Did The FCC Just Kill Movie Theaters?

[RicoGregg]

Wasn't sure where to post this, I'm sure the mods will correct if necessary.

Once again, our favorite government agency seems to have stuck it to the public:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/the-end-of-movie-theaters-fcc-will-allow-studios-to-send-films-directly-to-consumers-over-secure-tv-lines/#more-38926

 

[LKellerIII]

Wasn't sure where to post this, I'm sure the mods will correct if necessary.

Once again, our favorite government agency seems to have stuck it to the public:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/the-end-of-movie-theaters-fcc-will-allow-studios-to-send-films-directly-to-consumers-over-secure-tv-lines/#more-38926

No - the FCC hasn't "stuck it to the public" in this case - this will give the consumer more choices. I'd say the jury is still out regarding whether or not the FCC has "stuck it" to movie theaters. Could be, but I doubt it.

If you read the article, it states that movies would be available to the public through high defiinition cable or satellite a minimum of 2 months after theatrical release. Believe me - this content will not be free, and people still want to enjoy a night out and go to theaters.

From what I know, the movie production studios get around 90% of "the gate," that is - first run theatrical ticket sales. The theaters make most of their money on concessions - that's why 50 cents worth of popcorn costs $7.00. I doubt the studios would decide to give up this golden goose. And if movies are available through cable/satellite within 2 months of theatrical release, you can expect them to cost $8.00 to $10.00 as a pay-per-view "event" - about what it costs now for a theater ticket.

 

[Markxxx]

I agree it may cut into some business, but for most people going to the show is still a "night out." type thing. People don't want to get stuck into the house so they will still like to go out and see a show.

I'm not a movie person, but people tell me there is something about seeing a movie in widescreen with other people sitting with them that gives them an "experience" they don't get by seeing it at home, even on a big screen at home TV

 

[landtuna]

I'm not a movie person, but people tell me there is something about seeing a movie in widescreen with other people sitting with them that gives them an "experience" they don't get by seeing it at home, even on a big screen at home TV

No matter what kind of home theater you have it likely isn't close to that at virtually all front-line theaters. However, when watching a movie on my big screen I don't have hundreds of teens nearby all texting or talking on their cell phones. Nor do I have dunderhead parents bringing their underage children to an unsuitable movie who then get figgity and whiny. To overcome those types of interruptions it seems the theaters have turned up the volume causing me to leave the theater with my ears ringing. And, instead of paying $7-$10/person I can rent a near-first-run movie for a couple of bucks and pause it should I need to take a break.

The movie I want to see is always playing on my big screen and it is never sold out. I never have to pay for tickets online and include a "convenience" fee.

Yup, going out to a theater is indeed an "experience" but one I never want to experience again.

 

[azumanga]

the FCC hasn't "stuck it to the public" in this case - this will give the consumer more choices. I'd say the jury is still out regarding whether or not the FCC has "stuck it" to movie theaters. Could be, but I doubt it.

If you read the article, it states that movies would be available to the public through high defiinition cable or satellite a minimum of 2 months after theatrical release. Believe me - this content will not be free, and people still want to enjoy a night out and go to theaters.

That being said, the FCC may have indeed killed second-run theaters -- many of them showing films about two months old.

 

[landtuna]

That being said, the FCC may have indeed killed second-run theaters -- many of them showing films about two months old.

An observation.....most first-run theaters here have teens and young adults as their primary ticket buyers. The second-run theaters seem to have families and *ahem* senior citizens as their main audience.

 

[dave73]

I don't see this intentionally putting movie theatres out of business. If anything, if the cost is reasonable, many people who have satellite or cable might prefer this route. If you look at the cost to go to the movie theatre, tickets can be anywhere from $7.00 - $15.00 (depending on movie & whether you go during matinee or primetime) just for the ticket. If you get concessions, they really markup the price of their stuff. The smallest box of popcorn I last bought was around $6.00 with the largest bucket of popcorn costing around $25-$35. The drinks were also overly inflated. Soda (pop where I live at) was anywhere from $4.50 - $12.50. Pretzels were around $6.00. The boxed candy is something I don't buy and don't know its cost. Whenever I went to the movie theatre, I'd try to go during matinee to get a discount on tickets. If that movie theatre offers free refills on popcorn & soft drinks, I buy the smallest size to control costs. I will look at second run theatres too (usually in older theatre buildings) to get discounts on tickets & refreshments I have found to be a bit cheaper there too. The last time I went to the theatre (Cinemark in Lisle Illinois with a friend), I saw I Am Legend on the IMAX screen (not my choice) which I wouldn't waste my money on again since I don't see the big deal about IMAX. That ran $10.50 to see it on IMAX, or the ticket would have been around $9.00 on the regular screen during primetime. I bought popcorn & softdrink, & that costed me $10.00 for both in the smallest sizes. I did get one refill, but couldn't get another refill, due to the concession stand closing 45 minutes before closing.

Now if I had cable or satellite, I'd probably look at that this option of viewing a first run movie at home. All I have to pay for is for viewing the movie on demand. I can have any refreshments I want from my own cabinets & refrigerator for the cost of whatever I paid for it at the grocery store.

 

[imhomerjay]

The bigger issue is why the government should be meddling in this kind of issue in the first place. It should be none their (bleep) business; "allowing" what they have no Constitutional authority over is oh-so generous.

 

[oaktree]

Good, I’m glad this is happening. The movie buying public is getting gauged with $12 movies that are junk, often unpopular and the “concessions” of movie houses has, in the name of immense profits to the theater owners, gone through the ceiling.

Yes, there is a pleasure to going “to the movies” — sometimes. But, people killed the movie houses by supporting the meteoric climb in greedy studios exhibition rights” and with increasingly rude, crude behavior, poor maintenance and poorer selection of good movies to see.

Now, the killer of the motion picture industry will be exorbitant “at home” prices — not the “hacking” of a digital video stream.It will be “Showtime”, “HBO”,”Cinemax”, “FOX FX”, “TMC” and more — with a much more current selection and non-commercial twist.

You can’t blame the MPAA which plays some of these flamers before an auditorium of one, two, three, maybe a hundred or, maybe none at times.

I’d watch in the comfort of my own home. New high-tech theaters will have a place for a time, but kiss the old way of seeing a film goodbye. Save your money for watching at home.

Also, the FCC didn't "mandate" this out of individual concern by the government. The MPAA did. They are tired of having their flicks pirated, lots of times right off the screen by video camera buffs, even cellphones. The government gets enough blame for screwing up life as it is.

This time, the FCC is correct. It is a community service for the disabled. And as for 2nd run theaters -- there is no *ahem* against "senior citizens." They get to see films, too -- and for them, at affordable prices. They don't have to be teens to enjoy a film once in awhile.

 

[flytrap]

As much as I enjoy movies, but everytime I go to the movies I come away angry and disapointed. For one thing, they jack up the ticket prices a few weeks before the big summer movies come out. The prices for the 3d movies are outragous. You have to take out a second mortgage in order to buy a box of popcorn.
And of course you have to sit in a theater with a bunch of motormouths who won't stop yapping all during the picture. Then theres the blowhard that starts up with the boistrous laughing at the most minor joke or gag, and keeps on bellowing after the punch line is over, covering up the reaction remark from the other actors, which is often more funny than the Joke itself. But you can't hear it because Mr. Blowhard. Another is people, especially teens, who text message and keep opening up their phones and turning on that blue light all during the movie. And the people who won't go the the bathroom BEFORE the picture starts. They keep walking in and out and bumping your knees. And of course there is the fat slob who thinks the theater seat is a lazy boy and reclines the seat all the way back so his head is in your lap. (same for the slob that does that on a bus)

 

[Markxxx]

So why is the FCC getting involved in this? Why do they need to?

 

[imhomerjay]

Good, I’m glad this is happening. The movie buying public is getting gauged with $12 movies that are junk, often unpopular and the “concessions” of movie houses has, in the name of immense profits to the theater owners, gone through the ceiling.

And no one is forcing the public to do any such thing. Movies are not a necessity, they’re a luxury, an optional expense. Which movies are junk and which aren’t is entirely subjective. Those that don’t perform are quickly replaced by something else. There’s zero problem here, zero need for the government to have ever been involved.

Yes, there is a pleasure to going “to the movies” — sometimes. But, people killed the movie houses by supporting the meteoric climb in greedy studios exhibition rights” and with increasingly rude, crude behavior, poor maintenance and poorer selection of good movies to see.

Capitalism—they choose to spend their money that way. There’s nothing wrong with the content owners collecting the money people are willingly choosing to shell out.

Now, the killer of the motion picture industry will be exorbitant “at home” prices — not the “hacking” of a digital video stream.It will be “Showtime”, “HBO”,”Cinemax”, “FOX FX”, “TMC” and more — with a much more current selection and non-commercial twist.

We’ve been hearing that drumbeat for years. Hasn’t happened yet.

I’d watch in the comfort of my own home. New high-tech theaters will have a place for a time, but kiss the old way of seeing a film goodbye. Save your money for watching at home.

If enough people choose to do it that way, great…but one person’s desires doesn’t mean everyone will choose that option exclusively. There’s a long, long way to go before we potentially reach that point.

 

[LKellerIII]

Good, I’m glad this is happening. The movie buying public is getting gauged with $12 movies that are junk, often unpopular and the “concessions” of movie houses has, in the name of immense profits to the theater owners, gone through the ceiling.

And no one is forcing the public to do any such thing. Movies are not a necessity, they’re a luxury, an optional expense. Which movies are junk and which aren’t is entirely subjective. Those that don’t perform are quickly replaced by something else. There’s zero problem here, zero need for the government to have ever been involved.

Yes, there is a pleasure to going “to the movies” — sometimes. But, people killed the movie houses by supporting the meteoric climb in greedy studios exhibition rights” and with increasingly rude, crude behavior, poor maintenance and poorer selection of good movies to see.

Capitalism—they choose to spend their money that way. There’s nothing wrong with the content owners collecting the money people are willingly choosing to shell out.

Now, the killer of the motion picture industry will be exorbitant “at home” prices — not the “hacking” of a digital video stream.It will be “Showtime”, “HBO”,”Cinemax”, “FOX FX”, “TMC” and more — with a much more current selection and non-commercial twist.

We’ve been hearing that drumbeat for years. Hasn’t happened yet.

I’d watch in the comfort of my own home. New high-tech theaters will have a place for a time, but kiss the old way of seeing a film goodbye. Save your money for watching at home.

If enough people choose to do it that way, great…but one person’s desires doesn’t mean everyone will choose that option exclusively. There’s a long, long way to go before we potentially reach that point.

I agree. People still like to get out of the house, and watching a film on a big screen is a different experience than at home, even with home theater sound systems and 60 inch plasma screens.

When I hear people complain about how irritated they are by boorish behavior in theaters - people talking or laughing inappropriately ...I wonder if I'm living in a different dimension. I probably see about 8 to 10 theatrical movies in an average year, and I can't remember the last time I was bothered by somebody's behavior in a theater.

The closest I can come is the guy next to me at the 3D showing of Avatar. He was asleep and snoring lightly, but the surround-sound was covering it up quite nicely. I remember thinking how POed he'd be when he woke up and realized he'd wasted $18.

 

[landtuna]

I probably see about 8 to 10 theatrical movies in an average year, and I can't remember the last time I was bothered by somebody's behavior in a theater.

Then consider yourself very lucky.

Several years ago I took my then-teen daughter to a "chick flick" at a nice theater. It was fairly crowded and we "lucked out" sitting right behind a dad who brought his 3-year old and a cell phone. After about ten minutes of non-stop whining and crying by the baby and his almost-constant talking on the cell I had to threaten him to get him to leave.

On my way out I told the manager that would be my last visit to his house since he didn't apparently care how some of his customers behaved. The minimum-wage earner didn't seem to care. Neither do I.

 

[imhomerjay]

One experience does not a universal truth make.

 

[landtuna]

One experience does not a universal truth make.

I was illustrating perhaps the worst (recent) case. There is a second-run (discount) theater not far from me and wifey and I used to go to that one on "old farts" Tuesday. Not too many kids during those shows and it seems *ahem* older folks still remember their manners regarding talking during the movie. Only problem was waiting for "gramps" to take his lengthy "leak" before the movie starts.

I know.....I'll be old some day. ;D

 

[TexasTom]

The bigger issue is why the government should be meddling in this kind of issue in the first place. It should be none their (bleep) business; "allowing" what they have no Constitutional authority over is oh-so generous.

The FCC has been regulating the technical aspects of both over the air and wireline communications services since it was created in 1934. This particular decision seems to fall squarely within the realm of their appropriate technical regulations.

Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is -- this is hardly over reaching on the FCC's part, as it well within their established realm of regulation.

 

[imhomerjay]

The FCC should be nothing more than a traffic cop on the technical side; there is zero reason they should have anything to say about the content itself. Set the basic standards for over-the-air transmission, then keep our tax money out of it.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Write Your Congressman!

STOP Pay TV!!

(how soon they forget.....) :

 

[TexasTom]

The FCC should be nothing more than a traffic cop on the technical side; there is zero reason they should have anything to say about the content itself. Set the basic standards for over-the-air transmission, then keep our tax money out of it.

They set technical standards -- in this case, the standard is a requirement that cable boxes provide an analog output to support legacy TV sets. The FCC has opted to provide a narrow exemption to this technical standard -- and whether you agree with this particular exemption (I don't), it seems well within the appropriate realm of action for the FCC. This sort of thing is a reasonable part of what being a "traffic cop on the technical side" is about...and reality is that technical decisions can and do impact content.

So you can disagree with the FCC's decisions based on the merit (or lack thereof) of their decision -- but arguing that they have no reason to have made the decision to begin with is an argument without merit.