<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;theaters&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:11:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>'Looper' Director Offers Downloadable 'In-Theater' Commentary Track</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121008/16551020648/looper-director-offers-downloadable-in-theater-commentary-track.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121008/16551020648/looper-director-offers-downloadable-in-theater-commentary-track.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As home theater systems advance in quality, many people are wondering why anyone would bother <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml" target="_blank">heading to the theater</a> at all. Theater owners are aware of this issue and many have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml" target="_blank">improving the quality</a> of the "theater experience" by offering larger, comfier seats and moving beyond snack bar staples into craft beers and brick oven pizzas.<br />
<br />
There&#39;s still the undeniable draw of being the "first" to see a new film, showing up at a midnight showing or on opening day. There&#39;s also somewhat of a communal experience that can&#39;t be easily duplicated at home, unless your living room has seating for a couple hundred friends.<br />
<br />
Rian Johnson, the director of the recently released "Looper," is offering a rather unusual incentive for repeat theatrical viewing: <a href="http://loopermovie.tumblr.com/post/32950683762/our-in-theater-commentary-track-is-up-i-recorded" target="_blank">a downloadable commentary track to enjoy along with the 2nd-X viewing(s) of his latest film</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>I recorded a commentary track to be downloaded, put on an ipod and listened to in the theater as you&rsquo;re watching Looper. This is an odd thing I tried with Bloom, and have gotten a few requests for it again, so here it is. It is totally different from the commentary track that will be on the Blu/DVD, a bit more technical and detailed. Needless to say, this is NOT to be listened to on a first viewing, or before you&rsquo;ve seen the film. Also, please work it so that a glowing screening is never out of your pocket during the movie.</i></blockquote>
This is a great way to connect with fans <i>and</i> get them to shell out for first run tickets multiple times. Johnson is a cinema fanatic <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/09/26/looper-rian-johnson-film-crit-hulk/" target="_blank">who&#39;s managed to turn his love of the silver screen</a> into a career making movies that appeal to other movie buffs. This move makes perfect sense. After a viewing or two of "Looper," any true cinema freak would love to run through another viewing while having every aspect of the film broken down by someone as deeply in love with the art form as he or she is.
<br /><br />
Plus, as Johnson mentioned, this isn&#39;t simply version 0.9 of the DVD commentary, but a more technical and detailed breakdown of the film. "Totally different." He&#39;s obviously got more knowledge, information and energy than he knows what to do with, considering he&#39;s done this before. This offering will put the director and fan together for a film-length geekout. This connection puts them back into the theater (selling scarcity) and primes them for the eventual DVD/Blu-ray release (another scarcity). Throwing thoughtful freebies to your fans tends to make them happier to open their wallets later.
<br /><br />
[Quick postscript: It should be noted that Johnson&#39;s "in-theater" commentary track isn&#39;t without precedent. As Mike pointed out to me while I was putting this post together, film buff/maverick/motormouth Kevin Smith&nbsp;<i>attempted</i> to do this <b><i>back in 2006</i></b>, during the theatrical run of "Clerks 2." Unfortunately, theater owners felt <a href="http://ask.metafilter.com/45343/Whatever-happened-to-the-Kevin-Smith-Clerks-2-commentary-download" target="_blank">this would be a&nbsp;<i>bad</i> thing and threatened to pull the film if the promotion continued</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>Turns out that exhibitors (folks that own the theaters) weren&#39;t too keen on the idea of people showing up to the movies with iPods. They felt it was going to be too distracting (or something) for other people in the theater who weren&#39;t wearing iPods for the show - like the commentary-listeners would be laughing when nobody else was laughing, and that&#39;d create some kind of problem. Based on that, they suggested that if Weinstein Co. went through with the commentary track promotion, they&#39;d start pulling the flick from screens. So the commentary track promotion has been tabled until we&#39;re at a very low theater count.</i>
</blockquote>
No rumbling from theater owners on Johnson&#39;s actions has been detected yet, but one wonders why exhibitors would be so willing to sacrifice repeat viewings in order to protect single viewings from possible offense. If this had been promoted rather than buried, who knows how many films would have experienced a boost in box office sales thanks to a multi-viewing incentive.]<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121008/16551020648/looper-director-offers-downloadable-in-theater-commentary-track.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121008/16551020648/looper-director-offers-downloadable-in-theater-commentary-track.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121008/16551020648/looper-director-offers-downloadable-in-theater-commentary-track.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>connecting-with-fans-via-mp3-mindmeld</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/16551020648</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:23:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>Movie Theaters' Top Lobbyist Resorts To Making Up Facts Concerning SOPA/PIPA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Okay, the lies and ridiculous claims from SOPA/PIPA supporters just keep getting more and more ridiculous.  On a panel at Sundance about the whole SOPA/PIPA issue, it appears that John Fithian, president/CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), was able to <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/mpaas-chris-dodd-natos-john-fithian-face-sundance-wrath-you-got-your-butt-kicked/" target="_blank">sound even more tone-deaf and out of touch than the MPAA's Chris Dodd</a>!  That's really saying something these days.  Let's start with this:
<blockquote><i>
NATO&#8217;s Fithian said he had never witnessed such a reversal in momentum considering the legislation&#8217;s passage seemed all but assured in October. "This was the most amazing turnaround of public opinion in the 25 years I&#8217;ve been a professional lobbyist. We were up there since Day One and took 25 of my [exhibitor] CEOs and met with 50 members of Congress. We asked each member of Congress if there was anything they need to make the legislation clear and nobody said anything. Google read the legislation at the same time and didn&#8217;t say a word. But in November the greatest backlash ever occurred."
</i></blockquote>
First of all, Google had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/11311114322/google-points-out-that-protect-ip-would-be-disastrous-precedent-free-speech.shtml">complaining publicly</a> about the bill since it was introduced in the Senate back in May.  For Fithian to claim that the company had no complaints in October is simply laughable.  As for questions from legislators, the fact that they didn't have any questions isn't a point in your favor, it's a sign of just how corrupt the system is.  When Hollywood hands them a bill, they don't bother taking the time to understand it until after the public speaks out on it.
<blockquote><i>
Fithian went on, "The backlash occurred, Google made its point, they&#8217;re big and tough and we get it. Hopefully now reasonable minds will prevail. Senator Dodd and his team are quite good at this. We&#8217;ll sit down with them and ask what has to be done to make legislation more narrowly tailored...."
</i></blockquote>
And here's the sign that they really just don't get it.  They still think that this was all <i>Google</i>.  While Google did speak out publicly against the bill early, it had almost nothing to do with the protests that erupted last week, and only jumped on board very late in the game.  You wouldn't believe how much complaining there was in various online communities about just how <i>little</i> Google was doing to fight this bill.  The idea that this was <i>driven by</i> Google is laughable to anyone who was involved in these events.  14 million people spoke up about this bill.  That wasn't Google.  That was the wider internet.  Pretending that this was Google flexing its muscles shows that this is someone who still isn't paying attention.
<blockquote><i>
"But the reality is we have to stop these rogue websites. They&#8217;re stealing jobs from my members. It&#8217;s not Senator Dodd&#8217;s big wealthy studio executives, it's the 160,000 Americans who earn on average $11 an hour at my cinemas. Those are the jobs at stake.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Almost nothing in this statement is true.  As we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/18060117071/actually-jobs-making-movies-are-rise-not-falling.shtml">discussed recently</a>, employment at theaters has been dropping rapidly over the last decade.  It peaked in 2003, but has steadily trended downward since then.  Over that same time period, however, box office revenue has continue to <i>rise</i> at a pretty significant clip, setting new records almost every year until 2011, when it finally took a slight dip -- which many people attribute more to the crappy experience at theaters.  You know why there might be a crappy experience?  Because the theater owners that Fithian represents consolidated, built up giant, impersonal multiplexes, and then completely understaffed them.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, $11/hour is hardly a living wage these days, and a large percentage of folks working at movie theaters aren't full time/lifetime employees, but high school kids looking to earn some extra beer money.
<br /><br />
Either way, there is simply no evidence -- at all -- that "foreign rogue sites" have had any impact whatsoever on theater employment.  As theater revenue continued to go up and up and up, theaters were firing more and more employees in an effort to cost-cut.    Even the MPAA folks have repeatedly claimed that infringement has little to do with theater revenue and is almost entirely (in their minds) about in-home revenue (the same revenue stream the MPAA wanted to kill off 30 years ago in the Betamax case).
<br /><br />
So it's difficult to see how anyone can take Fithian/NATO seriously.  He claims that it was just Google.  It was not.  He references jobs in theaters, which have nothing to do with any of this.  He claims that Google wasn't concerned about the bill.  Is he saying anything that is backed up by fact?  Well, perhaps the bit about our elected officials being too clueless/unconcerned to actually understand the bill that Hollywood handed them.  <i>That part</i> is believable...
<br /><br />
Amusingly, in another article <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/sundance-2012-chris-dodd-mpaa-piracy-284190" target="_blank">about the same panel</a>, it mentions that even Fithian's son was against him on this issue, and agreed with the anti-SOPA/PIPA folks.  Also, it shows the real thinking on Fithian's part.  It's not "piracy" he's concerned with, it's any form of competition whatsoever.  Apparently during a discussion on the best way to compete with infringement, some people suggested the studios supplying "more content in new, affordable avenues to undercut the temptation to" infringe.  Not only does that seem reasonable, but it's the only thing that's actually been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/07355617514/new-market-research-music-streaming-services-halve-illegal-downloads.shtml">proven</a> (repeatedly) to work.  But Fithian dismisses anything that would compete with theaters -- mocking both Netflix and Redbox as "bad business models."  In other words, Fithian is making up anything he can... solely to act as protectionist as possible for a bunch of theater owners who don't want to adapt or compete.  Perhaps he should take a lesson from the MPAA: being obstructionist against innovation is not a strategy for success.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120124/10084517526</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Universal Backs Away From Planned $60 VOD Release Of Tower Heist</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/08450416335/universal-backs-away-planned-60-vod-release-tower-heist.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/08450416335/universal-backs-away-planned-60-vod-release-tower-heist.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It was barely a week ago when we reported that Universal was planning to test a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111007/02570316246/no-one-wanted-to-pay-30-in-home-movie-rentals-so-now-universal-will-try-60.shtml " target="_blank">$60 Video On Demand release of <i>Tower Heist</i></a> only 3 weeks after the theatrical release of the film. In that report, we noted that theater owners were threatening to boycott the film if Universal went ahead with its plans. We now learn that <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2011/10/universal-halts-tower-heist-vod-plan/" target="_blank">Universal has given into the demands of theater owners</a> and will be putting off its early VOD release of this film. This is not all too surprising as Universal would not want to damage its relationships with theater owners. However, Universal still plans to go forward in the future with this plan as soon as it finds a mutually beneficial deal with theater owners.  Nowhere, however, is there any indication that Universal is seeking a plan that is mutually beneficial to consumers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/08450416335/universal-backs-away-planned-60-vod-release-tower-heist.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/08450416335/universal-backs-away-planned-60-vod-release-tower-heist.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/08450416335/universal-backs-away-planned-60-vod-release-tower-heist.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>joke-wasn't-funny</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111013/08450416335</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theater Owners Still Oblivious To The Fact That They Can Compete With Home Viewing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been arguing for nearly a decade that movie theater owners were overreacting to the threat of people viewing movies at home eating into theater revenue.  After all, they've been complaining about this for decades.  As we talked about last year, back in 1959, Mary Pickford, who was a Hollywood star (or, rather, at the time, <i><b>the</b></i> Hollywood star) who also cofounded studio giant United Artists and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the folks who put on the Oscars), claimed that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101019/04235911477/the-movie-business-is-dying-blame-tv-the-1959-edition.shtml">cable TV</a> would kill theaters.  Then, of course, Jack Valenti famously said the VCR would be the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030205/138252.shtml">"Boston strangler"</a> to the movie business.
