Director M. Night Shyamalan went retro last week by slamming the idea of putting out new movies on DVD at the same time they’re released in theaters. 
Perhaps that’s to be expected from a director who works in old-fashioned, well-crafted films which pay homage to Hitchcock.
Film studios make a huge chunk of their profits on DVD sales and are chafing at having to duplicate marketing campaigns, one for the theaters and another four months later for the DVD. Customers are asking why they can’t buy a movie when and how they want. Directors like Steven Soderbergh (Sex, Lies and Videotape, Ocean’s Eleven, Traffic) and entrepreneurs like Mark Cuban are banding together to experiment with the new biz model:
Soderbergh… announced last spring that he planned to make six high-definition movies for simultaneous release in theaters, on DVD and on pay cable… “The film business in general is using a model that is outdated and, worse than that, inefficient.” [Link]
<
p>Manoj don’t play that:
“When I sit down next to you in a movie theater, we get to share each other’s point of view… That’s the magic in the movies… If this thing happens, you know the majority of your theaters are closing. It’s going to crush you guys… If I can’t make movies for theaters, I don’t want to make movies… I hope this is a very bad idea that goes away.” [Link]
Actually, what we share is the top of your big freakin’ head blocking the screen and the Goobers the kid behind me keeps throwing into my lap. Sure, opening night at a blockbuster is fun, but otherwise, not so much. The movies are great, it’s the moviegoers I could do without.
As for DVDs, those who can’t afford to take the entire family out to the movies, wait for the DVD anyway. The main risk is a shift to DVD among those who’d rather own the disc than see it on the big screen. That’s a real biz risk for theaters, but it’s better for customers. There’s no reason, other than an artificial theater subsidy, that you shouldn’t be able to buy and even download a movie on the day of its release. That would give customers finer-grained choices: the theater experience for the movies you’re waiting for, convenience for all the others.
Yeah, I don’t know what he’s talking about either. I wonder if he could get rid of the 10 minutes of commercials I have sit through before seeing the movie. It’s not like the 1920’s and there is only one distribution channel, and people watching the same movie.
I don’t think theatres are going to go away anytime soon. For one thing, they are the default date venue.
I agree with Shyamalan that some films are better seen at the theatres. Even with today’s big screen TVs and home theatre systems, the theatre experience can not be replicated at home.
I think relasing movies to DVD’s is a great idea.
Maybe its just me, but I can’t stand going to the movies. (Maybe it is a function of NYC)
The way I see it: 1)The movies aren’t as good as they used to be 2) $$$ Popcorn & Drinks 3)Expensive Tickets 4)Bad seating, unless of course you get their early 5) 20 minutes of ads before the movie
And if that wasn’t enough, the people that go to these movies drive me nuts: 1) Rude movie goers (Lasers anyone?) 2) Mobile phone mania 3) Kids going nuts in the hall
Okay granted that not all of this happens when I go to the movie, but some sort of combination will happen!
I rather just watch the movie at home when I can control for a lot of those variables. Especially now since Home Theater systems are getting so good. (Plasma + 5.1 sound system)
Seems odd for a director like Shyamalan to criticize this industry move. DVDs these days provide for a more complete view of the film than most theatrical versions. From director’s commentaries to deleted footage and alternate endings as well as production documentaries, most DVDs are packed with far more information than a movie patron can get from the theatrical release.
Ovaltine, I agree totally with you on many points, especially #4.
Trying to go to a movie in NYC on a Friday or Saturday night is a royal pain. Forget about being spontaneous and saying “Hey guys, wanna go see __________?” No way. You have to plan a trip to the movies as if you were launching the landing at Normandy. Order tix ahead of time. Get there really early and claim your seats. Then for us gals, endure the bathrooms with the doors that don’t lock and risk swinging open at any minute while trying to unfurl the flimsy-yet-tightly-wound TP.
On the release-at-the-same-time issue, I’ve been grateful for it with Hindi movies and I’m sure film producers must have been able to cut – at least somewhat – into the losses of piracy by making the DVDs available in weeks rather than months after the movie hits the screens.
Btw, there’s a pretty good article in the September issue (I think) of Little India about the trials and perils of showing Hindi movies at theaters in the U.S.
Wow I dont agree with you guys at all. Although I will admit that movie theaters are ridiculously priced. If movie tickets went back to $5 a ticket, I would go to the movies all the time.
What I like about movie theaters is just all the the things you mentioned to be bad. It was and i think still is the poor mans broadway show. But to remove the movie experience from the classic play settings would ruin it. If this plan were to go through you just created one more reason why people never have to interact with each other for good or for bad. There is someting to be said for watching a movie you couldnt see at your own leisure on the big screen. I guess I just cant sum up what that something is.
