Skip to content

Yes Virginia… Part 2

2010 August 13
by Mark Lipsky

Holy shitstorm Batman!

The online reactions to my post last week about the coming demise of the modern movie house have been intense and 99% damning. Even though the original post addressed each of the basic objections that have been raised over the past few days, I left way too much to the imagination; an ability that far too few of us exercise very much if ever based on the comments I’ve read. No doubt the visceral reaction to the post also has something to do with the basic anxiety and anger that hangs like a threatening storm cloud over much of America and the world at present. For some, any opportunity to strike out and relieve some pain is a good one, especially online where anonymity rules and every yahoo with a keyboard feels empowered to act out without fear or conscience. But that too shall pass. (Through better, smarter implementations of technology.) In the meantime, I’ll ignore the rabble and respond to the essential complaints.

1) Movies were made to be seen on a big screen.

No, they weren’t. The first projections of movies were played to one person at a time through what was essentially a peephole. In fact Edison, the inventor of the earliest movie technology, believed that projecting to groups of viewers at once was not financially viable. He was, of course, proven wrong, but that was the beginning of an evolutionary process that will very soon – within 10 years – see the most dramatic changes and positive improvements in the 120 year history of moving pictures.

What am I talking about? Keep reading.

2) Moviegoing is a communal experience.

Yes, for most people it is. And once the intensely-increasing speed of technology has rendered movie theaters virtually extinct, moviegoers will have the option of communing over movies anywhere they want with as many people as they want – friends and strangers alike. ‘Going to the movies’ will take on an entirely new meaning and the thought of sitting in a dark, uncomfortable theater will seem as cornball as attending an oldies show at the local Indian casino. (Please, I love Indian casinos.)

How? Keep reading.

An aside: It’s so interesting that some of my most vociferous critics concede that they themselves go to movie theaters far less frequently than they used to. They even point out some of the many reasons that bricks and mortar has, outside of any intrusion by new technology, lost much of its appeal and become more and more a hassle. Nonetheless, they feel a responsibility to defend the movie-theater-going experience to the death. Strange but true.

3) There’s been little or no drop-off in theater attendance and some specialty cinemas are having record years.

OK, but what’s your point? I’m not saying that movie-going – the social experience – is going to end. In fact, the superior viewing experience of the coming technology and its mind-expanding ability for enabling almost unlimited socialization will guarantee that content creators – especially the studios – will increase their audience dramatically and their revenues beyond their wildest dreams. And what part of “In ten years there will be under 1,000 and in fifteen, under a hundred” don’t you understand? Why there will be any left is that some (including Seattle’s Northwest Film Forum for instance) will remain because they have a mission to serve the moviegoing public in a myriad of innovative ways and they love cinema – not just the limiting experience of watching it as it exists today.

WFT? Keep reading.

4) The end of movie theaters will mean increased isolation. The only alternative to watching movies in movie theaters is watching movies at home in the living room.

No, the opposite will be true. While many people will choose to watch films in their homes, many more will still go out to the movies. But they won’t be going to the restrictive environment of a movie theater. The coming revolution will un-tether movie watchers to such an extent that they will have the ability to take the experience with them wherever they wish, with whomever they wish and never have their seat kicked or their feet stick to the floor or endure a crying baby or be forced to arrive at a given location at a given time only to discover, perhaps, that the movie is sold out.

How is that possible? Keep reading.

5) Mark hates movie theaters.

No, he doesn’t. He still likes going to movie theaters and he’ll continue to go, if only occasionally, as the new movie-watching technology ramps up and rolls out over the next several years. But once the stew is nearly fully cooked, I’ll be out. It’s not that I hate movie theaters, it’s that what’s coming will blow movie theaters away. Literally.

Really, Mark? Yes. Keep reading.

6) Nothing compares with seeing a movie on a big screen.

True today, but not tomorrow.

OK, pencils down. Thinking caps on. Imaginations engaged.

Please keep in mind that I’m about to describe something that will be real and fully functioning within ten years. Not today, not tomorrow, not in two years or five. Parts of it will certainly be in use in less than ten and many underlying technologies are certainly in development today. And it’s likely to be the gaming industry rather than the film industry that drives it. For the purpose of this exercise, though, please think ten. I can’t stress this point enough. I know because as much as I stressed it in the original post, no one seemed to pay it much attention. So are we clear? Good.

Ten years hence…

…we will all carry our movie-watching device with us. You know, like we carry out multifunctional communications devises with us today. Now, I can’t tell you exactly what these devices will look like, but I think I can come pretty close. Think eyeglasses.

So you want to see a movie. There isn’t a movie theater within a hundred miles. What to do? Sit home and watch it by yourself or with your partner in the living room with the kids screaming and the house-cleaning robot fluttering around? No. Instead, you can…

1) go to the park, lay out a blanket and have a picnic dinner with wine under the moonlight while you lie on your backs, put on your movie-watching devices, and click ‘Start’. (You’ve prepaid and pre-ordered your film although you also could have completed the process right there in the park. Nearly instantly, the latest  Hollywood chick-flick begins. (Come on, it’s date night.) Your full field of vision – rather than the limited field of vision even a huge screen experience can provide – is filled with an immersive visual treat that’s equaled by the awesome audio. You hold hands and enjoy the show.

(By the way, you’ve turned on your perimeter netting to alert you to any potential danger lurking in the shadows and/or you’ve established a peripheral setting that slightly decreases the immersion and allows for extreme left-right vision.)

2) You check your social network for friends who have plans to watch the same film you’re interested in and determine which location suits your mood for the evening. You go to that bar or restaurant or other social gathering place (and some might be specifically designed for the purpose of movie-going, aka the new ‘movie theater’.)

3) You don’t have kids or a partner and you just want to stay home and watch the latest independent film but you don’t want to watch alone. So you put on your movie-watching device and click the settings button. The settings dialogue projects onto the kitchen table or coffee table or wherever and you set socialization to ‘On’, you highlight your mom who lives in Portland, your brother who’s backpacking in Argentina and sixteen of your favorite cousins and invite them to watch the film with you. (Of course, you could also have set this up hours or days in advance by logging into one of several movie-watching hubs and making arrangements via your preferred communication device.) You’ve also dialed your Comm setting to Open Full. In other words, conversation allowed across all viewing parties. You could have set that to Comm Off or allowed conversation only between you and your cousin Vinny.

4) You *do* want to watch alone in your living room, you choose the State Theater, Cleveland, OH as your environment including virtual ticket purchase and walk to seat) and enjoy a fully immersive experience better than any you could have had in the finest movie theater.

The only loser in the scenario I’m describing is the national theater circuits (including Landmark) whose extinction is inevitable. Content creators, especially the studios, will reap benefits never before dreamed with the elimination of the theater as middleman. No longer will they be forced to  share an exorbitant percentage of revenue with an exhibition ‘partner’ nor will they ever have to go to sleep crying in their pillows about all that popcorn revenue that the circuits keep all to themselves on the back of the studios production and marketing skills. And the revenue will go instantly into their bank account eliminating the need to kiss the circuit’s ass in order to a) get films booked in accordance with the content producer’s best marketing plan; b) ‘settle’ engagements with the hope of getting the circuit to agree to pay the content producer based on the original terms agreed to; and c) actually get them to cut a check.

I realize that moviegoers of a certain age (let’s call it 30+ to be generous) have romantic and/or nostalgic notion about theater-going. Not so for younger folks or anyone born today and forever after. Instead, those folks will embrace the coming sea-change with abandon. they’ll barely have a thought that movie theaters even existed outside the few that remain for museum exhibitions or weekend trips down memory lane.

This is not an apocalyptic view or one born from anger or any lack of understanding of the history or psychology of moviegoing. It’s one that pairs thirty years of hands-on experience in the entertainment industry with a deep understanding of the power and present speed of technological innovation and an ability to allow myself the freedom to imagine what can be and what might be without fear.

It’s a view that, for me, is filled with great excitement and hopefulness.

That’s a fire worth lighting, don’t you think?

from → Independent Film

  • http://BreatheFilms.com SD

    I don’t even think it will primarily be the technology driving movement from theatre seats to phoneflicks and facetweets, but rather the shifting psychology of the next generation away from the very notion of the “movie” itself. Story will always have a place to exist and content will remain king, but who is to say a movie is how it will always be delivered. Indeed, in ten to fifteen years the idea of the neat package we call a “movie” will itself seem a very old fashioned form of presentation. If we’re lucky it will be only the death of the theatre, but I can imagine a time and world when it is something else that may die. Movies, as the vehicle for story, has been around only a drop in the bucket and some of those old well built theatre structures may outlast the very idea of making a movie to tell a story.

    Well, its a thought anyway… a movie in my mind.

  • http://BreatheFilms.com SD

    I don’t even think it will primarily be the technology driving movement from theatre seats to phoneflicks and facetweets, but rather the shifting psychology of the next generation away from the very notion of the “movie” itself. Story will always have a place to exist and content will remain king, but who is to say a movie is how it will always be delivered. Indeed, in ten to fifteen years the idea of the neat package we call a “movie” will itself seem a very old fashioned form of presentation. If we’re lucky it will be only the death of the theatre, but I can imagine a time and world when it is something else that may die. Movies, as the vehicle for story, has been around only a drop in the bucket and some of those old well built theatre structures may outlast the very idea of making a movie to tell a story.

    Well, its a thought anyway… a movie in my mind.

  • http://www.FilmSpecific.com Stacey Parks

    Mark,

    Love your description on the next gen movie-going experience – your illustration was superb and I could actually visualize what my own movie going experience might be like in 10 years….and it made sense! Yes, it all made sense to me! I fully agree with your point that movie theaters will outgrow their usefulness as technology evolves… and it’s really exciting to think about! Hopefully content creators can see the positivity of what you’re trying to say here and that all this evolution is to their advantage. Now I just wish it would come sooner…. I was going to go to the movies tonight, but now I’m having second thoughts! Ha!

    Don’t stop now….

    Stacey*

  • http://www.FilmSpecific.com Stacey Parks

    Mark,

    Love your description on the next gen movie-going experience – your illustration was superb and I could actually visualize what my own movie going experience might be like in 10 years….and it made sense! Yes, it all made sense to me! I fully agree with your point that movie theaters will outgrow their usefulness as technology evolves… and it’s really exciting to think about! Hopefully content creators can see the positivity of what you’re trying to say here and that all this evolution is to their advantage. Now I just wish it would come sooner…. I was going to go to the movies tonight, but now I’m having second thoughts! Ha!

    Don’t stop now….

    Stacey*

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark, I don’t think so. I think you should get into writing fiction. Futuristic nightmares are always a great premise.

    What you say makes sense. Too much sense. It would be much more efficient for people to walk around in space suits with their own air conditioning and waste recycling system. Yeah, that would be a great future technology, don’t you think? Eating our own shit would be much more efficient. We’d be entirely self sustaining in the most extreme.

    But that would be counter to why we have air conditioning or food to begin with. To move toward the self sustaining model would lead to the extinction of humanity (not that we aren’t headed there now). I picture a world where no one has the will to live due to technological dehumanization. Interesting story concept.

    Your passion for technology seems based on the upward and onward time line that technology has taken during our lifetime. For thousands of years there was virtually nothing. First fire. A printing press here. A telephone there. Then suddenly we are propelled into extreme technological advancement beyond our ability to fathom its effects. The thing is, this advancement has also happened around an economic advancement. We don’t know regression. But it seems very likely by all indications that regression is going to happen, at least in America. It is happening. Look at Ted Hope’s hopeless emptiness about the state of the film industry. They keep ranting about how to fix it all as it continues to devolve. Perhaps we should consider embracing the devolution.

    The regression of the world economy, lead by the U.S., necessitates cutting back on everything we are used to. Maybe this will propel the advancement of self sustaining technology like movie watching and shit eating devices. But I think it will mostly leave people yearning for ESCAPE to a paradise like environment where the air all around them is conditioned (Been to a mall lately to see people in droves escaping from their realities?), and carefully prepared exquisite food is served, and entertainment, like films, are enjoyed in a special place where you are safely housed away from the noise and stress of reality (fucking reality). That could very well lead to the exact opposite of your nightmare, a return to the movie houses in their heyday. It happened in the Great Depression. It may be coming in a greater depression. It’s all fine, peachy and keen to be upbeat and optimistic. But those unprepared for the worst case will be the first to suffer. Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.

    Movies cannot be enjoyed on personal devices. The enjoyment factor comes from having that special environment, where you suddenly exist in another world. To do that on a personal device level would have to go way beyond eyeglasses. It would have to be something more like a secure containment box, a morgue drawer like in The Jacket, or a sensory deprivation tank as in Altered States. The personal device may well happen and have its place, especially for information and business. But not for entertainment. Escape is the factor you have dismissed.

    Maybe lighting a fire means burning stuff down. In death there is rebirth. We don’t know that we are headed down the right technological path. Oil in the Gulf. Massive foreclosure and unemployment still growing. People dying for lack of health care in the most medical technologically advanced country in the world. But is technological advancement always the best way?

    Read The Healing of America by T.R. Reid. He searched the world for a cure to a bad shoulder. The technologically advanced countries offered a futuristic joint replacement. But Reid ultimately found the cure in India through ageless massage therapy. We are headed down the wrong path. It could easily be a dead end of demise and destruction.

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark, I don’t think so. I think you should get into writing fiction. Futuristic nightmares are always a great premise.

    What you say makes sense. Too much sense. It would be much more efficient for people to walk around in space suits with their own air conditioning and waste recycling system. Yeah, that would be a great future technology, don’t you think? Eating our own shit would be much more efficient. We’d be entirely self sustaining in the most extreme.

    But that would be counter to why we have air conditioning or food to begin with. To move toward the self sustaining model would lead to the extinction of humanity (not that we aren’t headed there now). I picture a world where no one has the will to live due to technological dehumanization. Interesting story concept.

    Your passion for technology seems based on the upward and onward time line that technology has taken during our lifetime. For thousands of years there was virtually nothing. First fire. A printing press here. A telephone there. Then suddenly we are propelled into extreme technological advancement beyond our ability to fathom its effects. The thing is, this advancement has also happened around an economic advancement. We don’t know regression. But it seems very likely by all indications that regression is going to happen, at least in America. It is happening. Look at Ted Hope’s hopeless emptiness about the state of the film industry. They keep ranting about how to fix it all as it continues to devolve. Perhaps we should consider embracing the devolution.

    The regression of the world economy, lead by the U.S., necessitates cutting back on everything we are used to. Maybe this will propel the advancement of self sustaining technology like movie watching and shit eating devices. But I think it will mostly leave people yearning for ESCAPE to a paradise like environment where the air all around them is conditioned (Been to a mall lately to see people in droves escaping from their realities?), and carefully prepared exquisite food is served, and entertainment, like films, are enjoyed in a special place where you are safely housed away from the noise and stress of reality (fucking reality). That could very well lead to the exact opposite of your nightmare, a return to the movie houses in their heyday. It happened in the Great Depression. It may be coming in a greater depression. It’s all fine, peachy and keen to be upbeat and optimistic. But those unprepared for the worst case will be the first to suffer. Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.

    Movies cannot be enjoyed on personal devices. The enjoyment factor comes from having that special environment, where you suddenly exist in another world. To do that on a personal device level would have to go way beyond eyeglasses. It would have to be something more like a secure containment box, a morgue drawer like in The Jacket, or a sensory deprivation tank as in Altered States. The personal device may well happen and have its place, especially for information and business. But not for entertainment. Escape is the factor you have dismissed.

    Maybe lighting a fire means burning stuff down. In death there is rebirth. We don’t know that we are headed down the right technological path. Oil in the Gulf. Massive foreclosure and unemployment still growing. People dying for lack of health care in the most medical technologically advanced country in the world. But is technological advancement always the best way?

    Read The Healing of America by T.R. Reid. He searched the world for a cure to a bad shoulder. The technologically advanced countries offered a futuristic joint replacement. But Reid ultimately found the cure in India through ageless massage therapy. We are headed down the wrong path. It could easily be a dead end of demise and destruction.

  • http://www.screenland.com John Shipp

    1. Movies were made to be seen on a big screen…when Edison decided to invent a machine to produce moving pictures in the later 1880′s, the quality of the picture he developed was not good enough to be projected on a screen, so his 1894 edition Kinetoscope (with its 50 ft. of film) could only be viewed through an eyepiece by one person at a time. And while the minute of so (or however long) of footage is not really comparable to a “movie” as we know it, it was most certainly the initial step towards “movies”. By the following year, with better picture quality and projection, both Jean LeRoy with his Marvelous Cinematograph (in NYC), and the Lumiere brothers (in France) with their Lumiere Cinematograph were showing film on large screens in front of crowds of patrons. I think your flat statement of “no they weren’t is not really correct.
    2. Moviegoing is a communal experience. I agree, and I also agree with whoever it was who said “as long as there are kids who want to get out of the house and away from their parents, and as long as there are parents who want to get out of the house and away from the kids, movie theatres will be the first choice for many of them”. Of course, with the multiple delivery platforms out there (and with those still to be developed), it’s my opinion that the Studios release strategies are heading towards convergence, and eventually all films, even the ‘event’ blockbuster ones, will be available on all platforms upon release. But I think that your estimates on number of theatres surviving over your stated 10 and 15 year timelines are hooey.

    It’s the movie-going experience, stoopid. And I’m referring more to the big-box commercial houses, not the wonderful art houses that I personally love. Visit the modern-day pleasure palaces built in Wichita and Oklahoma City by Bill Warren. Visit with the dreamers at AMC and other circuits, who are constantly innovating and creating environments and services for their patrons that just cannot be duplicated by ‘going to a park and laying on a blanket’.

    So what if my favorite films currently are Winter’s Bone and Babette’s Feast and Scott Pilgram and The Russian Ark? I still love the indies. But I also love the non-indies.

    As long as we buy ‘movie tickets’ to a real theatre to see Twilight or Harry Potter or Spider Man or Toy Story, we’re going to have brick and mortar in addition to Apple’s newest toys to watch movies on.

    Gotta go eat or I’d say more. Keep up the provocations. Even if you’re wrong on some of them.

  • http://www.screenland.com John Shipp

    1. Movies were made to be seen on a big screen…when Edison decided to invent a machine to produce moving pictures in the later 1880′s, the quality of the picture he developed was not good enough to be projected on a screen, so his 1894 edition Kinetoscope (with its 50 ft. of film) could only be viewed through an eyepiece by one person at a time. And while the minute of so (or however long) of footage is not really comparable to a “movie” as we know it, it was most certainly the initial step towards “movies”. By the following year, with better picture quality and projection, both Jean LeRoy with his Marvelous Cinematograph (in NYC), and the Lumiere brothers (in France) with their Lumiere Cinematograph were showing film on large screens in front of crowds of patrons. I think your flat statement of “no they weren’t is not really correct.
    2. Moviegoing is a communal experience. I agree, and I also agree with whoever it was who said “as long as there are kids who want to get out of the house and away from their parents, and as long as there are parents who want to get out of the house and away from the kids, movie theatres will be the first choice for many of them”. Of course, with the multiple delivery platforms out there (and with those still to be developed), it’s my opinion that the Studios release strategies are heading towards convergence, and eventually all films, even the ‘event’ blockbuster ones, will be available on all platforms upon release. But I think that your estimates on number of theatres surviving over your stated 10 and 15 year timelines are hooey.

    It’s the movie-going experience, stoopid. And I’m referring more to the big-box commercial houses, not the wonderful art houses that I personally love. Visit the modern-day pleasure palaces built in Wichita and Oklahoma City by Bill Warren. Visit with the dreamers at AMC and other circuits, who are constantly innovating and creating environments and services for their patrons that just cannot be duplicated by ‘going to a park and laying on a blanket’.

    So what if my favorite films currently are Winter’s Bone and Babette’s Feast and Scott Pilgram and The Russian Ark? I still love the indies. But I also love the non-indies.

    As long as we buy ‘movie tickets’ to a real theatre to see Twilight or Harry Potter or Spider Man or Toy Story, we’re going to have brick and mortar in addition to Apple’s newest toys to watch movies on.

    Gotta go eat or I’d say more. Keep up the provocations. Even if you’re wrong on some of them.

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

    I do hope you are correct Mark, but it all seems too good to be true. It doesn’t feel like the reality of how all of these things will shake down. The theaters & Hollywood won’t go down without a fight. That will have to happen first- that’s not coming in ten years so give it thirty or fifty or a hundred. I think IF this great new technology (whatever it is) made us all forget our ambitions to be the biggest filmmakers, film studios, distribution companies & exhibition companies in the world then maybe then, but it doesn’t. They won’t give up without a fight & they will play dirty- as would you… wouldn’t you?

    They’re making money hand over fist and no amount of new tech experience can change that- but i do think there will be a larger market share for new competitive ideas, especially in the Indy market. Its a dream… but it IS a nice dream.

    So, do androids dream of electric movie watching? Probably. I do too, Mark. I do too.

    As a clarification, I don’t think films are ‘meant’ to be watched here or there but they are meant to affect the audience with a story… the BEST way to do that IS how it ‘should’ be done because that is the way that moves & affects the audience best- that is the way that will succeed eventually… but what is it? Movie glasses? TV screen walls in your entire house? ‘Movie domes’ you lay down inside? (another concept out there) Virtual Reality movies? Video game movies? Stories that you the viewer help create while you watch? –What is the next big story telling mechanism? Would it even be CALLED a movie or a film when we got there? Its all absurd to speculate only because I think its still somewhat far away- give it 50 yrs & the best of luck… but KEEP TELLING STORIES… screw it HOW the future will look- it will probably freak us ALL THE HELL out.

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

    I do hope you are correct Mark, but it all seems too good to be true. It doesn’t feel like the reality of how all of these things will shake down. The theaters & Hollywood won’t go down without a fight. That will have to happen first- that’s not coming in ten years so give it thirty or fifty or a hundred. I think IF this great new technology (whatever it is) made us all forget our ambitions to be the biggest filmmakers, film studios, distribution companies & exhibition companies in the world then maybe then, but it doesn’t. They won’t give up without a fight & they will play dirty- as would you… wouldn’t you?

    They’re making money hand over fist and no amount of new tech experience can change that- but i do think there will be a larger market share for new competitive ideas, especially in the Indy market. Its a dream… but it IS a nice dream.

    So, do androids dream of electric movie watching? Probably. I do too, Mark. I do too.

    As a clarification, I don’t think films are ‘meant’ to be watched here or there but they are meant to affect the audience with a story… the BEST way to do that IS how it ‘should’ be done because that is the way that moves & affects the audience best- that is the way that will succeed eventually… but what is it? Movie glasses? TV screen walls in your entire house? ‘Movie domes’ you lay down inside? (another concept out there) Virtual Reality movies? Video game movies? Stories that you the viewer help create while you watch? –What is the next big story telling mechanism? Would it even be CALLED a movie or a film when we got there? Its all absurd to speculate only because I think its still somewhat far away- give it 50 yrs & the best of luck… but KEEP TELLING STORIES… screw it HOW the future will look- it will probably freak us ALL THE HELL out.

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    And the shit storm rages on. But I love this blog.

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    And the shit storm rages on. But I love this blog.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – (why are the last three comments all from people named Jo(h)n??)

    The shitstorm does, indeed, rage and I don’t get it. All I’ve said is that movie theaters are going away. You call this a “futuristic nightmare.” Please explain. What’s nightmarish about it? People will still watch movies. Just not in modern movie theaters. There may be movie gathering places that serve a similar purpose, but there won’t be a screen and you won’t have to get there at a time determined by the business. Where’s the nightmare in that? You’ll be able to have a much more immersive, untethered viewing experience. Where’s the nightmare?

    I think the hopeless emptiness comes in large part to ignorance about what technology can and will do *IN* our behalf instead of in spite of our needs and wishes. We are the boss of technology, technology is not the boss of us. If you want to talk about science fiction, it’s technology taking over. Making us obsolete. The opposite will be true. Technology is going to enable us to live longer and better, but only if we wish. Even the subversion of technology like genetic food engineering will be overcome by technology.

    You accuse me of dismissing the “escape” factor. Jon, read again. I’m celebrating the escape factor and saying that the escape will be more intense and enjoyable than ever.

    It’s clearly my fault that so many are missing the point. I’m not communicating this stuff very well. And I’m going to think about that long and hard and figure out where I’m sliding off the cliff.

    I appreciate your thoughts on this and I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to contribute to the conversation.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – (why are the last three comments all from people named Jo(h)n??)

    The shitstorm does, indeed, rage and I don’t get it. All I’ve said is that movie theaters are going away. You call this a “futuristic nightmare.” Please explain. What’s nightmarish about it? People will still watch movies. Just not in modern movie theaters. There may be movie gathering places that serve a similar purpose, but there won’t be a screen and you won’t have to get there at a time determined by the business. Where’s the nightmare in that? You’ll be able to have a much more immersive, untethered viewing experience. Where’s the nightmare?

    I think the hopeless emptiness comes in large part to ignorance about what technology can and will do *IN* our behalf instead of in spite of our needs and wishes. We are the boss of technology, technology is not the boss of us. If you want to talk about science fiction, it’s technology taking over. Making us obsolete. The opposite will be true. Technology is going to enable us to live longer and better, but only if we wish. Even the subversion of technology like genetic food engineering will be overcome by technology.

    You accuse me of dismissing the “escape” factor. Jon, read again. I’m celebrating the escape factor and saying that the escape will be more intense and enjoyable than ever.

    It’s clearly my fault that so many are missing the point. I’m not communicating this stuff very well. And I’m going to think about that long and hard and figure out where I’m sliding off the cliff.

    I appreciate your thoughts on this and I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to contribute to the conversation.

  • Mark Lipsky

    John – Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fact that Edison believed there was no viable business model for projecting to the masses. I didn’t say he was right. In fact, I implicitly say that he was quickly proved wrong. But my point wasn’t who was right or wrong but that it was the start of a process that continues to evolve today.

    You write that the theater-going experience “just cannot be duplicated…” Well, yes it can. The worst possible way to do it once the enhanced viewers I’ve described are widespread would be to continue to gather in AMC theaters. You’d have a better viewing experience but the social experience would be the worst possible. You could, instead, gather anywhere you want with anyone you want. Choice. Freedom. These are good things. Yes, kids will always want to escape their parents and meet up with friends. They’ll be able to do that anywhere they want and still be able to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

    The classic home entertainment scenario used to be the family gathered around the TV set (and before that, the radio set) on a Sunday night after dinner. All together. Watching or listening to the latest show. But that was only because there was only one TV or radio. Then the price dropped and every room in the house had one. Then came the Walkman and people walked the streets listening to stuff. Then came smart phones and people watched on trains, plains and automobiles. And beaches and parks and mountain tops. Does anyone sit around the TV in the family room today and watch anything together outside of sports?

    There was a time before movies when people didn’t have that impersonal dark box to sit in and there will be days to come when watching movies and every other form of entertainment will happen in new places and in new ways.

    Read this to get a better feel for how things are changing: http://bit.ly/9gQZkc These kids couldn’t care less what I think or you think. They’ve grown up in a completely different world than you and I and kids graduating from high school in ten years will be that much more removed from life as we know it today. Why fear or fight the future? Why not embrace it and celebrate the possibilities? I get that you think I’m wrong. But maybe I’m right. Imagine that for a moment. Then forget it. But what a moment that might be.

  • Mark Lipsky

    John – Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fact that Edison believed there was no viable business model for projecting to the masses. I didn’t say he was right. In fact, I implicitly say that he was quickly proved wrong. But my point wasn’t who was right or wrong but that it was the start of a process that continues to evolve today.

    You write that the theater-going experience “just cannot be duplicated…” Well, yes it can. The worst possible way to do it once the enhanced viewers I’ve described are widespread would be to continue to gather in AMC theaters. You’d have a better viewing experience but the social experience would be the worst possible. You could, instead, gather anywhere you want with anyone you want. Choice. Freedom. These are good things. Yes, kids will always want to escape their parents and meet up with friends. They’ll be able to do that anywhere they want and still be able to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

    The classic home entertainment scenario used to be the family gathered around the TV set (and before that, the radio set) on a Sunday night after dinner. All together. Watching or listening to the latest show. But that was only because there was only one TV or radio. Then the price dropped and every room in the house had one. Then came the Walkman and people walked the streets listening to stuff. Then came smart phones and people watched on trains, plains and automobiles. And beaches and parks and mountain tops. Does anyone sit around the TV in the family room today and watch anything together outside of sports?

    There was a time before movies when people didn’t have that impersonal dark box to sit in and there will be days to come when watching movies and every other form of entertainment will happen in new places and in new ways.

    Read this to get a better feel for how things are changing: http://bit.ly/9gQZkc These kids couldn’t care less what I think or you think. They’ve grown up in a completely different world than you and I and kids graduating from high school in ten years will be that much more removed from life as we know it today. Why fear or fight the future? Why not embrace it and celebrate the possibilities? I get that you think I’m wrong. But maybe I’m right. Imagine that for a moment. Then forget it. But what a moment that might be.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – As I’ve written, everyone will win in this except exhibitors. Once the studios have an alternative where they can enjoy a direct line to consumers and their cash, they’ll dump the exhibition model without a thought.

    As for: “but KEEP TELLING STORIES… screw it HOW the future will look- it will probably freak us ALL THE HELL out.”

    Hallelujah brother!

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon – As I’ve written, everyone will win in this except exhibitors. Once the studios have an alternative where they can enjoy a direct line to consumers and their cash, they’ll dump the exhibition model without a thought.

    As for: “but KEEP TELLING STORIES… screw it HOW the future will look- it will probably freak us ALL THE HELL out.”

    Hallelujah brother!

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark,
    Yeah, I though about that – the escape factor in your scenario. That could happen. But I question how available that would be to everyone. Would only those with the money to get the stuff have that opportunity, as we see now? I can’t afford an HD screen, and I’m not living poorly. But that expense is just out of reach. And why would I really want to spend $500 on a 50 inch HD set, let alone a Blu-Ray player, plus all the expense of higher priced Blu-Ray discs, if I can see my favorite films on 50 foot screens at ArcLight or Gold Star (which have perfected the theater experience way beyond AMC)?

    I like the idea of getting out of the house and going to a theater. ArcLight often has exhibits of wardrobe or something from a current film. Sometimes there are exhibits of movie related art. There are always cool movie posters on the walls. And I get all that, plus reserved seating, for a $14 ticket. They’ve also recently improved their screen to where the quality and detail are way better than I’ve ever experienced. Certainly if I can see a film on a 50 foot screen instead of a 50 inch screen, that has a certain appeal and leaves me wondering why should I bother to invest in digital equipment that will be obsolete in another two years. Anyway, I’m mostly more than satisfied to watch films on HBO or my DVD player. I don’t feel any desire or need to escape into a virtual reality, especially with the questions about it’s expense and security.

    So, this is my perspective of technology, based on its current history. Markets are based on what makes the most money for the manufacturers and dealers, and not what makes the most sense for customers. In fact the word “customer” is obsolete. We are now “consumers” meant to ingest whatever products are on the market and then trash them for new models due to the built in obsolescence. If this trend of consumerism where to change to one of customer-ism, I might be more agreeable to your perspective. But as it stands, though I see your points and even agree with some of them, I am very skeptical this would be good for people (and society) and an improvement over the theater going experience, or whether it could even exist as in your optimistic projection.

    Maybe your utopia will exist for the rich, while 90% of the population languish with nothing. That’s the direction technology has taken us and continues to take us. Where’s the consideration of people who can barely afford a meal everyday? Because, I think that is the consideration that the movie business had in its beginnings, and its success was based on the volume of giving poor people an hour or two of escape for a dime.

    Which brings to mind my own projection of a future utopia. Imagine movie theaters where you could see a film for five bucks, maybe even one dollar. Instead of 400 seat theaters that play to a handful of people 90% of the time. They’d be packed everyday. They’d make a mint, especially in times like these where people pack the malls to escape where they have to live, places without air-conditioning or on top of other family members due to job losses and foreclosures. People are clamoring for this escape and greedy corporatized Hollywood responds with Blu-Ray discs at $25 a pop, or $11 tickets for crap films that cater to 2% of the population. As this corporatism continues Hollywood will go down along with corporate America, and we’ll be all the better for it.

  • http://outinthestreetfilms.com Jon Raymond

    Mark,
    Yeah, I though about that – the escape factor in your scenario. That could happen. But I question how available that would be to everyone. Would only those with the money to get the stuff have that opportunity, as we see now? I can’t afford an HD screen, and I’m not living poorly. But that expense is just out of reach. And why would I really want to spend $500 on a 50 inch HD set, let alone a Blu-Ray player, plus all the expense of higher priced Blu-Ray discs, if I can see my favorite films on 50 foot screens at ArcLight or Gold Star (which have perfected the theater experience way beyond AMC)?

    I like the idea of getting out of the house and going to a theater. ArcLight often has exhibits of wardrobe or something from a current film. Sometimes there are exhibits of movie related art. There are always cool movie posters on the walls. And I get all that, plus reserved seating, for a $14 ticket. They’ve also recently improved their screen to where the quality and detail are way better than I’ve ever experienced. Certainly if I can see a film on a 50 foot screen instead of a 50 inch screen, that has a certain appeal and leaves me wondering why should I bother to invest in digital equipment that will be obsolete in another two years. Anyway, I’m mostly more than satisfied to watch films on HBO or my DVD player. I don’t feel any desire or need to escape into a virtual reality, especially with the questions about it’s expense and security.

    So, this is my perspective of technology, based on its current history. Markets are based on what makes the most money for the manufacturers and dealers, and not what makes the most sense for customers. In fact the word “customer” is obsolete. We are now “consumers” meant to ingest whatever products are on the market and then trash them for new models due to the built in obsolescence. If this trend of consumerism where to change to one of customer-ism, I might be more agreeable to your perspective. But as it stands, though I see your points and even agree with some of them, I am very skeptical this would be good for people (and society) and an improvement over the theater going experience, or whether it could even exist as in your optimistic projection.

    Maybe your utopia will exist for the rich, while 90% of the population languish with nothing. That’s the direction technology has taken us and continues to take us. Where’s the consideration of people who can barely afford a meal everyday? Because, I think that is the consideration that the movie business had in its beginnings, and its success was based on the volume of giving poor people an hour or two of escape for a dime.

    Which brings to mind my own projection of a future utopia. Imagine movie theaters where you could see a film for five bucks, maybe even one dollar. Instead of 400 seat theaters that play to a handful of people 90% of the time. They’d be packed everyday. They’d make a mint, especially in times like these where people pack the malls to escape where they have to live, places without air-conditioning or on top of other family members due to job losses and foreclosures. People are clamoring for this escape and greedy corporatized Hollywood responds with Blu-Ray discs at $25 a pop, or $11 tickets for crap films that cater to 2% of the population. As this corporatism continues Hollywood will go down along with corporate America, and we’ll be all the better for it.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon -

    The tech I’m talking about will be inexpensive. Cheap in fact. No expensive flat screen required. In fact, no screen required at all.

    As for the Arclight and progressive theaters like it, they make up a percentage of one percent of theaters. In my scenario, they’ll be the ones that outlive the others. They’ll be the 100 left in 15 years.

  • Mark Lipsky

    Jon -

    The tech I’m talking about will be inexpensive. Cheap in fact. No expensive flat screen required. In fact, no screen required at all.

    As for the Arclight and progressive theaters like it, they make up a percentage of one percent of theaters. In my scenario, they’ll be the ones that outlive the others. They’ll be the 100 left in 15 years.

  • http://www.unapartedemivida.com Nicolas Mladinic

    Mark,

    I totally picture what you describe. But in the US you’ll probably have that in 10 to 15 years, but in southamerica (i’m from Chile) will be a lot later i think…like 25-30 years. I’ve read a lot here and in other websited about indepedent film and online distribution. I’ve look at a lot of films with the “download and donate” model but a lot o them it’s “for US residents only”! Why?! I’m from Chile and i want to see films from everywhere in the world! I wish we could have the chance to show our movies in the US as well as independent US films are shown here in Chile. I want to be abble to bring the southamerican film experience to a wider audience, but let me tell you, for us, here in Chile, is too difficult and too damn hard!
    Anyway, looking forward to this new film theater experience! I’ll hope that progress in technology comes with some diversity! If that could happen, i’ll cook those damn popocorns on my microwave and watch films on the rooftop of my building, AWESOME!

  • http://www.unapartedemivida.com Nicolas Mladinic

    Mark,

    I totally picture what you describe. But in the US you’ll probably have that in 10 to 15 years, but in southamerica (i’m from Chile) will be a lot later i think…like 25-30 years. I’ve read a lot here and in other websited about indepedent film and online distribution. I’ve look at a lot of films with the “download and donate” model but a lot o them it’s “for US residents only”! Why?! I’m from Chile and i want to see films from everywhere in the world! I wish we could have the chance to show our movies in the US as well as independent US films are shown here in Chile. I want to be abble to bring the southamerican film experience to a wider audience, but let me tell you, for us, here in Chile, is too difficult and too damn hard!
    Anyway, looking forward to this new film theater experience! I’ll hope that progress in technology comes with some diversity! If that could happen, i’ll cook those damn popocorns on my microwave and watch films on the rooftop of my building, AWESOME!

  • Pingback: Freakonomics opens on a small screen near you Sept. 3 | Dan McComb

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

    I really believe that Hollywood just doesnt change because there’s no reason to. They are making more & more money as we independents speculate about new business models. Really what we are talking about is a new way for us independents and Internationals like Nicolas to compete better with Hollywood using this new internet distribution model. They will have their theaters UNLESS we come up with something we can do on a large scale to get some of that entertainment market share –until we give Hollywood a run for their money– only then will theaters go south and they will do something about it way before then anyway. So, we need to create a movie watching experience that rivals Hollywood- that is our quest. Sadly, I havent seen it happen.

    I always thought if we can get a theater chain to make a commitment to screen small independent films it would take off & there would be more of that going on but that hasn’t happened either- probably because the films weren’t good enough to garner a larger audience- meaning the demographic was a bit off or the expectations were a bit off.

    I actually think, going back to the ‘film gigging’ idea (which i still think is silly) we can modify this idea, though to suit the independent film market better and start creating a movement that has the viewers interest more at heart than even the indy producer. Meaning, that we need to maintain quality standards through internet rating systems with online test screenings, then garner a sort of social networking support to increase our local ‘commitments to watch’ at non-traditional screening venues (indy theaters would subscribe to this internet service which rates everything), then the theaters are free to book screenings with a click of the button to notify the internet service that they can contact the filmmakers to setup a screening in the next few weeks or months.

    I think the thing that has been really missing here for us is a quality control system for online independent films– a neutral aggregator that determines the film watching experience for viewers and has as its goal to setup screenings when the most support is garnered… of course they are meeting certain quality control standards that we all hold dear as film lovers- they are rated by if the viewers enjoyed them more or less through surveys after watching the film. As an independent online screener- it would be much the same as a pre-release Hollywood screener but it would be free for the viewers (which are selected based on criteria and press status) and it would be strictly for indy films that havent been screened. Then these films could be connected to their proper media outlet based on the data received from these screenings and from answered questions from the filmmakers (such as resolution/ratio of the film, etc). It has as its goal- the highest quality viewing experience for indy film lovers… and by connecting filmmakers with their audience properly & efficiently, they would make money off the top of this profit potential… whether it ended up on the big screen, small screen, or on DVD, etc.

    Its just an idea for something missing right now in indy internet-land… quality control & connecting ‘better’ with your viewing experience instead of just ‘throw everything out there on the internet’ & hope something sticks- so its not always the wild west out there for filmmakers/viewers/screeners. Of course, maybe its out there now & I just dont know it-

    But all i see is everyone recommending simply to experiment with getting as much social network support as possible to setup everything & do everything myself as a filmmaker- to treat every transaction as valuable & independent of each other & to take advantage of full ownership by doing everything myself. This is good & bad. Its good because it makes us own our own success or failure but its bad because it is inefficient and not centered on business partnerships at all- it is straight to consumer as much as possible. This also can be good- but it doesnt consider that there are some great partnerships that are definitely worth every penny for (most) filmmakers to dearly nurture. If they knew their film could make it in theaters they would be happy- possibly ectastic (indy theaters might be happy as well). If they knew it couldnt, they would hopefully learn to be more objective & not take the plunge to try to distribute in theaters… instead they might refocus their energies to DVD or to making better films in the future or to getting out of the industry. Everyone wins!

    But, Im sure it is easier said than done to make a successful dent in the quality control issue on the interwebs.

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

    I really believe that Hollywood just doesnt change because there’s no reason to. They are making more & more money as we independents speculate about new business models. Really what we are talking about is a new way for us independents and Internationals like Nicolas to compete better with Hollywood using this new internet distribution model. They will have their theaters UNLESS we come up with something we can do on a large scale to get some of that entertainment market share –until we give Hollywood a run for their money– only then will theaters go south and they will do something about it way before then anyway. So, we need to create a movie watching experience that rivals Hollywood- that is our quest. Sadly, I havent seen it happen.

    I always thought if we can get a theater chain to make a commitment to screen small independent films it would take off & there would be more of that going on but that hasn’t happened either- probably because the films weren’t good enough to garner a larger audience- meaning the demographic was a bit off or the expectations were a bit off.

    I actually think, going back to the ‘film gigging’ idea (which i still think is silly) we can modify this idea, though to suit the independent film market better and start creating a movement that has the viewers interest more at heart than even the indy producer. Meaning, that we need to maintain quality standards through internet rating systems with online test screenings, then garner a sort of social networking support to increase our local ‘commitments to watch’ at non-traditional screening venues (indy theaters would subscribe to this internet service which rates everything), then the theaters are free to book screenings with a click of the button to notify the internet service that they can contact the filmmakers to setup a screening in the next few weeks or months.

    I think the thing that has been really missing here for us is a quality control system for online independent films– a neutral aggregator that determines the film watching experience for viewers and has as its goal to setup screenings when the most support is garnered… of course they are meeting certain quality control standards that we all hold dear as film lovers- they are rated by if the viewers enjoyed them more or less through surveys after watching the film. As an independent online screener- it would be much the same as a pre-release Hollywood screener but it would be free for the viewers (which are selected based on criteria and press status) and it would be strictly for indy films that havent been screened. Then these films could be connected to their proper media outlet based on the data received from these screenings and from answered questions from the filmmakers (such as resolution/ratio of the film, etc). It has as its goal- the highest quality viewing experience for indy film lovers… and by connecting filmmakers with their audience properly & efficiently, they would make money off the top of this profit potential… whether it ended up on the big screen, small screen, or on DVD, etc.

    Its just an idea for something missing right now in indy internet-land… quality control & connecting ‘better’ with your viewing experience instead of just ‘throw everything out there on the internet’ & hope something sticks- so its not always the wild west out there for filmmakers/viewers/screeners. Of course, maybe its out there now & I just dont know it-

    But all i see is everyone recommending simply to experiment with getting as much social network support as possible to setup everything & do everything myself as a filmmaker- to treat every transaction as valuable & independent of each other & to take advantage of full ownership by doing everything myself. This is good & bad. Its good because it makes us own our own success or failure but its bad because it is inefficient and not centered on business partnerships at all- it is straight to consumer as much as possible. This also can be good- but it doesnt consider that there are some great partnerships that are definitely worth every penny for (most) filmmakers to dearly nurture. If they knew their film could make it in theaters they would be happy- possibly ectastic (indy theaters might be happy as well). If they knew it couldnt, they would hopefully learn to be more objective & not take the plunge to try to distribute in theaters… instead they might refocus their energies to DVD or to making better films in the future or to getting out of the industry. Everyone wins!

    But, Im sure it is easier said than done to make a successful dent in the quality control issue on the interwebs.

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