Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Piracy Not To Blame In Decline of Moviegoers 1539

lucyfersam writes "In a somewhat surprisingly earnest assessment, the NYTimes has an article about the massive decline in movie-going that does not once try to blame piracy and file-sharing programs. It sounds like studios are beginning to understand that they have only themselves to blame." From the article: "Multiples theories for the decline abound: a failure of studio marketing, the rising price of gas, the lure of alternate entertainment, even the prevalence of commercials and pesky cellphones inside once-sacrosanct theaters. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Piracy Not To Blame In Decline of Moviegoers

Comments Filter:
  • by robyannetta ( 820243 ) * on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:29AM (#13397659) Homepage
    You're right. Today's movies suck. The only films worth seeing within the last decade was the LOTR trilogy.

    Hell, even my movies suck. I wouldn't want to see them on the big screen, nor would I want people wasting $7 per ticket to go see them. That's why I've adopted Creative Commons [creativecommons.com] as a licencing scheme, released it as "free to copy and share" and just release everything on the internet.

    COMING SOON: "I Know What You Did Last Friday The 13th During That Cultist Teenage Chainsaw Massacre Thingy Part VIII"

    Would you pay to see this shit?

  • by KillerDeathRobot ( 818062 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:34AM (#13397721) Homepage
    30+ dollars on a single ticket, drink and popcorn is a bit of an exaggeration, and there's still a pretty huge difference between seeing a movie on a widescreen TV vs. an actual theater screen which is however many feet tall and wide.

    I still like to see movies in the theater, but the price IS getting pretty ridiculous. And seeing a movie in a theater packed with idiots does suck. Nevertheless, I guess the article isn't really talking about me, because I probably see movies more regularly now (in the theater AND at home) than I have any time in the past.
  • by eeyoredragon ( 674402 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:46AM (#13397889)
    Yah, I agree with this. I think it has less to do with crappy movies (cause lets face it, most movies are and have always been crap) and more to do with crappy theatres. Most of the people in my family have really good to moderately good home theatre systems. The picture at theatres has sucked for ages, and the sound isn't any better than most surround systems I've been around; it's just louder. That's easy to fix at home.

    Then there's the other movie goers. They talk... younger teens like to laugh at inappropriate places to seem cool... cell phones... people sitting in front of you if you don't have stadium seating... people kicking your chair... people putting their feet on your chair or the chair next to yours...

    I used to go to theatres alot back when I was with my ex, but that was just to do something different than sit at home all night (we sat somewhere else!) Now I have a love/hate relationship with the theatres. I want to go, but when I do, I tend to not enjoy myself for above reasons. All the people problems weren't as much as an issue when the sound was comparitively good and the picture was so big. Now, when I look at the picture, all I think about is all the scratches on it.
  • I dunno. Most of the movies I go to see are rated R, and thus don't have children in the audience. But, they all have had annoying clumps of adults that talk for the entire film. Its gotten so bad that I only ever go to the "big" movies anymore. Ones that loose something when they move to DVD. Episode 3, LotR, and I'll see Serenity. But overall its an unplesant experience to go to the theater.
    The cell phone thing is annoying, of course. I remember when I went to see Fellowship of the Ring that someone's phone went off FIVE TIMES before they figured out that it was theirs. Obviously, after the 2nd time the audience was out for blood. If someone else's phone goes off, check to make sure yours is on viberate. It's really not that hard.
  • Executive Salaries (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladvNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:48AM (#13397904) Homepage
    pay the actors less money - they aren't worth 20+ million a movie.

    While I don't disagree with you, can we start with cutting the salaries of the executives first? Those are the real salaries I want nixed and they are paid far more than the actors.
  • by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:49AM (#13397920) Homepage
    Having gone to the movies at least once every two weeks for the past 10 years (usually once a week), I have never once had a showing ruined by a phone ringing, someone's kid screaming, or someone else throwing food.

    I think you exaggerate the problem a bit much.

    Worst I've ever had to deal with was someone a few rows back who had an obnoxious laugh.
  • by Reducer2001 ( 197985 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:51AM (#13397943) Homepage
    While I mostly agree with your assessment of the current theater-going situation, I've made a number of changes to my theater-going routine to remedy some of the problems that you mentioned, and my girlfriend thanks me as well!
    • Late afternoon matinees. Costs you about 60% of the normal ticket price, plus most of the screaming teenagers tend to avoid these showtimes.
    • BYOS. Bring your own soda. Chances are there is a nearby gas-station or perhaps your own fridge that is stocked to the gills with 20oz Mt. Dew. One of these babies will only run you $1.25 where I live, and will save you about $4.
    • I still have a weak spot for the popcorn, but I've made the change to go down the junior size. The plus side of this is that you're consuming less calories, which is good, and you don't feel like a stuffed pig afterwards.

