« Who are the aggressive drivers? | Main | What to read on a 28-hour plane trip »
Will 3-D movies succeed?
I say basically not:
There’s another potential glitch in Hollywood’s 3-D scheme: Theaters are losing their appeal. “3-D doesn’t address the core problem,” says George Mason University professor Tyler Cowen, who has written extensively about the economics of entertainment. He says that people don’t go to theaters because the screen is bigger or the image is in 3-D; they go because they want to go out. Theaters have suffered to a large degree because they fail to provide their customers with great going-out experiences: They have crummy seats, sell expensive and bad food, and don’t serve alcohol.
Here is much more, do any of you think I am wrong?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 16, 2008 at 01:40 PM in Film | Permalink
Comments
Our local theater has beautiful building, servers beer and ice cream, and has a museum in the basement. Coincidentally, it seems to be doing just fine.
The seats are still crummy, though.
Posted by: Grant Gould at Jun 16, 2008 1:50:00 PM
Intuitively this makes sense but on the other hand movie theaters have always been serving bad food with no alcohol. What's changed is the ubiquity of DVDs, wide screen high definition TVs, on demand services, Netflix, and of course file sharing P2P and torrent sites. It is hard not to draw a causal relationship here.
Posted by: MS at Jun 16, 2008 1:50:59 PM
mmmh, they serve alcohol in europe ... Although that in no way invalidates the other points of course :)
Posted by: flo at Jun 16, 2008 1:51:42 PM
No, that sounds right, especially about the lack of booze and good food. If you live near an upscale mall (White Flint, say), a theater owner can slough off that responsibility onto neighboring shops and restaurants. Otherwise, your best bet is finding some super-duper indie house that doesn't care about catering to teenagers (this one, for example, is a favorite of mine).
Posted by: Isaac at Jun 16, 2008 1:52:46 PM
Oops, the last link was broken. Here it is.
Posted by: Isaac at Jun 16, 2008 1:54:25 PM
At least the loud, inconsiderate kids that interrupt the movie at home are yours, not someone else's.
Unsupervised children (this includes mosy 16 year olds) are the primary reason I don't go to the movies. I can't be alone.
Posted by: al at Jun 16, 2008 1:58:23 PM
You forgot rude fellow patrons talking during the film, cell phones going off, and 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts.
The last time I went to a movie theater was in 2005, and that was in England, where yes, they do sell beer and wine at the theatres and the seating is better.
Posted by: Jim at Jun 16, 2008 2:00:23 PM
I think Tyler's points are all right on point. Yes, other entertainment (DVDs, etc.) are the reason the theater business has decreased but the way to offset this is through focusing on the total experience that the theater can give. Focusing more on comfort, food, and drink does that.
Another problem I've noticed is a lack of movies appropriate for children. It seems like most children's movies go straight to DVD. That's a big segment of the movie watching population that theaters are missing.
Posted by: Jeff at Jun 16, 2008 2:14:40 PM
my favorite theaters have movies that teenagers don't like. there's no one to kick my chair or chew loud foods in my ear.
Posted by: unacoder at Jun 16, 2008 2:15:46 PM
I read somewhere recently (and apologies, I can't remember where) that some are expecting better business at the box office this year, for exactly the same reason that you point out. Going to the movies is about "getting away," and broad economic trends have made going to the movies a relatively inexpensive alternative "vacation." Sure it only lasts for 2 hours, but the destinations are often pretty exotic.
Posted by: JTS at Jun 16, 2008 2:18:33 PM
There really seems to be a marked increase in moviegoers who seem incapabale of shutting the hell up during the feature in recent years. Bleh.
I used to live near a theater that combined cheap second run movies with really great beer and pizza. The pizza allowed dinner and a movie to be combined into a single outing and the beer made it a much better deal to see movies I was otherwise hesitant to sit through - if it sucks, you just order another beer and pretty soon it doesn't matter that
Posted by: Sean at Jun 16, 2008 2:22:45 PM
I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy. They could benefit from both better service and better gadgetry. I'm astonished that given they make most of their money on snacks, that they've abandoned intervals. And when I was a kid they used to have people come round selling ice cream in the aisles.
When I go to see a stage play, they always have intervals and the bar does a roaring trade. Not sure why they can do it and cinemas can't. I suppose the smaller venues are easier to troop in and out of, and they may have higher occupancy.
I'm skeptical of 3D because of the nuisance value of the glasses. The only 3D movie I saw at the cinema was "Nightmare on Elm Street 3D". The big disappointment (apart from the film itself of course) was that there were only a few minutes in 3D. I think they'd have to have the whole movie in 3D at least.
I've been very impressed by IMAX though: saw "300" and "Speed Racer" in IMAX and the latter was head-explodingly impressive. I think IMAX + interval + beer could equal a movie theatre renaissance...
Posted by: TheophileEscargot at Jun 16, 2008 2:26:16 PM
Way back when I was publicity director for our college film series. I observed that we fussed a lot getting special versions of films with magnetic sound etc. and that, as far as I could tell, 90% of the movie goers didn't really care. In this case, I think other "going out" activities have tended to replace some theater-going because you no longer have to go to the thater if you want to see a movie. So people may still tend to go out (almost) as much--but they'll do something they can't replicate at home.
I'd argue that the average theater experience in terms of sound, video, and (stadium style) seating is actually a lot better than it was 10 to 15 years ago. Maybe it's worse in other ways, but I'm not convinced. Sounds a bit like the rose-colored glasses of memory. Which would strengthen your argument that further improvements (if 3D actually is an improvement) won't matter much.
Posted by: Gordon Haff at Jun 16, 2008 2:27:20 PM
This is funny, because I actually tend to go see big special effects movies in the theater, and wait for the more serious (or funny) stuff to be on DVD.
Westerns, or any other film where the landscape tends to be a significant portion of the experience, are also more enjoyable on the big screen.
I do think you're basically right, though. The reason I apply a triage to the films I wish to see in theaters is the fact that it's not an especially good "night out" experience for the money.
Posted by: d.cous. at Jun 16, 2008 2:28:52 PM
For me, the cell phone issue is the only thing keeping me from the movie theater, and I used to go about once per week. Now, maybe twice per year and every time I walk away vowing never to return.
Theaters need to lobby for and then invest in cellphone jammers (currently illegal).
Posted by: meter at Jun 16, 2008 2:32:18 PM
The reason I don't go to the cinema is the long lines. If I could purchase a reserved seat and waltz in 5 minutes before the show, I would go much more often. Instead, you have to get there early to avoid having to sit in the front. It adds an hour to a 2 hour movie.
Posted by: Mike at Jun 16, 2008 2:32:52 PM
The reason I don't go to the cinema is the long lines. If I could purchase a reserved seat and waltz in 5 minutes before the show, I would go much more often. Instead, you have to get there early to avoid having to sit in the front. It adds an hour to a 2 hour movie.
Posted by: Mike at Jun 16, 2008 2:33:04 PM
I realize my preferences are not necessarily typical, but I absolutely go to the movie theater primarily because of the screen size and lighting. I prefer (and believe film succeeds best) when a movie is viewed in a dark room with projected light on a large screen. And going to the movie is often the opposite of "going out" for me; I go at times when I don't want to "go out." Furthermore, I will add Paris is my favorite city in the world primarily because they have so many theaters that still show old movies (old just meaning not in current release) on the big screen, a virtually extinct practice in the U.S.
That said, I realize the screen size and lighting are not priorities for most movie-watchers, and thus I don't disagree with your broader argument that theater crowds are decreasing because they don't offer these viewers as much of an experience. If the movie itself is not the experience they're really looking for (and it's not if they're equally comfortable watching a movie on a TV screen), then certainly bad seats, crummy food, and booze flowing like mud are not likely to elevate their stimulation.
Posted by: Radley at Jun 16, 2008 3:03:04 PM
At the risk of stating the obvious, you're right, but there's really many ways a theatre can differentiate itself from the movie-at-home experience.
The problem isn't movies at home, it's that movies at home have spent about 15 years getting so much better so quickly that it is now possible to have a better AV experience on the couch than in the theatre. And there's no director commentaries at the theatre...
Fundamentally, the theatre just has to be a nice place to go. Not coincidentally, my last trip to the movies took me to a drive-in.
