Skip to content

Yes, Virginia, Movie Theaters Are, Indeed, Going Away

2010 August 4

With all the talk about how technology is changing everything in media and entertainment there’s a line that no one seems willing to cross. It’s a line that begins and ends at the movie house. If I had a nickel for every time in the past couple of years I’ve heard some insider say “movie theaters are never going away,” I bet I’d have close to fifty bucks. Hey, I’ve said it myself. It’s one of those knee-jerk things where the words are out of your mouth before you know what’s happened.

Well, I’m ready to cross that line. Movie theaters are going to go away.

I’m guessing none of us were going to movies in the days of the great movie palaces. Even the not-so-great movie palaces make today’s multiplex seem like a rat trap. My heart skips a beat when I think of what it must have felt like in the 20s and 30s stepping off the sidewalk and into one of those dreamscapes. When’s the last time your heart skipped a beat walking into a movie theater. (What happens to your heart when the A Train rumbles underneath your butt at the Angelika in NYC doesn’t count.) The closest I’ve come was maybe twenty or twenty-five years ago when I caught a new print of “Lawrence of Arabia” at the first show of a limited run in a sold out Radio City Music Hall. But that kind of experience is once in a lifetime vs. what folks experienced once or twice a week or more back in the day.

The regulars at the Roxy in New York City and the Paramount in Seattle would have laughed in your face if you told them they had to watch “Little Caesar” or “Wuthering Heights” or “Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs” in a 300 seat auditorium at some 15-screen mall complex. 90% (I’ll be kind) of the screens in America today are cold, boxey, sticky and unwelcoming. There are, of course, a handful of renovated movie palaces still around but they’re little more than curiosities.

The reason folks can’t wrap their brain around the imminent collapse of the modern movie theater is because the transformation of moviegoing from the 30s until now – no less extreme than the changes we’re about to see occur – took 50 or 60 years whereas this new transformation will take less than ten. Technology is moving so quickly now that most of us just can’t see it. But we can feel it. And that makes it seem like a threat so it seems only natural that our gut reaction is either fight or flight. But there’s a third option: glee.

I choose to accept and embrace the idea that theatrical will be entirely irrelevant for studio films within ten years. Especially for blockbusters. With no less speed and much greater impact than 3D, the coming metamorphosis will not only provide a superior and untethered AV experience, it will enhance the communal aspect of ‘moviegoing’ to an almost unimaginable level. Yes. It will. Of course, for independents theatrical is already largely irrelevant and little more than a mind fuck and a money pit. The community will benefit tremendously from the technological scenario just described, but the more immediate need has much less to do with technology than with vision. More on that in a future post. (Pun intended.)

So when Michael Moore plunks down as much as a million dollars on a project meant to hold on tight to the final, fleeting embers of yesterday’s massive bonfire; and when Mike Baldwin blogs at the Seattle PI plaintively encouraging folks to go en masse to the cineplex in a desperate attempt to stave off theatrical extinction; and when influential Hollywood hot shots make headlines by publicly railing against what will have turned out to be an ephemeral 3D ‘revolution’, I have to giggle. None of this will matter in a few short years and not long afterwords, the idea of spending $50 or $60 plus gas and (possibly) parking to haul the family down to the mall to see a movie (preceded by ten or fifteen minutes of commercials) at a time certain, in a box, on a relatively small screen marred with spitballs – and it might be sold out! – will be laughable. No one will miss it and they’ll wonder how in hell they survived such an antiquated experience for as long as they did.

There are currently about 6,000 theaters in the US containing nearly 40,000 screens. In ten years there will be under 1,000 and in fifteen, under a hundred. And we won’t miss them.

Light a fire for the future!

  • Mike

    Mark – I will bet you a buck there will be more than 100 theatres in 15 years! : )

  • Mike

    Mark – I will bet you a buck there will be more than 100 theatres in 15 years! : )

  • Mark Lipsky

    You’re on Mike. And I’ll lay you five to one.

  • Mark Lipsky

    You’re on Mike. And I’ll lay you five to one.

  • Phillip L

    Mark,
    You may be right to some extent, but the left over theaters will have to compete hard for cosines. Right now, basically, theater are own by real estate mall developers, since most of the theaters reside in big malls. Studios don’t dare going against them…and they raised eyebrows when they proposed fay and a date release on VOD and theater on bug blockbusters.
    Attendance is down overall, but the studios still make money. Yes, the DVD is not what it used to be, but it is still going. People have become too busy, too many things competing for attention.
    The challenge is for the studios to “train” their audiences to NOT make worth a big blockbuster ONLY through the theatrical release. Right now, most of the audience will bypass a movie with special effects, if it’s not in the theaters and no major stars are attached.
    For the system to change in 10 years, the studios will have to
    a) break up the star system
    b) focus on niche marketing for venues like Youtube, Netflix, etc.
    c )maintain the same admission pricing universally. Most people catch up on “missed” theatrical releases, by renting a DVD. Streaming is still some time away from now.

    As you know, the majority of the studio revenue comes from foreign.

  • Phillip L

    Mark,
    You may be right to some extent, but the left over theaters will have to compete hard for cosines. Right now, basically, theater are own by real estate mall developers, since most of the theaters reside in big malls. Studios don’t dare going against them…and they raised eyebrows when they proposed fay and a date release on VOD and theater on bug blockbusters.
    Attendance is down overall, but the studios still make money. Yes, the DVD is not what it used to be, but it is still going. People have become too busy, too many things competing for attention.
    The challenge is for the studios to “train” their audiences to NOT make worth a big blockbuster ONLY through the theatrical release. Right now, most of the audience will bypass a movie with special effects, if it’s not in the theaters and no major stars are attached.
    For the system to change in 10 years, the studios will have to
    a) break up the star system
    b) focus on niche marketing for venues like Youtube, Netflix, etc.
    c )maintain the same admission pricing universally. Most people catch up on “missed” theatrical releases, by renting a DVD. Streaming is still some time away from now.

    As you know, the majority of the studio revenue comes from foreign.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Phillip – This has only to do with technology. The studios will make the same films they always have. Lots of stars. Lots of bad movies. The only thing that will change will be the delivery system which will provide a much more immersive and exciting experience. And as I wrote, the communal aspect will be greatly enhanced rather than diminished. There will be a few theaters hanging on for the hardcore and the nostalgic, but otherwise they’ll be history, And good riddance.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Phillip – This has only to do with technology. The studios will make the same films they always have. Lots of stars. Lots of bad movies. The only thing that will change will be the delivery system which will provide a much more immersive and exciting experience. And as I wrote, the communal aspect will be greatly enhanced rather than diminished. There will be a few theaters hanging on for the hardcore and the nostalgic, but otherwise they’ll be history, And good riddance.

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark, I think Michael Moore is on track ( http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=491349 ) . It’s looks successful to me. He has a non-profit model that works, and does not allow commercials. The $1M he put down was a rebate from Michigan for making Capitalism there.

    Perhaps, the old Hollywood commercial cineplex is biting the dust. Thank God for that. But Mike is looking at non-profit indie films, not commercial Hollywood fare. So where else does anyone get to see that stuff on a big screen, or even any screen? Indie films are obscure and often hard to find. Filmmakers can’t afford traditional VOD and cable distribution. Even DVD sales are an expense and likely to be flat without some kind of marketing. Theatrical is that marketing.

    This could be the thing that revitalizes indie film. It’s all about theatrical indie film, and it’s working. No one else has had that kind of success with it. Yeah, the studios may be relegated to digital outlets. Meanwhile indie has the opportunity to cash in where they are failing. That’s not to say indie can’t have digital success as well.

    I think as people become saturated and bored with fantastic Hollywood digital effects, they will look at indie films. These things go in cycles. It may be time for indie’s comeback. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLjmVf4xmUA

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark, I think Michael Moore is on track ( http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=491349 ) . It’s looks successful to me. He has a non-profit model that works, and does not allow commercials. The $1M he put down was a rebate from Michigan for making Capitalism there.

    Perhaps, the old Hollywood commercial cineplex is biting the dust. Thank God for that. But Mike is looking at non-profit indie films, not commercial Hollywood fare. So where else does anyone get to see that stuff on a big screen, or even any screen? Indie films are obscure and often hard to find. Filmmakers can’t afford traditional VOD and cable distribution. Even DVD sales are an expense and likely to be flat without some kind of marketing. Theatrical is that marketing.

    This could be the thing that revitalizes indie film. It’s all about theatrical indie film, and it’s working. No one else has had that kind of success with it. Yeah, the studios may be relegated to digital outlets. Meanwhile indie has the opportunity to cash in where they are failing. That’s not to say indie can’t have digital success as well.

