Why Must We Still Wait Months To See First-Run Movies On DVD?
The plain answer, I'm told, is revenue to the studios. But I believe there are other factors at play - factors relating to tradition and how movies are sold.
What would happen, for instance, if what most agree is the inevitable were to occur tomorrow, and any new film release could be viewed simultaneously in theatres, or via DVD, on-demand, or download?
Undoubtedly, a large portion of theatre chains, already struggling, would fold. Beyond putting people out of work, this would also send a blunt message to society at large: since increasingly movie audiences are staying home to watch movies, the tradition of film as shared public experiences, and the cinema as "church", is inexorably fading. How could this happen?
Actually, the reasons are fairly self-evident: home theatre technology is better and more affordable than ever before; watching movies at home is more convenient; and given the economy, the most relevant point: it's a whole lot cheaper.
This is not to suggest that all movie houses will eventually disappear, but we should prepare ourselves for a major consolidation. Multiplexes do not provide the quality of experience that traditional cinemas once did, yet the public pays an arm and a leg to see a movie on a large screen, at often deafening sound levels. And what's the real benefit? Getting out of the house-perhaps, but beyond this, only that viewers saw the film early, and can talk about it with their friends. It's a matter of timeliness.
I myself co-founded a restored arts cinema in Stamford, Connecticut: The Avon Theatre. It's a circa 1939 not-for-profit movie house, deriving its revenue from both ticket sales and membership dollars. It provides added-value both in atmosphere and special programs. (For instance, at special Avon member events, I've hosted the likes of Robert Altman, Arthur Penn, Lasse Hallstrom, Gene Wilder, Chevy Chase, and Tim Robbins.) I'm convinced the Avon's business model will help keep movie theatres alive for generations to come.
Some of the folks mentioned above will doubtless excoriate me for this, but the conventional thinking that a movie is best appreciated on a huge screen and in an assemblage of strangers no longer holds true when compared to a state-of-the-art , high-definition home theatre.
Indeed, accustomed as I am to watching films in my own (none-too-elaborate) screening room, I often find going to theatres a headache-inducing experience. And only part of this has to due with what's actually up on the screen.
But back to the central question. I cover DVDs and the home viewing market. I know that DVDs have allowed the industry to survive over the past decade, that they represent the lion's share of profits to studios' bottom lines. Yet I, in a real sense Hollywood's most valuable and reliable customer, still have to wait months to see first-run movies. Is this not counter-intuitive?
The current reality represents a subtle form of coercion. If you want to be "au courant" on films, you must get in your car, consume the gas, slap down the ten dollars (per head!) at the theatre, and in the process, hopefully buy some overpriced popcorn. Otherwise, to paraphrase "Casablanca", you simply have to wait...and wait...and wait.
And waiting exacts its own price. I cannot help but feel that my reactions to this past year's top Oscar-nominated films were at least somewhat influenced by the lag-time in my seeing them.
Prime example: when I finally screened "Slumdog Millionaire" on DVD about a month ago, I'd experienced so much hype about the film that I was somewhat let down by it. I admired its originality and pure entertainment value, but I expected to be more emotionally invested. I found its more improbable aspects - and somewhat calculated nature - got in the way of that.
More recently, I watched "Rachel Getting Married", which I thought pretty odious. This was a wedding you'd need to pay me to go to. The whole undertaking felt like an attempt at contemporary realism that managed to feel forced and manufactured (not easy to achieve when the story is based on fact). I also hated the jerky, pseudo-documentary shooting style, which seemed consciously manipulative and worse, made me nauseous. And though she's a reasonably talented actress with very pretty eyes, I still don't understand all the fuss about Anne Hathaway.
"The Reader" I also found to be good, not great, another example of a decent film elevated by one star's performance (Winslet is admittedly terrific). "Changeling" was fairly diverting, but I did not think Angelina's turn was remotely Oscar-worthy-in fact, she seemed miscast to me.
Compounding this mystery of timing and perception is that certain other top entries still blew me away on DVD after great word-of-mouth and an equally long wait: "Doubt", "Tell No One", "The Boy In The Striped Pajamas" and "I've Loved You So Long" fall onto that list. (I'm quite certain "Milk" would too, though I confess to having seen that one at the Avon.)
As for "Gran Torino", "The Wrestler", and "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button", I'll just have to let you know later, since as someone who covers that ever-expanding (but under-served) home viewing universe, I haven't been able to see them yet!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't have a "home theater" but still find watching movies much more enjoyable at home than in a theater. To me, the movie theater provides no value over watching the movie at home - in fact there's negative value - for all the reasons already noted. The last straw was the advertisements. Instead I spend my entertainment dollars on good dinners out with my husband and/or friends. I first broke the movies out habit when I was pregnant and couldn't sit through a movie without a bathroom break, then with small children at home and a tight budget, the cost of two movie tickets and a babysitter was $50 - and that was without getting dinner. So not worth it. I get my sense of community at my local library and coffee houses. I really don't care if I see movies later rather than earlier - but maybe the movie studios should care. I'd pay more to see the movies at home when they're first released. Once I've waited until they've on DVD, I tend to wait an extra day or two and pick them up at my local library, where I pay 50 cents for the rental. And I end up skipping lots of movies entirely because the "buzz" is gone and my focus has shifted to something else.
My next to last Multiplex experience went like this:
Person in row in front of me: "Hey, guess where I am calling you from? Yeah, the movie! It's not as good as his last movie, especially considering it ends like THIS but blah blah blah..."
person in row behind me: Kick the seat in front of me, rinse, repeat. Kick the seat in front of me, rinse, repeat...
Family next to me: Our kids are too young to be here but we couldn't get a babysitter, sorry they are screaming.
It ruined a pretty good movie.
See John Farr's Profile
I would have left...wha
Some movies never even got released on video, let alone DVD! My mom has often told me about a 1974 movie called "Stardust" (about the rise and fall of a rock star), and she even has the soundtrack on vinyl. And yet the movie never got released on video and hasn't gotten released on DVD. Why does a piece of crap like "The Poseidon Adventure" get a special edition DVD, but "Stardust" gets nothing?! Ditto "The Gravy Train" (also called "The Dion Brothers", it's another one that mom told me about).
There are also movies that, while they got released on video, are still waiting to get released on DVD. They include "The Corrupt Ones" (also called "Die Holle von Macao", starring Robert Stack and Elke Sommer) and "Conrack" (from the days when Jon Voight had some value).
See John Farr's Profile
even "the african queen" has not seen a dvd release. it's due to a combination of rights issues, neglect, and poor marketing judgment.
I know you aren't giving reviews exactly, but HOW could you even remotely like "Tell No One?" I am baffled by the reviews of this unbelievable, convoluted mess of a movie. Made no sense whatsover and was insufferably long.
See John Farr's Profile
I thought it was a really entertaining thriller, well paced and acted, and many others seem to agree...bu
Thanks for your comment John. I own this so I will definately take your advice and watch it again. It seemed very complicated with too many subplots, but I know a lot of people liked it.
Your post on the movie industry was very thought provoking. The whole marketing thing for movies needs to change. The studios seem just as flat-footed as they were when TV came on the scene. I suppose it began by movies being an 'alternate' to vaudville and theatre. They were something one went out to to see with an audience. But now that the technology has caught up, that seems outdated. Same thing with DVD sales/rentals. It's obvious that will all be accessed online.
After we sunk about 7500 into a system for our home we have been to the movies once (although the kids go with g'ma and g'pa) to see monsters vs aliens 3d. It was fun and the special effects were something we wouldn't have seen at home. It cost $50.00 just for the tickets! OUCH. We love our home theater.
I stopped going to movies in the theater about 25 years ago because I just couldn't take the rude behavior of movie theater audiences any more. Why should I go and try to watch something while people are talking out loud (as if they are at home), chomping popcorn kicking or putting their knees in the back of my seat? I've never understood the concept of selling noisy food to a room full of people allegedly trying to listen to something. The result is I'm always way behind in knowing about or seeing movies. I just don't care. Plus, the over all quality of movies these days seems so bad to me. Does anyone know how to write any more? Most movies look like video games. Bad writing and lousy plots are too often buried in an avalanche of green screened special effects, blowups, characters unrealistically surviving all types of catastrophic injuries and being fine in the next scene. This is supposed to pass for entertainment. I have a great home theater system but my last few trips to the video stores have more often than not resulted in leaving empty handed or returning what I rented completely underwhelmed. To your point about quick DVD release, given what usually comes out, I can wait.
See John Farr's Profile
I share your sentiments. next time before going to the video store, stock uo on titles from our website!
You and I are kindred spirits. :-)
John, I grew up in the theatre business, and I could not agree with you more. Now that I'm much older, I have a home theatre and with a multiplex just a few blocks away, I never go to the theatres any more. I also agree with you on Slumdog. It was one of the most over-hyped movies I've ever seen and no where near "best movie" status. When did they start rating movies on how much money they make instead of how good they are? Some of the best movies of years past (and I'm speaking of the late 30's and the 40's & 50"s) did not win big awards at the time. I agree with Matt Damon's comments about the Academy Awards Best Movie designation. Maybe they ought to wait a couple of years before they give a movie the "best movie" award. I guess that wouldn't fare well with the broadcast of the Academy Awards Show, though, would it?
See John Farr's Profile
lots of creative ideas never see the light of day because you can't put a big dollar sign next to it. thanks for your feedback!
twilight was for sure on disc very quickly after its theatrical run. i thoink dark knight appeared fairly soon too.
See John Farr's Profile
lag times can indeed vary, which only adds to the prevailing confusion.
Both were very popular films. They probably started burning DVDs early to keep up with the hype.
See John Farr's Profile
not a hard thing to do, and a good problem to have!
" It's a circa 1939 not-for-profit movie house, deriving its revenue from both ticket sales and membership dollars. "
Real movie theaters make their money at the concession stand.
(that's why the snacks are so expensive, the ticket price, for the most part, goes to whoever supplies the theater with the film, which is a loss leader the theater uses to get you to pass by the popcorn counter, and, they hope, stop to buy something)
See John Farr's Profile
yes- concessions are important.
