Shared Theatrical Experience?

[Joel Kaye]

Am I the only one who thinks the "shared theatrical experience" industry people like to talk about is complete movie marketing BS?

It's safe to say I get more enjoyment out of most movies in my living room with my HDTV and an uprezzing DVD player going through my killer stereo as I do the local multiplex.

Comedies might be the exception. That's one genre where I understand the shared laughter helps. I could have a true "shared experience" with a nice conversation afterwards IF there was a place I could view movies with a small group of relatively like minded friends/strangers. Maybe coffee shops or other business will spring up and show OUR movies that way. Hollywood might never let them.

At the multiplex I NEVER have a shared experience. It's just me and whoever I went with alone in the dark thinking "I can believe I paid $8 for this popcorn. Shut that kid up. The right half the screen is soft. There's one of the piracy tracking marks. I wish I could hit pause and take a pee right now. OMG, there's a half empty theater and this tall guy comes in late and sits right in front of me?! What's that smell? I can't believe I just spilled $4 of popcorn on the floor".

Other than egocentric filmmakers (ok, that's redundant), this complete BS is perpetuated by people that have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive. The studios and theater owners that own this distribution channel. Additionally, the value of a DVD is massively impacted by its theatrical release.

How many movies do you guys watch in the theater vs. home? I might see one a month in the theater. I rent or buy the rest. But you FIND OUT about a lot of movies when they make their theatrical run. You see the poster and say "I'll rent that one". That's just what they hoped you'd say.

SIDEBAR IN 3D:
Why do you think 3D has come around AGAIN? (how many times are they are going to try to revive this dog?) Secretly, they actually know your home theater kicks butt because theirs is a lot better than yours... so they are trying to put lipstick on the multiplex pig by hyping 3D.

Personally, 3D gives me a headache every time. If 3D was ACTUALLY cool we'd have 3D still photos everywhere and everyone would keep 3D glasses with them all the time so we could share 3D pictures on our iPods down at the bar... but we don't. You know why? It's not pleasing to look at for long. 3D will be fine fun for some really big action blockbusters but it won't save the multiplexes and studios from their inevitable decline over the next 20 years. It's their current best hope though... so get ready for the 3D hype. (you don't really want to see "Tender Mercies" in 3D now do you?)

I'm gonna go pop in a DVD now.

[Jeremy Teman]

I don't think it's so much the "shared theatrical experience". I think for most people it's just a good social spot to get out of the house and enjoy something. It's along the same lines as going to lunch or dinner, or going to watch sports.

Plus, once in a while you get a good theatre that is focused properly and they actually have the sound turned up a bit and it's awessome..

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm a firm believer in shared experience.

Watching Blades of glory by myself isn't even half as hillarious as when 10 people around you are dieing of laughter as well.

We're social creatures if people around you are reacting (properly) then it just amplifies the movie going experience.

If the people around you are a distraction... well then... time to find a new theater.

[Joel Kaye]

I'm a firm believer in shared experience.

Watching Blades of glory by myself isn't even half as hillarious as when 10 people around you are dieing of laughter as well.

If the people around you are a distraction... well then... time to find a new theater.

Like I said - comedies are the big exception. I saw Borat in a filled theater and it was hilarious - partly due to the reactions of others.

I think your "find a new theater" idea is what I want. I want a completely redesigned theatrical experience that's more intimate. Just a cool hangout that shows movies but that's not the only thing you can do. The multiplexes (at least in my area) don't offer anything like that.

[M Most]

Am I the only one who thinks the "shared theatrical experience" industry people like to talk about is complete movie marketing BS?.....How many movies do you guys watch in the theater vs. home? ... so they are trying to put lipstick on the multiplex pig by hyping 3D. ....it won't save the multiplexes and studios from their inevitable decline over the next 20 years.

I guess you haven't noticed that 2007 is likely to be the highest grossing year for theatrical motion pictures in history. To date, 19 pictures have made over $100 million each, with four of them over $300 million and another 3 over $200 million. So far (and it's only the beginning of September - we haven't gotten to Thanksgiving or Christmas yet) this year's box office is over $5.5 Billion. This year's box office is up almost 10% over last year, and last year was up over 5% from the year before that. That's a hell of a lot of tickets for something that you think is in an inevitable decline.

[Joel Kaye]

That's a hell of a lot of tickets for something that you think is in an inevitable decline.

My main point was that I think the theatrical experience could be much improved. I also did say "over the next 20 years". I don't think the decline has even begun to start yet - and your numbers would indicate that's the case.

When you look at DVD sales and rentals vs. theatrical sales I think those numbers indicate many more people are watching at home. Yeah - 70+% prefer viewing movies at home. My guess is that will increase as options for high quality home viewing expand...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/313/increasingly-americans-prefer-going-to-the-movies-at-home

You raise a really interesting train of thought though. Gross dollars is one thing. Cost is the other half of that equation. Hollywood spent more money than ever making movies. I think Transformers is 100 million in the red once P&A and theater take is considered.

Since all the movie profit these days is actually in home viewing and merchandising will indie content compete with Hollywood ever? We've got a much better chance of beating them at home than we do the theater that's for sure.

I'm guessing the massive amount of high quality content produced by RED and similar technology combined with the advancement of low cost VFX technology along with HD distribution into the home and non multiplex theatrical viewing options over the Internet will be the key factors in the decline of the majors and the rise of the indies... that'll take quite a few years to really get into place. But that's where you could see money shift away from Hollywood and towards the "Long Tail" of good content that will be produced in the next 20 years.

Perhaps Hollywood only needs 10 really bigass movies a year to sustain the cash cow indefinitely. But a series of bombs could really hurt a studio.

[Jason Murphy]

Am I the only one who thinks the "shared theatrical experience" industry people like to talk about is complete movie marketing BS?

It's safe to say I get more enjoyment out of most movies in my living room with my HDTV and an uprezzing DVD player going through my killer stereo as I do the local multiplex.

Comedies might be the exception. That's one genre where I understand the shared laughter helps. I could have a true "shared experience" with a nice conversation afterwards IF there was a place I could view movies with a small group of relatively like minded friends/strangers. Maybe coffee shops or other business will spring up and show OUR movies that way. Hollywood might never let them.

At the multiplex I NEVER have a shared experience. It's just me and whoever I went with alone in the dark thinking "I can believe I paid $8 for this popcorn. Shut that kid up. The right half the screen is soft. There's one of the piracy tracking marks. I wish I could hit pause and take a pee right now. OMG, there's a half empty theater and this tall guy comes in late and sits right in front of me?! What's that smell? I can't believe I just spilled $4 of popcorn on the floor".

Other than egocentric filmmakers (ok, that's redundant), this complete BS is perpetuated by people that have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive. The studios and theater owners that own this distribution channel. Additionally, the value of a DVD is massively impacted by its theatrical release.

How many movies do you guys watch in the theater vs. home? I might see one a month in the theater. I rent or buy the rest. But you FIND OUT about a lot of movies when they make their theatrical run. You see the poster and say "I'll rent that one". That's just what they hoped you'd say.


I'm going to have to disagree with much of your original post here, Joelnet. I'm a firm believer in watching movies in a theater. You may get more enjoyment out of watching a movie on your HDTV at home, but that doesn't mean that watching a movie in the theater is marketing BS (even if it does get sold that way from time to time).

Now, I'll agree that the state of most multiplexes is atrocious, and most of the crowds at the movies are even worse. There are, however, two multiplexes within about 20 minutes of my place that have very good (film) projection and sound on most of their screens (and about five other multiplexes that are total crap). So if I'm going to go watch a multiplex movie, I go to one of those two theaters at a time I know I'm not going to run into a lot of people (i.e. after opening weekend, weekday nights, Saturday mornings, etc). Like you, the only type of movie I'll try to find a good crowd for is a comedy.

That said, when I'm going to a theater, I'm more often than not going to see films at festivals, revival houses, art house theaters, and film screenings on college campuses. Sure, there are some of these that have terrible projection or atrocious theater spaces (like the Angelika in NYC where the theaters vibrate every 3 minutes when a subway train goes past); these should be avoided like the plague. Many times, however, these venues are run by people who really love both movies and the theatrical experience, and want to see good movies projected well. Also, the crowds are generally much, much better. At some of these places, a cell phone going off is just about grounds for a lynching (admittedly, a little bit overboard, but hey, keeps people quiet). Festival prints also tend to be of significantly higher quality than your typical multiplex print.

But I don't necessarily go to the theater for a shared experience (though it's a good thing - I have a few film friends that make almost any screening or post screening discussion better by their very presence). I generally go because seeing a movie in a theater is a qualitatively different experience from seeing it on a TV (HD or no), and almost any good movie is made better by seeing it in a theater even if one is alone. Some of the best movies just don't work on TV the same way they do in theaters.

I'd say this is a result of 3 factors:
1) Screen size (and to some extent, projection quality)
2) A completely darkened room
3) The inability to pause/rewind/fast forward

1) A 70" SXRD HDTV is great and all, but there's still an order of magnitude's difference size-wise between that screen and one that is 15-25 feet tall. And to have the moving image fill my field of view like a theater, even with a 70" TV, I'd have to sit about 3 feet away from the screen.

What the larger screen does is reconfigure your sense of space, and as a result, one's spatial sense of the movie. Images and cuts have a completely different emotional and even physical impact on the viewer on a big screen. One of the clearest examples I can come up with off the top of my head would be toward the beginning of Lawrence of Arabia, when Lawrence is playing with a lit match. In extreme close up, he blows out the match and the screen immediately cuts to a vast shot of the evening desert, the land silhouetted, and the sky blood red. On TV, you might admire the cut, but to see it on 70mm is completely different. It's an absolutely overwhelming experience, one that I have never seen replicated at home. A similar thing happens to close-ups. They take on a qualitatively different significance (with far more impact) on a big screen than on a TV, especially if they're judiciously used.

2) Completely darkened room: combined with #1, this basically compels you to focus all your attention on the screen. And in my experience, you watch things in a different way when you completely focus. At home, you can easily look around, see the clock on the wall, perhaps some glare off the screen, glance across the cover of the magazine you have lying around, etc. As a result, you won't pay attention to so many little nuances of light, performance and rhythm in the movie, which for many of the best movies are an integral part of the experience.

3) Many people may see the inability to pause/rewind/fast forward a movie as a really negative thing, but when it comes to seeing a movie, especially for the first time, it isn't. Any great movie will have a distinct rhythm and pace of its own. Pausing to get up, get yourself a drink, go to the bathroom, make a phone call, etc. can really destroy the pacing of a movie, and in the worst cases, this can ruin the emotional flow of the entire movie. Now, most major blockbusters you'll see won't be nearly as affected by this, because they're more or less designed to simply hold onto any audience's attention from scene to scene, with little care for overall formal and emotional coherence. But in a movie by Dreyer, Antonioni, Bresson, or Tarkovsky, for example, the rhythm of the movie is deeply tied to its emotional core, and pausing can destroy both.

(Don't get me wrong here; I love the ability to pause/rewind/chapter skip, etc. It's great for later on studying and rewatching great scenes or certain moments, but it can wreck a movie if you're seeing it like that for the first time).

The upshot of this is that not being able to pause forces you to pay attention to, or at very least, experience the movie's proper pacing. Combined with #1 & #2, and assuming that the audience you're with isn't completely distracting, this makes you experience a movie very differently in a theater than at home.

*****

Lest I be accused of hating TVs or DVDs or home theaters, let it be known that I watch a ton of movies on DVD, mainly because it's the only way to see most of the movies I care about. (As an aside, I've personally found that watching movies lying down with my laptop on my chest and headphones on in a dark room most closely approximates a theater experience for me).

All this said, it also depends on what movies you watch. Many, if not most, movies that come out of Hollywood these days are essentially composed for viewing on televisions, since DVD is such a huge market; it's rare to see movies that are really composed for viewing on the big screen any more. Sadly, that's most of what's available at multiplexes, so it's kind of a problem.

[Joel Kaye]

Lest I be accused of hating TVs or DVDs or home theaters, let it be known that I watch a ton of movies on DVD, mainly because it's the only way to see most of the movies I care about.

That was a great post Jason. Frankly - I think your arguments are right overall, but especially for a true movie aficionado. (You still agreed with me about the multiplex's...and you also make an argument for indie theaters)

You reminded me of my favorite theater experiences. I remember seeing Hedwig at an art house 4 different times with these awesome gay filled crowds (I don't happen to be gay) - but everyone was so into it. That was a cool shared experience. That's why I went 4 friggin times. I go to local IFP screening of movies too and that's not bad.

Maybe I'm a freak.

I guess I'm wishing there was a way to recreate that festival crowd you mentioned on a more regular basis. You know - what if there was a innovative art house theater with digital projection that held special event viewings. My great hope is in the indie theaters... and if there was a way to digitally distribute our RED movies to those theaters then maybe we could take some market share from Hollywood.

Maybe I'm a dreamer.

[Dean Bull]

I guess you haven't noticed that 2007 is likely to be the highest grossing year for theatrical motion pictures in history. To date, 19 pictures have made over $100 million each, with four of them over $300 million and another 3 over $200 million. So far (and it's only the beginning of September - we haven't gotten to Thanksgiving or Christmas yet) this year's box office is over $5.5 Billion. This year's box office is up almost 10% over last year, and last year was up over 5% from the year before that. That's a hell of a lot of tickets for something that you think is in an inevitable decline.
To further clarify this statement... although the gross is the highest its ever been the actual number of tickets sold was LESS then previous years. The increase is attributed to... higher ticket prices, and a string of well established franchise films. So less people bought more tickets for less films at a higher price, this is the current state of the theatrical biz. (or, to be more clear, fewer overall tickets were sold at a higher price, but this audience generally saw only the franchise pictures)

Generally speaking the film industry (theatrical) has been in decline for YEARS -- but it continues to function due to a number of recent outlets for their library (like DVD's cable, the net)

Additionally -- I wouldn't say the landscape for theatrical films is very friendly to "indies" just because the biz had a banner year -- if anything it means we will see even less diversity / oppurtunity for worthy films to see a theatrical release -- why because the audiences have spoken, right? They want more of last years hit, and please -- don't be too unconventional in the story-telling.

[Joel Kaye]

if anything it means we will see even less diversity / oppurtunity for worthy films to see a theatrical release -- why because the audiences have spoken, right? They want more of last years hit, and please -- don't be too unconventional in the story-telling.

Word.

Welcome to RED. :-)

[Johnny Friday]

....Eek yad. I go to the movies 3x a week. LOVE the BIG SCREEN experience. In fact there is a group of us that trudge along together or alone. We can't get enough......surround sound, giant screen, stadium seating. When it's built well...it's f???ing AWSOME!

....hey don't buy the $5 popcorn and sodas. it all fits in my trench coat.

[David Mullen ASC]

I prefer seeing a movie in the movie theater, especially comedies, which I do think are funnier with an appreciative audience. Anyone who has ever gone to see a Buster Keaton silent era comedy on the big screen with live music and an audience knows how radically better the experience is compared to watching it at home.

Of course, I mean I prefer seeing movies in GOOD theaters. If there are no good theaters in the area, I'd rather watch them on DVD. But in Los Angeles, there are some very nice theaters.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

In the last week or so I've seen in theater:

The Killing, A Clockwork Orange, Spartacus (new restored print) and then tonight Full Metal Jacket. I'd seen Full Metal Jacket before on DVD but all the others were my first viewing.

I know I wouldn't have enjoyed any of the first three nearly as much if I had seen them on DVD first. And what a treat to see Spartacus for the first time on the big screen from a 35mm print... too bad it wasn't a 70mm that would have just been too much.

I don't think the movie experience is limited to comedy. The sad state of things is just that right now we're in the "youtube" phase and if it doesn't make you laugh it's not 'appealing' and the audience is usually dissapointed. If the audience as a whole is dissapointed you're going to be dissapointed but I've also been to opening nights for all of the lord of the rings and the enthusiasm and passion of the audience to see Fellowship when it was first released made it twice as good as it already was.

The theater experience can be a great thing, as long as the audience's heart is in the right place.

[M Most]

To further clarify this statement... although the gross is the highest its ever been the actual number of tickets sold was LESS then previous years. ....Generally speaking the film industry (theatrical) has been in decline for YEARS -- but it continues to function due to a number of recent outlets for their library (like DVD's cable, the net)


The Internet has absolutely no financial bearing on the film industry at this point in time. Any monies generated by electronic distribution have been miniscule at best, in part because the nature of the Internet is and always has been that it's a "license to steal." That's the culture it bred, and the only attempt to really buck that trend that has worked has been ITunes - and that's primarily because Apple priced it right and made it even easier than illegal downloads - not to mention Apple's own uniquely appealing culture. And, of course, because a 3 minute song is small enough as a compressed file to be downloaded very quickly.

As far as individual tickets sold vs. box office totals, it doesn't matter. It isn't about putting the largest number of bodies in the largest number of seats. It's about making the largest number of dollars. If that happens because of slightly higher ticket prices, that's fine as far as the distributors are concerned. The fact is that there was considerable growth in the theatrical business last year and this year, and there was considerably less growth in the DVD business. Granted, there are other factors involved. But I think the point has been made here by others that there is great value to theatrical exhibition of motion pictures, and there will likely continue to be in the future.

[Joel Kaye]

The Internet has absolutely no financial bearing on the film industry at this point in time. Any monies generated by electronic distribution have been miniscule at best, in part because the nature of the Internet

The gaming industry, the Internet and cable etc. all compete for people's TIME - so there is an impact. Perhaps the Internet and Video Gaming are hurting cable or books or another leisure activity more. Or maybe Hollywood would see 5x the ticket sales they are right now if the gaming and internet industries weren't so huge and took so much time.

I don't think I said there was NO value in the shared experience. OTOH I don't think average consumers really go to the multiplex for the shared experience. They go to see the damn movie. Perhaps they go to see it on a killer huge screen with a killer sound system - fine.

Side note: Any distributor will even tell you festival crowds (the shared experience people) are not typical moviegoers.

So ask 100 non-film-industry people what they are going to see next and why and I doubt anyone will start touting "the shared experience". They want to see Johnny Depp as soon as it comes out so they'll be able to talk about it at work or school... I think they are willing to suffer the consequences of an annoying crowd if that's what it takes to get their movie fix. A lot of teens go to movies 'cause there's nothing else to do and they have to be somewhere. That's one reason Hollywood targets that age range.

My point is - the movies themselves, the movie stars, the hype and marketing drive this market... not the shared experience. To the extent the Internet and other things diminish Hollywood's ability to pump stars, promote and hype movie their complete hold on the industry will diminish.

They know it too - look at what the big guys want to do with net neutrality. They want to make sure they continue to control distribution.

[David Mullen ASC]

I, for one, would be very upset if theatrical distribution went away so I don't like arguments that begin under the premise that the theatrical experience is overrated and somehow I'm being "sold" on liking the theatrical experience, as if I don't know what I like.

[donatello b]

i like the whole social thing that goes with going to a movie ...
the planning, driving , waiting in short line , pop corn smell , going out before or after, meeting friends , discussing .... i just don't find the same experience watching a movie at home sitting on the couch ...

[Joel Kaye]

I, for one, would be very upset if theatrical distribution went away so I don't like arguments that begin under the premise that the theatrical experience is overrated and somehow I'm being "sold" on liking the theatrical experience, as if I don't know what I like.

First - I never said the theatrical experience will go away. And I never said you don't know what you like. Heck, I'm on your side really...

I HOPE Hollywood's Multiplex version of it gets some serious competition so we can have BETTER theatrical experiences. I LIKE a good theater, with a good crowd and a good show. Almost exclusively I can say for me those were art house or festival experiences and not the multiplex.

Second - We're SOLD everything. That has no bearing on whether we actually like what we're sold or not. If Hollywood wasn't SELLING you wouldn't be SHOOTING. I don't blame them for selling every angle. They should be, that's their job. It's my job to call BS where I see it 'cause I think it's fun.

Third - You're not an average movie consumer. You make you living in Hollywood. You're a DP. I can't imagine anyone who should love the big screen more than you. I also don't doubt you love just about any movie crowd. This board probably doesn't have a single average movie consumer. Including me... but I don't believe what drives us is the same thing that drives a typical American to the movies.

Unfortunately, more people will see The Astronaut Farmer on DVD than on a big screen...

But - with less expensive 4K projectors and electronic distribution coming I think the theatrical experience is about to get MUCH BETTER. But Hollywood won't alone benefit. I'm hoping for a system that allows Indie theaters to download The Astronaut Farmer and have special high quality screenings for true fans for many years into the future. Hollywood might be OK with that, but they aren't OK with that theater owner showing a true indie movie with no Hollywood player attached.

That's what I hope changes. The Long Tail of indie content being shown in very high quality and directly competing against Hollywood.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

IMO piracy in the US has a significantly smaller impact than most people make it out to be I would wager in respect to television TiVo has done 10x the damage bittorrent has done.

I watch a lot of shows on bittorrent but I also buy a lot of shows and I also pay for cable which I never use because I don't have TiVo. If there was no internet I would start to actually return my Netflix DVDs in a timely manner. :D

Before Napster I listened to the radio. After Napster I started and still just listen to pandora. There are thos who like to own and possess things and there are those who are cheap bastards who find the free no matter the system. I've bought about 5 CDs or so in my life. 4 of them after Napster and one of them on iTunes and I think most people are like me in that the story is far more complex than a "lost sale".

I don't think iTunes has had any effect at all on piracy. I think it has had a small effect on record stores. Personally I think piracy in the US is having an enormous positive influence on sales but the industry just hasn't realized and fully capitalized on it yet... but that* is a whole new can of worms.

[Joel Kaye]

Before Napster I listened to the radio. After Napster I started and still just listen to pandora.

That's the scary trend the music business has seen. Pandora is very cool. And Pandora plays true indie music right along side big label bands. Radio never really did that. Add MySpace to the mix and you've got indie bands growing a big enough of a following to tour and keep all the money themselves. They are saying no to record deals now. They'll hire you to do their video and they'll give it away to promote their live show. All over the Internet.

You might be able to look at the music industry and see the movie industry's future.

In fact - when you really study the current state of very low budget indie movie strategy a lot of moviemakers are starting to change their "Plan A" from get a distribution deal to market and sell direct if possible because the money is better and faster and you retain ownership of the movie.

[Joe Carney]

There is no set factors as to why people do or don't go.
I went to see Ratatouille, and at the end, the entire crowd clapped. Pretty cool.
I went to see Transformers, felt completely ripped off.Once you've seen one Michael Bay film, you've seen them all. But then I don't like movies that are simply one set piece after another. Got fooled by the hype machine, I thought maybe, just maybe this one would be different. Wrong.
I think most people had mixed feelings after seeing it. No clapping, no positive noise from anyone.

Didn't go see Shrek because of overall negative press, same for Spiderman and FF and especially Oceans 13. So good reviews from trusted sources do it for me. I can't afford to check them all out.

