Watching movies in the Cinema: Does movie theatres have their days numbered?

[Sergio Perez]

Recently, on the Hobbit thread, I had an interesting start of discussion with other forum members here about the "Cinema movie watching experience", or, in other words, the experience of watching movies in the Cinema. Some members are advocating the end of the Movie going experience in favor of home theatre and even internet distribution. I think that this is an interesting discussion.

I had a similar discussion about this same topic 10 years ago, with a portuguese broadcast scriptwriter friend and mentor. He was advocating the same, the Home Theatre ending the Multiplex and the conventional Cinema experience. I didn't agree back then and have to say I don't agree today.

Going to the movies is much more than merely "watching" a film: when one goes to the theatre, one is "experiencing" a film in various aspects:

First, It is a social experience. You are experiencing together with a large audience the film and its emotions. With the audience these are amplified as a joint experience, for the good and the bad. When you're experiencing a film in the Theatre, you can "feel" the rest of the audience, something you can't get at home, in your home theatre.

Going to the movies implies going out of your routine, of your regular day to day content watching on your home TV set/projector. As large as your TV or projector is, watching movies on the same place you watch the news, the saturday morning cartoons or your regular soap opera certainly takes out part of the "magic" of watching a movie. Sure, a great film is a great film independent of where it is shown, but the Home Theatre experience cannot beat the Theatre experience in any way- provided, of course, the theatre has decent and current display and sound technology as well as comfortable seating.

The second aspect is the technical one. Its interesting to see the recent developments of the Movie Theatre and the Cinema industry: 3D, IMAX, 4K. (Yes, some of this is old technology, but is now getting a big push theatrically). These are all techniques to augment the value of the Movie going experience. While I'm not a big fan of 3D- and some statistics say the movie going audience agrees- The larger than life IMAX and I believe 4K distribution are sure to maintain that magical aspect of a unique experience of beautiful images, music and sound on a "larger than life" Theatre screen. Some of these technologies do exist (or will in a very near future) in their Home theatre counterparts, but the "larger than life" (this expression- "larger than life"- i'm licensing it from another reduser friend, who is a big producer in HK ) aspect of the giant cinema screen cannot be reproduced by the mass market. In this more and more urban, small apartment world its ironic that while big TV's (by big I'm talking 42", still relatively small) become cheaper and reachable by the average consumer, it becomes more difficult to actually have a space to set it up. In Asian cities this is a major problem.

I see that there are numbers saying multiplexes are closing, empty seats, but these can be attributed to different aspects, such as over saturation of cinema screens (in Hong-Kong practically every neighborhood has a Cinema screen or multiplex. Excessive screens means some of them have got to give.) , unconfortable and technologically obsolete Cinemas- the current audience is much more informed about the technicalities and is much more demanding of quality, and, of course, and most importantly, mediocre content (mediocre films, in other words).

While we see films like the Dark Knight, Avatar, Inception proving to be big hits in cinemas, the truth is the movie going audience nowadays is much more demanding of what they are willing to pay to go to see in cinemas. There are, nowadays, many more mediums and forms of entertainment fighting for the audience attention, from Videogames, High Quality TV series and Internet content, to name a few. In fact, many current TV series raise the bar in story telling and acting, approaching and even surpassing many Hollywood films. But the audience will still go out to the movies if the Content and the experience is there for it: Inception, Avatar, Transformers 3 (gasp! ) are in their own ways movie experiences people went in masses (breaking records) to see.

So why the recent news of ticket sales going down, and the concern of closing Cinemas? I think that focusing on the Home Theatre "threat" is the wrong approach. Going to the movies is still the prime audiovisual content viewing experience (and will be) perceived by consumers/audiences. So the answer to this question, in my humble point of view, is in giving the audience what they want: and what they want in Cinemas is the pinnacle of audiovisual production, not only in a technical aspect, but also in storytelling, cinematography, acting, mise-en-scene. Some of these aspects are very subjective, but, then again, objective enough to award those that can use them and make a Cinema Experience that audiences feel compelled to pay to watch.

Your thoughts?

 

[Erik Franzén]

Will cinemas close? Sure. But cinema as a whole won't disappear overnight, no sir.

The threat is more to independent chains who can't keep up and to the less-than-stellar big chains who thinks rolling on the same way they have since the dawn of time will serve them well (it won't).

TL;DR: overabundance of theaters + low-quality experience = theaters closing.

