Have You Ever Bought a DVD Instead of Going to the Movies? (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

'Only' since '98!

 

[John Kwong]

It'll depend on the movie. Of course movies like Two Towers, AotC, and other "bigger that life" movie are a must on big screen.

Having said that, I have to admit that I have only been to the theatre 6 - 8 time last year. There just weren't many movies that needed that "big screen" feel.

 

[Carl Johnson]

I too am in the wait for the DVD except for dates or the .5% of films that I really want to see right now. Actually the percentage is probably lower than that, the last time I went to see a specific title was Attack of the Clones.

 

[Angelo.M]

With a 60-inch screen and a 2-year-old at home, going out to a movie is a particularly rare event.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

For pretty much any movie that will have a lot of kids in the theater (Monsters Inc, Harry Potter, etc), we just skip the theatrical release and buy the DVD blind. It's actually cheaper than two matinee tickets + popcorn + cokes, and I don't have to put up with contant distractions from all the little brats.

For more grown-up oriented movies, we usually catch an early Saturday matinee. They're usually not very crowded, so noise/phones/etc aren't too much of a problem.

I haven't been to the theater on a weekend night in years, you couldn't pay me to go to a packed Friday night movie.

 

[Patrick_L]

ya, i usually wait for the dvd to come out except for very anticipated flicks like the LOTR series and such. every once in a blue moon my g/f and i will be spontaneous and get up and go to a random flick.

 

[Yee-Ming]

first time this happened was for Goldmember. I suggested to the wife that we should go one weekend, she asked "are you getting the DVD?", answer: yes, "let's wait and save money"

I was fairly sure that I'd buy the disc, since I already have (and enjoyed) the first two.

otherwise, I still try to get to the cinema to watch blockbuster-type movies where the big screen is required to do the movie justice, recently e.g. TTT, DAD. this year for instance I am certain I will see Matrix 2 & 3 and ROTK in the cinema.

but we go very rarely nowadays, a combination of being more discerning in what to watch as well as the "temptation" of waiting for the DVD, whether it's to buy outright or to rent. having said that, to this day I've never rented a disc, but I intend to do so soon, starting maybe with Road to Perdition, which I missed at the cinema, and maybe XXX.

 

[David Von Pein]

Mmmm... IMAX...

How big are the IMAX screens? What pct. bigger than most "good-sized" movie-theatre screens?

 

[Vickie_M]

Sometimes, but as a movie buff with, luckily, no kids at home, I try to go to the theater as often as possible.

In fact:

Elizabeth S: I usually go to the theatre 2 - 4 times a week. I want the big screen experience, whether it's a blockbuster epic or a small indie film. (And though the arthouse multiplex screens are hardly big. ) And I do not want to wait several months until the DVD is out.

However, even if I see 12 or more movies a month, I still CANNOT fit in all that interests me. Those which leave town before I get to them will have to wait for the DVD. I try to schedule my theatrical viewings to see the ones bound to have short runs first.

I could have written exactly that. What she said folks.

I also like to do marathons. In general, I feel it's a waste of movie time to go out and only see one film, so we almost always go to 2 the same night. However, I love seeing 3 or even 4 the same day. I've done 5, and my record is 6 (gotta love those midnight shows).

 

[Devin U]

Well, I used to be a die hard theater goer, but marriage, and kids in paticular have kind of put a end to it. By the time we get a babysitter, get tickets and snacks, its allready over the price of pretty much any dvd that I own. It's so hard to take kids to a theater, especialy since my 2 are both under 2. If we do go as a family, its to the drive in on a tue. night, 3.50 each for me and the wife, and the kids are free. plus, two first run features. but it still is mostly buy the dvd. I think about 70% of my collection of dvd were blind purchases, going off other people's comments and the reviews here.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Mmmm... IMAX...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How big are the IMAX screens? What pct. bigger than most "good-sized" movie-theatre screens?

They're six to eight stories tall at about a 1.44 AR. Generally, they're not a "percentage" larger, but multiples larger.

And, a lot of them are 3-D capable. So far, that's only been used for the

 

[Andrew W]

I'll take my daughter to the Saturday matinee of movies like Monsters Inc or Ice Age and then we usually also buy the DVD. My wife and I go to evening movies very infrequently now. To go to the movies cost us around $50.

$16 tickets
$10 snacks
25 sitter

We can buy the DVD and watch at home with no annoyance from the audience and on a pretty nice HT with calibrated sound and video. We invite friends over if we want the group experience.

 

[Tommy G]

I'm with Ron P on this one. The only one I know I will be going to see on my own (without my wife making me go) will be Return of the King. I think the answers are different here based upon set up. I have a 106" screen that I project on with an XGA projector. The only reason for me to go to the movies now is if I just can't wait because those films that you must see on the "big screen" I can view in my home. So far the only films that meet this can't wait criteria have been the LOTR films for me. A lot of people have piped in about the kicking of the seats, the talking, the poor focus, the sound not being right and those are the same reasons why I don't go to the theater anymore.

 

[Joe Bernardi]

I almost never go to the movies, especially with how soon after theatrical release a movie is out on DVD.

 

[terry deto]

Ah, but doen't this create a paradox ?

Wait for the DVD = less people goning to movies.

less people going to movies = less movies

less movies = less DVD's

I still see movies in theater's , even if I think i'll buy the dvd later because even a good home theater setup doesn't
provide the total theater experience for me.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Ah, but doen't this create a paradox ?

Well, I imagine that in theory the number of movies wouldn't actually drop that much; the same audience is still there, although the money is coming from a different revenue stream.

The real thing to worry about is that it causes filmmakers to start to compose with the home audience more in mind than the theatrical one, which would eventually lead to movies becoming into big-budget TV in terms of framing and more relatively lo-res shooting on digital video.

 

[MarcVH]

The great thing about Goldmember is that it brings back the theater experience of not being able to pause the movie for a bathroom break.

Put me in the "wait for the DVD" camp. I live within walking distance of a multiplex, but only go once or twice a year. Heck, I'd rather watch movies on TV than at the theater -- it's cheaper and there are fewer commercials.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Ah, but doen't this create a paradox ?

To add to that:
I love going to the theater- I try to go once a week, but the quality of the "Theater Experience" has drastically fallen over the years:

First, the most annoying thing is FRAMING ISSUES. Chopping peoples heads off, chopping the sides of a 2.35:1, visable mikes!!
Second, is print issues. Sometimes I wait a week to see a new release to avoid the big crowd. How is it possible for the print to be covered in scratches and dust in only a week!!
Third, is sound. The local megaplex has great DTS sound. SOMETIMES. Sometimes the DTS dies and it switches to the 2-ch backup. Sometimes we loose sound altogether. Sometimes it is very loud, other times very soft.
Forth, is crouds. When did talking on a cell-phone during the movie become acceptable?? When did the theater become the teen hangout?

The annoying part is that the first 3-issues are PREVENTABLE. But theaters say they don't make enough money to hire professional help anymore. That is the paradox.
They make less money, so they cut the quality, so fewer people show up... repeat.

Cost isnt an issue to me. I gladly pay $10 (and sneak in food). BUT, whenever I see framing/print/sound issues I COMPLAIN LOUDLY. Often, I get a free movie pass, and an apology... though they never seem to fix the problem....

NIck

 

[Mark Hanson]

For the less movies part I am not sure. The studios know that the larger % now comes from video and other uses. We may see a larger number of films have more limited runs or more straight to video like Disney. When they see they can pick up some change a few planned straight to video have hit the theaters, but other wise.

What I hope we will lose is the ultra high budget stinkers. I may be a rarity and never go to the theater based on who is in the film, but is it worth watching from my point of view. Usually base that on word of mouth or various reviews. So hopefully some of the stinkeroo's my wife who always says ****** is in it it has be good as I am looking it up in IMDB going "blast they had to start negative numbers for this one" will go away. Thank goodness prices have us waiting for the DVD more often recently.

If she would admit how much she was loved for sitting through those I could buy my plasma screen today.

 

[David Rogers]

Oh sure, a couple dozen times now. I got to the point somewhere in 2000 where I just started formally, for my purposes, segmenting out upcoming movies into various categories.

The first is the "This Will Be Seen On Big Screen" and encompasses Matrix, Star Wars, Speilberg stuff, and other epic type films. Something that's usually big and exciting, usually important, and that I feel will be best served by the big screen.

The second is "Either way", in that I might turn up at a theater because it was something to do or because I didn't want to wait for disc. I might also just as well wait for the disc sight-unseen.

The third is "Disc"; I won't buy a ticket for any of a number of reasons, but will buy the disc sight-unseen and try the film out that way. Sometimes I don't want to put up with the crappy audience I know the film will likely attract (like Bring It On or American Pie, because teenagers are the worst audiences in the entire known world), or because I just don't feel the need to see the film on a big screen (S1m0ne was recently in this category, as was Undercover Brother).

Fourth category is simply everything that's "no".

I've only got five discs out of nearly 320 that I didn't like the movie on. That could mean any of a number of things, ranging from "David's tastes are broad and accomodating" to "David is lucky" and even to "David tends to correctly pick out films he likes".

No real way to know.

I like to think I know what I like, so I figure that's part of it. Another is the extensive effort I put into my movie hobby; I track trailers and discussions, read rumors, follow development news, and generally know about more than I don't out of what's upcoming to theater and disc. Maybe my tastes are simply in tune with current Hollywood development.

Buying sight unseen doesn't bother me. I'm actually about to check with Digital Eyes to see what I can get for the five I don't want, but there are local shops that'll give me about 40% on the dollar for them (typically US$6-10 for a disc that usually cost between US$15-25).

I think more folks are buying content on disc sight-unseen. It will change what "direct to video" means, I feel. It has always meant crappy content produced for a lowballed amount. But if people are willing to pay US$15-20 for discs, and half a mil or so sell, that's enough money for it to be profitable to do sequels, new shows, etc... direct to disc.

**edit**
I don't have any links right now, but quite a few flicks in the last several years have grossed more from disc sales than from box office if I recall correctly. As the installed base of DVD players increases, this trend will also only go up.

Better things are a comin'.