"Brace yourself for DIVX2" (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Jacobson]

Well, the first DIVX was so successful, why not try again?
(Next they should get George Lucas to make "Howard the Duck 2".)

EDIT: I forgot to include that the quote came from Doom9.

 

[TravisR]

I'm sure this won't even achieve the 'success' that DIVX had

 

[Carl Johnson]

This guy just summed up why this format will never work. If Hollywood wants to sell first run movies directly to consumers they would make a hell of a lot more money selling traditional DVDs than they ever could hope to make with this new format.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

So much energy...so many obsolete formats.

Bruce

 

[MarkHastings]

Not that I would support this format, but I would seriously consider something that would allow me to watch a DVD of a new movie (that just hit theaters) in the privacy of my own home.

I for one, can't STAND going to theaters (as do many of you from all the bad theater experience threads), so can you imagine picking up Star Wars III this Thursday and being able to watch it at HOME! and not with the other "freaks" in the theater?

I'm not sure how they can accomplish this without these stupid "Divx" methods, but if handled proprely, I would think it would be a good idea.

 

[Mike~Sileck]

This brings up an interesting idea.

Perhaps in the future movie theaters will become obsolete?

That's a world I wouldn't mind living in, whether I were to buy the disc or download it (though I'd prefer to buy a copy of the disc).

Of course, this would put movie theaters all but out of business, except for smaller theaters that may remain open based on revenue from customers that enjoy the actual experience of a big screen and don't have the money for an elaborate home theater system.



Taking away from this new Divx idea, I think there is a good debate here. Will movie theaters leave us in the future? Would that be a good thing?

mike

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I think that the movie theater has a place in the American landscape of the future if and only if the exhibitor community realises that the "screw the consumer" business model of the past few decades [megaplexes of tiny screens, poor maintenance and projection, &c] is unsustainable and to be abandoned and the studios realise that their "screw the exhibitors" model must be abandoned. I think there is a place for "picture palaces" which serve as social centres as well as providing a standard of picture and sound [70mm, anybody?] which are not readily attainable at home; but for the Suburban Strip Mall 14 I can find no place.


Oh, and:

NO.
:rolleyes

 

[TravisR]

It will be many, many years before movie theaters are obsolete (if ever). A studio can make hundreds of millions on one movie during a theatrical release and still make millions more by selling a movie on DVD too. So why would they would they stop putting movies out in theaters? To make less money?

Probably a lot of people on this board don't like going to a movie theater (I don't particularly enjoy it but I still go maybe once every month or so). Theaters still sell tons of tickets every weekend with or without me. And they will continue to sell them until everybody stops going to the theater. When that happens (which it won't), then they'll close movie theaters and sell movies directly to your house, computer, brain, or whatever

 

[MarkHastings]

Yeah, without movie theaters, where will teens go on first dates?

Seriously, there are still tons of people who love going to the movies, so I doubt the theaters will ever stop making $$. It is unfortunate (as Travis notes) that the theaters can care less about my unpleasant movie experiences since they pack the people in every weekend.

 

[Matt Stieg]

That would be a sad, sad day imo if it ever came. I'm sorry but no matter how great one's home theater system may be, there's a huge difference between watching a DVD and seeing an actual 35 or 70mm print projected on a movie screen. I, for one, love nothing more than seeing a pristine, beautiful print of a classic film projected on a movie screen. Just a few weeks ago I saw Buster Keaton's The General in a movie theater, and it was an experience I would not replace for the most fancy, state-of-the-art home theater system.

Home theaters are great, movie theaters are great. They're two different things and I would not like to go without either of them.

I must say I don't know where some people go to movies where they have such horrible experiences that they don't ever want to go to a movie theater again. I don't how many times I've gone to see a movie theater in my life, but I can honestly say I've only had two or three really awful experiences. Other than that, it's only been the occasional loud whispering or the cell phone ringing; certainly not enough to make me shun movie theaters for the rest of my life.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Well, some of us can only go to the theatres around our area. My husband and I refuses to drive more than 20 miles around our house to get to a movie theatre.

Unfortunately, none of them deserves our hard earned money.

Last but not least, it's not that a home theatre can't replicate a real theatre, but most people don't have the $$ and the expertise to re-create a real theatre at home.

 

[MarkHastings]

Even though it may not be a great as the theater, I prefer the privacy of my home over a public theater. The cons of the theater overshadow the pros.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

How about a home theatre with a proper Silicon Optix line interpolator projecting DVD content using 3-chip DLP? I've witness this set up at Silicon Optix demo room at 80% screen-width distance on a 200" screen and (from memory) I hardly see the difference between that vs the digital projection theatre downtown (both the demo at Silicon Optix and the movie I watched downtown was The Phantom Menace).

Besides, you can look at the most beautiful image in the world, but if you're being bugged by popcorn munching, mobile-phone talking, incessant gabbing, kicking the back of your seat, group of people. All that beauty is lost by the distraction.

Would you rather see the original Mona Lisa in a crowded room full of rude people, or see the textured copy of Mona Lisa in your house? (hint, at the museum, you still can't examine the painting closely anyway, whereas at home, you can examine the textured copy as close as possible).

 

[PeterTHX]

This technology MIGHT be aimed at Academy screeners.

Just a thought.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

If theatrical screenings didn't exist, movies wouldn't get made, it's as simple as that. The production of dvd is a direct response to the success of a theatrical run and likewise, the distribution and marketing of a film is based on the initial response to the movie's screenings. Where would the production financing come from? Who would pay to master and author the discs and how would they get marketed and distributed? Why would anyone take a chance to invest in an expensive film production that would go straight to store shelves without having the chance to make the rounds theatrically first for people to get aqquainted? If it weren't for theatre presentations, independant filmmakers would be out of a job. They're not gonna produce and sell dvd's that nobody's heard of on the internet. Movies just wouldn't get made. If we were lucky, we'd see 20 dtv dvd's a year from lower-budget corporate driven productions adhering to safe and repetetive movie-making that we've all grown tired of. Companies would also be really apprehensive about putting the money into producing anything more than your standard movie-only release with little in the way of supplemental content or extra audio-video features since they'd have no basis as to the viability of their product. Movie theatre ticket sales and reviews generated from film screenings are what secure the production of quality home video discs based on the success and market garnered. Without theatres, movies would suck and so would dvd.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Ther current domestic DVD sales dwafrs the demestic box office intakes.The trend this year continues to tilt toward HT even further and with the news of HD DVD on the horizon, can be any good for the traditional theatrical BO.Hollywood is nerveous, and I'm sure they looking for some alternative ways to make money.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Put flowers on it and a pretty dress all you want, in the end, it's still just crappy, heavily compressed low resolution 480 line interlaced video...the detail just isn't there compared to a film print. GIGO.

Oh, and commercial digital projection isn't really close to ready for primetime either.

-Dennis

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Have you actually witnessed it? I said the exact same thing until I witnessed it first hand.

Besides, it beats paying close to $50 per movie (gas, ticket, refreshment, baby sitter) just for a ticket.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

If you pay $50 to go to a movie, I'd have to say you probably need some work on your accounting.



(you really need to fill up with gas every time you go to a theatre... I didn't realize Scarborough was such a big town!)

 

[Arnie G]

Maybe they drive a RV.:frowning: