As much of a bummer it can be to be on the creative side of the cinema right now, just think, it could be worse... you could be a theater owner. My God, do those folks get gouged. The studios have their fangs deep in the throats of the beleaguered exhibitors who can only respond be jacking the price of popcorn and SnoCaps up to nonsensical levels.

(That's why moviegoing is best in cold climates.... how else can you justify the big poofy jackets filled with snacks purchased for half the price at the corner gas station or Walgreens)

When the smoke clears (sooner than later, I fear), we will have a whole new business model of film distribution. And Scott's right, the winner will be whoever is greediest.

Check today's SCRIPTSHADOW post about the film MONSTER for more on this very topic!

(By the way, I don't think this is exactly a bad thing for we writers... content is content. I don't think the bag of coin will be as large as it used to be but let's face it, it probably never should have been to begin with...)

It be a damn shame if this caused theatres to close up. If I'm going to pay $30+ per film, I want the big screen experience.

And greed might win, but we still have a choice whether to pay or not.

I say forget celluloid distribution and go 100% digital. That would save millions of dollars.

Quite a poser. Let's see. The demographics for movie goers is age range 15-32 on the main. I suspect that that particular "group" is very socially inclined, they like going out and mingling and seeing movies on the big screen, savoring the theatre food. Now, fast forward: Will they be as inclined to pay that same weight in coin from the comfort of their own homes? IMO, doubtful. So this move is being aimed at new markets, those who are not inclined to step out like that aforementioned age-range group does. Here's the next poser... If DVD sales are declining, what's the reason for this? If it is content (i.e., "badly scripted" or "badly made" movies) then what's the value added to entice people who are declining to purchase these if the same content is delivered over the TV but at a higher cost??? Sounds wonko, but this could only be one consideration, of course.

My gut feeling is that this will not effect the _base_ turnout at theaters, but will effect them from experiencing higher yields. So in the long term, that's a big negative for growth. People who might choose to get out would now have an immediate option to wait, instead. That responding population segment would inflatel direct-to-consumer sales at the expense of sustained growth for theaters.

The DVD angle still sounds loopy, though. Real loopy, as in "strange, recycled, trade-off."

I don't know if this will make much of a difference outside of the US. I wonder how blu-ray sales are going in comparison to DVD?

In regards to digital streaming -
The biggest problem I have with web streaming at the moment is poor quality, lack of choice, and slow download speeds. Even HD movies in the iTunes store are heavily compressed compared to the physical product. I do believe online distribution is the future, but not for many years. It took me 4 hours to download a movie rental this morning from iTunes. This is on the fastest ADSL +2 connection available here in Australia. I can get it faster illegally but the quality still doesn't match that of a DVD or blu-ray disc. There simply isn't the bandwidth yet for a 25-50GB HD movie. Even a double layered DVD is over 8GB. It doesn't surprise me that some people prefer the convenience of downloads but until they match the quality of physical media, I believe there still will be a market. It's a noticeable downgrade for convenience (unlike music, but that's another story).

Greed will win.

For a while.

Nothing can replace the theater experience. Nothing.