I can see your argument for it Doc, but surely, Cinema prices would have to drop, just to give the philistines a reason to unstick themselves from the sofa.

Couldn't agree more. Simultaneous distribution is the way forward for today's rapidly moving and tech savvy world.

And if you introduce digital projection and transfer of films to cinemas nationwide then huge amounts of money can be saved on distribution costs.

The future is digital and if cinema doesn't keep up with the trend its going to be as hard hit as the music industry was a few years ago.

Totally agree Mark.

This is a great step and a perfect way for more people to see lower-budget and art-house pictures. It's also great for those films which don't get a large cinematic release.

I'm sure I'll get to see 'Route Irish' at the Duke of York's Brighton but I highly doubt Ken's latest will flood into our local Odeon's and Cineworld's.

This is a wonderful thing for cinema and it seems mental that anyone would want to complain about it.

The future's simultaneous distribution, the future's digital, the future's... three-dimensional. *chuckle*

Mark, I don't think that simultaneous release would stop piracy. Even if a film was available on DVD/ Download legally while in the cinema I would still download it illegally because it is free. My only reason for downloading is that as a student I cannot afford all the films that I want to watch.



If anything it would increase the ammount of pirating as DVD / BluRay rips with all the special features and quality would be appearing online from day 1.

Got to disagree on this one. If we did have simultanious cross-format releases for all films, then cinemas would be empty, blockbusters wouldn't be going bust, and pirates would be watching crispy bluray rips on day 1 instead of shaky handycam recordings.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ooops didn't realise I put whilst twice in the same sentence. Sorry.

How does one phoneticize that buzzer noise?



To quote David Lynch (minus expletives), "Now, if you're playing your movie on a telephone you will never, in a trillion years, experience the film. You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your 'f-ing' telephone. Get real."



Exactly. People who watch movies with their phones don't deserve to watch movies, but hey, they're paying for the tickets, yes? To get their revenue, theaters are going to have to charge EVEN MORE per ticket if half of the audience is gone. Doctor, that probably means more 3D films than 2D.



The idea that the people who would buy Ken Loache's or Todd Solondz's new film on a phone are the same people who text incessantly in the theater is bonkers.

I do agree with what you say, Mark, but I do feel that you're forgetting the most important part: it's often not a question of format, but of price, and in a world where saving every penny matters, if they can easily get a film for free from any nuber of sites on the internet, why should they pay for it?



(P.S.: I don't think that way personally, but there are many who do)

I can't believe I've had my comments removed. Thank Darwin, I can express my opinions freely in The Guardian.

I agree that digital simultaneous releases are the future model. A couple of caveats though:



1. Piracy will still exist because nothing is ever going to be cheaper than free. Consider the example of the music industry: music can be distributed digitally in a legal fashion but people still share songs illegally.



2. To counteract this effect, streaming services would seem to be the most obvious model. In order for streaming to be viable, average broadband speeds will have to increase and become less variable - current services are just too unstable to watch full length movies at present IMO.



3. A compromise "lending" model might work, allowing users a limited download of film for off-line use with some sort of watermark being embedded in the picture (with perhaps a "premium" package removing this) - if I were a l*vef*lm or n*tfl*x, this would be my approach.



Regardless, there has to be an acknowledgement by the industry that the genie is out of the bottle and it's never going to be the same again - the medium is the message (massage?) afterall...

With that in mind, would film artists get royalties in the way that songwriters do? Is there a film equivalent of PRS making sure the money gets there? In which case, your streaming sites would presumably pay that way...

I agree with everything you said but there is one fundamental flaw... if they make films available for download on release or streaming... their will always be somebody who will figure out how to copy it and post it illegally on the internet for people to get it for free. I'm personally don't see a problem with downloading films from big studios who have billions and billions to spend on films but I see a problem for smaller art house films that will be lucky to be on 20 screens in the cinema same goes for music in my humble opinion.



Rip off the big guns... support the people who actually need the money or support the films you like by seeing the film in the cinema or buying a dvd.

I think you're being uncharacteristically naive here Mark. As mentioned before, people download for the sole reason that it's free. If someone is not sure they're going to like the film, they‘re no more likely to pay for the film online than they are at the cinema.



Also I like the idea that a film is only available (legally at least) at the cinema for a short while; it gives the launch of a new film a sense of occasion. Maybe I'm alone on that one though.

the problem is that they will download it legally and then they will spread it (illegally) to everybody else...

Just to play Devil's Advocate a little:



There's a little film called The Man From Earth, it's low budget but has a few well known faces in it and also happens to be brilliant. The producers of the film have publicly thanked illegal file sharing sites for raising the awareness of the film to a level it may not have got otherwise, going so far as to set up a paypal account to accept donations from anyone who illegally downloaded the film but wish to contribute something towards it...



There was an argument made in the gaming community recently that piracy does not harm revenue as much as is claimed. For instance if someone has no interest in buying, say, 'title A' but downloads it on a whim; no revenue has actually been lost. Furthermore upon playing the illegal copy of 'title A' they realize they enjoy the game and purchase it legally soon afterward; thus piracy led to a legitimate sale that otherwise may not have been made.

It's a controversial argument but it could be extended to the realm of film.



Other arguments to be made pro-piracy would be if certain films (or even cuts of films) are unavailable or unobtainable for some reason.



An element of piracy I detest, always have and always will, is the sale of pirated material. The above arguments only cover a self serving individual and whilst controversial are logical and legitimate. Anyone mass producing illegal copies of games or films etc for their own financial gain is blatantly breaking the law.

@Dave B: I would contest your assertion that the sole reason for illegal downloading is due to it being free - you can't discount the convenience factor.



For better or for worse, people like to consume their entertainment within the cocoon-like safety of the home - first-hand communal experience is perhaps becoming more of a niche pleasure, as will the novel exclusivity factor of a cinema-only release. In my workplace, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who regularly attend the cinema - it's just not convenient enough for them (particularly those with families).



In addition, people don't want to wait for that convenience either. One just has to look at Sky TV showing the final episode of "Lost" a day after its domestic broadcast - that would probably never have happened 10 or even 5 years ago (no doubt someone will disprove this!).



I agree with MiST that the more eyeballs, the better, regardless of the bottom line.

Time and again I read or hear about films I'd love to see in my local cinema in the Netherlands, but cannot because they're not released here. Some of them not even on DVD. So at the moment my choise is to download those films illegaly... or not see them at all. What would you do?

I think the biggest reason why taking your phone is rubbish is because no one pirates films that have been filmed on a mobile phone. Hand cam rips are only a very small part of piracy, not many people want to watch a film with video that poor even if the audio has been taken from the audio for deaf people feed. Instead the majority of movie piracy is probably of DVD Screeners of releases. In the UK at least these can often appear before the film has even been released in the UK (such as Black Swan's delayed release date). Forget multi-platform release, getting films at the same time as other parts of the world (mainly US) would be a start!

I agree with Lenty. I also agree that Mark that going to the cinema and viewing it on a big screen is the best way to view most films.



I say "most" because I am blessed to own a very nice large TV and surround sound setup in the house so I will happily wait for certain films to appear on DVD - "Fair Game" being a good example. My fiancee and I often base our decision on what to see in the cinema on how "cinematic" the movie appears to be.



I do download occasionally but that tends to be films that I don't want to buy and/or can't rent (recent examples would be Posession prior to its recent DVD release or The Devils).

I like the idea of simultaneous download, for many reasons that people have stated here. The major one being that it can sometimes take months for a cinema release in Oz (if at all for some arthouse movies).



If I enjoy a downloaded version, I am more than happy to purchase a DVD version of it as well. However, my first love is to be able to see it in a cinema. I love the big screen experience. There's nothing like it.

Well said, now can we get the damn cinemas to be consumer friendly rather than manipulative. I use an Unlimited card, and went to the cinema 62 times. I am also taking my kids fairly often too. I go precisely for that eyefilling thaetrical experience. So why oh why do you insist on making it impossible to know the screen on which the film is being shown, except by physically being there. I arrange my viewing around the cinema in use. This seems especially true given the collision of films at the moment where films are coming off the main screen weekly or worse. Frankly the cinemas need a good shakeup. Its only the smaller ones that show any originality.

I can only agree for the most practical of reasons. I am, at present, living and working in South Korea and, as far as I can tell, unless it's Harry Potter or Tron Legacy, I'm not gonna see it at a cinema here. Now, sadly enough, I would love nothing more than to turn my brain off for two hours in the dark and watch Battle LA in a cinema but, the option not being available, I would gladly do it in my apartment but, at present, the only option available to me is a muddy camera down the back of the cinema affair and I don't think that anybody really enjoys a movie seen that way. So I'll have to wait and let the positive notes I've heard from friends about the enjoyable stupidity of the film fester into a ball of negativity and hate it in a few months time. The pointless rigidity of the relationship between distributors and cinema chains bothers me no end. It's one of the few industries where they still moan about progress as if they people should feel sorry for them. Progress means that film making and distributing should get cheaper, less centralized, more competitive and, therefore, better as a whole. If that costs people who've been getting rich off of it for decades, I don't think anyone should care.

In the 80's and early 90's I was told by companies like Sony that "home taping is kiling music", whilst they were simultaneously quite happy to sell me the technology to do it. Fast forward to today, the music industry is doing okay, except as in most things it is the little guy who is hurt most. One unintended benefit - the real dough is now in live gigs which you can't pirate, meaning big acts are actually having to work for a living in between driving luxury cars into swimming pools. The movie business is the same, in respect of the law of unintended consequences. Consider, a friend of mine downloads movies, and if they're good, he buys the Blu-Ray to enjoy it properly. If they're bad he's lost nothing. Maybe the laws of natural selection mean this could lead to better movies; as with the music scenario, internet choice means something actually has to compete and be genuinely good to earn our money.

I'll come clean. I see very few films at the cinema nowadays. (I used to; but only occasionally now - due to time, work, effort, expense etc.)



Most of what I see is on DVD from rentals; When a film comes out on DVD I only pay £1 or £2 at my library.



But, I also catch a lot of movies from pirated downloads that are sold (on DVDs) very cheaply (e.g. the big blockbuster of the day, a day after it's cinema release - £2.) from 'contacts'.

There is a downside. The quality from pirated versions varies enormously.



Some are clearly unfinished versions (unfinished wire-frame CGI). Some have "Review Version Only" watermarked over them.

Some are good quality ~ but in Russian etc [with subtitles]; some have clearly been videotaped by a video camera on a tripod pointed at the screen etc.

But others are of good quality. And they can get some very obscure indie/foreign movies too. But at least you get to see the movie.



If I had to pay to get a legit, good quality viewing over the internet then I'd pay (if it's cheaper than the multiplex).



Those that want a night out will go to the multiplex; people like me that catch movies when they can will pay to see over the web (& I can hook my PC up to a widescreen TV).



Not catering for both is actually against the film companies best interests.

I completely disagree Mark. This will be fine for 'cinema' and for the film industry, but it will KILL movie theaters. Releasing small independent films on disk and for download at the same time as the theatrical release is fine for those little films. It doesn't hurt theaters because those films wouldn't make money at mainstream theaters anyway. Saying 'Mum & Dad' did just fine isn't saying much at all. It's good that a low budget film (that a mainstream audience is not going to see) can get their film out there when only smaller art houses are going to play the film anyway. Giving this same option to 'bigger' films will only have a negative effect on local theaters.

And as I've always heard, theaters make their money at the concession stand. You may be annoyed at the obnoxious people that go to the theater and play with their wireless devices, but they are putting butts in the seats and sometimes buy popcorn and a beverage. You may be happier with fewer of them in the same audience when you're trying to enjoy a film, but I'm sure the theater owners will not.



Just look at the effect streaming is having on the movie rental business. It's going to kill DVD and blue ray because it's a matter of convenience. It's already killing the big video chains. Movie theaters will fold the same way if you can rent Pirates 4 at home on it's theatrical release date. I know you hate the 'Pirates' films but they make gazillions of dollars... A lot of that goes to theaters. Give people more options and take away the fact that they'll have to wait another 6 months to see it at home and you'll start to see a profound effect not only on box office ticket sales, but you'll also see the big studios start to devote more of their interest to getting the film directly to the consumer. Great for the consumer. Bad for people who like to see the film in an audience on the big screen with popcorn and a beverage.



(And @ Joel_Cooney

I don't know what you're watching streamed movies on, but I have no such gripes. I watch films all of the time on my widescreen computer. I have no complaints with quality and I have yet to have a film be interrupted. I've also been able to watch obscure films that I would NEVER be able to find at the video store. I have no idea what you mean by unstable. I had more complaints about quality when I was renting DVDs and the film would stop or pixellate because of a smudge.)



It's a bad, BAD thing, Mark. If you love seeing films at theaters and more importantly SUPPORT local theaters of any kind you will rethink your stance on this. As others have said, it won't hurt the 'pirates'. It'll only hurt theater owners.

The Oxonian Review just published an interesting interview with Ken Loach where they ask him about exactly this point:

https://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/an-interview-with-ken-loach/



Seems like Route Irish is only on in about 20 cinemas!

I couldn't agree more, digitals downloads are here to say and the sooner the movie industry gets on board the sooner they can turn it from a threat into a benefit.



There is the argument that as long as people can get films for free they will continue to download them illegally. Of course some people will always choose to do this but there is one thing that is better (at least for most people) than free, and that's easy. If people can download films quickly and easily, 2 things which generally aren't the case with illegal downloads, then most people will be willing to pay a little bit for the convenience. I could get music illegally but it's so much less hassle to simply go on itunes and pay 79p for a song, afterall it's only 79p. Lets not forget that buying films in this way won't cost as much as going to the cinema as the distribution costs will be massively reduced.



In fact the more I think about it, the more it seems that there isn't really a downside.



Meanwhile going to the cinema will become a far more pleasurable experience as it won't be overrun with people who don't understand the etiquette of not disturbing other patrons because they can be watching it at home where they can talk as much as they like.



It may spell the end of multiplexes as it will no longer be necessary to have 9 screens only showing the 3 latest blockbusters, but could help smaller cinemas who cater for more serious film goers who enjoy a the cinema experience.

Totally here you Doc,

but your no down with reality man. Cinema tickets are £6+ in Manchester, so if you want you dreams to come true the big picture will have to drop their prices BIG time.....



By the way - how much popcorn and sweets do you go through a week?

I agree with the general sentiment, but....



1. Piracy will never be eliminated completely. There will always been an appetite to get films either cheaper of for free. Admittedly, this will be a small section of people. I agree that generally people do want to do things legally, but sometimes the path of least resistance proves very appealing to some.



2. You will never eliminate irritating people at the cinema, not least because Mayo will be tweeting, but also because there are very small amounts of people who just like causing a nuisance.



3. It will be interesting to see how much of an appetite there will be for the big screen. As others have pointed out, prices are always on the increase. If such a system were to become the norm, would we see a massive drop in cinema attendances, leading to closures and redundancies. My suspicion is that such a drop would be small, as the "Big Screen Experience" still counts for something, but a larger fall is possible.

I completely agree, the only reason for much of the online piracy is a matter of format, I have no interest in the cinema as I cannot stand the constant interuption by sneezing, wrapper crunching, coughing, nattering twits that are bound to sit near me, I want the experience at home on my TV, from my computer, stop/start. A few years ago not possible/ now possible, fantastic. as for revenue stream the movie makers bemoand the vhs video as the end of cinema, the same way smokers bemoaned the end of pub life after the smoking ban , all that happend is that the pubs attracted a new revenue stream of non-smokers and the movie makers a new revenue stream of home movie watchers.

You will always have online piracy in the same way as friends borrow books, the piracy will be drastically reduced if you make movies available across all formats at all times, keep the prices competetive or create a movie library for a monthly fee, the options for studios are endless, pursuing pirates is costly and a waste of energy, time and money, which would be better spent trying to attract the pirates to legally available formats at reasonable prices.

im in total agreement with this. people go to the cinema for the experience, there is no real problem with letting people who probably wouldnt be going to the cinema anyway paying to stream the movie.

Also it means that people who want to see films that are not on at cinemas near them do not have to wait for the DVD release.

hmmm, listening to your arguement you have a strong case but i think it will still cause some damage. block busters are the ones that are hit hardest by piracy. because they are so large and flash, with big names and trailers left right and center, more people, who arent really described as film buffs, steal them from the tinterwebz. so when this distribution revolution gets in full sway the multi plex's will lose a lot of customers. i know, it sounds good but there's more.



Your smaller pictures like mr. loach's 'route irish' arent everywhere and the majority of people interested in them will be getting their film news either from the indie or art house cinema or through their own investigations in magazines or websites. so indie films will expand through the new distribution, by getting people who they couldn't normally reach through your traditional distribution.



the multi plex would close making poor yet expensive films diminish with the market whilst indie cinema would flourish by expanding their potential audience causing a growth in the british film industry, along with the sucsesses we've been having internationally with the likes of kings speech and slum dog.



sounds good to me.

Here's a topic that I never see raised re: pirating. I have a friend who visits China about twice a year. Available in China are pirated copies of new release DVDs of variable (but mostly high) quality. Some are complete commercial quality DVDs with all extras; some are obviously Oscar bait rip-offs with "For your consideration" appearing all over them; some are wierd hybrids with Chinese dubbing and/or subtitles. This friend can buy commercial quality DVDs in China of new release films even *before* those films are released in cinemas in Australia.



I find it almost impossible to believe that the movie industry is not co-operating with piracy and getting some sort of kickback from it. I find it almost impossible to believe that it is not possible for the movie industry to institute technological security controls that would severely curtail piracy so I therefore conclude that, piracy being the slick and efficient operation that it is, the movie industry has got to be making money out of it somehow because they appear to be making no serious efforts to stamp it out beyond telling rich Westerners that they should feel bad if they do it.



My friend suggested to me that we know that the populations of India, China and Indonesia are probably not going to be prepared to pay $20 a pop for a DVD. But they probably are prepared to pay $1-2 for a DVD. The population of India exceeds 1 billion, 1 million; the population of China exceeds 1 billion, 3 million; the population of Indonesia is a piffling 200 million. If the movie studios are getting kickbacks from those $1-2 pirate DVDs penetrating into Asian markets then they would be adding literally billions and billions of dollars to their take-home in funny money.



So what do people think of my suspicions? Possible? Improbable?



Even if this is not happening does anyone want to option my idea for a movie? - feisty female reporter uncovers conspiracy? I see it as a kind of Eat, Pray, Love meets The Net.

Mark, You are partially right I think. As lots of people have stated its money that really drives the piracy market. And I think for many years the DVD has been over-priced. Just like CDs. Now we are moving to downloads... instead of the prices drastically being reduced, due to no manufacturing costs, the download prices are £1-2 of the CD/DVD price. Surely this is where the problem is, everyone knows they are paying through the nose for the stuff... OK there is infrastructure to support the download market, but I think this is much less than manufacturing and distribution ... but the price seems to stay over inflated . Personnally I'm not a great DVD buyer ... I like the cinema ... so making it available earlier doesn't really change my habits of visiting the local fleapit ... its so much better on the big screen.

in many way I agree with you that simultaneous format releases is the future but you are wrong when you say it will stop ignorant people from disrupting the cinema going experience of others



they will continue to go to the cinema, whatever formats studios or distribution companies come up with, mainly because it's a form of social activity



it is up to the cinemas themselves to set the standards of behaviour expected of cinemagoers



hopefully the lost box office from simultaneous format releases will force cinemas to improve the quality of the cinemagoing experience at their cinemas.

Think I agree. Technology changes both our behaviour and our art, whether we like it or not - and we don’t know how it will change cinema - the genie is out of the bottle. So Mark’s right, give the people what they want on whatever platform they want it on - or get left behind. On payment, like the music industry, the movie industry is steadily missing it’s moment to dive into digital realms before it’s too late and upcoming generations got set in their own ways of getting around it. I think internet connection in the UK should come with a license fee for public service content and the BBC – but that’s a whole ‘nother blog posting….

Film is following slowly behind the music industry, and it will encounter most of the same copy-protected pitfalls along the way. Unfortunately, unlike music which requires an incredibly low bandwidth to deliver, streaming distribution of film to the home is going to fall foul of our nation's globally-ridiculed broadband speeds. It might currently be viable in the big cities (where the cinemas already are), but those of us out in the sticks haven't got a hope in hell thanks to Thatcher's stubborn and short-sighted refusal to follow sensible European nations in installing a national fibre-optic backbonbe in the 80s.



Yes, I'm one of those who blames Thatcher for everything.



Also, @Nils Åstrand - what a great argument. I can't afford to drive the nice sports car I would like, so by your rationale it should be okay for me to go and steal it, yes? Or maybe go and squat in the four bedroom detached my wife and I can't quite stretch our mortgage repayments to?

Completely, completely disagree with Dr K here.



The idea is that there's the choice to see these films on the same day wherever and however you want. There was no such thing. No cinema around here played any of the films listed. Where was LIFE DURING WARTIME screened? Did ON TOUR actually make it past the M25? For all the arguments about digital projection and more screens, movies outside the mainstream popcorn revenue stream simply aren't getting shown. Your local 16-screener has no interest in OF GODS AND MEN because it can get more money using that screen running PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN or whatever, even though that it's also running in four other screens.



The fact is that a day-date multi-platform release makes theatrical screenings of these films less likely, not more likely. These are minority interest films to start with - they're not going to try this with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4 - so the numbers are very small, and if they can see the exact same film on the exact same day at home, the cinema's take is going to be even smaller. What's in it for them? A film that played to a 5% house is now playing to a 2% house. And those people at home are also paying out the huge markup on popcorn and sweets and tacos at the concession stand.



And piracy isn't going to be stopped by this. As long as there are people who think it's okay to steal from major studios because they're rich and can afford the losses (which is incidentally a pathetic and delusional justification of theft - try nicking a DVD from Tescos and see how far that Rich-Poor Divide Defence gets you in court), as long as people are desperate enough to want to see the films before anyone else, as long as people basically don't give a damn, it's going to happen. Day-date won't reduce it.

Dear Mark. I think your views on this are a little outdated (e.g. comparing it to the home video invasion in the 80s). Its not the same. Look at the music industry, it is screwed, and the movie industry may suffer a similar fate if it isn't careful about distributing its product.



I suggest you do a serious piece on this, just to bring you up to speed with the issues. Pirating a movie in the cinema on a mobile phone is irrelevant.



As some other contributers have mentioned, the simultaneous release of movies on cinema/download/mobile devices will just lead to DVD/Bluray quality pirated versions being available earlier, and thus competing directly with the cinema release.



Today when a movie is showing in the cinema, there will always be a dark and dingy, 'shot on a camera' version available for free download. The availability of this dodgy copy does not harm the cinema custom to a great extent I would guess, as the people who would watch a badly pirated film were probably not going to pay at the cinema anyway. In the new simultaneous distribution model, this dodgy copy will change to a bluray quality version being available for free.



So when a film is released, the new choice will be ... pay somewhere between £5-£50 to go to the cinema (variable factors include kids/location/pick-n-mix/babysitters etc) .... or download it for free from your sofa.



I can see a lot of people, normal people not just evil hoodie pirates, opting for the latter. Going to the cinema is an expensive affair nowadays, especially with kids (& pic-n-mix). Today the free option is not there, in the new system it will be.



Yes, but people can download it legally easily so piracy won't be an issue. But those same people will be able to illegally download it for free - in the same quality - at the same time - just as easily.



When a movie comes out on DVD/Blu, it is ripped immediately by pirates and posted online in DVD/Blu quality. These downloads harm the DVD sales to an extent I'm sure, but it doesn't harm the cinema box-office, so maybe the problem is not so high profile right now. In the new model it will be.



All this talk of illegally downloading something is giving a false impression too. Today your average granny knows how to download a movie illegally. Having a DVD quality release at the same time as the cinema may just well promote (illegally) downloading movies to the mainstream, whilst mortally wounding cinema attendance.



I do agree that the simultaneous distribution model is 'the future'. It will happen, the technology is nearly there, its such an obvious step. I just hope the movie industry implements it in such a way that the cinema experience is not harmed.

@ Kid Chameon - No, that would be out of context. People who download films illegally do so because it is easy to get away with and seen by many as a sort of social crime (like with the prohibition, there is currently no social stigma towards the downloading of films illegally).



This is why those "You wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a car" adverts, and your argument fall flat on their faces, because the people that they target, no matter what others say, feel that while squatting and burgling are crimes which hurt people, downloading a film is not. No one equates sharing films online to pragmatic offences.



If I can cut corners in my general living expenses in full knowledge that I will most likely not be caught or loose face and that no one will be directly offended (I know that in the long term Hollywood looses money, but I'd rather selfishly want save my own money than theirs), I certainly would download films illegally, even if they were available from day 1.



The only incentive for going to the cinema nowadays is if I cannot find a film online, if I go as a social occasion with friends, or if the film presented is supposedly a 3D spectacle (another reason why I think 3D is probably the future of cinema).

I could go on all day about the things that annoy me about the cinema...



People showing up when the movie's started, and making a big deal about finding seats for example.



Or the guy who takes absolutely aaaaages to decide what he wants from the concession stand. It's called "Fast Food" for a reason you halfwit!

The simularities with the music industry are obvious really, music is legally available to buy on the internet but millions of people still download illegally. And as many other people have said there's nothing cheaper than free. It's not like the good old days when everthing was done in-house, there are so many digital copies of films flying about with CG studios and the like that it's not difficult for someone to make a copy.



i think there is another reason your mobile is taken though and that is the control of publicity and, dare i say it, the MONEY they might lose if you naughty jurnalists take a couple of photos of the film to put in magazines and articles that you would otherwise have to pay for.

The good Doctor makes some fair points, however, as others have pointed out, the bottom line is expenditure and, as I can only assume legal downloading incurs a charge, the problem won't go away with simultaneous release. People are so shamelessly cheap these days they want everything for free. That's why illegally downloaded music was rife for so long and is still a problem; it's why print journalism is dieing out; it's why discount shops do so well and why you can't walk down any supermarket aisle without seeing half price and by-one-get-one-free deals everywhere you look. It's a sad and really rather pathetic social development but I think this is the real issue. So though simultaneous release may persuade the impatient amongst us to stick to the law, it will never persuade the skinflints.

Give people the option to watch and download films in the exact same way as we do with music (legally). It will benefit everybody, no-one loses (you really think those "poor" movie execs will miss out? What, like those "poor" musicians who now make more from downloads and live concerts than CD sales?). Technology isn't about either-or; it adds to the choices we already make.

I can see where you are coming from Mark especially with the video argument but I respectfully disagree in terms of fighting piracy.



There are two things that are hurting the film industry and that is...



1. DVD screeners that are provided for awards consideration instead create Bafta/Academy screenings around the UK/world instead.



2. Peer to Peer indexing sites.

Going after the individuals is too costly and a waste of time as you will not get the fine from them and the original source is still out there. Movie studios need to push to make these kind of sites illegal in the countries they are currently allowed.



Get rid of those two elements and piracy will drop dramatically. It will still be there with camera based ones and when the films are released for retail but the removal of peer to peer networks would be huge.

If the online purchase costs are cheap enough some people might be willing to buy rather than copy films.



I remember during the 80s when a lot of people copied computer games costing about 10 pounds or more onto cassette tape.



When companies started bringing out games for £2 a lot of people didn't bother pirating them thinking "it's only £2" and wanted to support the company that chose that pricing model.



That company was Codemasters and they still exist today.



Also one has to take into consideration the electricity cost of having a computer on for hours on end.



There is a simpler problem. For those willing to wait virtually every hollywood movie will be available to legally copy off TV for free.



