New Survey: Most filmgoers will still see a movie in theaters even if streaming soon (1 Viewer)

[JoeStemme]

Some hopeful news on Audiences returning to theaters, as well as ignoring Streaming dates to go to see a movie in a cinema if they are really interested.

What about my fellow Home Theater Forum members? Do you let Streaming airdates fully dictate what movies you go to see in a theater??

The headlines:
"Most Moviegoers Will Still Go To Theaters Even If What They’re Seeing Will Soon Be Streaming – Study
Two-thirds of moviegoers are not concerned about the length of a film’s release window when they visit a theater, and theatrical titles still enjoy a vast advantage in terms of awareness over original movies made for streaming....
Two-thirds of Americans say the length of time from a movie’s release in theaters to its availability at home has little or no impact on their decision to see a movie in theaters...."

The full article: https://deadline.com/2023/04/moviegoers ... 235318125/

 

[Tino]

Seeing a film theatrically is ALWAYS my first choice.

 

[John Dirk]

Outside of this forum and a few random Netflix announcements, I am blissfully unaware of streaming dates.

 

[Sam Favate]

While I agree with Tino that seeing a film in the theater is always my first choice, I have to be honest and say it depends on the film. A big superhero or action film that I can take the whole family to? We’re there, opening weekend. But a more quiet drama that maybe only my wife and I will enjoy? We’ll probably wait the two-three months for HBO MAX, Netflix, etc. Time was (before kids) when we’d see 50 movies a year in the theater. That was also when we had more theaters around us too. Now, we’re basically down to two AMC multiplexes that are in crumbling buildings and look like rundown airports.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I have to be really motivated now to see a film theatrically and these are usually family fare. The only filmmaker guaranteed to get me into a cinema is Chris Nolan. Saying that, last year I went to the cinema more times than any year since the 1980s but this was entirely due to tbe Bond weekly reruns by Odeon. This year I intend to watch Oppenheimer and MI7 but the very long (often indulgent and poorly edited) running times of contemporary films really puts me off.

 

[Tino]

This year I intend to watch Oppenheimer and MI7 but the very long (often indulgent and poorly edited) running times of contemporary films really puts me off.

Oppenheimer is 3 hours long. That doesn’t concern you?

 

[Keith Cobby]

Oppenheimer is 3 hours long. That doesn’t concern you?

I think Nolan is the finest contemporary filmmaker and I make an exception for his films, it remains to be seen whether the long running time is justified. I don't think the trend for longer films adds to their quality. Both Raiders and BTTF, both universally acclaimed, are less than two hours, I doubt they would have been better with an extra hour. In film, as in life, often less is more!

 

[Joe Wong]

I think Nolan is the finest contemporary filmmaker and I make an exception for his films, it remains to be seen whether the long running time is justified. I don't think the trend for longer films adds to their quality. Both Raiders and BTTF, both universally acclaimed, are less than two hours, I doubt they would have been better with an extra hour. In film, as in life, often less is more!

It all depends on the story being told. IMO, some films go on too long (eg. Tar), while others could use an extra 15-30 minutes to make it more complete (some recent MCU films).

Some films feel long because they're slow-paced, while others move so fast they don't allow select scenes to breathe and it just feels rushed (SW: The Rise of Skywalker).

As an example, would The Godfather be as acclaimed or as satisfying if its runtime was 2 hours?

I'm a big fan of Chris Nolan as well. Several of his films are considerably longer than 2 hours, eg. the Dark Knight films range from 140 to 165 min, while his twisty sci-fi mindbenders (Inception, Interstellar and Tenet) are at least 148 min. Due to the story and/or character complexity, I think all these films earn their runtimes. Dunkirk's relatively lean 106 min was the exception to his recent run of films, but it was also relatively the least complex.

 

[Joe Wong]

While I agree with Tino that seeing a film in the theater is always my first choice, I have to be honest and say it depends on the film. A big superhero or action film that I can take the whole family to? We’re there, opening weekend. But a more quiet drama that maybe only my wife and I will enjoy? We’ll probably wait the two-three months for HBO MAX, Netflix, etc. Time was (before kids) when we’d see 50 movies a year in the theater. That was also when we had more theaters around us too. Now, we’re basically down to two AMC multiplexes that are in crumbling buildings and look like rundown airports.

Yeah, there was a time before kids when my wife and I would to see at least one film every weekend (and during the 5-day stretch from Dec 13-17, 2001, we went to see 4 films!).

But since kids came into the picture, we've definitely been more selective. This has been exacerbated by streaming (a lot more content is now available) as well as all of the effects from COVID.

I will definitely go to the cinema for the big spectacle films (eg. MCU) and especially IMAX 1.43:1 films (something not easily replicable at home).