 

[Elsie N]

Sergio, Something I saw on the local news recently has me believing that the cinema experience is changing, but not necessarily going away. The story I'm referring to was about how a multi-million dollar theater is being built with fine dining and drinking incorporated into the movie experience. So it would appear that this may be designed to segregate those who are willing to pay for the oppulence from those who just want to see the movie with some friends.

Something else I see that may have a profound effect on how the public watches movies will be the release of Red Ray and the Red Projector. If the total package is at a certain price-point, I forsee Independent theaters popping up that will project 4k content that will rival current 4k theaters in quality without the huge burden of expense to achieve that quality. Granted many of the big blockbuster films will be allocated to the big chain movie theaters. But once enough 4k content is available from Indies armed with Red cameras, there will be plenty of choices available for these new, more intimate theaters to show.

I've posted this before, but I think we could see a revolutionary way for Indies to distribute their work. Something like the way plays are currently chosen throughout the vast network of theaters doing live performances. That is, an Indie gets his or her work listed in a "book" of available movies. A Red Projector theater chooses which movie they want to show, the booking agent streams that movie to the theater and the movie-maker receives a percentage of the proceeds from the ticket sales.

And if the projector and Red Ray are inexpensive enough, like-minded groups like churches, movie clubs, businesses or any organization that has similar interests will purchase said setup and stream content to their site for their common enjoyment or learning experience.

Forget Apple... Red is the new game-changer.

 

[Luc Bouvrette]

Roger Ebert had an interesting piece on the subject titled "I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping..."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111228/COMMENTARY/111229973

To summarize, he has six pretty valid arguments :

1. The absence of a must-see mass-market movie.
2. Ticket prices are too high.
3. The theater experience. Moviegoers above 30 are weary of noisy fanboys and girls.
4. Refreshment prices.
5. Competition from other forms of delivery.
6. Lack of choice.

I tend to agree with most of his points.



Sergio, although I understand your arguments and tend to agree with your technical one, what keeps me away from movie theaters is mostly its crowds.

Film watching can be a social experience, but as far as I'm concerned it's an intimate one with only a circle of friends or my wife, almost closer to reading a book. The last thing I need when watching a movie is having my trip f*cked up by some stoked / chatty / nacho munching / tweeting possee that decided to sit right next to me.

Having studied and been active in the performing arts for years (mostly in a "classical" environment, from chamber music to contemporary dance) there is a basic spectator code of conduct which is implicitly applied out of respect for the performers and the other spectators. Code of conduct inside a movie theater? Nope. And that just annoys the shit out of me.

I'd rather just wait for the BluRay version or attend quiet matinees instead.

 

[Tim Hole]

The great/sad thing about being a former projectionist is that you have to view every film before the public gets their chance to see it, to check the overall quality of the copy. This means you get to watch films on your own in a big screen. This is amazing but spoils the overall because I now dislike seeing a film in an auditorium where there are other members of the public. When we get to a point of screens consuming a space the size of your wall—in the majority of the average households—it could be problematic for the cinema chains but people still want to see things on the big screen with the sound and the general big screen experience.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Thank you all for your thoughts

Elsie, I agree with you, I think the cinema experience will change. In fact, what you said about incorporating fine dinning is actually happening over here: in Macau one of our biggest casino/resorts just opened a UA Multiplex inside it, with two rooms with what they call a "directors room", with fine dinning and limited seats. Its an interesting concept but I think, and I believe most of you feel the same, we want the audience to experience and concentrate on our films, and not threat our content as a "lounge band" , playing in the background while the audience eats their expensive meal. I'm probably a bit harsh, haven't tried the "directors room" (just opened 3 weeks ago) but will definitely do and post my experience here.

Luc, I truly respect Roger Ebert. He's one of my favorite critics and, like you, mostly agree with his points. And I do get what you mean with noisy fanboys and the cinema as an intimate experience.

There's a collateral cause of this happening. In my younger years I don't recall younger audiences being so noisy and disrespectful during the cinema experience. Its a bit the other side of this immediate gratification, internet and fast information society. Their attention span is more and more limited and the moment a movie slows its pace, the younger audience gets distracted. Also,with parents giving less and less time to educating proper manners to their kids, and school teachers afraid to discipline kids with fear of lawsuits or losing their jobs, this all reflects in the theatre experience, where this joint, collective movie watching experience is spoiled by selfish, uneducated individuals. That's a much, much harder thing to change.

I think that one aspect that fails is marketing and positioning of certain Theaters. As Elsie said, the movie going experience is changing and should change. As internet content and television are more and more target audience oriented, Cinemas could try to figure out specific things that their target audience needs. IF you have a multiplex with 6 screens, for example, the experience of watching in each of these screens could be tailored to a specific audience.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

All long as we make movies, cinemas will be here.