Those that go to work that can't be bothered with the hassle of piracy will still buy them.

@Crash Landen re: 27 -



Your assertion only works on the logic of exclusivity - you assume that people will either go to the cinema OR download the film digitally, with no middle ground in between. I would disagree - I suspect that the net result is people will see more films and - importantly - a greater diversity of films (Long Tail and all that jazz).



In the same way that people continue to go to pubs despite the availability of cheap booze at the supermarket and continue to attend live concerts and football matches despite music being available to download and the game being on TV, people will continue to go to the cinema, precisely because it's something to do; a destination, an event, a night out. The only tangible consequence of liberalisation I can envision is perhaps people who otherwise wouldn't watch a film upon release will now have the opportunity to do so at their own convenience. You yourself concede that you "watch films all of the time" on your computer - shouldn't more people have the same opportunity if they choose to? What about people who want to watch their favourite films in transit (trains, flights etc) - they might have an MP3 player for music but they can't have films merely because the industry distribution model is 5-10 years behind the curve?



I don't doubt that it may probably affect some cinema attendance - particularly multiplexes; some might close, which is unfortunate but then you could argue that these are the very institutions that are stifling competition and choice for consumers in the first place with their Asda/Walmart mentality (stack 'em high!). I think Arthouse cinema, precisely because it is aimed at cinephiles - the sort of audience that will queue up again and again to see "It's a wonderful life" at christmas - will probably get by just fine.



In summation, like a lot of the facets of modernity, I wouldn't characterize this change as necessarily "good" or "bad" - merely "different".



p.s. My comments about the quality of streaming are more general - anecdotal evidence to the contrary or not, Broadband in the UK is slow and unreliable. As I hope I made clear in the first comment I made, I am an advocate of streaming media as one solution to filesharing but there has to be a decent base to work from first or it won't work.

Commenters above are saying that this will have no impact because a large group of people will always want free, and won't pay.



Fine.



They're entirely out of the equation - those people would *never* be part of a film's revenue anyway; they're permanent non-customers.



The number of people with pirated copies is an entirely irrelevant number; it's the number of people *paying* that matter - and it's not at all a zero-sum game.



What allowing simul-releases will do will convert people who aren't currently customers through (in)convenience into customers. Some of these people feel accessing pirate movies to be a barrier (so don't watch any movies until they're available legally in the home); some don't.



Take me as an example - 3 small kids with few babysitting options. Getting to the movies (especially with my wife) for anything but kids' movies is a nightmare. We've only managed it once in about 3 years (Sherlock Holmes - great movie, great night out, thanks for asking). But we watch a fair number of movies at home bought/rented from iTunes. We'd watch a load more and pay for the privilege if the range were wider, and more up to date.



As long as the total number of paying customers goes up, who *cares* whether there are more pirate viewers?



The runaway success of iTunes (etc) has shown this - make the content available conveniently, legally, and without eye-watering price-gouging, and you grow your customer base, grow your revenues.



Now, it's entirely possible as a result of this that the movie theatre business may shrink, and become more of a specialist market. Y'know what - same happened to vinyl (and to a lesser extent: CDs). Yet the music business continues to expand, the customer base is expanding, the revenue overall is expanding. If you want to buy vinyl, you have to look a bit harder for it, but it is available in most urban areas.



And the movies that will do the theatre experience actually won't be the mass market ones that'll focus on the mass consumption (but lower quality) experiences of phone & home viewing. It'll be the quality movies whose directors care about the theatrical experience.

Interestingly (to coin a phrase) the issue that bedevilled the music industry and is doing the same with the movie industry is not solely the fact that pirate downloads are free, it's that they don't have what is called "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) which restricts how you can actually watch (or listen to) the content that you have legally bought.



If I buy an LP then I can play that LP on any gramophone. If I buy a book, I can read it anywhere. If I buy a digital download of an album or a movie I can only watch/isten to it under some ludicrous conditions - but without, critically, ensuring that the DRM actually works properly (look up Sony Rootkit to see how that can go wrong) or, worse, that the central repository continues to function - if iTunes closed tomorrow, a lot of people would find that a fair amount of this music they had paid for would no longer play. This has already happened with some big eMusic stores.



And then people are surprised that "illegal" copies are popular. Not because they are cost-free but because they are DRM-free.



The music and film industries will continue to be immensely profitable, even in this new digital world. They just won't be as immensely profitable as they were before. In a world which considers growth to be the only thing that matters, this is seen as being a failure. Frankly, I have difficulty in feeling sorry for an industry that used to make e.g. £100 billion only making £50 billion instead. I guess those producers will have to have one less bathroom in their mansion.



Meanwhile the "cinema" will continue to exist but it will learn to change and adapt. The independent circuit seems to have done that pretty well - the last three visits to my local cinema were to see one film and two "simulcasts" (from the Met Opera and the National Theatre.)

It would help this debate if film corporations would stop exaggerating there losses to piracy (the last year internet piracy cost the industry X billion). Pirates were probably never going to pay for those films, and if the option to pirate was unavailable, they could just watch something on TV instead. On the hole internet pirates have a broader film knowledge than the film than distributors or television (TV may be the real losers to the internet) would normal offer them. Which will gradually bring new blood to the cinemas when pirates wont to see a film they like 'how it was meant to be seen'.

The sad truth is if you're a filmmaker nowadays you have to accept that your film is going to be pirated. A good way of protecting your revenue stream is through the extras you make available with the purchase of the film - different cuts/endings for different formats etc. A good example of how future independent films may be funded and distributed is https://www.thecosmonaut.org

I'd have to disagree a bit. When I was 7-12 years old I recall there being about 5 picture houses in South Shields (where I am from). When Video's came out they all closed pretty much within a year or so. My father who used to work in one of these picture houses told me that South Shields, at one point, had about 12 or so picture houses.

When these picture houses closed they were either knocked down or turned into night clubs. It's impossible to see how a new one can be opened unless it's wedged into an generally inappropriate building etc.

The nearest cinema at the time was in Newcastle. This may as well have been 1 million miles away. I could argue that the only reason that there are mainstream cinemas is because of the blockbuster/formulaic animation tosh coming out of hollywood...?

Either way, there was also loads and loads of pirate videos, especially when the long play format emerged!

Mark - all these movies you talk about were extremely cheap and had nothing to lose being released on these platforms. They are also not what you would call a target for pirates, so the risk is extremely minimal.



However, studios have to go to great lengths to protect content and if that means confiscating phones on pre release screenings then I have to say I agree with them. Everybody has to be treat equally in this instance and they cannot discriminate and take phones off one person and not another just because you don't like it.



There have been way too many instances of trailers (comicon for eg) and movies stolen via mobile phones and this situation will increase as hand held devices become more advanced.



The figures simply don't add up to release movies on every platform day and date. If this was a viable and profitable option don't you think it would have happened by now....?

dsscolumbia wrote:

The figures simply don't add up to release movies on every platform day and date. If this was a viable and profitable option don't you think it would have happened by now....?

Hmmm... correct me if I'm wrong but you argument appears to be that it wouldn't be viable to try simultaneous multi-platform releases because it hasn't been tried already. Isn't that just begging the question? How about another alternative explanation - namely that the industry distribution model hasn't properly caught up with the technology yet.

Remember how long it took for iTunes to appear after the release of Napster. And who created iTunes? Apple, a tech company, NOT a record label. The film industry is the like the music industry 5-10 years ago (and that lot still haven't fully embraced the change yet).

I do understand your point Mark, however I don't believe the reason why (some) people download pirated movies is because they want to watch it at home. It's because they want it for free. If you make the release date the same in all areas (dvd's, cinema release, itunes etc) surely all that will happen is that the free pirated versions on websites will be higher quality (i.e. ripped from DVD's). It's a sad fact but just some people cannot be bothered spending the little bit of money to get the most out of the film, whether that be cinema or DVD. It's just about ease and getting something for nothing. I think the only way round piracy is to just shut down the sites that provide it. Which of course is nearly impossible. It's a shame because I don't understanding why some people would not go and watch a film such as True Grit at the cinema, with it's stunning landscapes which are clearly meant to be viewed huge with high quality projectors. I think all their is to do is give people prison sentences for piracy and terrify people into not doing it. Seems a bit Nazi but not sure what else there is to do...



Enjoying the podcasts and the blog Doc!



Olly

Many file-sharers will download a DVD or BR rip or R5, assuming its a decent conversion, because the quality is good enough, whereas many will pass on the invariably spoiled CAM version. So even for the low-income/next-to-no-income file-sharer there's still some incentive to occasionally pay to go to the cinema to properly see that big-deal movie every once in a while and not have to wait, knowing that a decent conversion is currently unattainable.



Make everything simultaneous and maybe you nix that incentive, of a sort, to go cinema, for some...

I DISAGREE!



Your VHS analogy isn't completely suitable as VHS was obviously distributed an agreed time window AFTER the theatrical release. The main concern about simultaneous releases is that they are SIMULTANEOUS, NOT that it is multi-platform. The worry is that people can just buy one DVD/download instead of a cinema ticket AND a DVD/download.



The big losers are likely to be the multiplexes, which may not seem like that badder thing, but then this is the house which 'Inception' and 'Toy Story 3' inhabit and establish their reputations.



Smaller films like your examples don't rely so much on a commercial reputation being established through theatrical release so they have less to lose.



Love the blog Steve!

Just one thing I would like to point out.

The idea that those who download illegally are only watching blockbuster movies. That is not true at all. A lot of people download because that is the only way they would ever get to see the movie.

The same can be said for music.

In this digital age the restrictions placed are laughable. For instance I cannot legally through itunes ( or other mp3 sites) buy the music I want as it is not available in my region.

Cinema would not be hurt by making the films available in other formats on the same day at all. I don't go to the cinema very often. The last film was The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I had a woman sitting next to me on her iphone throughout the whole film , the light from it was so bright it shone in my face. So I prefer to watch movies on my TV where i am not subjected to the annoyance of others who clearly have no interest in movies.

Blockbuster movies will always fill cinema seats whether they are available on any other format. Simultaneous release would be a fantastic boost to other kinds of films and give them a new audience.

This is a seemingly common sense ideas that benefits for all parties concerned. But there is another advantage to this that may not have been foreseen. If you can stream new film releases online to watch on your TV/ phone/ computer then conceivably film companies could create their own online film archive, Warner Bros. cinema library, for example. These online archives could online older releases as well, such as black and white films. This would generate more revenue but allow the watching of films yet to be released on DVD.

My wife and I have two small children and going to the cinema tends to be a solitary experience for either one of us whilst the other is sat at home looking after the little ones. We'd love to see new films as they come out, and I think this is a great idea. Although I fear it would have an impact on the cinemas themselves.



Dr. S.

The huge fuss made over indexing and torrent sites is silly. The serious film appreciators will be the ones that will seek out their films in theaters and through legal means to get the best experience possible. The downloading crowd mostly goes after fodder like Avatar or Transformers... and you know, when people actually LIKE something, they'll more often than not want to check it out through legitimate means later. People are generally happy to pay for things that they enjoy when they have the money to do so.



In conclusion, if your movie didn't make any money, it probably wasn't so much because of pirating as it was that your movie just stunk.



Kermode is absolutely right, by the way. Release movies on all formats simultaneously and people will absolutely go for it. Those of us who don't have regular access to the cinemas will appreciate it too. :)

I saw Battle:LA last week in the cinema and that looked like it was made on somebody's hand-held mobile phone. Any more rubbish like that and it won't matter where you watch it or what you watch it on.

@antimode, was because of bad production values or there was a computer for a projectionist that can't seem to tell if the curtain isnt open or the film is off centre or out of focus?



another point somewhat off topic, is the 3d "revolution" promoting a new blossoming of exploitation cinema from which a new pool of talent (direction, cinematography ect) will emerge?

@armadilloslim, I am saying it was due to the film (shaky hand held cameras, very shallow depth of field), not how it was projected.

I'm not sure that any one argument quite answers the questions here, perhaps because there are different problems in need of a solution.



1. Fighting piracy. Hmmm...maybe. As has been said, legal downloads won't be cheaper than free illegal ones. However, as the music biz has learned, the only way to compete is to, well, compete - if one person downloads the film legally rather than illegally then it's a victory, but if you don't allow them to download legally at all you're leaving it wide open to the pirates to clean up.



But what the industry has to realise is that downloads are a rather different market to DVDs. If you buy a pirate DVD you save money, but usually at the exclusion of the proper labels, cover, packaging, etc, so there will always be a cache in having the official, legal release, but there is nothing to differentiate between legal and illegal downloads if the quality is the same. So, you might buy the official DVD having seen the film ahead of release on pirate, regardless of the quality, but if the illegal download is good quality there will be little reason to buy the official download some months later.



From personal experience, and because of "friend of friends of friends" in the film industry I get given a lot of "pirate" dvds for free (and to confirm some suspicions raised above, an awful lot of pirates are taken from working prints, studio promos and "for your consideration" discs), so I tend to see a lot of films that I would otherwise have little interest in, but it has made only a minor difference to my cinema going/DVD buying habits. If I like the pirate then I'll buy the official DVD rather than keeping the pirate, and there's certainly an argument that I have bought many films on DVD that I wouldn't have paid for otherwise (probably the equivalent of the films I'd wait to see on TV rather than buying on DVD)...but equally I have not bought films that I might have picked up legally having seen how bad the film was for free.



The industry also has to realise that the market for piracy is ill defined. Many people who will watch a pirate film that has cost them nothing would simply not bother if they had to pay - they are only watching it because it's free, and have no more than a vague curiosity about the film to begin with (again, they wouldn't pay for it, they'd wait for it to be on TV). I'm not saying that they aren't losing sales because of piracy - far from it - but it's simply not true to equate pirate sales with lost revenue on a one for one basis.



Slightly off topic, those saying that illegal downloads are hurting nobody because it's a billion dollar industry and who cares if we screw The Man for what we can get, it's a victimless crime, etc (apart from the argument that they wouldn't watch the film otherwise so are not costing any revenue) are massively missing the point. The film indistry is just that, an industy, not a charity. Studios need to make money in order to continue making films, and if they make less money they will make fewer films. And if they make fewer films, they are going to make only the ones that they know will generate revenue - this means more blockbusters and fewer arty films. I realise that this makes me a huge hypocrite given my pirate DVD habits outlined above, but I'm not claiming any moral supriority here, I'm simply pointing out a huge flaw in the arguments being presented.



The music industry has changed because the cost of making music is ridiculously low - with a few hundred quid's worth of equipment you can make a track that is good enough to put on YouTube and licence to iTunes. Film cannot do the same because the cost of making a film, even a cheap indy film, is far larger than most people can afford. With the demise of the Film Council nobody is going to step in to make the non-blockbusters.



However, the perception is that there is no victim, or that your download isn't really costing big business any money they can't afford to lose. The industry really need to do a better job of selling the down side of piracy than it does at the moment. And to again refer back to the music business, the danger is that the perception is that film becomes disposeable - CDs aren't sold because some listeners habits have changed and they don't want albums or CDs or anything other than a file on their laptop, they want individual songs on a playlist that will be deleted in a few weeks or months time. The danger is that viewers will see films as things they can obtain for free with no inherent value. There is a generational change in listening/veiwing habits, and there's probably no way to reverse that, so the industry has to work out the best way to ride the changing paradigm (OK, enough of business speak).



2. Widen the market. Again...hmmm, maybe. I'm not convinced by the argument that some have rolled out "The film isn't released in my country so I have no option but to download it illegally" - you clearly know how the internet works, and yet rather than buy the DVD release from abroad you immediately pass Go and move straight to illegally downloading the film? Seriously? Are there people who want to see the film but who are unable to find a way of paying to see it at the moment?



However, this does feed back to 1. - giving people the opportunity to buy the film as a download isn't going to reduce sales overall, and if they have trouble finding an art house/indy release, or can't get to the cinema very easily, or simply prefer to download than buy DVDs or go to the cinema, then it's a win for the studio (and the punter).



3. Giving people choice. This is the real winner here, but whether it's a good thing for all concerned remains to be seen. The punter gets the best of this deal, but the studios and cinemnas might lose out.



People are scum, and having to sit next to them in the cinema is one of life's irritations - am I the only one who much prefers seeing a film in a half empty cinema (NFT screenings, etc apart) than a packed one full of people talking, checking their phones, ringing their mates, etc? Plus the price of food and drink, etc.



Now, while some have correctly summised that the audience for non-mainstream films in cinemas will probably be largely un-dented by this, as going to the pictures is a night out/experience in itself, the blockbuster audience will be hit, simply because a chunk are going because they want to see the big film now rather than waiting for the DVD, not because they desperately want to see it on the big screen.



From the studio's point of view there seems little incentive in giving people the opportunity to buy the film only once instead of once at the cinema and once when the DVD comes out. Worse, a couple going to the cinema buy two tickets, but will buy one DVD/download. So it's not just the cinemas that will suffer, the studios will too. But maybe this just widens the market further - with cinemas giving customers the opportunity to buy the film they have just watched on DVD or memory stick as they leave the cinema.



So, I'm not sure that studios will have much of an interest in this for big releases that they need cinema receipts from ahead of DVD salaes, but it may make sense for smaller, limited releases.

@amber



"The huge fuss made over indexing and torrent sites is silly."



Oh yeah that Napster did nothing for the music industry. Also two of my blockbusters just closing down has nothing to do with indexing sites even though my former manager says it does. As everyone starts to get broadband, I can assure you it will get worse if anything.



"The serious film appreciators will be the ones that will seek out their films in theaters and through legal means to get the best experience possible."



Me and you maybe but loads of people I know download films. Esspecially as most of it is good quality, some even being rips from Blu-Rays!!!!

Not everyone is good and appreciate the industry like you and me.



"The downloading crowd mostly goes after fodder like Avatar or Transformers..."



Really? Because I know someone who got Enter the Void no problem on one of the indexing sites in half an hour. Just as quick he tells me as some of the major blockbusters.



"People are generally happy to pay for things that they enjoy when they have the money to do so."



Yeah but most people can't afford trips to the cinema all the time. Esspecially if they have a family.



In conclusion, if your movie didn't make any money, it probably wasn't so much because of pirating as it was that your movie just stunk.



"Kermode is absolutely right, by the way. Release movies on all formats simultaneously and people will absolutely go for it. Those of us who don't have regular access to the cinemas will appreciate it too. :)"



Yeah I would like that myself as well but I very much doubt it will happen.

I think the thing we need to remember when considering this issue is: it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The simul-release model will work for some and not others.



It will suit small indie and art-house films to maximise their distribution base by implementing simultaneous release, as it's difficult for them to get into mainstream cinemas in sufficient volumes to break a film (think back to the NC-17 post a few weeks back!). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some ultra-low budget indie films only get a digital release, simply because the means of distribution will be affordable, allowing them to maybe grow sleeper hits via word of mouth or more subtle marketing techniques. I wonder if this is something the Shane Carruths of the future would consider, instead of going for the celluloid route.



On the other hand, Major "tent-pole" productions, having the massive PR budgets and wholesale distribution networks, will want to maximise their revenue by retaining the exclusivity of the cinema and they might continue to delay their release. Medium budget films will probably fall somewhere in between (namely, cinematic release followed within a few weeks by DVD/Digital distribution).



The only factor uniting the two is, again, the "genie in the bottle" factor. Like it or not, internet distribution is a fact; it's happening right now, therefore the industry will have to react to it in some progressive fashion - criminalising your audience is always going to be a strategy of failure.

£9.99 for Route Irish on Sky.

Would anyone else pay double the going rate to see any film.

Even Mr Loach...

@rbevanx: I'm assuming that, since you're on a film critic blog, that you know your way around a cinema pretty well and thus are able to make easy judgments about what films to see and which to give the miss to. But let's say you're an average schlub, take them as they come movie-goer. Or let's even expand this further, into books and music. How did you discover your favorite bands? Did you march into a store one day and buy them straight out, or did you hear them on the radio first? What about books? Would you rush out and drop a lot of money on an author you'd never heard of? Have you ever been lent a book by a friend?



Look, I can't speak from everybody obviously, but from experience I would say that the most valuable knowledge on any sort of pursuit of this sort comes secondhand from word-of-mouth or the occasional happy accident. The internet is a massive, endless resource for hobbyists to pool their knowledge in. Of COURSE there are detractions to it as there are to everything in life, but for the most part I would argue that it works largely in favor of film enthusiasts. Yes, there are people undoubtedly people downloading Enter the Void for free right this very instant, but how many of those people do you think would have actually known about - let alone watched - that movie without streaming? Some of those people are going to watch it for free and never think about it again, but another group is going to love it, tell their friends about it, buy it on Blu-Ray to show to even more people and word will undoubtedly spread out much farther than if it had simply been released into exclusive theaters and then pushed out on DVD where nobody will buy or rent it because they've never heard of this Gaspar Noe guy and hey let's get The Tourist instead.



The industry needs to think more progressively. There seems to be this naive idea that if we lock up the internet and keep tight control on film release schedules that one day everything will snap back into place and things will go on as they have, but it's getting pretty plain to see at this point that is simply not going to happen. Their best bet to stamp down on pirating will be to embrace the advantages the internet offers and let people stream movies at home for a decent price rather than confining opening day releases to the cinema. Offer the first ten minutes for free, even, and you'll more likely than not see people giving chances to smaller films that they may not have considered looking at otherwise.



I don't think the cinema itself will die, mind you, but I don't think it will always be the dominant way to watch a film. Things change over time, is all.

¬I saw Enter The Void at a film festival - then told all my friend that it was the most spectacular visuals that I had ever experiences in a cinema - they subsequently all downloaded copies, watched, those that enjoyed it were so impressed they bought the blu-ray. Or they could have waited for a mainstream TV channel to review it or cinevueodiancase to show it locally. Good luck with that. And good luck to those who have to try and remember to see it in 9 months time when it finally gets round to their part of the globe in 2 cinemas.



COMMENTS 17 and 31 also make good points:



The studios and distributors make the most stupid arguments in relation to piracy - they focus all the blame on the ordinary consumer and try to shame them into thinking that they are killing film, when it is actually chinese DVD pirate copy manufacturers who are making the real dent on profits - the best thing for the film industry overall is that empowered individuals download free material to find out what they like because this, more than anything, will lead to some sort of sales (but not necessarily one particular fomat).



I have a friend who downloads pirate torrents constantly - BUT! - he also has the most humungous legal DVD collection I have seen in my life - grotesque - it takes up the majority of his bedroom. So how has his free viewing been bad for business? Free downloads have simply made him addicted to film and hence addicted to spending on films.



We can all see that overall music sales are up, while the industry moaned for years about piracy - piracy which was allowing people to find specialist music which they would never have had the opppertunity to hear if it was not for the illegal internet resources. So what if big chain record stores are closing - does the fact that you don't see Tobbaconists on the high street any longer affect cigarette sales?



Mark's argument, although slightly flippantly made, is basically, "Get what money you can, cos it's not as if there's a better option." (and get the price right - if it's guarenteed, high quality, convenient download for a small price vs. potentially dodgy, time consuming, virus riddled free copy, many will choose to pay a small fee - just do the research! No-one will pay the same price as a cinema ticket to download a film to their TV, so don't bother trying to con people and turning them off legal copies for life!)



I just think many media business planners are Nathan Barkley style idiots, void of any connection to real people. If they continue in that vein, they deserve to go bankrupt and I for one will dance on the studio graves if they continue with that approach.

We know people pay for movie channels happily, like Film4 HD, so why hasn't a channel like that (which part funds films anyway) pushed on and taken on the role of a studio/distributor? The funding for the director could be taken from subscriptions/advertising (much more predictable and consistant that studio/investor funders) and the films premiered simultaneously, multi-format: on-demand TV stream, website, affiliated indy cinemas (downloading high-def 4k files from the net and showing them on digital projectors) etc. And such a channel would be able to excert price control much more than studios or independent film-makers, tempting the audience away from piracy. The cinemas may be a bit less busy as a result, but generally people go because they are either like Mark (theatrical) or going as a social outing with friends/partner/family - Sitting in your front room is like the opposite of 'going-out', hence all the chattering and code-of-conduct flouting.



It's basically a similar idea to Levi's selling their jeans in Tescos rather than exclusive, expensive shops. People can easily buy fakes down the market, but in the end, with all the stitching coming out, no refunds and the general hassle, how many people can really be bothered, as opposed to just dumping them in a trolly with the groceries and paying an extra fiver. The legal purchase won out in the end because of the strategy of the company and the intelligent choice of the consumer.

It is true. The upside is all there.



What I'll miss is the anticipation of video release. I love going to the cinema and I'll be sad to see the exciting space between a cinema release and a home video release as I've always found joy in waiting to relive an great silver screen experience on the small screen some time later, almost like a ritual. That said the anticipation of cinema releases has also faded as I feel the teaser to trailer to feature format of cinema release has become somewhat rigid and formulaic.



I'm even more worried that if coinciding cinema and home video releases are to enter the mainstream, this could easily merge cinemas and video stores into one common form of market. Change is scary, but all this said I still do have faith that the format of cinema itself will not fade away.

Oh, and since we're talking Ken Loach, I would like to add that a large chunk of Loach's filmography is not available to American filmgoers thanks to inadequate to non-existent DVD releases. The only way a lot of us have been fortunate enough to view Loach's older films has been through means of torrent; sadly, that includes Kes. Long overdue, we're finally getting Kes stateside this coming April thanks to Criterion and you can bet that I'm not only more than happy to pony up the money for a clean, legal copy of such a great film to add to my collection, but that I'll be encouraging everybody I know to check it out as well. :)



Very curious about Route Irish too.

Rather than pirating Ken's films, you would have to pay me to watch some of them.

They're becoming more and more available now, fortunately, but there was a point a couple of years ago before paid streaming really came into the picture where it was almost impossible to watch a lot of Loach movies. There's no overlooking the fact that I became a huge fan of his word thanks to exposure to it on the internet, which has in turn caused me to spend a good chunk of money chasing down and purchasing every possible Loach movie since. I don't even know if I would have ever picked up any of his newer movies if I hadn't finally seen some of his older works, the titles never really jumped out to me on the shelves until I could recognize the name and go, "Oh, hey, that's a Ken Loach movie? I love that guy!"



If that's an idea that bothers you than I don't know what I can say except sorry. Blame it on the decay of society or something I guess.

I fully agree with everything Rosko added too in his much better post. There is a LOT more joy in paying the extra money to watch a movie legally than there is in watching an illegal, low-quality pirate of one.

I have, in my 36 years, been to the cinema on only a handful of occasions. 7 in fact. This is because rather than spending the same fee to watch the film surrounded by people I don't know, and who seem intent on making as much noise as possible, standing up and blocking my view, kicking me in the back and so on, I can buy it when it's released and watch it at home with a remote that will PAUSE the action as and when necessary. And with home set-ups reaching near cinema quality (except, at the moment, for the screen size of course) I get just as good, if not better, experience. Every time I have seen a film in the cinema I have not enjoyed it. I have left the screening feeling that the film was rubbish and that I just wasted my money again, only to buy it when its released and really enjoy it. The cinema is an 'old skool' idea which may have been the best way to watch a film 'back in the day' but is slowly losing its place as the tech moves in to our homes. In my opinion the only people that frequently visit a cinema either enjoy the nostalgia from a bygone era or don't have a decent set-up at home. I cant see any other reason for it.

Who hands in phones these days? i have never seen that one before

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

If there was any virtue to Day-Date whatsoever, WAKE WOOD would be screening somewhere beyond the West End of London. It isn't. Case dismissed.

Huzzah!