Movie Theaters in Big Trouble

[David M. Leugers]

OT, but still. After many months of staying away, my wife and I dared to go see a movie during the Thanksgiving week on Monday. Expecting to see throngs of cars and hordes of people, especially kids out of school. for the afternoon showings, instead we wondered if the multi-plex was open. Hardly a car one in the lot, and less than ten people showed up to see the movie we chose. To say that attendance is down is a vast understatement. We went again last Saturday night and even though more people were there, it was a far cry from the usual Saturday night crowd just a year ago. I really believe the combination of digital projection on smaller screens, rude and loud patrons, high prices, and above all, crappy films have finally done in the movie business in theaters. I was happy I got to see "No Country for Old Men" on a huge curved screen with a film print. Blew away the digital 16:9 showing of "Gone Baby Gone".


David M. Leugers

[reflex]

Sad, isn't it? When I was a teenager in the late 1980s, I remember going to $3 Tuesdays at the local cineplex. The lobby was completely crowded.

It scares me that everyone I know who used to go and see $3 movies every week (at a whopping cost of around $150 a year) now spends $5000 on a fancy widescreen TV, stereo and HD DVD player.

[S8 Booster]

as posted from me a couple of years a go - up and coming filmmakers here expected new films to be released on DVD only in not to distant future but in my opinion it will go even further: download/watch via the internet on the big flat HD TV.

i myself has decided to quit my cable TV service jan/1/2008 due to the fact that i hardly never see anything but reality crap there in prime time programs so i just buy DVDs for entertainment and watch news or whatever via internet - with lower quality on TV if need be.

my jr is doing what many other young people does - download films for free via share services like http://www.bittorrent.com/ or http://www.utorrent.com/ (for free) and they look great on DVD.

for me it was! something unique to go to a cinema to watch film on film.
watching digital cinema is sort of a downtrip to me even if the origination is on film.

soon i guess both you and i will be only able to watch real film at home.

wave of the future i guess......

shoot......

[jpolzfuss]

IMHO there are two major problems:
a) The films got worse and worse - now they even do sequels to their remakes (s. Ocean's Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen/Fourteen/Fifteen...). Not to mention that the optical quality of the prints got worse, too, due to all that 2k-DI-stuff. (Not to mention that I miss the 70mm-format.)
b) The kids are now spending 15 to 30 EUR per month for their cell-phones. Hence they don't have any money left for the cinema, for CDs, ... . Hence they either download illegal copies for free from some websites or spend their time watching stupid youtube-stuff on their cell-phones.

Jörg

[Filmblut]

I think that the visual/aesthetic problems could be fixed in a few years. And even if every movie will be shot digital... DoP's will be still capable to force themself to be "the next Sven Nykvist" or rather original.

No, don't blame the tools for bad work. I like film, but I see potential in digital technology.

The scripts are bland. As I get aware of the strike I thought "Great! The writers are no longer willing to be demanded to write crap.". But it's not about that! It's about money...

I don't see the point to go tho the cinema and pay much money for watching a product. Except for art or at least good work.

[super-8-epiphany]

Expecting to see throngs of cars and hordes of people, especially kids out of school. for the afternoon showings, instead we wondered if the multi-plex was open. Hardly a car one in the lot, and less than ten people showed up to see the movie we chose. To say that attendance is down is a vast understatement.
David M. Leugers

there's no films worth going to see, except for when Marvel or DC remakes a comic book character..

[Angus]

There are a lot of problems, however cinema-going in the UK is at a high not seen for decades. So partially it may be cultural...we suffered a huge slump in the 80's when video first became viable at home but people have rediscovered cinema and how unique an experiecne it can be. IMAX is doing relatively well here as people value the experience...whereas I am told the format is bombing in the USA.

However...cinema screens are getting smaller at the megaplexes, and TV's/screens at home are getting larger. Many people have decent sound systems with dolby digital/thx capabilities. The experience of cinema has been recreated - to some extent - at home.

Prices are sky high in the UK for cinema tickets. When I was a kid (think the ET and original Star Wars era) I could go to my local cinema and sit in any seat for 60p (about $1 at the time). The screen was the largest in the county because the old 30's art deco cinema had only one screen. OK the sound was mono but it was great. Now the same cinema has 3 screens in the same 1930's building, and 70% of the time all 3 are showing crap.

The point about poor stories and scripts and too many sequals is valid. These days a London cinema ticket often costs £9 (almost $20)...even elsewhere £7 is normal (almost $15). Who's going to pay that every week to see "Big Blockbuster 4"?

Radio and TV ads tell us that every film is "This season's MUST SEE!" and they pronounce films blockbusters before they've even opened. The hype must be pissing people off by now.

But, when there is a really good film, I still see queues round the corner from the small cinema I mentioned earlier. Hollywood etc need to think more about quality than quantity...they'd probably make as much money from 1/3 the number of films if they were all *good* films.

[themagickite]

i think in recent years TV shows are often much more interesting than their cinema counterparts

IMO heroes is miles ahead of all the super hero movies made in the last few years.

with TVs getting bigger, TV shows can be shot more like films, with more than 1 wide shot per episode. and 16:9 being the new standard helps quite a bit too.

[Filmblut]

Despite the fact that Kubrick's last 3 movies were intended to be shown at an aspect ratio of 1:1.33, and it's GREAT cinema! Reducing an cinematic experience to things like huge screens, filmstock, aspect ratios etc. is a little bit too superficial.

[Old Uncle Barry]

Angus: Amen to that,how true your observations ring home.

[cinecymru]

There are a lot of problems, however cinema-going in the UK is at a high not seen for decades. So partially it may be cultural...we suffered a huge slump in the 80's when video first became viable at home but people have rediscovered cinema and how unique an experiecne it can be. IMAX is doing relatively well here as people value the experience...whereas I am told the format is bombing in the USA.

However...cinema screens are getting smaller at the megaplexes, and TV's/screens at home are getting larger. Many people have decent sound systems with dolby digital/thx capabilities. The experience of cinema has been recreated - to some extent - at home.

Prices are sky high in the UK for cinema tickets. When I was a kid (think the ET and original Star Wars era) I could go to my local cinema and sit in any seat for 60p (about $1 at the time). The screen was the largest in the county because the old 30's art deco cinema had only one screen. OK the sound was mono but it was great. Now the same cinema has 3 screens in the same 1930's building, and 70% of the time all 3 are showing crap.

The point about poor stories and scripts and too many sequals is valid. These days a London cinema ticket often costs £9 (almost $20)...even elsewhere £7 is normal (almost $15). Who's going to pay that every week to see "Big Blockbuster 4"?

Radio and TV ads tell us that every film is "This season's MUST SEE!" and they pronounce films blockbusters before they've even opened. The hype must be pissing people off by now.

But, when there is a really good film, I still see queues round the corner from the small cinema I mentioned earlier. Hollywood etc need to think more about quality than quantity...they'd probably make as much money from 1/3 the number of films if they were all *good* films.

IMAX cinema Bristol has closed!


The IMAX Theatre was the first of At-Bristol’s original three venues to open, on 20 April 2000.
Since then nearly 1.1 million people saw a film, usually in 3D, on the giant four-storey screen. Between then and March 2007, we showed 70 films in the IMAX Theatre.

Pity because the nearest Imax is now 100 miles from Cardiff.
Yet construction work goes ahead on Wales's first film large studio nicknamed 'Valleywood' which has Lord Attenborough as its patron.

Cardiff has three multiplexes and the much smaller arts centre venue - Chapter Cinema is flourishing. Last week Ken Russell presented some of his early black & white shorts there - musical biographies on Prokofiev and Bartok - little gems!

[brokenflashlight]

The scripts are bland. As I get aware of the strike I thought "Great! The writers are no longer willing to be demanded to write crap.". But it's not about that! It's about money...

I don't see the point to go tho the cinema and pay much money for watching a product. Except for art or at least good work.

So, you believe this is a fairly recent phenomena? I don't know what wonderful fairy tale cinema world you've been all living in for the past 10 years, but I've always found the ratio of good to bad movies to always be about the same. Bad outweighing the good by far, but it's always been that way. In fact, I've seen some of my favorite films in the last 4 years. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, No Country for Old Men, Wristcutters, Control, Juno, Broken Flowers, You Me and Everyone We Know and so many more I'm forgetting. If you're casually scanning the opening attractions plastered on Famous Players marquees you're not going to find good films. Find the smaller independent theatres. You'll be amazed.

[BigBeaner]

i think in recent years TV shows are often much more interesting than their cinema counterparts

IMO heroes is miles ahead of all the super hero movies made in the last few years.

with TVs getting bigger, TV shows can be shot more like films, with more than 1 wide shot per episode. and 16:9 being the new standard helps quite a bit too.

As much as I love Heroes (the acting, idea and cinematography/overall aesthetic look) the story is pretty damn close to Watchmen which is amazing, and a movie is in the works. Wonder how that will turn out. Either way I like both stories, but Watchmen the graphic novel is a masterpiece.

[Mitch Perkins]

I have such bad luck in theaters - last time I went some old guy started jerking off a couple seats away from me...granted I'm one sexy guy, but come on! And no, "The King of California" is not a porn movie...nor was it good enough to prevent me from walking out.

For some reason I always get the seat kickers, whisperers, stinking feet shoe removers...10 people in the audience sounds like an optimal, if short-lived viewing situation. ~:?)

Mitch

[fred621962]

It's a fairly ancient problem. Film writers are only writing stupid scenarios, or when something intersting is upcoming, image quality is so bad that it would just be so nice to watch it at home.
In France( and in Europe I guess it's the same) cinema has become a governmental subsidiary, due to high impact of taxes (on public copy, DVD production, p2p, ...) on cine industry. Large companies produce only easy-selling crap with LOTS and LOTS of advertising, and few budget for production and post-prod.
BTW, the only talented youngsters I'm sometimes in contact with, suffer hard time cause nobody wants to throw them a dollar for their first film. It seems that TALENT is no longer a criteria for cinema industry, just as simple as that.