 

[paulherrin]

I'd really like to see a trend towards fostering community and social experience in cinema.

Generally, prices are too high for everything. It's not luxury enough to be a luxury item.

The environment is not very social. I mean, seriously... how many new friends have you met at the movies?

While living in Portland this past summer, one of the coolest things to do was to go to the theaters where you could eat, drink a beer, and watch a movie comfortably in a warm environment. These places are really cool, and really cheap. Way better than a regular movie theater environment...

http://www.mcmenamins.com/

http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/

Not sure what the precise answer is. But I don't like the in & out nature of the theaters. We need a gathering place for people to come together to share a variety of experiences... not just goofy 3d glasses and overpriced popcorn.

The artists are in charge of this, not the theaters.

 

[Sergio Perez]

I'd really like to see a trend towards fostering community and social experience in cinema.

Generally, prices are too high for everything. It's not luxury enough to be a luxury item.

The environment is not very social. I mean, seriously... how many new friends have you met at the movies?

While living in Portland this past summer, one of the coolest things to do was to go to the theaters where you could eat, drink a beer, and watch a movie comfortably in a warm environment. These places are really cool, and really cheap. Way better than a regular movie theater environment...

http://www.mcmenamins.com/

http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/

Not sure what the precise answer is. But I don't like the in & out nature of the theaters. We need a gathering place for people to come together to share a variety of experiences... not just goofy 3d glasses and overpriced popcorn.

The artists are in charge of this, not the theaters.

Paul, great post. I can agree with this. However, this doesn't negate the multiplex format. Like you, I would truly like an environment like that, but I think we are a niche, a group of cinema lovers and enthusiasts (even "nicher", audiovisual professionals). That's why I think targeting the Theatre experience to specific audiences could be an intresting approach: a community room, a "fine cinema" room for a specific audience, for example, and other specific rooms, with "seat rumble", smell"o"vision, etc. for the audience looking for pure, Amusement park like entertainment. I have to agree with ticket prices being too high. There could be some things that could add "value" to the audience by going to the cinema watching a movie: exclusive content and film memorabilia com to mind, but also (and this could be arranged by the studios) exclusive rewards to audience members, like "meet the stars", a visit to the studios, meet the director, these kind of lucky draws. Yes, its a bit corny and I personally don't look forward to this type of marketing, but it works in the general audience. We have to understand that with films costing in average above 50 Million USD, the business side needs to break even, and I'm sure a film print of the latest blockbuster doesn't come cheap to movie screens. Its important that Theaters also have a good revenue stream. A balance has to be struck between Movie Theaters making profit and movie audiences feeling that their movie going experience is worth it. A good movie is the best place to start, but nowadays there needs to be something more to compete with the other mass audience grabbing entertainment forms.

 

[paulherrin]

Totally agreed.

I'm not advocating something simply for 'enthusiasts' like ourselves. This isn't about special focus groups... it's about art, culture, and community. I'm proposing we rethink cinema, and arts and entertainment as a whole. That starts with content and ideas, of which we, as artists, are wholly responsible. The creative way in which stories are told visually does not currently match up with the way they are being presented. We should be very concerned about our gallery space, and make a commitment to revolutionizing display and distribution.

RED has begun to take steps, technologically, in that direction - scratching the surface. How will we respond creatively?

This is 2012. Well, almost.

 

[Irmeli R]

i once read a quote by m night shyamalan saying he'll only make movies as long as people can watch them in movie theaters. so i can't wait for cinemas to die

 

[Jason Svatos]

I'm not a huge fan of the theater business in its current state. Most out here are practically run by apathetic teenagers and chain owners who are in it for the profit. If those theaters don't change and die? I won't be too sad.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The biggest reason that movie theater attendance is down is because Hollywood is putting out crappy movies. By my estimation, roughly 95% of major movie releases are crap.

The other major problem is price. When you are selling cokes for $5, something is very wrong. It's disrespectful to the customer's intelligence to sell him sugar water for $5. This adds to the overall negative feeling of the customer at the theater. "I am being ripped off," is all one can think. And who enjoys getting blatantly ripped off??

Other minor changes can help, like installing better, more comfortable seats, cracking down on douchebags with phones, and perhaps allowing alcohol.

But the main issues are: 1) Poor films. 2) High prices.

 

[Evan Starkey]

The biggest reason that movie theater attendance is down is because Hollywood is putting out crappy movies. By my estimation, roughly 95% of major movie releases are crap.

