There is a private conversation every moviegoer has with himself or herself each Friday when a slate of new feature films opens in local theaters: “Do I want to pay to see this film theatrically, or do I wait for it to come out on DVD?”
That is the question, and the answer might seem dispiriting to the major movie studios. Admissions to theaters in the United States and Canada have dropped from 1.5 billion in 2002, to just above 1.4 billion in 2009, and continue to slide this year, despite the occasional big weekend such as the one recently enjoyed by “Fast Five.”
About the only things propping up box-office results for Hollywood movies are the increase in ticket prices and the additional charge for all those 3-D movies that are proving so popular in IMAX theaters and other specialized venues. The average movie ticket cost $5.39 in 2002, but will be near $8 by the end of this year. Taking a family of four to a movie such as “Rio,” showing in 3-D, could easily set a parent back $60, counting concessions and surcharges.
So why should anyone go to a movie theater any more, with options such as Video on Demand through cable systems or Netflix’s Watch Instantly option that does not require you to wait for a DVD to arrive in the mail? And many people have made investments in home theaters, using projection systems and surround sound that rival and exceed the movie watching experience in the dinkiest small theater in a multiplex.
This is partly a generational issue. I have no desire to watch a big film on a tiny screen, and although I have enjoyed watching movies on my iPad with its terrific image resolution, it’s certainly not my first choice of how I want to see a film. I come from a generation that spent much of its childhood and adolescence in first the neighborhood single-screen movie house, then in the local multiplex.
My students at UNC School of the Arts don’t carry that nostalgic baggage. They watch films on their computers, their iPhones, and any other mobile device that allows them the freedom to watch what they want when they want where they want. Yet many of them were lining up last weekend for the first theater screening of “Thor,” so the full force of the theatergoing experience is not lost on them, either.
This usually comes down to an individual decision. Many of us still regard the movies as an affordable and pleasurable night out on the town, and the idea of sitting in front of our TV set for another two hours on a Friday or Saturday night seems the definition of dullsville. Yet no one enjoys the letdown of an anticipated film that disappoints, and not only are you out the two hours you invested in a movie but your wallet is commensurately lighter, too.
My own personal checklist as to whether to see a film in a theater usually comes down to two issues: what I really want to see, and production values. If I am really anxious to see a new movie because of the reviews I’ve read or the buzz I’ve heard about it from my circle of film friends, I’ll usually ante up at the theater box office. The other motivating force to get me into the movie theater is a film’s production values. Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” just didn’t pack the same punch on DVD as it did in its wondrous 3-D spectacle — even a not very good movie like “Battle: Los Angeles” plays better in a theater than it ever will on a small screen.
So if you’re determined to have Thor’s hammer whizzing by your head, go for the gold and buy those movie tickets. But you may find the theater more and more empty as time goes by, as movies become more portable than ever before.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement