View Full Version: Cinema Vs Dvd

Cult Tv Boards > Movies > Cinema Vs Dvd



Title: Cinema Vs Dvd


prophecy girl - June 21, 2005 10:19 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Most Americans would now rather watch films at home than at the cinema, a poll has suggested.
Seventy three per cent of adults said they preferred watching movies at home on DVD, video or pay-per-view to going to a cinema.

The survey of 1,000 adults also found that 47% said films were getting worse.

The results come as the US box office experiences its worst slump in 20 years. The number of cinema-goers has dropped for the last two years running.

Just 22% of people said they would rather see films at the cinema, in the survey for the Associated Press news agency and AOL News.

A quarter of those surveyed said they had not been to a cinema in the past year. On the plus side, a third of people believed movies are getting better.

Eighty per cent said they used a DVD player at home.

Current slump

Despite high profile releases like Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Hollywood's domestic revenues for 2005 are down 6.4% on the same period in 2004.

Ticket sales reached a modern record of 1.63 billion in 2002 but have fallen since, down to 1.51 billion in 2004.

At the current rate, admissions for 2005 could total 1.34 billion, the lowest since 1996.

Around four billion tickets were sold each year before television eroded Hollywood's dominance.

DVD sales and rentals totalled $21.2bn (£11.62bn) in 2004, more than double the domestic revenues at cinemas, according to the Digital Entertainment Group.

Movies took $9.4bn (£4.9bn) at the US domestic box office last year, compared to $9.2bn (£4.8bn) in 2003. The rise was attributed to an increase in ticket prices.




maybe they release the DVD a little too soon (less than six months after the film was in theatre) :ponder:

Bill The Bloodless - June 21, 2005 11:54 AM (GMT)
Despite some annoyances (people arriving late and such like) I'd rather see a film in the cinema. With the advent of large plasma screens and surround systems though, people can create a similar atmosphere at home so I can imagine the number of cinema goers will continue to fall.

laughitupfuzzball - June 21, 2005 06:07 PM (GMT)
Unfortunately now its better for me to watch at home.

Our cinemas got closed down years ago to make way for a Multiscreen Showcase which is in the heart of Gypoland. If you drive there there is a good chance your car will get stolen or broken into, walking is out of the question so expensive Taxi the only alternative.

Once there you enter into a souless Airport lounge type place and have the pleasure of sitting on old uncomfy seats surrounded by litter deafened by the sound system and sometimes watching an out of focus picture - no its not my eyes :lol:

We did get an alternative but again its in a very dodgy part of town <_<

prophecy girl - June 22, 2005 09:08 AM (GMT)
i suppose the "illegal" DVD are not helping either <_<

star_fury - November 3, 2005 11:51 AM (GMT)
well I certainly prefer to watch at home on DVD rather than take a trip to the cinema. I find it much more relaxing choosing when you want to watch the film, not having to worry about people talking or kids going to the loo halfway through. Not forgetting the time and extra expense of going to the cinema.

little pixie - November 3, 2005 12:23 PM (GMT)
Considering how expensive it can be to go to the cinema, I`m not surprised people are getting DVDs instead. <_<

goth willow fan - November 3, 2005 12:33 PM (GMT)
I watch virtually all my films on DVD. I never seem to find the time to get out to the cinema much.

Bakhesh - November 3, 2005 01:12 PM (GMT)
Going to the cinema can be a chore sometimes, but its worth it for some movies, usually the summer block busters. Things like Star Wars are much better on the big screen. Most movies don't really require a big screen though, and translate perfectly to the small screen.

One of the problems is the increasing length of movies. The LOTR movies were too long to be watched all in one go (they should have had an intermission). On DVD, you can pause it, and go for a pee when you need to. God knows how long Kong is going to be.

I see some directors in america support releasing a movie at the cinema and on DVD simultaneously. I don't have any problem with that. Why not give people the choice?

Dan Brown - November 3, 2005 04:00 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Bakhesh @ Nov 3 2005, 01:12 PM)
Going to the cinema can be a chore sometimes, but its worth it for some movies, usually the summer block busters. Things like Star Wars are much better on the big screen. Most movies don't really require a big screen though, and translate perfectly to the small screen.

One of the problems is the increasing length of movies. The LOTR movies were too long to be watched all in one go (they should have had an intermission). On DVD, you can pause it, and go for a pee when you need to. God knows how long Kong is going to be.

I see some directors in america support releasing a movie at the cinema and on DVD simultaneously. I don't have any problem with that. Why not give people the choice?

King Kong is going to be 3hrs and 25 Minutes..... :fear:

Also its better to watch and buy on DVD especially with children who just want to ruin the film messing around in the front row or at the back.

The problem is parents use it as a way to get rid of their kids give them the money and they go on their own to see U and PGs and 12's and they mess around throwing popcorn and spiting tissue out of straws as well as talking. You tell them to be quiet or stop being annoying polietly and they tell you to F off. Thats why I don't go to see a film at the cinema. I only go and see 15's and 18's because thats the only way you can unsure not being bothered. At these ages the whole theatre is full and you can hear people eating popcorn (another thing which puts me off going) but at least there is no fighting, crying, screaming spitting and throwing of popcorn.

Fantastic Four, Star Wars RotS and Pirates Of The Carribean were all spoiled by kids not behaving. I blame the parents because one of them was there when they were misbehaving and told me off for trying to tell off her kids!

endgame - November 3, 2005 04:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Bakhesh @ Nov 3 2005, 01:12 PM)
I see some directors in america support releasing a movie at the cinema and on DVD simultaneously. I don't have any problem with that. Why not give people the choice?

I think that would be a fantastic idea. I don't go to the cinema very often, and my local cinema usually only shows films for a couple of weeks anyway (it only has 4 screens, hence the limited run :rolleyes: ), so I usually don't get to see films until they come out on dvd. If dvds were released the same time as the film is released at the cinema then it would be so much easier to avoid spoilers :)

I agree that some films, eg the LOTR trilogy and the Star Wars films, definitely should be seen at least once in the cinema though :)

little pixie - November 3, 2005 07:23 PM (GMT)
Article from today`s Times on the same subject. :)


QUOTE
Screen

Pop goes the corny blockbuster
A Times/Populus poll reveals that time is running out for British cinemas, says Burhan Wazir



During the early 1980s, an era dominated by the triumph of conservative values, war in the Middle East and booming oil prices, the film industry found itself staring into a black hole. Increasingly sophisticated movie fans bemoaned the lack of choice offered by mainstream cinema, their dissatisfaction compounded by the time constraints brought about by increasingly productive w**k lives.
Then came what looked like the final nail in Hollywood’s coffin. The video cassette recorder — introduced in 1978 — may have been expensive at £800, but it had triggered almost the same revolution in viewing habits as the introduction of colour television had. Overnight, cinemagoers developed the “must tape it” mindset.



Video also encouraged a renaissance in independent and foreign — ie, non-Hollywood — film-making. Producers and directors realised that while the walls of multiplexes remained difficult to breach, straight-to-video could represent a wider market for niche films. The overall effect was that of a cinematic rebirth.

Twenty-five years later, cinema attendance is in decline once more (down 10 per cent this year, as James Christopher demonstrates on page 18). Once again, movie lovers are increasingly dissatisfied by “event” films such as Troy and The Legend of Zorro. Hollywood is once more reeling from a string of costly computer-generated turkeys. In other words, while blockbusters and the fees charged by their manufacturers are growing fatter, the film industry needs its own Atkins diet to ensure its survival.

These findings are borne out in a new poll conducted by Populus for The Times. While film fans spend, on average, about four hours a week watching movies, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the state of cinema. In a random sample of more than a thousand adults, the poll reveals that while 38 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds — the demographic most wooed by Hollywood — go to the cinemas every month, 38 per cent of all adults go less than once a year.

Further up the age range the results are even more stark. When asked about their dedication to movies, only 18 per cent of 45 to 54-year-olds said that they visited the cinema once a year. That figure fell slightly to 14 per cent for the 55-64 age group; and sharply to 8 per cent for the over-65s. Interestingly, cost appears to be a divisive issue — only 44 per cent of those polled said they thought tickets were reasonably priced.

One reason for the decline in cinema visits by Britain’s over-40s may be attributed to a modern case of "spectacular fatigue". While parents or grandparents will sit through the next instalment of the Spiderman franchise with their more youthful relatives there exists a not entirely unreasonable belief that movie-men have stopped catering to grown-up tastes.

But while at the box office film-makers are missing a trick, the DVD market is undoubtedly the industry’s latest rabbit from the hat. How long this rabbit survives is another matter, but at the moment DVD sales seem to be making up for the profits that have disappeared from the box office. Today, ticket sales account for less than a fifth of movie revenues. DVDs are cheaper to make than video cassettes and so boast higher profit margins. But, while DVD sales have changed the way Hollywood hawks its product, the sales have yet to influence the types of films currently being made.

Our poll finds that, in general, consumers prefer buying DVDs to renting them. Only 12 per cent of those polled — men and women — hire a DVD each week. Of these consumers, 23 per cent fall into the 25 to 34-year-old bracket. Interestingly, online video stores have only just started to find a foothold in the marketplace with only 3 per cent of those polled having membership of firms such as LoveFilm.com. The local video store can still boast a membership of about 35 per cent of those polled.

But it is DVD sales that are changing the face of the film industry. While many blockbusters do well in stores such as HMV and Virgin, the main beneficiaries of the DVD market are films too difficult or too niche for Hollywood to market on billboards. Small-budget comedies (Dodgeball was one), horror films (Saw), well-made dramas (Closer) and foreign films often earn more from their performance in the megastores than at the box office.

This has led the film industry down two paths of action. First, the proliferation of DVDs at £5.99 or less, or three for £15 offers. Secondly, this has allowed for the packaging of movies and TV shows into box sets.

What our poll shows is that for the most part those consumers who buy DVDs are not those who visit Britain’s cinemas. DVD buyers are, for the most part, older than typical cinemagoers. They are also more likely to be women — 49 per cent of women and 36 per cent of men buy a DVD every month. In a reversal of the state of affairs at multiplexes, DVD buyers also tend to be older — 44 per cent of 35 to 44-year-olds buy a DVD each month. This figure rises to 56 per cent for 55 to 64-year-olds.

Increasingly, we are seeing a new phenomenon in that DVD consumers are also more likely to be women. According to our poll, 23 per cent of women spend £11 to £15 a month buying new DVDs; 16 per cent of men spend the same amount.

The DVD market, unlike the cinemagoing market, is also older — and, it must be assumed, wiser — with the 45 to 65-plus demographic comfortably spending more money on DVDs than teenagers. The vast majority of these sales occur in high street stores: less than 10 per cent are bought online.

The success of DVDs should enable Hollywood to produce intelligent movies to facilitate a return to the box office. As the critical buzz around films such as George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck and Michael Winterbottom’s A Cock and Bull Story demonstrates, film lovers have an intellectual curiosity. "Big lawn dogs" — blockbusters to you and me — such as Peter Jackson’s forthcoming King Kong need not suffer, either — the "event" movie will always find a home at the box office.

The problem seems to have been that the lawns have become increasingly crowded with substandard blockbuster fare. As Hollywood is learning, and as our poll indicates, the destruction of Planet Earth is no longer entertaining, even as voyeurism. Hollywood has to learn to rebuild again, brick by brick



Ghostmachine - November 3, 2005 07:47 PM (GMT)
Good article. And it touches on one of the key problems: the standard of the product is just not good enough.

You can probably count on one hand the number of big event movies you come out of thinking "Wow! That rocked!". I'm probably in the minority but I thought that Episode III was infantile, boring and incredibly bad film-making. Only "Batman Begins" really cut it for me blockbuster-wise this year, and that's one out of how many? That's probably why big high profilers like "The Island" and "Stealth" bombed, and little leaguers like "Wedding Crashers" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin" snuck in under the radar and became sleeper hits. Because we know exactly what we're going to get with the big budget, designed-by-committee $100 million plus budget blockbusters. We don't so much with the smaller scale movies.

