amazes me that our society seems to accept the fact that a piece of drama or a comedic effort is hacked-up by commercial breaks. At least at the cinema, once the ads are done, they’re done. (Granted, product placement notwithstanding.)
Well and good…
So you’re saying that you’d prefer that cinemas either revert to previous habits…or, instead of adapting to changing times and audience preferences in order to survive, simply close their doors and go away?
You’re welcome.
What I found most intriguing about what he has to say…and there’s more on the rest of his site devoted to the film industry…is Point #3, ‘How Studios Make Money’.
People read and hear certain truths as provided by Hollywood by way of the Internet, newspapers, the television entertainment shows, but the entire picture is hardly ever provided. This chart speaks volumes; I’d bet most people would be shocked as to how Hollywood actually earns its $$$ these days.
John, here’s an interesting link you might find shines some light on BO and all that…
And now, without further ado, sctheaters' apology to all the CT members for being such a self-involved pain in the keester through all this:
Please.
Someone.
Please.
(I think I just laughed so hard I had an accident. Oh, well; it was worth it.)
BTW; does any of this strike anyone as being just a little like ‘I know you are, but what am I?!?’
(When is that recess bell gonna ring?!?)
This thread has been…well, both fascinating…and embarrassing. (And all the more ironic, because I don’t think that the main proponent in it was the impetus behind the reminder from the CT powers-that-be.)
Fascinating because here, right in front of us, is Human Nature at its unseemliest. It’s like…well, it’s been like watching drunk gals catfight. (Maybe only one of them, to be precise.)
Embarrassing because really, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE ISSUE BEING ‘DISCUSSED’!
And, if I may be so bold, it’s been incredibly rude of sctheaters to go on and on and on and on about this, constantly edging out of the room while ducking back in yelling ‘And another thing! I don’t care what you think about me, but here’s what I think, anyway!!!’
Thank goodness that this (and the aforementioned Big Four pages) are blips on this site and for the most part, people act like adults and don’t essentally, pass gas in an enclosed space.
Can we please see an end to this approaching…sometime soon…?
And this end should start with an apology. Not even so much to the site owners, but to those of us who have been passively part of what’s unfolded. Yes, we’re all free to ignore this crap. But that’s ignoring the bigger issues of civility and consideration. It really does remind me of an unruly schoolyard.
Good Lord; I sure hope kids haven’t been raised by some of the perpetrators…
Ah, that’s nothing. Go to the Big Four pages on this site and you’ll see some really pathetic threads…
So what’s the latest for the Wheaton Grand Theater, etc?
Family dinners.
Neighbourhoods.
Respect for elders and authority.
LIfe-long job security.
Church-going, God-fearing.
Marriages forever.
Dad at work, Mom at home.
Those were the days.
But as we all unknowingly sign up for our free-market, capitalist, democratic system, we don’t quite understand/accept that the bottom-line…
…is the almighty dollar.
That this angers some people, because the drive for ‘filthy lucre’ brings on change, change that some don’t want to see, bemuses me.
As much as the loss of each and every cinema treasure saddens me.
But then I also let go heavy sighs when I see a delapidated motel. Or a bowling alley demolished. Or a local bar abandoned. And let’s not even bring up the subject of ‘ghost towns’.
If you really want to stop so much change from happening…change the value system.
But that’s a quest that’s far beyond this commentator’s abilities, in either poetry or prose.
Remember though, that if you’re not part of the ‘solution’, you’re part of the problem.
Well, if we’re admitting tongue-in-cheekedness, then I’ll ‘fess-up to mine, about being willing to pay to have a more expanded arena for discussion.
I don’t pay for the opportunity to discuss online, anywhere. I only pay for access to sites where I’m getting something I can’t get anywhere else…and even then, it’s gotta be something really exclusive.
I don’t think that the benefits of an attached ‘message board’ setup to Cinema Treasures will ever happen, because I sense it’s outside the scope of what the owners here believe to be important.
And there is always CinemaTour…
But the problem here isn’t one of information. Let’s keep the issues straight. The one is of accuracy, the other of civility. The posts I’ve read that are contentious, the inflammatory ones, the ones that brought about this present situation are, admittedly rare. But they’re so out of place on this site. Think about it; we’re not talking about a site where we’re discussing sports. Or religion. Or politics. Ostensibly, each of the CT listings should really only contain substantive information on that cinema. However…
Here’s my take on ‘When good listings turn bad’: people like being here. They like being somewhere there’s commonality. There’s a certain comfort. And somewhere along the line, the comfort starts becoming something expansive…you want to talk about more than just the precise history of the cinema. You want to talk about things connected to the listing…but maybe not quite. But these are not forums. They’re historical descriptions. And most of what turns into contentious situations should never have started in the wrong place…but there’s nowhere else for the rambunctious ones to play. So windows get broken. Cats get kicked. Slurs get tossed around. Mayhem ensues.
Bad behaviour is bad behaviour. But I do believe there should be a place on this site for more animated, less ‘listings-driven’ discussion. To say ‘go elsewhere’ is not a reasonable option. There’s a clear need here; this need should be considered, not dismissed out of hand because it’s no in line with the site owners' original intent.
Good suggestion.
I think my $10/month for my subscription to IMDb.com for unfettered, wide-ranging discussions about all-things-flimic is worth it, as is the money I spend at sports forums and screenwriting discussion group sites, etc. I mean, good exchanges are worth these subscription fees, right? ‘Put your money where your mouth is’ and all that.
Who says the Internet should be free, anyway? If you’re sitting at a cafe or in a bar exchanging views, you’ve got to effectively pay to be there, so I’m up for shelling out some dough to be able to freely discuss stuff about cinema treasures.
Sign me up!