In Mr. Wagner’s estimation, the way the movie business works now — a staggered system of release “windows” that begins with a theater engagement and ends with network television or cable — is not only choice-dampening (“like hearing a song on the radio and having to wait three months to buy the CD,” he says), but wasteful, too.
Why not cut out the middleman, Mr. Wagner asks? Why pay to advertise a movie more than once?
To allay exhibitors’ fears, Mr. Wagner cites the example of the black market for DVDs in Russia. Up to 99 percent of DVDs there are pirated and yet the Russian theatrical market has never been stronger, he claims.
“People will always want to go to the theater. It’s that communal experience.”
If my friends and I are any indication, Mr. Wagner could not be more wrong. With home theatre the way it is, I have several friends who ALREADY refuse to go to movies. I am not much better. While I am not overtly hostile to going to movies like my friends, I don’t go nearly as often as I used to, and I am quite happy to sit at home with my own widescreen and surround sound.
Otherwise, Mr. Wagner has some pretty good ideas.
Mason
Add me to that list. I stopped going to see most movies in the theater — it’s a pain in the ass, it’s uncomfortable, they’re showing commercials before the movie…. it’s just not worth it, except for those grand films that must be seen on the big screen (Star Wars).
Mr Furious
There are certain movies which, to me, really benefit from being seen in the theater setting: Big epic pictures or SFX-films like the Lord of the Ring, Gladiator and Star Wars, etc. As good a home theatre as John or I might have, it’s still not the same. Films like that, I make every effort to see in the theater, but only after knowing they are good. But there are only a handle of those.
Good comedies. though it’s been a while since I’ve seen a film that would qualify. I do think that the large group adds a certain dynamic that cannot be replicated at home.
I think a film like F9/11 was important to see in the theater as well (if you were going to see it) for the social context of seeing it with a group of people.
Other than that, the average film at home on DVD or PPV is just fine by me. No babysitter required, much cheaper, I can pause it, watch when I want, etc and the smaller screen is no biggie.
Stormy70
Certain standards have to be met before I will go see a movie on the big screen. Usually, only action movies on a grand scale, like Star Wars, LOTR, Spiderman, etc., are worth the trip. Lately, it seems like most of the movies released aren’t even DVD rental worthy. These I see on HBO, if I have nothing better to do.
Narnia looks very theater worthy, and I can’t wait for next December. Plus, Harry Potter will be out in November, so the holiday movies might not suck.
Opinionated Vogon
The theaters have nobody to blame but themselves. When I was a kid theaters actually had ushers who *gasp* would remove you from the theater if you were creating a disturbance, or allowing your newborn to cry endlessly. Today it’s anything goes. Chat on the cell phone, shine your laser pointer at the screen, act a fool to your heart’s desire and ruin other’s enjoyment. People will vote with their wallets and as mentioned above, I already limit myself to movies I think are better suited for the big screen.
roger
i have neither widescreen or surround sound, and still very rarely go to the movies. the last movie i paid to see was the incredibles (i had to take my 4 yr old son), before that…black hawk down i think. when they stop making crap and thinking their opinions count more than mine ill start going again.