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

[Ryan De Franco]

A theater here in Brooklyn is making bank with an old idea.

They serve dinner in the theater. During a 30-minute pre-show of short films, you write your order on a little card, slip it into a wire holder, and a waitress ducks between rows of wide, very comfy seats.

They lobbied the New York powers-that-be and actually changed an old law on the books: you can now enjoy alcohol in theaters, provided the establishment served it to you. With speciality drinks and food themed to each film, lines that start 45 minutes before each screening, and great staff... Nitehawk is making a killing.

 

[Evan Starkey]

A theater here in Brooklyn is making bank with an old idea.

They serve dinner in the theater. During a 30-minute pre-show of short films, you write your order on a little card, slip it into a wire holder, and a waitress ducks between rows of wide, very comfy seats.

They lobbied the New York powers-that-be and actually changed an old law on the books: you can now enjoy alcohol in theaters, provided the establishment served it to you. With speciality drinks and food themed to each film, lines that start 45 minutes before each screening, and great staff... Nitehawk is making a killing.

Love it......thanks for the post

 

[Tom Lowe]

A theater here in Brooklyn is making bank with an old idea.

They serve dinner in the theater. During a 30-minute pre-show of short films, you write your order on a little card, slip it into a wire holder, and a waitress ducks between rows of wide, very comfy seats.

They lobbied the New York powers-that-be and actually changed an old law on the books: you can now enjoy alcohol in theaters, provided the establishment served it to you. With speciality drinks and food themed to each film, lines that start 45 minutes before each screening, and great staff... Nitehawk is making a killing.

See this is what I'm talking about. There need to be new business models. The alcoholic drinks alone could make them a fortune.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Pub food, beer & wine, big automobile seats on wheels...
http://www.chunkys.com
It isn't cinefile quality, but it's different. They do lots of free screenings of classics as a kind of community thing, making plenty on food & drink.

 

[M Most]

See this is what I'm talking about. There need to be new business models. The alcoholic drinks alone could make them a fortune.

This has been done by Alamo Drafthouse, which started in Austin but now has multiple locations inside and outside Texas, for a number of years now. And the alcohol has not made them "a fortune."

Your comment alleging that 3D should have been offered at no charge strikes me as a comment from someone who looks at business from the point of view of a consumer who wants cheap stuff rather than someone who looks at business as a business. There are additional costs - significant costs - associated with equipping for and maintaining stereoscopic projection. Those costs have to be covered. This isn't light bulbs we're talking about, it's reasonably expensive equipment that has to be paid for, and when the theaters aren't making much to begin with, it has to come from somewhere. The only question is how much needs to be charged and how much the market will bear, and that's been an ongoing experiment. "Nothing" is not a sensible option, but "too much" is a subject for debate. As long as customers are paying, it's not "too much." The purpose of any business is to make money, the more the better. It's not a public service. If you offer a premium product, or a premium experience, you charge for that and customers get to make the determination as to whether they want to pay for it. That's why it costs more to see the same movie at an Arclight theater rather than a local UA multiplex. And that's why it costs more to see the 3D version of a picture than the 2D one. Whether I consider it a premium experience or not is irrelevant. The industry does, and those who continue to pay for it obviously agree. In smaller numbers than before, but never the less....

 

[Sergio Perez]

This has been done by Alamo Drafthouse, which started in Austin but now has multiple locations inside and outside Texas, for a number of years now. And the alcohol has not made them "a fortune."

Your comment alleging that 3D should have been offered at no charge strikes me as a comment from someone who looks at business from the point of view of a consumer who wants cheap stuff rather than someone who looks at business as a business. There are additional costs - significant costs - associated with equipping for and maintaining stereoscopic projection. Those costs have to be covered. This isn't light bulbs we're talking about, it's reasonably expensive equipment that has to be paid for, and when the theaters aren't making much to begin with, it has to come from somewhere. The only question is how much needs to be charged and how much the market will bear, and that's been an ongoing experiment. "Nothing" is not a sensible option, but "too much" is a subject for debate. As long as customers are paying, it's not "too much." The purpose of any business is to make money, the more the better. It's not a public service. If you offer a premium product, or a premium experience, you charge for that and customers get to make the determination as to whether they want to pay for it. That's why it costs more to see the same movie at an Arclight theater rather than a local UA multiplex. And that's why it costs more to see the 3D version of a picture than the 2D one. Whether I consider it a premium experience or not is irrelevant. The industry does, and those who continue to pay for it obviously agree. In smaller numbers than before, but never the less....

I have to agree. Its a business. But I think like many have said over here that something needs to change. The "movie experience" is facing fierce competition from other forms of entertainment, and with Home entertainment evolving constantly, the audience needs to feel that their Movie going experience has enough "value". A great film is obviously the best of starts, but these are not the norm. The movie going experience needs to be more than "watching a film". Technology is one way, another, discussed here, like social interaction, joining different experiences might be interesting experiments. As for alcohol, I don't sincerely think this is a key point for people enjoying films. Having alcohol in theaters has the potential of turning an already uneducated and selfish crowd to be, well, absolutely intolerable.

 

[paulherrin]

The movie going experience needs to be more than "watching a film". Technology is one way, another, discussed here, like social interaction, joining different experiences might be interesting experiments. As for alcohol, I don't sincerely think this is a key point for people enjoying films. Having alcohol in theaters has the potential of turning an already uneducated and selfish crowd to be, well, absolutely intolerable.

well said

alcohol (or anything else) is not the answer we're looking for. it begins and ends with artistic voice. i'm sorry, but it has nothing to do with corporate structures, economic situations, or anything else. these are all poor excuses for a lack of strong leadership and the resulting identity crisis we face.

[as an aside , and for the purpose of comic relief: i don't like prohibition (especially in a gallery) - alcohol is a type of medicine (ask them moonshiners who live in the woods out back - yeah, i'm serious. that they'll tell ye, at least. there's not really any stills out back, unless there's some serious underground infrastructure i don't know about...) that is often misappropriated in our society - but that doesn't make the thing evil. i've been to a theater or two where alcohol is served (and in even younger days, where it was not) and even had a glass or two myself. i have to say, if you're stuck with transformers 5 in the 10th dimension (or whatever it was), certain prescriptions may be in order to 'enjoy' said 'film'. anyways, where officially acceptable, the atmosphere has been warm and inviting in my experience, and much more comfortable and relaxed than your up-tight and sterile cineplex - with never a problem of any kind. respect gets respect, it's as simple as that...]

in any case, the encouraging or discouraging of certain medicinal substances will not be what makes or breaks the future of moving visuals - it will be whether or not artists rise to their calling as progressive, visionary leaders to expand upon the current medium and redefine the gallery space (and thus, culture). the world is waiting... as a wet canvas running with turpentine waits for the sensation of a new brush.

we're still acclimating to the new millennium and its offerings. historically, the dawn of the century has encouraged evolution and growth... in exponential patterns. we're at the bottom of the curve right now - this is only the natural beginning of a cycle. buckle up, or trust the fates - whichever your style - in either case i have a gut feeling we're about to embark on an amazing adventure

 

[M Most]

I have to agree. Its a business. But I think like many have said over here that something needs to change. The "movie experience" is facing fierce competition from other forms of entertainment, and with Home entertainment evolving constantly, the audience needs to feel that their Movie going experience has enough "value". A great film is obviously the best of starts, but these are not the norm. The movie going experience needs to be more than "watching a film". Technology is one way, another, discussed here, like social interaction, joining different experiences might be interesting experiments.

My comments about business were specifically referencing Tom's notion that stereoscopic 3D should somehow have been done at no cost to the moviegoer, which I disagree with based on basic economics. I think some of the things being mentioned here might be interesting, but they all have to support themselves financially. Ultimately, what consumers want is more for less, not more for more if the additional value doesn't appeal to them personally. Technology is ultimately going to make "more for the same" possible, because as with everything in the world of electronics and computers, what they replace is ultimately more costly than the new technology. In the case of theatrical distribution, it's ultimately much cheaper to distribute files than it is physical film prints, on almost every level. That's why the large distributors have been pushing towards digital distribution ever since the appearance of the first DLP Cinema proejctors, and it's what the creation of the DCP was all about. And while digital projectors might be somewhat costly as an initial purchase, they require very little physical maintenance, unlike film projection. And they give the theater operator a lot of flexibility in terms of what rooms are showing what pictures. And finally, the age of scratches, dirt, bounce, and weave are gone, making for a much better visual experience for moviegoers. In short, if one doesn't believe that technology has already revolutionized the moviegoing experience, one isn't paying attention or seeing the reality.

I'm not particularly a fan of "value added" things such as the ones being mentioned here (i.e., food, alcohol, etc.). I would suggest things that fit into a moviegoers mentality rather than things they can already get on the way to the theater. People go to the movies to be entertained and, on occasion, educated. That is the purpose. If they want to drink, they can do that at the bar up the street. And if they want to eat at a reasonable price, they can do that in a restaurant and be treated much nicer and with better food. I think people go to the movies for what's on the screen, not what's in the lobby. And they want to have the best viewing experience, which means they probably don't want to listen to the soundtrack while they're listening to the person in the next seat eating their dinner. Nor do they want to be distracted by the smell of food they didn't order or servers they didn't order from. To me, it's about what's on the screen, and to a lesser degree, the communal experience. Along those lines, I would think that one innovative idea might be to show locally produced shorts in place of some of the pre-show material, or as an adjunct to it. With proper publicity, both by the theater and the filmmakers, local artists could get some of their work shown and possibly noticed, and the local moviegoing community could be made aware of the local moviemaking community, regardless of the market. This kind of thing could lead to some of the scenarios many here seem to want. Now, how practical that is depends fairly heavily on current distribution agreements, which often specify how screen time is handled at the local level. And it is also dependent on current contracts with pre-show distribution companies, which in a number of cases are owned by the theater chain itself. But if some of those logistics could be worked out, it is one way to (hopefully) enhance the on-screen experience and make it a bit more personal and local. And it doesn't rely on gimmicks (I'll leave it up to others to define what consitutes a gimmick rather than voice my views on that.....). And perhaps most importantly, it doesn't require a financial adjustment on the part of the theater owner. Would it attract more theatergoers? Maybe, in some cases. Probably depends on how entertaining the independently produced stuff turns out to be, and how much it matters in a particular market. But if one is going to innovate, one must start somewhere. And something that at least potentially provides "more for the same" might be a good place to start.

Now, having said all that, having a pot smoking lounge, open during presentations of all action movies that cost more than $150 million to make, and all 3D movies, might make sense if it were legal..... :emote_hippie:

 

[Tom Lowe]

Your comment alleging that 3D should have been offered at no charge strikes me as a comment from someone who looks at business from the point of view of a consumer who wants cheap stuff rather than someone who looks at business as a business.

Uh... okay. If the movie industry folks are so wise and are making correct decisions, then why is box office numbers down?

The theater where I saw "Dragon Tattoo" replaced six of their 2K projectors with Sony 4K projectors. Following your logic, why not charge $3 extra for the "4K premium experience." Is this something you would recommend, coming from your business-oriented perspective?

 

[M Most]

Uh... okay. If the movie industry folks are so wise and are making correct decisions, then why is box office numbers down?

The theater where I saw "Dragon Tattoo" replaced six of their 2K projectors with Sony 4K projectors. Following your logic, why not charge $3 extra for the "4K premium experience." Is this something you would recommend, coming from your business-oriented perspective?

Neither you nor I know the financial circumstances under which the projection equipment was replaced. Most digital cinema installations are handled through one of three or so digital cinema packagers, all of which operate using a virtual print fee model. Replacing the projection equipment is not necessarily like you or I replacing our television. The financial circumstances, and the incentives for doing the replacement, are very different and very unique to the exhibition industry. Sometimes it's the provider deciding that in order to satisfy the distribution entities, it's prudent to do a replacement and the costs are handled in a way that doesn't necessarily impact the theater owner as much as you might think. But in any case, as I mentioned earlier, having digital projection is no longer an option, it is a business necessity in an industry in which at least three of the major studio distribution arms have already stated that they're going to digital-only distribution by the end of the year. Equipping a room for stereoscopic 3D is still an option, a somewhat costly one, and not a necessity. That's the difference, or at least one major difference. That, and the (to me) obvious fact that most audiences don't understand, don't particularly care, and can't tell the difference between 2K and 4K digital projection on an average sized screen in a typical multiplex, but everyone can tell the difference between a 2D and a 3D presentation. They don't always like the difference, and are not always willing to pay for it, but it's a lot more obvious.

I don't really have a "business oriented perspective" on most things, as I've never been a business owner. But when one talks about what "should" be free and what shouldn't, and why businesses should spend money they can't recoup, that's a business conversation, not a social one. Box office numbers are down because people don't want to go to the movies in the numbers they once did when there were fewer alternatives. This is especially true for younger moviegoers as they are much more in touch with games and things like iPods and iPads than they are movie theaters. It is also the end result of there being too many screens, a situation that has been building for a long time, and which has, at least in part, led to the large number of "bad movies" being produced. None of these things indicate "wisdom" or lack of it among theater owners or production companies. They simply indicate a changing entertainment landscape in which many delivery platforms exist and people don't have to go to a movie theater to get mass distributed entertainment. It's simply one option among many. Less exclusivity leads to lower numbers. That's true in any industry, not just the entertainment industry. There are fewer desktop computers sold today because laptops have become powerful enough that most users don't really need one. And there are fewer laptops being sold now because for a lot of users, an iPad is a viable alternative. There are fewer hand held GPS devices being sold because similar services are available on both iPhones and Android phones, one of which almost everyone seems to have. There are probably fewer small cameras being sold because similar quality cameras are in all of those smart phones as well. And a lot fewer DVD's being sold because lots of people have direct access to a virtually unlimited library of titles through Netflix, iTunes, Hulu, and numerous other streaming services. Less exclusivity, lower sales. It's probably a bit naive to think that this doesn't also apply to movie theaters. It's not just the content, and it's not just the size of the screen.

 

[PatrickFaith]

See this is what I'm talking about. There need to be new business models...

Absolutely on target. In my area (old spot for film industry) The theaters in the 1920's were fairly small(one is now a wine store, another got converted back to silent films). A transition back to "downtown" theaters would have a huge impact.

BTW, the 4k laser allow flat widescreen viewing (kind of like those 1980's "flat projectors" that use to do the large TV's pre LED& Plasma. That means local spots can have 18'x10' 4k movies just against a wall. You really need the 4k btw when you sit that close (i.e. if the tables where a few feet from the "screen". I would love to have a latte at watching old black and white films at 4k.

 

[M Most]

There's a very relevant article on Deadline Hollywood today about this topic:

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/2011-movies-brands-budgets-bankability/#more-208283

It elaborates quite a bit on what I was commenting on regarding "exclusivity". The article is much more from the studio perspective than the exhibitors', but it touches on both and relates them very well.

 

[Tom Lowe]

You can argue it any which way you like, but I stand by my statement that charging extra for 3D was foolish and counter-productive to the industry. It's just another way to piss off customers and cause them to stay home. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

In my opinion, the biggest problem right now for Hollywood is a lack of vision and a lack of good movies. Most of what they are churning out now is unimaginative, recycled junk. No wonder nobody wants to go to the theater. Instead of betting the farm on a couple of huge special effects-laden films every year, why not diversify and make 25 indies. Look how well "Margin Call" did this year. Who knows, in addition to making a big, lop-sided profit like "Blair Witch," one of these films might spawn the next Chris Nolan, ala "Memento."

 

[Mike P.]