Maybe Shyamalan worries more about future movie reviews that say – “Just get the DVD, skip to the last chapter and be done with yet another contrived plot twist”.
In praise of the theater experience
I’ll go for the indie theaters any day – among them, Bloor cinema is celebrating its centennial, woodside cinema screens hindi movies , mount pleasant with this amazing foyer and screens slightly off-the-hit-scene movies the king st cinema in Kitchener- The ticket price is 7-9 dollars for all of them – the movies they screen are to my taste – they typically dont attract the thug life – they cherish the movie experience – even things like curtains – which most big halls have taken out to make for a big screen – is something i value – then, the amazing popcorn smell… at Bloor cinema… cute story about this – i was at juice for life (a restaurant) and these two older ladies came in – it was packed – so I offered them to join in – they accepted – and when i picked up to go – they said they had an extra ticket for the jewish film festival’s screening of ‘strange fruit’ – i was doing nothin – took it – first time i went to bloor cinema – wow! that’s been a love affair – and their ticket prices have actually gone down – ultimately – it comes down to – is this a commodity or an experience? to me – each place hasa personality — an eccentric personality may be – but definitely not mickey-d’s. … later…
Oh I agree, I am talking about about the mainstream movie theaters which attacts all sorts of interesting people.
Don’t fight the Market…
M. Nam
This may happen sooner or later. Movies can be downloaded right to your homes upon their release. Convinience – yes. The same one on one Movie experience – no. Not until they start making affordable, foldable, durable, widescreen televisions for your homes. You lose the experience of being enveloped by the movie (a good movie), a large screen, darkness and the sounds blasting all around you – with or without irritating elements around you in the theater. The element of holding yourself up real hard (and bad) from going to the restroom simply because you can’t afford to miss the next scene can simply not be had at home where the pause button is pressed as many times that you’ve lost count. The regality, supreme charm and charisma of watching a movie is all lost if the same is watched at home over countless cell phone rings, your girlfriend/wife preparing the party list with orders to check the dal on the stove, papu, tinku, chunnu and munnu jumping all around from the sofa and your neighbour Sharmaji popping at your doorstep for a weekend chai pani talk.
Eventually though the movies will come home the day they are release. It will be just a sad day for the avid movie buff.
As Shyamalan is qouted in Manish’s post, the upside to all this is that he will be making no more movies. Movies like ‘The Sixth Sense’, where you can see what Manoj’s post refers to as the “contrived plot twist” coming some thirty-eight minutes away. So no need to skip to the last DVD chapter, Manoj, just go to the fifth -end of story. I’ve heard that Shyamalan thinks he’s Neo-Hitchcock, so it’s really no surprise that when you model yourself on a such a clumsy film-maker you’ll turn out mediocre garbage like ‘Unbreakable’, ‘Signs’, and ‘The Village’. I did a screen-writing workshop recently where as the resident Desi, I led a heap-it-on-Shyamalan session. Very therapeutic… what an embarrassment he is. Freak off back to Bollywood, loser.
Hitchcock a clumsy film-maker? Wow! You better back off dude, seriously.
No wonder you’re in one of those shitty workshops, you no-talent bum. Keep the cheap iconoclast shit for the IMDB boards.
Dhavaak, I haven’t been to the local indie theatre in ages, but your post has moved me into action! You’re right: at big theatres, it’s a commodity, at a small one, it is a experience. For me, anyways.
V.Reddy, You were just about the straw to break the camel’s back, as far as me never returning to the mutiny again (like Bong Breaker mentioned – where are all these crap comments coming from lately?). I’m not a huge M Knight fan, but some of the comments as of late… aah…so tiring. If not for the presence of dhavaak and a few others. (Even if dhavaak did, once upon a time, call me an ugly, hairy, male something or other… I already forget – lol.)
I don’t agree with you guys at all, and I think you’re being kinda New York/Urban-centric. Unless you’re ludicrously late, trying to see a movie NOT in New York or maybe SF is just fine. And it’s usually a great experience, date or no date. I still miss the UC Theater. If he’s right and this closes down theaters, it will take a lot away from our experience of community. Who wants a New York City that’s just a stack of home-theater-equipped cells, never interactigng? Where are the film festivals going to play if there are no theaters?
Most movies look best on the big screen. If everyone needs to get a house big enough for a projector–yikes.
Warning: IP law geek ON!
As someone with an interest in intellectual property law, I find this interesting: one of the defining cases in this area of law is the Betamax case. In that case, the television studios went up against VCR makers claiming VCR makers were contributing to copyright infringement because people could tape TV shows and watch them later. The TV studios lost, and today the studios make as much, if not more, from the sales of DVDs and videos as they do from the box office.
