Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Movie Studios piss off Theater Owners with $30 OD, Owners fight back!


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#31 xycury

xycury

    there is only one

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:17 AM

I don't know why they think they can get away from this... that would be like touring before a CD is released... it's not happening in the music age if you're a big label.

This won't work, will flop and only piss off the major and minor theaters still operating.

I love our outdoor theater, but pulling this will probably put them out since you can throw huge bashes at home for less.... get a projector and do your own drive in.

#32 crunchb3rry

crunchb3rry

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:41 AM

I'd rather wait 6-12 months and pay $20-25 to own it on Blu-Ray.

Movie theaters are pretty far behind the times though. Theaters are just projectors on screens unless you're going to IMAX type shit...and those who do kinda void any opinion on OD movies costing too much. VHS has better image quality than a standard theater. And don't get me started on the black levels.

Watching it at home On-Demand (ideally in HD) would hurt theaters but I wouldn't mind so long as theaters stayed in business. Because no chick is going to want to go to your Skanktuary (ie: grandma's basement) for a first date to watch a movie On-Demand. The theater is a necessary neutral ground option. And there's like a 10x multiplier for getting lucky if your town has a drive-in.

If it cost $10-15 instead of $30, I'd be all over this like flies on shit. To watch a new movie in 1080p (ideally) with the correct black levels, a preferred audio level, no glue patches from spilled Coke on your floor, and no 6'5" dude with a cowboy hat sitting in front of you would definitely be worth $10-15.

#33 Confucius

Confucius

    Corporate Shill

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:51 AM

Movie theaters are pretty far behind the times though. Theaters are just projectors on screens unless you're going to IMAX type shit...and those who do kinda void any opinion on OD movies costing too much. VHS has better image quality than a standard theater. And don't get me started on the black levels.


what the Fuck are you talking about?

#34 crunchb3rry

crunchb3rry

Posted 15 April 2011 - 04:35 AM

^ Exactly what I said. Most theaters have shitty projectors. I guess it depends on the chain, but the two near me (which are pretty major chains) have crap projectors. Everything is fuzzy, the black levels are garbage (more like "dark gray" than black).

#35 Confucius

Confucius

    Corporate Shill

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 04:44 AM

^ Exactly what I said. Most theaters have shitty projectors. I guess it depends on the chain, but the two near me (which are pretty major chains) have crap projectors. Everything is fuzzy, the black levels are garbage (more like "dark gray" than black).


then you have crappy theaters. But to say that a standard theater (with film projectors) has worse resolution than VHS just makes you look REALLY stupid.

#36 davo1224

davo1224

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 05:21 AM

Yeah I'd definitely pay a premium to keep certain people OUT of the theatre.

#37 crunchb3rry

crunchb3rry

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:09 AM

then you have crappy theaters. But to say that a standard theater (with film projectors) has worse resolution than VHS just makes you look REALLY stupid.


I didn't say anything about resolution, I know film is superior to videotape..

I'm talking about a totally different kind of picture quality. Focus, black levels, etc. A projector has trouble getting good black levels because the nature of a projector is to project light. Black is the absence of light. So you can't get the ideal black levels with a projector, especially considering the screen you are projecting on is white itself. Without good black levels, contrast suffers and the image quality takes a severe hit. I would say my theaters have a black level of about 80% on a ten step gamma pattern. Not so bad for average movies, but for "dark" movies (Goonies, The Descent, etc.) you can hardly see anything at all.

#38 Confucius

Confucius

    Corporate Shill

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:13 AM

your theater shows Goonies?

It might be time to move.

#39 Scorch

Scorch

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:38 AM

Are you really complaining because a theater showing a 25 year old movie doesn't have a fantastic projector?

Posted Image


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#40 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 06:56 AM

30 is a bit of a reach, but as someone with little ones at home, I'd love the option of being able to see a new movie at home while my kids are asleep. Id probably pay 20 bucks.

#41 crunchb3rry

crunchb3rry

Posted 15 April 2011 - 09:20 AM

I only used Goonies as an example. Seriously, wise the Fuck up.

#42 ITDEFX

ITDEFX

    Missed out on the Great Walmart glitch of 11/6 due to FLAT TIRE

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 10:40 AM

I didn't say anything about resolution, I know film is superior to videotape..

I'm talking about a totally different kind of picture quality. Focus, black levels, etc. A projector has trouble getting good black levels because the nature of a projector is to project light. Black is the absence of light. So you can't get the ideal black levels with a projector, especially considering the screen you are projecting on is white itself. Without good black levels, contrast suffers and the image quality takes a severe hit. I would say my theaters have a black level of about 80% on a ten step gamma pattern. Not so bad for average movies, but for "dark" movies (Goonies, The Descent, etc.) you can hardly see anything at all.


I agree, Audio and Visual quality doesn't look that good .....until you pay that extra $$$ to see the imax version/digital version of the movie. Sound levels seem to be also weak as the front speaker(s) for dialog always seem to be low. Theaters owners are being sneaky with this shit.

Yea I see the film grain and change over spots but of course once the movie hits home video it's been cleaned up big time.


