none of which has to be done in a cinema, the upcoming Blu-Ray remastering, would be a pretty good opportunity to do that, those re-masterings do not need a cinema release.
im going to leave it now, as its clear people dont agree with me.
Repeats in the cinema?
- Thread starter wamdue
- Start date
im going to leave it now, as its clear people dont agree with me.
But are there really "so few" new movies? It seems to me that there are three or four new releases every weekend, which is more than enough "new" movies for the average theater.
Or are you just objecting on principle to the idea of "old" movies in regular multiplexes?
What edition of the video did you have? Up until the Director's Edition came out, all the home-video editions used a print that had washed-out colors due to the limitations of the film-to-video transfer process that was in use when the first video editions of the film were made. So pretty much all the video releases from 1983-2001 would've been visually blander than the film had originally looked in theaters. Maybe that was a factor.
But yes, TMP is definitely the kind of film that would have more impact in the immersive environment of a movie theater. It's the most purely cinematic of all the Trek films.
Again, what does it matter to you if 1 film is taking up a screen out of 10? You don't have to see it, people enjoy seeing films on the big screen, purely because they're on a 20 foot screen rather than their 40 inch screen at home. And are you going to see every new release and wishing there was just more of them?
The video I owned was the 1-8 30th anniversary collection. It had TMP and TWoK on one tape. The print at the cinema was looking like it'd had a bit of a beating over the years but still thought it was great seeing it on the big screen.
Not an American thing at all. I think what he means is it's not usual to find older films showing in the multiplex. Which is where most people see films. There are plenty of place that show older films it's just that these re-releases lately have been playing in the mutliplexes which seems odd to Wamdue, I guess.
Plus, I'm not sure it matters whether people have seen them before. They may just want to see them again--and on the big screen one more time.
Lord knows I've gone to the theaters to see movies I've already seen before . . .
(Not meaning to gang up on wamdue here. I'm just defending the general notion of seeing old movies on the big screen again.)
Well, I don't know about where other people live, but around me the only theaters are multiplexes, and they each have about 18 screens. They can easily spare one of those for a re-release of an older movie.
That said, perhaps older movies, assuming they have not been significantly updated, should be a lower price when they are brought back to theaters.
Oh definitely. I wish there was more showings of older films near me. I've only been able to see The Thing, ST:TMP, Jurassic Park, Back To The Future and the Lion King over the past few years.
The only cinema's near me are multiplexes too, one is kind of an independent and shows a mix of new blockbusters and indie with the occasional older film. There used to be one that showed older movies and newer but a few months old too. But that closed a few years ago. And A cinema that was in the college, which has shut down and now has screenings at one of the multiplexes.
But I do agree, of the cinemas here the smallest is a 7 screen and the largest 11 or 12, I think. They can easily spare 1 screen to show something different, even if it's 1 screen devoted to that purpose.
I am aware that some movies like Rockie Horror, people make a big deal out of it, by dressing up, to add to the experience, which is different to just repeating it at your local multiplex.
that is basically it, and yes it seems odd to me.
Still maybe cinemas need to change, the face ever increasing competition, and the cinema only window is getting smaller, maybe this is the future. (the past apparently being the future)
there are certainly few new ones worth seeing.
^If there are few new ones worth seeing then surely it's better they uses the screens showing older ones that are worth showing, hmm?
One of the reasons I love my local Alamo Drafthouse is getting to see older films on the big screen. I've seen The Shining, The Evil Dead, North by Northwest, Predator, True Lies, Blue Velvet, and Taxi Driver on the big screen, which is how I prefer to see a movie.
but rewatching modern classics, is hardly going to inspire them to make any decent new ones for 3 years time.
Why spend ALOT of money making (for example) The Incredibles 2, when we could just put the first one out again, and tack 3D on the end, and get a bigger return compared to the outlay.
Well, Rocky Horror is a special case, but I think there's still value in seeing something like 2001 or It Came From Outer Space on a big screen again--even if they aren't audience-participation events like Rocky Horror.
And the problem with the "art house only" approach is that, typically, those are only found in big cities, artsy districts, and college towns. So why not show some popular old films in the multiplex once in a while?
These re-releases are a novelty. There will always be a larger market for new movies.
If re-releases weren't profitable, they wouldn't happen. Ever.
Their production costs are, to say the least, substantially lower than those for new films, so fewer tickets over the minimum must be sold for re-releases to be successful (in case this point hasn't been made already).
Their production costs are, to say the least, substantially lower than those for new films, so fewer tickets over the minimum must be sold for re-releases to be successful (in case this point hasn't been made already).
Why should Hollywood stop making new movies? Aren't those profitable?
Given the rarity in which old movies are re-released, it can't often be more profitable to re-release them than to release new films. My point was simply that given that it happens at all, it must occasionally be more profitable than releasing new movies, I believe no doubt in part for the reason I cited.
Given the rarity in which old movies are re-released, it can't often be more profitable to re-release them than to release new films. My point was simply that given that it happens at all, it must occasionally be more profitable than releasing new movies, I believe no doubt in part for the reason I cited.
Last edited:
