AMC Theaters Will No Longer Play Universal Movies After Trolls World Tour's On-Demand Success (theverge.com) 285
stikves writes: Given the highly-successful video on demand release of the recent "Trolls World Tour" movie, and the future plans to sidestep theaters for some content from Universal, AMC has struck back by blanket banning of all their content. "As a result, [NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell] noted that as 'soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats,' meaning some movies would continue with theatrical releases while others would go directly to digital retailers or possibly land on NBCUniversal's new streaming service, Peacock," reports The Verge. "The move led to a lengthy statement from AMC Theatres chair-CEO Adam Aron, who claimed that Shell's comments were 'unacceptable.' 'It is disappointing to us, but Jeff's comments as to Universal's unilateral actions and intentions have left us with no choice,' Aron wrote. 'Therefore, effectively immediately AMC will no longer play any Universal movies in any of our theatres in the United States, Europe or the Middle East.'"
Fighting the future (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of a company fighting the future, this is like an old VHS video store refusing to stock movies.
what will keep theatre's alive is expereince and customer service, bully tactics like AMC only hurt the customers
Re:Fighting the future (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything that puts a wedge between movie studios and movie theaters is a good thing to me, as I can only see it hastening the move to releasing more movies at home faster. While I don't want all movie theaters going out of business, if there were perhaps a third the number of theaters along with better home viewing options that would be ideal. Theaters near me are already renovating to make the movie going experience better (with a slightly increased price) so if I want that extra experience I can go for it, but for the vast majority of movies I am fine viewing at home. Having two young children plays a big part in that decision since I have to add around $75 for babysitting for every date night.
Re: (Score:2)
"add around $75 for babysitting for every date night."
YMMV of course, but to me, that's good value. Fortunately my children are grown up now.
Re: (Score:2)
"add around $75 for babysitting for every date night." -- YMMV of course, but to me, that's good value. Fortunately my children are grown up now.
I was certainly surprised how expensive babysitting is, but mostly because we use adults instead of teenagers for our toddler & kindergartner. It certainly makes sense we would pay close to $20/hr for a 3rd grade teacher to babysit our kids.
The real value has come from us having easy access to a trained teacher who now comes to our house 4 hours per day to help with our kindergartner's e-learning. My wife and I still work from home full time with very demanding jobs, which we can only keep up with norma
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that puts a wedge between movie studios and movie theaters is a good thing to me
I thought these kind of shenanigans in 1940's resulted in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc making this illegal. Does that no longer apply, I wonder?
Paramount blocked forced arrangements, not choices (Score:2)
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc put an end to the studios owning and controlling the theaters. They owned the theaters that sold about half the tickets. For the studios they didn't own, they demanded things like "if you want to show any of our movies, you hage to show all of them". It was about the studios controlling the theaters. Further, they exerted that control in anti-competitive manner. For example, a studio would say a theater isn't allowed to show a movie a certain time because it would
Re: (Score:3)
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc put an end to the studios owning and controlling the theaters. They owned the theaters that sold about half the tickets. For the studios they didn't own, they demanded things like "if you want to show any of our movies, you hage to show all of them". It was about the studios controlling the theaters. Further, they exerted that control in anti-competitive manner. For example, a studio would say a theater isn't allowed to show a movie a certain time because it would compete with a different theater down the street.
So, how is this in any way different from Disney+?
Studio-owned streaming services are straight-up anti-competitive and should be banned. Much like any combination of streaming service and consumer ISP should be banned.
Re:Paramount blocked forced arrangements, not choi (Score:5, Insightful)
Because disney doesn't have leverage on netflix like Universal had leverage on RandomTheaterA that played Universal pictures in competition with UniversalTheaterB?
I dislike the streaming fragmentation as much as anyone but I don't really see how it's as abusive as early theater practices.
Re: (Score:2)
as I can only see it hastening the move to releasing more movies at home faster
I think that's the flaw in your logic. "...while others would go directly to digital retailers or possibly land on NBCUniversal's new streaming service, Peacock..." If you think their movies are going anywhere other than THEIR streaming service I've probably got some bad news for you. And all that means is now you have a, what, 15th streaming service to subscribe to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>It may cost you a fortune to go to the cinema, but me it costs nothing, we have no kids, and I even pay extra for a premium subscription to the cinema so I get free unlimited use of the local new Dolby Cinema and the IMAX cinema.
Really interesting to see how it costs you absolutely NOTHING to go to the cinema yet in the same breath you state you pay extra for premium, so which one is it?
Re: (Score:2)
It is like the person with a gambling addiction explaining his losses in the fact the casino gives him free food and a room.
So he gambled 10k on a vacation that would have costed him 3k. But he didn't have to pay for that 3k directly.
Re: Successful Swastika is Worldwidely Successful! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only partially agree. We should have the movies in the format we want to see. I fully support you getting a streaming release, but I don't at all condone Universal's actions of considering future blockbusters to be straight to internet releases.
That would make it tough for the people who don't live in areas with high-speed broadband to see those straight-to-internet releases. They'd probably have to wait until it came out on disk.
Re: (Score:3)
Then Universal won't book as much revenue in their opening weekend pissing contests. However, I have a feeling that the same people that live in areas without high-speed broadband are also people that live in areas without modern theaters that get opening-weekend releases, so these are people that are having to wait regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
In reality, those people will either wait until a dvd or bluray is available, or (ideally but not going to happen) the ISPs will string out fiber and appropriate bandwidth.
Cable / satellite has the internet ppv movies (Score:2)
Cable / satellite has the internet ppv movies
Re: (Score:3)
Universal didn't say only straight to home (from how I read it), they were planning simultaneous release.
But AMC's reaction was to ban Universal pictures.
This is a classic "cut off your nose to spite your face" move. It hurts them (AMC) more to do this, IMO.
It drives less people to their theaters, more people to competitors, and potentially more people to view from home.
I'm already in the "would rather view from home" boat, and the more people who go that route the worse it is for theaters. So saying they
Re: (Score:2)
I fully support you getting a streaming release, but I don't at all condone Universal's actions of considering future blockbusters to be straight to internet releases.
I also hope we end up with simultaneous streaming and theater experiences eventually, because I would also like to choose the format I see movies in. When I said I felt there would be less theaters, I would hope that is because of less patrons not because of less movies. But there is certainly no guarantee things will work out the way consumers want them to.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still in my 40s, and I seem to remember $20 being normal for like a 4 hour babysitting gig. I know it's gone up, but ~4x in 25 years?
It depends on who you have watching your kids. I don't precisely know the rate for a 15 year old to watch your kids, but it is probably close to $10-12/hr in my area (based on what one relative pays in a similar area). We pay daycare / primary school teachers to watch our kids, so we pay about $18/hr.
You get what you pay for. We pay a bit more than average in our area to make sure we have no problem having our babysitter free up time on our date nights. We are also using our babysitter to help with e-learni
Re:Fighting the future (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of a company fighting the future, this is like an old VHS video store refusing to stock movies.
what will keep theatre's alive is expereince and customer service, bully tactics like AMC only hurt the customers
No. Consumers are getting screwed, but it was Universal that fired the first bullet by saying only "some" of their movies will get theatrical releases.
The future of cinema isn't streaming. The future of DVD and Bluray is streaming. A cinema serves a very different purpose. While I don't think AMC will be very successful here I still support their protest and ultimately fuck universal for deciding not to do cinema releases.
Re:Fighting the future (Score:5, Informative)
Yep - big studios/distributors have been screwing cinemas for a long time. You want to know why your popcorn costs so much? That's how the cinema keeps the books in the black.
Disney's terms are onerous - minimum number of screens, minimum number of sessions, and a HUGE slice of the box office, at least for the first 2-3 weeks of a big release. Cinemas do not make a profit on screenings until week 2 or 3.
And if they don't agree, they don't get films to screen.
Re:Fighting the future (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think it's because the theater business is a bad business model from the past before we all had huge television screens with adequate resolution for content immersion in our homes, do you? Some people even have passable surround sound at home - it's not as good as what a theater has, but it still subtracts from the value proposition of dealing with all the negatives of going to a theater to see a movie:
expensive clock-based pricing strategy (the same movie costs more to see after 7:00p than it does at 4:00p?)
outrageously priced concessions so the theater can stay profitable because the studios' demands
driving somewhere and parking
paying for child care
dealing with other people in the theater that are not courteous theater-goers (read: shitheads)
being on the theater's time table (I can pause at home to pee, or reload on snacks)
being beholden to local regulations, e.g. not being able to have an alcoholic beverage while in a theater unless that theater has a license to serve and manages to have separate 21+ seating to comply
I don't have to deal with any of that bullshit if I stream at home, for less money. I don't have to buy a $14 ticket for each and every person who happens to be in my house - it's a single fixed cost to view. I can pause. I can back up if we missed something. I can have a god damn whiskey. And I still have a large screen with surround sound to view it on.
Re: (Score:3)
dealing with other people in the theater that are not courteous theater-goers (read: shitheads)
That's the killer for me. People are animals. You mean to tell me you paid $14 to see a movie and you're going to chat with each other through the whole movie? Or, god forbid, talk to the movie screen? Are you from 1927 and mystified by our "talking pictures"?
Re:Fighting the future (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to know why your popcorn costs so much?
Because you buy it at that price.
Re: (Score:3)
But I don't. A couple of decades ago the concession prices started to get ridiculous, so I just stopped altogether. Now I just refrain from any eating in theaters and drink from their water fountain before the movie and on my way back to my seat if I have to go to the bathroom during the movie. I also recently stopped going to the theaters altogether except on Tuesdays because they run a discounted price for tickets all day on Tuesdays here.
I actually really, really love seeing some movies on the big scr
Re: Fighting the future (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Direct to video releases has been a thing for ages (on VHS, DVD and BluRay). Already only some of Universal Pictures' movies get theatrical releases, all they have done is expanded that with a Direct to Streaming release (also not new among movie studios, but this might be the first for Universal specifically).
So what is AMC upset about when this is not a new issue? Maybe AMC really need to take a long hard look at themselves and make a good cinema experience rather than just trade on the fact they are big
Re:Fighting the future (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how cinema experience is in other countries, but here in my country, I only go to cinema if I really-really want to see the movie ASAP. And since I rarely go to cinema, I always buy the best there is. VIP lounge all the time. Costs more (comparatively) but the experience is much better than standard variant.
The first advantage is less people in the same room. There are 8 to 12 seats per row, and 8 to 10 rows total, depending on room size. Also, the seats themselves are separated, most seats being couch-style for two people, then there's some distance to next couch. There are some single armchair seats at the edges of each row for single people. The best thing is that not many people choose VIP option, so I never saw more than 60% occupancy. I even went to a couple movies where there were less than 15 spectators - which is awesome. Plus, VIP spectators are usually people who know how to turn off their phones and behave in a civilized manner.
Also: My wife and I have this habit where we pause a movie or episode once or twice at least, and discuss a scene. We can't do that during cinema screening. It's a disadvantage, but not game breaking.
Re: (Score:3)
Direct to video releases has been a thing for ages (on VHS, DVD and BluRay).
Yeah, but direct-to-video releases are (were?) generally reserved for movies that the studios didn't expect to do well due at the box office to poor quality or lack of interest.
Universal doing direct-to-video for some releases (we don't know which ones yet) is them wanting to keep more money for themselves.
Per the WSJ article [wsj.com] linked to in the summary:
With nearly five million rentals in the U.S. and Canada, the digital release has in three weeks generated more revenue for Universal than the original “T
Re: (Score:2)
Why is "wanting to keep more money for themselves" a bad thing when they are the ones laying out the money to create the content in the first place?
Do you think Comcast NBC Universal is a charity? Remember when it used to be a good thing to eliminate inefficiency and "middle-men" ?
amc wants an better cut then giveing up 99% of tic (Score:2)
amc wants an better cut then giving up 99% of the ticket gate to the Universal
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even consider watching movies in a theater. No pause, expensive food, loud patrons, questionable sanitation practices. I'll wait and watch on my 'home theater' which also allows me to pause when my life gets in the way and I have to respond. Will I pay more for day 1 releases to streaming? Sure, but I'll never go to a theater.
So for customers like me the studio has 2 options. Get $2-4 from me months from now, or get $10-20 from me now via streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
They know they are dying and don't know how to stop it. This is just flailing about hoping something works while the CEO polishes his resume.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing kills movie theaters faster than the movie theater "experience". It starts with the search for a parking space, goes over way overpriced snacks and way too loud sound, continues over the assholes who can't turn their phones off and even yakking away on it and doesn't even end in the traffic jam on the way home. And I didn't even talk about the cost in terms of money and time yet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
"We don't like that they are cutting us out on some movies, so we're going to refuse to show ANY of their movies, handing those revenues to our competition and creating further incentive for other studios to market direct and cut us out! What a great plan!"
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with theaters is their advancements are giving less and less return on their values.
Let's go back to 100 years. 1920's
Black and White Moving Pictures. This is a big deal back then. Before the movies, we needed to go to the live theater for a similar performance. Being that they were live actors the show was either limited to quality being the best actors they could get in the local community or limited in who can watch is, as the plays will go on tour. A moving picture can be repeated over
Trolls world tour, in the theater! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution in Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Cinemas became hugely popular because they were introduced long before most homes and most families could afford a TV set of any kind. They became ingrained in our culture as a perfect destination for a date night. As society has changed, none of these things remain true: not only do most homes have a TV of some kind, many of these are large enough to make movie viewing at home a better experience than at the cinema.
Add Coronavirus or similar in to the mix and cinemas and not only have they stopped being culturally significant, they start to be undesirable places to spend time. . They will go the way of roll film cameras, vinyl LPs and record decks, VHS/Betamax VCRs, on and on. (Nearly extinct, with a handful of examples out there for the die-hard fans and for novelty value only).
Cinemas have refused to evolve. They don't have an innate right to existence, as I suspect they are finding out...
Re:Evolution in Action (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sort of the other way around, I don't like cinemas because you /can't/ talk to your friends, discuss what is going on and enjoy the movie as a group, instead you sit and wait for things to be over.. And instead you always end up sitting next to people who get upset when you try and talk. :)
I also like being able to pause to get a drink or something and also to rewind if we miss something..
At home it makes it a much more social, much more involved and interesting experience.
Re: (Score:2)
It's different when you are friends and are part of the conversation, compared to in a theatre where it's somebody you don't know having a conversation you are not involved in.
The other thing I don't like about cinemas is the smell. The sickly sweet popcorn and whatever other junk food they serve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evolution in Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, the "cinema experience" isn't what it used to be, for a bunch of reasons... Prices are outrageous, seats are uncomfortable, there's almost always someone near you who wants to talk through the movie, or eat noisily, or get up and move about right in front of you. None of these are issues when you watch in the comfort of your own home.
You live in a crap society with poor people who have no social norms. For me the cinema going experience is massive comfortable seats, audio and video that I could never even attempt to recreate at home and an otherwise silent pleasant audience.
they start to be undesirable places to spend time
Not sure where you live, but for the 2 weeks at the start of the Coronavirus outbreak where cinema patronage was limited to 50 people at a time by government rules about events they were completely sold out. There's nothing undesirable about them here, there's only something inaccessible.
Cinemas have refused to evolve.
Yours have. That doesn't apply to the entire world. 2 of our local cinemas have recently been refurbished. The addition of Dolby Cinema, the IMAX now has laser projectors, another Dolby Cinema is being built on the south side of town, oh and they started offering craft beer and better seating. You local example isn't universal.
This isn't about a "right to existence" this is about being cut-off by a greedy publisher who wants to bolster their own streaming service with new exclusive releases. I'm surprised people on Slashdot support this shitty behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours have. That doesn't apply to the entire world. 2 of our local cinemas have recently been refurbished.
You local example isn't universal.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's is.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some cinemas out there that have made intelligent moves. I went to one in Dubai which was super high-end - something like 100 dollars for two people, but super comfy seats, huge amount of personal space, limited to maybe 20 or 30 people in the theater, and personal seat-side service for food and drinks. THAT was an experience I’m willing to repeat 5 or 10 times a year - and this from a guy who normally refuses to go near a theater.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe your cinema has the projectors set to the correct brightness (so the bulb life is shorter) and sound that doesn't damage your hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare slashdot support the right for a content producer to determine the means by which they distribute content. This is madness I tell you, madness!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Why do theaters have some entitlement to show movies that other entities paid to create, especially when those other companies have their own distribution network?
It's not like this came out of nowhere - when Comcast bought NBC Universal, this was the most obvious thing that could have been predicted.
How about this one: if physical goods company X sells their product through Walmart, and then opens their own stores and absorbs both the costs and risks of doing so, would you still argue that they are greedy
Re: (Score:3)
The cinema I go to here in Brisbane, Australia (or did before this current mess started) has none of those problems. The ticket prices are very reasonable (I paid less for my last movie ticket than I did for one of the cheap sub deals at the Subway I visited for lunch) and the candy bar prices aren't obscene either. The seats aren't the most comfortable seats I have ever sat in but they are certainly nothing I would label "uncomfortable". And generally people don't tend to make noise during the movie or use
Re: (Score:2)
Your home setup is not the only option. Some people have large screens at home, far more comfortable seating that they got to pick for the qualities they were looking for, sound setups that accurately reproduce the vision of the filmmaker without blowing your eardrums out, the ability to start / stop / play / pause / back up on demand, the ability to eat their own snacks at cost, have whatever beverage they like at cost.
