tick tock, Hollywood.......tick tock.

K

kyledroid

Well-known member
So, let me just start off by saying that it's a brave new world in film-making. Within three years time ( just a wild guess), much of the American film going public will most likely be compelled to stay home and watch streaming or downloadable movies through I.P. rather than going to a local cineplex and putting down $7.50 for a fairly bland and commercialized piece of "ART". Dont get me wrong, there are great Hollywood movies out there. However, the idea that Hollywood could put together a string of great movies seems sadly far fetched. Anyways, back to my prediction. Im not saying it's going to be three years exactly, and my estimation of American movie goers switching over to the internet as a primary source of new movies also seems far fetched. But hear me out. With technologies such as video cameras, video compression, and video networking always increasing in quality, a clever DP could make a low budget film a really big deal. Now, Im not going to discuss all these technologies here and now because: A. You all know them just as well or even better than I do.; B. There are always new and better technologies coming out that need to be discussed more thoroughly.

Anyways, I leave it to all of you to discuss.
 
I don't know about you but I actually like going out to watch a movie with an audience. Well, at least most audiences. Sometimes a movie can be more enjoyable with an audience. It's defintely not the same watching it at home. Well, least at my home.
 
Hollywood had better do something. What are we at, the 19th or 20th straight week of "slumping" box office. It even has made the local news here in my home town. They need to make better movies and IMO, re-evalutate their pricing. I'm afraid that with a slumping box office, we may see more consolidation of the chain theatres and a reduction of available screens, which would make it even harder for independents to get their films out there.

Terry Lawson, from the Detroit Free Press recently had an article about this.

http://www.freep.com/entertainment/movies/pm4897_20050706.htm

He makes a good point.
 
Bluespider, yur the MAN! I agree, I love going to a theater and being apart of an audience. But really, even with an audience, I could'nt sit through another "Gigli" like movie. It all just feels commercialized to me. My opinion, some little independent movie will make some type of big, big splash eventually. And this little idependent wont make its splash at a theater near you but via the net. If its distribution that worrys you, I say in the years to come a refined network ,primarily for video, will make it cheap and relativley quick for any of us to dispense our artwork. But like Bluespider says, its more fun with an audience.....wait, that came out wrong.
 
Despite technology making the world a smaller place (DVXuser is an example) it also secludes us and isolates us. We sit in our cubicles and in our homes rather than getting out and interacting with people. I live in a strange and exotic country and 90% of the time I'm at home, sitting at my computer. Sad.

Yesterday I went to the movies. Didn't understand a word in the movie but it's the whole experience of sitting with a group and experiencing something together, that matters the most. I would hate to live in a world where people stopped going to the theater and just sat in their home.
 
a good quality digital projector could solve the audience problem.......um.....ok I admit thats a pretty weak solution.
 
Movies vs. In home theatres...

Movies vs. In home theatres...

No matter how bad movies are, they will never go away or be replaced by online streamers or rentals....

Why?

Human beings have this subconscience need to be together. Like most animals on the planet, we enjoy being in the same "flock" or "herd"....

Movie's.... Church.... even the super market... you name it.... the basics in life will never go away. The more isolated people become, the more the need to be together.

On more example even for the hard core jet set:

When your favorite movie is on cable... no biggie... BUT, when your favorite movie is on channel 4... or channel 11 (normal public access channels ) you feel the need to watch it.... why? because you know millions of other people are watching to.... you feel part of a group. Check it out how you feel one day while flipping the channels.... 2 to 13 "feel" different than cable does....

Pimp Daddy D

www.mogthemovie.com
 
Rosestar said:
What are we at, the 19th or 20th straight week of "slumping" box office.
Click to expand...

This so called slump is a sham.

Hollywood is comparing current figures (2005 box office) to last year's figures (2004 box office). What they are not taking into consideration is that there were 2 independent movies at the top of the box office, during this time last year, that added a substantial boost to the overall sales. They were The Passion Of The Christ and Fahrenheit 911. This year, there are no runaway independents drumming up box office sales. To be a fairer comparison, you would have to take current box office figures and compare them to another year where runaway independents did not add to the box office tally, such as 2003's figures. When you compare the two and take inflation into consideration, there is no slump. In fact, box office sales are up this year.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,16837,00.html?tnews
 
If you make it, they will come.

The key to this discussion as I see it is the quality of movies being made. If there ever was a system where a film released to the theaters and DVD or the internet simultaneously, a large portion of people would still go to the theater to watch it. Pimp Daddy D really touched on the community aspect, which is undoubtably a large portion of what brings people to movie theaters. But it has to be a movie that attracts people. The stuff that's being made recently (with very few exceptions) is cookie-cutter mindless junk.

It reminds me of the late fifties when the only Studios were collapsing, and they couldn't make movies with a formula anymore. TV was in it infancy (much like Video on Demand is today) and people were saying, "well, that's the end of the cineplex." Then a new wave of directors and film people were just leaving film school and Francis Ford Copolla started making movies. Then George Lucas started making movies. Then Steven Speilberg started making movies. And Hollywood was forever changed.

The way I see movies now is that we're sitting on a powerder keg for another shift. Not sure what that shift is, or how it will come about, but in thirty years we might be sitting around in a circle thinking "Man, films were sure in a bad place in 2005, then Bluespider's films came out and solved everything."

Think about it, if Radiers of the Lost Ark was just releasing now, and you saw a trailer for it and as the end they said "Coming to a theater, or ISP near you." Where are you going to go see it? There's no way that you wouldn't flock to a theater to see this fedora-wearing whip-wielding hero combat Nazis and fight for the Ark of the Covenant.

Technology can change, but as long as the stories are there, I don't see the movie experience changing much.

My two cents.

Chris
 
I like to go the cinema to watch movies, but I go not for the primordial need to flock, but because I see it on the big screen, better sound, I get the full impact of the scenes as they were meant to be experienced....BIG. I usually tune the audience out, unless it is obnoxious people or crying babies. :angry:
 
I've said this before, but I think the rush to release features on DVD really dilutes the old urgency I used to feel about seeing films in the theater. If I miss it, it'll be in my mailbox through Netflix in less than 90 days. I used to stand on-line in Westwood to see midnight premiers and the rare and coveted 70mm releases. It is a very rare film - less than one per year at most - that would get me in a line anymore.

I have a family of five, so going to the multiplex for anything but a matinee is a very costly affair. At a small single-screen theater in a neighboring town, you can still get into a nighttime feature for $4 an adult, $2 a child and candy is $.75 - don't know how they break even, but that place is absolutely packed every weekend.

I don't necessarily think Hollywood is turning out a lesser product now than in years past, but there isn't anything outstanding either. We've been so desensitized to special effects through computer effects that absolutely nothing amazes us, no matter how loud they show it. My favorite special effects are the ones that you don't notice and that exist only to move the story forward. Think about the removal of Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump as an example of what I'm talking about.

We're in a golden age for independents, as almost anything can be distributed now, but the real money is in DVD releasing. The margins against P&A are much higher in ancilliary markets.

e
 
I like the whole cinema atmosphere. At home you cannot concentrate on the film entirely: the phone rings, the cat is sick, you need the toilet. I always visit the toilet before entering a cinema though... Also the theatre is designed to enhance the film: dimmed lights etc. It makes the film an event.

...oh yeah, and the big screen and surround sound is nice too :laugh:
 
ProjX v2.0 said:
This so called slump is a sham.

Hollywood is comparing current figures (2005 box office) to last year's figures (2004 box office). What they are not taking into consideration is that there were 2 independent movies at the top of the box office, during this time last year, that added a substantial boost to the overall sales. They were The Passion Of The Christ and Fahrenheit 911. This year, there are no runaway independents drumming up box office sales. To be a fairer comparison, you would have to take current box office figures and compare them to another year where runaway independents did not add to the box office tally, such as 2003's figures. When you compare the two and take inflation into consideration, there is no slump. In fact, box office sales are up this year.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,16837,00.html?tnews
Click to expand...

The "Slump" is not about math. It is about perception. Whether or not the actual numbers say that there is a problem or not does not matter, there is a climate of fear being perpetuated by the reports of a slump. Decisions made in a climate of fear can be detrimental. I still think that we will see a trend toward reduction of the number of screens, and could possibley affect total production numbers.

I like to go the cinema to watch movies, but I go not for the primordial need to flock, but because I see it on the big screen, better sound, I get the full impact of the scenes as they were meant to be experienced....BIG. I usually tune the audience out, unless it is obnoxious people or crying babies.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. The cinema experience is the large screen and high fidelity sound. The total sensory immersion, not to hang out with the asshole that can't stop talking or the crying baby, or Mr."I bought all the candy with loud wrappers". I never remember having the experience of "Wow the movie sucked, but the audience was great". If I want to socialize, I will go out with friends and have meal. As soon as HD DVD, combined with widely available HD projection penetrates the home market to significant levels, theatre attendence will be in more trouble. Will it totally kill theatres, no, I do not think that will ever happen. I think that theatres will be divided into art houses for hard core cinema fans and teenage hang-out cineplexes. With the average adult viewer shunning the theatre except for extraordinary film events.
 
Jubal28 said:
Has anyone considered that this isn't such a bad thing?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

The theater used to be fun. (Then again, I used to have a waist.)

But the screens have shrunk, the audience has shrunk and gotten louder, the prices have gone up.

I can buy a DVD for less than what it costs overall to go to the theater...then watch the film whenever the mood strikes.

Even better: those "what did he say?" moments can be fixed with the rewind button.

Dan
 
Rosestar said:
Ok, you usually make very good points, please expound upon this.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone is reacting to this as though it's a catastrophe. Hollywood better do something, or . . .

what?

What's the worst that could happen, and why would it be bad?
 
I agree with thartley completely. The theatre has the edge over your pc because of a big ass screen and awesome sound. But this isn't always the case. There are some films that were just made for the theatre, like Raiders, WOW, and Star Wars, and others that might be more enjoyable in a private setting, such as Lost in Translation, Sling Blade, and Palindromes.

That being said, I think if more and more films came straight to DVD it would be a good thing. In Japan, a great many films are not released in theatres and go straight to video. This boom started in around the early 90's and brought us great filmmakers like Takashi Miike. This let unkown filmmakers create interesting and exciting low budget films that would have otherwise not been able to be seen had their only outlet been the theatre. It was caled the V-Cinema, and was given the respect, recognition, and response it deserved, (yet unfortunately still remains mostly unkown in the US).

In America, straight-to-video is a bad word. What's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say STV? Me, it's Steven Seagal. Quite the poster boy for the STV market, eh? What I'm saying is that even if an indy film gets a distribution deal for a STV release, the movie going public is still going to see it as a 'didn't even make it to the the theatres' movie, and therefore easily overlook it.

Maybe if Hollywood branches out a bit into straight to DVD releases, it just might give the STV market a little bit more credibility and help out the indy filmmakers while their at it.

IMHO, of course. ;)
 
Doesn't Hollywood already branch out into STV's? A lot of sequels, such As Cruel Intentions 2, Bring It on 2, and the From Dusk To Dawn sequels were all STV's.

Mind you, they were low budget, low quality movies and they were just trying to cash in on the name but they are legitimate STV releases.

I think movies will go the way of the song: The way musical artists such as Chuck D and David Bowie release straight to the internet.

I thought for sure Robert Rodriguez was going to go this route but then Sin City brought him back to the Hollywood A-list. Since he owns his own studio on his ranch, he may yet go this route.

Complete autonomy for a modern filmamker from concept to release including final cut? And even get paid doing it? Who would have thought?
 
I think that the whole piracy/bootlegging of films has taken a big bite out of the box office as well. IMO this adds to the arguement that a large amount of people would rather stay home and watch a movie than go out to see it in a theather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top