Are Cinemas_Theaters still Alive in your Area?

[themadhippy]

We got a new muliplex opened in the councils latest white elephant a year or 2 back,and a few month later the old cinema that had been going for years  closed down leaving another large empty building in the town centre.

[thermistor-guy]

...
Oppenheimer is the new one I'm very keen to see, zero CGI  effects in the entire movie.

Chris Stuckmann reviewed it recently on his YT channel. He loved it. Only problem he had was with the sound mixing,
making it difficult to understand all the dialog. Apparently this is a thing with this director's movies.

Even so, I'm looking forward to it.

[notsob]

Hey Dave is the Cremorne Cinema in Military road still active - it was a work of art when I visited Sydney many many years ago

[Halcyon]

Still a thing here in Sydney. None around me have closed.

Can confirm. We also have a big cinema near me in a regional area. I've been meaning to go, but it has been several years.

[rdl]

I still watch movies. Maverick was fantastic. Also looking forward to Oppenheimer. It's just less hassle, more comfort to watch at home.  I have a decent TV and a very good sound system. Traffic, parking, expensive snacks and annoying people just don't get compensated for by the cinema experience in my opinion. Back when I did go to see movies it was more as a social thing to do, not so much to see the film. I don't really socialize any more.

[mengfei]

I guess if it's a Blockbuster Movie, then it's worth going to the Movies 

anyone remember "Blockbuster" I heard there is still one standing....but for how long

[coppice]

Given that you have your HT setup in your home, are you still willing to go the Movies?     

Nope.

I don't want to watch that many of the new movies. Simply not interested in them. The few I do want to watch - like John Wick 4 and Dune, I simply wait for the DVD. 

DVD?! You know it isn't 1998, right? We have HDR 4k Blu ray now with object based audio that works with as many speakers as you can fit in the room (13 in my case, plus subs).
I still very occasionally go to the cinema, but mostly to hang out with friends or take the kids to a movie they just can't wait for. Most cinemas in my city have comfy power-reclining leather seats with oceans of room, and they serve alcohol if you prefer that over fizzy sugar water.

I don't know if you have ever met them, but there are these people who walk among us who say "no" as soon and you suggest having 5.1 speakers in the house, and scream "no" when you suggest even greater numbers. This makes stereo to 5.1 a sweet spot for most of us..... well, that or divorce.

[coppice]

Its hard to get the timing right for things like cinemas, when the planning to opening pipeline is so long. Our local Vue was closed for quite a while before COVID for a complete (although possibly unnecessary - it seemed fine before) refurbishment. It opened just as COVID hit, and the car park hasn't looked full since. In another part of town someone else built an IMAX screen around the same time. Same problem. The sparsity of good recent movies hasn't helped.

[coppice]

I still watch movies. Maverick was fantastic.

There's the key problem in a nutshell. Ask people to name a good recent movie, and most people are going to give you that title. An outlier doesn't keep an industry afloat.

[firewalker]

COVID had an impact. A large cinema complex didn;t open again after COVID. Small neighborhood cinemas are just fine though. TBH I really enjoy small summer cinemas (open).

Alexander.

[tszaboo]

I wouldn't know, as I wasn't really interested to watch any of the movies a few months before they come out on streaming, plus Hollywood can go broke because of all the political things it puts in movies. That being said, I probably will watch Dune 2 this year because of the visuals.

[firewalker]

I watched around 12 movies for 2023 in the neighborhood cinema. With a walking distance of 2 minutes and a ticket at 5 euros (Monday to Wednesday)...

Alexander.

[Zero999]

5 Euros is cheap, compared to the rip-off prices they charge here. I can't remember what it cost last time I went, which would have been about four years ago, but it was much more than that.

I don't have any streaming services, Blu-ray or DVDs at home either.

[coppice]

5 Euros is cheap, compared to the rip-off prices they charge here. I can't remember what it cost last time I went, which would have been about four years ago, but it was much more than that.

I don't have any streaming services, Blu-ray or DVDs at home either.

5 years ago is was a lot more than that in the UK, but prices dropped a lot, and this wasn't a COVID issue. They started cheap days, then everything cheap, before COVID struck.

[AndyC_772]

There's the key problem in a nutshell. Ask people to name a good recent movie, and most people are going to give you that title. An outlier doesn't keep an industry afloat.

I'd agree with that; I've seen quite a few mediocre films in the last year or so.

On the other hand, they've still been better than most Netflix own-brand movies, which I initially got quite excited about when I first subscribed, but soon came to realise were a triumph of quantity over quality. A nice thumbnail and click-bait title doesn't make up for a 5.0 score on IMDB (if you're lucky).

[vad]

Absolutely, and the cinemas are full. Yesterday, I tried to buy Friday night tickets for "Oppenheimer" at the nearest AMC theater, but without success - all seats were fully booked.

Online booking does not have to do with reality. Last  time I was booking, 70% seats  appeared booked. When we came, the total audience was 10 people including 3 of us.

Not my experience. We went last night, and the theater was fully packed.

[EPAIII]

My area is Beaumont, Texas, a medium size city of around 110,000. We have two multi-screen cinemas in town and probably another one or two in the area which is called the Golden Triangle.

As to how well they are doing, I don't know. It has been a while since I have been to either one. I don't miss them nor their $5 - $10 popcorn.

[VK3DRB]

the new movies. Zzzzzzzzzzz  Simply not interested

You mean to say you'd pass up the chance to see the Barbie movie?

Actually I might see the Oppenheimer movie not in a general cinema but in a Gold Class cinema. First movie in a cinema for me in years. In general cinema there is a high risk of jerks sitting nearby sipping slurpees, rustling bags of lollies, or gasbagging at 115200 bps non-stop, resulting in me turning into a potential serial killer. Gold Class is far less risk for all concerned  .

[tom66]

5 Euros is cheap, compared to the rip-off prices they charge here. I can't remember what it cost last time I went, which would have been about four years ago, but it was much more than that.

I don't have any streaming services, Blu-ray or DVDs at home either.

5 years ago is was a lot more than that in the UK, but prices dropped a lot, and this wasn't a COVID issue. They started cheap days, then everything cheap, before COVID struck.

You can still get tickets at the Vue for non peak time screenings (ie if the film has been out for a month or more) for around £5 each.  If you have a certain special offer you can get a 2for1 offer on some days, good if you're going as a pair or with a friend.   The Vue is about a 25 minute drive away and you do need £1 for parking in the evenings.

The local multiplex near me (Cineworld) however want near on £12 each and don't do a 2for1 offer.  I don't go there, have never gone there, and apparently they're in financial distress.

[coppice]

5 Euros is cheap, compared to the rip-off prices they charge here. I can't remember what it cost last time I went, which would have been about four years ago, but it was much more than that.

I don't have any streaming services, Blu-ray or DVDs at home either.

5 years ago is was a lot more than that in the UK, but prices dropped a lot, and this wasn't a COVID issue. They started cheap days, then everything cheap, before COVID struck.

You can still get tickets at the Vue for non peak time screenings (ie if the film has been out for a month or more) for around £5 each.  If you have a certain special offer you can get a 2for1 offer on some days, good if you're going as a pair or with a friend.   The Vue is about a 25 minute drive away and you do need £1 for parking in the evenings.

The local multiplex near me (Cineworld) however want near on £12 each and don't do a 2for1 offer.  I don't go there, have never gone there, and apparently they're in financial distress.

I just checked. Our local Vue has put up its prices. Its 6.99 for any showing booked on line. 7.99 for the same showing bought at the venue. They don't seem to have special prices for particular showings right now. For a long time it was 4.99 for any movie showing. They had special prices for some live events. They have more expensive seats for what are supposed to be the choice seats in the theatre, but I've never seen them occupied. I guess they fill up as a last resort for a popular showing that fills the theatre.

[mendip_discovery]

Absolutely, and the cinemas are full. Yesterday, I tried to buy Friday night tickets for "Oppenheimer" at the nearest AMC theater, but without success - all seats were fully booked.

Online booking does not have to do with reality. Last  time I was booking, 70% seats  appeared booked. When we came, the total audience was 10 people including 3 of us.

Some studios are known to buy tickets just to pump up the excitement. If tickets are all booked it generates news articles and that creates demand.

I'm my area the small cinemas in the towns have closed mostly becuase the multiplex ones with several screens, bowling and some fast food places overtook the small ones. The one in Wells closed in the late 90s stating issues with subsidence on the old building, it was empty for years then reopened as a nightclub. Another local is now a Wetherspoons. The big multi screen ones seems to be still there but they are 1hr away and this means a trip to watch a film is a bit if a track, 2hrs travelling, 45min of adverts and then >2hr film just makes it not worth the >£14 they want to watch a film I can get on the TV at home in less than 6months.

[Zero999]

What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?

Many people think they could result in the downfall of TV and cinema, but I think it would be a good thing in the long term. It'll get rid of the lazy crappy companies who don't innovate, churning out the same boring politically motivated bollocks and promote smaller innovative content creators who make interesting and entertaining material.

[coppice]

What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?

Many people think they could result in the downfall of TV and cinema, but I think it would be a good thing in the long term. It'll get rid of the lazy crappy companies who don't innovate, churning out the same boring politically motivated bollocks and promote smaller innovative content creators who make interesting and entertaining material.

I thought most of the writers in Hollywood had been on strike for the past 10 years. If not, where are all the missing stories?

[tom66]

What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?

Many people think they could result in the downfall of TV and cinema, but I think it would be a good thing in the long term. It'll get rid of the lazy crappy companies who don't innovate, churning out the same boring politically motivated bollocks and promote smaller innovative content creators who make interesting and entertaining material.

