Is Building for Theatrical The Future of Film?
Ryan
In a recent editorial "Why It’s Better to Watch Movies in a Theater", Margaret Talbot of the Wall Street Journal makes a compelling case as to why now, more than ever, seeing a movie in theaters is sacred. She states that she looks forward to "the pleasure and relief of knowing that for two-and-a-half hours, I would be permitted the grace of concentration. I would not be answering e-mail, or the phone, or gazing guilty over at a basket of laundry in need of folding or dog hair in need of vacuuming..." Over the past several years, the industry has invested heavily in the theatrical experience--with exhibitors outfitting screens for 3D and 4K display and studios making bigger, splashier tentpole fare custom built for the big screen. And yet movie going continues to decline. 2012 numbers are not yet in but 2011 saw attendance hit a 16 year low.
Anecdotally, few of the people I talk to disagree with Talbot's point of view--that movies are better experienced on the big screen. There are plenty of theories as to why people are less compelled than ever to visit the theater... that ticket prices are out of control... that Hollywood is making bad movies... that television is better.
The good news is that people are still watching movies, lots of movies and in more ways than ever (see: VOD, EST and streaming and ad-supported VOD). But in this brave new world of digital viewing, does it still make sense for Hollywood to build movies for the format where less and less people ultimately experience them? As long as ancillary revenues are based on box office, this is unlikely to change. But for independent fare--which is struggling to compete for exhibition real estate--this could be a growing opportunity. Something to keep an eye on...