The Future of Movies (Maybe)

[Makabriel]

Another thing I love about Alamo Drafthouse. They will eject your from the theater for using your cellphone. Seen it done and one of their big marketing points is that they will. They even mocked a customer that got booted out on one of their advertisements..

Captcha: Buffalo Wing? Nah, I usually get a personal pizza when I go to the Drafthouse..

 

[Silverspetz]

I think the obvious change will be theaters themselves will go away. Many people have giant flat screen TV's and surround sound systems in their homes. Why go to a theater when they've effectively made a theater in their living room? What this means, I am uncertain. It could mean feature-length films will go away in favor of a series format. I thought Pacific Rim would have been better as a series. Wall-E would have been better as the series of shorts involving a robot cleaning up the planet. But these were made into features because that's what sells. It just doesn't sell as well as videos of cats on Youtube. If streaming can be done with theaters inexpensively, then it can be done with end users just as cheaply... maybe not as cheaply with server traffic and all. But it's already being done, anyway. Some movies can be streamed while they are in theaters. It's already going that way. And there's no reason to think people give a shit enough about the tradition of going to a theater to want to keep it alive for its own sake.

Here's a thing about 3D: it doesn't work. For all the work and technological advances, 3D still doesn't look like real life. Not even close. And since they have to flatten 3D presentations or else everyone would get headaches and discomfort... yes, they really do flatten it... it winds-up looking like a card board diorama. In Wolverine there is a shot of Logan and Mariko in bed. The camera goes past Tao Okamoto's shoulder to Hugh Jackman and she looked like a cardboard cutout that was a mile away from him. it just looks terrible.

Television had been slowly killing movie theaters for years. Technical innovations were quickly matched. Color movies came out and then color televisions were produced. It's an arms race. It's why theaters feature a wide screen and surround sound. It took a while, but now home theaters have that. And 3D as 3D televisions are also available. What do theaters off besides a reason to get out of the house besides the mini-golf course?

People will still go to the theatre for the experience of it. There is just something massively different about seeing a movie in the theatre as opposed to your own living room or on your computer. The popcorn, the seats, the size of the room and the screen and even the presence of other people there watching it with you (for good or for ill) just creates this atmosphere that a home-theatre system just won't match...EVER.

Aside from that it just isn't practically feasible that home-entertainment systems will be able to replace theatres even if they could deliver the exact same experience. Not everyone has the money to buy one of those things, and far fewer has the extra space necessary to set it up. The size is a big part of the theatre experience so if home-entertainment is ever going to even have a chance of replicating it the space IS necessary.

 

[medv4380]

Having the option to "patch" results in weaker quality control, and more patches. This is a Pandora's box that consoles opened up when they allowed for it. I prefer my games to work out of the box, and the last thing I want is movies to need day one patching just so that the job was done on a deadline. The job should be done right before it is released to the public.

The tech to stop the phone issue already exists, and has existed for decades. It's Illegal because of how it can be used, and if the people responsible fore that keep their heads on strait it will say that way. The first time a phone jammer gets used in a kidnapping will be the day the law goes right back to where it is now.

I understand the desire for these "options", but their consequences are unacceptable.

 

[Sylocat]

One idea I've had for the phone-screen-darkening thing is an interface with those Google Glass-things that causes the phone screen itself to be 99% dark, but the glasses to make it look like it's bright, only to the people wearing them.

If that's a tradeoff for getting re-releases on the big screen, then hey, I'm all for it. There are SO many movies I want to see again on the big screen, both recent ones and one from when I was a kid (also, "event movies" like MLP: Equestria Girls that only played for a single weekend, and my dad, who had been looking forward to it almost as much as me, was sick and couldn't go... I hate pirating stuff, but I downloaded it just so I could show it to him on my laptop)

 

[chikusho]

How about going through a mandatory EMP machine, so that any electronic devices turned on when entering the theater automatically get bricked. You know to prevent texting and phone calls during the feature.

 

[chikusho]

People will still go to the theatre for the experience of it. There is just something massively different about seeing a movie in the theatre as opposed to your own living room or on your computer. The popcorn, the seats, the size of the room and the screen and even the presence of other people there watching it with you (for good or for ill) just creates this atmosphere that a home-theatre system just won't match...EVER.

