Iger: 'Release Movies to Theaters & DVD Simultaneously'

[Zoltack]

Yeah, but you probably make more money releasing it in theaters and have people making boot-legs and several months later release it on DVD. Than releasing the movie both in theaters and on DVD. It makes my brain hurt thinking about it. WTH!!! Iger needs to stop talking, just stop!!!

[AwallaceUNC]

Well, the theater owners aren't too happy about it:

Movie Slump Stirs Tensions in Hollywood
By SHARON WAXMAN

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 18 - The tension in Hollywood over declining box-office receipts heated up on Thursday as the head of the trade organization for movie theaters accused the chairman of the Walt Disney Company, Robert A. Iger, of leveling a "death threat" against his industry.

The trade official, John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, was responding to a statement by Mr. Iger to Wall Street analysts this month that movie studios need to accommodate changing consumer demand by releasing films simultaneously in theaters and on DVD.

"Simultaneous release would seriously damage the theater industry," Mr. Fithian said in an interview, referring to the prospect as a "death threat to our industry."

"It would substantially weaken the marketing potential of the theatrical release for the ancillary markets," he added, "and it would devalue Hollywood movies."

Mr. Fithian said Mr. Iger was drawing the wrong conclusion from a 10-percent drop in box-office revenue this summer, namely that some consumers prefer to watch movies at home.

Instead, Mr. Fithian said, the slump was a result of the poor quality of this summer's movies, observing that declines of this magnitude did not happen because consumers suddenly decided they preferred DVD's.

"The reason for short-term peaks and valleys is the product," he said. "There aren't long-term structural things to industry that change in a one-year time span."

In his comments on Aug. 9, Mr. Iger said the box-office decline was an alarm bell for the industry.

"I think windows in general need to change," he said, referring to the time between the theatrical release and the introduction of the DVD.

"They need to compress," Mr. Iger said. "I don't think it's out of the question that a DVD can be released, in effect, in the same window as a theatrical release, although I'm sure we will get a fair amount of pushback on this from the industry."

Mr. Iger declined to respond on Thursday to Mr. Fithian's comments.

The decline at the box office has been the subject of debate all summer. Attendance has been down even more than revenue, a dip of 12 percent from last summer, according to Exhibitor Relations, which tracks box- office data.

Source: New York Times

-Aaron

[2099net]

It you ask me, like lots of things in life, there's no single reason for declining box-office revenue. It's a combination of lots of things, but stems from one vital point. Namely:

A lot of movies these days are made for a core audience of 14-26 year olds. Looking at this summers releases that includes: Star Wars Episode III, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Mr and Mrs Smith, The Dukes of Hazzard etc. Yes, the films I mention can certainly be enjoyed by older and younger viewers, but the core audience the studios market to is the young adult.

What's wrong with this? After all, all of the above films are in the top 10 or 20 of 2005, so it must be working?

Well, firstly, the younger audience has a lot of options for leisure activities and monies. Never in the history of the motion picture has it had to fight for attention with so many other distractions - and all cost money. I'm even including sport in this list, as equipment these days is so expensive. So the theatrical release has to have enough appeal to take the limited money from potential leisure activities video games, TV, DVD, sport, even running a cell phone takes money out of the average young adults pocket.

Secondly, the fact that theaters are filling up with "youngsters" is off-putting to older movie-goers. I wouldn't say that they are intimidated, but when it comes down to it, a lot of the older people do prefer to wait and watch a film in the comfort and privacy of their own home these days. This can be seen with the DVD release of a film that appeals to the older audience like Ray which did well at the movie theaters but had runaway success on DVD. I imagine the same will happen with The Cinderella Man which has had a 'disappointing' box office performance at theaters.

Thirdly, any film that doesn't appeal to this "core" audience of young adults is getting shunted off more and more screens with smaller and smaller openings. Without changing the range of films shown theatrically, you're not going to attract the attention of those who have little or no interest in what is on offer, or those who have decided to "give up" on visiting the movie theaters. Generally speaking, you won't build an audience by offering more of the same, the audience can only shrink as the attraction fades.

In the third case, then there is perhaps a strong argument for films like Ray and Cinderella Man going direct to video. Even in Disney's case, there's a strong argument that films with limited openings like Howl's Moving Castle should be direct to video too.

When films such as Woody Allen's latest Melinda and Melinda only opens on 302 screens, (Prince Eric's favourite) Bride and Prejudice opens on 288 screen or the previously mentioned Howl's Moving Castle open on 202 screens, yet rubbish like Alone in the Dark can open on 2,124 sceeens (even after the abysmal House of the Dead from the same so-called 'director') simply because it appeals to the 'core' theatrical audience, then frankly something is wrong with the whole system.

In such cases, is it really so bad for DVDs to be released at the same time as the (limited) theatrical showings? Perhaps not, but to me it's not a solution to the problem, its just going to be a "band-aid fix" that will ultimately make the whole problem much worse in the future.

As for Iger, Disney has had a lot of success with direct-to-video releases. I don't just mean the animated sequels which dominate so much of the discussions on this forum, but their live-action releases too - Dimension especially has had great success with titles such as the 2nd and 3rd From Dusk to Dawn movies as well as their Dracula 2000 and sequels. After all, Iger is the one who can see the figures and trends more than any of us can. Perhaps Iger is right, and he is talking about "mid-level" films only. I still can't see a day when a film with a heavy investment like The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe will premiere at the movie theater and on home video on the same day.

[Mr. Toad]

Totally disagree with the theatre owners. No fluke. This has coincided with price decreases in big screen TVs to where the middle class can afford them. And I am one of them, bought my 55 inch screen in December and have gone to the movies once since for Howl's Moving Castle. You know why - I suggested that the lead time to DVD would be a lot longer. eg. This Consumers buying pattern has changed.

[Zoltack]

Well, it's quite understandable why they would get upset about it. The reason is because if people can buy it on DVD they're not gonna go to the theater to watch the moive. I mean I wouldn't I would just buy or rent it. I really don't like watching moives in theaters anyways. So they're gonna loose money. It's just plan stupid.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

You know this reminds me of a story when they first invented television and started selling it, theater owners didn't like it because they thought no one would go to the movies anymore if audiences could just watch something from their televison. However Walt Disney knew that he could use t.v. as a way to show the audiences about his upcoming movies and theme parks. Not to mention showing other shows as well(Mickey Mouse Club)

Anyway the point was even though the televisons became popular, people still continue to go to the theaters after all these years. I predict this will be almost the same exact case.

[Little Red Henski]

Anyway the point was even thought the televisons became popular, people still continue to go to the theaters after all these years. I predict this will be almost the same exact case.

Yes but the theatre going public lost a lot of stuff. No more news reels and shorts before the movie. Movies are too expensive nowadays. I also don't like having to watch 20 minuets of comercials before the movie starts.

[dvdjunkie]

I guess I am lucky to live in Kansas. We have a state law that prohibits movie theaters from running commercials. When you go to a theater here in Kansas you get three of four previews and then the feature.

I don't think I would ever go to a theater that had commercials. That is ridiculous. No wonder theater business is down. If that is the way it is around the rest of the country, I wouldn't pay to go watch the same commercials that I see for free on television. What are they thinking??

Here in Wichita, matinee prices range from $4.50 to $6.00 depending on which theater you go to. We have close to 75 screens here. After 6 pm the prices increase to $6.50 to $8.00. We have one theater that shows second run features for $2 admission, all of our theaters offer senior and student prices for all shows. The snack bars are where they really get you. Two large drinks and a large barrel of popcorn is $10.75, if you were to buy them individually it would cost $14.00.

I know we are lucky to have such low prices, because I read about a lot of people who have to pay upwards of $10 to go a first-run evening feature. And to be forced to sit through a bunch of commercials along with that high admission price..............I would never go to the theater again.

[Loomis]

This might even be appropriate for the General Forum:

Disney Boss Seeks Shorter Wait for DVDs

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.c ... 00577-1621

"We are spending too much time chasing box office (dollars) and we are waiting too long to enter the next window" where a movie has the most value..." Iger says. [...] Iger said he has gone so far as to suggest a deal where the exhibitor would sell the DVD of a Disney movie playing in the theater - while its still fresh in audience members mind - and cut the theater owner in for a piece of the sale."

------------------------------

Loomis says:

Well, this debate is a long-standing one, and this kind of thinking is what we need. Regardless of whether you believe that the DVD window should be longer or shorter, the very fact that Disney are now looking at alternate ways of distributing the product to the user is a postive step, I believe.

As for selling DVDs in the concession stands, there is something to be said for that. After all, if someone walks out of a movie on a high, and walks up and buys the DVD immediately, that's two sales in that night per person. It is like buying a soundtrack to a musical as soon as you've seen it.

I think making it a feature of cinemas, and giving part of that profit to cinema owners, is a positive idea. Cinema owners won't be able to complain about the extra profit, and consumers get immediate satisfaction. However, I think studios need to be wary about introducing DVDs into shops outside the cinema too close to the cinema date. THAT is where they begin to see DVD sales cutting into cinema profits.

[MICKEYMOUSE]

lol, kind of funny coming from someone from DISNEY. The people that put there movies into vaults!!!!

[Loomis]

Whoops, didn't see the other thread.

I am fool boy.

Hear me roar (foolishly).

[Isidour]

could be a nice option IF they make a propper plan

I mean, they could release to the theaters and after some weeks release the DVD BUT for buying only, it could be for all public or just for the ones who enter the movie´s page to order it.

When the theaters register that the movie is not doing as it did on the first weeks they take it out and then they release the DVD for rental

That would do it for the problem of having three or four weeks without good hits to the cinema, it would make think "Why buying a bad bootleg if I can wait some weeks for the good stuff?"

now here the cinemas´s owners and the DVD homes would have to scratch their backs to make publicity for both and some alliances

[creid]

I personally would like this in the short-run but the studios are cutting down their profit potential with such an idea. By releasing both at the same time, they are breaking the laws of supply/demand for their products. By giving consumers more choices, it is going to harder to get them to pay a premium (which is going to the movies) for their product. Especially since a newly released movie is going for $15 - $20, which costs less than three tickets.

The one area that it work best is the niche type movies but blockbusters would cut the profit potential.

The industry needs to realize that DVD/home video is cutting box office.

CR

[Just Myself]

My suggestion to cut bootlegging and keep the theater spirit is to release the films on Pay Per View 2-3 months before their DVD release, and make a longer window between theatrical and DVD release dates. Take the average time back to, oh, say a 5-6 month window for most DVD releases. THIS would work.

[Edge]

Personally I think Movie Theatres are going the way of the Dinosaur.

It eliminates a middle man and theatres are so expensive now that it really isn't economical to go if you have a larger family.

TV's are getting bigger and clearer, the medium is getting better and better and now it's not uncommon for people to have great sound systems and home theatres.

I don't really think PPV's are going to help much because frankly most people want to own something and watch it whenever they want as many times as they want.

The BIG movies will probably hold out the longest, but for many companies it's just more practical to release something on DVD. You don't have to share the profits with the one of three or four theatre chains in the country and directors are happy because they can keep their movies intact the way they wanted to in the first place.

I think people are afraid of this because as a whole most people are afraid of change, though they often think they aren't. I too fall into this category, but this is just the evolution of entertainment.