Discussion: The Future of Cinema and "MovieGoing"

Over the past few years, we witnessed “Home entertainment” get bigger and bigger.
Big brands offer affordable systems for every household, promising to transform every living room into a private movie theater.
Then “entertainment on the go” was re-established with the iPod and iTunes, which now offers downloadable movies.
It started with the humble VHS and now you can basically watch your favorite movies in decent quality (in most cases better than VHS) on almost every device you handle in your everyday life.
Director George Lucas recently said that other than indy4, he is not making films anymore. “Everything is going to be TV or Downloadable anyway” he added.
Peter Jackson said that he wants to venture into different ways of storytelling, like video games and that he is “Bored of movies”.
As a film fun, this upsets me. It seems that cinema as we know it is dying.
Sure, naturalists will still keep going into the theater to watch a movie, but that’s a very small pie of a market that feeds the system that creates films.

What is your opinion? Where do you think Cinema is heading?

i'm bored with movies, too. my m.a. degree was in film studies, and i wouldn't mind the death of cinema.

Eddie,

So from now on when I respond to something you say about film with "That's because you just don't like movies" you won't argue with me anymore?

i was being facetious.

people wring their hands all the time over this or that issue. for example, i'm sure that classical-music lovers began bemoaning the death of classical music since the 1850s, but guess what? today, classical music is still performed widely, and new classical music is being created (even paul mccartney, a rocker, is writing classical music).

it's possible that movies in cinemas will follow the trends established by other performing arts--cater to an audience willing to pay $40 and up. this is actually good news because it makes moviegoing too prohibitive for people to take their ten under-15 kids, which means that patrons can enjoy movies in relative peace and quiet. plus, the floors won't be littered with candy as well as spilled popcorn and drinks.

by the way, the site's stupid programming code masked part of my previous post. i wanted to write "under dash fifteen", but the site showed my words as "under ".

(n)

There are several ways to approach this...for one a movie rental is cheaper than going to the movies,specially if you include your family.
There are movies that are always worth the price of admission to rush out and see but they are few and far between.
Thanks to better technology (and a bit of cash)you can have a pretty good movie experience at home...which of course only gets better with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray coming into it.
There will always be cinema,it just need to be fresh and new again (kind of like the first time you saw it in IMAX)because you have to give people a reason to want to go...
Specially since it can be a expensive and a lot of movies are just plain badly written or even worse they are old ones being re-made by lazy studios trying to cash in.

Unfortunately, I think Eddie is right. Aside from a handful of major corporate releases, cinema is rapidly becoming a niche product, like opera. And like opera, it can really only be supported in a handful of cities with very large, clustered populations.

As for the cinema-going experience, it's clear that most people just don't see or don't care about the difference between seeing a film on FILM as opposed to an alternate, bastardized format. I don't see any reason to expect that to change either.

It's not just reactionary nostalgia to find that thought a little sad. There is no substitute for seeing a film, one shot on film, in the theater. No matter how big your screen is, or how wicked your speakers are. It still isn't film, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Good topic. And unfortunatly, yeah, it seems that "The Cinema" is in fact dying. Its death is from a double-edged sword: advancements in technology that make movie viewing at home more than just watching the tube and the rising budgets and costs of producing a movie. Movies just don't make as much in the theater today as they did before, and everyone knows it. We're bombarded with 90% of recycled stories throw at the cineplexes, while usually an average episode of "24" has most films beat entertainment wise.

When I was in film school, maybe ten years ago, digital filmmaking and projection was just getting started. It was more of an idea than a reality. Everyone I knew, including myself, hated and loathed the idea that one day film would be gone - except for one guy, who could clearly see that yes, one day it would all be digital. At the time, I thought he was an idiot. A few years ago, I decided this guy had better vision than the rest of us. First and foremost, it would (eventually) be cheaper than film. Add to the mix that a digital picture will never fade, you can do whatever you want to it, etc., and it's hard to argue for film anymore.

Someday soon the Dream State we experience while in a movie theater will be gone for good. While I myself used to think this was a bad thing, I no longer do. Ten years ago, there were tons of "films" I was running to the theater to see. Lately, I can't think of one single movie I felt the need to plop down ten bucks for - it's just not worth it.

Like Lucas has said time and again, one day cinema will be more like an event similar to the opera or a sporting event - and for this, it will have to change to formats like IMAX or 3-D. They'll need to offer us something more in a theater than the simple fact that it's being projected on film, (which eventually it won't be, anyway), or it will need to be a film bigger than anything - like a Star Wars or an Indy. I'd run out right now to see any of those in a theater I'll be first in line should Indy 4 ever get off the ground. Other than that, I think I can wait for home video for just about everything else. I certainly don't need to see Fantastic Four 2 projected onto a big screen.

Come to think of it, I might not need to see it projected on a small screen, either. :)

One can argue that movies themselves are getting worse than ever, but we tend to forget that in the golden age of movies, the 1930s and 40s, there were just as many dogs as there are today, maybe more. They've just gotten lost and forgotten.

As far as digital shooting is concerned, it might be more convenient, but it still has a ways to go, even at the new 2K standard, to catch up with the reality of conventional photographic film. The new "Superman Returns," shot with an improved Panasonic Genesis camera, looks sharp but remains glossy and flat.

As far as people going out to see movies is concerned, of course, there are many other competing alternatives we have from home theater and computers. But remember that there are also as many movie screens as ever (counting all the screens in our modern multiplexes), they shows a bigger variety of films than ever, and they continue to thrive, despite the exaggerated concerns of the movie industry. Compared to the heyday of films in the 30s and 40s, the availability of foreign and independent films in America is bigger than ever before.

Most important, people will still go out to the movies for the same reason they will continue to go out to dinner: for the experience. Yes, it's easier to eat at home (especially with frozen meals), just as it's easier to pop in a DVD, but going out for a good meal at a restaurant not only saves the fuss and bother of cooking, serving, and cleaning up, it provides food one can't always get at home, and it provides the experience of getting out of the house. Same thing with movies. We'll probably never have actual movie-theater screens in our homes, so nothing is going to compare with that big-screen experience and big-auditorium sound.

The motion-picture theater and the motion picture itself haven't died just yet.

John

What John said.

Lacking a sense of history, people tend to forget that 90% of cinematic output has *always* been garbage, from the silent era onward. We are not experiencing some uniquely awful nadir of the medium. And no matter how convenient home or on-the-go viewing gets, the simple fact is that people just don't LIKE staying at home all the time, and actually look pretty hard for an excuse to get out on friday nights and do something with a group that'll put the week behind them.

Lucas up there in his Xanadu, is about as far removed from on-the-street reality as he can be. People aren't just going to see $200mil event films small budget comedies (Borat anyone?) and concept pictures still succeed in drawing huge crowds, and home theater can get as big as it wants. The same grownup moviegoers who aren't shelling out their money to see Adam Sandler light his farts will continue to support good movies, teenagers who don't know any better will still need someplace to go on friday nights, and enough good films will always manage to break out and find an audience.

And the dysfunctional cycle continues. Theaters ain't goin anywhere.

John is absolutely right to point out that there were plenty of lousy films back in the so-called golden age, and that we have simply forgotten about them. What we have left, well, that's called "survival bias" and it's the source of all sorts of unhealthy forms of nostalgia.

He's wrong one one point though. We may have more screens than ever but this does NOT mean they show a bigger variety of films. The opposite has occurred, with even more shelf space devoted to fewer and fewer big budget films.

John is technically correct when he says that foreign and indy films are more available today than in the 30s and 40s... but would not be correct to make that same comparison to the 60s and 70s. There just weren't independent films (aside from porn, B- horror movies, and the occasional "Gone With the Wind") in the 30s and 40s. However, the percentage of American box office claimed by non-English films has dwindled every year with the exception of 2004 and the anomalous "Passion of the Christ"(non-English, but not exactly a foreign film). The art-house theater has all but disappeared outside of a few major metropolises.

Foreign, indy and even avant-garde films ARE more available today than ever, but this is because of DVDs. The theatrical distribution picture has never looked grimmer for non-Hollywood product. And not just in America...

Well, I have my theory’s, and mind you, they are just theory’s. But, I feel it’s a combination of a few things in general:

1. The movie going experience is challenged by the consumer having the ability to buy the killer home theatre and thus not having the need to venture to the cinema. Granted I love the experience of seeing a really good film on the big screen and to me it would seem there’s is nothing better. However, when you factor in the audience noise annoyances (popcorn munching, bags rattling, spilled drinks, talking, and cell phones) it really gives cinema a run for its money in having a decent experience. Let’s face it, when it comes to the experience, the home has the advantages of skipping the previews and just getting on with the movie. At home you can pause at anytime for a break, or whatever you need to do. So what we’re really talking about here is a matter of preference however, when you consider the factors involved, doesn’t staying home for a better “personal” experience make more sense? I know I’ve cut down my cinema experiences for only really good films, a movie I’m just dying to see in the theatre or I feel I really need to get out of the house.