    So I've gotten my movie fix down to about $10 for the whole deal: Ticket, soda and popcorn. The commercials do still annoy me, so I tend to not show up until 5 minutes before the show starts, and since no one goes to the late afternoon shows, it's still no big deal getting a good seat.

  • by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:54AM (#13397978)
    I pay ~$100 a month for a full-on Dish Networks setup - already had 500 watt 5.1 in the living room. Got a dual channel DVR from Dish and a dual receiver in the home office wired to the two PCs in there. If I'm still bored there's always Netflix.

    The reason I say this is that after going to the movies once or twice a month or so I finally got sick of it. Two movie tickets, one shared soda and a bucket of popcorn run about $25 and the spousal unit believes that Movies Always Include Dinner Out.

    So - if I get out of the deal for less than $60 I'm doing pretty well and it made the whole satellite thing extremely attractive.

    These days we go to the movies a couple times a year instead of a couple times a month - and that's only when we think some film's special effects must be seen on a big screen - like LOTR, Star Wars, War of the Worlds and so on.

    She's got about four gazillion channels of TV to watch, enough sound system to make the neighbors complain and in the end it's one hell of a lot cheaper than going to the movies.

    Oh - and the full-on Dish setup is only about ten bucks a month more than digital cable was; and we wired up two more sets and got two more premium packages plus a DVR in the deal. Cable companies, maybe you should pay attention too.

    And for the rest of you folks who think you have monopolies, I also bought two cell phones recently and ported the home wireline to my wife's cell. It's time consumers started voting with their feet (and with their wallet).
  • by robertjw ( 728654 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:58AM (#13398036) Homepage
    Having gone to the movies at least twice a year for the past 10 years, I have had several movies ruined by annoying people. Perhaps not cell phones or people throwing food specifically, but definitely noisy children and noisy people talking during the majority of the movie.
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:59AM (#13398043)
    You should feel lucky that noises are the worst of your problems. In the late 1970s, when the punk movement was taking hold in Germany and France, cinemas there often became places where no decent person would go. Why is that? Well, many of the punk tots at the time would throw human waste at patrons, rather than popcorn. It was not uncommon for a moviegoer to be hit by a wad of sperm, or even a chunk of human feces, while watching a film.

    People started to complain, and cinemas began to wisen up. Troublemaker punks were tossed out of theatres at the first sign of agitation. In the end, the cinema environment substantially improved. It was again possible to watch movies without disruption.

    The moral is that you must take action to maintain a quiet theatre. You must contact the manager when things go bad. Let them know you're displeased. That will lead to a far more enjoyable movie experience.
  • by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:00PM (#13398056) Homepage
    I agree with the theory that DVDs should be released simultaneously with the theatrical release.

    I have two young kids, so I can't go and see movies in the theaters as much as I'd like. (Actually, I never get to see movies in the theater.) However, I keep being inundated with movie marketing in such away that I really want to see certain movies. But by the time they come out on DVD so I can rent them, I no longer care to do so. The marketing fog surrounding me has long since cleared.

    A good example is the movie "40 Year Old Virgin." It sounds hilarious and I really want to see it. Will I want to see it four months from now when the DVD is release? Almost certainly not.

    All the money the studios spend on marketing is wasted on people who cannot, for whatever reason, not go to theaters. If DVDs were immediately available, the marketing would not go to waste.
  • by moexu ( 555075 ) <moexu13@@@gmail...com> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:00PM (#13398059)
    Agreed. I hadn't been to the movies in years until I went to see Star Wars Episode III. Between the commercials and previews it was a half hour before the movie started. I came really, really close to walking out.

    Recently we've been buying TV shows on DVD and watching those. No commercials, previews, or kids running up and down the aisles. It's a much better way to go.
  • Re:Differing opinion (Score:2, Interesting)

    by egriebel ( 177065 ) * <edgriebel AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:01PM (#13398077) Journal
    You have a great theory, and it seems very well thought out.

    But, have you ever heard of "Occam's Razor"? Briefly, it states that the simplest solution is oftentimes the correct one. And the simplest one in this case is that today's movies suck ass. As proof I offer "Bewitched" (even though it has the glorious Nicole Kidman), "Stealth", "Dukes", "Herbie", "Fantastic Four", etc.

  • Its the price (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) * on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:04PM (#13398112) Journal
    Around me, the price of a movie is 9 dollars so to go out with my wife to the movies cost $18.00 (not including junk food). My view is that if it only costs 12 bucks for my wife and I, I would probably see twice as many movies a year. The theatres and Hollywood have overshot the "sweet spot" of movie prices and even though twenty dollars is not a lot of money, there are too many alternative forms of entertainment one can do for less or with better value than a movie when going out. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movies because movies have been on par with previous quality of entertainment in previous years- just the price has changed. It is cheaper for me to buy a dvd of the movie than to go to the theartre and watch it. Go figure.
  • by NeuralClone ( 860360 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:05PM (#13398116)
    I have the same problem in my area, only we get about 10 to 15 minutes of advertisements and then previews. It's bad enough that we have advertisements after paying $9+ but then we are shown MPAA advertisements telling us not to pirate movies!
  • by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:05PM (#13398122)
    Depends on the theater. Personally, I like going to the theater, it's only a 15 minute walk or bike ride ( I live in DC, relatively close to a number of good theaters ) and it's a wonderful way to spend the evening with my girlfriend. We can go out beforehand or afterwards to get food, walk around, so on and so forth. The potomac waterfront in georgetown can be quite beautiful, too.

    Sure, the theater's only a small part of the experience, but it's a hell of an improvement over sitting my my apartment -- particularly since I've got a 20 year old zenith and don't intend to "upgrade" to a 3000 dollar flatscreen.

    Also, there are some really good theaters out there. In arlington ( admittedly, I have to drive to this one ) there's a theater call the "Cinema and Drafthouse" where -- and this rules -- you pay very little to get in, you can drink, eat and smoke all you want, and there's no commericials. The atmosphere is great ( and if you don't smoke, that's fine, the front is all no smoking and the ventilation's good ). The price is dirt cheap because they show movies about 6 months late, and only the *good* ones.

    Basically, as far as I can tell, if you don't like what the theaters are providing, try to find a better theater. As far as I can tell, all reaonsably sized american cities & quasi-urban areas have *some* sort of indy theater, or at the very least, something better than just a theater in a strip-mall in suburbia. Maybe you'll have to drive farther, but the whole experience can be better.

    let me put it this way. I saw _The Island_ with a friend in Georgetown's big-corporate-multiplex. The movie sucked. But then we walked across the street to a really nice bar and had a wonderful time discussing it, eating bar fries and drinking. That made up for it wonderfully, and in all I had a great time. It's hard to do that when your theater's just a plug in the middle of nowhere.

    That said, summer movies do suck, and sometimes I'd rather just stay home and watch Logan's Run again.
  • by Prophet of Nixon ( 842081 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:08PM (#13398152)
    When I went to see Kung Fu Hustle (best movie this year, incidentally) part of the theatre drop-ceiling actually collapsed due to water leaking on it from above. Fortunately it fell on the other side of the room, and dropped some ominous wet chunky bits of ceiling tile, convincing people to move before it seriously fell. Theatre didn't bother to interrupt the movie at all, though I suppose they've fixed it by now.
  • by OneByteOff ( 817710 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:10PM (#13398172)
    It's the previews that make me want to go to a theatre rather then rent a DVD... hear me out. When you goto the theatre you see previews for movies that aren't out yet that maybe you didn't know were coming out. This makes me excited and hyped up about upcoming movies. When you rent a DVD you see previews for movies already in/out of theatres that you already knew about long ago, no surprise there, they should almost make DVD's who don't show previews past a certain date. Who needs to see a Preview for Spiderman or Batman returns?.
  • by Monkeyman334 ( 205694 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:10PM (#13398173)
    I don't often go to movies, but I did notice that some movies had problems and some didn't.

    I went and saw Million Dollar Baby (I had a female boxer friend, she thought it would be about boxing) and it was an older crowd. Not 20-ish, but like 40s and 50s. They all wanted to see Clint Eastwood. There was not a single cell phone going off, no kids crying, nothing. I thought that was great.

    Another time I went to see The Incredibles. The doors at the back of the theater were being kept open because kids were going to get snacks and then not wanting to miss out on the movie. The constant sound of their eating was just deafening. And yes, there were tons of kids screaming and phones ringing. Although there was no throwing of food, never seen that before.
  • by cheezemonkhai ( 638797 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:11PM (#13398196) Homepage
    UK Prices:

    £7.50+ per adult in a standard seat eg no leg room.
    £3.00+ for a popcorn.
    £2.00+ for a drink.

    So thats £22 for a couple translates at current rates at about 39USD

    Now think that the typicl UK cinema is designed to cram people in, and not that comfortable. Some are pretty filthy too lots of popcorn stuck to the floor.

    Then you have the films.

    After a short time on release the sound (especially SDDS has degraded because some idiot decided it was a good idea to put it on the edge of the film) goes funny. Many of the films I see have a few sound drop outs which are annoying.

    The arthouse and some flicks are good, but I would say at least 85% of what comes out is crap or not worth paying that much for.

    Films get rated as a watch, DVD rental or can't be bothered for me.

