"Brace yourself for DIVX2" (1 Viewer)

[Kelly Grannell]

Really? Let's count this:

1. Ticket $10
2. Popcorn and such $8
3. Baby sitter for 3 hours $30 (not some high-school kid)
4. Gas (40 Kms both ways) $3.80

not $50? That's right, it's actually more than $50... it's $51.80

Check your reality before attacking someone.

 

[Anthony Clifton]

Your statement implies that everyone pays $50 to see a movie in a theater every time. Simply not true. Not everyone has kids or has to pay a babysitter or feels the need to stuff their face with overpriced confections.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Then your command of the English language have to be upgraded. Never I mentioned that EVERYONE pays $50 to see a movie. I'm talking about MY experience. Nobody implies anything.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

PS: Even if I don't feel the need to "stuff my face" with any food, it still will make me spend $42 for a movie.

Thank you for your very nice comment about (I'm paraphrasing here) "stuffing my face with food". How very gentlemanly of you. Maybe you should learn some manners.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Kelly, I wasn't attacking you, it was obviously tongue-in-cheek.

And who really goes to a gas station and asks for $3.80 worth?


Ticket - $10

Snacks - $8


Perhaps, but hiring a babysitter and anything else has no relevance to the price or cost of seeing a movie. That's just an element of being a parent, in a few years you won't have to deal with that anymore.

Why not ask a brother/sister, aunt/uncle, etc. to stop by for a few hours one evening so you and your husband can catch a quick movie and dinner?

Anyways, I was just pointing out that people do not pay $50 to see a movie, that's a bit of an exagerration...

 

[MarkHastings]

LOL - Poorly chosen? I think not. If you are implying that "freaks" was used as a bad word, then you don't know the meaning of 'freak'. I am PROUD to be a Star Wars freak, but that doesn't mean I want to see the movie with my other fellow "freaks".

Also, in order to see the movie with people who are quiet, I have to go to the midnight showing (on Thurs. night). I would rather see it on the weekend, but forget trying to watch it in peace then :rolleyes

 

[Thomas Newton]

Any place where they show TV-style ads. Any place where they show propaganda implying that the customers who just paid $9+ each are freeloaders and criminals.

If I want the "experience" of broadcast TV (or worse), I can stay at home and watch that for free.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Right now I have seven different devices that will play a DVD. How would I ever remember which one such a disc is authorized for???

 

[SteveCallas]

You also have to take into account that if you don't get to the theater early enough, you get stuck sitting either way too close to the screen, or right up against a side wall, thus ruining BOTH sound and picture quality. Also, I have never been to a single theater in my life that can come anywhere close to delivering sound as good as a decently set up home theater system. I've never felt any

 

[MarkHastings]

This is true. When I saw "The Incredibles" in the theaters, the middle channel was so low, you couldn't hear it. I also saw "Meet the Parents" and the sound was so low that the audiences laughter over powered the VO and I missed SO much dialog.

So how does a giant screen make the experience "better" (in these particular cases)?

Also, considering the ratio of most HT's compared to theaters, why does a HT screen have to be just as big as the theater? How does sitting 50 ft. away from a theater screen become better than sitting 10 feet away from a big screen tv?


I guess what we are saying is, if I can see a movie (in the theaters) through "optimal" conditions, then YES, I will agree that it is better than any HT system, but when does that ever happen? 1 time out of 100? 1,000? - I can't ever recall optimal conditions when going to the theater.

 

[Vader]

Again, in your opinion. I will take my HT over a theatrical presentation anytime... I would love it if first run films came directly to DVD, completely bypassing the theaters (which would then slip into oblivion). Only for certain films that I am unwilling to wait for will I mortgage my home (+ car if I want popcorn) to see in the theaters. Even then, I will see it only once, and wait for the DVD. Maybe I am too easy to please, but the 480p picture on my 65" display at a viewing distance of about 10' can look absolutely gorgeous, and I have never heard theatrical sound that can come close to my HT. As an example, theatrical DTS is the reason I didn't jump into the home version for so long. In the theater, it is much too loud and harsh for my tastes. Thankfully, the home version is a completely different animal (one which I swear by). And that is with what I consider to be a solid "mid-fi" system (which does not even begin to compare with most of the systems on here)...

Back in the late 80's/early 90's, I was a projectionist for a major theatrical chain (I won't mention which, but it is sill in operation). To start with, the projector lamps were run at 70% of optimal to save on lamp life. Also, the surrounds were not even close to being correct (a fact that I brought to the attention of management... and was blown off). At the time, my HT consisted of LaserDisc (Pio CLD-3030) on a 27" Mistu via a NEC PLA-710 surround amp, seated on a beanbag 5' away.... and that still out-did the best this theater could do by 10-1 IMO (I realize that this was lagely because of the incompetant equipment calibration, and not the potential). As a niche-format, LD had a quality impact only among HT buffs. Since the advent of DVD, PQ awareness among J6P has increased somewhat (a very small somewhat, in deference to most here), but back then I only had ONE customer who even noticed the imbalance in the surrounds (in the 5+ years I was there).

 

[Cees Alons]

In my opinion, the real problem with DivX (and DivX2, -3, -n) is in the marketing model.

Unlike the people in the article believe (and which spawned the discussion in this thread), a DivX-type DVD is not specifically in competition with the movie theater - at least no more than the release of a standard DVD of that film.

Also, a DivX-DVD is not an option to be able to release it earlier. Why would it? A possible copy-mafia could illegally copy it anyway and it's only the price that possibly competes with the theater. Who is going to buy it when it's too expensive (in which case illegal copying may prove even more attractive)? And if it's inexpensive, why not release a normal DVD?

DivX is in competition with the regular DVD only.

It is nothing more (or less) than a pay-per-view model. And as such it fails, because most people only watch a movie once (and will hardly ever play the DivX-DVD another time in their entire lifes), while collectors and film students are vehemently opposed to it in the first place. Indeed, this small group may be harmed if the normal DVD ceased to exist at all, but for the huge public DivX is only more complicated and (except for the price) less attractive than DVD.

So the average DivX-DVD, once bought, will only be played once - except by the relatively small group (us) who is strongly opposing the format - just like the more expensive normal DVD. What do the studios gain by that?


Cees

 

[DanFe]

Personally, I miss the days of drive-in movie theaters. The sound wasn't good at all, but the memories made up for anything missed. Ah, the good old days.