Poll: Most Prefer to Watch Movies @ Home

[shelbyGT]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/17/movies.poll.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Like many Americans, Mark Gil prefers the low cost and high convenience of staying home to watch movies.

"You can go rent a movie for three bucks, but by the time you're done at the movie theater with sodas and stuff, it's twenty bucks," said Gil, a mortgage broker from Central Square, New York.

Three-fourths of Americans say they would just as soon watch a movie at home, an AP-AOL poll found. With people more inclined to think movies are getting worse, it's no wonder Hollywood is having problems filling theaters.

Hollywood is in the midst of its longest box-office slump in 20 years, and 2005 is shaping up as the worst year for movie attendance in nearly a decade, if theater business continues at the same lackluster rate.

While 73 percent said they preferred staying home to watch movies on DVD, videotape or pay-per-view, 22 percent said they would rather see them at a movie theater, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press and AOL News by Ipsos.

Some people say their hesitance to head to the theater has more to do with personal circumstances.

"My husband and I both loved to go to the movies before we had our baby," said Beth Eilers of Portland, Maine, who has a 14-month-old son. "Now it's a lot harder, and we tend to watch a lot of DVDs."

Going to the movie theater still appeals more to some people.

"The smell of the popcorn, listening to other people talking, laughing -- I do like the experience," said Earl Ledbetter, 58, of Ventura, California.

Almost half in the poll said movies are getting worse, while a third said they are getting better. Those questioned in the poll were most likely to be fond of comedies, followed by dramas and action-adventure movies.

Many of this year's most anticipated films -- "Kingdom of Heaven," "Be Cool," "Cinderella Man" -- have fizzled.

Some in Hollywood think the slump -- 16 straight weekends of declining revenue compared with last year -- is a momentary blip due to so-so movies. They maintain the box office will rebound when better films arrive. But even the blockbuster debut of "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" last month couldn't arrest the slide.

Others view the slump as a sign that theaters are losing ground to home-entertainment options, particularly DVDs available just months after films debut in cinemas.

But the poll found that people who use DVDs, watch pay-per-view movies on cable, download movies from the Internet and play computer games actually go to movies in theaters more than people at the same income levels who don't use those technologies. That suggests the technology may be complementing rather than competing with theatergoing. Eight in 10 in the poll said they have DVD players at home.

Through last weekend, Hollywood's domestic revenues totaled $3.85 billion, down 6.4 percent from 2004. Factoring in higher ticket prices, the number of people who have gone to theaters is down 9 percent, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

If that pace holds through year's end, admissions for 2005 would total 1.345 billion, the lowest since 1996.

The wild card from 2004 was Mel Gibson's unexpected blockbuster, "The Passion of the Christ." That film drew a huge Christian audience, many of them not regular moviegoers. Taking "The Passion" out of the mix, 2005 revenues would be up 2.9 percent over 2004, and ticket sales would be virtually unchanged.

From the early 1990s through 2002, box-office grosses climbed steadily as studios perfected their blockbuster marketing machines and cinema chains built new theaters with improved seating, sound systems and other amenities. Ticket sales reached a modern peak of 1.63 billion in 2002 and have fallen since, down to 1.51 billion in 2004.

With more than two-thirds saying movie stars make poor role models, the industry may need some new big-screen heroes.

Australian star Russell Crowe's recent arrest for throwing a phone at a hotel employee is the latest in a long line of unflattering incidents involving major movie stars.

For Tracy Drane, who lives near Dallas and is raising a 12-year-old daughter, the example set by movie stars -- even on screen -- is very negative.

"When actors make a movie or a singer writes a song," Drane said, "they don't take into consideration there are children watching."

The AP-AOL News poll of 1,000 adults was taken June 13-15 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[normcar]

Fewer people are going to the movies, therefore its time to increase prices again. They built matchbox sized theaters, sell very over priced food, do not make people shut the %#*& up during the movie, they make lousy movies, and they wonder why no one goes to the theater. Duh.

[Deku Scrub]

I am one of these people.
Star Wars Ep3 was the first movie I saw in a theatre in a year.

I'm more comfortable at home. I can pause it when I have to take a leak. I can bring my own food. I can talk during the movie, and I don't have to listen to little kids. It's great!

[RottenFoxBreath]

99% of movies are shit,picture quality is shit,food is overpriced,ticket prices are stupid,seats and floors are dirty,specially the old sticky floor syndrome.
and the dicks that wont shut the f*ck up when movies are playing are annoying,as well as the ones who insist on what seems to be wrapping each m&m in scrunchy paper.
this all boils down to why people dont want to go.
anyways,my tv is big enough to get the full effect from a movie,and like above poster,i too can pause it when i want to take a leak,or the phone rings,or the door goes,if i didnt hear a bit,just review it again.

[pepegot1]

There was a time, when you could go to a "large" theater, buy candy and popcorn for less than .50 cents and watch good movies and acting, with no disturbances from other people. You could get lost into the enormousness of it all in a manner that cannot be duplicated at home today. Those were the Halcyon days of old and gone with the wind.

[BJ_M]

There was a time when you could also smoke during the film .... at least you can still drink beer I guess if you want in many theaters here ...


I always liked drive-ins myself - need more of those again and all night showings (party!)

[BJ_M]

ANALYSIS: Hollywood risks future by ignoring adults


LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Let's debunk a popular myth: Grown-ups don't go to the movies.

Truth is, they still go. "Ray," "Million Dollar Baby," "Shall We Dance?" and "The Interpreter" all played primarily to adults. And movies like "Ray" and "Million Dollar Baby" earned their audiences the old-fashioned way: They took their time.

But "Cinderella Man," the most recent film to attempt to court the older-than-35 crowd, is finding that time is a luxury it might not have. Ron Howard's earnest Depression-era boxing drama might have looked like a slam-dunk. Initial audiences liked what they saw, with the film winning a 99% excellent rating from Cinemascore, and a respectable 83% "fresh" rating from the Internet review site http://www.rottentomatoes.com.

But exit polls told a further part of the story: Fully 50 percent of the "Cinderella Man" audience was older than 50. That's a serious drawback for a movie that cost some $88 million to make and $40 million to release because this group can't be counted on to rush to theaters on a movie's first weekend. "Cinderella Man" opened on over 2,800 screens to $18.6 million, landing in fourth place behind three holdovers, and fell 46.8% on its second weekend.

Releasing a high-profile movie for mature moviegoers at the height of summer, when competition is most intense, was not a brilliant move. "The farther away you get from age 25, the more difficult," one marketer says. "While the appetite for those films is there all year round, adults don't feel that sense of urgency to see the film. They don't commit, it's crowded, they wait to see it later."

Universal Pictures is now counting on DVDs to salvage "Cinderella Man." Come late fall, when star Russell Crowe's anger issues will have faded from the public's memory, Universal Studios Home Entertainment will stage a well-funded comeback for the drama (which has grossed a piddling $36 million to date), aimed at both DVD buyers and Oscar voters.

When it comes to DVD consumers, the studios are confident that if they build a strong adult movie, the audience will come. That feeling does not extend to theatergoers.

For that, the studios have only themselves to blame. They're driving that ever-loyal viewer home to watch HBO or DVDs by not keeping the moviegoing habit going with strong movies aimed at adults. "The movie business is pushing them away," says producer Sean Daniel, "making them look for other things, like renting all the seasons of 'Six Feet Under."'

READ THE REST
HERE

[louthewiz]

I also prefer watching dvds at home with my home theater system that would make the local cinema look and sound like less applealing , therefore I enjoy watching movies at home and the best thing at home is NOBODY talks during the movie.

[smearbrick1]

Hmmm... Let's see... Cinderella Man... Does this look like quality entertainment for the average twenty-something couple on a Friday? Uhh... NO YOU FREAKIN' MORONS!!! What kind of idiot would put that kind of expectation on movie which would obviously not appeal to the masses. Why spend that much on a movie that is quite obviously going to fail miserably at the box office. I totally believe that the movie is quite good and that the acting is freakin' great. Come on folks... just look at the box office trends of movies of this type. I realize "Million Dollar Baby" was a hit, but it costs half what this movie did to make, and it took little bit longer to catch on. The studio was pretty smart about the release of this movie, they released it in only limited locations and then eventually expanded the release.

I guess I just don't see how they saw "Cinderella Man" as a huge box office draw. With the disappointing ticket sails of Oliver Stone's "Camelot", you would think they would think twice about releasing a movie "Kingdom of Heaven" with such high expectations. It just goes to show that the film industry is not in touch with what people want to see.

[shelbyGT]

I also prefer my home to the theatre... I can pump it as loud as I want!

[waheed]

The only advantage theatres offer is the big screen (My cinema happens to have the largest cinema screen in Europe). Other than that, tickets are overpriced, food is overpriced, parking is limited (at my local cinema anyway), and the most annoying is the 30 minutes or so of crap (adverts, trailers) they play before the movie starts.

[sullen]

There are pros and cons of watching a film at the theater, depending on where you live and the accomodations. Near me there is a theater called "Cheap Flicks". It is a run down theater, the sound is old, nothing digital. Some of the theaters are not sized correctly and part of the picture is off of the screen. The movies are old, like on the verge of coming out on video or actually did just come out on video. But guess how much a movie is? All day, everyday: $3. Currently showing: Kicking and Screaming, Crash, Kingdom of Heaven, The Amityville Horror, The Interpreter, Sahara, The Hitchhiker's Guide..., Robots, Miss Congeniality 2, and The Pacifier. I like this theater. Last time I went I saw Sin City, the second showing on a Sunday. Guess how many people were in the theater. 1. Unfortuantely, I don't think there are a lot of these small independent theaters left in America. There is one drive-in, but it's 50 miles away. Long drive for 2 movies and atmosphere. Last movie I saw before that was Star Wars in a "modern" theater. Cost was $5.75 in the middle of the afternoon. That was an okay price for me to see such a visually stunning movie on the big screen. I plan to see Batman Begins this weekend in IMAX. Now that is movie watching at it's best.

www.cheapflicksonline.com

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

Facts:

Expensive Ticket (Overall for what you get)

OVERpriced food/sweets/beverages

Small-sized theaters/screens (I have seen VERY small screens)

Bad quality movies not worthy the price of my ticket (back to #1)

Rude people at the movies (noisy, bad behaved *cell phones*, too many children) and nobody to do anything about it.

[filmshooter]

Nothing beats seeing IMAX on the big screen! I also have a few IMAX films on DVD because some of these films feature outstanding cinematography but I admit that the DVD format does not do them justice.

[guns1inger]

Like plasma TVs, the only thing cinemas have going for them is size. And like plasma TVs, the picture quality is poor. Definition is lousy. For the price of one showing of one movie for my family (wife + 2 kids) I can buy 2 new release DVDs, or rent about 12 new release DVDs. Add in the moron factor ("what did he say ?". "Is that my phone ringing ? *giggle*" etc), sticky carpets and seats, and 20 minutes of ads before the movie actually starts, and there is no appeal to going.

ROTS was the first film I had seen at the cinemas since the Incredibles, and the last I will go to until digital projection catches up with film, and until I can shoot any moron that doesn't turn off their bloody phone, or worse, actually answers it in the cinema.

[filmshooter]

Hmmm...I notice a contradiction in the previous post. On the one hand, the poster claims that picture quality at the cinema is poor and in the following paragraph claims that he will only return to the cinema when 'digital projection catches up with film.'

[guns1inger]

There is no contradiction - all our multi-plex cinemas now use digital projection. The quality is sub what we had a few years ago when films where projected off reels of film. And they are nowhere as clear at the cinema as they are on DVD at home.

[filmshooter]

Woops - I stand corrected! I was thinking that you were referring to film projection in the cinema in your previous post. By 'the merry land of aus' in your ID, I assume you are in Australia? I hope this doesnt mean that digital projection will be taking over the cinemas where I am in South Australia anytime soon. This really is a sad state of affairs.

Actually, occasionally it is possible to come across compact versions of 35mm movie projectors going for only $400 - $500 on the second hand market. I was considering obtaining one of these beauties oneday for some 'home entertainment.' Only thing is - films in this format are not cheap!

[BJ_M]

a 500$ 35mm projector would be pretty crap - plus no sound either at that price. you need a Dolby cat. 500 min. to decode the Dolby SP optical track

[waheed]

I would only go to the theatres if its worth going, or if I really want to watch a movie on the big screen.

For example, im going to see Batman Begins on cinema only because it is showing on the IMAX screens.

[BJ_M]

showing on the IMAX screens

keep in mind it is only still 35mm and in some cases (except it is bigger), doesnt look as go das some of the better theaters ..


though being big sometimes makes up for it ... but it is not IMAX 70mm projection

[shelbyGT]

I saw Matrix:Reloaded on the IMax screen.

Just awesome!

[paulw]

Hollywood is in the midst of its longest box-office slump in 20 years, and 2005 is shaping up as the worst year for movie attendance in nearly a decade, if theater business continues at the same lackluster rate.