Most of the multiplex have done a bad job of creating a great theater experience. The lobby is usually crammed with peoples because quite franckly they got too more screens and not enough space to accommodate that many peoples walking around. On top of the crowding the lobby is always filled with a cacophony of sounds that make me pity the poor smuck working there all day.
When you can finally sit down you got to watch a batch of pub and trailers that can last up to half a freaking hour before the main event start. But the last straw is the food that is so overcharged it a deal breaker in my book. I know how much popcorn is worth and it sure as hell not ten bucks! Edit: God am I getting old or what? Am just 31 for god sake!!!
See John Farr's Profile
it's how you feel and I understand!
I also dislike all the previews- and again they're so loud!
Going to the movies is one of the last group experiences Americans have. The point of going to the movies isn't to watch the movie, it is the shared communal experience. Once upon a time our ancestors used psychedelic plants and religious ritual for their communal experience as a way of sharing a form of alternate reality, Americans go to the movies. Stop going to the movies and you rob yourself of an essential human experience.
See John Farr's Profile
you make a valid point, but then the industry needs to do a better job of enhancing that experience. the current state and atmosphere of most theatres today do not justify the cost and effort.
The experience lost it appeal because the industry does not have any enforced standard for movie theaters. The only thing that have kept the movie theaters business going is the remaining aura of prestige attributed to movie being released in theaters. If the stigma on the label "Direct to DVD" disappear how many studio would bother with theater release? And I have seen evidence with more than a few quality movie going that route recently that it might be happening soon.
That's very intriguing. Do most people feel that way? Because I just never have felt that. I rarely see movies in a theater, but when I do it's because I have an urge to see a particular film in that format. Never have I even given thought to the communal aspect of going to a theater - unless it was to see the Rocky Horror Show.
I am interested in knowing if it's true that most people think as you do.
See John Farr's Profile
they certainly felt that way in the golden age of cinema...l
Besids the ticket prices, parking issues, waiting in line, there are:
1.) Popcorn has been popped in partially hydrogenated oil, which I won't eat, so I never get food at a theater, but at home I can eat whatever I want.
2.) If I go to the restroom, I miss a chunk of the movie, but at home, I just stop the movie.
3.) My furniture at home does not smell funny, possibly harboring diseases.
4.) I have to worry about rambunctious somewhat scary strangers, who talk during the movie.
5.) The movie at home plays on my schedule.
See John Farr's Profile
agree with all this...and movie watching at home can still be communal- but you get to choose who's sitting next to you, and they know not to talk or fall asleep.
i have all of that at home anyway - and no high school kids in red jackets to sweep up.
See John Farr's Profile
would you really want them if you could get them?
Not everybody has the money or place for that mega screen and sound TV or gigachannel digital cable TV or satellite for PPV. Many, especially teens and young adults wouldn't see a movie at home as looking to get out of the house.
Where the combined theaterical-DVD-PPV releases would work best for are family films and 'quality' (i.e. not mass market films for the teen/young adult audience) films where the costs and inconvenience of going out limits the market or where their is an expected limited audience. Let us also not forget that the theater owners would lose billions in investments and revenues. If more theaters would go out of business as your concept suggests, many towns would lose tax revenues, real property investors would lose too. There are too many interests that would get into the way of your same date release model.
See John Farr's Profile
businesses must eventually adjust to the changing condition of the market and the evolving wants and needs of its consumers.
Let me just suggest that the success of a film in it's theatrical run contributes to it's ultimate profitability on Digital formats for home viewing.
I also think we're already becoming so isolated from each other in the digital age. I love seeing movies in theaters and particularly seeing big special effects driven films on IMAX screens or the new spate of 3D films which are only available as an in theater experience. I see at least 2 movies a week in theaters, but I also have an extensive DVD/BluRay collection of well over 200 titles (films I first saw in theaters and knew I would want to watch again to justify the $29 price tag of a sale priced BluRay new release).
I know my theater going habits are atypical but the box office returns for theatrical releases which are holding steady and even showing growth do not hold up to your prognostication that the end of theaters is imminent.
See John Farr's Profile
didn't say end of theaters is imminent, said it wil contract and consolidate.
and only reason revenue may be flat is pricing-visits to theatres are down.
A few points:
3D is emerging as the next disruptive technology in displays; it already has proponents in the manufacturing field. Panasonic finalized their Blu-ray 3D standard late last year and many manufacturers already have 3D capable displays, whether anaglyph or polarized. With the appropriate projector and display space you can certainly replicate the size of IMAX (if not the pervasive sound - incidentally, three cheers for Galt Collegiate Institute in Cambridge, Ontario - the home of 3 founders of IMAX).
With respect to DVD lead times: don't expect the film industry to do the smart thing. Giving users flexible, timely access to the media they want to consume isn't something they understand. I would, without hesitation, skip theatrical releases entirely if I could purchase the films I want with Day 1 Blu-ray releases. Instead they choose to delay releases, giving pirates much more opportunity to dilute the value of their wares. Common sense is the rarest asset of all in Hollywood.
See John Farr's Profile
I'm just hoping they may still wake up to what I agree is simply common sense-and good business.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