The overall view of character oriented narrative films has changed with Cable and premium cable especially. They are the ones suffering the most decline in theaters.
Many feel modern long form episodic TV is superior to a 2 hour theatrical release. Programs like Sopranos, 6 feet under, Big Love, 24, BSG, Heroes, Lost...allow characters to be explored far more thouroughly and people seem to like that. A lot of people had a shared viewing experience with the final episode of The Sopranos.

I remember reading an article last year in Showreel that stated most money is now made in DVD and broadcast, with broadcast being the most profitable. Which is why the studios get scared about other open forms of distribution.

[Zach Nelson]

The reason I don't go to the theater as much as I used to, is the crowd usually sucks -gets on my nerves -won't shut up, etc. And the theater usually has misaligned projectors, screwed up audio levels, and stuff like that.

I don't care about the ticket price, but I'm not your average joe, who probably does mind paying upwards of $75 for a family of 4's night out at the movies.

Plus there's just been a lot of garbage on the screen lately imho.

[Joel Kaye]

Many feel modern long form episodic TV is superior to a 2 hour theatrical release. Programs like Sopranos, 6 feet under, Big Love, 24, BSG, Heroes, Lost...allow characters to be explored far more thouroughly and people seem to like that. A lot of people had a shared viewing experience with the final episode of The Sopranos.

Wait a CABLE shared viewing experience? No theater required? (Some of the best writers in the world write for Cable these days)

I had a nice shared experience watching Crossing the Line at NAB on a relatively small screen and what - 25 people?

If your local sports bar had a seperate movie room with a 4K screen the size of the one at NAB would you go see a movie there instead of the theater? Have a beer, sit on a couch... snuggle with your girl... 30 or 40 other people doing the same thing. Would that be better or worse than the multiplex?

[Sam Druckerman]

Hmmmm, well I have a home theater with 12 ft image.... It's really great.

But, I still prefer to go to the movies to have a shared experience..... And I always will.

[number6]

But - with less expensive 4K projectors and electronic distribution coming I think the theatrical experience is about to get MUCH BETTER. But Hollywood won't alone benefit. I'm hoping for a system that allows Indie theaters to download The Astronaut Farmer and have special high quality screenings for true fans for many years into the future. Hollywood might be OK with that, but they aren't OK with that theater owner showing a true indie movie with no Hollywood player attached.

That's what I hope changes. The Long Tail of indie content being shown in very high quality and directly competing against Hollywood.

Joelnet, I take this to be the crux of your argument, and I agree with you.

[Dean Bull]

I think its safe to say that theaterical release is cool, but it's longetivy is not because its a superior experience, rather its a great forum to throw a three ring circus and brand a movie that will increase it's value throughout its life.

This is something difficult to accomplish home theater style.

The financials to support this are plain as day.

Should theaters go away -- NO! Why, because eventually my kid is going to get old enough to be a pain in the arse and I want some place to send him so me and the wife can relax -- you know, a bit later in life. In front of our 100 inch HDTV....hahahahaha!

[Joel Kaye]

Joelnet, I take this to be the crux of your argument, and I agree with you.

Thanks for deciphering it all. I think I got bored... waiting for my RED.... got another month... :calm:


but it's longetivy is not because its a superior experience, rather its a great forum to throw a three ring circus and brand a movie

Absolutely.

[Joe Carney]

If your local sports bar had a seperate movie room with a 4K screen the size of the one at NAB would you go see a movie there instead of the theater? Have a beer, sit on a couch... snuggle with your girl... 30 or 40 other people doing the same thing. Would that be better or worse than the multiplex?

You mean no rug rats around to intefere with the experience? Cold Beer? Bouncers to throw out the rude ones? Snuggle with my wife? Hell yes that would be better. Since my wife prefers to sit in the middle or back of the theater, the experience wouldn't be much different.

Of course I also could go to one of the big metro plexes and sign up for one of their dinner and a movie packages. They usually sell beer or wine with your meal. Comfortable seating, waiter,....

When I lived in FL, there were local private dinner/movie clubs that got together several times a month.

[Zach Nelson]

When I lived in FL, there were local private dinner/movie clubs that got together several times a month.

now that's an awesome idea