Warner Bros. to Canada: Y'arrrrr!

[Szechuan]

Warner Brothers pulls advance screenings of films from Canada, a hotbed of piracy.

Okay, so Canadian law dictates that without proof of commercial intent, it is not illegal to record films in the theatre. Warner Bros. has pulled advance screenings to prevent movies from showing up on the streets of LA before the movie has even released to the public. Some people are outraged, some people don't think it will help even a little bit, and some people don't care.

Frankly, I think it's their right if they think it'll help, although I doubt it will. Pirated films will just wait a few extra weeks before being available.

Thoughts?

[Serious Paul]

I agree they have the right, as a company, to do this. I also agree that I don't think it iwll help. Not yet anyways.

I've become somewhat disgusted with the Cinema Industry of late, and how they manipulate the sales figures and such. (Moving the opening day for certain movies to Thursday at Midnight, and such...) While I logically know that's their right, and that the Cinema Industry will do whatever it takes to make a profit-just like I probably would do in their shoes-I still can't help but feeling like they're cheating.

And while I know they have to protect their interests,and they have a lot of money to protect, I also feel like this whole copy right/piracy issue is being handled poorly by the Industry. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I feel there has to be one in which the Industry is able to provide it's product at a more affordable price, and still make a profit.

I know all of this is emotional, and not based entirely on reason and logic, but I do think I have some valid concerns.

[sinsual]

At $10.95 per person, I could care less what the hell they do with their films. Unless it is something I REALLY want to see on the big screen, I can wait until it comes out on DVD and buy the sumbitch for less then it would have cost to go to the theater and watch.

There are rare films that do have to be seen on the bigscreen, but that generally has been 1 per year.

[Moto42]

I lost almost all faith in the movie industry as a whole some time back. The only time I watch a movie at all anymore is if my friends drag me to it.

How many "must see" movies come out every year? I wonder, how many of those $10 bills (And about another $10 for popcorn and a drink.) you would have to put in a jar for every movie you decided to wait on before you could buy a really nice home-theater system.

_________________

Last time I went to the movies, the gal at the counter mentioned free refills on the fountain drinks.
M42: Free refills; so I'm not actualy buying the drink, just the cup then?
Really Cute: Basicly, yea.
M42: So, what If I just bought the empty container now, then brought it back for a refill later, would that be alright?
RC: uh... sure.
M42: I'll take an empty Super-mega size popcorn. *Pays and wanders off, returning about 3 minutes later.*
RC: I'm sorry sir, but there are no refills on popcorn.
M42: Thats why I bought Dr. Pepper.
How she didn't see it coming I'll never know but she was suprized enough to give me a big-ol' bucket o' Dr. Pepper

[lordhellion]

That's the saddest part about film--as an artform, is implied use is to be screened by a large audience, not by one or two people at home, but the industry has bastardized it so badly that people would rather experience it on the home market. Bad movies, in essence, help contribute to isolationism and anti-socialism.

[Szechuan]

It could be that if you and a friend stop going to the movies once a month, and put that money into a jar instead, you could have a decent home theatre setup pretty damn quickly. It looks like an even sweeter deal when you add the fringe benefits: choosing your show time, no assholes kicking your seat, pausing to go to the john, et cetera.

[lordhellion]

That's what I'm saying--the movie industry is kiiling themselves. Lower quality and higher costs is the quickest way to kill any business.

[Adam]

I don't think that it's 100% the theater's/film studios fault that people choose to stay home and watch movies now. I think it has very little to do with the actual quality of the movie itself, but the movie *experience* being *better* at home:

* DVDs are inexpensive.
* You choose who you are watching with. No screaming kids or annoying people in front of you.
* The movie starts when you want it to start.
* You can pause and rewatch segments as you like.
* You can watch it at whatever volume you want.
* You can eat whatever you want without a huge markup.

And about 8 billion other reasons that all boil down to: people want control, and the theater "experience" is the exact opposite of that. The only advantage a theatre offers is the big 'effin screen, and I'll take "being able to turn the volume down" over "big 'effin screen" any day.

[lordhellion]

Which is great, but it's not the intended use of the media (or at least, wasn't until a decade and-and-a-half ago). Movies were intended to be watched in public, in a large crowd. Emotionally, it builds the experience to get the most out of a movie--funny things are funnier in a crowd, scarey things scarier, and sad things sadder. The emotional reactions of people in the crowd build on and affect each other.

The film industry has pretty much blinded themselves to this aspect in the interest of the almighty buck. These days, movies are actually made and often dumbed-down with the mindset "Oh, we can just put that in the Special Features on the DVD". Emotion and art are sat back-seat to marketability.

[Serious Paul]

Which is great, but it's not the intended use of the media (or at least, wasn't until a decade and-and-a-half ago). Movies were intended to be watched in public, in a large crowd.

Only because at the time, and I think you're off by a decade or so, that's all that was available. People went to the theaters because VHS wasn't available or cheap. But now it is, and more so with the advent of high quality DVD's and televisions it's even more fun to stay at home, because you miss less and less of the movie experience.

No longer do you have to wait for a showing, or even wait long after a showing to see a flick. Some movies even come straight to DVD.

Emotionally, it builds the experience to get the most out of a movie--funny things are funnier in a crowd, scary things scarier, and sad things sadder. The emotional reactions of people in the crowd build on and affect each other.

While that seems true, is it? I mean how different is watching a show with 3 people from 300? I mean with the stuff you can buy for home theaters these days, what really separates the two?

Emotion and art are sat back-seat to marketability.

Well yeah, I mean that's always been true in any industry hasn't it?

[Adam]

The intended use of the media 20+ years ago does not matter now except to film students. ;-)

Edit: I'll counter with a question, to make this productive: What could film makers and theater owns do to make the theater experience better and "reset" the film-viewing experience in the theater to make it superior to the home-viewing experience?

[Serious Paul]

Edit: I'll counter with a question, to make this productive: What could film makers and theater owns do to make the theater experience better and "reset" the film-viewing experience in the theater to make it superior to the home-viewing experience?

Some ideas I have but don't expect to see:

I think smaller theaters isn't a realistic expectation, but it's one I think they could possibly sell: small theaters, that could be rented to play whatever you wanted, for a small party of people, including drinks, food and etc...

A big one, to me, is an intermission in any movie over two hours. It'd be a great way to utilize all that free refill shit.

[lordhellion]

The intended use of the media 20+ years ago does not matter now except to film students. ;-)

And people hoping to rope in box office profits instead of secondary markets.

Edit: I'll counter with a question, to make this productive: What could film makers and theater owns do to make the theater experience better and "reset" the film-viewing experience in the theater to make it superior to the home-viewing experience?

Spectacular. The first, and most obvious one, is to make some content exclusive to the theaters. If this means rehashing the idea of lead-ins (a la newsreel and animated shorts of yesteryear), so be it. But since everyone's over-shooting thier films for the DVD market anyway, why not gear some of that footage to be "Theatrical Only".

Also, you can get chintzy door prizes and such as further motivation to get people in the building--souvenirs or ticket stubs worth saving (as opposed to perferated computer printed card stock). For a long time, I've been arguing that those stupid movie quizzes before the movie should have a number you can text message the answers to, and whichever audience member gets the most right by the time the movie starts wins like a soda or popcorn or a discount at the snack bar, or something.

Paul's idea of smaller theaters is phenomenal, especially if you can set them up as "neighborhood theaters"--places where the locals go to hang out on weekends, as opposed to the cold, faces googolplexes they like to cram into malls. Paul's model almost seems to take a lot of restraunt ideals under it's wing, which is appealing as eating out has been steadily growing in popularity over the past decade. Plus smaller venues means less staff, and less staff means less overhead, which feeds into my next note.

Affordability, obviously. Supply and demand dictates that (generally) the available market for an item increases as the cost decreases, and you can sell 80-cents of soda for a hell of a lot less than 5-bones and still make profit off of it.

