New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DVD Immediately?

post #1 of 14
4/25/05 at 1:59pm
Thread Starter 
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...466567,00.html

This article says them Hollywood types are seriously considering releasing films on DVD a lot sooner after their theatrical release - supposedly to cut down on piracy.

Would it stop you going to the cinema if you knew you could own the film in a couple of months? Maybe not for the big releases, but for 'arthouse' films or films you know are going to suck but want to see anyway - like AVP?

I'd also assume that, if this happens, the first releases will be the definition of barebones.

Good thing?
Reply
post #2 of 14
4/25/05 at 2:04pm
Here's my prediction: More double-dips in the future, if this starts happening. Quicker release times probably will mean less time to incorporate special features into the disc(s).

I would imagine it might start a "bare-bones" quick release, followed up by a "SE" edition of the movie a few months later.
Reply
post #3 of 14
4/25/05 at 2:07pm
Theatrical runs these days are more promotional than profitable, so this is a natural evolution. The continued degradation of the theatrical experience coupled with the increasing affordability of good home theater equipment makes this a matter of "when," not "if" for the studios.
Reply
post #4 of 14
4/25/05 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
Here's my prediction: More double-dips in the future, if this starts happening. Quicker release times probably will mean less time to incorporate special features into the disc(s).

I would imagine it might start a "bare-bones" quick release, followed up by a "SE" edition of the movie a few months later.
I don't think it's a matter of not having the special features ready quickly enough. Most new films' DVD productions are done simultaneously with or very shortly thereafter the production of the theatrical version. It's more about how we can squeeze the maximum amount of proit with strategically-timed releases.
Reply
post #5 of 14
4/25/05 at 2:19pm
I don't rent movies or subscribe to NetFlix, so if I miss it in the theater, the flick stays missed when it hits DVD.

I think movies should stay in multiplexes LONGER. I'd much rather re-watch a movie a second or third time in a theater, not on my TV at home.

The best way to combat piracy is to make quality flicks that people MUST see theatrically. Also, they should chop bootleggers dicks off and feed them to crocodiles.
Reply
post #6 of 14
4/25/05 at 2:32pm
Trust me, the multiplexes wish movies would stick around longer, too. That's the only way they make money. Titanic was a godsend for them because it reached the point where it was all profit.
Reply
post #7 of 14
4/25/05 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad_Lohan
I don't rent movies or subscribe to NetFlix, so if I miss it in the theater, the flick stays missed when it hits DVD.

I think movies should stay in multiplexes LONGER. I'd much rather re-watch a movie a second or third time in a theater, not on my TV at home.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be a great many more people like you (or me). It seems everything's heading to the more and more personalized (that is, isolated) experience and the group experience will be saved for high-end, large canvas stuff.
Reply
post #8 of 14
4/25/05 at 11:00pm
People have no respect for the rules of movie theaters anymore. Going to a theater is akin to walking down the main isle of a Walmart Supercenter: screaming kids running everywhere, giggly drunk teenagers making out and laughing annoyingly, and cellphones buzzing and beeping every five minutes. People seem to forget that they just paid $6 to sit in a theater and talk when they could just stay home for free and do the same thing.

I prefer DVDs in my own home. When I get my home theater projector, I will never have a reason to go to a theater again.
Reply
post #9 of 14
4/26/05 at 12:01pm
How soon are they talking about? A lot of movies are hitting shelves within about 3 months of theatrical release.
Reply
post #10 of 14
4/27/05 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannychico
Trust me, the multiplexes wish movies would stick around longer, too. That's the only way they make money. Titanic was a godsend for them because it reached the point where it was all profit.
If things were like they were when I managed a theater...and from a few friends I have who do things have not changed one iota.....theaters make their profits from the concession stand. There are only a few films that, after the distributors and the film companies take their share of the ticket price,the theater actually sees anything other then marginal or no profits on. If people were to stop eating and drinking in movies,just about every theater in America would go belly up.
"Titanic" was one of the few films where the theaters actually made sizable profits.
Even with sucessful films, the theaters get their money because there are bigger crowds and more people eating and drinking.
Don't beleive me, talk to any theater owner.
This is why, BTW, prices are so inflated on the snack bar at your local multiplex.
Reply
post #11 of 14
4/27/05 at 11:11pm
LOTR is an example of the degradation of the theater experience. ROTK was particularly frustrating for me in the theatre, knowing that I wouldn't get to see the REAL movie for another year. If there was no extended DVD planned in advance, the theatrical edit (and the choices of wich FX shots to finish) would have certainly been different.

Things are changing by the minute. In 10 years, the theatrical experience will probably be very different. Traditional chains may die out (aren't they already bleeding money?), leaving only digital and IMAX attractions.
Reply
post #12 of 14
4/28/05 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese

Things are changing by the minute. In 10 years, the theatrical experience will probably be very different. Traditional chains may die out (aren't they already bleeding money?), leaving only digital and IMAX attractions.
You bring up an excellent point. We all know that back in the 50's, studios switched to the widescreen format from the 4:3 ratio to turnaround their dwindling audiences who were staying home to watch TV. IMHO, IMAX and Digital theatres may be the next evolution to bring back crowds. It's not enough to simply slowly but surely upgrade to stereo sound, then 5.1 and then DTS because the average moviegoer doesn't notice that shit. People need to be made aware of the added value they receive by going to the theatre. Nobody's going to go anymore if all they get is the same old hat.
Reply
post #13 of 14
4/29/05 at 8:45am
Thread Starter 
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...473229,00.html

You can't tell i read the Guardian, can you? Anyway, Apparently Soderburgh has signed a deal with some obscenely rich men to make films that will be released in thatres, on DVD and on TV all on the same day. Blimey!
Reply
post #14 of 14
4/29/05 at 2:40pm
I like being able to watch a movie at home where there aren't any cell phones, crying babies, or talkative teens. Anything that makes watching a movie at home more like what the theater should be is welcome to me. That said, I've yet to see a home theater that compares to seeing a (good) Star Wars movie on the big screen.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD General Discussion