Shyamalan Opposes Quick DVD Releases

[saurabh]

Read it here

Although they admit earning more revenues from DVD sales, I cant figure out how does it effect them negatively????

[Burke Strickland]

It's not just about the money. He's saying he makes movies to be enjoyed and appreciated on the "big screen" and he feels that films should be exhibited in commercial theaters first so they continue to be a shared experience rather than that just being an alternative to experiencing the movie on DVD for the first time.

Of course, since money is ultimately what decides these things most of the time, he's probably going to lose, but he does make a valid point: there is a difference between seeing a movie for the first time in a theater versus seeing it for the first time in a home theater. There is something "different" and "special" about the group experience of the film art form in a really good commercial theater as opposed to seeing the same movie on a TV at home.

On the other hand, given the sad physical state of many commercial theaters, the comparatively poor quality of the projection and sound systems in many of them as actually operated and the rudeness of today's audiences, sometimes that "shared experience" is NOT the superior one.

Burke

[Nick M]

I have 84" from 8', which gives a better ratio than some of my local cinemas. Much better sound too.

Not to mention the lack of babies crying, kids screaming, cell phones/beepers, laser pointers dancing across the screen mid-film, old people farting next to me (I don't mind my own farts), better food, alcoholic beverages, and on-demand pause instead of crossing my legs uncomfortably for 45minutes... :B

Of course when I know a movie is going to be killer, I make the drive to a good theater which makes mine seem like the 32"/HTIB setup on display at WalMart. I still have better bass though... :lol: :W

[George Bellefontaine]

As much as I detest what has happened to the cinemas (elcrapo multiplexes with stadium seating, etc), I wouldn't want to see them disappear. Every now and then I like to take in a movie at the theater, even though, like Nick, I have a pretty big pic and great sound at home. Ands waiting a few weeks for film to come to dvd isn't a bother to me a bit. I just wish they'd bring back those great old cinema palaces of the past. Taking in a movie back then was truly an event.

[saurabh]

It's not just about the money. He's saying he makes movies to be enjoyed and appreciated on the "big screen" and he feels that films should be exhibited in commercial theaters first so they continue to be a shared experience rather than that just being an alternative to experiencing the movie on DVD for the first time.

Of course, since money is ultimately what decides these things most of the time, he's probably going to lose, but he does make a valid point: there is a difference between seeing a movie for the first time in a theater versus seeing it for the first time in a home theater. There is something "different" and "special" about the group experience of the film art form in a really good commercial theater as opposed to seeing the same movie on a TV at home.

On the other hand, given the sad physical state of many commercial theaters, the comparatively poor quality of the projection and sound systems in many of them as actually operated and the rudeness of today's audiences, sometimes that "shared experience" is NOT the superior one.

Burke

Hmmmm...I agree to every word that you have written down to the dot but I guess good theater's are not available everywhere in the world so they should let the people choose their viewing option, alternatively reduce the DVD release period to lets say 1 month, so that the enthusiasts have the first opportunity to see it on Cinema and other who like the "couch" can see it at home, right Nic!!.

[aud19]

Pretty much watch movies at home now. We've made a few trips to theatre for select movies over the past couple years but with superior SQ and PQ in every way but picture size in our HT, not to mention the other reasons mentioned, there's not really any point to going to the theatre anymore. The last couple times we've been especially dissapointed at our local theatre and have made a decision that the only step up now, sadly, is IMAX. We plan to go see the new Harry Potter at IMAX a couple weeks after it's opening

[ht_addict]

The whole reason for the quick release has nothing to do with revenue, its to deal with piracy. Most off the time you can get the movie off the net before its even released. Now the PQ/SQ tend to be on the crappy side. What the studios have too do is drop the price off going to the movies. Nothing worse than spending $40+(no snacks) to take the family to the movies and it sucks. Not to mention why not offer $5 off the dvd if you buy it when it comes out. Ticket stub could have the coupon(instant or mail-in) attached.