<br /><br />
Yet, now, with home theaters, video on demand, streaming services and (yes) infringement, the theaters are once again insisting that <i>this time</i> theaters are really in trouble.
<br /><br />
The BBC has a good article <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9526787.stm?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">discussing the details of the fears of theater owners</a>, and even mentions both the Pickford and Valenti quotes.  It talks up how theater windows are decreasing, and the theater owners are decrying how that's just going to make things worse and worse.
<br /><br />
But what's amazing is that not once in the article does <i>anyone</i> mention that theaters compete on more than just the content.  This is the core blindness that seems to effect most (but certainly not <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml">all</a>) folks in the theater business.  They keep whining about how they can't compete with the ability to watch movies at home.  But what they're really admitting is that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0307478286.shtml">their theaters suck</a>.  Yes, the movie itself is a key part of deciding to go out to the theater, but it's the <i>overall theater-going experience</i> that really drives people.  Lots of people decide they want to "go out to the movies" before they even decide what movie to see.
<br /><br />
Going out to the movies is a social experience, and the problem that theaters are facing isn't that home theaters get the content too early, but that the big theaters have made the theater-going experience <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050617/0220246_F.shtml">suck</a>.  The theaters are cramped, uncomfortable, noisy.  The food prices are ridiculous.  The sound quality or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00341614390/sonys-insane-fear-piracy-means-many-movies-now-suck-digital-theaters.shtml">video quality</a> sucks.  But that's not the fault of home theaters.  That's the fault of theater owners <i>not making the experience good</i>.
<br /><br />
There certainly are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070509/030619.shtml">some</a> who recognize that making the theater experience better is the strategy that will work, but they're in the minority.  The big theaters just keep worrying about windows and online streaming and "piracy," and don't seem to make any effort to give people <i>reasons to go to the theater</i>.  People want to "go out."  People want to have a special experience and enjoy being out with friends.  That's what theaters should be capitalizing on.  People can stay home and eat, but restaurants still do fine business, because people <i>want</i> that better experience of going out to eat.  The same is true of going to the movies, but only if the theaters recognize that they have to make that an experience worth going out to.
<br /><br />
And, yet, oddly, none of that makes it into the BBC article.  Even worse, the theater owners in the article seem to want to blame everyone else.  Check out this discussion, where a top lobbyist for theater owners seems to pretend that theaters are helpless here and at the whims of everyone else:
<blockquote><i>
"Our concern is people won't go for this eight-week window," says Patrick Corcoran, California operations chief of the National Association of Theatre Owners.
<br /><br />
"If [studios] are really intent on making this sort of thing work, they have two options: one is to shorten the window, the other is to put it at a lower price, or both.
<br /><br />
"The closer it gets to the theatrical release and the lower price it gets, you start to get into this self-competition market that already affects the home entertainment market.
<br /><br />
"The theatre business is a fairly marginal business so a few percentage points loss in admissions will end up closing some theatres.
<br /><br />
"And if film companies do focus on [home entertainment more], they won't be able to justify current budgets so you will just end up with a lesser film." 
</i></blockquote>
Or, you know, the theaters you represent could spend some time focusing on improving the experience so that <i>even if</i> they have options at home with the identical content, it's still worth going out to the movies. But, apparently, that line of thought just hasn't occurred to many theater owners yet.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110702/00271714940/theater-owners-still-oblivious-to-fact-that-they-can-compete-with-home-viewing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110702/00271714940</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:22:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Not Every Theater Owner Fears Competing With Your Home Theater System</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about how various theater owners were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml">freaking out</a> about new plans by studios to release movies for video on demand ten weeks after they went into the theaters... though for the astoundingly ridiculous price of $30.  We noted that the complaining theater owners were more or less <i>admitting</i> that their theaters and the theater-going experience they provided <i>sucked</i>.  If you can't compete with a home theater, you don't really know what business you're in.  It would be like restaurant owners complaining that people can buy fresh food to cook in their own kitchen, so they'll never go out to restaurants again.  Going out to the movies is a social experience, and theaters can easily compete by providing a better experience.  The only ones who have anything to fear are those who know they provide a terrible experience and therefore can't compete.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, some theater owners who <a href="http://blog.originalalamo.com/2011/04/21/9227/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A originalalamo %28Alamo Drafthouse Cinema Austin%29" target="_blank"><i>do</i> provide a good experience recognize this</a>.  Carlo points us to some comments from the owner of the famed Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin, Texas, Tim League, in a blog post written by Caitlin Stevens (who, it should be noted, works for Tim):
<blockquote><i>
He's not terribly worried. He's taking very much a wait and see attitude. "I think some of the charges that have been made [about premium VOD] are invalid and reactionary," he said. "It remains to be seen if this does impact theatrical. If you look back historically all the way to the 1950s everytime there has been a challenge -- from TV to VHS to DVD -- there has always been a component of the theatrical community that has said this will be the death of cinema."
<br /><br />
Tim's also really skeptical of the claim that this VOD system will hurt smaller films that have platform releases, and points to distributors like Magnet, who have had great success with films they release on VOD before even hitting theaters. Those films tend to do well at the Alamo as well. "We've had good successes with those films even when they're playing VOD at the same time they're in the theater," he said.
<br /><br />
Ultimately a lot of this comes down to the theatrical experience. Not to be a total shill here, but part of the reason people go to the Alamo is for the complete experience, which includes food and drink, high quality projection and a firm policy against talking and texting in movies. The big chains simply don't offer that -- not even protection from noisy patrons. "It's an industry that's vulnerable because if you give people the choice they won't choose a flawed option," Tim explained.
</i></blockquote>
Exactly.  Furthermore, he notes the key point that these complaining theater owners don't seem to grasp, despite their jobs running theaters:
<blockquote><i>
"People -- especially on a Friday and a Saturday -- inherently want to get out of the house," he said. If theater owners can offer them a good option for getting out of the house at the movies, they'll take it.
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  What stuns me is that theater owners who are complaining don't even recognize what they're telegraphing: that their theater experiences suck and they <i>know</i> you'd be better off staying at home.  If that's the case, it's easy to decide to stay home, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.  However, for theater owners who really do provide a great experience, they have nothing to worry about.    Many years ago, theater owner Marcus Loew famously stated: "We sell tickets to theaters, not movies."  It's really unfortunate that so few theater owners recognize that today, but it's always nice to be reminded of the few that do... such as Tim League and the Alamo Drafthouse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03045714039/not-every-theater-owner-fears-competing-with-your-home-theater-system.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ah,-the-alamo-drafthouse</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110426/03045714039</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:40:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we noted the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/03121213728/movie-studios-add-another-window-30-dollar-rental.shtml">rumors</a> that a bunch of studios were getting ready to offer $30 video-on-demand movie rentals, in an attempt to create a new tiered "window" much closer to the original theatrical release date.  It appears those stories are now confirmed, as DirecTV has said that it will, indeed, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/directv-starts-premium-rental-service-on-april-21-with-sony-film.html" target="_blank">be offering $30 film rentals</a> for movies just 10-weeks after their theatrical release.  Of course, before we discuss how bad an idea this is from the studio's perspective, let's look at the even more braindead response from movie theaters:
<blockquote><i>
Regency Theatres, based in Calabasas, California, will pull "Just Go With It" from its second-run theaters, where it was among the top two titles last weekend, said President Lyndon Golin.
<br><br>
"We don't want to show movies that are on TV," Golin said in a telephone interview. "We want to protect the movie-going experience."
</i></blockquote>
Protect the movie-going experience?  Huh? Does Golin even hear what he's saying.  First off, how does pulling the movie out of the theaters protect the movie-going experience?  It seems to do the opposite.  It seems to tell people "we <b>don't want</b> you to enjoy the movie-going experience" with this movie.  Golin seems to be <b>flat-out admitting that his movie theaters <i>suck</i></b>.  After all, if he can't provide a better movie-going experience than a TV at home, then apparently his theaters really aren't worth going to, right?
<br><br>
I've pointed this out in the past, but I can never understand theater owners who complain about competition from rentals or video streaming.  The whole point of a movie theater is that it's a social experience.  It's "going out" to the theaters.  It's enjoying the overall event on a giant screen.  Obviously with home theater systems, there is some competition, but theater owners can certainly provide an overall excellent theater experience, if they put some effort into it.  What Golin's statement here says is that he's not interested in trying, and he doesn't think his theater's experience can compete.  That's really more  of a statement about problems with his own theaters than about this new rental window.
<br><br>
As for the rental window, it'll be interesting to see who actually pays $30.  I understand the <i>studios'</i> logic.  They think they're providing extra value by making a movie available earlier.  But that's not -- at all -- how consumers are likely to view this.  They're going to compare it to Netflix or other PPV/rental options and have no idea why the studios and DirecTV think they can get away with charging many multiples higher.
<br><br>
Of course, going back to the theaters' response, it seems even more ridiculous when you realize that Regency doesn't even think it can compete with a ridiculously overprice home rental option that very few people are going to choose.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110420/10464213975</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theater Owner Begs Hollywood Not To Give Consumers What They Want</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/16430210293.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/16430210293.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's always kind of amusing when you see a business owner make obviously false statements as they try to justify why everyone should be worse off, just so they don't have to adapt their business model.  It's especially amusing in the movie theater business, where we keep seeing theater owners <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100224/0307478286.shtml">complain</a> about shortening windows between theatrical release, and when a movie can be viewed at home.  As we've noted over and over again, every time a movie theater executive makes such a complaint, they are effectively admitting that they're too clueless on how to compete.  Even though they have huge theaters with great sound systems and seating, they're admitting that they either don't want to or simply cannot compete.  If that's really the case, they don't deserve to be in business.
<br><br>
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=rickman">RickMan</a> points us to the latest such example, written for the Hollywood Reporter by Gregory Marcus, the CEO of Marcus Theatres, where he <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic2e2d16144df098afc749b23b9a26127?" target="_blank">runs through a whole series of fallacies</a> in trying to convince Hollywood not to keep shortening film windows.  Let's pick through a few:
<blockquote><i>
I just saw Johnny Depp at the grocery store. 
<br><br>
Dressed as the Mad Hatter, he was in the Redbox machine available for $1. All I could think was what a shame it was that this wonderful movie was being so terribly devalued. 
</i></blockquote>
First of all, it's not devalued.  Price and value are not the same thing, and it's economically wrong to claim they are the same.  Furthermore, it's not "devaluing" something if the market is pricing it more efficiently and accurately.  Just because one part of the market <i>artificially inflated</i> the price through exclusionary and anti-competitive practices, don't blame the market for more accurately pricing things.
<blockquote><i>
Windowed release patterns are brilliant. Release a movie to different outlets over time so it can be sold to the same person multiple times. First see it in the theater, then buy or rent it, then catch it on cable or TV. Shorten the window and risk losing the ability to sell the product multiple times.
</i></blockquote>
When trying to convince the world that your system is better, it helps not to flat out admit that the system you like is the one that forces people to pay multiple times for the same thing.  The reason windows are collapsing is because more and more people realize such windows are ridiculous and make little sense.  And when that happens, they start routing around the legal ways of getting the content, and get it through unauthorized channels.
<br><br>
The real problem here, of course, is that Marcus is either too afraid or too confused to know how to compete.  Even if all movies were released -- in an authorized fashion -- for free, I would bet that a smart theater owner could thrive.  That's because a smart theater owner would recognize that people go out to the movies for the overall social experience.  The better the experience, the better you can do.  Everyone can always eat dinner for less money at home, but they go out to eat at restaurants for the experience and the ambiance and the fact that others do the work and take care of the details.  The same is true for movies as well.  But Marcus, here, is suggesting that his theaters are run so poorly that no one would want to come.  That seems to be a problem for the board of directors of Marcus Theaters in reviewing the guy who is in charge of their strategy.  It's got nothing to do with release windows.
<blockquote><i>
Please don't say, "We need to give the consumer what he wants," because the historical implication was, "or your competitor will provide it," not "or the customer will steal it." The proper response cannot be to cede to the thieves' demands and earn less along the way.
</i></blockquote>
If you don't realize that file sharing sites are competitors, you're never going to be able to adapt.
<blockquote><i>
If I were the studio execs, I would focus on catching and punishing thieves and look for less destructive opportunities to grow my business.
</i></blockquote>
Yeah, because so far, that's only served to draw more attention to file sharing and increase the rate at which it's done.
<br><br>
I'm sure it sucks to be in Marcus' position, where the old artificial scarcity he milked for profits is shrinking ever so slightly.  I'm sure it must be tough to have to adapt and give people more reasons to actually come out to the theater.  But his arguments make no sense for anyone other than himself.  Shortening windows (or getting rid of them completely) provides more benefits to the consumers, and it's a move that the studios should have done long ago.  It gives them more bang for the buck in terms of their marketing efforts, and it better segments the market.  That theaters are unwilling to adapt to compete in a changing market is a problem for those theater owners alone.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/16430210293.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/16430210293.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/16430210293.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-compete,-huh?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100720/16430210293</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:39:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shaking, Rumbling Movie Chair Puts You In The Driver's Seat</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/0650564405.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/0650564405.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With 2009 showing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090301/1406403935.shtml">very strong ticket sales</a>, the movie industry seems to be doing a good job of giving people, who are perhaps looking for a bit of escapism, a reason to get out of their houses.  Furthermore,  IMAX and 3D continue to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cotownboxoffice30-2009mar30,0,2296239.story">boost ticket sales</a> and draw huge lines for movies like <em>Monsters vs. Aliens</em>.  <em>Fast &#038; Furious</em> rumbled onto the big screen this past weekend, generating $72.5 million in ticket sales in three days, already earning more than the previous installment of the series, <em>The Fast &#038; the Furious: Tokyo Drift</em>.  At Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, movie-goers have yet another reason to check out the film on the big screen.  <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12060416">The theater is equipped with 15 computerized movie seats that move, shake, tilt, and rumble to match the action on-screen</a>.  As a result, viewers are immersed more fully in the film, an experience not easily reproduced at home for which the Chinese (and one other theater in Arizona) are charging an extra $5 per ticket.  We've said this many times <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080916/0313492284.shtml">before</a>, but maybe the movie theaters are finally starting to understand the concept that it's the experience, not just the content, that gives people a reason to go out to see movies at the theaters.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/0650564405.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/0650564405.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090406/0650564405.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>zero-to-sixty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090406/0650564405</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:15:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>Whisper It, But Maybe Movie Theaters Are Grasping The Need For Change</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0951353313.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0951353313.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080323/235714627.shtml">several</a> signs over the past year that movie theaters are beginning to understand that they need to change their businesses if they are to stay in business -- for example: bigger and better screens, more <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080330/132008696.shtml">luxurious</a> environments, richer technology like <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml">3D</a>, even making the pre-show ads <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml">more entertaining</a>. While we're skeptical about some of these enhancements -- particularly when they're really only used as justifications for higher ticket prices, it does reflect that theater owners have recognized they have to change. One idea that's getting more and more attention is that theaters don't have to limit themselves to just movies. It's become common for theaters to show special events like concerts, or the <a href="http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/broadcast/hd_events_next.aspx">Metropolitan Opera</a>, that are well outside the typical fare of Hollywood films. This week, a number of theaters nationwide will show the BCS college football title game, hoping to draw some viewers away from their couches or sports bars. That might seem like an exercise in futility, but the theaters can offer something more: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128135719658793-email.html" target="_new">the game will be in 3D</a>. Movie theaters used to be relevant because, apart from waiting for movies to show up (if ever) on TV, they were about the only place to catch films. When home video came on the scene, their position began to erode, and it continues to do so as home theaters get better and better.  As a result, many theaters offer a comparatively poor movie-going experience. In addition to improving that experience, theaters will do well to un-pigeon hole themselves as movie houses, take advantage of their unique offerings, and diversify their content.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0951353313.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0951353313.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/0951353313.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sticky-floors</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090107/0951353313</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:13:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theaters Working To Make Even The Pre-Show Ads More Entertaining</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two different themes we've discussed here quite often are (1) that movie theaters need to stop worrying about piracy, and focus more on improving the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060727/1512205.shtml">moviegoing experience</a> and (2) that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040726/1151253.shtml">advertising is content</a> -- and it better be good content if you want the advertising to be effective.  That's why it's somewhat encouraging to see that movie theaters are now <a href="http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i8338a3cc42d9fb02dbe8da074f2020ab" target="_new">experimenting with much more entertaining and interactive "pre-show" advertising</a>.  They're doing things like using motion sensors to have the audience "play" a game as a group, or having them use their mobile phones to vote on certain questions on the screen and immediately showing the results.  That latter example may be doubly surprising considering how theaters these days are so anti-mobile phone.  Still, while this is a move in the right direction, it's the wrong thing to be focusing on at this point.  Improving the overall experience is much more important than making the pre-show ads better, so hopefully this is only one small part of what theaters are working on these days.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/1144461555.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-everyone</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080630/1144461555</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:52:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Next Up On Movie Theaters' List To Remain Relevant: 3D Movies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It is beginning to look like movie theater owners are finally (finally!) coming to terms with the fact that they can't just sit back and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/225629.shtml">whine</a> about home theaters.  Instead, they need to actually compete and offer a better experience, not easily replicated at home.  In the last month, we've seen a few different stories suggesting that theater owners at least understand part of this.   As we've noted, they're investing in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/235714627.shtml">IMAX screens</a> and building <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080330/132008696.shtml">luxury theaters</a>.  The latest is that they're <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2008/04/3d_movies" target="_new">trying to do a lot more 3D movies</a> where the overall experience is enhanced by seeing it in a big theater.  These are all steps in the right direction, and things that need to be done, but it would be nice if they fixed the core problems first: making the theaters comfortable, clean and mostly free from distraction.  Also, it appears that all of these stories focus on how the theater owners are looking to <i>increase</i> prices for these "new" types of movie experiences.  Considering how overpriced some folks already think movies are, theater owners might want to be careful about how much extra they're charging, or no one will come check out these innovations in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/003700832.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-it's-a-start</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080414/003700832</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:29:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Teen Pleads Guilty For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/193136.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/193136.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Jhannet Sejas, the teenager who was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070802/172828.shtml">arrested for filming 20 seconds of a movie</a> for the sake of showing her brother that she went to that movie?  Apparently, she's agreed to <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/teen-cops-guilt.html">plead guilty</a>, which will get her off without any jailtime, a small $71 fine and an agreement to stay out of trouble for a year (afterwards, the misdemeanor will be taken off her record).  It's unclear what this has really accomplished for the movie industry, other than highlighting that you better be careful not to take out a camera in a movie theater.  A spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners admits that it's hard for theater owners to police whose filming a movie for distribution and who's just doing it for fun, but then goes on to say that this case "reinforces our efforts to educate the public that  unauthorized recording, whether a clip or the whole film, in movie theaters is against the law."  Actually, it doesn't do that.  It reinforces that theaters have a bunch of ridiculous and costly policies that likely cost more to implement (the article notes that they're rewarding theater employees $500 for each person they catch, which explains why you'll be seeing a lot more theater workers in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070525/171424.shtml">night vision goggles</a>).  However, given that most of the movies you find online are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030915/0214226_F.shtml">actually leaked by industry insiders</a> rather than camcorded versions (which tend not to be very good anyway), shouldn't there be someone doing a cost-benefit analysis on this?  It seems like the educational campaign is quite expensive, makes the theater owners look like a bunch of bullies, and does little to nothing to stop movies from showing up online. <b>Update</b>: Apparently Regal Cinemas <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/worlds-largest-.html">pushed hard to prosecute her</a>.  How nice of Regal Cinemas.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/193136.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/193136.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/193136.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>crimes-and-misdemeanors</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070821/193136</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>