Advertise it as a social affair. The main reason the home theater market is building is because people are becoming more and more isolated and resiliant to physcially socializing. The industry's spin doctor's need to market people on the idea of coming to the theater and being part of the crowd. Most of thier campaigns focus (indireclty, mind you) on "YOU must see this movie", when it can easily be "come join EVERYONE ELSE to see this movie". I'm not an ad exec, but you get the general idea.

Touring releases, as opposed to nationwide releases will also pull out the crowd. If you know that your only going to get two weeks to catch a picture before it heads off for Tuskaloosa, then the desirablity to catch it before it leaves will increase quite a bit. Double that if the home release doesn't hit until the tour is finished.

Which, in that respect, would help in and of itself. The gap between theatrical release and home release is steadily getting slimmer, so waiting for a film to come out on DVD is no big deal. Hell, that idiot Steven Sodenbergh even released a DVD simultaneous with the theatrical realease a couple years ago (both tanked, by the way). Draw out that gap, and people will be less willing to wait for the home release, and more likely to catch the film in the theater so keep from "missing out".

[3278]

Reminds me of this article, which is one of those you read and can't stop thinking, "What. The. Fuck."

• The funniest thing: “It might be good for Comcast, but I don’t believe it’s good for anybody else,” Redstone told the Times. "Everything that chips away at our revenue chips away at our ability to preserve – and improve – the moviegoing experience.”
• The truest thing: "I’m sure some movie theaters won’t like the added competition,” he said. “But at the end of the day, it’s about giving consumers what they want. Anybody who doesn’t do that is going to get left behind.”

I have no sympathy for the weavers who smashed the looms instead of buying one themselves. You can be a part of progress, or you can be the crushed bones beneath our feet.

[lordhellion]

The only reason they consider $30 to $60 dollars for a one-time viewing a threat to revenues is because after concessions, you end up spending at least that much. And still, that's awfully steep. Xbox Live started "renting movies" online for $3 a pop ($4 for HD quality) last year. They stay on your hard-drive for 14 days if unwatched, or 24 hours after they've been activated. I tried it out once, just to see what it was like, and the quality was surprisingly good, but still more than I'd want to pay for a one- or limited-time viewing when Netflix is so cheap and easy.

[Jestyr]

Here's something they could do: release movies at the same time world-wide.

I'm way more likely to download a movie from the internet than I am to wait six months to see it after all my overseas friends. By that time I've missed the buzz, the hype, the enthusiam and the talk about it, and I'm more likely not to see it at all. If they released *all* movies in Aus at the same time they released them in the US, I'd see a lot more movies at the cinema.

[Serious Paul]

I've never understood why movies weren't released at the same time. I meant he technology to do this has been in place for a considerable amount of time. I wonder how and what motivates not doing this?

[3278]

I've never understood why movies weren't released at the same time. I meant he technology to do this has been in place for a considerable amount of time. I wonder how and what motivates not doing this?

I've read about it, and there are what appear to be logical reasons for it, most of them having to do with how long it takes to set up these distribution deals, and also some plain old protectionism. But it always seems to me like simultaneous release should be possible, and it's simply the old bureaucracy slowing everything down.

[Adam]

Given that they released the first 4 hours of the most recent season of 24 on DVD within 48 hours of the show initially airing ...

[Jestyr]

And some movies _are_ released simultaneously. In fact, some movies actually open in Australia before they do in the US - I know there have been at least a few in the last couple of years, although it escapes me what they were.

If the mechanism is there to allow it for some movies, there's no real reason they can't do it for all movies, and I"m fairly sure they'd reap the benefits - financially - if they did. I'd far rather see something at the cinema than at home, but I'd rather see it at home than two months late.

[Daki]

You had Hot Fuzz released in .AU before the US Jes. But for American produced films, I'm not sure how many have been released there first. I think The Matrix sequels and (technically) Spiderman 3 were open in Australia before the US.

[Jestyr]

Yep, and from memory Gladiator was as well, I think.