Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict ‘massive implosion’ in film industry | Hacker News Reader

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict ‘massive implosion’ in film industry

theverge.com

21 pointsmagoghm22 comments

What I never understood about theaters is why they never got into physical movie sales as well. When I exit the theater for the second part of some trilogy movie, why can't I pick up the first on Bluray on the way out? Theaters are dying because they don't fully embrace the culture of movie lovers. Instead they charge you heavily with the food there.

Going to the theater is an experience much like the theme park. Go on the ride and tantalize me afterwards with memories and other things to offer a more complete experience. Otherwise I'm just going to a giant living room and sitting in a chair hundreds if no thousands of people have farted in at risk of my experience being interrupted by people cheering because Stan Lee appeared on screen for a second.

I don't think theaters will ever be as big as they once were. Offering film versions, HFR 3D, or beer won't change that solely because of the net. They need to attain a "can't beat 'em, then join them" attitude.

It's not like physical movie sales are doing too well themselves. And by the time a sequel is released a physical copy of the original would have been out for a while, meaning it will already be severely discounted online and in bargain bins.

I agree. My point is that theaters do not embrace all of the industry on both ends. They only look to distribute a single viewing and they rely on gouging that gimmick when they could be doing so much more.

Movie sales, especially for blockbusters, have pretty thin margins. They wouldn't be able to compete with retailers who use (or at least, they did) new movies as loss leaders. Also Cineplex in Canada for example will pre-sell you a digital copy of the movie when you buy a ticket.

Movie theatres have died before, like in the 70s. The way they were revived is exactly how you described it, by making it a destination (in the 70s, by refining theatres, which were generally seen as grubby and low-class into something more dignified) and not just a place to watch a movie.

> Going to the theater is an experience much like the theme park. Go on the ride and tantalize me afterwards with memories and other things to offer a more complete experience.

It appears to be drastically different for you than for a lot of others.

Haha, that's not my experience. That's just how I think it should be. That statement was poorly worded.

What percentage of movies watched is by movie lovers vs families / groups of friends casually having a social outing?

It's already been like that for awhile, even at a lot of 'normal' theatres. Would you like two large drinks and two large pretzels? That will be $42. Would you like two 3d movie tickets? $36, thank you. So $78 at the 'cheap' theatre for two people. For that kind of money you'd damn well better bring my stuff to my seat.

That's why I usually avoid the 'normal' theatres if possible and only go to the 'fancy' ones that have real menus, nicer chairs, and drinks service etc. Costs about the same, much better experience.

But the nicest experience is usually just at my house where I can eat two pretzels for $2 instead of $40 and there is no chance I have to smell anyone else and I can pause whenever I want. And also, usually the movie is already paid for on Netflix/Amazon Prime or sometimes 'free' on Kodi.

Yep €4 for a 0.5 liter bottle of water. Needless to say I eat and drink before going to the theatre.

I still think the theater experience has value. Big screen, big sound, big popcorn. You just can't duplicate that at home without spending absurd amounts of money.

But so far as what I choose to watch in the theater -- a big part of my choices revolve around the quality of the movie. And there Sturgeon's Law [1] is definitely in effect. This past year has been filled with films that just weren't good enough to get me to open my wallet. The message to the studios ought to be clear: Make better films and you'll make more money.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

In terms of quality I find it hard to watch movies. TV shows offer much better content these days I think.

This totally makes sense to me. Entertainment is taking so many different forms these days, and it's increasingly on-demand and more personal. People are getting used to getting whatever they want, whenever they want it, wherever they are at the time.

I always go back to Wall-E and think about the people riding around in their floating chairs with their personal TV screens and constant flow of food and drink. It was funny at the time, and perhaps a little too real, but every single day since Wall-E, that future looks more and more realistic.

I've noticed a tone of more boutique theaters opening up, offering more than popcorn and soda. You get recliners, quality dining, a full bar, etc. I definitely see this trend continuing. All I hope for is that the culture and community around movies and genres doesn't die out due to the increasing reality of everyone staying home to watch movies.

I love big premiers, and I love IMax, and I love going to the theaters, but the movies need to be worth my time and money. It needs to be an experience.

In my area taking a family of four to the movies is a $100+ affair after tickets and refreshments. On top of that, the theaters have all converted to a lower seat count luxury seats, so they preassign seating and it's harder to get a decent seat (esp at the last minute).

The net change there is that they serve a niche better, but there's a higher barrier to seeing a movie on a casual whim some weekend afternoons. That means a reduction in the numbers of people seeing movies in-theater to me.

Yeah that's totally true. Costs have been skyrocketing and I'm not totally sure why.

Over time, studio have increased the share they demand of ticket sales in the early phase of movie releases, especially those expected to be blockbusters. In some case to 100%. So, theaters have to make even more of their money than they used to on later parts of the run, smaller films, and concessions, forcing (because of uniform pricing, which you could write entire articles about why it is the norm) all ticket prices higher, as well as concession prices higher.

Plus, increased competition from more new media means that people who are indiscriminate in their entertainment choices are more likely to go elsewhere no matter what theaters do, so it's increasingly sensible to charge higher prices to the smaller share of the potential audience for whom the in-theater movie experience is a strong preference (and thus who are less price sensitive) rather seeking the broadest audience.

I guess if you can't produce a movie that's worth watching you might at well make the evening's experience worthwhile regardless of the movie.

I'd be willing to pay for a good meal and beverage if the movie was thrown in for free. 95% of all movies out there these days are not even worth watching for free.

I don't understand why they say going to the movies will cost 25,50 or 100$, with a (better experience?). I would never pay that much. Am I weird, is this what consumers want?

I won't even downgrade to the 3D version for an extra 3$ -> I'd rather miss the movie than pay extra for something that looks worse.

Movies are fine the way they are right now. Just concentrate on the core experience -> making a good movie with great characters and plotlines and scripts.

I was talking about this with my son and he said "Of course! I decided many years ago that for most movies it wasn't really worth my time to go out to a movie theater to see it."

And I know for a fact that he truly believes it, we live just across the street from a movie theater complex and he never goes there. The only thing that can make him go to a movie theater is a Godzilla movie.

One of the many problems is Hollywood trying to target Millenials who only watch YouTube instead of watch movies or TV shows. Then the movies and tv shows flop and they can't understand why.

Ghostbusters reboot failed because they tried to target social justice warriors and feminists who don't watch sci-fi or horror movies. Trying to make Ghostbusters 3 was really hard and got delayed as they could not get the formula correct in the first two movies. Now Star Wars and Star Trek are suffering.

Just know your target market and cater to them.

My mother watches old movies on Hallmark and TCM etc. She does not like Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Star Trek anyway. She likes mysteries, drama, soap operas etc.

Yeah Amazon and Netflix are making their own movies for a good reason as Disney buys out Fox and will pull all of their IP from other sources to put them on Hulu it owns 60% of now or make their own movie streaming platform.

Arnold Swarzenegger suggested tiered pricing 25 years ago, that a big-budget movie like Terminator 2 should be $25. The problem is that movie budget is inversely proportional to audience budget. A big, special-effects movie appeals to kids with no money. A deliberately paced character study like Lincoln appeals to grown-ups, who could afford to pay $25.

With what I see on Youtube that can be made with one person and a copy of After Effects, maybe one day kids' movies will be the cheap ones. The superhero movies will "just" have special effects and some mid-priced actors. Meanwhile the grown-up movies will have all the best screenwriters and actors, which will be the major expense left after technology levels everything else.

Let us not forget that the best part about going to a movie was never the big screen. It is shared emotion. Despite complaints about others sometimes disturbing us, I think we enjoy a funny moment more when we hear others laugh, a thrill more when we hear others gasp, and a spectacle more when we hear others cheer.

I'm okay with this. Hollywood isn't producing interesting content and hasn't done for quite a while now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com