I think the "social experience" argument holds absolutely no weight. I hate it when people talk during a movie and usually peoples' opinions about movies never really align anyway, so it's just an annoying catch-phrase to make theatre-going more provocative. Objectively, movie-going is not really a great social gathering outlet. Sports games? Yeah, sure! Movies? Not so much. Subjectively, watching amongst a crowd might be your romantic idea of how to best experience a film, but the reality is there is nothing social about sitting quietly watching a passive medium. More often then not, when someone is being social it's considered more annoying than it is "part of the experience" (e.g. talking during the movie, making jokes, being unnecessarily loud, etc.)

Over-charging for things like 3D, 4k, IMAX is probably more of a turn-off for most consumers than feature-added. Especially as that tech makes its way to the home-theatre. Seriously, $12.50 is already way too much to charge for a one-time showing, and then to actually get a unique theatre-only viewing experience (e.g. 4k, IMAX, etc.) you're gonna charge $15? Screw it, I'll just buy/own the movie for that price in 6mths on Blu-Ray...

Conversely the technical aspect doesn't hold much water either, since all that tech makes its way to the home theatre sooner than it used to. 4k projection isn't even in all theatres and display makers are already talking about bringing it to the home and 3D is already in the home... So that leaves what? IMAX? And I'm willing to bet that the average viewer wouldn't care to notice the difference between IMAX and regular (just as they wouldn't care for the difference between 2k and 4k projection.) And then on top of that they get charged more for the privilege... thanks, but no thanks.

This is totally a Occam's Razor type thing; the simplest reason is probably the correct one. In this case, if ticket sales are down it is simply because the product isn't worth the price of admission (regardless of whether or not it's in 3D, 4k, regular, or IMAX)... ...That being said, didn't the movie industry have a record-breaking year last year (and were close to breaking it this year)? If so, all the complaining about 'ticket sales being down' is bull****.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The only time the whole "social experience" argument really works well is on opening night or opening weekend for a big film like "Dark Knight" or "Revenge of the Sith", etc. Especially midnight shows. Because the theater is packed and people are super jazzed, etc. That is something you can feel.

 

[Elsie N]

I think the "social experience" argument holds absolutely no weight. I hate it when people talk during a movie and usually peoples' opinions about movies never really align anyway...

Social experience has a different meaning for me. Once a week I meet with friends at coffee and we discuss commercials we see on TV among other things like War and Peace. We don't watch them together but we share the experience because we have seen the ads in roughly the same time frame. We laugh at them all over again when we recount the sexual innuendo of a Jack-in-the-box commercial or the funny situation of a man trying to sit on the Santa Claus bearded salesman's lap in current Chevy commercials. Commercials are about the only thing we can share because they have cable and I have over-the-air TV, but still that serves as a social experience.

That's why I alluded to (in an earlier post) the need for a groundswell of new Independent theaters that can attract like-minded more intimate audiences who can discuss any movie they've just seen at the water cooler the next day at work.

I'm thinking the movie going public are anxious to return to these types of theaters which could translate into a growth in theater movie-watching rather than a decline. Red Ray and Red Projector cannot get here soon enough.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I have the idea that there are a few theaters that are 'special places' - places that are a destination in and of themselves, that provide a social experience of interested and mature audience, and that provide a beautiful and technically profound screening.

But almost without exception, theaters I have visited have been difficult to get to, usually requiring stressful driving and parking, not to mention a ticket price that doesn't justify the experience, or the price of any concessions - a bottle of water that is more expensive than a decent wine, ounce for ounce, for instance. The average movie audience is, in my opinion, best when elsewhere. And I have sat through a number of films with very obviously faulty projection or sound, even after alerting a manager to the problem. The usual response is "I'm terribly sorry, but we can't fix it now. Please enjoy it as best you can and use this voucher to enjoy another movie later. Oh, no, it won't cover your concessions. Or 3D screenings. Matinee only." I live in a major city, and currently have to drive 30 minutes into the suburbs, past 6 other theaters to get a theatre which recently renovated and provides a nice experience.

Compare this to the intimate experience of enjoying a film in my own (clean) space, with my friends or family, necessary nutrients available at market price, and a picture quality that is my own responsibility. I can easily see why people are paying for a home theatre.

Honestly, I can't wait until there is digital rental/purchase distribution available the same day as theatrical release. Direct to consumer. Lower costs for everyone, higher profits. Imagine, after the film - "Did you enjoy the film you just viewed? Download it now to your Playstation/Computer/Xbox/Magic-Box now for $19.99."

 

[Mike P.]

The only time the whole "social experience" argument really works well is on opening night or opening weekend for a big film like "Dark Knight" or "Revenge of the Sith", etc. Especially midnight shows. Because the theater is packed and people are super jazzed, etc. That is something you can feel.

My thoughts exactly (definitely midnight shows). But those are so rare... like special occasions of special occasions. Also, generally, when you go to those, you're going for more than the movie (the spectacle of dedicated fans and pre-show enthusiasm) and most of the time you intend on watching the movie at a regular showing as well (unless it really blows.)

You can argue it any which way you like, but I stand by my statement that charging extra for 3D was foolish and counter-productive to the industry. It's just another way to piss off customers and cause them to stay home. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

This is also exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter if you're saying this as a consumer that wants things to be cheaper or not; the fact of the matter is more people are not willing to pay the asking price and are staying home (as shown by the slumped ticket sales). If theatres want to put more butts in seats they should be lowering their prices, offering dinners, selling booze, and/or using any other tricks to make it a value-added experience. On the studio side, realistically, the only thing they can do is make better movies... (which is less likely than offering booze and cheaper tickets, and is easier said than done.)

 

[Tom Lowe]

I agree Mike P. The last thing theaters should be doing is actively irritating their patrons, by charging extra for 3D, charging $5 for a coke, etc.

 

[M Most]

You can argue it any which way you like, but I stand by my statement that charging extra for 3D was foolish and counter-productive to the industry. It's just another way to piss off customers and cause them to stay home. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Well, you have your opinion, which you're entitled to. But regardless of how you feel, no business intentionally pisses off their customers. That makes absolutely no sense. They do occasionally overestimate what their customers are willing to pay for a particular product, and often make price adjustments (within reason) based on that. That hasn't completely happened yet, but my guess is that it ultimately will.

Instead of betting the farm on a couple of huge special effects-laden films every year, why not diversify and make 25 indies. Look how well "Margin Call" did this year. Who knows, in addition to making a big, lop-sided profit like "Blair Witch," one of these films might spawn the next Chris Nolan, ala "Memento."

Every major studio has a "specialty" division and they all release quite a few movies of the type you just described every year. But studios are rather large beasts and require the numbers generated by "tentpole" releases. Even the pictures that do "badly" in the US often generate a profit - sometimes a substantial one - through foreign releases and the many other distribution platforms we now have. You may not personally like the large pictures, but many, many people around the world do as evidenced by the fact that they often generate huge box office. The profit generated by "Margin Call" is a drop in the bucket compared to that generated by, say, "Transformers." Your idea of success and the studios' idea of success are wildly different. Their aim is not to be an art school, or generate cerebral filmmakers of the type you seem to admire. Their aim is to make money and to take the fewest chances in doing so. Chris Nolan is an anomaly, a "cerebral" filmmaker who is also hugely commercially successful. In the history of the industry there's only been a few of those. Perhaps Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg come close. It's nice to think there are others out there, but the fact is there are a lot more Michael Bays and Jim Camerons than there are Chris Nolans. Guys who can make spectacles, which an awful lot of people (not you, obviously) enjoy. Besides, replacing one huge tentpole with 25 indies would probably result in 23 movies that lost money (or at the very most generated very little profit) instead of one huge picture that generated $100 million in profit. That's bad business even if it may be more creatively satisfying. Unfortunately, studios don't survive on creative satisfaction. And I hate to say it here, but the "indie" business - such as it is - is a niche market at best. Most "civilians" simply don't care about small introspective pictures, especially when they're going out to a theater to see one. Your logic seems to be based more on your own emotions and personal preference than it is on business sense.