The people that bought these things for their "home theater" are exactly the target mar
Re:Evolution in Action (Score:5, Interesting)
Virus aside, where are the theaters you can visit?
The ones around me put in large reclining chairs (2 next to each other, about 18" between the next set), everyone gets their own arm rests and two cup holders, Some have bars and allow mixed drinks in the theaters. Others have restaurants. One has wait service in the theater (with a dim light by the seat to read the menu, have a burger with you movie).
The seating changes dramatically reduced seating capacity, but I think that was the evolution (they probably weren't filling the seats, so we get a better experience).
The art house theaters haven't done this, they still have tight seating, but you get things like old-school candy adverts and a guy playing piano before the movie (and a super polite crowd of older or "hip" people). This is the classic experience Some offer free popcorn, oh the horror!
And people talking during movies is something I remember since the 1990s, I can't recall a single issue in the past decade.
They do need to bring back intermission for movies over 2.5 hours in length, they would sell more overpriced concessions and it's nice to stretch the legs and use the bathroom without missing something.
I'd like a theater that only shows older movies, ET, Raiders, Star Wars (original reels), Godfather (with an intermission). Have a series showing all of the Top Oscar movies, let people vote about what to show.
Jeez, did I just type all of that? I have laundry to fold...
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S., about 60% of the ticket price goes to the studios [theweek.com]. For blockbuster films, that can be as high as 90%. So the theater really has very little control over pricing. It's not like a supermarket, where one brand of ketchup has to compete on price against another brand, so the ketchup producers have an incentive to lower their price to keep it reasonable for the supermarket and the customer. Thanks to copyright, the movie studios have a monopoly, and they use it to full adva
Re: (Score:2)
Completely correct.
The movie theaters didn't take the threat of large flat screens and HDTV seriously and will end up suffering in the end. Right now, if you have a 55" or larger flat screen TV (they're really cheap nowadays!) and a good home theater sound setup, it blows away most movie theater experiences.
Re: (Score:2)
They became ingrained in our culture as a perfect destination for a date night.
This, I'll never understand. When my wife and I started dating, I took her out to a few movies because "that's what you do on a date". After a while, we discovered that theaters make terrible date venues; if you are truly interested in a person, you want to talk with them, and movies encourage you to disengage from your partner. There are so many activities which are better for dates, where you can focus on each other... dinner, parks, bonfires, breweries...
Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll continue never going to any place that charges $12-$20 per person for watching a movie.
I appreciate the storied history of the institution of movie theaters - but I don't think they really need to be a full industry anymore, past this generation.
Sure - there's still going to be theaters, but they won't be a place you go to see a movie you can't see anywhere else - they'll mostly-small side-rooms of random businesses where you go with a small group, to watch something and mostly to be with that group.
The theater licensing agreements are holding back culture, more than they're advancing culture now. Theaters used to be the place that ALLOWED movies to exist - now they're what holds movies back from really even being shared culture anymore, until months later when they hit wider distribution.
COVID-19 is just a point of acceleration for this dynamic.
Not that theaters were having a bad set of years previously - but most every other entertainment industry has dwarfed their presence for many, many years, and there's no reason for them to hold exclusive rights in the face of what would be a better set of distribution options for everyone.
Theaters of all kinds will always be an important option, culturally - but they haven't been the best first option for everyone for a long, long time, and really don't need to be the exclusive first option by default anymore.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see what first run streaming movies can sell for.
They are up against older movies on pay monthly streaming platforms and piracy. Obviously the nanosecond the PPV stream goes live someone will be ripping it and making a torrent. Hard to say how much these things will force prices down.
Their calculation seems to be based on cinema ticket prices multiplied by 3, I guess on the assumption that 3 people might watch it. Seems steep, there is no cinema to take a cut and streaming video co
Re: (Score:2)
Its A Bold Strategy, Lets See If It Pays Off (Score:3)
I suppose it's somewhat FYGM from Universal's side considering they probably had some agreements with AMC regarding VOD releases, but on the other hand expecing Universal to just sit on their films for half a year just because the theaters are closed isn't particularly realistic.
This doesn't seem to be consistent (Score:3)
How is this different than Disney making a movie for Disney+? Is AMC ready to no longer show movies from Disney?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In either case, it is irrelevant to AMC, as they aren't getting any money. How much is it for a direct to video blu-ray release that never saw theatres?
Re: (Score:3)
What Universal is trying to do is release a movie both at the theaters and on-demand at home at the same time. AMC wouldn't have a problem if they just made a movie for Peacock and a different movie the theaters. Releasing it for both will cut into AMC's take especially since they get more of the gate as the movie runs longer and on-demand will likely for people to keep going after the first week or two.
Well thought out plan (Score:2)
Other studios want money and they'll do digital distribution even if only to cut
Interesting comments for a Slashdot crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
People seem to be supporting a publisher making exclusive content to improve yet another shitty streaming service, and shunning the cinemas that are attempting to boycott them for what ultimately is Universal's anti-consumer actions. And from what I gather it's all because some kid once talked during a movie these people saw.
I'm not sure if Slashdot is not thinking straight, if we now have pro-publisher shills, or if this site has truly changed. In any case I'm incredibly disappointed to see support for fucking Universal and yet another streaming service rent seeking what I previously could pay for by the view at a cinema.
Re: (Score:3)
Those folk can't see past the end of their nose.
It's the studios/distributors who set the terms and prices of the films they supply, not the cinemas. The cinemas have to charge what they can to just make it even, let alone show a profit. If it costs me $12-$15 to see a well-made film on a big screen with 5.1 sound, so be it. And your 70" LED might be nice, but it doesn't really cut it.
It's about time a cinema chain stood up to the studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't see what damned difference it makes since you're not watching those movies otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That literally makes no sense.
Universal is happy for their movie to be released both digitally and in cinemas, it's the cinemas that have decided choice is bad and that if they're not going to make them exclusive to cinemas then the cinemas are going to refuse letting their format be one of the multiple release formats.
The issue of multiple streaming services is a separate issue, it's one that will be resolved in time by market forces. People aren't going to sign up to every single streaming service ever, t
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't put it past Amazon or Netflix to drop a billion dollars for exclusive rights to something like James Bond but we'll see. Exclusivity would give the studio profits and push any pira
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you would accuse the guy selling the oranges (that he grew himself) at a farmer's market of "rent seeking" because he's not allowing a grocery store to get a cut of the profits?
Re: (Score:3)
Directly selling a product
They don't. They're offering you to watch it through an exclusive streaming platform, all the while limiting and reducing options which were available to you previously.
If anyone is rent seeking here it's the theaters
You need to google what rent seeking is. Theaters provide a service, one completely different than what a streaming service provides. Why do you support reduced choice, reduce quality, and the requirement to subscribe to see a damn movie? What's wrong with you? Do you work for Universal or the MPAA? I take it you also like DRM?
I suppose you would accuse the guy selling the oranges (that he grew himself) at a farmer's market of "rent seeking" because he's not allowing a grocery store to get a cut of the profits?
Your UID is wa
Re:Interesting comments for a Slashdot crowd (Score:5, Informative)
Cut off their nose to spite their face (Score:2)
Re:Cut off their nose to spite their face (Score:5, Interesting)
To be honest, cinema's been on the chopping block for a long time and I'm surprised it's taken this long - and having to have a trigger event - for studios to just cut them out. Literally, 10-20 years ago, I was expecting it to happen any day.
And though people will say "Oh, the atmosphere's different", and so on - a projector is a few hundred quid, can be used for everything including video games, takes up no room (just keep a wall blank or put up a pull-down screen), and can give you a huge picture enough for all your family and friends (or, as people are finding out, the entire damn street).
Honestly, I don't have a TV. I have an RPi running tvHeadend and I either: Watch things out and about on my smartphone by remoting into that and streaming them (works perfectly!), watch things at home on the laptop by the same method, or turn on the projector if it's something really special and have it display directly from the Pi / DVD / Bluray / Online / whatever.
People come to my house for games night because I have the projector. People come to watch movies because I have the projector. Hell, I have a popcorn and slushie machines too, they are dirt cheap.
90" diagonal HD screen for less than the price of a 32" TV. And even the 90" TVs are ludicrous prices any more.
And now I can play/stream the movies on their day of release? Bye-bye cinema! The last five times I used them (over the last 10 years), I paid full price for the movie I had been anticipating forever and love (Imitation Game), and then 50p for each of two movies on their release week (deadpool and something else I can't remember). And then GBP5 for me, my daughter and an empty cinema to watch Pets when it first came out, with chips served to a private box.
As you can tell, I literally only go when it's ludicrously cheap or there's a deal on, not the GBP15 per seat, crammed into the first showing, noisy-popcorn-chewing-everywhere showings.
My daughter lives in Spain now, I sent her a projector by post. They put up an old sheet in the garden of the villa they live in and watch movies of a night. I've seen people take mini projectors on camping trips and project on the ceiling of the tent from their smartphone or direct off SD card.
Projectors, soundbars, HD/4K/whatever nonsense, what you like, when you like, however many people you like, where you like, and you can pause it.
Why studios didn't cut out cinemas and deal direct to the public years ago I can't fathom. Hell, "certify" a projector, soundbar, etc. and partner with the manufacturers for a percentage ("As recommended by Universal Studios", "This movie is best played on a Universal Studios certified display like the NEC "), etc.
And now we're reinventing ad-hoc drive thrus. It's a great idea. I'm not sure they ever came to my country, certainly not in my lifetime, but what a great idea - they should partner with a McDonald's drive-thru... come to get your food, eat it with your movie in the parking lot!
Re: (Score:3)
" I'm surprised it's taken this long - and having to have a trigger event - for studios to just cut them out. Literally, 10-20 years ago, I was expecting it to happen any day."
You've been waiting a long time, and it hasn't happened yet.
Why? If a cinema is well-run*, it provides an experience that your home setup can't. It's a social thing - sitting in an auditorium with lots of other people that you *don't* know, jointly experiencing the show.
Asking your friends over to watch a film on your home cinema is g
Re: Cut off their nose to spite their face (Score:2)
Our trips are low-tech zones. Usually phones don't work anyway but the rule is no phones for non-emergencies. Real ones like bleeding to death, not missing a facebook or IG update. The idea of bringing a mini theatre camping has my head spinning.
Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
AMC will be closing most of it's theaters over the next year, and selling the rest off to whoever remains, if anyone.
How much competion does AMC have? (Score:2)
Re: How much competion does AMC have? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How much competion does AMC have? (Score:2)
Universal issues rebuttal (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am an AMC shareholder. (Score:4, Informative)
I read the 10-Ks. Adam Aaron is the only thing keeping the doors open.
He's the one behind the Stubs membership programs and the renovations of older theaters with the better seats (electrical recliners like an expensive car seat with cup holders and a removable arm rest between them, at least in the ones where I live in the midwest.)
This also decreases seat capacity in a given screening room by a third but the better experience allows a slight surcharge. They also reserve about half the seats for online reservations which I use.
I'm not going to say I haven't had a movie ruined by dumb fucking kids on their phones because I have, but it's not the norm and when the experience is as intended and with a movie worth going to see it's not something you can recreate at home (especially for me as I live in an apartment).
I am an introvert and a hermit and I don't go out much but when I have it's been worth it.
Most recently I saw Parasite in February in a mostly packed theater. Tuesday is cheap ticket night. I paid $15/yr to sign up for the middle tier of Stubs, got a credit on my account and a free large popcorn (I don't care but the wife likes it) for my Feb birthday. 2 adult tickets + large popcorn for the Tuesday night show was $5 with the discounts and freebies.
People think theaters make all their money on concessions. That's not true. That's where they make their 2nd most (and at least for AMC they've been adding bars and whatnot and in some areas restaurants where you can order from your seat or have an order in before you even go to the theater and they will bring it to your seat so you don't have to wait in line, although not in my area).
They make the most on the movie exclusivity contracts with the 5 big movie studios and the studios have pushed to tighten that window for decades and if you look on YT you will find that the tail of people who work on big movies is a very long one, that making movies is very expensive, and that for big movies they absolutely will not be able to sustain themselves on your $13/mo Netflix.
AMC has a stupid amount of debt (they don't own most of the theaters but have to lease properties and renovations aren't free) but before CV it looked like they could handle it (at least to me, the untrained amateur investor), now who knows. There are a lot of theaters in malls and Simon Property Group intends to start reopening some of it's malls, maybe that will help.
Fuck the commercials (Score:2)
AMC (Score:2)
AMC owns the majority of movie theaters in Sweden and i hope they die
Wow (Score:2)
AMC in that big a rush to die, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Still don't see the point of movie theaters (Score:3)
Given the cost of going to a movie if I think I will like the movie I can just buy the DVD/Blu-ray when it comes out and spend LESS money and then I own the movie and can watch it again if I want and if I don't like the movie I still saved money compared to going to the theater. It also means I end up with a larger collection of movies over time I can watch.
Gangster on gangster violence (Score:5, Interesting)
shrug...
Two out of touch companies battling it out for slices of a shrinking pie. If this "shelter at home" thing has taught me anything about the movie industry, it has shown that my family really doesn't miss the experience. Big screen TV's are cheap as is a fairly good home theater system. I'm done with those guys.
It's a shame to miss out on the full cinema experi (Score:2)
Goodbye Blockbuster (Score:2)
Everyone but theater operators can see that regular theater/theater experience is going to the same place as Blockbuster. Some Theaters will survive, but they will be a niche; providing a great experience. If you do a pros and cons list of your local AMC theater I would be surprised if you came up with anything in the pros column.
Re: (Score:3)
China & Falsifiable Headlines (Score:2, Insightful)
The headline is a disservice because all we have here is a claim, which rings hollow. Of course they will play Universal blockbusters in the future - what they're doing is called lying. They have almost no downside.
The other problem with the headline is that AMC is Chinese-owned which in the CCP system means that ultimately it's under state control. Since this kind of headline has pro-chaos potential in the markets it should be considered propaganda until proven otherwise.
fine with me (Score:2)
Hey Theatres.. (Score:2)
Thereâ(TM)s a phone call for you from the music industry and Blockbuster Video. They suggested that you get your collective heads out of your asses and get with the times.
Go ahead and stop running universalâ(TM)s movies. They will cry all the way to the bank while you watch your theatreâ(TM)s sit empty.
independent (Score:2)
There is an independent theater near where I live, I was taling to the guy that bought it as a retirement business. He sells great food, looks after his customers it is a great experience to go to his theater.
He explained that he is constantly fighting to find good content to play. If a big movie comes out the local chain theaters expect to get exclusive rights to screen it and shut him out.
I hope this fight with AMC makes it easier for the guy to get his pick of the movies he wants to show while there's st
I discussed this on my Facebook feed the other day (Score:3)
If other theater chains like Regal all agree to block Universal's movies too (as has been suggested they might), then they might have some real bargaining power here. But AMC on their own is going to lose this game of chicken. Their chain was already essentially bankrupt until they got some last minute funding through to stay afloat a little longer.
But regardless? This is just the tip of the iceberg. The *real* issue is Hollywood's inability to adapt to a changing reality. Their business model has always consisted of getting the lion's share of funding to recoup costs of making a film via the theaters showing it exclusively for X length of time. These days, with people having better and better home theater setups and so many movie streaming options? The movie theater experience is still a "good" one, by and large. But its value has lessened. People are going to be choosier about which movies they're willing to pay a premium to see in the theater, especially when they've spent money already on subscriptions to Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime or what-not, and there's so much great original content getting produced there!
Hollywood, IMO, has gotten lazy with the script-writing, which compounds their problem. I can't really say I fault the actors and actresses? I can't even remember the last time I saw a major movie release and said, "Wow..... that acting was awful!" But they often have very little to work with when they're typecast in cookie cutter roles, in movies that just rehash the same ideas that were done several times before.
Personally, I feel like the $4-5 range is just about ideal for what I want to pay for a theater ticket. (Maybe add a few bucks if you want something special from the experience like the theater seats that rumble with explosion sounds, or the 3D movies or what have you?) But I've gone to several movies when T-Mobile did those $4 or $5 passes via their "Tuesdays" promos for their customers, and I never regretted any of those. At that price, the movie can be "entertaining but really just kind of average" and you're still not gonna complain. But with our local AMC theater charging more like $14-15 a ticket? It's a major expense to take the whole family (5 of us here) to see something -- and that's before you get screwed over on the concessions.
I don't think the theaters hold much of the blame. They're just held hostage by Hollywood demanding so much money for rights to show the films. But they're in a lose, lose situation if they can't work out deals for some alternate sources of content.
mod parent up! (Score:3)
Most the acting and production is great these days (at least for the budget spent.)
The stories largely suck and the CG is used as eye candy filler... it's junk food for the mind made to appeal to the broadest palate possible. Good creators trying to survive are more like a magic act in that they attempt to distract you as much as possible so you do not notice your smartphone, plot holes, tropes, cartoon physics and unrealistic CG (sorry but it mostly looks quite fake.) Besides, who can risk a slow movie w