    I think as people become saturated and bored with fantastic Hollywood digital effects, they will look at indie films. These things go in cycles. It may be time for indie’s comeback. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLjmVf4xmUA

  • http://AFatherAndSon.com Michael R. Barnard

    Mark, you vocalize what’s “in the air.” Everybody smells this coming scenario, and we are all scared to give it credibility by discussing it.

    I love the theater experience. Last month, I saw “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” in the Orpheum Theater in downtown L.A. It was a blast, and the venue added to the thrill.

    But it’s a restored former palace, and there are probably a dozen derelict theater buildings now serving other uses downtown.

    In Hollywood, most people don’t even notice the large number of abandoned movie theaters dotting Hollywood Boulevard…the HEART of Hollywood itself! ;-}

    But the concept of movie theaters evolved. Thankfully, instead of tearing down the Cinerama Dome a decade ago, they turned it into “a multiplex.” Yeah, calling the Arclight Cinemas a “multiplex” is a bit bizarre, because it is for today’s audience what those single-screen palaces were for the audiences of four, five or more decades ago.

    I love architecture. That, frankly, is my only attachment to old movie palaces. I have no issues about the audience moving on and being please with theaters unadorned by architectural splendor. Give me stadium seating in a dark room, and I’m happy. My best experience this year was spending a whopping $16 to see AVATAR in 3-D in the Cinerama Dome.

    On this point, compare the Arclight Cinemas–spacious, luxurious, inviting, large–to the recently closed (thank god!) Beverly Center Theaters. Those were pathetic small theaters with cramped seats and screens not much better than a decent home theater setup. In fact, the only time I ever walked out of a theater because of the theater itself was when I took my sons to see a James Bond flick…and realized you can’t see a “big” movie in such a tawdry theater. I demanded my money back.

    The point: today’s theaters are good and bad, just as there were good and bad theaters in the ’30s, ’40s, etc. So, I don’t think comparing today’s theaters to the great palaces of the early 1900s is a valid reason to predict the death of movie theaters.

    However, I agree with your other points. Technology and competition from other experiences may indeed turn our multi-plex theaters into the same situation we see on Hollywood Boulevard or in downtown Los Angeles or many other places around the country.

    Day-and-date is almost imperative to combat “piracy”–which broadly covers both deliberate stealing to make a profit off others’ efforts, as well as casual one-shot personal viewing because of unavailability in legitimate channels. It seems if a movie is not released day-and-date, it will still be consumed immediately and “illegally” by those who will grab it online.

    This may be the biggest threat to movie theaters. A small portion of the audience wants to experience the movie in a theater, while the larger audience just wants to experience the movie in any way that’s convenient. And for free. It amazes me that almost everybody I know currently and actively finds and views movies online for free as if it were a birthright.

    It would be sad to see the death of movie theaters, but I assume they’d be replaced by some similar common experience, yet to be uncovered.

    My only concern, of course, is that I hope the future includes valid payment for the privilege of enjoying the work and creation of others.

  • http://AFatherAndSon.com Michael R. Barnard

    Mark, you vocalize what’s “in the air.” Everybody smells this coming scenario, and we are all scared to give it credibility by discussing it.

    I love the theater experience. Last month, I saw “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” in the Orpheum Theater in downtown L.A. It was a blast, and the venue added to the thrill.

    But it’s a restored former palace, and there are probably a dozen derelict theater buildings now serving other uses downtown.

    In Hollywood, most people don’t even notice the large number of abandoned movie theaters dotting Hollywood Boulevard…the HEART of Hollywood itself! ;-}

    But the concept of movie theaters evolved. Thankfully, instead of tearing down the Cinerama Dome a decade ago, they turned it into “a multiplex.” Yeah, calling the Arclight Cinemas a “multiplex” is a bit bizarre, because it is for today’s audience what those single-screen palaces were for the audiences of four, five or more decades ago.

    I love architecture. That, frankly, is my only attachment to old movie palaces. I have no issues about the audience moving on and being please with theaters unadorned by architectural splendor. Give me stadium seating in a dark room, and I’m happy. My best experience this year was spending a whopping $16 to see AVATAR in 3-D in the Cinerama Dome.

    On this point, compare the Arclight Cinemas–spacious, luxurious, inviting, large–to the recently closed (thank god!) Beverly Center Theaters. Those were pathetic small theaters with cramped seats and screens not much better than a decent home theater setup. In fact, the only time I ever walked out of a theater because of the theater itself was when I took my sons to see a James Bond flick…and realized you can’t see a “big” movie in such a tawdry theater. I demanded my money back.

    The point: today’s theaters are good and bad, just as there were good and bad theaters in the ’30s, ’40s, etc. So, I don’t think comparing today’s theaters to the great palaces of the early 1900s is a valid reason to predict the death of movie theaters.

    However, I agree with your other points. Technology and competition from other experiences may indeed turn our multi-plex theaters into the same situation we see on Hollywood Boulevard or in downtown Los Angeles or many other places around the country.

    Day-and-date is almost imperative to combat “piracy”–which broadly covers both deliberate stealing to make a profit off others’ efforts, as well as casual one-shot personal viewing because of unavailability in legitimate channels. It seems if a movie is not released day-and-date, it will still be consumed immediately and “illegally” by those who will grab it online.

    This may be the biggest threat to movie theaters. A small portion of the audience wants to experience the movie in a theater, while the larger audience just wants to experience the movie in any way that’s convenient. And for free. It amazes me that almost everybody I know currently and actively finds and views movies online for free as if it were a birthright.

    It would be sad to see the death of movie theaters, but I assume they’d be replaced by some similar common experience, yet to be uncovered.

    My only concern, of course, is that I hope the future includes valid payment for the privilege of enjoying the work and creation of others.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Michael – I’m not suggesting that theaters will vanish because they’re not Movie Palaces. They’ll vanish because they will have outlived their usefulness once the next generation of personal, digital delivery platforms are in wide use which will occur within the next ten years. M.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Michael – I’m not suggesting that theaters will vanish because they’re not Movie Palaces. They’ll vanish because they will have outlived their usefulness once the next generation of personal, digital delivery platforms are in wide use which will occur within the next ten years. M.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – Thanks for the links. I have to say that while it’s great that Michael’s film festival is exposing some folks in the midwest to alternative cinema, I think the important message is that he can’t find many American independents to program. That’s because there are none. Most of the dependent/co-dependent stuff out there is dull and lifeless. Where I’d rather see the $1 million going is to the deprogramming of American filmmakers and filmgoers who think independent films cost lots of money and require movie and TV stars. The Independent Film label must be yanked away from the dependent/co-dependent crowd and used to regenerate and re-educate a new and revitalized independent film community. That process will happen online, though. Sorry. If there were a thousand Michael Moores with his kind of A-list friends with the wherewithal to clone Traverse City in a thousand other cities, then maybe the process could begin in bricks and mortar. But Michael is an anomaly, the exception to the rule. Seriously, the full-on transition to online will not only enable the rebirth of American independent film, but it’ll be better than ever for everyone. And once the next-gen personal digital delivery tech kicks in, you’ll forget there ever were movie theaters. M.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – Thanks for the links. I have to say that while it’s great that Michael’s film festival is exposing some folks in the midwest to alternative cinema, I think the important message is that he can’t find many American independents to program. That’s because there are none. Most of the dependent/co-dependent stuff out there is dull and lifeless. Where I’d rather see the $1 million going is to the deprogramming of American filmmakers and filmgoers who think independent films cost lots of money and require movie and TV stars. The Independent Film label must be yanked away from the dependent/co-dependent crowd and used to regenerate and re-educate a new and revitalized independent film community. That process will happen online, though. Sorry. If there were a thousand Michael Moores with his kind of A-list friends with the wherewithal to clone Traverse City in a thousand other cities, then maybe the process could begin in bricks and mortar. But Michael is an anomaly, the exception to the rule. Seriously, the full-on transition to online will not only enable the rebirth of American independent film, but it’ll be better than ever for everyone. And once the next-gen personal digital delivery tech kicks in, you’ll forget there ever were movie theaters. M.

  • Stewart

    When television came, radio did not disappear. It reinvented itself. Isn’t that what Moore wants to do?

  • Stewart

    When television came, radio did not disappear. It reinvented itself. Isn’t that what Moore wants to do?

  • Mark Lipsky

    Hey there Stuart. No, Moore’s not reinventing anything. He’s simply going back in time which is sweet and as I’ve written, there will remain a small stand of cinemas for the hardcore and the nostalgic. But the evolution of the movie going experience is on the verge of a revolution that’s going to be so swift and mind blowing that I don’t think it’ll be comparable to the radio v TV discussion.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Hey there Stuart. No, Moore’s not reinventing anything. He’s simply going back in time which is sweet and as I’ve written, there will remain a small stand of cinemas for the hardcore and the nostalgic. But the evolution of the movie going experience is on the verge of a revolution that’s going to be so swift and mind blowing that I don’t think it’ll be comparable to the radio v TV discussion.

  • http://cinematl.com Charles Judson

    Mark,

    Granted you’ve never right out said theaters were going extinct before, however, anyone that’s read you over the last few months can definitely infer that’s been one of your underlying points. Even if you’re just arriving at this conclusion with your post, I think it’s one that you’ve been building to for a while.

    “What’s undeniable in my mind is that they will not be congregating in movie theaters as they exist today.”

    Worded this way, that’s a prediction I can on many levels agree with. I think the question is, change in technology or not, when does a movie theater cease to be a movie theater. Is it the number of seats? Is it the configuration? Is it in what’s played? Is it public versus private screenings?

    I’m more likely to believe, as you’ve pointed out in your reply, that real change will come in the role exhibitors will play in the next twenty years. Right now, they are more beholden to distributors than audiences. Forty years ago, I think it can be argued there was more parity, with exceptions. It doesn’t matter if exhibitors, especially regional ones, have a better grasp on who their patrons are, distributors are able to wield incredible influence on how many screens they can have, when their films will come down, where their films will play and the revenue split. There’s a great possibility that there could be a new breed of exhibitor that can fulfill the curator and gatekeeper role that many once had.

    Whatever the future may hold, the lines between distributor, exhibitor and creator are going to blur and in some arenas won’t even exist anymore. It’s an evolution I think is going to be fun to watch and very empowering. Yet, I don’t think it’s going to be a ubiquitous evolution, in some areas the silos are going to remain intact.

    Back to movie theaters, I just think they’re going to continue to exist. Yes, they will change and mutate, however, at their core, they’re still going to be movie theaters. And the reason I think that, is because there is a social aspect to the movie going experience that is intangible and unquantifiable and that technology will never change–influence yes, change no.

    The reason I used sports, theater and concerts as a contrasting example, is because with every new technology, someone in the past predicted said technology was to going usurp those experiences. Be it the record with concerts, TV with sports—good riddance blackout—and theater. Granted, there is a live element, as you point out, that really doesn’t exist, however, as with those other events, it can’t be underestimated how powerful group ritual and group experience is. And movie theaters, even the multiplexes, like stadiums and theaters are places that are integrated into our social and physical landscape in ways that have given them an invested meaning and function that, again, is just intangible.

    So I agree that what’s inside movie theaters will change over time. What movie theaters are, fundamentally, won’t.

    This is a reply to a post by Mark on my site cinemATL:
    http://cinematlmagazine.com/wp/2010/08/07/end-of-movie-theaters-right-lipsky-right/#comments

  • http://cinematl.com Charles Judson

    Mark,

    Granted you’ve never right out said theaters were going extinct before, however, anyone that’s read you over the last few months can definitely infer that’s been one of your underlying points. Even if you’re just arriving at this conclusion with your post, I think it’s one that you’ve been building to for a while.

    “What’s undeniable in my mind is that they will not be congregating in movie theaters as they exist today.”

    Worded this way, that’s a prediction I can on many levels agree with. I think the question is, change in technology or not, when does a movie theater cease to be a movie theater. Is it the number of seats? Is it the configuration? Is it in what’s played? Is it public versus private screenings?

    I’m more likely to believe, as you’ve pointed out in your reply, that real change will come in the role exhibitors will play in the next twenty years. Right now, they are more beholden to distributors than audiences. Forty years ago, I think it can be argued there was more parity, with exceptions. It doesn’t matter if exhibitors, especially regional ones, have a better grasp on who their patrons are, distributors are able to wield incredible influence on how many screens they can have, when their films will come down, where their films will play and the revenue split. There’s a great possibility that there could be a new breed of exhibitor that can fulfill the curator and gatekeeper role that many once had.

    Whatever the future may hold, the lines between distributor, exhibitor and creator are going to blur and in some arenas won’t even exist anymore. It’s an evolution I think is going to be fun to watch and very empowering. Yet, I don’t think it’s going to be a ubiquitous evolution, in some areas the silos are going to remain intact.

    Back to movie theaters, I just think they’re going to continue to exist. Yes, they will change and mutate, however, at their core, they’re still going to be movie theaters. And the reason I think that, is because there is a social aspect to the movie going experience that is intangible and unquantifiable and that technology will never change–influence yes, change no.

    The reason I used sports, theater and concerts as a contrasting example, is because with every new technology, someone in the past predicted said technology was to going usurp those experiences. Be it the record with concerts, TV with sports—good riddance blackout—and theater. Granted, there is a live element, as you point out, that really doesn’t exist, however, as with those other events, it can’t be underestimated how powerful group ritual and group experience is. And movie theaters, even the multiplexes, like stadiums and theaters are places that are integrated into our social and physical landscape in ways that have given them an invested meaning and function that, again, is just intangible.

    So I agree that what’s inside movie theaters will change over time. What movie theaters are, fundamentally, won’t.

    This is a reply to a post by Mark on my site cinemATL:
    http://cinematlmagazine.com/wp/2010/08/07/end-of-movie-theaters-right-lipsky-right/#comments

  • Mark Lipsky

    Charles – Thanks for carrying over the conversation. My post has raised a minor shitstorm which I think is so interesting. Much of the outrage appears to settle in on what you term the ‘group ritual’ as if I’m suggesting that in the future, we’ll all just retreat to a closet by ourselves to watch movies. What I actually wrote is that group rituals will be greatly enhanced. And I never suggested that folks won’t meetup to experience cinema. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I celebrated the idea of alternative venues – especially those that serve alcohol. In any case, I still contend that it won’t be in movie theaters that movies are enjoyed ten years from now. Or less. People will bring the viewing experience with them wherever they wish and enjoy the show with as many people in a room together that they feel is appropriate for their group ritual. BUT…it won’t be in movie theaters. They are going away. We won’t need them. Plus, the enhancements to the communal aspect that I alluded to will be just that. Enhancements, not replacements. So when you meet your friends at a local bar to watch Avatar 10D, in that same moment, you’ll also be able to experience the film virtually with your brother in Nebraska and your best friend who happens to be hiking in Nepal. What’s wrong with that? And if you prefer to commune with strangers, you can dial in all you want. I realize that it’s difficult to let the future happen sometimes but this is not a doomsday scenario or an apocalypse – except for exhibitors. They are a slow, unimaginative herd and evolution is going to do what evolution does; ease them into extinction. And we will all rejoice.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Charles – Thanks for carrying over the conversation. My post has raised a minor shitstorm which I think is so interesting. Much of the outrage appears to settle in on what you term the ‘group ritual’ as if I’m suggesting that in the future, we’ll all just retreat to a closet by ourselves to watch movies. What I actually wrote is that group rituals will be greatly enhanced. And I never suggested that folks won’t meetup to experience cinema. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I celebrated the idea of alternative venues – especially those that serve alcohol. In any case, I still contend that it won’t be in movie theaters that movies are enjoyed ten years from now. Or less. People will bring the viewing experience with them wherever they wish and enjoy the show with as many people in a room together that they feel is appropriate for their group ritual. BUT…it won’t be in movie theaters. They are going away. We won’t need them. Plus, the enhancements to the communal aspect that I alluded to will be just that. Enhancements, not replacements. So when you meet your friends at a local bar to watch Avatar 10D, in that same moment, you’ll also be able to experience the film virtually with your brother in Nebraska and your best friend who happens to be hiking in Nepal. What’s wrong with that? And if you prefer to commune with strangers, you can dial in all you want. I realize that it’s difficult to let the future happen sometimes but this is not a doomsday scenario or an apocalypse – except for exhibitors. They are a slow, unimaginative herd and evolution is going to do what evolution does; ease them into extinction. And we will all rejoice.

  • http://libertynumber5.blogspot.com Jon Croft

    While I have to agree that technology will change the entire face of the film exhibition & chair-filling industry I don’t believe theaters will entirely be replaced just as plays will not be replaced by some other form of art- they are what they are. It is, in my opinion, an integral part of the art form. Films are best watched with the full experience & while that may become enhanced by technology at home it can also be enhanced by technology in theaters- its just that the theaters aren’t quite sure how to do that yet– as they are still, foolishly, listening to Hollywood that 3D will save them- that is stupid. Its like the whole Castle nonsense back in the day- its nice to notice these ‘anomalies’ or whatever (like Michael Moore & Michigan) but it is just an anomaly. But, by & large, if there are theater chains that can do better, more customer-centric research and can better utilize some of this technology to improve the film watching experience to save their sorry asses then- they will & that will revitalize cinema enough to keep it going another 50 years in my opinion. We aren’t in flying cars yet either- will it happen?- yea i guess at some point- but I’m not holding my breath. Of course, this is apples & oranges but I think cinemas can compete on a technological level with home theater if they try smarter.

    It IS definitely about technology but it is also about the artform & how that is best experienced. I admit the personal home theaters are amazing technology but there will always be a variety of ‘competing’ proprietary ones to choose from and the theaters, in contrast, make these kinds of ‘across the board’ moves more slowly & methodically (as they must) but they will- as they learn to stop listening to this 3D drivel and the bottom line drivel and start caring about the movie-watching experience for the general public… once they do that you will see double the tech in these theaters than what is available at home.

    There needs to be a small, but very competitive chain that concentrates on this movie watching experience in a new way- to give the old Megaplexes a run for their money- then we can see some changes coming. Competition & innovation is always the thing to look out for- they just haven’t chosen the best path, yet, to a better theater experience.

    If they just focus on the customer- better seats, better picture, better sound, less interruptions, etc- that’s all they need to do. Then sell it to the public with a campaign- people will buy it. 3D doesn’t work because it has NOTHING to do with the artform or enhancing the experience. I’m a filmmaker- I know the artform is about story- not about effects & neat little techniques. That’s what Hollywood forgets too – in its quest to make money – they try all the gimmicks first – then they remember their heart eventually – they love making movies & people love watching stories – that’s all there is. The theater’s job is to give an unbroken experience through sight & sound- that’s it! Not to do William Castle gimmicks.

    Well, that’s my take.

  • http://libertynumber5.blogspot.com Jon Croft

    While I have to agree that technology will change the entire face of the film exhibition & chair-filling industry I don’t believe theaters will entirely be replaced just as plays will not be replaced by some other form of art- they are what they are. It is, in my opinion, an integral part of the art form. Films are best watched with the full experience & while that may become enhanced by technology at home it can also be enhanced by technology in theaters- its just that the theaters aren’t quite sure how to do that yet– as they are still, foolishly, listening to Hollywood that 3D will save them- that is stupid. Its like the whole Castle nonsense back in the day- its nice to notice these ‘anomalies’ or whatever (like Michael Moore & Michigan) but it is just an anomaly. But, by & large, if there are theater chains that can do better, more customer-centric research and can better utilize some of this technology to improve the film watching experience to save their sorry asses then- they will & that will revitalize cinema enough to keep it going another 50 years in my opinion. We aren’t in flying cars yet either- will it happen?- yea i guess at some point- but I’m not holding my breath. Of course, this is apples & oranges but I think cinemas can compete on a technological level with home theater if they try smarter.

    It IS definitely about technology but it is also about the artform & how that is best experienced. I admit the personal home theaters are amazing technology but there will always be a variety of ‘competing’ proprietary ones to choose from and the theaters, in contrast, make these kinds of ‘across the board’ moves more slowly & methodically (as they must) but they will- as they learn to stop listening to this 3D drivel and the bottom line drivel and start caring about the movie-watching experience for the general public… once they do that you will see double the tech in these theaters than what is available at home.

    There needs to be a small, but very competitive chain that concentrates on this movie watching experience in a new way- to give the old Megaplexes a run for their money- then we can see some changes coming. Competition & innovation is always the thing to look out for- they just haven’t chosen the best path, yet, to a better theater experience.

    If they just focus on the customer- better seats, better picture, better sound, less interruptions, etc- that’s all they need to do. Then sell it to the public with a campaign- people will buy it. 3D doesn’t work because it has NOTHING to do with the artform or enhancing the experience. I’m a filmmaker- I know the artform is about story- not about effects & neat little techniques. That’s what Hollywood forgets too – in its quest to make money – they try all the gimmicks first – then they remember their heart eventually – they love making movies & people love watching stories – that’s all there is. The theater’s job is to give an unbroken experience through sight & sound- that’s it! Not to do William Castle gimmicks.

    Well, that’s my take.

  • http://twitter.com/tweedyBard Russell Imrie

    I need to find a spectacularly decrepit movie theater in Northern Virginia for a video I am making about my friend who loves movies and whom my wife and I bring to a film he chooses about once a month. 

  • Pingback: Yes Virginia… Part 3 | Light a Fire!