The other major problem is price. When you are selling cokes for $5, something is very wrong. It's disrespectful to the customer's intelligence to sell him sugar water for $5. This adds to the overall negative feeling of the customer at the theater. "I am being ripped off," is all one can think. And who enjoys getting blatantly ripped off??

Other minor changes can help, like installing better, more comfortable seats, cracking down on douchebags with phones, and perhaps allowing alcohol.

But the main issues are: 1) Poor films. 2) High prices.

+1 also just about every time i go i have to tell them its out of focus....... they don't even check lol.........Realy

 

[M Most]

The biggest reason that movie theater attendance is down is because Hollywood is putting out crappy movies. By my estimation, roughly 95% of major movie releases are crap.

The other major problem is price. When you are selling cokes for $5, something is very wrong. It's disrespectful to the customer's intelligence to sell him sugar water for $5. This adds to the overall negative feeling of the customer at the theater. "I am being ripped off," is all one can think. And who enjoys getting blatantly ripped off??

Other minor changes can help, like installing better, more comfortable seats, cracking down on douchebags with phones, and perhaps allowing alcohol.

But the main issues are: 1) Poor films. 2) High prices.

I agree with your conclusion. But it seems like you are, to some degree, blaming theater owners for some of the things you mention, and your suggestions have more to do with those theater owners spending money on physical improvements and/or more personnel than they do with the basic problem - which is the simple fact that theaters do not get a lot of financial benefit directly from ticket sales, particularly on large studio releases. The split between distributor and theater is grossly in the distributor's favor, especially for the first 2-3 weeks of a movie's run (which at least in recent years is where about 90% of the movie's gross is determined). Theaters must rely on ancillary income, such as concessions, for a lot of their revenue. That is, in part, what is responsible for the rather high prices at the refreshment counter, and it's also, in part, responsible for the additional charges levied for stereoscopic presentations. it's hard to do physical and capital improvements when you're not particularly profitable, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy when an aging theater can't compete with a new one because the old one simply isn't generating enough revenue to modernize. If one could solve the revenue split issue, one could begin to solve the problem. Unfortunately, that is not currently possible.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I understand why theaters are charging $5 for sugar water. The system needs to change. It's fundamentally flawed when you are blatantly ripping people off. Perhaps the revenue split does need to change. I'm not really an expert on that. All I know is that something needs to change.

I think charging extra for 3D was also a huge, huge mistake. When I went to see Dragon Tattoo in 4K the other night, I was not charged extra for 4K. So why charge extra for 3D? 3D could have been an extra "benefit" of going out to the theater. Instead, the industry has acted greedily, charged extra for it, and thus wiped out any perceived enticement to the customer.

 

[M Most]

When I went to see Dragon Tattoo in 4K the other night, I was not charged extra for 4K. So why charge extra for 3D?

Because stereo 3D requires an add on to the projector that's almost 50% of the price of the projector itself, it also in most cases requires a silver screen that largely relegates the room those things are installed in to being dedicated to only stereoscopic presentations, and also because it requires glasses that must be inventoried, distributed, and cleaned. Those are real costs that need to be recovered. Now, how much they actually amount to, and how much needed to be charged for them and still make a profit is another question.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Do you think 4K projectors are free?

 

[M Most]

Do you think 4K projectors are free?

No. But every theater that's going to show studio pictures going forward needs a digital projector. Those that currently have 4K projectors are, for the most part, into their first investment in a digital projector, having likely bypassed 2K projection or upgraded their 2K DLP's. To add other gear to that projector to accommodate 3D stereoscopic presentations costs considerably more than the projector itself, which was my point. If you're setting up a screening room to do 3D stereoscopic projection, there are additional costs - significant additional costs, some of which are continuing costs - that you do not incur with standard flat projection. The bottom line is that there are significant additional costs for 3D, but there are only minor additional costs for 4K unless you don't already have digital projection, primarily a 4K media block instead of a 2K media block.

I don't know why you're trying to make this into a debate when I already said I agree with your points.... :mellow:

 

[Tom Lowe]

My point is that it was extremely foolish to charge extra for 3D. Monumentally foolish, in my opinion. This is exactly the type of added benefit that could have increased movie theater attendance over home theaters, for example, but the industry completely shot themselves in the foot and further irritated moviegoers by charging extra for 3D.

This is just symptomatic of the overall poor decision making we are seeing these days from the movie and music industries. They seem almost clueless in dealing with new technologies.