    --

    And a random useless piece of info:

    If you want to never be able to watch a film in peace again look out for the change over dots at the top right corner of the film. One at the start and end of every real. I can't Ignore the things now I noticed them:(
  • Re:Differing opinion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:13PM (#13398210) Homepage Journal
    I honestly don't see quality differences. Most of my favorite movies are embarrassing. They're favorites because I associate them with friends, inside jokes, and a time in my life when money wasn't a concern. Ghostbusters, North Shore, NL'sacation are terrible productions but my associated memories make them great movies.

    Today, I can't afford them. I buy $4 DVDs (new and used) and watch them on my $1000 TV I bought on credit and will likely pay $2500 for when its paid off. $1500 in interest that could've gone to seeing terrible movies today with friends -- who also can't afford to go.

    'My' theory of time preference is a century old. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard and now Rockwell [lewrockwell.com] have warned about overspending + government inflation + no savings = recession. Time preference is killing many markets.

    My retail stores are youth focused extreme sports. Today's youth is overweight, short attention spanned, and tech savvy. Myspace is the new mall, AIM the new phone. I fear for my future because I didn't forsee the decline, nor did I savr. I spent thinking things can only get better. The million bucks I spent in the last 15 years is gone -- helping other countries get better but not paying dividends to me.

    I don't blame anyone but me. When everyone accepts the reality I profess, we can start making changes. Unfortunately I believe that the laws of the free market will surprise many people still living on future earnings.

  • by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:15PM (#13398231)
    Having gone to the movies at least once every two weeks for the past 10 years (usually once a week), I have never once had a showing ruined by a phone ringing, someone's kid screaming, or someone else throwing food.

    I think you exaggerate the problem a bit much."


    Seriously, I would love to know what city you live in.

    Roughly 85% of my movie-going experiences are disrupted by other moviegoers.

    - Cell phones.... People still do not turn them off, and many people still think it is acceptable to carry on a conversation in the theater during the movie.

    - Teenagers....I don't really need to explain this one. The movies are a babysitter for them. Real parenting is just too hard for their "busy" parents. (In today's society, people count some of their self-imposed recreational routine alongside their jobs as something that makes their schedule so "hard")

    - Whiny Kids...The movie is rated R. Get your screaming, whining hellspawn out of my $10 movie. If it is PG or PG-13 you can feel free to do the same, because I really don't want to hear their shit.

    - Middle-aged Discussion Group....A close relative of the next two groups of people, but they are more aware of what is going on with the movie, they just feel the need to whisper about everything down the half-row they staked out for themselves. After the movie, they will go to a restaurant, demand the check be split 47 ways, and then stiff the waiter. (Sorry, had to go there)

    - "Interrogators" ...People continually ask "Who is that?" "Why did he/she do that?" "Did you see that?" "What does that mean?" when they could simply pay attention to the film that they are watching and you know...pick up on this as the story unfolds.

    - "Explainers".... These are the counterparts to the Interrogators. They are usually just as clueless, but they feel the need to fill in someone on what they think the rest of the film might hold, instead of watching it.

    - Ghetto Thugs.... I expect a lot of flack for this, but sorry, this subgroup of people have ruined more movie experiences than I can imagine. They are a combination of every bad element listed above, and even the ones with families will threaten those who make a stand for the quality of their moviegoing experience. They also invariably show up 10 minutes late to the film and yell about where they are going to sit for 5 minutes, and then run around the theater.

    I'll gladly go see a half-decent movie now and then (though art house fare is more my thing) but I hesitate because my moviegoing experience is usually disrupted.
  • by brickballs ( 839527 ) <brickballs&gmail,com> on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:19PM (#13398277) Homepage
    I have noticed with the theaters in my area, that the previews are getting close to 30 min. long. With previews that long, I don't bother to show up to the theater till the time posted the movie should start. It is getting ridiculous.

    Heck, I dont leave my house till the time the movie is posted to start. I live about 15-20 mins away from my theater and I think I missed the first 30 seconds of a movie once.

    but all in all, I'v more or less stoped going to the theater. I think I went 2, maby 3 time to the movies this year. and its not that I'm downloading them - I'm just not watching the crap.

  • by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:19PM (#13398285) Homepage
    Oh, I know it's almost certainly twaddle. Heck, let's assume it IS twaddle. My point is that IF the DVD were available now, I would rent it. Thus, the movie industry would get my money. However, by waiting to release the DVD, the movie industry will get nothing from me.

    In a way the movie industry is doing me a huge favor. Allowing me to avoid crappy movies by giving a four month grace period for me to wise up. But why are they doing this favor to me when they could be taking my money?
  • by Senobyzal ( 826207 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:20PM (#13398297)
    Here at the Regal Cinemas they're showing a pre-movie show called "The Twenty". It's basically a 20-minute infomercial with clips about NBC and TNT television programs, a "making of" snip about a current movie, and a few ads.

    The first time I saw it I basically sat there dumbfounded--this was basically TV, except I'd had to pay $9 to watch it. Afterwards I told my wife that I would no longer go to a Regal Cinema; I wrote a letter to the management explaining my decision, stating that I would return when this junk was dropped, and have stuck to it to this day.

    The local Century chain is little better with its stupid ad slideshow (god, the Coke slide "games" are so freakin' inane... luckily I can just take off my glasses and talk to my wife). I am already planning on getting an HDTV monitor in 2006, and am going to cut out my moviegoing entirely, save for the occasional art-house movie at the old theatre down the street (and that concession is mostly for my wife).

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:28PM (#13398388) Homepage Journal
    Now first, let me admit, I'm a Lifetime Member of Cinema Seattle [seattlefilm.org], so I get to see 40 or more free films every year until I'm dead, and take a guest. Which is a total bargain.

    But, as someone who's been a cineaste for decades, it is very true that the film industry has been going for the cheap easy films, which bore the pants off of us, compared with prior years, and are more hung up on stars than content.

    Now, there are exceptions: The Constant Gardener, which has both a cool story and great actors; the upcoming Tim Burton film The Corpse Bride; and more.

    But in general, it's not film piracy that is killing film audiences - most of the pirates in fact seem to be going for Japanese and Chinese and Indian films that the studios won't show over here, so you can't blame people for that.

    It's not having better content than cable TV. There are some fine shows on cable TV nowadays, and if you have a large-screen TV, you don't have to shlep to the theater and sit next to someone who talks thru the movie.

    Personally, I rank films in two groups: films that must be seen on the big screen - and films that would be just as fine seen on TV at home on some cool channel like Sundance or IFC or BBC or CBC where they don't edit it to make it saccharine barf city like the lower bands do.

    And there's been a bunch of films that were so predictable, for quite a while, that I didn't even bother going to, even though they were free.

    Recently that's been changing, so I have hope for a resurgance of film, but the last few years have been dreadful.
  • Popcorn sucks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sax Maniac ( 88550 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:31PM (#13398416) Homepage Journal
    One thing that bugs me is crappy popcorn. Cold, stale, popcorn. Tastes worse than the stuff you get in a bag.

    You go to the counter, and want some popcorn. They scoop it out of a giant tub of popcorn that looks like it's been there for a few weeks. The heat lamps are nonexistent, or turned off.

    What the hell? I mean, it's not cuisine, but, would you accept a 6-hour old hamburger that's room temp?

    This must be a some strange artifact of multiplexes that I don't quite understand. When I managed a small theater years ago, the concession folks were very adept at making just enough popcorn so it was always fresh and hot. Heat lamps always on, turn it over quickly, toss it when it's nasty, and freshen it by mixing in a fresh batch.

    I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a popper actually running in a theater. We'd always running the popper right before the movie, because the smell of it running was enough to get people to buy.

    How hard of a concept is this? Of all places, a movie theather should make good popcorn, dammit!

  • by homer_ca ( 144738 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:39PM (#13398496)
    There's only one advantage now to seeing the movie in theaters, and it's the only thing studios are banking on: You get to see the movie first.

    If you wait a few months you can see it in the second-run theaters, then the rentals, then on the premium movie channels. Lately, there have been very few movies good enough that I had to pay $15 to see *right now* on the big screen.
  • by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:41PM (#13398517)
    Personally, I rank films in two groups: films that must be seen on the big screen - and films that would be just as fine seen on TV at home on some cool channel like Sundance or IFC or BBC or CBC where they don't edit it to make it saccharine barf city like the lower bands do.

    You're missing the ever-prevalent 3rd category: movies that start off as "saccharine barf city".... Far too many movies being made these days are utter crap, and in no way worth the $10 for the price of a ticket. Hell... most movies being made aren't even worth the $5 to rent the damned thing from Blockbuster, and I'm finding it harder and harder to justify my subscription to the movie channels, even though that only costs me $15/month.

    I've got a friend that works at a movie theatre, and as a student, I already have an annual bus pass. Going to the theatre with that friend costs me absolutely nothing but time, and even then I find myself wanting my money back after some of the recent offerings. There *are* some movies that I think are worth seeing, and I'm looking forward to them (both of the ones you mentionned are on that list ^_^), but by and large, I don't think I'd notice or care if Hollywood were to suddenly cease to exist.
  • by adventuregeek ( 128208 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:42PM (#13398529)
    After I picked up am Infocus projector for $1200 from Costco that was it for theater going for me. 92" picture, quality is as good or better than film.

    The last movie I saw in the theater was LOTR ROTK, the audio cut out three times, people were talking and there were ENDLESS commercials before the movie. After that no more. It really has nothing to do with the movies (although many are bad), it's the theater experience, it just sucks. I can even walk/streetcar to 2 multiplexes from my house and I won't do it.

    Now, $2 movie with a beer and a burger at McMenamins theater pub is another matter.
  • by doorbot.com ( 184378 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:44PM (#13398541) Journal
    I used to think that if a move wasn't "original" it was just flat out bad; the writer(s) just leeched off someone else. I used to think "why aren't there any good movies, why are they all so predictable?"

    Certainly, in a market like the US any movie that is "strange" will not sell as well and thus big theaters are less likely to show it. But I think the problem is deeper than that.

    Every type of plot has been done: love triangles, revenge, etc. This is why I thought movies were not "original". But each movie is different; each has its own set of characters and we go to watch the characters interact as much as we want to know what happens. Bad acting and poor screenwriting make even a good plot unbearable.

    This is why remakes, sequels and overdone special effects are often seen as signs of a bad movie; the focus shifts from the characters and story to the "flashy things" ("bling"). For an experienced movie-goer, "average" characters and acting isn't good enough anymore; you can pick out the flaws in a movie and that makes it less enjoyable. When studios use sequels and remakes as a crutch, they typically skimp on the important stuff like story, characters, and quality acting. In the end, they want to make money and if you still go when they half-ass it, why should they try harder the next time? From a business standpoint, it is far far cheaper to half-ass a movie and thus your profit is far greater.

    In many ways the industry is maturing; movies are a mass-market medium, but the public has become more demanding and are looking for quality.

    Check out The Art of Dramatic Writing [amazon.com] for some hints on writing and why the characters are what drive the success, not the plot, special effects, or handome lead.
  • by OmgTEHMATRICKS ( 836103 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:54PM (#13398649) Journal
    You're exactly right! I once went to go see a movie and arrived a bit early.

    I was subjected to The Twenty. I, too, sat dumbfounded for a while.

    I felt embarrassed.

    For myself. For the other people in the theater who paid money to see the movie. For the projectionist. For mankind in general.

    It was TV. I was paying to get away from it and this is how I was repaid. I felt quite disgusted and was about to walk out, but my folks felt determined to keep me planted in my seat so that I wouldn't walk out and embarrass them. Oh, come on. Surely me walking out isn't any worse than this trash? This overproduced, IQ lowering, third-grade bullshit that you have to watch to get a good seat?

    What's even worse is that now newer DVDs are starting to incorporate unskippable trailers for crap movies and deafeningly loud propaganda about movie piracy set to the editing pace of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @12:55PM (#13398661) Homepage
    Yup. Anytime someone tries to enforce such policies, I love to see the look on their face when I actually hand over the "contraband" in question. It's a deer in the headlights thing.

    If they want to make them take my "whatever", I actually make them take it and I won't do their job for them by disposing of it myself.
  • by Ooblek ( 544753 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @01:10PM (#13398801)
    Sure, let them watch. Then when they have questions or are scared, I am there to explain to them that they are watching something fake. Perhaps they will then learn how to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality when they are older. They are going to see it anyway, and it would be better to be there to guide them than to hide it from them and let them try to figure it out for themselves.

    I'm sure there are a lot of child psychology people out there that would disagree with this approach. I don't care; some of them need to learn that a psychology book is not a manual for how to operate kids. This is sort of on-par with the inability to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

  • by igny ( 716218 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @01:23PM (#13398932) Homepage Journal
    I see other problems for Hollywood to deal with as well
    • Sites , which are ranking the movies, like this biggest threat to Hollywood [imdb.com]. Every time I plan to see a movie, I check with imdb and yahoo.com to filter out crap like this [imdb.com]. On other hand I would miss a lot if I did not go to see Sin City [imdb.com], or The Crash [imdb.com], or Kung Fu Hustle [imdb.com] which became my favorites ot 2004-2005.
    • Movie hopping. When I am going to the local 20-something-plex, I try to watch two movies for the price of one.

    Interestingly enough, I never had problems with bad audiences. When choosing my place I tend to sit as far as possible from other people (and as close as possible to the center of the theater). Considering a sad state of affairs in Hollywood, it was very easy to find such a place in almost empty theaters.
  • by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @01:26PM (#13398966) Homepage
    The moral is that you must take action to maintain a quiet theatre. You must contact the manager when things go bad. Let them know you're displeased. That will lead to a far more enjoyable movie experience.

    Most managers take this stuff very seriously. Whenever I've complained about noisy people, bad sound, etc., the manager has always responded immediately. One time, a manager even followed me back into the theatre and waited "in the shadows." As soon as the !@$#%ing talking twerp opened his mouth, the manager was on him in a heartbeat.