2. The cinema has just become too damn expensive for many families! Take a family of five for example. Let’s say they take the kids to the theatre -- I’ll go by the bargain price times I’d pay here in Arizona -- the price of admission would come to $35.00. Then let’s not forget to factor in all the drinks, popcorn and candy which comes to a whopping $40 to $50. Take notice that the concessions can cost more than the movie because this is where the theatre makes all of its money. Granted our beloved politicians claim we’re in good economic times but yet it cost a small fortune just to go see a movie. Remember, movies were about the only thing people could afford to do during the depression. But here we are in what some claim as a good economic period yet just going to the movie can easily break the wallet of many lower to middle class families. Keep in mind I’m only saying this about moderate size families because keeping a tight budget is usually vital to them. If you’re like me and only go alone or with a couple friends, then going to the cinema is affordable at least once a week. However, and getting back to the experience thing, if I can buy food for 1/3 the cost of the movie theatre and I can rent a film I WANT to see for $3 to $4, then what do you think the logical decision is when it comes to a satisfying movie experience?

3. Hollywood has simply run out of ideas and year-after-year audiences are becoming savvier to this. Hollywood is simply a money making machine that has no regard for taking risks on new talent or fresh ideas. They cop out for the usual spoon-fed, over-produced garbage they know has worked for years. Face it, 90% of what they turn out is crap and mainly because most of it is not all that original. How many more films do we have to see that are remakes of TV shows? How many more time wasting films by the Wayne’s Brothers do we really have to suffer through? How many more “Super-hero” films really need to be made? I mean really, will Hollywood not be satisfied until every Marvel and DC comic character has his/her own movie? What’s ironic is Hollywood just can’t figure out that people will get burned out on a certain idea or genre after a while. Look at “Superman Returns”, why did it not get the ticket sales expected? Did anyone in the town of glitz-and-glamour ever figure out that audiences might be getting tired of the same ol’ super-hero crap? Obviously not because even with SR failure in the box office the dimwits at WB plan on making another Superman. The general audience has simply been getting smarter over the years and they can easily tell what’s worth seeing in the theatre and what’s worth renting. It’s something Hollywood needs to take a closer look at and realize we are all asking for much better than stand-by crap. The movie industry really needs to slow the machine down, take chance on original ideas and writing, and for God sake, quit treating the audience like they’re a bunch of sheep with no brains.

There are plenty of great, original, exciting, challenging, entertaining films being made today. It's just that most of them aren't playing in the multiplexes. Which, unfortunately, means they are pretty much only playing in LA, Seattle, Chicago, and New York with maybe a half dozen other engagements scattered across the country. Judging the state of modern cinema only by $100 million Hollywood blockbusters makes no more sense than judging modern literature by the New York Times Best Seller List.

I'd hold the 90s and even the current decade up against the "golden age" in terms of quality cinema any day. It's just that you have to look a whole lot harder (or look on DVD) to find the quality.

Hmm... let's see, do I want to spend $20+ dollars taking my girlfriend and myself to the theater, showing up 15 minutes early to get a good seat only to have a group of obnoxious chatterboxes creep in during the previews, answering their cell phones, explaining the film to their children and talking back to the screen, which ultimately leads to a fight in the parking lot after I've had to try and quiet them because the pimple ridden pre-teen in the box office was unwilling to get his ass kicked over his minimum wage job.

Or do I pay the same amount of money (or usually less), own the film forever, get a bunch of bells & whistles included on the DVD, watch it on my entertainment center that I shelled all that dough out for, get up to pee whenver I want to, enjoy my own food & drink and never have to worry about shushing anyone besides our cats.

I say burn the multiplexes down and build single screen independent theaters on their ashes.

I think the fact that you’re been visually told a story in the company of other people you don’t know, creates the feeling of an “event”. You feel as you are experiencing an event. Human beings always loved and will always love storytelling. It’s there from ancient times, from Aesop and Homer, to Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. As for the indy films, I tend to watch a lot due to the fact I am a film student, and out of the i.e. 900 they come out every year, 10 are viewable and 2 of them are actually good. So, in ratio-terms, they don’t differ than the Hollywood hamburgers we get fed over and over again. Indeed, Hollywood is running on reserves. They brought back superman, they still keep making bond, super heroes you’ve never heard of with fun bases come out every 6 months... it’s crazy.

Wow, great topic S Coaster! Personally, I hope the cinema doesn't die. I grew up with it, I love it, and it's just not the same at home. Unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, not that many of us can afford to have a theater sized screen installed in our houses.

Many of the things already discussed however, are the reasons I don't like going to theaters anymore. Mainly discourteous people. The common mindset anymore is "how dare you tell me what I can and can't do!". Which, of course, leads to people talking as loud as they want (on or off of their phone), and just waiting for someone to tell them to stop.

One thing I find completely annoying, and way out of place, are TV commercials in the theater. When I was growing up, the only "commercials" you'd see in the theater would be for refreshments or food sold in the lobby. Now we're seeing full fledged car commercials, clothing ads, etc. And even that wouldn't be so bad, if they kept it to a minimum, but we're talking 15 to 20 minutes of TV commercials before they even start the "coming attractions"! That's a solid 30 to 45 minutes before you even start your movie!

Luckily, however, there are still a FEW theaters in my town where people are still courteous. As long as there are those theater refuges, and prices aren't too high, I'll still go. The down side is, you can't keep the "jerks" out of the theaters. Eventually they find their way into the safe havens still left. The only answer I can think of is to have theater ushers come back, but, they'd probably have to resemble "Michael Clarke Duncan" to get any respect or to get people to leave if they were being rowdy. Realistically, only the people that have the common courteousy to be quiet and respect the people around them, would do as the 16-year-old usher asks them to do.

So, unfortunately, S Coaster, with the direction the majority of society (young society in particular) is taking, I don't see how theaters are going to stay in business. Won't it be interesting, though, if we start to see movies filmed and then being sent strait to the DVD production companies, or strait to downloadable sources on the internet, or Cable companies like HBO, or Cinemax?



- Josh

This is quite interesting. Studios are keeping an eye on Disney's "CARS" as it becomes the first movie to hit DVD Shelfs and iTunes server on the same time. It's cheaper to download, but i don't know the quality specifications nor the format of the audio or video. Studios held back form posting productions on-Line because eStores like iTunes suggested that they need to be cheaper than DVD's in order to attract people which ofcourse they found impossible to do. With Steve Jobs's owning the bigger slice of the pie of Disney (meaning shares. more than 50%) Jobs has now the chance to test drive movies like cars that did so-so in theaters.

I Don't understand how this will work with DRM. How and if you can burn it and for how many times, but i still find it repulsive. more than 75% of iTunes users are iPod users. Many of them own a "Photo" version of the ipod, which means they can playback vids too. So my guess, is that most of these movies will end up in a 4:3 lcd screen the size of 3 inches and a couple of headphones. Maybe iTunes is trying to extend it's market by offering moviesm reaching into non-iPod users.

Now, as for rude people, theaters can deal with that. If they see that it affects its buisiness, all they have to do is fire the 16 y/o usher and hire proper security that supervises the screening.
I Also understand your commercials thoughts. That would explain why most pop-corn flicks are only running for 1hour and 30minutes. Not to forget the product placement inside the movie itself.

I was hoping that more interesting stuff would start to happen on this side of the pont (EUROPE) but movies here are not what they used to be. Im bored of seeing Almodovar doing the same movie over and over again, or m.Haneke's static, pointless frames.
I Believe we reached the point that hollywood reached during the 70's. Something different will emerge eventually to make audiences go back in the theaters, and i hope it's not 3D cinema.

As for the HD format that we all make fuss about in our forums, is another element that keeps people away from the cinema. And the funny thing is that Sony that created one of the formats, is also a studio...

I’ll agree that discourteous people is probably the biggest issue that bothers me in the movie going experience. As for the new form of advertising, many people here in Arizona wrote complaints to our local theatres. In response, one of our main theatre chains, Harkins, has made the promise of when you see a movie start time, that’s literally when the movie starts. Now when I go to Harkins, the only ads I see are if I decide to show up very early before the start time. Granted, the smarter groups of people do show up early to get a good seat.

As another note, and this is probably just something more personal to my taste, I miss the old theatres that went to great lengths in their architecture. I miss the old theatres that had a real balcony and old architecture that looked something more like what you’d see in an opera house. Now days we have better seats and sound but the theatres themselves are no more than a drab box. For me it’s the little things that make the movie going adventure a better experience and now days it just seems like we’re moved in-and-out of a plain, boring room like we were cattle. I guess it’s fitting to not put much thought in the inner design of a theatre since most movies are crap, anyway. But I have to admit there really is something to be said for old theatres of the golden era. I don’t know, but like I said, just a personal thought.

Tim

tim's nostalgia for old movie palaces is something that will be realized once again if movie theatres start charging $40 per movie ticket. that's the whole point--making movies special. when movie exhibition democratized (i.e. became affordable to everyone), watching movies became less special than it was when tiered pricing was the rule of thumb.