[Burke Strickland]

The whole reason for the quick release has nothing to do with revenue, its to deal with piracy.

If the studios are trying to kill piracy by making their own product available for sale sooner, (presumably so people buy it from them instead of using the pirated versions), it seems that would have "everything" to do with revenue.

Burke

[ht_addict]

If the studios are trying to kill piracy by making their own product available for sale sooner, (presumably so people buy it from them instead of using the pirated versions), it seems that would have "everything" to do with revenue.

Burke

If the early release kills theater revenue, and that lose isn't made up with sales of DVD's then it has nothing to do with revenue.

[saurabh]

Well if you want to curb piracy, take pre-orders on DVD along with some discount. Give users choice to view the movie where they want to, DVD or Cinema. Only those will goto the pirated version who dont want to watch in the Cinema and have no other choice.

Not to forget the TC/TS versions that come up after the releases in the P2P.

[Burke Strickland]

If the early release kills theater revenue, and that lose isn't made up with sales of DVD's then it has nothing to do with revenue.

That's a pretty big "if". Theater revenue has already been on the decline without early release. If the action is revenue neutral, then what IS the real point of curbing piracy?

Copyrights and patents on intellectual property, including movies, are not granted for ego fulfillment. Their purpose is to protect the owner's financial intereest in their intellectual property.

Burke

[PewterTA]

It's always been about money, always WILL BE about money. Simple as that.

For me, the last movie in the theaters I went to see was StarWars Episode III, the movie before that was Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. So I don't go to too many movies.

I personally don't like the huge screen where the picture is blurred (because it's too big), the sound is decent, but nothing to write home about, crowd is noisy, and I can't pause for a break if need be, have have to spend the money to go see the film. This is why I've collected so many DVDs as I have and enjoy having all my friends over to watch a movie. It's just a better overall atmosphere.

[aud19]

If the early release kills theater revenue, and that lose isn't made up with sales of DVD's then it has nothing to do with revenue.

A LOT of movies now make more money on DVD than in theatre

[JonMarsh]

It's not just about the money. He's saying he makes movies to be enjoyed and appreciated on the "big screen" and he feels that films should be exhibited in commercial theaters first so they continue to be a shared experience rather than that just being an alternative to experiencing the movie on DVD for the first time.



On the other hand, given the sad physical state of many commercial theaters, the comparatively poor quality of the projection and sound systems in many of them as actually operated and the rudeness of today's audiences, sometimes that "shared experience" is NOT the superior one.

Burke

I have to go with your LAST paragraph on this one- the last couple of movies I've seen at the theatre weren't even "HD" definition, due to poor focus and truly mediocre sound. Let's not even talk about the expense (movies for two = price of DVD) or convenience factor.

The thing is, the more the average consumer gets exposed to things like true HD (1080P) clips of Batman Begins, Serenity, etc, the gulf between what you can see on the home system versus what is usually delivered at the cineplex (my local one has one IMAX screen, but the rest mostly s*ck), will turn viewers off to going to the theater even more.

Combine mediocre movies with mediocre presentation, and why SHOULD consumers be lining up to pay inflated prices for mediocrity? The movie people and the music biz are working from the same script, which is expecting the consumer to be willing to pay more each year for less in quality, and to actually do more of it- why are they surprised that isn't working?

/RANT OFF

~Jon

[RobP]

Its sad to see what is happening to our movie theatres, I am in the industry and I cannot stand seeing a movie in about 80% of the theatres, presentation means nothing anymore, its all about numbers. One thing here lately that gets me is the new digital DLP projectors used for on screen advertising, before when you walked in you had a SILENT slide projector shooting ads and trivia on the screen. No you have a circus going on in front of you, IMO it is very annoying. :evil:

I fight these issues all of the time, but its a losing battle, the Cinemas are sinking and they are too blinded by their own egos to see it.

I could go on for hours, but I will spare you guys from my lunatic ravings. :