The outcome of the first set of strikes in 2007-2008 was reality TV.  The barely-scripted format with drama and overacting from non-professionals who are coaxed into creating scenes required little to no union staff involvement, proved cheap to pump out and disappointingly successful with the general public.  I hate to see what will come out this time, but probably more low cost reality shows are likely.  Short term the streaming networks will just increase their back catalogue and buy content in from other distributors, which will probably lead their revenue to stagnate as subscribers leave.

I understand why writers and actors are afraid of GPT/chatbots and AI image generation.  However, this is going to happen regardless of their strike.  I doubt serious writers will be replaced any time by AI, because it takes genuine talent and generalised intelligence to come up with an original and gripping story.   AI is very good at regurgitating ideas and tends to create short stories accurately with little adventure or surprise in them.  In other words, it would probably be pretty good at writing modern episodes of the Simpsons, but it is not going to create new dramas with millions of viewers tuning in to watch.  Comedy is also likely a safe area for now;  AI sucks at comedy, because it requires a proper human understanding of why a joke is funny (and also context-dependent, like political or current affairs comedy). 

For actors, there's the star factor... I don't think fake actors generated by AI would cut it.  I can see a risk for extras, there is one studio already that is famous for getting their extras on set for a day but the contract assigns all rights to their image for the remainder of the shoot and CGI is used to add them into scenes as needed.  So suddenly you go from having someone being paid a reasonable amount for a month's worth of shooting, getting only one or two day's pay.  That's quite bad for those guys.  But the major A- and B-list stars are safe for some time,  no one wants to see AI Tim Cruze,  they want to see human Tom Cruise because they know he's a real guy and they see him on the red carpet and on chat shows and all sorts.  CGI could, with enough effort, already replace a lot of these actors, but it hasn't.  That's because these actors are as much actors as they are marketing for the film.

[mendip_discovery]

What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?

Many people think they could result in the downfall of TV and cinema, but I think it would be a good thing in the long term. It'll get rid of the lazy crappy companies who don't innovate, churning out the same boring politically motivated bollocks and promote smaller innovative content creators who make interesting and entertaining material.

The outcome of the first set of strikes in 2007-2008 was reality TV.  The barely-scripted format with drama and overacting from non-professionals who are coaxed into creating scenes required little to no union staff involvement, proved cheap to pump out and disappointingly successful with the general public.  I hate to see what will come out this time, but probably more low cost reality shows are likely.  Short term the streaming networks will just increase their back catalogue and buy content in from other distributors, which will probably lead their revenue to stagnate as subscribers leave.

Yup we will no doubt get more of that. As well as a slew of not very factual documentries.

I understand why writers and actors are afraid of GPT/chatbots and AI image generation.  However, this is going to happen regardless of their strike.  I doubt serious writers will be replaced any time by AI, because it takes genuine talent and generalised intelligence to come up with an original and gripping story.   AI is very good at regurgitating ideas and tends to create short stories accurately with little adventure or surprise in them.  In other words, it would probably be pretty good at writing modern episodes of the Simpsons, but it is not going to create new dramas with millions of viewers tuning in to watch.  Comedy is also likely a safe area for now;  AI sucks at comedy, because it requires a proper human understanding of why a joke is funny (and also context-dependent, like political or current affairs comedy). 

I think for a few years there have been a lot of writers in a room with very little real content written. It goes to the old adage of "too many cooks spoil the broth". With so many people who want to throw some input in there are many storylines that get thrown out because of an inability to agree. I wouldn't put it past them to have already abused AI stuff to write some of the stories.

For actors, there's the star factor... I don't think fake actors generated by AI would cut it.  I can see a risk for extras, there is one studio already that is famous for getting their extras on set for a day but the contract assigns all rights to their image for the remainder of the shoot and CGI is used to add them into scenes as needed.  So suddenly you go from having someone being paid a reasonable amount for a month's worth of shooting, getting only one or two day's pay.  That's quite bad for those guys.  But the major A- and B-list stars are safe for some time,  no one wants to see AI Tim Cruze,  they want to see human Tom Cruise because they know he's a real guy and they see him on the red carpet and on chat shows and all sorts.  CGI could, with enough effort, already replace a lot of these actors, but it hasn't.  That's because these actors are as much actors as they are marketing for the film.

I can see why they are worried as with the deepfake abilities they may no longer be needed other than to provide samples for the CGI experts to use. Who holds the copyright on your image/likeness etc. even after your death?
Imagine a company that gets a bunch of people to turn up for a couple of hours and they take all the images they need and then that person ends up being paid a nominal fee but ends up on 100s of films, a bit like stock images. But even worse is when that person becomes a well-paid actor but this firm still has your image they can sell on. Loads of fun for the Scum Sucking Lawyers.
Currently with the streaming options its not clear how successful a program/film is and many actors rely on the residuals to survive.