Posted by: Ryan Cousineau at Jun 16, 2008 3:04:28 PM
Warren Theatres in Wichita has a very nice experience, where waiters come to your chair and deliver anything from meals to popcorn or candy to your seat. They also have decent pre-show stuff, not the annoying ads and stupid trivia questions most places use. It's very nice and not substantially more expensive than eating out and seeing a movie.
If more movie theaters took that route you'd see less of a decline. Most movie theaters have varying degrees of uncomfortable seat, annoying ads at the start, etc. When going to a normal movie brings images of flying coach to mind, it shouldn't be a big suprise that home theaters are killing the old style of pack 'em in and sell them crap style.
Posted by: Toxic at Jun 16, 2008 3:05:16 PM
I think you're right on the nose.
A lot Starbucks's success as a franchise had to do with creating a public space for people to socialize. Now people are bored with Starbucks -- what once seemed new and fun is now boring and corporate. They're not going to grow much anymore.
But there is a huge opportunity for other entrepreneurs to figure out the best way to get Internet users out of their homes or offices and into public spaces. Nobody has figured out what the right combination of coffee/internet/entertainment is yet. Whoever does will make lots of $$$.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 16, 2008 3:08:07 PM
meter:
Jamming cellphones isn't the answer - whilst that prevents Mr. 1812 Overture in the third row from entertaining the rest of the room with his choice of ringtone, and stops the annoying kids from texting each other, it also prevents anyone who is supposed to be on call from seeing a movie. A phone or pager on vibrate doesn't interfere with other patrons' enjoyment.
It would be fun to be wealthy and own a cinema. If someone's phone went off, I'd stop the film, hit the house lights, and announce over the tannoy that the film would continue when the rude and inconsiderate man in seat F15, wearing a red sweater, had left the theatre. Then send in an usher to escort him to the door and refund his ticket price.
I don't think it would take too many tries before people got the point.
Posted by: Sam at Jun 16, 2008 3:17:56 PM
People I've talked to who have seen tests of the new 3-D process say it's great, and I imagine that combined with clear focus throughout the depth of field it might make older style of movies a sort of specialty item themselves. There is going to be a major spurt of interest with a high-quality must-see film (and that may well be "Avatar." James Cameron, by the way, is not quite finished shooting, as Portfolio reports.) Whether you could use 3-D to provide a new kind of dramatic or narrative or semantic increase, beyond spatial representation, remains to be seen.
For the rest of the Portfolio article, 3-D is going to have to be adapted to home screens. Film in theatres is going the way of live drama, for most older adults: once or twice a year, at most.
I believe that theatrical releasing WOULD evolve into a numerically-small, high-priced niche market like opera, BUT FOR the social needs of the dating set. However, for the dating set, theatres outside of cities need adjoining social/commercial spaces: restaurant, cafe, bars, live music, clothing store, book store -- i.e., at least a mini-mall where the hormonal game can go on. The corresponding film releases will be certain genres only, as we are now seeing. 3-D could fit well into some of these, such as the cartoon and horror genres.
Later in the game, for husband, wife, and two kids, it all transforms: gas, parking, dinner out, and movie theatre can easily top $100. That is a still lot of money to almost everyone. This points to genres where the marketing hits the children to compel their parents: Harry Potter, Hannah Montana, etc.
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold at Jun 16, 2008 3:26:36 PM
The main benefit of 3D movies is not the 3D itself. It's the fact that 3D movies involve a necessary upgrade to digital projection, which movie studios and theater owners are at last cooperating to bring about. Goodbye to manufacturing and shipping several thousand heavy expensive rolls of film. Even if 3D itself is a failure, digital will fundamentally change the economics of the business: blockbuster movies will open simultaneously worldwide and therefore DVD region codes will also become obsolete; however it will also be cheaper to show "long tail" movies and arranging impromptu movie festivals will become much more feasible. Barriers to entry will drop, as well-financed independent moviemakers (George Lucas, the original Pixar, etc) will be able to make their own distribution arrangements, which will eventually change what kind of movies get made.
Posted by: at Jun 16, 2008 3:30:21 PM
For some of us, it is simply price.
Posted by: Lord at Jun 16, 2008 3:43:23 PM