"I'ts all those pirates Joe"
"Yes boss"
"We must go to the media and tell them piracy is the reason that theater adiendence has gone down so much"
"yes boss"
"Joe . Whas that friendly congressman who was going to allow the RIAA to access these pirates computers?? Maybe we can enlist his help this time in getting more laws past to ban home theaters and large screen TVs"
"Yes Boss . Good idea. I'm sure that would bring people back"

Removes tounge from cheek..

[filmshooter]

Actually, a $500 35mm projector with a good quality lens would give stunning image quality. Bear in mind too that the average screen in a home environment is much smaller than the screen in the cinema which means less magnification of a large frame size. By the way, Ive got very good quality results projecting 16mm on 'old' equipment that cost much less then $500.

As for sound with the 35, I cannot comment.

[Nilfennasion]

A 35mm film cel has around six to eight times as much resolution as any standard-def display unit can provide. Especially if that unit is NTSC.

I love that byline about how it is all the pirates' fault. Recently, there was an episode on a current-affairs program where they paid for three families with two or three children to go to the cinema and buy a certain amount of snacks (I think they were told to buy what they would normally buy, since the TV station was paying for it anyway). The cheapest family came in at more than fifty dollars. For one theatrical viewing. And they wonder why Disney now does more than ninety percent of its business in the home video market.

Honestly, its enough to make one want to grab the RIAA and MPAA by the necks, shake them violently, while screaming "wake the hell up" in their faces.

[BJ_M]

35mm film is about 4k resolution if cgi has been added, 35mm film has LESS colors than D-cinema. But audience tests with 35mm vs. 2k d-cinema was mixed results - many preferred the digital as they didnt like the bob and weave of many theaters film display (or the flicker) , plus after 10 showings or so, the film often starts to look really used. Digital always looked the same and was smoother, but is softer.

Better digital projection right now it at 2k resolution usually ... but higher resolutions are possible.

I have been involved in many of these tests.

[AlecWest]

For me, at 50+ years old, the one thing that has changed my theater habits more than anything else is pre-movie hype. I'm less willing to "experiment" with unknown film products because trailers and such tend to highlight the best parts of films. And when those "best parts" don't measure up, I figure the rest of the film will be lackluster.

Another thing that has modified my theater habits is the move away from single-feature theaters to multiplex theaters ... with people herded into cubicles like so much cattle, only to watch the film on screens that are small even by yesterday's standards. I like shopping in "malls" but I don't care for watching films in them.

The only plus to multiplexed theaters (disclaimer - I have never done this myself, ahem) is that, except for the first-run blockbusters, it's quite easy to cut costs by slipping out of one cubicle into another to watch a different film ... and going with ladies who have very large purses filled with snack food bought cheaply at Walmart.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Star Wars:EP3 was my first theater movie in 2 years only because I took my girlfriend out.The last time I went was a nightmare:loud teenagers everywhere,long lines and the piece de la resistance...someone threw the fire alarm!

[BJ_M]

Actually, a $500 35mm projector with a good quality lens would give stunning image quality. Bear in mind too that the average screen in a home environment is much smaller than the screen in the cinema which means less magnification of a large frame size. By the way, Ive got very good quality results projecting 16mm on 'old' equipment that cost much less then $500.

As for sound with the 35, I cannot comment.

The cheapest decent 35 for cinema reels ive seen would be Kinotons or Cinemecannicas , the picture quality is great with those and they last forever, Ive worked on many of them and installed lots. IF they are rebuilt and in some of them - you have to replace the motors. Of course you would want two for changeover. Add a sound head(s), processor, rectifiers, both standard and anamorphic lens (used anamorphic still expensive), audio rack and speakers.

The lamp house on those is 1k to 2k and they still require a rectifier. That is a small projector to me (and can also be easily modified for modern audio pickup of any type, kelmar has off the shelf kits in fact) -
little 35s are also sold, there are school and military models used ones. , but not really made for any modern films and the film handling in those is rough to say the least .. the picture in those is also very jumpy from both the pulldown claw and also the less mass.


Ive never seen a decent 35mm for less than 500$ and ive worked and installed them for years ..

[filmshooter]

Thanks for the tips, BJ! The compact size of those 'school' and 'military' models is tempting but I am not so keen on the rough handling of the film as you point out. Actually I was almost beside myself when I found out the estimated replacement cost of a xenon lamp - $700. Though realistically, I wouldnt need that much intensity of light for a home environment anyway.