Aside from that it just isn't practically feasible that home-entertainment systems will be able to replace theatres even if they could deliver the exact same experience. Not everyone has the money to buy one of those things, and far fewer has the extra space necessary to set it up. The size is a big part of the theatre experience so if home-entertainment is ever going to even have a chance of replicating it the space IS necessary.

You can emulate a huge theater screen just fine with an Oculus Rift. Buying one of those can get you infinite cinema experiences for $300, and it only takes up space that your head is already occupying.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Sorry but people who use phones in the cinema can go die in a fire! If you can't be away from it for the run time of a film don't go to the fucking cinema!

Agreed, I can't stand that. When the first Hobbit film came out, there was this guy sitting in front of my friends and I and was even taking pictures with a flash on... We promptly got him kicked out. It's just inconsiderate.

 

[Olas]

If people start regularly using their cellphones during the movie, I'm going to start regularly bringing a portable signal jammer with me into the theatre.

 

[Pyrian]

You can emulate a huge theater screen just fine with an Oculus Rift.

No, you can't. Even the consumer version simply doesn't have the resolution. You'll be looking at it through a screen door, as they say.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I never turn my phone off, ever! It is always on silent though.

 

[Lightknight]

MovieBob,

Hey, I really enjoy your work here and I don't know if you ever read the comments here on your posts but I think you should consider the idea that home alternatives might actually make the whole movie experience a home event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdnuZVwMHS0

Of course I'm talking about the Occulus Rift as the early prototype for a virtual reality environment that gives you the feeling of being in a theater without having to bother with the lines and yes, those asshats that fiddle with their phones at your expense.

Do you think some at-home tech might eventually kill the movie theater experience in some way? Don't get me wrong, there's something magical and different about the theater. Like a get away. But what if tech can provide that in the important ways. What if the industry gets to a point that movie producers can make more money by including occulus rift users (or whatever the device name is that accomplishes this) in who they release to? I mean, it's not like bootlegging doesn't already have the movie online a day or more before the movie actually comes out so maybe theaters can assume that pirates are going to be lost revenue and consider this as safe way to get more money up front for one view than they would from a theater that rents the movie license? Release of long-term individual licenses (probably purely digital in the future) would continue to be a staggered release.

Just something to consider. I think there will always be a place for theaters. I'm just afraid that they'll become what drive-ins are today and I don't think that fear is entirely unwarranted.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The thing about using smartphones to access alternate audio tracks is interesting, but I don't see how it would work. How would it silence the normal sound of the movie? I guess the same technology as noise-canceling headphones, but hard-synched to the film and with a volume control you can slide until as little of the base movie as possible is audible.

Oh, and you're wrong that people will ever stop calling them "phones". If we haven't come up with a different term for them now, when calling is the least commonly used function of most models, we probably never will until the English language goes out of style. The Brits know where it's at, though; they've been calling 'em "mobiles" since before they were "smart".

Was actually talking to a colleague the other day about similar uses of 3D glasses like example 3. You could potentially be showing 2 different versions of the movie, depending on what glasses were worn, and potentially what soundtrack would be playing (depending on whether you've got some kind of earbuds).
Another potential use could be to show both 24 and 48 fps versions. Didn't like the look of The Hobbit? Just use the glasses that are set to receive the 24fps version. Like the new 48p version better? Switch glasses.

I think people who are bothered by 48fps video would find that having to watch a movie through polarized glasses isn't any better.

Ya know Bob, I've long been interested to have you go see a movie in Sweden, I'd be curious to see your reaction. In Sweden, I've seen someone texting like once, and never had to even see someone desperately trying to turn of the sound to their phone as someone is calling them mid-movie. The last time I was mildly annoyed at the movies were when some kids behind me tended to snicker to loudly at inappropriate times. People talking in theaters is virtually non-existing, the most you can expect is some banter during the trailers.

Not only are people well-behaved you never have to worry about finding a seat. You can only book numbered seats, most easily done online. This greatly simplifies big premiers, because once you've spent your nights in a tent to get tickets, you can pick the best seats then and there, no need to stand in line again. Also, there are no rules about bringing snacks from outside, near most cinemas in Sweden, you can find a big candy-store within spitting distance.

Whenever I read about your (or other people from US) frustration with movie-going, I get eternally thankful for this country and our civil and structured way of life.

Yeah, well, Swedes are probably just better people than Americans. One day I'd like to study the cultures that are Just Better than America, like Sweden and Canada, and figure out just what's up with that. Maybe it's the cold weather. People can't work up the energy to be an asshole when they're too cold all the time. That would also explain why people from the South are so much worse.

Having the option to "patch" results in weaker quality control, and more patches. This is a Pandora's box that consoles opened up when they allowed for it. I prefer my games to work out of the box, and the last thing I want is movies to need day one patching just so that the job was done on a deadline. The job should be done right before it is released to the public.

I think that has more to do with the complexity of games going way up around the same time. I've actually found that the worst quality control this generation tends to be from games whose publishers don't bother to patch anything.

 

[Mark D. Stroyer]

So, for a while now I've been thinking that the only way theatres survive beyond ten years is if the role of them changes from "exclusive first release to get people to cram in and overpay to see something" to "club where people who like movies go to hang out and watch things together".

Already, the theatre doesn't really provide anything that most people don't already have in their homes. My home screen is higher quality than my local theatre's, though maybe they've got an edge on surround. Everything you've suggested could easily be made to accommodate personal viewing rather than the bigger screen. It'd even be more convenient, and then you'd axe a significant part of Hollywood that tries to use gimmicky tactics to persuade people to buy a ticket.

Imagine a world where a movie comes out and is instantly available to pay to stream directly to people's homes, which actually does work now, but imagine a world where it's the future, so things have been ironed out to not suck. When somebody's TV setup rivals the movie theatre, just forget trying to compete, let them pay to watch it at home. Then, the theatre changes roles.

Make the theatre a place that people who Love movies go. When you go there to hang out with other people and talk about what you've seen and what's coming, and you can literally just start a movie - old or new - whenever a group of people decide they want to see it, and it becomes a hub for a medium of entertainment, then you've got something. Dinner-and-a-movie is and has been a thing for a very long time. Make that a thing. The theatre is much more exciting when it's a place you want to be at, and yes, I am thinking back to the twenties. Cut the dying mass market and turn it specialty shop. People will spend money for the things they love, so let them.

In my spectacular science-fiction future where this is a thing, it's also amazing for independent films driving the industry, because they're available anywhere, so if people want to watch it they just can.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Don't pull your phone out at my local theater, people WILL say something.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Already, the theatre doesn't really provide anything that most people don't already have in their homes. My home screen is higher quality than my local theatre's, though maybe they've got an edge on surround. Everything you've suggested could easily be made to accommodate personal viewing rather than the bigger screen. It'd even be more convenient, and then you'd axe a significant part of Hollywood that tries to use gimmicky tactics to persuade people to buy a ticket.

Imagine a world where a movie comes out and is instantly available to pay to stream directly to people's homes, which actually does work now, but imagine a world where it's the future, so things have been ironed out to not suck. When somebody's TV setup rivals the movie theatre, just forget trying to compete, let them pay to watch it at home. Then, the theatre changes roles.

My local theater's bigger screens are way bigger than the 60" plasma we have at home. Like an order of magnitude. They use digital projectors that have a great picture. The sound system is amazing. The theater still beats the hell out of any home theater I have ever seen. Of course I haven't been to Bob Murray's house so who knows what he has.

The theaters still compete quite nicely with all the 1080p, future 4k, and large 60"+ HDTV's and 600watt home sound systems out there.

 

[Nouw]

People will still go to the theatre for the experience of it. There is just something massively different about seeing a movie in the theatre as opposed to your own living room or on your computer. The popcorn, the seats, the size of the room and the screen and even the presence of other people there watching it with you (for good or for ill) just creates this atmosphere that a home-theatre system just won't match...EVER.

