Narnia books without the Pevensie kids. Too risky to film?

[Professor Zoom]

It maybe strange, but that's the nature of the movie business today.

Yes, I know things have changed. I haven't been living in a damn cave. But surely people are permitted to look at the ways that things have changed and ask whether they really NEED to have changed in that specific way, even if it's just a philosophical musing. Haven't any of you ever looked at the way things are and wondered if there could be a better way?

Sure. I have. But, I also know they aren't going BACK to the way they were.

If anything, I imagine simultaneous DVD and film release--like Soderbergh tried a few years ago with a small movie.

I guess, I'm not sure WHAT it is that you asking, other than musing. If it's just musing, then it doesn't seem to require an answer from us, and it was merely rhetorical.

But, it didn't seem like that.

It's not philosophy. It's business. The business changed. The blockbuster came in. And then the blockbuster has to compete with the new release of Halo and big flat screen TVs. The movie industry responded in THIS way. Could they have responded in another way, sure. But, the response seems to have mirrored what happened when TV came to prominence. Give the audience BIGGER, MORE COLOR, stories they can't see on TV.

And you don't have to get annoyed. I didn't know you were just musing. You are ABSOLUTELY permitted to ask questions, to muse as it were, but then don't be surprised if people try and ANSWER your question.

Perhaps you asked the wrong question... Maybe it should be: in the reality of today's business, is there a better way to mitigate expectations of opening day box office? To keep movies in theaters longer to find an audience?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ If so, you're probably fighting the "per screen average" that even boxofficemojo reports. Theaters are more likely to present a new release, with the higher potential of a greater per screen average, rather than let a middling release take up valuable space in the complex. I suppose studios could subsidize theaters in some way, to provide incentives for keeping certain titles in the public eye longer than usual. But that would be a ... remarkable ... development.

 

[chrisspringob]

Things change, 50 years ago when you were a kid there were less movies, less TV channels, home movies were a sci-fi thing, no internet.

No need to be insulting. For your information, I'm 42 and I'm referring to the status quo as little as 25-30 years ago.

And your counterargument is too facile. I'm perfectly aware that things change, and I acknowledged as much. My point is that I'm not convinced that it's necessary for the change to have been taken to the extreme that it has been, this insistence on an all-or-nothing gamble on a film's first three days of release rather than basing expectations on its performance over a few weeks, say. Like I said, I'm looking for a healthy middle ground between the extremes.

I would frame the situation a bit differently from that. It's not that a dollar earned in the first weekend is more important than one earned in the second or third. It's that the box office patterns for big budget wide releases is now largely pretty predictable, such that you can make a reasonable guess as to how much it'll ultimately make just based on the first few days of box office returns.

For example, less than $100 million total domestic would be disappointing for a movie with this kind of budget. It only made $24.5 million in its first weekend. Every other movie released this year with less than $30 million in its first weekend ended up making less than $100 million:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm

Ergo, this will likely make less than $100 million. The total number is the important one, but the first few days already give us enough info to make reasonable predictions about the total number.

Occasionally, you get breakout hits like Avatar that gross far more than you would expect given the opening weekend numbers, but that's not very likely to happen with a sequel.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps you asked the wrong question... Maybe it should be: in the reality of today's business, is there a better way to mitigate expectations of opening day box office? To keep movies in theaters longer to find an audience?

Thank you, that's a good way of asking it. It just seems like taking things to a drastic extreme to bet the farm on a single day or a single weekend. And extremes are rarely healthy.

And maybe this is just musing, but I do wish there were a way that movies could stay in theaters longer, even if it were just the discount second-run theaters. Seeing a movie on TV at home isn't quite the same, although I guess modern HDTVs make it a lot closer than it used to be. But sometimes I'd like to see a film in theaters and just don't have the opportunity while it's there. For instance, I've never seen Avatar. When it was in theaters, I was too broke for the indulgence of moviegoing, and by the time I got out of the hole, it was gone. And I'm hesitant to rent the DVD because I don't have an HDTV and wouldn't be getting the full experience. (Since I gather the visuals are pretty much the only thing making it worth seeing.)

I would frame the situation a bit differently from that. It's not that a dollar earned in the first weekend is more important than one earned in the second or third. It's that the box office patterns for big budget wide releases is now largely pretty predictable, such that you can make a reasonable guess as to how much it'll ultimately make just based on the first few days of box office returns.

For example, less than $100 million total domestic would be disappointing for a movie with this kind of budget. It only made $24.5 million in its first weekend. Every other movie released this year with less than $30 million in its first weekend ended up making less than $100 million:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm

Ergo, this will likely make less than $100 million. The total number is the important one, but the first few days already give us enough info to make reasonable predictions about the total number.

Occasionally, you get breakout hits like Avatar that gross far more than you would expect given the opening weekend numbers, but that's not very likely to happen with a sequel.

Okay, that's the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Still, it's possible to rely too much on statistical trends. Statistics can be useful at making predictions, but predictions are just models, and models need to be checked against hard evidence.

After all, there can be such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the first weekend's returns aren't as big as hoped, maybe that will lead to bad word of mouth that will deter people from seeing the film when they otherwise might have, or maybe it will make theaters more likely to drop the film prematurely and thus deprive it of the chance to earn more.

 

[I Grok Spock]

It's not that a dollar earned in the first weekend is more important than one earned in the second or third.

Actually, it is. The production company gets less of the box office as the movie's run progresses. If the movie doesn't make big money that first week or two, the studio's ability to earn out comes under increasing pressure as the theaters take a growing percentage of the take.

 

[chrisspringob]

It's not that a dollar earned in the first weekend is more important than one earned in the second or third.

Actually, it is. The production company gets less of the box office as the movie's run progresses. If the movie doesn't make big money that first week or two, the studio's ability to earn out comes under increasing pressure as the theaters take a growing percentage of the take.

Well yes, actually I did know that.

But that's a complication I was glossing over. The point is that the total number of dollars that actually go to the studio over the long haul is what matters. But you're right. The number of dollars they get per dollar spent on a ticket drops off over time.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Okay, that's the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Still, it's possible to rely too much on statistical trends. Statistics can be useful at making predictions, but predictions are just models, and models need to be checked against hard evidence.

After all, there can be such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the first weekend's returns aren't as big as hoped, maybe that will lead to bad word of mouth that will deter people from seeing the film when they otherwise might have, or maybe it will make theaters more likely to drop the film prematurely and thus deprive it of the chance to earn more.

Hollywood has been doing this sort of statistical analysis for a very long time; by now, they've analyzed so many films that their models are amazingly precise.

Word of mouth is the one variable that can vary things a bit, but Hollywood has a fairly accurate measure of that too (CinemaScore). And word of mouth, unless it's in limited release, will never raise you above your initial weekend, it just governs the rate of decline.

 

[chrisspringob]

Okay, that's the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Still, it's possible to rely too much on statistical trends. Statistics can be useful at making predictions, but predictions are just models, and models need to be checked against hard evidence.

Sure. The evidence so far is the box office returns from the first three days. Comparing those against what similar movies did in their first three days, and where they ended up in the end, it doesn't look good. But it's not like you have to consider this a final judgment. If, three weeks from now, the movie's business picks up dramatically, we can revise our assessment. But based on what we know right now, it doesn't look promising.

After all, there can be such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the first weekend's returns aren't as big as hoped, maybe that will lead to bad word of mouth that will deter people from seeing the film when they otherwise might have, or maybe it will make theaters more likely to drop the film prematurely and thus deprive it of the chance to earn more.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that news stories about box office #s drive people's moviegoing decisions. Sure, you have a few record breakers like Titanic and Avatar, where they make so much $ that it becomes a big news story, which in turn provides more publicity for the movie. But for most movies, I doubt it makes any difference. "Word of mouth" matters, but that's "word of mouth" of people who've actually seen the movie, not word of mouth of people who just read a news story about the ticket sales numbers.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, it is. The production company gets less of the box office as the movie's run progresses. If the movie doesn't make big money that first week or two, the studio's ability to earn out comes under increasing pressure as the theaters take a growing percentage of the take.

Then maybe that policy is the problem. If it were changed, maybe there wouldn't be quite so much pressure for films to perform quickly or get yanked early.

Hollywood has been doing this sort of statistical analysis for a very long time; by now, they've analyzed so many films that their models are amazingly precise.

Doesn't change what I said. A reliable model is still a model, and it's important not to confuse the map with the territory. Statistics are not facts. They don't tell what will happen like some sort of crystal ball. They just define probabilities. They should be relied on to the extent that they're reliable, but that means using them in concert with hard data, not in place of it.


EDIT: Okay, this is odd. Zap2It is claiming that Voyage of the Dawn Treader is airing right now on Disney XD. When I saw that, I thought "Good grief, they must've given up on this film's chances in the theaters." But I just checked, and it looks like they're actually showing TL,TW&TW instead. Which makes a lot more sense.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Actually, it is. The production company gets less of the box office as the movie's run progresses. If the movie doesn't make big money that first week or two, the studio's ability to earn out comes under increasing pressure as the theaters take a growing percentage of the take.

Then maybe that policy is the problem. If it were changed, maybe there wouldn't be quite so much pressure for films to perform quickly or get yanked early.

I do wonder WHY those contracts are that way. Have they ALWAYS been? I don't know.

It used to be that studios OWNED the movie theaters as well... and that was broken up in the 50s... or was it the 40s? Don't remember.

I guess a question I have: why do you want to change it? Besides being able to catch a movie in the theater months after it opened?

What would be the financial reason to change back?

I get that it would be an opportunity for some movies to find and audience and break even or make a profit, but DVD accomplishes that.

Edited to add: And sometimes movies NEVER find an audience. for a variety of reasons....

Hollywood has been doing this sort of statistical analysis for a very long time; by now, they've analyzed so many films that their models are amazingly precise.

Doesn't change what I said. A reliable model is still a model, and it's important not to confuse the map with the territory. Statistics are not facts. They don't tell what will happen like some sort of crystal ball. They just define probabilities. They should be relied on to the extent that they're reliable, but that means using them in concert with hard data, not in place of it.

One could argue that each and every time they open a movie they get new information to adjust models. Once a movie opens, projections become facts. And they can compare.

 

[stj]

The Friday box office recepits are the hard data Hollywood marketing models use. Blasting the models is like stubbornly insisting that the Nielsens are all nonsense. The marketing models are good enough that movies rarely lose money. They "merely" don't make it back until after the broadcast rights and DVD sales come in. But the longer turnover time means an effective lower profit rate. And, of course, the blockbusters' shorter turnover time means that the effective profit rate is much higher. Studios can budget movies like Serenity so that they don't lose the studio money, but it's like investing in treasuries: Safe but low profit.

Even so, the marketing models do not blind studios to the rare movies that pick up audience as time goes on. Certainly not in the spectacular examples like Titanic or Batman Begins. But consider a more modest hit like The Lake House, which was not a spectacular performer, but stayed in the top ten for week after week, while most movies rapidly descend the charts. Real production costs are often completely secret and always dubious, but it's even possible that a movie like The Lake House had a higher profit rate than some of the blockbusters. But it's the blockbuster hits that provide the mass of the profits.

The kicker is, that a studio can no more reliably produce higher profit rate, but lower total profit, movies than it can reliably produce blockbusters. So, the studios chase after the blockbuster. There is also creative accounting at work, in which alleged production costs end up being siphoned into profit. The swollen budgets of the blockbusters favor such chicanery, or perhaps I should say, cause the swollen budgets. I suspect this is very important but barring an army of forensic accountants couldn't prove it.

For the audience, the important thing is that the chase after the blockbuster is a major economic incentive for imitation. The reporting on the Friday box office and the emphasis on the grosses is partly the news media reporting for the business community instead of the masses, but it appears that some people seem to think the grosses tell us which are the must-see movies. LIke calling a book a best seller, calling a movie a hit is supposed to be good advertising. I guess this works, but it's sort of embarrassing for people if it does.

The only structural reform that seems likely to help would be to change the distribution system. The studios got out of theater management because it was too challenging balancing the need to keep the movie in the theater with the need to get a bigger audience, something the new movie always has the potential to do. The theaters will have the upper hand on divvying the profits with longer term movies because the long term occupancy of a theater is basically a seller's market. There are only so many screens after all. The theaters will want to have the big audiences that usually come for the new movie, instead of the steady but smaller audiences, because most of their profits come from concessions.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The only structural reform that seems likely to help would be to change the distribution system. The studios got out of theater management because it was too challenging balancing the need to keep the movie in the theater with the need to get a bigger audience, something the new movie always has the potential to do.

Actually, they got out because they were forced out by an anti-trust suit... United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131

 

[Christopher]

I guess a question I have: why do you want to change it? Besides being able to catch a movie in the theater months after it opened?

It just seems unfair to me to judge things too quickly. Too many people these days feel they need to rush to instant conclusions about everything. The value of reserving judgment and waiting for more information has been forgotten. I don't think that's healthy. I just don't see what the damn hurry is.

And I just think it's silly to look at the number one movie of the week and call it an abject failure rather than a relative success. There's got to be a middle ground between huge success and total disaster. Most of reality lies in the middle ground, but our society conditions us to see everything as dualistic, all or nothing, black or white. I think that's misguided.

What would be the financial reason to change back?

I get that it would be an opportunity for some movies to find and audience and break even or make a profit, but DVD accomplishes that.

DVD isn't a perfect replacement for theaters. You don't get the same experience. And what if you can't afford to shell out the money to buy a DVD? Not every movie is easy to find for rental. DVDs and theaters should complement each other. And the idea that theaters are a disposable luxury because we have DVDs now just strikes me as sad. It's just not the same.

 

[Jetfire]

I am not sure what movie theater you are going to...but if you cannot afford to buy a DVD or at least rent it...then you sure as hell can't afford to go see a movie in a theater.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I guess a question I have: why do you want to change it? Besides being able to catch a movie in the theater months after it opened?

It just seems unfair to me to judge things too quickly. Too many people these days feel they need to rush to instant conclusions about everything. The value of reserving judgment and waiting for more information has been forgotten. I don't think that's healthy. I just don't see what the damn hurry is.

Time is money. If a movie isn't bringing in money, and there are other movies ready to come in, or a movie that IS taking in movie, you can put it on another screen.

My wife was just in a movie that opened in 18 cities. Small budget. And basically, the movie theater owner promised a week, and if the results were good, then he would extend it.

It lasted a week. Attendance was below 10%. This was a movie primarily aimed at a South Asian audience. And perhaps, he could have waited for them to find the movie, while losing a screen and money, or put on a new movie.

It's not about art, it's about money. And the business model has changed.

And I just think it's silly to look at the number one movie of the week and call it an abject failure rather than a relative success. There's got to be a middle ground between huge success and total disaster. Most of reality lies in the middle ground, but our society conditions us to see everything as dualistic, all or nothing, black or white. I think that's misguided.

If the two previous entries in your franchise both opened with MORE than 50 million dollars and this one opened at 25 million, well, that's not a relative success, really. Yes. It's the number one movie, but the Tourist ALSO was a failure. Both of these movies has 100 million to 150 million dollar budgets. It's going to take a LONG time to recoup.

But, I understand what you're saying, the modest success story... and that, I think you should look at the more sleeper hits or independents that make it through to the mainstream, those are the modest hits.

But a movie with a 150 million dollar budget, family friendly, a part of a somewhat successful franchise, should've done better.

What would be the financial reason to change back?

I get that it would be an opportunity for some movies to find and audience and break even or make a profit, but DVD accomplishes that.

DVD isn't a perfect replacement for theaters. You don't get the same experience.

No you don't. But, for every big screen and awesome sound system, you get annoying teens, over priced candy, a billion ads.

So, for some, it becomes a trade off.

And with big flat screen TVs and sound systems... it's not such a HUGE difference.

And what if you can't afford to shell out the money to buy a DVD? Not every movie is easy to find for rental.

In New York and LA, if you can't afford the DVD, you probably can't afford to see it in the movie theater. It's almost 12 in New York. It's around 11 in LA. And that's for one person.

What if you're on a date? You're spending 20 bucks just for the movie. I can buy most things from Amazon for that price.

And with netflix, blockbuster, and redbox, there are VERY few movies that are not available for rental. And those would be obscure or foreign films. Both most likely not playing at your local multiplex.

DVDs and theaters should complement each other.

How do you see that? I'm curious.

They've added previews on DVDs of upcoming theatrical releases. Even coupons.

But, I don't think that's what you mean.

And the idea that theaters are a disposable luxury because we have DVDs now just strikes me as sad.

Nothing is going to replace going to a movie theater. Like going to see a play. Someone will always want to go.

And I don't think people are looking at movies as DISPOSABLE. People have MORE things to spend it on. (if they have it at all) So, those selling entertainment (the movie theaters, the playhouses, Xbox, etc) are competing for your dollar. And a part of that competition is getting in new product and being efficient with the "shelf space", ie, number of screens.

It's just not the same.

Nope. It's not. Times change. It's never the same.

I'm sure in the 1980s, when the summer blockbuster started, someone who grew up watching movies in the 40s and 50s said, it's not the same, what happened to the movie palaces? Well--why have one screen when you can have 20?

 

[CaptainCanada]

The value of reserving judgment and waiting for more information has been forgotten. I don't think that's healthy. I just don't see what the damn hurry is.

Time is money. If it's not making money now, and there's absolutely no indication that it's going to start doing so later on, theatres aren't going to.

It's in the interest of theatres to keep a movie around if it builds an audience, since their ticket percentage goes up the longer a movie stays in theatres (hence, why they loved Avatar and Inception). But audiences just don't work like that, for the most part - I can't recall an occasion where a 2000s blockbuster made more money one week than it did the previous week.

And I just think it's silly to look at the number one movie of the week and call it an abject failure rather than a relative success.

It's a movie with a $100+ million budget that made about a quarter of that domestically, and about a third of the gross of the first movie despite a half-decade's price inflation and 3D. That's a failure.

 

[stj]

The only structural reform that seems likely to help would be to change the distribution system. The studios got out of theater management because it was too challenging balancing the need to keep the movie in the theater with the need to get a bigger audience, something the new movie always has the potential to do.

Actually, they got out because they were forced out by an anti-trust suit... United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131

Obviously, correct. I had trouble remembering the details and was too lazy to look it up.

• Clearances and runs, under which movies were scheduled so they would only be showing at particular theatres at any given time, to avoid competing with another theater's showing;
• Pooling agreements, the joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios;
• Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding;
• Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and
• Discrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains.

So-called independent studios or productions were largely independent of a theater chain to show their movies. Technically, there was no need for the studio's theater chains to engage in the restraint of trade practices listed in the citation above. Except, in practice, managing the theaters to maximize theater profits while also maximizing studio profits was much easier by those methods.

Or to put it another way, unlike banks demanding the end of Glass-Steagall restrictions on financial operations, the studios aren't eager to go back into the movie theater business.

 

[Christopher]

I am not sure what movie theater you are going to...but if you cannot afford to buy a DVD or at least rent it...then you sure as hell can't afford to go see a movie in a theater.

How do you figure that? DVDs and Blu-Rays typically run from 30 to 40 dollars. A movie ticket where I live is no more than $8.50.

Besides, as I already said, not every movie is available for rental. Netflix or Blockbuster doesn't have every conceivable title available. Rental is not a perfectly reliable means of obtaining movies. It is naturally better if there are multiple non-ownership options available, because you can't assume that a limitation in one delivery system (e.g. theaters) will be inevitably and perfectly compensated for by another. Options are good to have.

Time is money. If a movie isn't bringing in money, and there are other movies ready to come in, or a movie that IS taking in movie, you can put it on another screen.

I don't understand this assumption that I need to have the obvious explained to me. It is possible to understand the way things work and yet have enough imagination to be able to simply wonder if there might be another way of doing things. The people who wonder, rather than just spouting glib bromides and settling for the way things are, are the only ones who ever change anything for the better.

DVDs and theaters should complement each other.

How do you see that? I'm curious.

See above. It's good to have multiple options. Differences are good and should be cultivated. Different ways of delivering entertainment have different advantages and drawbacks, and appeal to different segments of the population. So everyone's better off if there are multiple options to choose from.

Nothing is going to replace going to a movie theater. Like going to see a play. Someone will always want to go.

And that's exactly my point. Someone will always prefer to see a movie in the theater, but a system that requires you to get to the theater really, really quickly or miss out altogether is unfair to people like me who like going to the theater but can't necessarily do it at a moment's notice. People who are on a limited budget and have to pace out their theater visits, people who are busy and only get occasional opportunities to go to a theater, people who prefer to wait until the crowds have thinned out, whatever. I've missed the chance to see a lot of movies in the theater because they just don't stay there long enough anymore.

 

[Admiral_Young]

A movie ticket in Vancouver averages about $13.50...if you want to attend a cheap theater then you're paying $9.50 or so. I'm on a limited budget and maybe attend five or six films a year and buy even less DVD's. I do think theaters and DVD's compliment each other in the sense that you go to a see a film first in it's theater release and you get a chance to buy it a few months later (sometimes shorter depending on the film). I'm curious though too about what you mean by complimenting each other.

I also tend to agree with you Christopher about judging projects before they even come out but the fact is that is what the internet has given fans the ability to do. We get a blurb about a title or a short bit about the plot and then we discuss it to death until the studio releases more information or pictures. In my opinion it is just a marketing ploy on the theaters part to generate discussion. It is difficult for a fan not to give their own honest opinion on a given project despite having so few additional facts. I don't think that's a wrong thing, it can be frustrating but like I said it's the technology that has allowed us this in the first place.

I remember when I was a kid that I wouldn't know about a movie until I saw it listed in the newspaper or saw the TV spot. Now we almost get to follow the entire course of production online from the moment it's announced. Things have changed.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I am not sure what movie theater you are going to...but if you cannot afford to buy a DVD or at least rent it...then you sure as hell can't afford to go see a movie in a theater.

How do you figure that? DVDs and Blu-Rays typically run from 30 to 40 dollars. A movie ticket where I live is no more than $8.50.

You are buying REALLY expensive DVDs.

Knight and Day, which just came out, is listed on Amazon for 16.99.

That would be the same price as you and a date going to a movie.

Besides, as I already said, not every movie is available for rental. Netflix or Blockbuster doesn't have every conceivable title available.

I don't if you're being honest with this criticism or not. According to Wiki, Netflix has 100,000 titles.

So, maybe, if you want to be SUPER strict, yeah, probably not EVERY conceivable movie. But, most likely, if it's in print, they probably have it.

At reasonable prices.

Rental is not a perfectly reliable means of obtaining movies. It is naturally better if there are multiple non-ownership options available, because you can't assume that a limitation in one delivery system (e.g. theaters) will be inevitably and perfectly compensated for by another. Options are good to have.

Sure. But, if the main delivery system, the theaters, aren't producing a profit, then you turn to other delivery systems to try and cover costs

Time is money. If a movie isn't bringing in money, and there are other movies ready to come in, or a movie that IS taking in movie, you can put it on another screen.

I don't understand this assumption that I need to have the obvious explained to me.

I'm sorry, but, you keep repeating your question OVER and OVER. And a bunch of us are giving you the answer as to WHY it is NOW. So, forgive us, but it seems like you are missing the obvious.

It is possible to understand the way things work and yet have enough imagination to be able to simply wonder if there might be another way of doing things.

Then PLEASE talk about the other ways. You keep going back to how things USED to work, and that's seems to be the end of it.

In THIS DAY AND AGE, what would be a better way of doing it? With rising ticket prices, and the ease of streaming, many people are turning to the internet (like Netflix streaming).

What would you LIKE to see happen?

The people who wonder, rather than just spouting glib bromides and settling for the way things are, are the only ones who ever change anything for the better.

I actually don't think I'm "spouting" anything. And I'm certainly not settling for the way things. I AM however, recognizing that the way things were done 20 years ago, aren't going to come back.

There is much larger push for faster delivery to the home. Either more immediate DVD release, or, and I personally think, streaming. Look at TV on Demand.

Those are the future.

I also don't think there's a problem to be solved, ie, movies that aren't successful staying in the theater for long. That doesn't bother me.

It's not about settling for me, I'm just not sentimentalizing the past, like I think you are.

How do you see that? I'm curious.

See above. It's good to have multiple options. Differences are good and should be cultivated. Different ways of delivering entertainment have different advantages and drawbacks, and appeal to different segments of the population. So everyone's better off if there are multiple options to choose from.

Right. So... I'm not sure what your complaint is. The current state, which you say we are settling for, is movie theaters, online, dvd, LOTS of options to get movies in front of viewers.

So, what's your complaint?

Nothing is going to replace going to a movie theater. Like going to see a play. Someone will always want to go.

And that's exactly my point. Someone will always prefer to see a movie in the theater, but a system that requires you to get to the theater really, really quickly or miss out altogether is unfair to people like me who like going to the theater but can't necessarily do it at a moment's notice. People who are on a limited budget and have to pace out their theater visits, people who are busy and only get occasional opportunities to go to a theater, people who prefer to wait until the crowds have thinned out, whatever. I've missed the chance to see a lot of movies in the theater because they just don't stay there long enough anymore.

Well. Yeah. You're 42. I hate to say it, as I'm getting there as well: We aren't the target demographic for blockbusters. We're PAST the target age. We're at an age where we ARE careful with our money. We aren't going to be buying gobs and gobs of merchandise. They aren't actually AS interested in us as someone who is 25.

But, again, I'll ask, how would you change the system to make it PROFITABLE for movie studios and theaters to keep films in longer that aren't making money hand over hand--like Avatar? What do you suggest?