I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002. There've been good years in the preceding decade.
Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.
I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.
Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?
Don't forget Amazon and iTunes rental streaming. Since I've gotten my appletv 2 I have found that waiting for it to stream on iTunes has replaced netflix and most of my theater trips.
Its nice to be able to pause and go to the bathroom at home. Do I miss some of the movie theater experience? Yeah, but not having kids kicking my seat, or people talking during the movie/etc... basically makes me not care about the plight of pre streaming movie distribution.
"Competition from other forms of delivery. […] Netflix alone accounts for 30% of all internet traffic in the evening. That represents millions of moviegoers. They're simply not in a theater."
Ebert didn't really tie it into the overall argument as well as I would have liked, but he did bring it up.
Also, many people have home theaters that provide a very nice movie-viewing experience. So whereas a family of four might go see a special, well-reviewed movie like "The Muppets" in the theater, they may wait to see "We Bought a Zoo" when it comes out on video.
It seems that at any given time about 1/3 of my local theater's screens are 3D. Also non-3D movies have broken the $10 mark, which I think is a fairly important psychological barrier.
Hey I'm not complaining at all. I'm perfectly happy watching at home on disks I borrowed for free from the library, or traded with my neighbors with large collections.
They can raise the price all they want for their empty theatres, I'll never complain.
Yeah, I generally enjoy going to the movies, but in the past couple of years, a setup that puts most theater experiences to shame has become pretty affordable. A fairly good high def DLP projector is in the ballpark of $1k. Add a $100 Roku or Apple TV and a $300 set of 550W Logitech speakers (including amp), and you've got a great general purpose theater for less than $2k, and without the hassles.
(If you don't have a good wall to project on, you can make a screen out of two metal poles, blackout cloth, and staples, or spend a wildly variable amount on a manufactured screen - from 100 to 1000 and up)
Or, in other words, for a family of four who would have ordinarily gone to the movies every other weekend, the cost of 2 years worth of movie tickets before concessions.
In return:
* They have a massively improved home viewing experience, which is something they were doing already with television.
* They have a massive improvement in convenience (they don't have to leave the house to see it).
* They have a "good enough" (still "very good" overall) AV quality experience.
This is how displacement by substitutes works. It's hard to see it coming, because it's hard to know where to draw the line for "good enough". But we've probably crossed it for movies.
To be honest, I like the AV quality better on that setup I described. Too many theaters are poorly configured and are actually losing on the quality front - too loud, too cold, technical difficulties.
Then there's the indignity of being forced to watch lame commercials thinly disguised as a "First Look"
I agree with you. 3D movies are dark. Darker still are regular movies where the 3D lens was left on because the theatre owners all like to save a few bucks by not hiring a projectionist who knows how to swap out and calibrate the normal lenses. Often surround sound isn't even working and is just turned off with sound coming through the three speakers in the front, or sometimes only the center speaker is working. Often a speaker will be blown and be crackling. It's not uncommon to have 30 minutes of advertisements and previews at the beginning.
This is what I get for $12-$15 at an upscale cinema. When I complain I am told there are no refunds. I walked away from this. The simple fact is my theatre at home is vastly superior to even the best cinemas in the country right now, because those cinemas are all absolutely horrible experiences sold at rip off prices and incredibly inconvenient.
This industry is dead. It is completely unrepentant of its sins of horrible customer experience. They are not selling a quality product, nor are they selling at a reasonable price.
There are better options and many of us have taken them. Too bad. I also liked drive in theatres, but they are also obsolete and as long gone as movie theatres will be in a few years.
Don't forget "And it's useful for a lot of other things other than movies", which is what really tipped it over the edge for me. Video games, streamed TV, second computer monitor, family photo viewings, etc. We're getting pretty close to "optional monitor for your cell phone", too, in the slow-but-inevitable substitute-replacement of your laptop by your cellphone.
I'd say "I just talked myself into upgrading my home theater setup", but we never go to the movies. We just watch them when they become available to download from iTunes. It's great. We make better popcorn, too (secrets: paprika bloomed in the butter, microplaned parmesan cheese, Spice House cheese powders).
For me plus one, it's $30 for tickets and then $15-20 for popcorn+soda, so it's about 40 trips. And the AV is decidedly better at home - I have a hell of a subwoofer, the dialogue is crystal clear, the picture is gorgeous, and the AC is never cranked way too high. And it gets used for video games and TV as well.
Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.
I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.
Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, spectacular home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?