Aside from that it just isn't practically feasible that home-entertainment systems will be able to replace theatres even if they could deliver the exact same experience. Not everyone has the money to buy one of those things, and far fewer has the extra space necessary to set it up. The size is a big part of the theatre experience so if home-entertainment is ever going to even have a chance of replicating it the space IS necessary.

You can emulate a huge theater screen just fine with an Oculus Rift. Buying one of those can get you infinite cinema experiences for $300, and it only takes up space that your head is already occupying.

I think it's more of a social-thing than a technical-thing. Sure we may be able to emulate a cinematic experience and -if you're fortunate enough- afford a better home-theatre system than your local theatre but it's still artificial compared to physically going outside the house with a bunch of mates/your family and having a good time. The two biggest markets for films, can't be bothered getting figures right now sorry, are teens and families as evident by emphasis on film-makers getting a PG-13 rating and for a recent example, the abundance of super-hero movies. This is for a reason, because they are the groups that are most likely to go out to watch a movie.

If you were to ask a group of teens what they'd do to 'hang-out' I guarantee going out to catch a movie would come up often. Ask the same for families and even couples.

 

[Deathlyphil]

Ya know Bob, I've long been interested to have you go see a movie in Sweden, I'd be curious to see your reaction. In Sweden, I've seen someone texting like once, and never had to even see someone desperately trying to turn of the sound to their phone as someone is calling them mid-movie. The last time I was mildly annoyed at the movies were when some kids behind me tended to snicker to loudly at inappropriate times. People talking in theaters is virtually non-existing, the most you can expect is some banter during the trailers.

I live in Britain and the same applies here, most of the time. I've been to the cinema a couple of times in the US, and if that became the norm over here, I would never go to the cinema again.

Whenever I read about your (or other people from US) frustration with movie-going, I get eternally thankful for this country and our civil and structured way of life.

I feel exactly the same way.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Here's a thing about 3D: it doesn't work. For all the work and technological advances, 3D still doesn't look like real life. Not even close.

You don't experience real-life in 24-30 frames per second either, but movies and TV have been shown that way for almost a century, and everyone was pretty cool with it.

If 10% of the population felt discomfort when watching 24-30 FPS and the illusion of motion was reduced to keep that number from being larger, then you would have a point.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I think it's more of a social-thing than a technical-thing.

I don't know about that. How many people talk to strangers at a movie theater? A bunch of people in the same place at the same time isn't necessarily a social experience. Otherwise the theater is competing more with crowded buses than home theaters. It used to be that people would socialize with strangers at theaters, I suppose. But that isn't the case anymore.

 

[Jenny Jones]

While I think these ideas are alright and pushing the service in some ways I don't see any profit in a lot of them. I mean why would I implement a new technology for a dozen people every other showing to have it in their native language without disturbing others?

I agree with your digital movies and that you will probably see a hard copy of the movie phase out however you will not get streaming in theatres any time soon. They may download a digitally tagged copy of the film legally via a private network to use in the theatre but they wouldn't stream just yet or in the next 30 years I don't think.

One thing I didn't see you mention which I thought would have been a no brainer would have been more integration with the community. For example people could sign up at their local cinema saying they're interested in a certain film and would like for there to be at least one prime time showing of it a week. One of the hardest things I've found is trying to get a time that 13 people can go to. If the film starts between 6:30pm and 7:30pm it's easy, anything after that and you might as well start herding wasps.

You mentioned about phones and accepting that they can and will be part of the film going experience. Well here are the 2 main reasons I no longer go to the cinema. 1) For the price of 2 tickets I can buy the film on blu-ray, when it comes out (when it's it's most expensive), and watch it as many times as I like + bonuses. 2) All those other people talking, slurping, texting, phoning and generally being annoying. I can get a similar (better imho) experience at home with my 3D monitor, surround sound and comfy seats. So no, phones and cinema can stick to being on silent or risk taking a one way trip down the toilet.

I really like going to the cinema, for all it's problems, but at the moment it's just too expensive. Unless the theatre starts finding ways to cut the price and increase the service I think they're gonna start losing out to the over-compensating for something TV market.