I say basically not:
There’s another potential glitch in Hollywood’s 3-D scheme: Theaters are losing their appeal. “3-D doesn’t address the core problem,” says George Mason University professor Tyler Cowen, who has written extensively about the economics of entertainment. He says that people don’t go to theaters because the screen is bigger or the image is in 3-D; they go because they want to go out. Theaters have suffered to a large degree because they fail to provide their customers with great going-out experiences: They have crummy seats, sell expensive and bad food, and don’t serve alcohol.
Here is much more, do any of you think I am wrong?
Our local theater has beautiful building, servers beer and ice cream, and has a museum in the basement. Coincidentally, it seems to be doing just fine.
The seats are still crummy, though.
mmmh, they serve alcohol in europe … Although that in no way invalidates the other points of course
Oops, the last link was broken. Here it is.
You forgot rude fellow patrons talking during the film, cell phones going off, and 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts.
The last time I went to a movie theater was in 2005, and that was in England, where yes, they do sell beer and wine at the theatres and the seating is better.
my favorite theaters have movies that teenagers don’t like. there’s no one to kick my chair or chew loud foods in my ear.
There really seems to be a marked increase in moviegoers who seem incapabale of shutting the hell up during the feature in recent years. Bleh.
I used to live near a theater that combined cheap second run movies with really great beer and pizza. The pizza allowed dinner and a movie to be combined into a single outing and the beer made it a much better deal to see movies I was otherwise hesitant to sit through – if it sucks, you just order another beer and pretty soon it doesn’t matter that
Way back when I was publicity director for our college film series. I observed that we fussed a lot getting special versions of films with magnetic sound etc. and that, as far as I could tell, 90% of the movie goers didn’t really care. In this case, I think other “going out” activities have tended to replace some theater-going because you no longer have to go to the thater if you want to see a movie. So people may still tend to go out (almost) as much–but they’ll do something they can’t replicate at home.
I’d argue that the average theater experience in terms of sound, video, and (stadium style) seating is actually a lot better than it was 10 to 15 years ago. Maybe it’s worse in other ways, but I’m not convinced. Sounds a bit like the rose-colored glasses of memory. Which would strengthen your argument that further improvements (if 3D actually is an improvement) won’t matter much.
For me, the cell phone issue is the only thing keeping me from the movie theater, and I used to go about once per week. Now, maybe twice per year and every time I walk away vowing never to return.
Theaters need to lobby for and then invest in cellphone jammers (currently illegal).
The reason I don’t go to the cinema is the long lines. If I could purchase a reserved seat and waltz in 5 minutes before the show, I would go much more often. Instead, you have to get there early to avoid having to sit in the front. It adds an hour to a 2 hour movie.
At the risk of stating the obvious, you’re right, but there’s really many ways a theatre can differentiate itself from the movie-at-home experience.
The problem isn’t movies at home, it’s that movies at home have spent about 15 years getting so much better so quickly that it is now possible to have a better AV experience on the couch than in the theatre. And there’s no director commentaries at the theatre…
Fundamentally, the theatre just has to be a nice place to go. Not coincidentally, my last trip to the movies took me to a drive-in.
I think you’re right on the nose.
A lot Starbucks’s success as a franchise had to do with creating a public space for people to socialize. Now people are bored with Starbucks — what once seemed new and fun is now boring and corporate. They’re not going to grow much anymore.
But there is a huge opportunity for other entrepreneurs to figure out the best way to get Internet users out of their homes or offices and into public spaces. Nobody has figured out what the right combination of coffee/internet/entertainment is yet. Whoever does will make lots of $$$.
People I’ve talked to who have seen tests of the new 3-D process say it’s great, and I imagine that combined with clear focus throughout the depth of field it might make older style of movies a sort of specialty item themselves. There is going to be a major spurt of interest with a high-quality must-see film (and that may well be “Avatar.” James Cameron, by the way, is not quite finished shooting, as Portfolio reports.) Whether you could use 3-D to provide a new kind of dramatic or narrative or semantic increase, beyond spatial representation, remains to be seen.
For the rest of the Portfolio article, 3-D is going to have to be adapted to home screens. Film in theatres is going the way of live drama, for most older adults: once or twice a year, at most.
I believe that theatrical releasing WOULD evolve into a numerically-small, high-priced niche market like opera, BUT FOR the social needs of the dating set. However, for the dating set, theatres outside of cities need adjoining social/commercial spaces: restaurant, cafe, bars, live music, clothing store, book store — i.e., at least a mini-mall where the hormonal game can go on. The corresponding film releases will be certain genres only, as we are now seeing. 3-D could fit well into some of these, such as the cartoon and horror genres.
Later in the game, for husband, wife, and two kids, it all transforms: gas, parking, dinner out, and movie theatre can easily top $100. That is a still lot of money to almost everyone. This points to genres where the marketing hits the children to compel their parents: Harry Potter, Hannah Montana, etc.
For some of us, it is simply price.
“It would be fun to be wealthy and own a cinema. If someone’s phone went off, I’d stop the film, hit the house lights, and announce over the tannoy that the film would continue when the rude and inconsiderate man in seat F15, wearing a red sweater, had left the theatre. Then send in an usher to escort him to the door and refund his ticket price.
I don’t think it would take too many tries before people got the point.”
I like your idea better!
I see about 8-10 movies a month at the theater. I either go the megaplex late at night (when few others are present) or to the drafthouse whenever I want. At the latter, they serve alcohol and foof but monitor the crowd far better than at standard theaters. The price of admittance is not significantly diffenet.
Movies are basically for kids. They don’t make kids movies anymore. Movie theaters are like art houses. Violence, sex, gore. No story, no entertainment. Also, you only get one long, boring movie, no cartooons. A bunch of commercials. I can see commercials on TV. Why should I pay to be insulted?
I am excited by the growing potential for digital cinemas to show live events. Formula One (ie NASCAR with right-hand turns) is shown live here in the UK. As are concerts. La Scala and the Metropolitan broadcast live to chains in the US. This is some ways is a half way house between staying home and the insane effort and expense required to see a live event. Plus at the real La Scala I find they take a dim view of stuffing your face with popcorn and slurping a bucket of Dr Pepper.
More about this in my Spectator article http://snipurl.com/tmrb0 which mostly disparages live theatre as opposed to what we Euroweenies call cinema.
All of which is why my favorite theater, which opened last year, is the one with leather seats, a full bar outside the VIP screening area, and sushi on the menu.
Now once the 3d movies hit is big, they can move on to focusing on 4D movies.
4D movies (I saw an episode of Planet Earth at the Shed Aquarium, they also offered Spongebob for the kids) are right now pretty funny in terms of how unexpectedly annoying they can be. When I went in my friend and I had no idea what to expect. We were squirted with water, whipped in the ankles by a rope beneath our seat, jabbed in the back by a little nob in the back… once we were wet the wind picked up. The part of the experience that didn’t feel like we were under attack by the theater was the minimal vibration and the bubbles that were blown.
As to current theaters, they need to start offering a choice between high end and low end experiences instead of just low end. I think this has started, I just wish the process would speed up.
What you are looking for is this:
http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/Cinemas/Gold-Class.htm
For triple the price of a regular ticket, you get business class sized reclining seats, menues, waiters, and, yes, alcohol. I’m happy to pay the price and anyone who wants to do a movie date without appearing cheap is usually down for this as well.
Yeah, the night out: When I lived in Germany, many years ago, movie theaters were just starting to have cushioned swivel chairs, booze, and ash trays. I loved it, and saw movies. Missed the canapes, though. Can’t do it here. So, wide screen, swivel chair, booze, canapes, and cigarettes at home now. Occasionally.
From the inflation calculator “what cost $2.94 in 1982 would cost $6.08 in 2004″ so prices seem to have remained pretty static from what 8 says.
Also agree it’s not just young people who can be a nuisance. Saw a movie in tourist-infested Covent Garden recently, and there was a party of 50-something Americans who talked loudly amongst themselves all the way through. And my own parents repeatedly have had their mobile phones go off in movies, since they either forget about them or somehow press the wrong button trying to turn them off.
We go pretty much explicitly for the big screen and the sound. It makes a huge difference to us, especially in action movies. But some in the quieter romantic ones as well. And my wife tends to snuggle up and hold my hand more in a darkened theater than at home on the couch. I like that. The seats are ok and we sneak our own candy. I don’t like the lines at the concession stand, nor the prices. My favorite theaters though were the old art houses that have all but disappeared. Former neighborhood theaters I think they were. Ratty seats, smaller screen, but cheaper popcorn and a livelier crowd. Who could resist laughing when the college boys in the back seats would make rude but hilarious comments about the Bridget Bardot lookalikes… or BB herself for that matter.
And what about Drive-Ins? That’s an experience all it’s own. Back seat romance…
yes, absolutely agree. http://www.riverviewtheater.com It has second runs, but caters to families and couples that want to “go out” Real popcorn with REAL butter, extra seasonings and reasonable prices. They are packed for every show I’ve gone to there.
The real problem with movie theaters is that the hollywood movies are pretty run of the mill. I’m not paying that much to go watch. Netflix brings me the foreign films and documentaries I want so….
Tyler is absolutely right – its the going out experience.
The ArcLight theaters in Los Angeles fit your description perfectly. They have reserved seating only. You can purchase on the internet and print out your tickets. They have a bar (though you cant bring alcohol into the theaters, with the exception of certain 21 and over screenings). They have nice and not necessarily cheap snacks. The seats are huge and comfortable. The screens are all big, no little box theaters. And, I think perhaps most importantly, the tickets cost $14 for regular screenings. I think this weeds out the roving groups of teenagers. The question, of course, is whether the success of Arclight is limited to a place like LA that has a very large audience for expensive movies. But, I do think that they are the model for successful theaters. My wife and I look forward to a weekend night out at the Arclight. And we rarely go anywhere else for a movie.
Christina – the Parkway Theater in Oakland used to have a “Baby Brigade” night for parents with 0-year-olds. (They serve alcohol, and are otherwise closed to people under 21.)
Avatar should be great, but if you can, please see the U2 3D movie. It is an awesome concert movie, even if you are not a big fan of U2, the 3D experience really allows you to share the energy of the performers and the crowd.
Nippon BS (a satellite broadcaster) is already broadcasting 15 minutes a night of stereoscopic 3D content for the Hyundai LCD displays released in Japan that use polarized glasses. Also anyone who has a TI DLP based rear-projection set can purchase a system which will enable it for 3D using “LCD shutter glasses”.
A new Warren Theater, which serves alcohol and food in the balcony and has a giant feature screen with digital sound, was just built 20 minutes from the University of Oklahoma in Moore (famous for being destroyed by tornadoes again and again). This would be a good case to watch if you think movie-going is about the experience.
Since it opened a few months ago, I haven’t noticed that my friends and I go to the movies more often, but we always take the longer drive to the Warren when we do.
Many good points above, just thought I’d add my thoughts:
My wife & I don’t get out to the movies as often as we used to, and I haven’t really seen the reasons posted yet: Tough to get a sitter, had a long week, don’t want to stand in line & would rather just have someone serve me dinner while I listen to good music. When we do go out to movies, we choose based on the experience: what’s visually worth seeing on the big screen (Jurassic Park, What Dreams May Come), OR, is it something we can bring the kid to.
Having said that, once we’re there, the things I find myself griping about:
- High prices for junk food
- Commercials (not trailers – commercials) before the feature (the first time I saw this in a theater, people hissed!)
- People talking during the film, or really tall people who come & sit right in front of my 9 year-old when there are fifty seats to choose from.
I think 3D movies would draw (and have drawn) me into the theater for certain films, but I don’t think it’s right for everything. It’s fine for Cameron or Lucas to say they’ll switch over 100%, but is it necessary for, say, “When Harry Met Sally” or “Schindler’s List” to be seen in this format?
Comments on this entry are closed.