Yes, of course there's a market for big budget no-brainers. But it seems to be that these days the no-brainers need to have some brain. That's why "The Legend of Zorro" was just a bad idea. Too little too late. Whereas I feel "King Kong" probably will deliver the goods as it's made by a passionate film-maker who cares about the final product, not some Hollywood production line number.

I think we're gradually turning our backs on the dumb stuff. Look how big the feature film documentary market has gotten in the last few years. And oftentimes films like "Touching the Void", "Super Size Me", "Spellbound" etc are going to be the best films playing at your local multiplex. (And that in itself is amazing - that a documentary should play at my local multiplex.)

But Hollywood needs to raise its game if it's going to get bums back on seats. I'm excited about films like "Jarhead" cause I know it will engage and challenge me. But I didn't care one iota about missing "The Dukes of Hazzard". When the indies are producing the best stuff - and more importantly, the most profitable stuff, come in "Saw II" - then it probably won't be long before Hollywood shapes up.

little pixie - November 3, 2005 08:47 PM (GMT)
My multiplex has one showing a week of a classic film - it was Some Like It Hot a while back, which was great except for the two women who had a picnic during the film. :blink: I`d take a chance on some films if they had cheapo tickets at the end of their run; I think they do that in some areas of the US ? :unsure:


I think the turning point for my cinema going was a few years ago with Independence Day - sorry if anyone loved it, but I couldn`t believe how dire it was <_< . Since then, I`ve steered clear of big`event` films, except for the LOTR trilogy and the Harry Potters, which have all been superb . :thumbsup: Looking foward to the next HP and the Narnia film, too. :)

I love DVDs - for TV shows , classic films and for indie films, especially for foreign language ones which aren`t generally released here/ outside London. :thumbsup:

Years ago, I can remember one or two films coming out each week - now it seems like it`s five or six, and I`m usually not interested in any of them. :ponder: Of course, TV has greatly improved , imo. :thumbsup:

Dan Brown - November 3, 2005 09:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (little pixie @ Nov 3 2005, 08:47 PM)
Of course, TV has greatly improved , imo. :thumbsup:

And like I was just about to say you have hit the nail on the head right there.....

TV is one of the reasons hardly anyone goes to the cinema.....especially in America.

Why go to the cinema when you can watch Lost, Desperate Housewives, Battlestar Galactica, 24 and CSI.

All shows which are better than most of the tripe on the big screen. And all shows which compete very well with what on at the cinema.

Every week its like a movie in your home. And with budgets for TV getting bigger the big screen is going to have more problems.....

prophecy girl - November 4, 2005 10:03 AM (GMT)
well i suppose if the film writers were actually doing their job, the films would be more attractive ...

little pixie - November 12, 2005 06:31 PM (GMT)
Article from today`s Times - interesting info on how the US box office takings affect the Tv deals and so on. :)

QUOTE

  Media 



The Times November 12, 2005

Gromit in doghouse as studio's profits dip
By Elizabeth Judge



 

 
IT WAS the uniquely British film that seemed to have conquered Hollywood when it claimed the top spot at the US box office, taking more than $16 million (£9.2 million) in its opening weekend.
Yesterday, however, DreamWorks Animation, the studio jointly founded by Stephen Spielberg, admitted that America’s love affair with Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were Rabbit had been shortlived.

Poor North American sales of the film forced DreamWorks Animation into a writedown of nearly $4 million on the film inventory, taking the studio — spun off from DreamWorks last year — to a third-quarter net loss of $656,000.



DreamWorks, which had budgeted on making at least $170 million in global ticket sales for the film, has instead taken $160 million. Most of the expected shortfall is thought to have been attributed to poor sales in the United States.

Jeffrey Katzenbeg, the chief executive of DreamWorks and one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood, said: “Wallace & Gromit has been one of the best-reviewed films of the year and has done exceptionally well with its fan base overseas. That said, the movie has yet to draw the same level of attention in the domestic market.”

The company said that the disappointing American sales figure was significant because it determined other revenue sources for the film, such as pay-television. Domestic ticket sales are used to set television licensing rates, the studio said.

To try to ensure the American success of Wallace & Gromit, which was co-directed by Nick Park, Mr Katzenberg flew regularly to Britain on his private jet during filming to offer advice. His efforts seemed to pay off when Wallace pipped even Flight Path, the thriller starring Jodie Foster, on its opening in America to secure $16.1 million, and rave reviews, in its opening weekend.

Analysts said, however, that the film probably had suffered from its British style and appeal after its stunning debut.

David Hancock, of Screen Digest, said that the film was also suffering from a general downturn in takings at global box offices this year. Some markets have seen admissions fall by as much as 27 per cent. Analysts believe that overall box office takings this year may be down by as much as 5 per cent. Part of the problem is that American film studios face increasing competition from games, the internet and DVDs.

DreamWorks’ $656,000 net loss in the quarter compared with a $20.3 million profit a year ago. Revenues fell by 64 per cent to $87.1 million, from $241.3 million a year ago.

 


Darris - November 13, 2005 03:03 AM (GMT)
There is some films i won't buy on dvd - War of the Worlds for example, i think once at the cinema was enough.

I do like the fact though with my Return of the King dvd that i can switch it off just as Frodo is resued by the eagles so i can spare myself the long drawn out ending! *ducks hurled objects*

But on the whole, there is some films that are made for the cinema and are best enjoyed there. I suppose its all down to personal choice. I like going out watching some films at the cinema. And if a film takes my interest spending a fiver seeing it at the cinema is better than waiting for it to come out on dvd and then not liking it and wasting £15 or so.

star_fury - November 15, 2005 04:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (little pixie @ Nov 3 2005, 07:23 PM)


Our poll finds that, in general, consumers prefer buying DVDs to renting them. Only 12 per cent of those polled — men and women — hire a DVD each week. Of these consumers, 23 per cent fall into the 25 to 34-year-old bracket. Interestingly, online video stores have only just started to find a foothold in the marketplace with only 3 per cent of those polled having membership of firms such as LoveFilm.com. The local video store can still boast a membership of about 35 per cent of those polled.

But it is DVD sales that are changing the face of the film industry. While many blockbusters do well in stores such as HMV and Virgin, the main beneficiaries of the DVD market are films too difficult or too niche for Hollywood to market on billboards. Small-budget comedies (Dodgeball was one), horror films (Saw), well-made dramas (Closer) and foreign films often earn more from their performance in the megastores than at the box office.

This has led the film industry down two paths of action. First, the proliferation of DVDs at £5.99 or less, or three for £15 offers. Secondly, this has allowed for the packaging of movies and TV shows into box sets.

What our poll shows is that for the most part those consumers who buy DVDs are not those who visit Britain’s cinemas. DVD buyers are, for the most part, older than typical cinemagoers. They are also more likely to be women — 49 per cent of women and 36 per cent of men buy a DVD every month. In a reversal of the state of affairs at multiplexes, DVD buyers also tend to be older — 44 per cent of 35 to 44-year-olds buy a DVD each month. This figure rises to 56 per cent for 55 to 64-year-olds.

Increasingly, we are seeing a new phenomenon in that DVD consumers are also more likely to be women. According to our poll, 23 per cent of women spend £11 to £15 a month buying new DVDs; 16 per cent of men spend the same amount.

The DVD market, unlike the cinemagoing market, is also older — and, it must be assumed, wiser — with the 45 to 65-plus demographic comfortably spending more money on DVDs than teenagers. The vast majority of these sales occur in high street stores: less than 10 per cent are bought online.


I have to say that I'm surprised by the results of the poll that women spend more on DVDs than men. I'd like to see the results from a much larger poll because I wouldn't mind betting that men in their twenties and Thirties spend more money on DVDs than any other age group.

And less than 10 per cent are bought online? Really? I can't remember the last DVD I purchased in a shop.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree