As someone who goes to the movies a ton, it hurts to say that this is all true. The business model is just an expanded version of an arcade if you really think about it.RPM said:
Excellent. Can't wait for the day when quality movies are released directly and there's no need to sit in a room with strangers to see a movie that may or may not be worth it.
If that day never comes, oh well.
This is 2018. The business model that says we all must gather in a theatre to watch a movie is so out dated it is laughable.
Hollywood has just about done every iteration of an idea out there that is marketable.
Noisy brats, over priced junk food, no convenient pause button if someone needs to piss... all good reasons to never step foot into a theatre again.
I mean it's easy, right? As streaming revenues grow, is it not as simple as shifting those studio licenses over time to whoever is offering a home platform? Maybe I'm being reductive and/or don't know how long these studio distribution contracts last, but it doesn't seem like rocket science to me.scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
Frok said:
I stopped going because I have young kids and no time.
how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
62strat said:how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
you have an 80ft screen in your living room?62strat said:how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
what?The Debt said:
The writers strike in 2007 didn't help. But that isn't the whole story.
Truth is 2001-2009 were the Bush years and 2004 Hollywood went all out to show their hatred toward the man. During that time hundreds of thousands, if not millions, decided to question where they put their dollars.
The aftermath of that: the demand for content didn't change, it probably grew, which gave rise to alternative media.
RPM said:
Excellent. Can't wait for the day when quality movies are released directly and there's no need to sit in a room with strangers to see a movie that may or may not be worth it.
If that day never comes, oh well.
This is 2018. The business model that says we all must gather in a theatre to watch a movie is so out dated it is laughable.
Hollywood has just about done every iteration of an idea out there that is marketable.
Noisy brats, over priced junk food, no convenient pause button if someone needs to piss... all good reasons to never step foot into a theatre again.
The Milkman said:
I have stopped going almost entirely because of the general rudeness and thoughtlessness of most of society. I can't tell you the last time I went to a movie when I didn't get annoyed by someone talking, texting/checking their phone, or having kids in a theater that are way too young or out too late.
The experience is ruined very quickly and for what they are charging it's a small chance that I'll actually get through without some jackwad ruining it.
This.Head Ninja In Charge said:
I've remedied this by finding or paying extra for the theaters that have assigned seating. The back row for the win. You think it's too far away, but when the previews start and you realize the screen is bigger than anything you'll ever have it home, it evens out. Also, matinee life 'til I die. Would never go on a weekend night. That's just me though.
CJS4715 said:Frok said:
I stopped going because I have young kids and no time.
Unfortunately having young kids doesn't stop some couples from going to the theater.
First showing on Sunday morning at Alamo is pretty much all the wife and I will put up with these days.wangus12 said:
Alamo Drafthouse is awesome. Almost always cheaper than Cinemark or AMC and they toss people who are rude.
Never have had a bad experience there. I go see probably 20-25 movies a year there and that won't change.
Charge $8 per household.. and then watch the viewership increase.cab559 said:62strat said:how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
$8 per head? Or $8 per household...
Because watching Judd Apatow's latest knee slapper requires an 80' screen?YellowPot_97 said:you have an 80ft screen in your living room?62strat said:how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.
Amen.Quote:
Excellent. Can't wait for the day when quality movies are released directly and there's no need to sit in a room with strangers to see a movie that may or may not be worth it.
You don't need an 80ft screen when you're sitting 12' from it - an 8ft screen will do just fine.YellowPot_97 said:you have an 80ft screen in your living room?62strat said:how is paying a theater $8 any different than paying $8 to the film companies for them to stream it to you at home?scoop12 said:
Theatrical releases still pay the bills for film companies. Until they find a way to replace the cash cow, theaters will still be around.