Movie Theaters Finally Realizing They Need To Compete With, Not Whine About, Home Theaters

from the about-time dept

For the past few years, as home theaters have grown more and more common, we've seen movie theater owners constantly whining that they just can't compete with home theaters. They complain that if studios start releasing DVDs at the same time as theater runs, no one will come. This, of course, shows a profound misunderstanding of their own business -- which is to provide an enjoyable social experience that convinces people to go out. People can eat food at home where it's much cheaper, but most still go out to eat on occasion as well. They do so because it's a social experience and provides something that can be seen as different and better. So while too many theater owners seemed to think they couldn't offer anything better, it appears that a few of the big chains are at least realizing that if home theater screens are getting bigger, so should movie screens. Both AMC and Regal Entertainment are installing a bunch of new IMAX screens, recognizing that the IMAX experience still beats the home theater one. Now, if only these theaters would start improving other aspects of the theater-going experience as well.

Filed Under: imax, movie theaters, social experience
Companies: amc, regal cinemas

Teen Pleads Guilty For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie

from the crimes-and-misdemeanors dept

Remember Jhannet Sejas, the teenager who was arrested for filming 20 seconds of a movie for the sake of showing her brother that she went to that movie? Apparently, she's agreed to plead guilty, which will get her off without any jailtime, a small $71 fine and an agreement to stay out of trouble for a year (afterwards, the misdemeanor will be taken off her record). It's unclear what this has really accomplished for the movie industry, other than highlighting that you better be careful not to take out a camera in a movie theater. A spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners admits that it's hard for theater owners to police whose filming a movie for distribution and who's just doing it for fun, but then goes on to say that this case "reinforces our efforts to educate the public that unauthorized recording, whether a clip or the whole film, in movie theaters is against the law." Actually, it doesn't do that. It reinforces that theaters have a bunch of ridiculous and costly policies that likely cost more to implement (the article notes that they're rewarding theater employees $500 for each person they catch, which explains why you'll be seeing a lot more theater workers in night vision goggles). However, given that most of the movies you find online are actually leaked by industry insiders rather than camcorded versions (which tend not to be very good anyway), shouldn't there be someone doing a cost-benefit analysis on this? It seems like the educational campaign is quite expensive, makes the theater owners look like a bunch of bullies, and does little to nothing to stop movies from showing up online. Update: Apparently Regal Cinemas pushed hard to prosecute her. How nice of Regal Cinemas.

Filed Under: camcording, movies, mpaa, theaters
Companies: mpaa, regal cinemas

A Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie?

from the disconnect-with-reality dept

For some odd reason, the movie industry has been really focused on the supposed camcorder threat this year. They've been talking it up with completely unsubstantiated numbers and getting various governments to pass stricter laws, making it a crime to record movies. The thing is, it's already against the law in most places. These laws are just much stricter. However, the bigger issue is that camcording is the least of the industry's worries. After all, a large percentage of the movies that are downloadable online aren't from camcorders, but are leaked from Hollywood insiders. More importantly, every movie is available online. You're simply not going to stop movies from getting online by throwing some kids with camcorders in jail. All it takes is for one copy to get online and then it's available to everyone. Stopping 99% of the people putting movies online won't make the movie any less available because all it takes is that one person to get a copy online and it can spread like wildfire. Finally, downloadable movies do not appear to be a substitute for the social experience of going to the movies. We've seen this over and over and over again -- most recently with the Simpsons Movie.

But what happens when you get into the habit of treating your customers like criminals and even get laws past to make it easier to accuse them of crimes? You get ridiculous situations like the story of a 19-year-old girl on her birthday who was having some fun with a video camera to record her trip to the local mall. She and her boyfriend went to see a movie and she decided to film about 20 seconds of it to later send to her brother to convince him to go see the movie (yes, to promote the movie, so her brother might become a paying customer). Instead, she was arrested and now faces fines and jailtime. You would think that anyone would recognize this wasn't a movie pirating situation and let it go -- but instead, the theater owner, Regal Cinemas, is pressing charges, while the MPAA is citing its discredited bogus stats as a reason that this type of action makes sense. It's difficult to see how this benefits the movie business in any way. It's scaring off people from going to the theaters, treating movie fans as criminals and discouraging them from promoting movies to their friends. Plus, on top of it all, a company like Regal Cinemas is making itself look like a bully. This helps the industry how exactly?

Filed Under: camcording, movies, mpaa
Companies: mpaa, regal cinemas