Iger makes a death threat?

[Moonliner]

Interesting article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/business/media/19music.html?ei=5090&en=0809b0824df24e4d&ex=1282104000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

Apparently Robert Iger has suggeted releasing DVD's along with theartrical debutes and the idea was not warmly accepted by therater folks.

[Matterhorn Fan]

Releasing the film in theaters first gets many people to pay for the movie twice--once to see in the theater (per person), and again when something is released on DVD (per copy). Disney would end up with less money, and yes, theaters would suffer.

That said, I do prefer to watch movies at home. And I paid about nine bucks each to see Star Wars and Charlie & the Choc. Factory this summer in the theater--neither of which I plan to purchase a DVD of. Hmmm.

[Moonliner]

Releasing the film in theaters first gets many people to pay for the movie twice--once to see in the theater (per person), and again when something is released on DVD (per copy). Disney would end up with less money, and yes, theaters would suffer.

That said, I do prefer to watch movies at home. And I paid about nine bucks each to see Star Wars and Charlie & the Choc. Factory this summer in the theater--neither of which I plan to purchase a DVD of. Hmmm.


Less money? Perhaps, but my assumption on this would be that the initial release DVD's would be considerably more expensive than a standard DVD. Rather like a hardback compared to a paperback. I suppose you could also limit the DVD sales to inside theater lobbies so you could only purchase one if you had paid to see the movie.

[Disneyphile]

My gods, the man's an idiot. :rolleyes:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think he's quite astute in that it would drive DVD sales higher and significantly reduce marketing costs. It will reduce cost by consolidating marketing efforts. Right now, they spend millions marketing a movie for the theater release, and then 6, 8, 10 months later have to fire up the marketing again to drive DVD sales. By releasing them simultaneously, the initial marketing blitz serves double duty with little to no extra cost. I think it will increase DVD sales because if the DVD is available during the first big push of hype, people are still excited about it and want it, whereas half a year or more down the line, it's old news. It really does make business sense.

I think it spells death for creativity, however. For a movie to do well in theaters, it has to be good enough to last several weeks, it needs good reviews and good word of mouth. Big opening weekends are a good start, but if a movie sucks, no matter how big the opening weekend, it will often fizzle. But with DVDs, it won't matter as much. Fill the stores with DVDs, hype the movie, DVD sells out day one, movie's made a profit. Who cares if it's good or not, as long as it's got a good pre-release marketing angle? Not good news.

[Brigitte]

I know what's keeping people out of the theaters. You have to take out a loan just to go see a movie. It cost us $50 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we didn't have to pay for one of the admissions (he's 2). We could avoid snacks I suppose, but the idea of going out to see a movie is a treat for the kids, we don't believe in telling them they can't have a treat while they watch. That was just popcorn and drinks.

[Moonliner]

I know what's keeping people out of the theaters. You have to take out a loan just to go see a movie. It cost us $50 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we didn't have to pay for one of the admissions (he's 2). We could avoid snacks I suppose, but the idea of going out to see a movie is a treat for the kids, we don't believe in telling them they can't have a treat while they watch. That was just popcorn and drinks.

I've taken to scheduling lunch out just prior to an afternoon movie. After a large lunch, they typically don't even ask for popcorn. It costs the same or less and it's better for them.

[scaeagles]

If we take the kids, it's to a Sat matinee where it costs 5 or 6 rather than 9 or 10 per person. Helps a lot.

I am not sure what I think about it. As far as it being the death of the movie theatre inductry, it may very well be, but the free enterprise system means constantly having to adapt. Perhaps as GD suggested, theatre could offer cut rate DVDs for sale with a ticket to the same movie.

I do not know if it does stiffle creativity. It could have the opposite effect for the big blockbuster movies. For example, the average movie goer does not have huge in home theatres with surround sound and giant theatre quality screens. A movie like Episode III or Batman begins is a much diffent experience in a theatre than at home. Chick flicks probably don't lose much at home vs. in theatres.

So what would happen is that mega plex owners would have to come up with ways to make it worth while to be in the theatres. The creative juices will have to flow to come up with a way to preserve their industry.

As more and more consumers end up with huge home theatres, even more innovations will have to take place.

Now, granted, that's not at the movie making level. but the same thing will effect the movie making industry. As most know, almost the entire ticket price at a theatre goes to the movie, not the theatres. Theatres make their money on concessions. So what that means is that a family of 5 who spend 40-50 bucks on movie tickets may just spend 19.99 on the DVD. That's a huge loss to the movie industry.

In fact, as I think about that last point, perhaps that means they must raise the DVD price significantly, or that it is not a realistic fiscal possibility.

[Prudence]

I think Iger has a point. Yes, the film selection sucks this summer. But for years now I haven't wanted to see movies in the theater.

Why? Because of all the damn people. Why pay big bucks per person to fight for a parking spot, sit behind World's Tallest Human, relieve myself in bathrooms that haven't been cleaned since the bronze age, all so that I can watch glowing blue cell screens and listen to chats about last night's rendez-vous instead of experiencing the movie?

Why not wait until the movie comes out on DVD, invite over friends you actually like (or no one at all!), eat the snacks of your choice, use the bathroom whenever you want, thanks to the magic of the pause button, sit on your own comfortable furniture, and leave the car in the gargage? And all for a flat fee?

However, right now I end up not seeing movies at all. I don't want to put up with the theater "experience," but then the movie leaves the theater and I forget that I wanted to see it. Hubby says "let's go rent a movie" and I say "I can't think of anything I want to see." Or, by the time it gets to DVD I've heard that so-and-so didn't like it so I'm not going to bother.

And I can't think of any movie that I've seen on the big screen plus have on DVD. No, that's not quite true -- I went to the outdoor showing of the Holy Grail. But that doesn't really count. Mostly I see it either in the theater or at home. Usually if it's something I think is going to be really good and have repeat viewing value, I just wait for the DVD. Why pay for it twice?

I think GD's right and quality might suffer more than it already does. I think it has ever since you could first rent movies for home viewing. But as far as marketing goes, I'm probably an example of the type of consumer Iger's was thinking about.

[innerSpaceman]

Ghoulish is right. DVD's sold day and date with theater release is absolutely round the corner. It will be done in-theaters only, to start, and the rollout of that is already in the works.

DVD revenue is predicted to outpace box office revenue by 4-to-1 by 2010, and so consolidation of marketing expenses in favor of DVD is only what's economically prudent.

Theater owners may not be happy. Neither were makers of the Edsel.

[Not Afraid]

The think I like about DVD's:

Pause function
Price of 2, full price theater tickets = one DVD at Target
Microwave Popcorn, Cheese and Pate, Fuzzy Water and Fuzzy Snugglies
You can take a nap in the middle and watch it again.
Extras

[€uroMeinke]

The think I like about DVD's:
DVDs are also clothing-optional

[Not Afraid]

Not in our house theyaren't! Well, not since we moved the TV out to the LR with the GIANT arched window.

[scaeagles]

Euro has obviously never been to a movie theatre with Sac and mickeyLumbo.

[Boingonut]

Since moving to the L.A. area I have not seen a movie in a normal theater. I always have to go down to Hollywood and see a film in the Arclight or Manns or El Capitan. It is quite a drive though from Lancaster but if it is a movie worth seeing (like CATCF) I don't mind at all. I don't go to the theater for any old movie now though, like I have not seen Batman yet (mostly because I think the Batmobile looks dumb ;) ). Of course during school I spend most of my time in the school movie theater anyway...but what we watch in there is mostly very underground experimental work or indie, or our own films. :cool:

Anyway The reason I like to see films in the Hollywood theaters is the way the film is presented. The prints are always great, the sound is never bad, and in the Arclight and El Capitan you can reserve seats. I think the reserved seats is what keeps me away from my local googleplex more then anything. You have to pay more for this but it is soooo worth it I think. You don't have to wait in any lines, there are not as many board teens and it seems that people have a better respect for the theater going experince. If I have to drive a little bit and shell out a few extra bucks for this I don't mind at all! The only draw back are the tourists, but tourists for the most part are harmless, I would rather put up with a theater full of tourists then a theater full of disrespectfull teens anyday!

So I say let them put out DVD's at the same time as a theatrical release. Sure it will kill the googleplex, but is that really a loss? I would hope that it would encourage theater owners to offer a better quality experience. It could be what it used to be like, making going to the movies a event, something to get dressed up for, not just wear you wife beater and shorts for. The movies that are not worth going to you could just pick up the DVD. Or all the theaters will just close and all we will have is DVD. But perhaps a better quality theater experience would be one thing that might be good if DVD's were released at the same time as theatrical releases.

[Alex]

I expect this, but I regret it as well.

I love the experience of seeing a movie in the theater, even if they do let other people in. I don't relate with movies the same way when I watch at home on DVD. I pause to answer the phone, or to go check email, or if the movie slows down a bit I just wander off for a while.

For me, seeing a movie in a theater is a way to escape and I'm forced to take in the film on its own terms, seeing it at home is a way to fill time. Movie theaters are probably my biggest single entertainment expense. I've been to 30 movies in the theater so far this year (39 if you count the Disney screenings for reviews) and despite the rude people, the cell phones, and the parking hassles it still an experience I love.

But the economic realities aren't going to leave this unchanged. I think the days of big release multiplexes may be numbered, but small theaters will still exist. Festivals and niche markets will be served.

[Name]

Theaters? What are those, Gods, I haven't been to one in ages, I think I splurged and saw teh last Star Wars in the mall big screen on opening day, but before and since then, don't remember the other movies I actually went to a theater and watched them, even though I do have a fairly large list of flicks I would have liked to have seen already.

[Not Afraid]

I think the days of big release multiplexes may be numbered, but small theaters will still exist. Festivals and niche markets will be served.

And, when I look at the films I've seen in theaters lately, the last one to been seen in a multiplex was "Captain Sensible and the world of Tomorrow" (or whatever it's real name is). That was quite a while ago. It's not that I haven't seen films, it's just that they been films that I want to have the "theater experience" with. The Le Capitan, The Egyptian, The Art, The Aero. The Cemetery ;) - all have gotten visits from me recently and I love them for the experience they provide. I did see Sin City in what is now a multiplex, but the film was shown in the Cinerama Dome, so I still consider it unique. There's something ablut a multiplex that lacks that "unique theater-going experience" that I so love with single screen venues.

And, I, for one, would not be unhappy with the increase of festivals, niche markets and revival theaters (which died with the advent of the VCR.)

[innerSpaceman]

Feh, when I watch DVD's, I barely even watch them. I'm on the internet, or the phone or both, or working on some project, or making dinner. It's certainly not the same as when my attention is focused on a film in theaters.

Theaters are indeed fighting back, if you will, with ritzier experiences such as plush seats, reserved seats, booze in theaters, no commercials, blah blah blah - - but the thing that keeps me away from theaters most: the 100% ticket price increase of the last five years - - is only going to get worse. $20 tickets are headed this way NEXT YEAR.

That will mean more films ignored by me as the DVD plays in the background.

[DisneyProposer]

sad but true.

[€uroMeinke]

I've been carrying about 20 AMC theater passes for about a year now - hoping that they might get me into a theater more often. Unfortunately, I even seem to have difficulty even seeing DVDs though we have been knocking a few of those off the list. It seems I need an event to see a movie, a cemetary screening, an all night DVD extravaganza, etc. on my own, I just seem to get sucked into the internet.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I think the main problem is the Studio's refuse to invest in theatres. The movie theatre is barely covering the expence of employees, maintainance and the such. If the Studio's would give more of the ticket price to the theatres, they wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the bucket. For one screen to sell $1000 worth of seats, the theatre only get's 10%. That's barely an employee salary for the day.

I think if anything, the studio's need to fork over some $$. I think place like the Archlight and El Cap and the quality in presentation can be presented anywhere. But, I will tell you that in the next 10 years, the technology is going to catch up and we'll see tons of theatres close and the loss of the use of film. Digital projection is coming and I think that will change everything.

[Boss Angeles]

If the theater owners had lunch every day at their own snack bars they'd be either dead or broke. I want to go to the outlet theater..

[wendybeth]

I wonder which would happen first? Death by faux-food, or bankruptcy?

[Boss Angeles]

If Valiant is any indication, Iger is proving the bad product scenario all by himself.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

If the theater owners had lunch every day at their own snack bars they'd be either dead or broke. I want to go to the outlet theater..

True, but if the Studio's would've givin the owners more of the profits, it wouldn't cost as much in the first place. On the average, people who go see movies only spend about $1-2 per person. Some buy alot, some don't, but in the average, the theatre has to have about a $2-3 per capita. (Average sale per person)

Would you like some Road Oil with that? :coffee:

[Boingonut]

Digital projection is coming and I think that will change everything.

How so? I got to see the really good Texas Instruments digital projection at the Arclight when the new Star Wars movie came out. As a film purest I went in wanting to HATE it, but I had to admit it looked pretty darn good (although the HD camera work made me feel like I was watching a home movie and not a huge budget blockbuster). I would say the projection was about 90% of what a good new 35mm print looks like. I also had to admit that if they can standardize the technology and format, i.e. stop coming out with the biggest best thing every 6 months and pick an international video signal (hopfully PAL), bring down the cost ($100,000 is wayyyyyy to much for a projector) and simpify the operation of the unit (right now only highly trained specialists can run the things) then theater owners will embrace digital projection. Also the studios need to help with the cost of installation. As it is now I don't see a change as soon as some people think, unless George Lucas is willing to put his money where his mouth is ;) . It would mean a compleate overhoul of the way movies are made which is something most studios are not yet ready to do. We are still very much in a reserch stage when it comes to the so-called digital revelotion, and have been in that stage for 20 years. Filmmakers are always hearing the cry that film is dead, but I don't think it is, at least not in the way most people think it will die.

You also have to remember that most cinematographers still prefer to shoot in film. Now that the HD craze has settled down HD camera rental is at an all time low while 35mm and even 16mm camera rental has been going way up. Both Kodak and Fuji have come out with the first new low grain fast (about 500t) 35mm film stocks in years, Panavision is updateing its 35mm cameras, and is rumored to be working on a whole new line of 16mm and 35mm cameras. Arriflex created the first truley small 35mm camera that is no bigger then an XL-2. So even if digital projection won you would still be watching film transfer to video. I myself have given up on finishing most of my films in film. As it stands now it costs $60,000 to shoot a feature and finish on film. That can be cut in half if finshed on video which is a very good thing for indie filmmakers! Although when I send something in to the the film festival scene I would make a short subject experimental narrative and finish on film so that it could be shown internationaly. Plus when you finish in film people take you a lot more seriously.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

OH, don't get me wrong, I love film. I've done projection for 17 years now, but I think cheep is the way and I think digital will be it. There's nothing like a beautiful projected film on a big screen.

I would love to see the Studio's run the theatres again. I think that would solve alot. I think the fact that the whole "conflict of interest" is a bunch of crap. Paramount and Warner Bros. already own Mann Theatres indirectly.

[Boingonut]

Cool, film projection rules if it is a good print, but digital is getting there, still not quite but getting there. (BTW I am by no means defending digital projection, I would like to see it die die die, but I know that it is on its way so I might as well find good things about it if it is going to be the way my films in the future are going to be shown. Although you can pry my motion picture film camera from my cold dead hands, I'll stop making movies when camera film stock is gone...

Anyway like I said there are some people really pushing for digital projection (mainly George Lucas and James Cameron) and I say that if they want it so bad they sould help pay for it, I am sure they have plenty of money to spare. ;) I agree to that if the studios owned the theaters it would solve a lot of problems.