You didn't know this? This is why popcorn and soda are so overpriced at the movies.


I knew it was a large percentage but I didn't know the number...good grief.
And what does the theater owner get out of this?

#43 LuckyFurby

LuckyFurby

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:34 AM

I can't really see this taking off...I mean, it's a neat idea and I can see people using it, only for big groups, even corporate set ups (some places have huge TV's, I don't know), but unless someone has a glorious and epic home theater set up, I really don't see many people paying the $30 and using this.

#44 bjschre

bjschre

    Arm Chair Hero

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 12:50 PM

I agree with caltab. I have a 9 month old, plus my wife and I both work. We have not seen a new movie in a year and a half. I don't support a $30 price tag, but having the option is nice if there is a movie we really want to see.

As a retail employee I agree that anything that takes customers out of your building is bad, however as a consumer I always appreciate more options on where I can do business. Local theaters here haven't done much in the last 10 years to get people to continue to come in, maybe a little competition will get them to improve service.
Posted Image

#45 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 15 April 2011 - 01:40 PM

I don't care that much about A/V quality. I go to the theater to see it on a huge screen and with loud sound that I can't get at home. As long as the sound isn't full of static, and the picture is not terribly out of focus etc. I don't care much. I'm not one to obsess over things like black levels or the DNR, EE and other crap the videophiles bitch about with Blu Rays and DVDs.

I'm a fan of movies and I watch them for plot and acting. I'm not an audio or videophile who obsesses over audio and picture quality.

#46 benjamouth

benjamouth

    It's a Bobby Dazzler

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 01:45 PM

$30 is fine if you have a group and everyone chips in, but considering how much shite Hollywood churns out these days it will be a cold day in hell before I pay $30 to watch a film OD.

MST3K.gif


the+Woodmeister.pngr3jm5K2gQUCv3J-E0gqcBQ2.gif

 

 


#47 Confucius

Confucius

    Corporate Shill

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:13 PM

I only used Goonies as an example. Seriously, wise the Fuck up.


I'm just making fun of you because you're complaining about how a standard theater has worse quality than a VHS tape and you expect anyone to take you seriously? Have you seen a VHS tape lately?

I understand exaggerating to make a point but then you continue on with this inane bullshit. Ten step gamma patterns. :roll: Go take your "standard movie theater is worse than VHS" to the home theater forums and see how quickly they laugh you off the board.

That's like saying Wii graphics are worse than arcade machines in the 80s. Just a bit much.

#48 ITDEFX

ITDEFX

    Missed out on the Great Walmart glitch of 11/6 due to FLAT TIRE

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 April 2011 - 08:22 PM

I can't really see this taking off...I mean, it's a neat idea and I can see people using it, only for big groups, even corporate set ups (some places have huge TV's, I don't know), but unless someone has a glorious and epic home theater set up, I really don't see many people paying the $30 and using this.


I can see this happening at sports bars or some other bar types with big screens......charge megabucks for food...it will be like the movie theaters, only worse.

#49 Dead of Knight

Dead of Knight

Posted 16 April 2011 - 02:10 AM

Redbox has signed a deal where some of the movies won't be there for at least 28 days until after the dvd comes out. The movie companies will find a way to milk the consumer in every way possible.


I know that. I personally am willing to wait. Most movies these days don't even deserve the dollar.
RIP Hiroshi Yamauchi

This is the greatest thing ever. Certainly in the OTT at least.


#50 Lyricsborn

Lyricsborn

    CAG of the Year

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2011 - 08:32 AM

I like the idea. Anything that saves me a few bones is worth it.

#51 shrike4242

shrike4242

    Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 April 2011 - 01:50 PM

At $30, it's easily worth waiting to get the movie on-disc permanently on BluRay, since that's easily higher than most release prices for movies. And I get to keep it when I'm done watching it. Heck, even the 3D combo pack releases are usually $30 on release, so that makes it even more worthwhile to wait until it comes out, if I'm paying those prices for the movie.

#52 super_dawn

super_dawn

Posted 16 April 2011 - 05:03 PM

So do you read any part of a post before commenting? The post you quoted specifically pointed out that they are thinking about doing this for movies that have are not performing well and are still in theaters. So it's not happening for new releases. It's like the studio's chance to make a last buck before the films drop to the dollar theater or to home release.


There was never an exact time frame mentioned for when a movie would be available to rent. This means a movie that they think is performing bad opening weekend could end up on their service right away...that hurts the theater. All movies stay at least a week in the theater.

92%!??!! holy shit...that leave only 8 percent to pay your staff and keep the lights/ac going?!?!?

How the hell do movie theaters stay in business?!?!?


Popcorn. Popcorn. Popcorn. I think it's 8 cents on our end for each bag of popcorn.

VHS has better image quality than a standard theater.


LOL. Uh yea.

Guybrush: At least I've learnt something from all of this.
Elaine: What's that?
Guybrush: Never pay more than 20 bucks for a game.

:3ds: my 3DS friend code is: 1934-0672-7017 ---Animal Crossing: Msg me if you add! thx!

Animal Crossing Villager Outfits Follow me:  superdawn3.tumblr.com

ChocDeathMousse.jpg