To me, this has always been how the changing technological landscape should be handled, i.e. absorb the new technology, find a way to benefit, and move on.
Where I live, all the film festivals play at the smaller theatres.
Saheli, read Dhavaak’ and Andrew’s comments – they are praising the theatre experience.
That’s a bit alarmist. As Maisnon notes, it’s about resistance to figuring out new biz models given the march of technology. For example, I’d pay extra to see a movie in a theater any time I wanted instead of being half an hour too early. I’d also pay extra to see older releases I never caught, or classics I only saw on VHS.
Imagine The Warriors or The Princess Bride or Blade Runner or The Wall in the theater. Right now you can only see ’em at art theaters’ weekend midnight shows.
Saheli: I do agree with you re: the movie experience, however I feel like this has largely been corrupted in the big movie chains. Little offends me more than shelling out $10 and then being a captive audience to (bad) commercials.
But, there is something about going to the movies – and for that, I support smaller theatres as much as possible.
This is a logical point, although it misses the point of what Night was saying. I think his underlying fear is that acceptance of this proposal would give studios further leverage in twisting the arms of film-makers to generate movies which meet the profit-based requirements of a marketing scheme, in this case simultaneous release on DVD. We live in the age where “indie” means indicative of a certain demographic.
MightySparrow: >>underlying fear is that acceptance of this proposal would give studios further leverage in twisting the arms of film-makers to generate movies which meet the profit-based requirements of a marketing scheme….
Sorry, but your post seems remarkably anti-market-forces.
Why shouldn’t studios demand movies that generate more profits? Why shouldn’t they demand that film-makers adapt to changing technologies and business landscapes? Movie making is a business like any other – people who want art-for-art’s-sake usually line up to the poor house.
Yes. Direct DVD relases (or Movie-On-Demand) will probably put most theaters out of business. Yes, film-festivals will lose their glitter and meaning. Yes – Night and a host of other film makers will have to adapt or perish.
But above all, the tastes of the movie-going public will change and ossify, so much so that movies themselves may become a passe’ form of entertainment. Let me explain…
Forget the soda, popcorn crackles, kids crying, telephone ringing etc etc. Communal watching of any entertainment has one important outcome: The molding of customer’s taste. When others laugh, you are more likely to laugh. When others clap, you are more likely to do so. When others groan audibly at a goofy scene, you are more likely to do so. When Luke Skywalker beats the dark side of the force, you will clap only if you are in a theater. When Shahrukhdelivers melodramatic dialogues, you will groan only if you are in a theater. When Amitabh beats up the baddies, you will cheer only if you are in a theater.
I rarely watch movies in theaters. When I watch DVD’s it is usually with less than 3-4 people(whose tastes are similiar to mine). The other day I overheard people in a party saying how good the Hindi movie “No Entry” was and how the whole theater was going berserk with laughter. So I rented it, and found that I liked very few jokes in the movie. I found myself reflecting…Was the movie itself bad? Am I too westernised to laugh at desi jokes anymore? Has desi humour not evolved beyond the slapstick jokes? Or is it that my lack of interaction with common desis(in movie theaters) has contributed to my taste being set-in-their-ways?
Non-communal movie watching (after a few years) will most certainly make people static in their tastes. It will most likely create niche customers: horror, chick-flick, action etc. People will ultimately watch only one genre of movies. And film-makers will have to respond to this change.
And lastly, can people discuss this rationally without putting Night and his movies down?
M. Nam
Very true is your fatalism regarding the market forces. The evidence is certainly in your favour. I’m just saying Shyamalan was invoking his artistic right to be “anti-studio”, predictable as that is, it is creates an indispensable tension which allows good movies to still be made (irregardless of the tastes of the masses, addicted to mouth-watering tripe.) I like going to the movies alone, if for nothing else, than shouting out “worst-movie ever” at inappropriate moments without embarrassing anyone but myself.
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/bycgross/
Amazing just how bad this year’s movies were. Most of the top grossers were just gross.
I agree that market forces should dictate how the whole thing plays out and no one really can control it. Perhaps it is time to build a slightly different model. The A-list movies with huge budgets that must target everyone and their uncles to generate a profit are not working anymore.
Favourite Movie seen this yr.(seen in theatres): Lord of War Favorite Movie seen this yr. (pirated): Passion of Anna (not Anna)
Worst Movie seen this yr. (theatres): The Constant Gardener Worst Movie pirated: I donÂ’t know, probably some bad porn which IÂ’ve forgotten/
there was a time before TV when the # of movie goers was far higher than today. is that the reason we have less community? i think the movie theater is a gauge or indicator, it isn’t causative in anyway in regards to “community.” what this DVD-simultaenous trend will do is alter the market-place for the type of movies that get shown on the big screen, and the type of audience the theaters cater to (perhaps more diversification).
m. night’s response is predictable, people have been talking about how new technology destroys old skool experience forever. the early victorians bemoaned the rise of the train because people didn’t savor the experience like they did on horse & carriage.
Are you talking about Bergman’s Passion of Anna? Where did you download it from? I got it from netflix.
Using bit torrents. Got Passion of Anna off thepiratebay.org. There’s a few other great bergman flicks on there, including Persona and Autumn Sonata. Also there is a hell of a lot of Bunuel, including The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Los Olvidanos.
Amen.
The system is failing and movies themselves aren’t enough to attract crowds to the cinema like before. Even in India, where watching films should be a national sport, the theatres are tyring to out do each other with crazy gimmicks that have nothing to do with film. I went to this one theatre somewhere between Gandhinagar and Baroda, on the highway, that had fully reclining red velvet seats and virgin marys and pina coladas being served on the side at all times. The movie was shite but I’ll never forget the experience.
I think I’m still all for the movie experience, on occasion. That’s definitely not that bad as NY down here in Houston. The advantage of huge huge multiplexes 🙂
I definitely think releasing the DVD is better for the consumer in terms of choice. I have the choice of spending $3 renting a DVD or $6+ per person watching it in theater.
And personally, I LOVE previews. It’s part of the theater experience for me.
Argus,
That Hitchcock is some sort of ‘icon’ for quality cinema is just something that you’ve been told and are parroting back, thinking you’ll have intellectual credibility for going along with mainstream academia. How many Hitchcok films have you actually examined, and how closely, since you’ve decided to attribute that porcine lech with ‘icon’ status.
So bring it on, dude.
Seriously!!
Mighty Sparrow,
Is Shyamalan aware of your blanket declaration that screen-writing workshops are for “no-talent bums”? Then I’ll leave it up to you to make sure he signs up for the next one.
By the way, nice curse words! I liked “shitty”, but “shit”, now that was even better. Such originality, can I hire you as dialogue consultant?
Ang,
I was just responding to the Manish’s assertion that apparently Shyamalan is “a director who works in old-fashioned, well-crafted films which pay homage to Hitchcock”.
Unlike this ‘dhaavak’ you mentioned I haven’t called anyone posting here, unflattering names, nor have I used the sort of offensive language deployed by Sparrow, M.
Take it easy, Brown People.
Having said that, I should apologise for the “Bollywood” remark. I didn’t mean to suggest that Shyamalan would be acceptable to their standards.
I’ve viewed and enjoyed many Hindi films, it’s just those musical numbers, and the running length, and the palettes making me wish I was colour-blind…
Ang saidEven if dhavaak did, once upon a time, call me an ugly, hairy, male something or other…
hey… chauvinism at play … wanted to ward off the leery eyes of them umreeki’s south of the border.. well. it was that or you knocking his teeth out with a karate chop – so I actually did him a favor – although in certain parts of kenya they knock out the front teeth so that in case the guy gets lockjaw, they can still feed him soup – there’s a famous athlete whose name i forget – so were you planning to do him a favor – but all that’s an aside. just wanted to kill time until this guy above me cools down – he seems to be very angry – what do you think he’s angry about?
LOL. Thanks for reminding me dhaavak. Or maybe I’m laughing with glee because your assertion is true and I AM a hideous-looking hairy man.
Alright V. Reddy; take er easy. I don’t care for Shamalayan’s films myself, but I don’t think they’re crap either. And, it’s admirable that he’s made it in Hollywood.
Reddy, can you say “Bitch, be cool?”
dhaavak and Ang,
I’m only angry that with Shyamalan starting off mediocre, and then going downhill from there, prejudiced Hollywood won’t give Desi film-makers who actually offer well-strucutured, groundbeaking work, a chance. Shyamalan’s making the rest of us look bad, because the mainstream assume he’s the best we’ve got. It would have been better if he’d never made it in Hollywood at all.
Mr. Sparrow,
How about “Bitch, be original.” Man, your choice of profanities really pushes the try-hard envelope. You ain’t gangsta, hell, you ain’t even Calypso, so stop taking Mighty Sparrow’s name in vain.
Sucka.
I’m no screenplay-writing workshop instructor or anything, but that’s not bad. The “you ain’t even Calypso” rings a little false, but hey kid, link me when you win your Oscar, or the non-mainstream equivalent award. I’ll even shove it up your ass for you. HA-HA