    The trick, though, is to find the manager. Don't just tell anyone working there. Most of the kids at the concession stand or the ticket counter don't really know how to provide good customer service.
  • by mako1138 ( 837520 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @01:30PM (#13399019)
    I started watching old/foreign films a few years ago, and I agree that there's much good stuff out there. The Pacific Film Archive and San Francisco International Film Festival have done much to broaden my horizons.

    However, my peers just aren't interested in seeing these movies. The main complaint is "they're boring". Also common is "what, it's not in color?!". They want action and excitement; they don't want to think. They don't want to be challenged by what they see. When they praise a movie, it's in oblique terms: funny, awesome, cool, good.
  • Re:Not much better (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anomylous Howard ( 666178 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @01:35PM (#13399076) Homepage
    In my house there are screaming kids. Beacuse of them I don't have $2000-$3500 (or the space) for a home theatre. An occacional escape to the theater would be a great treat.... If only there were any good movies showing.
  • by Skeetskeetskeet ( 906997 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @02:02PM (#13399373)
    http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php [movieweb.com] If you notice, most of the movies are ORIGINAL movies, and the sequels that did the best were Spielberg/Lucas collaborations, or cartoon sequels (Shrek, Toy Story) Take a clue Hollywood. If the sequel wasn't penned 30 years before the movie was in a book, don't waste our time.
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @02:14PM (#13399491) Homepage Journal
    "Turn OFF your cell phone, I dont care if its on vibrate, I sat next to a guy that checked his phone 6 times during the last movie I went to, it didnt ring, but his screen sure as hell was bright enough to light up the immediate area and piss off about 15 people."

    You might consider that, next time you're in a hospital...having some server problems, and the crew is trying to get your Dr. As you are gasping for breath...you can at least be assured that he is not disturbing others in the theater by his phone ringing with them trying to raise him.

    A little drastic example, sure...but, some people DO have to be on call...and they do still deserve to have a little life. As long as someone doesn't have a loud ringer, or has phone on vibrate, and takes the call outside the theater...what's the problem. If a little cell phone light sets you off, man, lay off the caffeine, eh?

    :-)

  • by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @02:23PM (#13399595)

    I found these few sections from the article (towards the end of the article) very interesting. It is in regards to making movies available to home consumers immediately at release.

    Last week, John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, accused Robert A. Iger , the incoming chief executive of Walt Disney, of leveling a "death threat" at theater owners for having suggested that the lesson to be drawn from the slump is that moviegoers want films to be accessible in theaters and on DVD simultaneously.

    Mr. Iger had observed that studios ignored consumers at their peril. "We can't allow tradition to stand in the way of where the consumer can go, or wants to go," he told analysts this month, warning that "the music industry learned this the hard way."

    Mr. Iger's conclusion - that consumers want the choice of seeing movies in their homes at the same time as in the theater - is being reached by others in the industry as well. But it remains contentious, resisted not only by the owners of theater chains. Mr. Lynton of Sony was adamant that the theatrical experience should be protected, while Mr. Shaye said he was still "on the fence" on the subject.

    Warren Lieberfarb, a former Warner Brothers executive who was a main advocate of the DVD in the early 90's, warned that going to the movies had become too expensive over all, given the excellent quality of home theater. "It's not just the DVD. It's not just the DVD window," he said. "It's the flat-panel television and the sound system, with the DVD option, that has radically changed the quality of the in-home experience. The home theater has arrived." As a result, he said, "you have to change the business model of the movie business."


    I personally find this extremely exciting. When you think about it, the movie theaters have a stranglehold on consumers in terms of being able to access new releases. If you want to see a new release, you only have one place to go: the local cineplex. Now, the cineplexes do have to compete with each other, but in the end all of their business model's are about reducing costs. So, what you end up with is the crap that we are offered today: sticky floors, bad seating, bad sound, dirty screens, noisy people, 400 seat theaters where only 150 seats really have a good view, etc. They are providing the bare minimum: a chance to see the movie. Sure, there exists the high quality theaters that take an interest in their patron's experience (small theaters, properly calibrated sound systems, comfortable seating, gourmet food service, ambiance, etc). But they are few are far between because the cost is much higher to run such a theater and the number of patrons is lower.

    If the releases were available to the consumer, I think we would experience a renaissance in theater opportunities. People all over would be running custom theaters to cater the movie experience for their friends and family. Think movie houses now: at 7:00 pm 20 people show up, drink and eat for 30 minutes, socialize, etc. Then everyone moves into the theater for a 7:45 pm showing of the featured movie.

    The theaters would still exist for the masses, but more people would get into the customized experience for the quality of it all.
  • by Phanatic1a ( 413374 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @02:55PM (#13399941)
    Stop turning books/comics into films.

    New Line was going to stop existing as a movie studio, until they turned some books into films. They were written by a guy named Tolkien, and the movies received wide critical acclaim and grossed something like 3 billion dollars worldwide.

    So that's probably not particular good advice.

    In other words, what's wrong with turning books into films? Sure, the oft-heard lament is "The book was better," and that may be true, but some damned fine movies get made from books, or comic books, or plays. Heck, just from the IMDB Top 250:

    1. The Godfather - book by Mario Puzo
    2. Shawshank Redemption - novella by Steven King
    3. Return of the King - duh
    7. Casablanca - play by Burnett and Alison
    12. FOTR
    13. Cuckoo's Next - book by Kesey
    14. TTT
    28. Lawrence of Arabia - memoirs by Lawrence of Arabia

    I'm not going to go on, because there's a lot more, but c'mon. I'm not even listing things like Spider-Man and the X-men movies, because despite box office receipts it could certainly be argued that those aren't great movies.

    But The Wizard of Oz? Mutiny on the Bounty? Blade Runner? War of the Worlds? Rosemary's Baby? Doctor Zhivago? Deliverance? The Maltese Falcon? Fight Club? Gone With the Wind? Full Metal Jacket?

    I must admit to being very curious as to why you don't want them to make more films as good as those.
  • by cornelius1729 ( 857214 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @03:45PM (#13400502)
    I've noticed a definite divide in the cinema/ theater experience between the UK and the US.

    Talking in a cinema in the UK is a big no-no, so they stay pretty quiet. I've even gotten a few funny looks before for laughing too loud in a comedy film.

    Conversely, it seems like chatting is encouraged in the US (or at least in NYC, which is pretty much my only experience of the US) to make it a more lively social occasion.

    It's hard to say which is best, just a matter of taste I suppose.

    As for pricing, in the UK UGC cinemas do a £10/ month pass where you can see as many films as you want `for free'. So if you go every day that's just 30p a film. BARGAIN!

  • Dinner is obsolete (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @03:59PM (#13400641)
    Problem number three: A movie is not the best place for a first date. You need to interact, not stare at a screen on your first date. Dinner good, movie bad.

    I would actually say dinner is NOT a good idea for a first date. Lunch is better.

    It's a short affiar: friendly and light. No heavy pretense that comes with Dinner. If you don't hit it off, you're only wasted an hour or so of each other's time. If you do, you can always make additional plans that evening if you wish.
  • by iainl ( 136759 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @04:03PM (#13400686)
    Actually, I really, really hate the under and over rated mods. They don't get metamodded, so people feel free to use them like idiots, and it's perfectly common to post an on-topic comment that isn't exactly inane, and yet still get some twat mark it 'overrated' without any other modding on it at all, not even the Karma Bonus.

    Still, those cinemas, eh? Obsolete. Unless your HT's screen is under 20ft high and you're not capable of cranking it to reference without annoying everyone in a 2-block radius.
  • by Knave75 ( 894961 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @04:03PM (#13400693)
    Wiping a dog's face in it's own feces doesn't work for a number of reasons. 1) Dog's have poor memories. Unless you react almost immediately, they simply will not make the connection. 2) Even if they do make the connection, the lesson they will likely learn is "elimination should be done when the human is not around in a place the human won't find right away". The logical leap of "feces in nose" to "should eliminate outside" might occur, but is unlikely. 3) Most importantly, dogs don't really mind feces as much as we do. Many of them eat it happily.
  • by Timtimes ( 730036 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @04:24PM (#13400884) Homepage
    You can get a real nice XGA DLP for around a thousand bucks and it'll throw an AWESOME 80-100 inch diagonal picture on most any decent wall (without even the need for a screen)

    I'm with you 100% on the relative worthlessness of $3000 40 and 50 inch plasmas though.

    Enjoy.
  • by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @04:40PM (#13401058) Journal
    Actually, due to the fucked up society our forefathers left for us, we are nearing a social collapse. Within the next 10 years, all those baby boomers who were more interested in fucking for fun and spending money than having children and raising families are going to retire. When that happens, 50% of the population are going to be retired or under 18, and there won't be enough hands to keep society running, let alone care for the elderly. Enjoy the ride while it lasts, because this little social experiment is about to come to a bad end. The only thing that MAY keep it in check is a massive wave of immigration, but don't count on it.

    If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Ask a good life insurance agent, they'll know what I'm talking about.

    Societies that don't breed cease to exist. Hard and fast rule, no exceptions. Welcome to reality.
  • by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @05:10PM (#13401370)
    It's not a cultural thing and it's not a meme, it's the truth. There have always been bad teenagers, but up until about the mid 90s, you could usually report to their parents who would dish out the punishment. Nowadays, it seems that many parents are offended that you would report to them about their child's misbehavior, much less ask them to dish out some punishment. I have observed this somewhat myself, but also from talking to teachers who have taught since the early 90s. They comment that parents are less and less responsive over the years, and more likely to give the teachers attitude about their kid's actions.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...